Question to Mike Ghouse about Shirk
1. Your pluralism says that a Muslim girl can marry Jew man. (My intention is not to discuss fallacy of this belief. This is only to prove that you promote pluralism as a law)
Please enlighten me through Qur’aan if this is prohibited. Qur’aan is a binary book, every thing that is asked of a man is asked of a woman. If a Muslim man can marry a non-Muslim woman and don’t even have to convert her, the other way around needs to be considered. It is a matter of faith and it is between her and him. We cannot regulate it, if we do that, we have to take the responsibility. On the Day of Judgment, no one but her is responsible for her actions. The good and bad she did to others, the Huqooqul Ibad. Only Allah knows and can judge her about her Deen (faith).
2. Your pluralism allow to you create positive impression about Zionism as though it is trivial personal differences
You have to be specific and give me a quote of my words. You said or I said is only good if it is backed up by the actual referential quote.
Extremism in Zionism is hated by moderate Jews. Zionism in itself is questioned by the Jews, the moderate Zionists think of it as a desire to return to their land per their scriptures without doing injustice to the Palestinians, the extremist Zionists on the other hand have no moral compass when it comes to the life of Palestinians, even though their scriptures, like the Islamic scriptures clearly say, saving one life is like saving the whole humanity. Extremism in every group goes against the very grain of the faith they boast to espouse. It is not about faith, it is their animalist insecurity that makes them do wrong things. Just as some extremist Muslims, Christians or Hindus do it.
Extereme Zionism, like the Taliban or Wahabbi ideolgies, is an ideology of exclusion, which is antithesis of Pluralism. I will be happy to retract any statement I have made in error.
3. Your pluralism endorses greatest sin in the site of Allah (Shirk)
How? Are you assuming it? Prove to me where I have said that.
In a response to Khalid I have given a detailed response. Shirk can be committed only by a Muslim, for he subscribes to the idea of one God. For the polytheist shirk does not apply as he is not a monotheist.
4. Your pluralism make you to support those who want to take icons of “their religion” to a place of worship of other religion who do not endorse such icon.
Either you did not understand or misrepresenting my statements. Neither the Hindu couple nor the Catholic priests expected anything out of the ordinary for each other. The priest’s frame of reference called schema was that the couple is getting married and perhaps he had no idea what is involved in it. To the Hindu couple it was a normal common thing to have the Ganesh Icon to commence any ceremony. It is their Bismillah, requesting God to remove obstacles for them. This is a common misunderstand that happens in a daily life. My outrage was for the church members to be judgmental, and fire him.
As a Muslim, our role is to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill. That was the first model of peace the prophet gave – when Aswad fell off the wall, he was asked to resolve the conflict. He could have placed it himself but he brought the competing tribes and had them participate in placing the Aswad, it removed the conflict among them and nurtured the goodwill of doing it together.
5. Your pluralism makes you to promote a Hindu deity among Muslims whose history of existence is established neither by history nor by faith of the audience.
Please quote me where I said that and secondly, please clarify what the question. We have to be honest, in your rush to malign another Muslim who differs from you; you have made several statements without back up.
6. Your pluralism makes you to get blessing from a book which clearly mentions that a human walking on earth is Lord of heaven. Mind you, we do not read holy book on dead for seeking wisdom but to get blessings only.
Please quote me where I said that. There is no room for assumption here.
7. You can make 100 copy-past claiming pluralism is nothing but attitude. But, your pluralism is much more than attitude. The above facts give clear indication that your pluralism interfere in religious law, political systems, theology etc.
Please be specific how an attitude of respecting the otherness of other interferes with the religious laws or the political system or even theology.
8. Moreover, we do not develop random attitudes. Attitudes are merely manifestation of principles, values and ideology of our life. You cannot just get away by saying that pluralism is attitude.
You asked me my opinion, and were specific, your words, ‘Our whole discussion is about your version of Pluralism’ and here it is.”
9. If you read your previous mails, you have given ideological framework to justify your version of pluralism. This framework even proposes your own version of theology. Have read this comment and tell me whether this is attitude or theology.
To be a Muslim is to be a peace maker, one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence of humanity. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; Life and Matter.
It is obvious that it is my statement as it does not reference any verse of Qur’aan. It is based on the essence of Islam, which is creation of peace on earth achieved through removing conflicts and nurturing goodwill. I would like to know if this is not Islam.
10. You are redefining not even the word Muslim; rather even propose a new purpose of creation of God. In my previous mail I have given the verse to prove that your theology is in exact contradiction with Qur’aan and for some strange reason you chose to ignore the given verse.
Please present the verse.
11. Earlier too I have given a verse from Qur’aan to disprove your version of pluralism that you chose to ignore. I am giving reference of same verse again.
60:4 There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever, - unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone": But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah." (They prayed): "Our Lord! In Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal.
And tell me how your pluralism does not contradict with “excellent pattern” of Ibraheem AS
Thanks for quoting this verse 60:4, from the given translation it appears to be in conflict with Pluralism, and it is our duty to explore and find more about it. Please review these verses – there is no statement of enmity or hatred in these verses.
109:1 (Asad) SAY: "O you who deny the truth!
109:2 (Asad) "I do not worship that which you worship,
109:3 (Asad) and neither do you worship that which I worship!
109:4 (Asad) "And I will not worship ~hat which you have [ever] worshipped,
109:5 (Asad) and neither will you [ever] worship that which I worship.
109:6 (Asad) Unto you, your moral law, and unto me, mine!"
We need to understand both 60:4 and 109:1-6, please share what you have and I will look into it and check with my Imam.
12. There is another mail from you to prove pluralism from Qur’aan. Some of these verses may prove a specific version of pluralism. I can create another list to disprove the specific version of pluralism. But this wills be argument for the sake of argument. Our discussion is about your pluralism that comes with a specific ideological background creates an attitude and bulldozes the whole Islamic legacy.
Accepting the otherness of other is not in conflict with Islam” Prophet Muhammad accepted Jews, Christians and others as another faith, and had them sign the Madinah pact with them and he also removed Muhammadur Rasool Allah from his signature as the others objected to it saying you may be a Rasool to your followers but not to us.
I will be repeating much of what has been said before. He has asked the visiting Abyssinians Christians to pray in his mosque – he was accepting that their way of worship is different than ours and the prophet did not pass the judgment on them.”
13. In this mail you have only tried to refute my claim that you preach a separate doctrine. I reiterate that attitude of pluralism is only a part of your preaching. You in fact preach a complete ideology which contradicts Qur’aan.
That is your understanding, Pluralism is part of Islam, admit, it has not been explored or we may not be familiar with the work in this area, we should always be open to reviewing other works, without having to subscribe to it.
14. I am pasting my previous mail for your reference if you are missing anything.
Separation of falsehood from truth is very objective of Islam. Truth cannot exist by mixing truth with falsehood. You may like Mike's version of pluralism, but do not dilute Islam. You can present your doctrine as completely different religion considering mike as founder of it. In Islam our Kalama start with LA (No) negating and refuting shirk is foundation of Islam. Here negation comes even before affirming God.
Negation of shirk applies to Muslims who subscribe to the idea to begin with, and is required of them to take the Shahada as a reaffirmation of faith, as you and I have done. Polytheists have other belief system. However 60:4 needs to be reviewed.
15. You seem to promote a religion in which pluralism is most basic principle for which all Islamic values can be sacrificed. So far Mike has given only one proof from Qur’aan which is actually against racism and has nothing to do with kind of pluralism he is trying to promote.
Islam is a religion for the Aalameen, not for you and I alone but for the whole universe and we have to see how it is. Every one is welcome to explore and figure out how we can create a better world for every one. What is good for Muslims has got be good for others and vice versa to be sustainable.
16. Muslims have lived peacefully with non-Muslims all over the history except with those who were hostile to Muslims. But, need to live peacefully with non-Muslims never made them to give up their claim that Islam is the only true path.
This is good news and we need to work to maintain it.
17. So far, I am still struggling to figure out Mike's version of pluralism in Qur’aan and the closest thing that I found in Qur’aan is this.
68:7 Verily it is thy Lord that knoweth best, which (among men) hath strayed from His Path: and He knoweth best those who receive (true) Guidance.
68:8 So hearken not to those who deny (the Truth).
68:9 Their desire is that thou shouldst be pliant: so would they be pliant.
Thanks for these verses, and I have already quoted a host of verses in the previous email.
18. He goes to the extent that he claims that the reason of creation is pluralism!!! While Qur’aan clearly says things that is in exact contradiction.
Please quote me the text.
19. The Objective of creation is to instigate the clash between truth and falsehood.
21:16 Not for (idle) sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between!
21:17 If it had been Our wish to take (just) a pastime, We should surely have taken it from the things nearest to Us, if We would do (such a thing)!
21:18 Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).
Thanks for sharing these beautiful verses, they are not in contradiction of the phrase that Allah is the Lord of the Aalameen.
20. Mind you, I am not asking you muslims to instigate this clash. My intention is only to provide a doctrinal basis to understand the purpose of creation. Now, what role we can and have to play in this clash is completely different topic.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, we have a lot more to understand, learn and exchange. Pluralism is an attitude of accepting the otherness of other and not a religion, ideology or a philosophy. As a Muslim I believe God wants us to live in peace with others and the environment.
Jazak Allah Khair
Mike Ghouse
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message #38033 - Re: Re: Question to Mike Ghouse about Shirk
Sat Oct 3, 2009 8:08 am
AbdusSalam Khalifa
Mike,
We are not discussing about the word pluralism here. Our whole discussion is about your version of Pluralism.
You are promoting your pluralism in the form of events and your reaction and comments to those events. If you go through your previous mails you can easily see that you are promoting pluralism as a belief system and a separate law.
If you can’t recall, let me remind you few things.
1. Your pluralism says that a Muslim girl can marry Jew man. (My intention is not to discuss fallacy of this belief. This is only to prove that you promote pluralism as a law)
2. Your pluralism allow to you create positive impression about Zionism as though it is trivial personal differences
3. Your pluralism endorses greatest sin in the site of Allah (Shirk)
4. Your pluralism make you to support those who want to take icons of “their religion” to a place of worship of other religion who do not endorse such icon.
5. Your pluralism makes you to promote a Hindu deity among Muslims whose history of existence is established neither by history nor by faith of the audience.
6. Your pluralism makes you to get blessing from a book which clearly mentions that a human walking on earth is Lord of heaven. Mind you, we do not read holy book on dead for seeking wisdom but to get blessings only.
You can make 100 copy-past claiming pluralism is nothing but attitude. But, your pluralism is much more than attitude. The above facts give clear indication that your pluralism interfere in religious law, political systems, theology etc.
Moreover, we do not develop random attitudes. Attitudes are merely manifestation of principles, values and ideology of our life. You cannot just get away by saying that pluralism is attitude.
If you read your previous mails, you have given ideological framework to justify your version of pluralism. This framework even proposes your own version of theology. Have read this comment and tell me whether this is attitude or theology.
To be a Muslim is to be a peace maker, one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence of humanity. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; Life and Matter.
You are redefining not even the word Muslim; rather even propose a new purpose of creation of God. In my previous mail I have given the verse to prove that your theology is in exact contradiction with Quran and for some strange reason you chose to ignore the given verse.
Earlier too I have given a verse from Quran to disprove your version of pluralism that you chose to ignore. I am giving reference of same verse again.
60:4 There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah. we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone": But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah." (They prayed): "Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal.
And tell me how your pluralism does not contradict with “excellent pattern” of Ibraheem AS
There is another mail from you to prove pluralism from Quran. Some of these verses may prove a specific version of pluralism. I can create another list to disprove the specific version of pluralism. But this wills be argument for the sake of argument. Our discussion is about your pluralism that comes with a specific ideological background creates an attitude and bulldozes the whole Islamic legacy.
In this mail you have only tried to refute my claim that you preach a separate doctrine. I reiterate that attitude of pluralism is only a part of your preaching. You in fact preach a complete ideology which contradicts Quran.
I am pasting my previous mail for your reference if you are missing anything.
Separation of falsehood from truth is very objective of Islam. Truth cannot exists by mixing truth with falsehood. You may like Mike's version of pluralism, but do not dilute Islam. You can present your doctrine as completely different religion considering mike as founder of it. In Islam our Kalima start with LA (No) negating and refuting shirk is foundation of Islam. Here negation comes even before affirming God.
You seem to promote a religion in which pluralism is most basic principle for which all Islamic values can be sacrificed. So far Mike has given only one proof from Quran which is actually against racism and has nothing to do with kind of pluralism he is trying to promote.
Muslims have lived peacefully with non-Muslims all over the history except with those who were hostile to muslims. But, need to live peacefully with non-muslims never made them to give up their claim that Islam is the only true path.
So far, I am still struggling to figure out Mike's version of pluralism in Quran and the closest thing that I found in Quran is this.
68:7 Verily it is thy Lord that knoweth best, which (among men) hath strayed from His Path: and He knoweth best those who receive (true) Guidance.
68:8 So hearken not to those who deny (the Truth).
68:9 Their desire is that thou shouldst be pliant: so would they be pliant.
He goes to the extent that he claim that the reason of creation is pluralism!!! while Quran clearly says things that is in exact contradiction.
The Objective of creation is to instigate the clash between truth and falsehood.
21:16 Not for (idle) sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between!
21:17 If it had been Our wish to take (just) a pastime, We should surely have taken it from the things nearest to Us, if We would do (such a thing)!
21:18 Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).
Mind you, I am not asking you muslims to instigate this clash. My intention is only to provide a doctrinal basis to understand the purpose of creation. Now, what role we can and have to play in this clash is completely different topic.
#
No comments:
Post a Comment