TrillStory

“O two companions of the prison! Are many different lords (gods) better or Allâh, the One, the Irresistible? You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged), you and your fathers, for which Allâh has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allâh. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism), that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not. (Yusuf 12:39-40)

Responses to Revelation : 4 in the Fire 1 in the Garden

Note : initially these responses referred to kufaar of several sorts, from pagans to Jews and Christians, in our days, sadly it refers to some Muslims as well…may Allaah protect us from that and guide them back to the Haqq!

The Intellectual Response : 22:3 preferring or giving precedence to the aql – intellect, over the naql – the text ( of Quraan and Sunnah ). These are like the people who reject anything or everything which doesn’t coincide with their understanding of logic and sound reasoning or with the current “facts” of science, so they reject the punishment in the grave, they reject miracles, they reject karamat, they reject the Night Journey, or they provide apologetic explanations to explain away the Deen – this is also the response to divine revelation fathered by Iblis himself, as we see in his response to the command to make sajdah to Adaam (as). Iblis responded by saying, “he is made of clay, I am made of fire, I am better than him…” In other words, “it doesn’t make sense that I should make sajdah to him, I am made of a superior substance, which indicates my superiority to him, so this command doesn’t make any sense, hence I reject it…” This is epitome of arrogance.

The Cultural Response : 2:187 preferring or giving precedence to one’s culture over the Quraan and Sunnah. So for example, although a young man is a practicing Muslim, with good adab and akhlaq, the parents of the girl he wants to marry don’t approve of him, because he is from a different tribe, a different race, a different country. Let’s say these young practicing Muslims go to a scholar, who marries them, and then they return to their families and announce that they got married according to the Quraan and Sunnah, their families, because of their cultural influences, and giving precedence to the dictates of their respective cultures, will reject this Islaamic marriage and seek to invalidate it.

The Response of Unregulated Desires  : 45:23 These are the people who are in such a state of submission to their appetites and desires that rather than acknowledge God and acknowledge the Haqq, they allow their subjugation to their appetites and desires stop them from it.

The Response of the Blind-Followers : 9:31 These are the like the followers of certain Sufi shaykhs who believe it to be wrong or inappropriate to question their shaykhs, because they believe they are recipients of divine inspiration or something similar to this, although the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah questioned him, and we have in the Quraan that the Angels questioned Allaah. So if this shaykh says something, they blindly accept it, whether or not it complies with Quraan and Sunnah or not, we also see this in some so-called Salafis who blindly follow certain scholars, without question or investigation, even though those scholars may be in opposition to the Quraan and Sunnah, for example in regards to jihad and al walaa wal baraa…etc.

The Response of the People of the Sunnah and Quraan : “we hear and we obey…” We accept everything that is authentically reported from the Prophet (saws). We do not blind-follow ANYONE but the Prophet (saws). We do not prefer our intellects nor our culture to the Quraan and Sunnah. We regulate our desires and appetites in accordance to the Quraan and Sunnah. We follow the way of the Companions of the Prophet (saws) and we do not respond in a way other than the way they responded : 4:115, 33:36.

 I notice that most Muslims are now described by us reporters as “practising”, though I’m still not sure what that means. That the men go to the mosque five times a day? Or say their five daily prayers at home? That their wives wear hijab? Or, mini-skirted, just believe in God? Or are they preparing to be suicide bombers? Note how we never refer to “practising” Christians – probably because there aren’t many left. Christians, I mean. No, a “practising” Muslim is also a code word for “terrorist” – just as the accusation of being “pro-Palestinian” means that the accused is actually a supporter of terrorism. Likewise “pro-Israeli” has become a synonym for “Zionist” or “anti-Arab”.

CNN — Just so you know, Bart Ehrman says he’s not the anti-Christ.

Bart Ehrman says most of the New Testament is a forgery but it’s still an important body of work.

Ehrman, a best-selling author and a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is a biblical sleuth whose investigations make some people very angry. Like the fictional Robert Langdon character played by actor Tom Hanks in the movie “Angels & Demons,” he delves into the past to challenge some of Christianity’s central claims.

In Ehrman’s latest book, “Jesus, Interrupted,” he concludes:

Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said.

At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries.

“Christianity has never been about the Bible being the inerrant word of God,” Ehrman says. “Christianity is about the belief in Christ.”

Ehrman’s claims have found an audience, and controversy. He’s a fixture on History Channel and Discovery Channel documentaries on Christianity. He’s appeared on National Public Radio, CNN and the BBC and talked about scribes misquoting Jesus on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”

Yet Ehrman’s popularity also may be due to a larger trend. The books of people like Elaine Pagels, author of “The Gnostic Gospels,” and Dan Brown, author of “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels and Demons,” resonate with people who believe there are parts of the Bible that the church left on history’s editing floor.

 Some pastors also say that Ehrman forces them to confront tough questions about the Bible in front of their congregations.

“His take on the scriptures is a gift to the church because of his ability to articulate questions and challenges,” says Rev. Guy Williams, a blogger who also happens to be a Methodist minister in Houston, Texas. “It gives us an opportunity to wrestle with the [Bible's] claims and questions.”

Ehrman: There was no resurrection

Ehrman says that no one accepts everything in the Bible. Everyone picks and chooses . He cites some New Testament’s references to the role of women in church as an example.

In the first book of Corinthians, Ehrman says, the Apostle Paul insists that women should remain silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:35-36).

Ehrman backs his arguments with a deep knowledge of the culture and history of the New Testament world. He’s written 20 books on early Christianity and is an authority on ancient manuscripts used to translate the Bible.

His claims, though, take on some of Christianity’s most sacred tenets, like the resurrection of Jesus. Ehrman says he doesn’t think the resurrection took place. There’s no proof Jesus physically rose from the dead, and the resurrection stories contradict one another, he says.

He says he doesn’t believe the followers of Jesus saw their master bodily rise from the dead, but something else.

“My best guess is that what happened is what commonly happens today when someone has a loved one die — they sometimes think they see them in a vision,” Ehrman says. “I think some of the disciples had visions.”

Ehrman says he later became an agnostic because he couldn’t find the answer to another question: How could there be a God when there is so much suffering in the world? An agnostic is one who disclaims any knowledge of God, but does not deny the possibility of God’s existence.

If you wondering where those who held the position that the Hell-fire was not external and would come to an end – in Suratul Naba the 23^rd ayat – it says they, the Tagheen, will be in the Hell-fire for ah’qaa’baan – which is the plural of haqb, which according to Ali (ra) is 80 years, each year of which is equivalent to 1,000 years, so that’s 80,000. However, ah’qaa’baan is plural, which means three or MORE…so the minimum amount here would be 24,000 years. A long time no doubt but still a finite amount of time. But Hasan al-Basri (r) pointed out that since it is plural it indicates infinity. And Allaah knows best.

After making a conscious decision to submit myself to God, i.e., “being Muslim,” and experiencing all the fitnah that comes along with being a convert, the confusion, the uncertainty, the learning, unlearning and relearning, the groups, sects, “schools of thought”, etc. the racial issues, cultural issues, the post 9/11 challenges, the issues with friends and family, trying to get married, and then on top of all those issues which Muslims take you through, just the struggle to live day by day as a Muslim in this crazy world…

I can say with confidence, with certainty, that it is the Prophet (saws), i.e., learning and knowing about him, his life, his character, things he said, things he did, his experiences and how he responded to them, his beauty, his compassion, his mercy, his humanity which has kept me Muslim and sane, and if it wasn’t for that, I might have apostasized a long time ago…so its like someone said, “I became Muslim despite the Muslims” and I would say, “I remained Muslim despite the Muslims…”

Study and learn the Seerah of your Prophet (saws) it might be the difference between your life and death!

The psychology of shirk is about avoiding responsibility – we don’t want to take responsibility for ourselves, nor do we want to accept being fully accountable for our actions, so we put things off on someone ( Jesus ) or something ( idols ) else. He ( Jesus ) sacrificed his life for our sins, or this or that idol serves as an intermediary for us, to stand between us and Allaah, and intercede on our behalf, whether for blessings or forgiveness…etc.

The term “fundamentalism” derives from a series of Protestant tracts, The Fundamentals, published in the United States around 1910, and was used first in America and then in other predominantly Protestant countries to designate certain groups that diverge from the mainstream churches in their rejection of liberal theology and biblical criticism and their insistence on the literal divinity and inerrancy of the biblical text. The use of the term to designate Muslim movements is therefore at best a loose analogy and can be very misleading. America is the child of Christian Protestants and thus fundamentalist.

What is happening now, among EVERY Muslim group/sect/persuasion/tradition or whatever term you find suitable to your conditioning, whether “Salafi,” “Sufi,” “Sunni,” “Traditional,” “Moderate,” or “just Muslim,” is an appropriation of certain pieces of the aqeedah and manhaj of the Salaf, and then remixing those pieces to fit them into the modern world. One might use the analogy of the heirs of an extremely rich and propertied descendant, all fighting over the great inheritance, all with ideas of “what he would have wanted,” “what he would have done if only…,” or “what is right” or “what is just” – most of them, if not all of them, however, just trying to appropriate some if not all of the inheritance for themselves. The question then becomes, which of you is honest enough to admit it?

Upon my return to the States after a five month journey into the heart of the Yemen, I was grilled for eight hours straight, by an Officer of Home Land Security, the infamous Officer Haney. I intend to write more on this experience at a later date, suffice it to say here, that the thrust of Officer Haney’s arguments were that to be Muslim is un-American. Basically, that it is impossible to be both a practicing Muslim and a faithful American citizen. I wonder who is truly un-American? How do we determine what is “American” and what is “un-American.” I suppose we’ll weigh the words of Officer Haney against those of one of the  Founding Fathers of the United States of American and then let you decide.

John Tyler in a letter dated July 10, 1843 :

The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent—that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgement. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions…. The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid…. and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have tried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it.