I have been promising for awhile to comment when time permits on the doppelganger to my Blogging the Qur'an series, Ziauddin Sardar's Blogging the Qur'an series at The Guardian. Of course, time will never permit, but here are a few preliminary observations:
Why the lockdown on comments? Ironically enough for a "Comment Is Free" feature, comments on Sardar's work are not free. While I read the comments fields on my Blogging the Qur'an feature and answer every question, friendly or hostile, interested readers have to submit their questions to Sardar, and he only takes up the ones he wants to answer. If some angry commenter showed up and claimed that I was misrepresenting a passage of the Qur'an, I would deal directly with the objection. But not Sardar, unless he chose to do so. This gives the whole enterprise a sanitized, Potemkin-village aspect.
Also, Sardar rarely cites Islamic authorities as he explains the various Qur'anic passages he treats. In contrast, as a rule I don't offer my own judgments on the meaning of the Qur'an, but rather cite mainstream Islamic commentators on the passages, to show how Muslims generally have understood those passages. As a result, readers have no way of knowing the relationship of his interpretations to mainstream Islamic understandings.
So compare our two treatments of the last two verses of the Fatiha, the Qur'an's first sura and the most important prayer in Islam. First, Sardar:
The Qur'an is full of metaphors and allusions to travel and movement. Sharia, the term used for Islamic law, derives from a word signifying "the way to a watering hole". In the desert, water holes must be found among shifting sands and changing and often hazardous weather conditions. And to survive one has to keep on finding water holes along the route.So, for me, the "straight path" is a navigational tool, a set of criteria to assess where we actually are and where we ought to be going in the course of life's journey. It functions like a lighthouse that guides vessels at sea, illuminates hazardous areas, and highlights safe passages. What is 'straight' in the 'straight path' is the manner of travel and not the road you see in front of you.
And so on. In his article on Qur'an 1:6-7, he deals solely with the implications of Islam being the "straight path," and doesn't deal at all with the contrasting paths mentioned in those verses, the path of those who have earned Allah's anger and the path of those who have gone astray. But I suspect that how Muslims understand those verses would be of particular interest to Sardar's readers. Here is my take on the same passage:
The final two verses of the Fatiha asks Allah: “Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.” The traditional Islamic understanding of this is that the “straight path” is Islam — cf. Islamic apologist John Esposito’s book Islam: The Straight Path. The path of those who have earned Allah’s anger are the Jews, and those who have gone astray are the Christians.The classic Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that “the two paths He described here are both misguided,” and that those “two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians.”
Ibn Kathir’s understanding of this passage is not a lone “extremist” interpretation. In fact, most Muslim commentators believe that the Jews are those who have earned Allah’s wrath and the Christians are those who have gone astray. This is the view of Tabari, Zamakhshari, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, the Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Arabi, as well as Ibn Kathir. One contrasting, but not majority view, is that of Nisaburi, who says that “those who have incurred Allah’s wrath are the people of negligence, and those who have gone astray are the people of immoderation.”
Wahhabis drew criticism a few years back for adding “such as the Jews” and “such as the Christians” into parenthetical glosses on this passage in Qur’ans printed in Saudi Arabia. Some Western commentators imagined that the Saudis originated this interpretation, and indeed the whole idea of Qur’anic hostility toward Jews and Christians. Muslims all over the world learn as a matter of course that the central prayer of their faith anathematizes Jews and Christians.
But unfortunately, this interpretation is venerable and mainstream in Islamic theology. The printing of the interpretation in parenthetical glosses into a translation would be unlikely to affect Muslim attitudes, since the Arabic text is always and everywhere normative in any case, and since so many mainstream commentaries contain the idea that the Jews and Christians are being criticized here. Seventeen times a day, by the pious.
Please note that I am not saying that the anti-Jewish and anti-Christian interpretation of the Fatiha is the “correct” one. While I don’t believe that religious texts are infinitely malleable and can be made to mean whatever the reader wants them to mean, as some apparently do, in this case Nisaburi’s reading has as much to commend it as the other: there is nothing in the text itself that absolutely compels one to believe that it is talking about Jews and Christians. And it is noteworthy that in his massive and evocatively named 30-volume commentary on the Qur’an, Fi Zilal al-Qur’an (In the Shade of the Qur’an), the twentieth-century jihad theorist Sayyid Qutb doesn’t mention Jews or Christians in connection with this passage. At the same time, however, the idea in Islam that Jews have earned Allah’s anger and Christians have gone astray doesn’t depend on this passage alone. The Jews have earned Allah’s anger by rejecting Muhammad (2:87-90), and the Christians have gone astray by holding to the divinity of Christ (5:72).
The Hadith, the traditions of the words and deeds of Muhammad and the early Muslims, also contains material linking Jews to Allah’s anger and Christians to his curse, which resulting from their straying from the true path. (The Jews are accursed also, according to Qur’an 2:89, and both are accursed according to 9:30). One hadith recounts that an early Muslim, Zaid bin ‘Amr bin Nufail, in his travels met with Jewish and Christian scholars. The Jewish scholar told him, “You will not embrace our religion unless you receive your share of Allah’s Anger,” and the Christian said, “You will not embrace our religion unless you get a share of Allah’s Curse.” Zaid, needless to say, became a Muslim.
In light of these and similar passages it shouldn’t be surprising that many Muslim commentators have understood the Fatiha to be encapsulating these views.
Sardar offers platitudes and generalities, and never even discusses the idea that Jews and Christians are referred to in this passage, even to refute it. In contrast, I cite numerous Islamic authorities on both sides of the issue of whether or not Jews and Christians are referred to here. I leave it to you to determine which one of us is telling you more about the traditional and mainstream Islamic views on this crucial passage.
“While I don’t believe that religious texts are infinitely malleable and can be made to mean whatever the reader wants them to mean, as some apparently do…”
-- from Robert Spencer’s Blogging the Qur’an, posted above
“Islam can be whatever Muslims wish to make of it.” [Daniel Pipes]
Where We Stand?
This is sure...just a conjuncture to discuss an earnest supplication of people of the Last commandment- the Muslim as described in Surah Fatiha and find the difference and degree of God’s anger against the old denominations like Christians who went astray or yet older one the Jews who were found so atrocious in exceeding the limits that they hanged their Prophet Jesus (as). The point to ponder may be that what lesson we draw out of it. Does this make us bow in front of God and tend us to submit to His will as ordained for the mankind in His last Commandment- the Holy Quran or we still remain bent upon misguiding our near circle and masses at large to stay away from the Truth?
Adabarez
The 'straight path' in occult terminology is called' the 'path of the arrow', and is the path of mysticism. According to this concept there are three paths to rising above normal conscience. The 'path of the arrow', the magickal path, and the path of the world. The first attempts a straight shot at God, by mystical meditations, contemplations of an ever ascending manner, until conscience reaches the Godhead. The Magical path seeks the same goal, but by interacting with, and domination of various psychic and cosmic forces. The path of the world is everything in the world that gets one high. Sex, politics, sports, various entertainments.
This path seeks God by the idea that 'right actions sooner or later bring right results'. (Karma yoga).
In actual practice humans function in these three constantly without knowing it. When a person focuses on one of these, they become a magician, a mystic or a politician.
Islam pretty much shuns magic, and it pretty much shuns the world. The only thing actually mystic about Islam is the five times a day prayers.
Reading and chanting the Quran in Arabic has a mystical bent, but is not as direct a communication with Allah as are prayers. This produces an alternating current. Quran is Allah talking directly to Muslims. Praying is a muslim talking directly to Allah. This is the engine that keeps Islam running. A perpetual motion machine as long as there is one muslim anywhere.
The problem arises when the nature of what is being worshipped is considered. We have seen the true nature of Allah, and Islam, we have seen the results. Just exactly what is the 'straight path' of Islam aimed at? I don't think it's anywhere I want to go. Islam is not mystical or magical, it is ultimately political, and that is the path of the world. Allah is the god of the world and the underworld, the Lord of Matter. This is not a straight path up, it is a straight path down...
And it shows...
I hope this does not post twice or even thrice...
The 'straight path' in occult terminology is called' the 'path of the arrow', and is the path of mysticism. According to this concept there are three paths to rising above normal conscience. The 'path of the arrow', the magickal path, and the path of the world. The first attempts a straight shot at God, by mystical meditations, contemplations of an ever ascending manner, until conscience reaches the Godhead. The Magical path seeks the same goal, but by interacting with, and domination of various psychic and cosmic forces. The path of the world is everything in the world that gets one high. Sex, politics, sports, various entertainments.
This path seeks God by the idea that 'right actions sooner or later bring right results'. (Karma yoga).
In actual practice humans function in these three constantly without knowing it. When a person focuses on one of these, they become a magician, a mystic or a politician.
Islam pretty much shuns magic, and it pretty much shuns the world. The only thing actually mystic about Islam is the five times a day prayers.
Reading and chanting the Quran in Arabic has a mystical bent, but is not as direct a communication with Allah as are prayers. This produces an alternating current. Quran is Allah talking directly to Muslims. Praying is a muslim talking directly to Allah. This is the engine that keeps Islam running. A perpetual motion machine as long as there is one muslim anywhere.
The problem arises when the nature of what is being worshipped is considered. We have seen the true nature of Allah, and Islam, we have seen the results. Just exactly what is the 'straight path' of Islam aimed at? I don't think it's anywhere I want to go. Islam is not mystical or magical, it is ultimately political, and that is the path of the world. Allah is the god of the world and the underworld, the Lord of Matter. This is not a straight path up, it is a straight path down...
And it shows...
Hot Air and PJ Media really ought to be trumpeting Robert Spencer's series whole lot more. Where else can you for absolutely free get an entire course on Islamic views of the Koran? Where else will a controversial but well known writer answer any and all questions?
Adabarez:
You pretentious lout! From where do you claim this right to speak for Christians or Jews? Don't you realize if there is a God, he will surely punish you in the hell you cogitate for the murder and rape and pillage you claim your god requires of people who do not believe precisely like you do. You pathetic zombie. Why does your god give you life to enslave you in life and death? Why does your god give you life to enslave and murder others? Aren't you praying to a murderous god, et fortiori no God at all?
I think you project to much. Your earnest supplication of people to the so called "last commandment"- the Muslim as described in Surah Fatiha is bizarre. Why God would pick Mohamed, a murdering marauding bandit, to bring his news of lawful murdering banditry to a blood thirsty group is too easily understandable. The point to ponder though may be what lesson you draw out of your own bizarre lesson. You give fresh impetus to the word "bizarre." Will your last commandment be the same 2000 years from now? The only thing your allah appears good for is to help you confront your demons before death. Your allah appears to prepare you surely for the allah demon waiting for you at your death.
Comment is anything but free in the gaurdian. The guy deletes all of my comments. What's offensive about saying, 'the root of extremism begins in the heart. Remove the heart and you solve the problem'.
Right there, this author has made his series utterly useless.
David England and Friends,
Islam Takes a Serious View of Myths in Christianity
With the dawn of Islam in Arabia the parties affected the most, were the people of the books .i.e. Jews and Christian and pagan tribes. If the Jews and Christian were the true God fearing people and believers in divinity and His prophets as well as the prophesies foretold by Jesus (as); then they would have not hesitated to accept Muhammad (pbuh) as Prophet and Quran as the divine Book. But after the revelation of Quranic verses; the problem arose was that people of the book were finding Islam standing in the way as a challenge to their contrived Belief of more than one God and other myths that they were spinning around the divinity as well the blown up exalted stations of Jesus; considering him their divine God[1].
But in the matter of unity of Divinity of God; we have got a jealous God and our God simply can’t bear that some one may comes up and put forward a claim to be worthy of worship beside Him. Almighty has created a ‘Touch Stone’ for this purpose to be strictly adhered to. Quran says vide Surah Al-Ikhlas – chapter 112:-
In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:1] Say 'He is Allah, the One!
[112:2] Allah the Independent and Besought of all
[112:3] 'He begets not, nor, is He begotten,
[112:4] And there is none like unto Him.
Any body who could qualify the above four criterions can ‘only’ be called God; and it is for sure that a humble soul like Jesus (as); he never claimed himself to be a god. Put Jesus on the touch Stone mentioned above and he may not even qualify for weighing in the weighing pan of Surah Al-Ikhlas and will easily be casted out.
Islam takes a serious view of various Myths in Christianity, which are thought to be incorrect and false beliefs influenced by their prevalent culture and vested interest of concerned disciples and religious zealots. These myths are taken as the sacred stories believed to be the true by the people having deep attachment of religious and spiritual significance to it. Over the centuries these myths have taken roots in the masses where first hand commandment of God was totally absent.
On the other hand Islam is a word of God and it is a first hand speech from God. It does not need any hear says or other fables to support the narrations of its commandments; so myths do not find their way to attain any encroachment in Islam.
Islam finds that the myths created by the Christianity needs to be tackled or fought out to help relieve them of web of contrived myths. These deep routed myths may take strenuous efforts to eradicate them and thus relieve the people of misconceptions through logic and reasoning and not through sword or force.
The potential seen in the Muslim of breaking the myths as per the teaching of Quran has tended the oppressing enemy forces of Islam to carve the covetous policies in the Muslim world that Muslims remain target of oppression and subjugation with in their own countries. Currently Muslims are under going enormous restrictions to advance or excel in worldly knowledge or technology. They could relieve themselves and break the shackles of oppression only when they are able to acquire the knowledge and potent defensive arsenals with offensive capabilities and enough of deterrence.
God Almighty warns and commands Muslims in Surah Anfal [8:60] ‘And make ready for them who fight you whatever you can, of armed force and of mounted pickets at the frontier, whereby you may frighten the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you know not, but Allah knows them. And whatever you spend in the way of Allah, it shall be paid back to you in full and you shall not be wronged.’
Deterrence is the answer which must be acquired at all cast by the Muslims. It is an ultimate weapon which guarantees the honour; it guards the physical as well as ideological borders and keeps the oppressing enemies at bay.
***
Adabarez
"So, for me, the "straight path" is a navigational tool" --Ziauddin Sardar, re Sura 1.
This often-used Islamic propagandist tactic can be called the "my own private Islam" technique. Using this technique, the author tries to present his or her own personal interpretations of Islam--or views presented as such--as (a) representative of Islam generally, or (b) suggesting or implying that "true" Islam permits all individual Muslims to interpret the Quran any which way they like. Sardar appears to be using (b). The tactic is used on largely unsuspecting non-Muslim audiences; what Sardar tells his fellow Muslims (in person) may be entirely different from what he says to non-Muslims (in public). Whatever the intent behind this tactic, the effect is to further confuse and divide the non-Muslims about Islam at a time when Islam is rapidly expanding and establishing itself in the lands of those same non-Muslims. Call it da'wa, jihad of the tongue and pen, wherein it is neither necessary nor desirable, from the perspective of the proselytizing Muslim, to mentions the problems in the doctrine.
Who is Ziauddin Sardar, and what sorts of things does he write? Sardar is a pro-Islamic propagandist, jihadist of tongue and pen, and an extreme Saidist. (See Warraq's essay on Said and the Saidists).
In his own book titled 'Orientalism,' Ziauddin Sardar takes up the usual Saidist method of accusing any European non-Muslim scholar of Islam of "racism," "colonialism," etc. Sardar finds Orientalism just about everywhere. He extends the all-purpose conviction-by-accusation to preposterous lengths, claiming that Orientalism is such an essential element of American culture that Americans are "Orientalizing" the English! Sardar claims there are numerous examples of this in American pop culture. For example, the sit-com Frasier allegedly shows "Orientalism" toward the English in the character Daphne as contrasted with the characters Frasier and Niles.
Sardar writes: "The American representation of Europe, we can detect, is following the classic pattern of Orientalism. For example, in American films and television series, the English are being Orientalized." (p. 114-115, in Orientalism).
Keep the examples of the Saidists in mind when a writer lists, as somehow authoritative and convincing, their degrees in "Islamic Studies" or "Middle Eastern Studies."
The most significant problems in Ziauddin Sardar's public-relations/da'wa commentary of the Quran are found in his section on verses 2:190-195. There, in multiple extensive posts, he expounds all the misleading apologetics, such as claiming that the fighting in question is only "defensive," that those who take an imperialistic interpretation (e.g., of 2:193) are taking the verse "out of context," and so on.
Unfortunately, Ziauddin is a very influential figure in the U.K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziauddin_Sardar
e.g.,
"His various influential positions allow him to fully exploit the general public's ignorance of Islam.
Adabarez
"If the Jews and Christian were the true God fearing people and believers in divinity and His prophets as well as the prophesies foretold by Jesus (as); then they would have not hesitated to accept Muhammad (pbuh) as Prophet and Quran as the divine Book."
I don't belong to any organized religion, but am a reader of the Bible. Nothing exists in the teachings of Jesus that makes Mohammed acceptable for Christians. I have noticed comments of Muslims that non-Arabic speaking people miss the intent of the Quran. Your remarks show you do that with the Bible.