certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islam and Spiritualism (25 Feb 2019 NewAgeIslam.Com)



Contemplating God, Loving One’s Enemies, and Loving One’s Neighbours as One’s Self: a Prescription to Radical Muslims and Misbehaving Human Beings



By Belinda F. Espiritu, New Age Islam

25 February 2019

          The differences between “radical” and “moderate” in the Muslim world are potentially dangerous for the non-Muslim world, particularly the Western world. This is the main point of Raymund Ibrahim in one of his articles that was originally published in 2016 in Middle East Forum website. It seems that these two categories of Muslims are worlds apart. Here are some of the differences between the radical and moderate Muslims, according to Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr (2011) who was cited by Ibrahim (2016):

•        Radicals accept the duty of waging jihad in the path of Allah; moderates reject it.

•        Radicals oppose the idea of religious freedom and apostasy from Islam; moderates agree to it.

•        Radicals see the people of the book [Jews and Christians] as dhimmis [barely tolerated subjects]; moderates oppose this [view].

•        Radicals reject the idea that non-Muslim minorities should have equality or authority over Muslims; moderates accept it.

•        Radicals reject the idea of religious equality because Allah’s true religion is Islam; moderates reject it.

•        Radicals support Jihadi groups; moderates reject them.

•        Radicals accept killing young girls who commit adultery or otherwise besmirch their family’s honour; moderates reject this [response].

•        Radicals accept those laws that punish whoever insults or leaves the religion [apostates]; moderates recoil from these laws.

I would like to argue that if radical Muslims do three things that are in accord with their being Muslims, their radical Islamic ideology will be debunked. First is that if radical Muslims would contemplate or meditate on the names and person of Allah, then they would see that their radical ideology is very much opposed to the very person and names of God. Some of Allah’s names that oppose the intolerance, violence, and harshness of radical Islamic ideology are the following:

Ar-Rahmaan, the Beneficent, He who wills goodness and mercy for all His creatures

Ar-Raheem, the Merciful, He who acts with extreme kindness

Al-Ghaffaar, the Great Forgiver, the one who forgives the sins of His slaves time and time again

As-Salam, the Embodiment of Peace, the One who is free from every imperfection

Al-Wahhab, the Supreme Bestower, the One who is Generous in giving plenty without any return

If Allah is the Beneficent, He who wills goodness and mercy for all His creatures, (take note, for all His creatures) – whether they are Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, infidels, or fellow Muslims, then they will see that doing violence and harm to God’s human creatures contradict the very name and person of Allah.

If Allah is the Merciful, He who acts with extreme kindness, then waging jihad against non-believers and the West contradicts the very nature and name of Allah, which is Ar-Raheem. They will also see that being intolerant of other religions and considering them inferior goes against the Beneficence and Generosity of God. If Allah is the Embodiment of Peace, then doing violence and harm to other people, just because they are not Muslims or they belong to a different sect of Islam, is plain bigotry and brutality – something that goes against the very name and person of God.

Along with contemplating Allah’s names and person, especially those listed above, radical Muslims will see the folly and contradiction of their beliefs and actions if they follow the teachings of Jesus, whom they consider a prophet, on loving one’s enemies and loving one’s neighbours as one loves one’s self. If Jews, Christians, and polytheists are considered enemies and infidels by radical Muslims, they will do well to love these “infidels” and do good to them, instead of killing them and waging jihad against them. If the Western powers have done wrong to them, then they should love them even more, for Jesus their prophet told them to love their enemies and do good to them.

Furthermore, if they will follow Jesus’s teaching of loving their neighbours as they love their own selves, - whether their neighbours are Jews, Christians, polytheists, or atheists and secularists, they will not be doing any harm or violence to them but instead treat them lovingly and generously as they do to their own selves.

These prescriptions may sound simplistic, but complex ideologies that harm others are debunked by the simplicity of following the law of loving one’s enemies and one’s neighbours as one’s self, and contemplating the names and very person of Allah, who is all-Merciful, all-Beneficent, all-Peaceful, and all-Loving.

The prescription applies, too, to misbehaving Christians, who do not live up to their identity, but rather blatantly show their sinful nature and violation of Jesus’s teachings, thus besmearing Christianity. It also applies to all misbehaving human beings – whether Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or people with no religion – for even people who belong to other religions or to no religion will do well to consider and contemplate the Divine Force or Divine Being, and consider following the teachings of the itinerant preacher who lived more than 2,000 years ago in the land of the Jews and the Palestinians.

Belinda F. Espiritu teaches at the University of the Philippines in Cebu and is a sustainability and peace advocate.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-spiritualism/belinda-f-espiritu,-new-age-islam/contemplating-god,-loving-one’s-enemies,-and-loving-one’s-neighbours-as-one’s-self--a-prescription-to-radical-muslims-and-misbehaving-human-beings/d/117845

New Age IslamIslam OnlineIslamic WebsiteAfrican Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism





TOTAL COMMENTS:-   20


  • You are again supporting harsh and inhuman punishments just because some ayat says so. You do not have even the decency to say that, since our God would never want such inhuman punishments inflicted on anyone, it is possible that these 7th century laws got inadvertently included in the Quran.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/6/2019 2:17:08 PM



  • First of all, there is no discussion from my side on any of the hudud punishments in this thread. So why do you have to even speak of  "limb amputations, lashings etc. in order to fight terrorism or mafia gangsterism"? It was only meant to provoke.

    Moreover, hudud punishments are in the Quran, and there is nothing metaphorical about it. These are to be taken literally.

    What according to you is a literalist? You have never defined it. Now if not being a literalist means rejecting some of the Ayats of the Quran because you do not like them, then you are an apostate.

    So literalist must be the opposite of denier of some Ayats of the Quran which means an  apostate by the definition of apostate in the Quran.

    So, if you are going to call me a literalist only for quoting a verse or saying what the Quran prescribes for a crime, then doing so automatically makes you an apostate.

    This is not about being a  moderate or an immoderate but about  being a believer and being an apostate.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/6/2019 1:41:00 AM



  • Naseer sb.,
    My first reference to you in this thread calls you an immoderate tafsirist  and  an extreme literalist. How is that an abuse?
    The issue in this thread that you ran away from was my comment: "Now he (Naseer sb.) comes up with the idea that governments should use limb amputations, lashings etc. in order to fight terrorism or mafia gangsterism. He wants to take us back to his golden days of torture and corporal punishments!"
    Do you really support such harsh punitive measurs?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/5/2019 12:23:31 PM



  • The first abusive comment directed at me is from you in this thread.
    What issue have you been discussing in this thread?
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/4/2019 10:56:39 PM



  • Naseer sb., you are the one who instead of discussing issues  give abusive and irrelevant retorts. Can't you discuss issues without being so rude?


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/4/2019 12:16:47 PM



  • GM sb,
    Why don't you take your own advise? It applies to you and not to me. From the length of the comments it is obvious that you are merely "disruptive, derisive and rude" while I take pains to get across an idea.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/4/2019 2:32:45 AM



  • Naseer sb., 

    The fact that you write articles does not prove that you have great ideas. The fact that I write comments only does not mean my ideas do not count. All I am asking you to do is to discuss issues and not be abusive or irrelevant. Is that too much to ask?


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/3/2019 1:23:28 PM



  • GM sb does not like his own medicine! You have no ideas at all. Just a few stock phrases that you keep repeating. If you had any ideas, you would be writing articles.
    By naseer ahmed - 3/3/2019 7:50:16 AM



  • Naseer sb. is too cowardly and too empty-headed do discuss ideas so he keeps resorting to base abusive techniques in order to hide his hollowness.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/1/2019 12:31:42 PM



  • By openly denying verses of the Quran you are a Kafir by several very clear and explicit verses of the Quran such as: 29:47 "...and none but the Kafirun reject our Ayats"
    So when you can call Rational by what you only think he implied, but certainly openly  disliked your calling him an apostate, why can't you take your own medicine? There is no limit to your hypocrisy!
    Do you even have the intellectual capacity or knowledge to discuss any ideas with me? You are simply a windbag full of nonsense and  incompetent to discuss anything with me. All that you can do is repeat your stock phrases of derision and ridicule.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 3/1/2019 1:13:02 AM



  • Rational clearly either said or implied that he was an apostate. Your trying to hide behind Rational and your trying to call me an apostate are gutter level techniques that will not work. Every time you are on the losing side, you adopt very dirty and unworthy methods. Discuss ideas. Leave Rational alone and stop your despicable aspersions.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/28/2019 2:28:23 PM



  • Rational never called himself an apostate. He may have said that he is no longer able to believe but he never even once called himself an apostate.  As a matter of fact he also said that he might one day return to becoming a believer. I have quoted you calling him an apostate so how can you dispute that you haven't called him an apostate? If he was an apostate according to you for saying he is no longer able to believe, then why are you not an apostate for rejecting a major part of the Quran? Rejection of any part of the Quran is kufr and you are a kafir by the meaning of the word. Who says it is a sin to call someone who openly and brazenly questions a major part of the Quran an apostate? I am not bothered about apostasy and apostates when they keep to themselves but when they turn hostile and attack their former religion, they have to be called by their proper name.

    Why would I not expose the  "wolf in sheep's clothing and a snake in the grass" which you said to Rational and which now applies to you.

    The apostate pretending to be a friend of Islam is a "wolf in sheep's clothing and a snake in the grass" 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/28/2019 12:02:42 AM



  • Nasser sb. lies again. I did not call Rational an apostate. Rational did so himself. In fact it is sinful to call someone an apostate unless that person himself has declared his apostasy. The fact that Naseer sb. does not know that shows his ignorance.
    By the way I did not complain about Rational's apostasy. I complained about the fact that 80% of comments were coming from him. I had said that he was sucking up most of the oxygen in the Comments section.
    I do not want Naseer sb. removed from NAI. I only said he is not worthy of participating in any serious discussion on Islam because the only weapons he has are calling people apostates or kafirs or other abusive words or trying to use a 10 year old dialogue between Rational and me in his never-ending attempts to smear me, instead of presenting viable and sensible arguments relevant to the ongoing discussion.
    Now he comes up with the idea that governments should use limb amputations, lashings etc. in order to fight terrorism or mafia gangsterism. He wants to take us back to his golden days of torture and corporal punishments!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/27/2019 1:02:01 PM



  • Would the punishment be immoderate for Hafiz Sayeed or Azhar Masood or whatever their names are or for the Mafia whose stock-in-trade is terror and torture?

    If the punishment was in vogue, there would have been no mafia and no terrorists.

    What happens by the official agencies  behind closed doors is much worse but you don't get to see it.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/27/2019 2:41:43 AM



  • Hats Off asks. "what is moderate about cutting off a hand and leg from the opposite sides?"

    Islam becomes moderate when all intrusive spurious material is parenthesized.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/26/2019 10:52:34 PM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content