Recently I saw a link at TalkIslam for a video of a British guy who made a video refutation of me. Now, for those of you who do not know, TI is a Muslim forum to post stories. It is mostly made up of leftists, progressives, and some post 9-11 white Muslims (with a lot of the baggage that comes with that). However, there are some good people and good discussion there
The British guy, speaking from in front of an Anarchist symbol ( meaning he was talking on Islam while sporting a kafir political symbol) berated me for masculinity in the best old self-hating liberal man voice he could muster without the slightest bit of Islamic teaching in his logic ( I’m sure it would have played well at a college campus gathering of young feminists), identity politics ( he seems to have missed the point that the Quran repeatedly divided humanity into categories with the believers on the highest level and this can be fund throughout hadith, but he will not find that in a book by Howard Zinn… he also missed the point that politics has always been essential to Islam), and then there is homosexuality.
One of the things that greatly amused me is that many of those who were angered by me saying Hamza Yusuf is weak on the question of homosexuality and feminism, while mad at me and defending Hamza on charges he is weak on this issue, adamantly defended homosexuality and are insulted when anyone points out this is a behavior that displeases the Creator. It reminds me of the Irish who protested a speaker for saying the Irish were a drunk and violent lot by going out and getting drunk and rioting. If Hamza is strong on these issues why is he attracted those who are weak?
This has led me to think about the issue of white Muslims once again. Let us forget about the second-generation progressives, Quranists and apostates for a minute.
There seems to be a breed of white liberals and leftists who accepted Islam after 9-11 and immediately after taking shahadah were already trying to reform the religion ( of course this is not all white Muslims we know that there are many righteous Muslims who accepted Islam in this period and have stayed away from this fitnah). With no Islamic knowledge, without a proper recitation of Quran, without an understanding of tauheed, they immediately joined progressive and other apostate forces in trying to create a new Islam.
Sorry, but this to me smacks of a form of cultural imperialism by white westerners. One such convert told me “the Muslims need me”. No sir, you are the one in need of Islam. But it is this arrogant white attitude in my opinion that leads many white liberals to become Muslims and then try and change the religion.
My question is; did you ever believe? Or was becoming a Muslim just a political stunt like the American leftists who started speaking Spanish and eating beans and rice in the 1980′s to support Latin American revolutionaries? If Islam is so flawed in your mind, if the Muslims are so messed up, if we are in such need of “new, liberal and humanistic interpretations” then why would you ever become Muslim? If Islam is not the Truth and just one of many paths why did you even become Muslim? Did you become Muslim for Allah, for Paradise, for the sake of the Truth? Or for reasons of identity and politics? Are you like Bilal ibn rabah ( RA) or are you like the closet communists who infiltrated labor unions? Why did you become Muslim? When I accepted Islam I entered the study of the deen and it was taught to me that there is the Quran and Sunnah and they are supreme to any man made knowledge and that all other religions are upon falsehood.
And for my British leftist pal who shook with anger when discussing those who are in agreement with Allah and His Messnegr (s.a.s.) regarding the evil of homosexuality I could make a video; but my man Archie can say it better.
Just kidding my friends from across the pond.
LOL LOL, I knew it I knew it Umar, you are the equal opportunity offending muslim Archie Bunker with a beard !!!! LOL LOL
can you post the link of the video
Good post, though this problem is not just limited to white converts, but converts of other races and native-born Muslims.
“There seems to be a breed of white liberals and leftists who accepted Islam after 9-11 and immediately after taking shahadah were already trying to reform the religion ( of course this is not all white Muslims we know that there are many righteous Muslims who accepted Islam in this period and have stayed away from this fitnah).”
A couple comments here. First, these guys existed long before 9/11 (we could name names) but their ideas were so foolish and so obviously outside the pale of acceptability that they were afraid to speak, and when they did speak even those with only a vague knowledge of Islam sort of said, “What the hell is he talking about?”
Second comment. The white progressives did not simply grab the microphones and start writing books on their own. They were pushed to the front lines and made to speak on camera by sell-out immigrants who wanted to push the same agenda for years. These were the same folks pushing interfaith meetings and Jewish-Christian-Muslim dialog to the point of kufr repeatedly saying, “We’re all just the same” and making any non-Muslim wonder why they should accept Islam at all.
These people, regardless of race, knew that 9/11 hysteria was their perfect time of attack. They hated those who wanted to implement Islam as a social means of change; they hated those who appreciated the shear fundamentals of Islam; they hated those who dressed Islamically or sported a beard. This was their chance to paint ALL Muslims who do not share their agenda with one brush: extremist, fundamentalist, wahabi, ikhwani, qutubi, islamist, militant. Anyone who saw Islam as a SEEMINGLY UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT method for social reformation was ousted and likely reported to the appropriate authorities. Khutbahs were hijacked and instead of talking about anything relevant to the community’s struggles, Iman, moral, spiritual, or personal esteem we were forced to listen to circular, horrible lectures on why terrorism is bad, and how tolerant we all are. Of course, most of those in attendance are well aware all of these things are true, so who are these khateebs speaking to?
People with absolutely no Islamic knowledge or zeal infiltrated the administration of masjids. The indigenous hippie Muslims and their self-hating immigrant friends were always together, but thankfully marginalized. Right after 9/11 many of those devils knew that if they said precisely the right things they could perhaps become famous; if they insult the core of Islam with enough fervor, maybe they can have dinner at the White House and be invited back, two, three, or four times. One in particular, days after the attacks, seemed ready to take on the role as the great white Muslim hope at any expense.
Now, I don’t position myself to be a leader. I don’t ever care to be, nor to I care to be some sort of faux-scholar pretending I’m qualified to comment on Islamic issues because I have a bookshelf of Islamic books. I’d like to think this article, and my comment reflects the frustration of THE AVERAGE MUSLIM GUY who wishes he could go to his community’s leaders and have pride in them; find someone who is superior to him in Islamic knowledge and character; find someone who will give him a straight answer and someone the whole community can admire. I don’t need to deal with a bunch of people struggling to be seen as equals at any cost so that they can push a hollow political agenda that’s completely devoid of Islam. How can a community be strong when the leaders have no sense of self-respect and are constantly afraid of being politically incorrect?
And Allah guide anyone who has accepted Islam post 9/11 and searched for knowledge at the masjids, because instead of finding someone to teach him proper tajweed he would more likely find an invitation to a Church where the Imam talks about how we’re all brothers of the Abrahamic faith and serves baklava. You guys have an amazing struggle ahead of you.
salaam aleikum,
reading this incisive post, I will name names that fit the bill 100%:
1. Stephen (I am still a Jew who hates Muslims and claims to be a Sufi) Schwartz.
2. Daveed Gartenstein Ross :
this book is making him lots of money among American neo-cons:
http://www.amazon.com/My-Year-Inside-Radical-Islam/dp/1585425516
3. As for Brown lackeys who are the hangers on and lapdogs chasing acceptance from these very same white liberal folks you have described above, any one of those circus clowns connected with Muslimwakeup.com i.e. MuslimF***ups.com, the self-declared “Progressive Muslims” and their ilk, along with “new age” spirituality masquerading under the banner of Sufism and “spirituality” all fit the bill to a tee. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I strongly urge you to peruse these blogs here which helps to unmask most if not all of the connections:
http://pmunadebate.blogspot.com/
http://living-tradition.blogspot.com/
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/
these brown lackeys and groupies all fit the bill in terms of doing everything and anything to get accepted by the white liberal types you’ve described. They crave acceptance to the point of such total degradation and humiliation that doctoring up Islam to fit this paradigm is perfectly acceptable.
There is ONE guy who saw this pattern among “progressives” in Blacks in the 1960s and described the SAME phenomenon you are now attacking *perfectly*, please take a good listen to this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zUIjP4KWok
Don’t stop speaking out brother, you have a voice and many many supporters who agree with you.
salaam aleikum,
Kashif
Umar Lee needs to put out a show called All In The Ummah LOL
Your attack was wrong: (tick)
Homosexuality wrong: (tick)
White: (tick)
ok now that, that is out of the way….
Speaking of those nasty progs, have you thought about if at some point in their “journey” if some arrogant person walked up to them and told them that they need to (blindly)adhere to a b c d e and f otherwise they are kaffir. And by using that argument, instead of pushing them towards Islam, pushed them toward kufr?
This doesn’t sound too soft on homosexuality:
“Regarding homosexualtiy and lesbian acts, these are condemned by sacred law and considered enormities that require repentance.” p. 43 from the book ” Agenda for Changing Our Condition” by Hamza Yusuf and Zaid Shakir, Copyright 2007 and published by Zaytuna Institute.
An “enormity” (as mentioend above) is a MAJOR SIN IN ISLAM. Should Hamza Yusuf be calling for the capital punishment of homosexual men (who engage in sodomy) in order to be strong against homosexuals? The shariah also calls for the death penalty for Muslims who don’t maintain their daily prayers. Would we be weak for taking a more tolerant attitude with people in our times? If we applied the established shariah rule (or loudly broadcast it) for Muslims not praying, how many Muslims would be left? Would it be the proper application of the shariah in our times? What is the benefit of extending our comments (against homosexuality) beyond the above quote? What do the learned Muslim scholars (who are familar with our situation in the West) advise us with regard to our discourse on homosexuality? If any major Islamic organization in the US went beyond the quote above, what public interest or benefit would it serve Muslims or the dawah of Islam?
Questions for us all to consider.
Here we go again. Quick don’t start yet everyone, let me get some chips…
“homosexuality … is a behavior that displeases the Creator”
If that’s so, it seems careless of the creator to have created homosexuality and homosexuals in the first place.
@Rasheed
ok if Umar is Archie Bunker who would be George Jefferson? Would it be Tariq or Abdur- Rahman? LOL oh, I know it would be that “Daud” character, he’s like mikey he hates everything LOL (I can read it now “Verily this is evil speech of no benefit!”, ROTFL)
@Kashif
I am confused are you saying Umar is the new field negro? LOL aww maan, LOL anybody remember that group the young black teenagers LOL LOL
@MR
I got faygo pop (thats soda for those in the south) and some bettermade chips and as the song says… so let the side show begin hurry hurry step right on in… (btw can anybody finish the lyrics to the verse LOL)
stop
drop
homos from the top
ohh… no…
that’s how Umar rolls (LOL)
Salams,
just to comment on what Abu Adam mentioned. It was probably the best point I’ve read on this topic. Shaykh Hamza need not go on and on about homosexuality being a sin, one statement is enough. If you notice, neither does he talk constantly about murder being a sin, or even adultery. This doesn’t mean he is weak concerning the condemnation of these acts. The people I’d be more concerned about are the people constantly making muslims think about homosexuality. There is no need for this. Methinks that Shaykh Hamza doesn’t want to talk about it all the time, and probably thought the rest of the muslim ummah wouldn’t want to hear about it either!
The qoute from Abu Adam should be enough for everyone.
wa salam.
Abu Adam,
I do not deny thee statements were made; but he has made a number of statements recently that are in contradiction to that and what worries me is that he is starting a gradual and calculated slide towards a “progressive” Islam.
Phil,
We cannot water down the deen for anyone. The Truth is what it is and does not change for time and place. We do have to be patient with new Muslims but this is a separate issue. The issue I am referring to is people entering Islam and immediately aggressively joining progressive forces trying to change the religion and there is an issue of motive and sicnereity.
Falstaff,
BTW there is an old brewery in St. Louis with that name. Why were murderers, womanizers, thieves, child molesters and other sinners created? This is a test and it is the job of the Muslim to enjoin the good and forbid the evil.
These people who have converted, post 9/11, will slowly drift back to where they came from, or move onto Buddhism or whatever is the newest fad.
For those whom it was written, they will stay Muslim no matter what happens. Alhamdulillah.
At my place of work I would say 85% of the staff are white yuppies they are the apple computer, Toyota Prius, and save the poor Latino kid yuppies. I happen to be the only Muslim, and it’s my duty to give dawa and to be a good example. One lady that works with me calls her self a sufi, and her class room is full of Rumi poems. I asked her are you Muslim she said “no I am sufi” I told her I know of many sufi’s that are Muslim, she than said “I don’t agree with Islam on gays and woman’s rights. Than she went on about Rumi and how wonderful he is and deep he is and she asked me if I knew any Rumi, know my father in law has a PhD in Farsi Lit, and composed several books on Rumi, but I only know one line Rumi said and that is “If your are going to fornicate do it with a Princess” she gave me a strange look and said “I never heard that” A sufi told me that for the record.
salam alaykum Umar,
what statements did Shaykh Hamza make that contradicted the ones quoted by Abu Adam?
“Falstaff,
BTW there is an old brewery in St. Louis with that name. ”
If they made good beer I’m sure Sir John wouldn’t object.
“Why were murderers, womanizers, thieves, child molesters and other sinners [such as homosexuals, bacon-eaters, alcohol-drinkers, people who like lusic] created? This is a test and it is the job of the Muslim to enjoin the good and forbid the evil.”
Perhaps. However, in the view of muslims, the “evil” was deliberately created, the temptation planned and whether people would “pass” or “fail” the test pre-determined. That’saside from the fact that muslims have to believe that murder, womanising, theft, child-molesting, eating bacon, drinking alcohol, homosexual behaviour, listening to or playing music, dancing and other sins are not sins because of anything inherently evil to them but only because the creator asserts that they are sins. They are sins in the same way that “chucking” is a sin in cricket, because they break arbitrary rules.
Assalamu Alaikum HOR,
There’s a book called “Rumi and Islam: Selections from His Stories, Poems, and Discourses” that you may want to give to this woman. It’s written by a westerner who first became a sufi, and then later embraced Islam. It’s purpose is to show that Rumi was definitely a muslim and had a deep love for the Qur’an and the Prophet (saws).
Make abundant dua for your coworker. Many a person has started off as a goofy universalist sufi only to later find the truth and embrace Islam fully.
Thanks Rama for the info on that book, I will recommend the book to her. Also I am going to trow and old school Ahmed Deedat, challenge to all sufi’s in mystical land out their if they could bring me proof that the messenger of Allah (may peace and blessing be upon him) jumped up and down yelling in diker the same way Sufi groups partake in it for example Naqshbandi-Haqqani; I to will do the same thing.
I to will do the same if you bring me sound proof.
I have to agree with Brother Umar Lee, eventhough I have a bitter disagreement with the Salafi movement that tends to stand out as the torch bearers of truth with the mantra that they “follow the Quran and Sahih hadith”, yet rejecting Fiqh. The “Madina University” have produced their stars like Yasir Qadhi and then you find Yasirs teacher Madkhaali accusing his student of failure to knowing Islam. Knowing that Umar Lee subscribes to this school of thought is what concerns me.
Nadeem.
What school of thought do I subscribe to?
Others,
HY has been consistent over the last year in his wishy-washy statements including the ones he made here in St. Louis.
I don’t mean to be nosy. What did Hamza Yusuf say recently? I haven’t heard anything from him on this topic. Even an internet search doesn’t bring up anything (that he is wishy-washy on the topic) except from this blog.
I just want to make a note too Nadeem Siddiqi, that Madkhaali is not a teacher at Madina University. In your post one might think he is.
@Falstaff
At first I thought you might be an atheist or agnostic progressive who accepts homosexuality, but then your second comment made you soud like an evangelical.
It sounds like you’re reading from a Christian pamphlet. I find this ironic because when Christians and Jews attempt to understand Muslim theology they end up foisting their own pre-judgments informed from their own history onto Islam without even recognizing that they are prejudiced.
For instance it is clear you are working from the premise that some Christian and Jewish apologists begin from in which they think Allah is a capricious God (audhobillah min ma yasifoon) who does things on a whim without rhyme or reason, who might not have created at all, and there is nothing accessible to human reason from His characteristics. To say the least this description is informed by Orientalists and missionaries and not any sort of faithful interaction with Muslims. As Allah is the Hakim (Most Wise) who “did not create the world for sport” “that is the saying of the disbelievers.”
Actions are not “forced” according to the Muslim viewpoint as you seem to be implying. There was actually a medieval view amongst an heretical group called the Jabbariyah (who believed actions were forced) that held something along the lines of what you wrote but that is not the position of Sunni Islam. It is more nuanced than that.
Qadr (destiny) is a subject for another thread and this space is not the proper place for its discussion as there are certain limitations to a comment section. I recommend you start reading some books on the subject. The Creed of Imam Tahawi is a good place to start, you can skip to the portions dealing the with beliefe in Qadr or Destiny. Also after that read Aqeedah Wasatiyah (The Middle Creed) by Ibn Taymiyyah. Actually before that you might want to read an article that lays the general Sunni understanding of the subject as an introduction.
“Say: He is Allah The Unique Indivisible One. Allah- The Everlasting Refuge. He does not beget nor is He begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him.” Holy Quran: 112
Falstaff Christian believe all sin is the same is that what you are saying. I just don’t get your logic.
You don’t knw much about the christian or judaic concepts of god, M.T. Akbar. They are just as capricious and arbitrary as the muslim concept. Like that of islam, their gods do “do things on a whim without rhyme or reason”. The religions may claim that that isn’t so, but they provide no evidence for their claims, while the very fact that their books contain passages where god asserts that things are bad because god says they are bad and for no other reason is evidence against them. The same is true of the possibility that the creators depicted “might not have created at all”. The only evidence that they are creators is the claim that they are. On the other hand, the fact that an allegedly sll-powerful and all-knowing being is so insistent that we believe its claims and threatens such horrifying punishments on people that do not suggests that it is a tad sensitive on the topic, which is unlikely if it actually created people knowing they would ask just those questions.
The religions themselves claim “that there is nothing accessible to human reason from His characteristics.” and say that people mustn’t ask awkward questions which god will not or cannot answer. God may claim to be “the Hakim (Most Wise) who “did not create the world for sport” ” but- again- the mere claim is not evidence for its truth and- again- the fact we are supposed to accept this claim with no further evidence is evidence against it. It looks like a gigantic game of “O’Grady says”, except that even the results have been fixed in advance.
Of course human actions are not “forced” in any of these religions. Humans do willingly and of their own free will what they have been designed to do willingly and of their own free will. A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. However, in all three religions and their myriad variants, the creator deliberately creates things he announces he hates, without giving any rational reason for either creating or hating them and announces that he is going to torture people for ever who do what they have been designed to do and who do do things the creator created and hates. After all, why are homosexuality, eating shellfish or playing the wrong sort of music wrong except because the creator says they are wrong? They are merely- literally- prejudices and even if the being with these prejudices is as powerful as its believers claim that is irrelevant to their goodness or badness, which are a matter of personal taste without moral connotations.
Umar, you should be cautious about what you say about Mawlana Rumi, and I have yet to hear evidence of what you say about HY – please tell us what he said in St. Louis that makes you so concerned, and why can’t you just post your ‘proofs’/dala’il – “bring your proof, if you are truthful.”
HOR’s story is funny, but as to the character of Mawlana Rumi, not only was he not a ‘RAND prog-type’, he was a hardcore muslim, who wrote verses like the following:
“I am the servant of the Qur’an
While I am still alive.
I am the dust on the path of Muhammad,
the Chosen One [al-Mustafa].
Whoever quotes other than these words from me,
I have nothing to do with him.”
(Mevlana Jelaluddin Rumi)
http://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/about_rumi.html
Rumi must have memorized much or all of the Holy Qur’an when he was young, because the Mathnawi and his other poetry are filled with direct quotes in Arabic, Persian paraphrases, and references to Qur’anic verses. He belonged to the Hanafi school of Islamic law, one of the four orthodox legal traditions of the Sunni branch of Islam. This means that his daily religious behavior was faithful to the many details of the Hanafi tradition of how to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad.
Pingback: » Umar Lee has a response to a response to … Talk Islam
Recently scientists discovered a biological sexual preference mechanism in animals and they have been able to turn homosexual animals into hetero and back again. So perhaps homosexuality will be eventually eradicated in humans. Maybe there are genes also for kleptomania, murder, and doing it on the sidewalk.
Prohibitions, laws, etc. were designed to protect the human race from extinction and chaos. Following our own juices, Falstaff, is a recipe for both.
Most westerners might be too infected by Christian ideas of universal love and brotherhood, and too addicted to rational thought to join either Judaism or Islam both of which look small and mean in comparison.
“Fight and be humiliated” mm, what a good line. As you apply it to me with the anticipation of me and my ilk being trampled by your hooves, I give it back to you with the expectation that it might be returned with interest in the annihilating hecatomb of another great war.
“I was drinking wine, mired in my distress,
And fell asleep before my heart could be expressed.
When I woke from my drunken sleep, I found
My love gone, the candle out, Saghi sleeping sound.”
My question is why Rumi, in many of his word speak of wine; a forbidden drink.
He might be useing wine as a metaphor, to mean he is drunk with the love of Allah, but as I remember we can’t not only drink wine we can’t sell it, advertise it, and transport it as well.
I can see some yuppie reading a Rumi book with a bottle of wine.
Also did our beloved prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) dance, spin around, and chant I do not think so.
I also remember a few years ago seeing a Muslim drink and told him whats up and he quoted, Rumi on the romantic drink of wine.
Also I have a request for Muslim and non Muslim sufi’s, can you stop calling your imams “Masters” this is not kung-fu, in Islam Allah alone is Master alone, ameen.
May Allah glide me and all the Muslims ameen.
“Master of the Day of Judgment.”
“Say: O Allah, Master of the Kingdom! Thou givest the kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest and takest away the kingdom from whomsoever Thou pleasest, and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest in Thin hand is the good; surety, Thou hast power over all things.”
“Then are they sent back to Allah, their Master, the True one; now surely His is the judgment and He is swiftest in taking account.”
“And the Egyptian who bought him said to his wife: Give him an honorable abode, maybe he will be useful to us, or we may adopt him as a son. And thus did We establish Yusuf in the land and that We might teach him the interpretation of sayings; and Allah is the Master of His affair, but most people do not know.”
Mawlana Jalal al-Din ar-Rumi ‘misguided’?
A group of people distributed a pamphlet as usual at the local masjid. However in this issue there was one thing that was intriguing and I would like to seek some clarifications. Under the section “Those who have gone astray in the history of Islam” they name Jalaal-ud-Deen Ar-Rumi. They say that: “being a sufi, he is from among those who have gone astray in the history of Islam. He is the author of the book Al-Mathnawi. He invited people to the Aqeedah of Wahdat-ul-Wujoud and to the Aqeedah of the oneness/unity of all religions and it is because of these that the kuffaar present him as a Hero of Islam.”
The pamphlet continued by citing examples in his book where they say he invited to this false Aqeedah and at the end of the article the salafi explain the Aqeedah of Wahdat-ul-Wujoud. They say: “it is the most false, disgusting and corrupt Aqeedah that may have ever existed. It is the conception that only the existence of Allah Ta’alah is true, everything else is non-existent, i.e. everything that exists is Allah and Allah is everything that is existing. A corrupt and false Aqeedah that is propagated by the sufis.”
Now I would like to have some clarifications on these issues; who is Jalaal-ud-Deen Ar-Rumi, what is the Aqeedah of Wahdat-ul-Wujoud, is what they claim true or wrong?
Wa `alaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah:
Mawlana Jalal al-Din al-Rumi (d. 672) was the son, father, and grandfather of great Sunni Hanafi Jurists, teachers, and qadis, originating from Balkh or Kabul and settled in and around Istanbul. Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani in al-Durar al-Kamina (1:352) cites him as “Mawlana” in the vibrant notice on his son Baha’ al-Din Ahmad, known as Sultan ibn Mawlana, “one of the Imams of the Hanafi Masters, the brilliant, ascetic, pious Faqih, Usuli, and grammarian who trod the path of his father in leaving the world behind.”
Mawlana’s full name is Muhammad ibn Muhammad (ibn Muhammad) ibn al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn Qasim ibn Habib ibn `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Siddiq al-Hashimi. Hajji Khalifa said in Kashf al-Zunun (1:367): “He was a thoroughly knowledgeable Imam in Fiqh according to the School of Abu Hanifa – Allah be well-pleased with him – and he was knowledgeable in the science of juridical differences, then he devoted himself to worship exclusively. Miraculous gifts (karaamaat) are mass-transmitted from him. Allah have mercy on him.”
He is known in the West as a “mystical” poet, mostly because of the translation of his large Persian book of poetry of singular beauty, the Mathnawi.
As for the claim that “He invited people to the Aqeedah of Wahdat-ul-Wujoud and to the Aqeedah of the oneness/unity of all religions”, then Allah Most High said, {Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful} and He said, {O you who believe! If an evil liver bring you tidings, verify it, lest you smite some folk in ignorance and afterward repent of what you did}.
As for the statement “being a sufi, he is from among those who have gone astray in the history of Islam” it would be fair to say that this statement constitutes kufr because it attributes misguidance to the massive majority of the elite of this Umma.
It is a sign of the Divine power that Allah makes many purported disbelievers love and respect this Friend of Allah — Jalal al-Din Rumi — over seven centuries after his death while He makes some purported Muslims attack him and reveal themselves as corrupt enviers and friends of Shaytan.
Hajj Gibril
http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/sp2-gfh_e.html#19
Mawlana Jalal al-Din ar-Rumi ‘misguided’?
A group of people distributed a pamphlet as usual at the local masjid. However in this issue there was one thing that was intriguing and I would like to seek some clarifications. Under the section “Those who have gone astray in the history of Islam” they name Jalaal-ud-Deen Ar-Rumi. They say that: “being a sufi, he is from among those who have gone astray in the history of Islam. He is the author of the book Al-Mathnawi. He invited people to the Aqeedah of Wahdat-ul-Wujoud and to the Aqeedah of the oneness/unity of all religions and it is because of these that the kuffaar present him as a Hero of Islam.”
The pamphlet continued by citing examples in his book where they say he invited to this false Aqeedah and at the end of the article the salafi explain the Aqeedah of Wahdat-ul-Wujoud. They say: “it is the most false, disgusting and corrupt Aqeedah that may have ever existed. It is the conception that only the existence of Allah Ta’alah is true, everything else is non-existent, i.e. everything that exists is Allah and Allah is everything that is existing. A corrupt and false Aqeedah that is propagated by the sufis.”
Now I would like to have some clarifications on these issues; who is Jalaal-ud-Deen Ar-Rumi, what is the Aqeedah of Wahdat-ul-Wujoud, is what they claim true or wrong?
Wa `alaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah:
Mawlana Jalal al-Din al-Rumi (d. 672) was the son, father, and grandfather of great Sunni Hanafi Jurists, teachers, and qadis, originating from Balkh or Kabul and settled in and around Istanbul. Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani in al-Durar al-Kamina (1:352) cites him as “Mawlana” in the vibrant notice on his son Baha’ al-Din Ahmad, known as Sultan ibn Mawlana, “one of the Imams of the Hanafi Masters, the brilliant, ascetic, pious Faqih, Usuli, and grammarian who trod the path of his father in leaving the world behind.”
Mawlana’s full name is Muhammad ibn Muhammad (ibn Muhammad) ibn al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn Qasim ibn Habib ibn `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Siddiq al-Hashimi. Hajji Khalifa said in Kashf al-Zunun (1:367): “He was a thoroughly knowledgeable Imam in Fiqh according to the School of Abu Hanifa – Allah be well-pleased with him – and he was knowledgeable in the science of juridical differences, then he devoted himself to worship exclusively. Miraculous gifts (karaamaat) are mass-transmitted from him. Allah have mercy on him.”
He is known in the West as a “mystical” poet, mostly because of the translation of his large Persian book of poetry of singular beauty, the Mathnawi.
As for the claim that “He invited people to the Aqeedah of Wahdat-ul-Wujoud and to the Aqeedah of the oneness/unity of all religions”, then Allah Most High said, {Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful} and He said, {O you who believe! If an evil liver bring you tidings, verify it, lest you smite some folk in ignorance and afterward repent of what you did}.
As for the statement “being a sufi, he is from among those who have gone astray in the history of Islam” it would be fair to say that this statement constitutes kufr because it attributes misguidance to the massive majority of the elite of this Umma.
It is a sign of the Divine power that Allah makes many purported disbelievers love and respect this Friend of Allah — Jalal al-Din Rumi — over seven centuries after his death while He makes some purported Muslims attack him and reveal themselves as corrupt enviers and friends of Shaytan.
Hajj Gibril
“Muslims attack him and reveal themselves as corrupt enviers and friends of Shaytan.”
I think this statement overboard.
Many scholars have disagreed with Rumi, on fundamental aspects in islam.
More over the issue is Rumi invented many aspects into his understanding of Islam.
If you could find me proof from the Quan and Sunna, to justify Rumi’s spinning around to music, than I will respect that, but show me something sound.
Impressive answer by Hajj Gibril.
Love this statement:
“It is a sign of the Divine power that Allah makes many purported disbelievers love and respect this Friend of Allah — Jalal al-Din Rumi — over seven centuries after his death while He makes some purported Muslims attack him and reveal themselves as corrupt enviers and friends of Shaytan.”
“Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the World; and blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.
We ask Allah to make us and this brother stick to right belief, the right religion applied by Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaah. As for Sufism and its origins and whether Sufis are innovators or not, Muslim scholars have thoroughly discussed this issue.
Shaykh Al Islam, Ibn Taymiyah did some good research on this subject and said: ‘As for the word “Sufism”, it was not known in the first three centuries of Islam. It actually became famous after that period. It is reported that some eminent scholars like Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Al Darany and others talked about Sufism. It is known that this word derives from the Arabic word “Sufi” which literally means “wool”. So, the first people called “Sufis” were known to wear woolen garments. Sufism first appeared in Basra. The Sufis in Basra were very modest and lived an ascetic life. They were so devout they were known to occupy themselves with all forms of worship and to fear Allah very much. So, their devout way was not known anywhere else in the Muslim world. Ibn Taymiyah added: ‘And because of their unfamiliar way, people had different opinions about them. Some praised them (saying Sufis were very devout) while others criticized them for being too ascetic. The latter said that Sufis were innovators very far from the Sunnis way’.
A group of scholars and Muslim jurists were of this last opinion. Some people, however, claimed that Sufis were the best people after the Prophets. Both groups were wrong in their assessment of Sufis.
The correct opinion is that they used to work hard in worshipping Allah as the other righteous people used to do. So among them some were foremost in good deeds by virtue of their good deeds, some of them followed a middle course of those who will be given their record in their right hand. However, among both categories surely there are some who commit mistakes in their Ijtihad, those who commit sins and then repent to Allah, and also others who commit sin and do not repent.
Some innovators joined the Sufis and some of them even went astray. But some Sufi scholars claim that those innovators and perverted people who called themselves Sufis were not among Sufis. They say that Al Hallaj, for instance, was not a Sufi but a Zindigh (a person who went astray). Ibn Taymiyah goes on by saying: ‘This was the origin of Sufism. Then it became much more diverse and complicated’.
This diversity and complication brought many more deviated Sufi groups. Some of them based their ideas on Indian mysticism. Others chose Persian, Greek or idolaters’ philosophies and followed them claiming they were Islamic.
To conclude the way to safety from all innovations is to learn the right Aqeeda (creed), i.e. the creed of Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaah. So, when a person knows the truth, he will know the people who apply it in their lives.
Allah knows best.”
Nadeem:
Shaykh Rabee’ Al-Madkhali (hafidhahullah) had been retired from the Islamic University of Madinah for at least ten years now. He now resides in the Makkan suburb of Al-’Awali.
As far as Shaykh Yassir Qadhi being his student, I do not know of any proof of this. He may have take a class or two with him.
You made the statement that Salafis are against fiqh. How do you figure? Shaykh Bin Baz and Shaykh Uthaimeen were some of the greatest fuqaha of our times. The Islamic University’s uses the Bidiyatul-Mujtahid (comparative fiqh book) in its curriculum because they knew know that students would be coming from many different countries that have many different schools of fiqh. As far as the other schools in Saudi, they all teach the Hanbali fiqh.
Khalil
Ali Baba and the Salafi Thieves, Nadeem Siddiqi I think a statement like that is off the wall. (this is a post on Nadeem’s blog)
I am just a crazy Wahhabist, so what do I know.
With a joke like that I bet you are from NYC, it has a NY ring to it.
Also thanks Khalil, for stepping inn and referring to some of the best names of our times (may Allah reward them and give them jenna ameen) Also Nadeem, you notice how Khalil says “Shaykh” not master
Hor,
For the record, the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) said:
“Ana SAYYID-un-Naas Yawal-Qiyaamah.”
“I am the Master of humanity on the Judgment Day.” (Bukhari related)
There is nothing wrong with using the term–while being clear that Allah is the Creator and Owner of every human master.
Also, there is no such thing as a “non-Muslim” Sufi–in spite the likes of what Idres Shah might say. Tasawwuf is an integral branch of the Religious sciences, as is Tawheed and Fiqh, and a person who does not understand Tawheed and the basic practices of the Religion could never be a (genuine) Sufi. Also, keep in mind that the An-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, Al-Ghazali, As-Suyuti, Ibn `Abideen, As-Sanusi, Abdul-Qaadir Jilaani, Uthman Dan Fodio, Taqi-ud-Deen as-Subki, etc. were all Sufis, and one would be HARD PRESSED to produce any scholarly lineage of learning devoid of adherents to tasawwuf.
With that said, that doesn’t preclude that many deviants purport to be Sufis. But then the same can be said of those who claimed to be Muslims, in general, but are guilty of believing the world is beginningless, or denying Destiny, or believing in anthropomorphism. So we judge the latter and the former on a case by case basis, and we do not reject something legitimate in the Religion because of deviants claim to follow it.
Falstaff,
The first thing you have to understand is that you are owned. Just as this creation didn’t, you didn’t, bring yourself into being–you have a Creator and an Owner. Your Creator does with you whatever He wills (no gender intended). Your Creator orders you and forbids you with matters, and your Creator is not unjust, for Allah is entitled to do whatever He wills.
With that said, Allah knows about us better than we know ourselves. We cannot thru the use of reason alone assess what will be to our ultimate benefit after we die (and more often than not, we cannot even assess what is best for us in this world). This is purpose of Revelation–so that we may know the Truth about the Creator of the universe and know what will bring us safety and security or perdition and humiliation in the Hereafter.
@ Swarth Moor
Many people are sufi’s and not Muslim, I work with a lady that reads books of “masters” that a Sufi would read. She says she is a sufi and their are many like her.
I will have to get back to you on this subject of master, your so called masters take allot of things out of context.
Also a side note I notice your last name is more is your first name Cris or Khalil.
@ Swarth Moor,
Good summary of the ‘classical’ tradition of tasawwuf and today’s claimants…
Within our use, of course tasawwuf & Islam, at least, historically, were linked… ka ta3allimi al ‘ulamaa fiil sadr al Islam.
Aqulu anna al mushkilat, yani, badii’ah bi isti’mirar garbii wal damr ‘ilm taqlidyy…
As a result, one does not speak correctly of the past. You can be called ‘kufr if you do so.
Poet & Sun
Rumi had a teacher, Shams at-tabrizz. He broke down and cried, like a baby, if not like some modern Sufis, when this Shams, a man, left.
Some say’ Shams (Sun, fii lughatina) was symbolic, others ‘real’,
but the story adds something to the famous ‘ukhuwatul Islami’ (Islamic brotherhood) hadith related by Muslim-Radiallahu ‘anhu.
“Your Creator does with you whatever He wills (no gender intended). Your Creator orders you and forbids you with matters, and your Creator is not unjust, for Allah is entitled to do whatever He wills.”
Actually, if Allah is indeed all-powerful, logically he is unable not to do whatever he wills.
If your creator “does with you whatever He wills ” that creator is unjust if it rewards or punishes you for doing “whatever He wills “. You obey or disobey his orders only as he wills.
If “purpose of Revelation” is ” that we may know the Truth about the Creator of the universe” it is unfortunate that the creator did not will that we should all receive and accept revelation or that he and his followers claim- untruthfully, it seems- to be able to demonstrate the truth of that revelation by the use of reason.
falstaff i have read your text and could not stop wondering if you really use your brain to do the thinking or use some other parts of your body?man we are talking about ADAM/MAN the vicegerent of ALLAH on earth your father ADAM ,the one that angels had bowed down to,the same ADAM your father,’ ALLAH the allmighty’ has taught the names of all things.you are talking as if man/wombman has no choice or freewill,AS IF He is a cucumber or an apple.Allah has given man frewill and put him on a test to see what way is he going to choose TRUTH or FALSEHOOD .that’s why it is said in the HOLY QUR’AN ”Light upon light” although ALLAH knows what your choices will be ,you don’t know it ,therefore you still have a choice between good and bad.what are you saying ?you have no freewill?you don’t choose to wear this and eat that?don’t be a fool sure you have a freewill.When you do something good, you want everyone to know”look,look i am great,I have done beautiful such and such” all puffed up with pride and whenever you do evil it is ALLAH ‘s fault is that it?? ALLAH has giving us all enough time to find the truth and it is your choice to look for it or just play and and waste your precious time with little enjoyments of this world.YOU ONLY GET THE REWARDS OF WHAT YOU HAVE WORKED FOR.
HOR, i have read the mesnevi(MEVLANA JALALEDDIN RUMI,BALKHI’S WORK)AND I can tell you sufiism means in my understanding …is”understanding SELF (nafs) in the light of QUR’AN ”.or in other words ” understanding there is no SELF.. ONLY ALLAH”.you can not be a sufi unless you accept TAWHIID (LA ILAHE ILLALLAH.MUHAMMEDEN RESULALLAH) Sufiism is only a method of reaching the UNITY (birr)with ALLAH,strictly withing the boundries of SUNNI ISLAM the only difference is ,the practices in sufiism are alot harsher for example ,serving society without pay for years in end,fasting for days with only afew olives,living in the wilderness with no human contact,ETC. Sufiism is a kind jihaad againts the” partial NAFS”(EGO) which sees itself as a separate being from ”ALLAH THE CHERISER AND SUSTAINER OF THE WORLDS.”.therefore this partial nafs/ego fallen from grace into a state of SHIRK .sufiis believe union with ALLAH can only happen by removing this body/self from between then you come to relisation of WHO YOU REALLY ARE..by reaching ,KULLINAFS (the ONLY ONE)
Thoose who are trying to show sufiism out of ISLAM are either ignorent or are the enemies of ISLAM.SUFIISM is essence of ISLAM nothing in sufiism is out of the teachings of prophet MUHAMMED MUSTAFA peace be upon him .Infact it deprives itself from this very source.
Deniztuna, I have read your text and wonder whether you use your brain to do your typing and punctuating or some other part of your body.
“man we are talking about ADAM/MAN the vicegerent of ALLAH on earth your father ADAM ,the one that angels had bowed down to,the same ADAM your father,’ ALLAH the allmighty’ has taught the names of all things.”
Even if this were true, what of it? Knowing “the names of all things” is not evidence someone or something has free will. If it were, an encyclopaedia would have free will.
“you are talking as if man/wombman has no choice or freewill,AS IF He is a cucumber or an apple.Allah has given man frewill and put him on a test to see what way is he going to choose TRUTH or FALSEHOOD .that’s why it is said in the HOLY QUR’AN ”Light upon light” although ALLAH knows what your choices will be ,you don’t know it ,therefore you still have a choice between good and bad.”
Well, no, if “ALLAH knows what your choices will be [and] you don’t know”, you have no free will. You can only choose to do what Allah knows and decides you will do. If the choice is between “TRUTH or FALSEHOOD”, then it is not between good or bad. They are not synonyms. The claim
s that Allah wills everything an that we have free will are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. If Allah allegedly claims they are both true then he must provide more evidence than that mere assertion before we believe it. Equally, the mere assertion that something is true or false or good or bad is not evidence that it is true or false or good or bad, no matter how true or good or wise or powerful the being making the assertion claims to be.
“what are you saying ?you have no freewill?you don’t choose to wear this and eat that?don’t be a fool sure you have a freewill.When you do something good, you want everyone to know”look,look i am great,I have done beautiful such and such” all puffed up with pride and whenever you do evil it is ALLAH ’s fault is that it?? ”
No. if Allah is all-knowing and all-powerful, then he has chosen to make us all puffed-up with pride when we do something good, just as he has chosen to make us choose to do it. It is all Allah’s decision, or fault, if you prefer.
“ALLAH has giving us all enough time to find the truth and it is your choice to look for it or just play and and waste your precious time with little enjoyments of this world.YOU ONLY GET THE REWARDS OF WHAT YOU HAVE WORKED FOR.”
…and if Allah is all-powerful we only work for what Allah has decided we will work for.
“I don’t mean to be nosy. What did Hamza Yusuf say recently? I haven’t heard anything from him on this topic.”
(I would just like to refresh the above question, if I may, before it is lost entirely.)
Hor,
There are people who claim to be atheists and also claim to be Muslim. That doesn’t mean that their claim has any weight. Likewise, there are people who CLAIM to be Sufis and they don’t even claim to be Muslim–i mentioned this is what is found in the books ascribed to Idres Shah (and also Martin Lings). Such claims mean nothing–we have to take it back the reliable sources. It’s enough to see that An-Nawawi (who is referred to EXTENSIVELY by those who deem Sufism to be a deviation) wrote about Sufism and was himself a Sufi.
To be fair, we need not rely upon strawmen arguments. I doubt that ANYONE here can produce a scholarly lineage that does not have Sufis in the chain. Now that is not to say that there are not MANY pseudo-sufis–some claiming to be Muslim and others not even claiming to be Muslim. Genuine Sufis abide by the Sunnah–and they order al-ma`ruf and forbid al-munkar, so genuine Sufis speak out against deviant beliefs that exist among the pseudo-sufis. As was mentioned, a lot of New Agey types have an infatuation with Rumi. However, none of that eliminates that Sufism is a legitimate branch in the Islamic sciences. So let us be fair in speaking about Sufism: it is a legitimate branch of the Deen–however, there are A LOT of pseudo-sufis claiming to represent tasawwuf.
Falstaff,
First we have to define terms. Injustice is to do what one is not entitled to do. It would be injustice for you to take my car without my consent, for you are not entitled to do so. Afterall, my car is not your property.
Now in the case of the Creator, the entire universe is Allah’s property. Since everything is owned by Allah, then Allah is entitled to do with the creation whatever He wills. If Allah wills for a baby to become diseased and die in a fire, that is not injustice from Allah, for the baby is Allah’s property, and Allah is entitled to do whatever He wills with her.
Allah guides and misguides–and makes punishable and rewardable–whomever/whatever He wills. This does not imply weakness but indicates Allah’s Absolute Perfection: Allah rules and dominates this universe and no one can contend with Him.
The Muslim can demonstrate thru reason that the Qur’an is from Allah and the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) is indeed a Prophet of Allah. This is known by the miraculous nature of the Qur’an. The Arabs prided themselves in their eloquence in the Arabic language, and the Qur’an challenged the disbelievers to match the shortest chapter (3 verses). They couldn’t–and if they could’ve then they would have easily discredited the Prophet and silenced him. To the contrary, the disbelievers resorted to risking (and losing) their property and lives in opposing him and his Divine Message. In addition, to that there are the hundreds of miracles witnessed from the Prophet including many of which that were transmitted by tawaatur (witnessed and transmitted by numerous chains). That is enough for the reaonable person to recognize that Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) is a genuine Prophet of Allah. But Allah does not will for everyone to be guided, but instead Allah may congest their hearts with arrogance and pride, as was the case with the polytheists of the past, and the polytheists of today.
Lastly, it is, indeed, unfortunate for those who reject Revelation–but that has no bearing on the Perfection and Power of Allah, for Allah is not obligated to guide anyone. Nor is Allah obligated to reward or punish people. Instead, Allah is the Lord, and we are the owned, and Allah does whatever He wills.
@ Daniztuna
It SEEMS like what you are saying is exactly what gives tasawwuf a bad name in the minds of many people. Sufism doesn’t violate the basic principles of Tawheed. Allah is not a body–therefore, things do not unite with (or literally separate from) Allah. This is the belief of Al-Hulool (those who claim that they “go into Allah”–or that Allah “goes into them”). The other deviant notion is Wahdatul-Wujood–the claim that there is nothing in existence except Allah. The genuine Sufis have warned against these misconceptions. Some folks read the books of the Sufis without adequate grounding in Tawheed and/or they misinterpeted personal “mystical” experiences, and as a result they confused the creation with the Creator.
For sure, a person may have various states while undergoing spiritual austerities, but none of that entails matters that violate the Oneness and Perfection of Allah. He may beome KEENLY aware and certain that EVERYTHING every moment is being created by Allah–that NO ONE is the Creator except Allah–but that does NOT mean everything IS Allah. This awareness includes even realizing that one’s awareness of being aware of one’s self is itself a creation of Allah as well as every psychological state and mental manifestation… but NONE OF THAT is Allah–nor is it anything remotely like Allah, for Allah revealed:
Laysa kamithlihi shay’
(There is ABSOLUTELY nothing like Allah WHATSOEVER.)
And there is the golden saying of the great Nubian Salaf Sufi, Dhun-Nun Al-Misri:
“Mahmaa tasawwarta bibaalik, fallahu bi khilaafi dhaalik.”
“WHATEVER you imagine, Allah is different from that.”
With Allah is th success.
As you say, Swarth Moor, “First we have to define terms.” Unfortunately, neither your definition of injustice: ” Injustice is to do what one is not entitled to do.” nor your example “It would be injustice for you to take my car without my consent, for you are not entitled to do so. After all, my car is not your property.” nor your inference, “Since everything is owned by Allah, then Allah is entitled to do with the creation whatever He wills.” and this is just are valid.
Let us take a closer look and define more precisely. Injustice is simply defined; it is not behaving justly. Justice is a much more complex matter: large books are still being written by eminent philosophers trying to define “justice”. http://www.answers.com/topic/justice has a large number of simple definitions which will do as a beginning; what they all emphasise is the importance of equity and fairness to any definition of “justice” and to any definitiojn of “injustice”- which yours- “Injustice is to do what one is not entitled to do.” – does not. You make no mention of what “one is not entitled to do” or what one is entitled to do or who decides what one is or is not entitled to do or why. You merely give a bad example: “It would be injustice for you to take my car without my consent, for you are not entitled to do so. After all, my car is not your property.”
What if your car was originally my car and you stole it? Am I then entitled to take it? What if you unknowinly bought a stolen car from the thief? Is the original owner entitled to take it back? Is the company that paid insurance to the original owner? What if I need yiur car to take a sick person who would otherwise die to hospital? Can I take your car without your consent then? Can I take your car against your consent then?
You follow a bad example with a worse inference: “Since everything is owned by Allah, then Allah is entitled to do with the creation whatever He wills.”- it’s Allah’s universe and he can do what he wants with it and that’s justice. So, by your definition, I would be just if I went to a country where there is a famine, bought food and burned it- I own it and I am entitled to do with it what I will. I could buy a cat or a dog or a horse and torture it to death- I own it and I am entitled to do with it what I will. After all, I am merely following the example of Allah.
The next conclusion you reach is that justice is power: “Allah guides and misguides–and makes punishable and rewardable–whomever/whatever He wills. This does not imply weakness but indicates Allah’s Absolute Perfection: Allah rules and dominates this universe and no one can contend with Him.” Allah can do all these things, you think, therefore Allah is entitled to do all these things. It would be weakness not to. Doing anything you can do is justice; not doing what you can do is weakness. So, leaving aside the strange assumption that “justice” and “weakness” are opposites, by your logic, it was not injustice for the U.S.A. to invade Iraq, it was only weakness and hence injustice when- faced with resistance- the U.S.A. did not use nuclear weapons to kill all the Iraqis, as they could do and- because they could do- were entitled to do.
Your claim for the allegedly miraculous perfection of the quran as proof of its truth is also false “The Arabs prided themselves in their eloquence in the Arabic language, and the Qur’an challenged the disbelievers to match the shortest chapter (3 verses). They couldn’t–and if they could’ve then they would have easily discredited the Prophet and silenced him. ” Who is to judge whether a verse of the quran has been equalled? How do they decide if it has been equalled? Would you use someone who does not know anything of the quran- or even know arabic- as a judge? after all, they would be completely unbiased. Or would you use someone who knows the quran by heart? In that case, though, because they know the quran by heart, they would know which passages were not part of it without having to judge their quality and so would not be unbiased. In short, it would be impossible to find a judge accepted as fair by everyone.
In fact, the quran was given just this test in practise in its early days and failed it. One of the reasons the quran was first written down was because many of the people who first memorised it were dying in battle in their attempts to bring its virtues to others and there were variant versions of the quran being circulated. Uthman standardised both the verses of the quran and their order; however, if the true verses were so obviously superior to the false verses as you believe, there would have been no need to collect the true verses and destroy the false verses. Their superiority would have been obvious without discussion. The very fact that Uthman and the companions had to decide which were true and which were false disproves the claim of the absolute superiority of every verse.
“Lastly, it is, indeed, unfortunate for those who reject Revelation–but that has no bearing on the Perfection and Power of Allah, for Allah is not obligated to guide anyone. Nor is Allah obligated to reward or punish people. Instead, Allah is the Lord, and we are the owned, and Allah does whatever He wills.”… and what does this have to with justice? You yourself acknowledge that Allah has no obligations- including being just. Allah, as you say, “is not obligated to guide everyone”. However, by deciding at random who will and will not be guided. Allah is inequitable and so unjust and compounds the inequity and injustice by rewarding or punishing people for doing what he- and he alone- decided they would do. “As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods. They kill us for their sport.” Just don’t believe or pretend it is justice.