certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Society (08 Apr 2020 NewAgeIslam.Com)



Muslim Majority Has Adopted Dualism: A Supreme Being and A Human Being Associate for Their Religion

By Rashid Samnakay, New Age Islam

 

08 April 2020

 

However much the Muslim Majority may protest to the accusation that what they profess as their Faith and name it Islam, is for all intents and purposes a Dualism of a godhead Deity and a human being as an associate, the two iconic objects of Religion.


The Evidence


If, it is accepted that Islam's only source is the scripture Quran, then it is essential to refer to that source to establish the validity or otherwise of the accusation made above.


The man-made Muslim declaration of Faith Laa Ilaaha-Illallah Muhammadur-Rasulullah in Arabic, as depicted for example on Saudi Arabian flag, is known world over, thanks to the carnage raging in Muslim countries. This declaration is used as the beacon of faith and a standard for Believers to congregate under to propagate the religion.


The Quran


The “Only-ness”, of the Supreme Being is no doubt correctly expressed in the first part of the sentence – Laa Ilaaha-Illallah because that is how it is repeatedly (eg Chp.112) expressed in the Book, commanding Believers to desist from ascribing ASSOCIATE to Allah- the ahad. This Allah brooks no partner and that is the bedrock message of Tawheed of the Faith for humanity.


Importantly, this message was given to all the previous Messengers/Rusul , named and not named, to propagate in their own mother tongues. The acceptance of this community of Messengers therefore, is a significant principle of the Faith for the unity of mankind, as stated at the beginning of the Book.


Contradiction


But, the second part Muhammad-ur-Rasullullah of the conjoined sentences, attaching Muhammad, a Human Being/Bashar with the Supreme Being/God is a contradiction of the ordinance of the Book. The following is quoted in full from the Book:


6-162: Say, as for me my Lord has guided me to the right path – a Code/Deen, the faith of Abraham the upright one, and he was NOT of the polytheists.


6-163: Say, my worship, my sacrifice and my life and my death are exclusively for God the Lord of the Universe.


6-164: No ASSOCIATE has He. And this I am commanded (Umirtu), and I am the first among those who submit.


The first of the above verses is a command (Say) and it takes us right back to Abraham the patriarch Apostle; in keeping with the assertion that all Messengers from there on, were given the same message and they ALL as a community of Messengers form part of the Belief system in accordance with the verse 2-4 of the Book quoted further down. This essentially endorses the unity of humanity expressed in the Book.


The second verse similarly is a command (Say) and emphasis the declaration of the Faith by the Apostle Muhammad personally as a messenger of God.


And the last verse, emphatically orders (Amar) the last messenger NOT to associate any with the Supreme Being.


And yet Muslims at large do exactly that and associate Muhammad a Human Being with God.


And thus queuing up in the religious practices to split humanity in 'them and us'.


Hence, the declarations as given above negates God's one-ness ... Laa Ilaaha-Illallah by attaching Muhammad-ur-Rasulullah, placing Muhammad a human being on the same pedestal as the Supreme Being. This is the declared dualism of Muslims!


When alerted to this dilemma, Muslims furiously argue that the second part is only an affirmation according to Quran, of Muhammad being God's messenger.


Yes, indeed it is!


But according to Quran's verse 2-4, 5 where the definition of Faith (iman) is spelled out, this affirmation is INCOMPLETE and therefore a negation, nay a rejection of the ordinance of the Book. Accepting some part and rejecting others is kufr, denial of the message, the Book says so.


The verses 2-4 and 5 make it clear what is completeness of the Belief:


2-4: And who (momin/Believer) believe in that which has been revealed to you (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before you and of the Hereafter they are sure.


2-5 These are on the right path and guided by the Lord and these it is who will benefit.


As far as confirming that Muhammad is the messenger of God, yes indeed the Book does so in four places. It must be noted however that in those places not once is the only-ness of God – La Ilaaha Illallah attached to the phrase Muhammadur Rasoolullah.


If it did so it would, firstly be illogical and secondly foolish. To associate some one after emphasising that there is NO associate of God and then attach the same person who brought that message of Laasharikalahu – He has NO associate, is absurd to say the least.


The laa cleared the deck of all clatter, the illa made exception for Allah/God and no one else –No, not even a Messenger of God. One does not have to be Athenian philosopher or a brain surgeon to work that out from the Book.


It must be questioned as to how and why did this contradiction happen and who benefits from it?


How and Why:


It seems that the pagan human nature still cannot, in all honesty, accept an unseen and untouchable Supreme Being without having some tangible object attached to it. This weakness is fully exploited by the clever few, the Shaman and the Entrepreneurs.


An over-view of Muslim religious practices; and contrary to the Book there are many religions among Muslims too, demonstrate that what is called Islam is only by name, and are no different to other religions in the world. Muslims too have organised churches, houses of worships, revered personages, hierarchy of clergy, differing dogma and canonised apocrypha that evolved long after the original scripture given to them.


Personality cults of some sort exist in all religions. Muslims too cannot conceptualise God without the Person Muhammad from Arabia attached to Allah. The importance of volumes of dubious apocrypha in his name is further evidence.


The fact that Muhammad the Messenger of God -Rasoolullah – was an Arab, born in peninsular Arabia, makes his place of birth equally important and iconic. This fixation with a geographical place as holy centres of religions is also common with many other religions. Why does this situation exist? Ignorance, innocence of the masses and cleverness of the few must be the answer.


Who Benefits From This Contradiction To The Book's Teaching?


The benefits accrued, and have been over centuries, are so obviously for the country, the birthplace of the Messenger Muhammad. The Messenger an Arab, the Quran in Arabic, hence the language also is a holy icon and the Book is too. What more can one ask to 'market' the brand of the Arabic religion?


But one cannot go past the entrepreneurs of Arabia. Although the Messenger was born there, today his house and even the site is unknown for history. Most of such historic relics have been destroyed, in contradiction of the Book, for development and ostensibly to prevent the ignorant Muslims from revering them. Hypocrisy reigns supreme; Rasullulah's tomb is lavishly preserved as the second Haram in Madinah to encourage devotees to flock there by the millions.


Plus a windowless cube-house for the Deity Allah, stands proud and holy in Makkah: A tangible icon, an idol for the ignorant and innocent to run round it meaninglessly and hug and kiss the stones.


The above is the mother of all marketing brands of the first order, for gaining “meagre gains” says the Book. Although the Lord of the Universe is also its Creator Rabbill-Aalameen as given in Quran, He is kept captive in this earthly dark house, the Baytullah where another iconic black stone is embedded in its wall, and many other false icons clattering the yard, making the place a temple of icons and the city Makkah holy of the holiest Vatican for Muslims.


Muslims have been searching for the only Creator of the universe at the wrong place.


Said Iqbal:


Yeh Doar Apnay Braheem Kee Talash May Hai – This era is in search of its Abraham (the iconoclast),


Sanum Kadha Hai Jahaan, Laailaaha-Illallah - where there is a temple for icons...there is no god but God.


The benefits are in Billions and have been for centuries, for the one country and its royalty, the custodians of two Harams; at the expense of the nation of Muslims; which is largely poor and in fact dirt poor and mostly innocently illiterate for they are mislead of the teachings of the Quran for parochial benefits.


Harsh words may be, but unfortunately there is some truth in them.


So take heed:


6-161: ... Their affair is only with God and He will inform them of their actions.


Perhaps He has been informing them of their actions for a long time now, just look at the tattered state of the so-called Muslim Nation. 


A regular contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Rashid Samnakay is a (Retd.) Engineer


URL:  https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/rashid-samnakay,-new-age-islam/muslim-majority-has-adopted-dualism--a-supreme-being-and-a-human-being-associate-for-their-religion/d/121520


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:-   5


  • Hats Off wants religions to be about esoterica and metaphysics but then he contradicts himself when he denounces beliefs that can be neither proved nor disproved!
    The idea of religions being about what is right, what is just and what is humane does not appeal to him because if it comes to fruition both mullahs and apostates will be out of business.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/9/2020 12:10:59 PM



  • thanks for your reply mr samnakay.
    mr gm rarely says more that two sentences at a time and it is very difficult to see why he mixes up religion with civility and law and order and sympathy and empathy and manners and kindness and justice and democracy and freedom and rationality and whatever else catches his fancy. even if these were religion as revealed to a human by god, these characters seem to be most lacking in this god. so humans have to make provisions for it and attribute it to god. there is no god for a man in a death cell and there is no atheism for a man in a trench.
    to claim that there is a creator is a fine thing. i never have any issue with it.
    but the only issue i have is about the first rule o/ proofa reason/statement/truth or similar.
    the one who proposes carries the burden of proof. he needs to provide proof of his assertion. he cannot ask the proof of its negation. just as god is claimed without proof, it is generally dismissed without proof. if it is faith, one does not bother with proof. he honestly says that it is his faith and can offer no proof. all other arguments are dishonest. such people or their faith is almost always never questioned or mocked or humiliated or otherwise harassed. the gloves are off the moment one starts offering "proof". then the other party is compelled to produce evidence - mind you, not proof - against each and every character the believer ascribes to his idea of god. like the great redoubtable dr zakir naik puns "...is a book of signs". as if god were a disease and we can see the signs and symptoms.
    for example no human ever got up one fine morning and declared "ok. there is no god". unless someone had proposed the previous evening that there IS a god and etc., etc. even then the benefit of doubt is given to the proposition and proof is asked for. only on the basis of the proof provided that someone is bound to say "there is no god" or more extensively, "there is no god of type you are describing". it is not said that there is no god without qualifying it by the phrase ".. of the nature you are proposing". if there is a god and we cannot see him, it simpler to do away with altogether and believe in the big bang for which there is some evidence and then start investigation why it banged in the first place. that way we increment our understanding of the world and its processes. by the way science never claimes any final truth. if they find evidence against the theory of big bang the scientists are not bound by vows or baptism or the kalma to still hold it true.
    it is the case that a negation is only posterior to an assertion. as in law, everywhere else, he who states must provide the proof of his statement.
    that is the first and foremost rule of proof/evidence/proposition/truth/whatever.

    By hats off! - 4/9/2020 8:42:41 AM



  • hats off!
    If all theisms  are silly and stupid as you say, then yes you have a point. So mono-theism falls in that category. The problem lies in the concept of the Arabic word tawheed as a theism.
    The word Islam does not mean religion ...me thinks. Quran is a precis's of human thoughts, of its intellectual progress and hence the unity of mankind because all those thinkers were human, trying to solve the problem of the concept God – He/She/It whatever. But the monks made it theism!
    Ah! The Creator
    (Theism's God), some would ask? Many say there is no such thing. The Big Bang then! ... it just happened! ...How did it happen? A chance, it just happened they say.
    Here I have a problem, we know that it is action that makes things to happen/react, so who or what took the action for it to happen?... and so on. Back to the drawing board! “There is a hole in the bucket...” of theism, a big one.
    GM is closer to me I guess - 'More important than these controversies are the issues of righteousness, justice and peacefulness.'he says. I just wrap all of that in the unity of Creation. Mankind, being an extension of it. I desist from naming it pantheism, for it contains the dreaded word theism.
    I hope it makes sense.
    By Rashid Samnakay - 4/9/2020 6:25:41 AM



  • Being a "Rasul" (messenger) of God is not the same as being on the same pedestal with God. But there are some verses which are more problematic in this regard. The Meccan verses by and large give the Prophet the role of a messenger only but some Medinan verses portray him almost as a junior partner of God.
    Hats Off again misrepresents what moderates or progressives believe. Progressives do not have much interest in this kind of controversy. If your religion teaches monotheism, be a monotheist. If your religion teaches polytheism, it is alright for you to be a polytheist ("To you your belief, to me mine," and "There is no compulsion in religion".)  
    More important than these controversies are the issues of righteousness, justice and peacefulness.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/8/2020 1:14:55 PM



  • i do not know why monotheists claim without proof that dualism is false!
    especially since monotheism/oneness of god is as silly and stupid as dualism/polytheism/whatever.
    this is the hubris that drives the islamic discourse - moderate or know.
    to claim that one's own system of nonsense is the only true one is the hallmark of despotism and intolerance.
    By hats off! - 4/8/2020 6:57:10 AM



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