“More than a
Dream- Life with Jesus Christ”, is a novel written by Muhammad al-Halaaj, about
his decision to convert from Islaam to Christianity. A good Christian friend lent
it to me and asked me to read it. I am very glad I did. The following is a
short commentary on the book.
Al Hallaj was born in Baghdad, Iraq. He writes that his
peers and religious leaders urged him to distrust Christians, and taught that
killing Jews is allowed and in fact mandated by Islaam. Muhammad Al-Hallaj at a
certain point in his life left Shia Islaam and became a Sunni, and he wrote that,
with some exceptions, the teachings are mostly the same. He said he was not
allowed to ask questions about what is in the Quran, and if he did so, he would
be called “a Zionist or a Jew or an infidel” (page 12). He eventually stopped believing
in God. He went to Jordan in 1999, where he met a Christian friend, and eventually
began attending his evangelical church. He says it is there that he began reading
the Bible, which he claimed is forbidden for Muslims to do so he had to read it
in secret. He said he didn’t believe Jesus pbuh is God until one night when he
was prayed for he believed he felt him touching him (p. 34). After his
conversion, he began to evangelize to Muslims. He claimed he was visited by
three Shia militants who tried to behead him but were stopped by angels, and also
that he was locked up by Jordanian police and threatened in an unsuccessful
effort to make him recant his faith. He went to Iraq, where he ended up in a situation
where he feared an Al Qaeda attack but again was saved by what he believed was
supernatural protection which was allegedly provided in the form of American
military vehicles (p.63).
The last section in the book is about his friend Odai,
from Iraq, who also became a Christian after he was miraculously healed by someone
he believed was Jesus Christ pbuh (p 88). According to Odai, his Shia friends
claimed he was healed by Ali, and his Sunni friends claimed he was healed by
the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. Odai then told them that in fact, he was cured neither by Muhammad pbuh or Ali, but by Jesus pbuh. After he told them this, he was kidnapped by a
Muslim extremist group who threatened to murder him with an electric drill (p.
89), and his family disowned him. One of Odai’s friends, however, bought the kidnappers
off with $400, and helped him flee the country.
The book was a very short and interesting read, and in my
opinion well-written. According to what Muhammad Al-Hallaj wrote, he certainly was very blessed
to have escaped death several times, and has been a victim of religious persecution.
I cannot vouch for or against the accuracy of his description of the things
that happened to him, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume everything
he has written of his experiences is true.
First of all, I would like to begin by stating that I have great respect for his courage. It
takes a lot of bravery to stand up for what one believes in, especially when the risks possibly involve physical harm including death. It is terrible
and shameful to me as a Muslim that some Muslims can be so cruel to people who
leave the faith, and so full of hatred towards Jews and Christians. This goes
contrary to Islaam. The miracles he described, if they happened as he said, are
very impressive and show that God wanted to keep him alive.
I found some gross mischaracterizations of what Islaam
teaches throughout his book, and this short review will be focused on
discussing these and providing what to the best of my knowledge is the correct
evaluation of what my faith teaches on the issues he touched on. May Allah SWT
forgive me if I make any mistakes in that regard. Everything I wrote that is
true is from Him, any errors are from me.
I do not know
whether or not Muhammad Al Hallaj presented these misunderstandings purposefully,
or whether he got these misconceptions from his environment and assumed it is
an accurate portrayal of the Islaamic faith. Like many Christians and people of
other religions, it seems from his book that he was raised in a culture that
practices religion differently from what the religion itself actually teaches. I
am going to discuss some of the issues he raised, though there are others I did
not have time to address and I encourage other Muslims to read the book and do
so. As a Muslim, I will not be dishonest and attempt to hide the fact that I am
approaching it with a bias. As a Muslim, I do believe that Islaam is the only true religion. I believe that those aspects of Christianity and other faiths that agree with Islaam are true, and that those aspects which disagree with Islaam are false. I believe Mr. Al-Hallaj made a grave mistake in his decision to leave Islaam and adopt Christianity, and I hope he one day turns back to what I believe is the only true faith.
I do however hope that I have correctly represented
Mr. Al-Hallaj’s words, and if I made any errors either in reviewing his book or
my explanation of the Islaamic issues he raised or my comments on some aspects of Christian history, I welcome and in fact I ask for
corrections and critique.
I am not really that aware of Shia beliefs, so I cannot
comment on what the author wrote about their theology, including his statement
that they are always obliged to obey their Imams. I can say there is nothing in the Quran
about unquestioning obedience to anyone other than God and the Prophet Muhammad
peace be upon him, who was getting revelation from Him.
Page 6 claims that “it is an obligation for Muslims to
kill Jews”… that is false. Muslims are allowed to go to war only with people
who are physically attacking us.
2:190 in the Quran states very clearly “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not
transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.”
Attacking Jews – or anyone else- who isn’t trying to harm
Muslims, is a sin. Linked below is a good article about war in the Quran, and
some of the limits specified. I do not accept the view, promoted by the authors
of this website, that all the ahadith are invented falsehoods. The Quranist-Sunni
debate is a quite energetic and at times amusing even if exasperating one, however it is beyond the scope of this
article. Nonetheless, the website’s authors explain very well what the Quran teaches
about the defensive nature of warfare, and why aggression is against what
Islaam teaches.
Muhammad al-Halaaj also wrote, on page 18 of his book,
that Muslims believe Christians are second class, and can’t take them as
friends. This most definitely is not true. There is nothing in the Quran about
treating Christians or Jews worse than Muslims, or that they are a lower class.
Surah At-Tawbah , Verse 29 (9:29) talks about defeated Christians and Jews
paying a tax called “jizyah” to the Prophet pbuh. However, given the fact that
2:190 clearly stipulates that aggression can’t be started, it was levied
against them after they attacked first.
In the 7th century, the Byzantine Empire
controlled Arabia, and they took very high taxes from the Arabs, who they saw
as inferior and did nothing to help but demanded money from them. Heraclius,
the Byzantine emperor, saw the Prophet Muhammad pbuh as a threat, and tried to
crush the early Muslims. During that same time, the pagans were also trying to
wipe them out since they refused to worship their gods. Some Jewish tribes
joined them. The early Muslims fought these specific groups of people, and
imposed jizyah on those among them who were monotheists (ie the Christians and Jews).
9:29 in the Quran doesn’t apply to all Jews and Christians,
but it applies to only those who went to war with the Muslims.
The jizyah payment wasn’t higher than the taxes early
Muslims had to pay, and in return for jizyah the Jews and Christians not only
were protected by the state but had no obligation to send their men to fight in
the army.
The verse about Muslims not being allowed to take
Christians and Jews as friends, also was specific to those who were fighting
the early Muslims.
Surah Al-Mumtahanah, Verses 8,9 (60:8-9)
As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on
account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God
does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full
equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably.
God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of [your] faith, and drive you forth from your homelands, or aid [others] in driving you forth: and as for those [from among you] who turn towards them in friendship; it is they, they who are truly wrongdoers!
God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of [your] faith, and drive you forth from your homelands, or aid [others] in driving you forth: and as for those [from among you] who turn towards them in friendship; it is they, they who are truly wrongdoers!
In the Quran, Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian
and Jewish women. If being friends with them wasn’t allowed, marriage would be
impossible. There are also many verses in the Quran that speak of good Christians
and Jews. Yes, they are spoken negatively of in some parts… but also positively
in others.
This short yet very detailed article on the Muslim website
www.islamicity.com explains it well and
provides many examples from the Quran. https://www.islamicity.org/4659/can-muslims-be-friends-with-jews-and-christians/
On page 18, the author wrote “Islam was created by a few
leaders who used force to spread their ideas. People had no real choice: either
become Muslims or be killed”… again, that is false. The Prophet Muhammad peace
be upon him did wage wars, all of which were defensive. I understand that the
Gospels teach pacifism, and I think that Christians who are pacifists- ie
opposed to violence in all circusmstances, including self-defence- can
legitimately criticize Islam and Muslims on this. Our faith isn’t pacifist, but
it most definitely also isn’t one where we are allowed to attack innocent
people who aren’t harming us.
Surah Al Baqarah, Verse 256 (2:256) in the Quran states:
There shall
be no compulsion in religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong.
So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most
trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
In Surah Yunus, Verses 99 and 100 (10:99,100), Allah SWT
makes it clear to the Prophet Muhammad pbuh that it is not his place to compel
anyone to believe in Islaam.
And had your
Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then,
[O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?
And it is not for a
soul to believe except by permission of Allah, and He will place defilement
upon those who will not use reason.
In other words, people are free to accept Islaam but it
has to be their choice. The Quran states- and I believe not only because it
says so but also from my personal experience- that the truth is clear, if one
take the time to really explore both Islaam and its alternatives like
Christianity or Judaism or any other religion or no religion.
If someone studies at Muslim history, he or she will
see that the early leaders- the first 4 caliphs, who were at war with the
Byzantines and Persians- conquered many of their formerly controlled
territories- like Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Iran, etc. The Christians and Jews
in these lands paid the Jizyah tax, but were not hindered in any way from
worshiping in their churches and synagogues and were allowed to rule over their
own communities.
Egypt was conquered by the early Muslims in AD 644, some
12 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.
As conquerors, Muslims remained a minority in Egypt for
the first several centuries of Muslim Arab rule… hardly an indication of
“convert or die”. For the first 67 years, there is no record of Christians or
Jews being mistreated or discriminated against. The first account I am aware of
came under Umar II who forbade them from building new churches, forced them to
wear distinctive clothing, humiliated them. That was utterly disgusting and
shameful and wrong.
However, this happened decades after the Prophet pbuh and
his companions, the 4 caliphs, had already passed away.
Unfortunately, eventually there were Muslim rulers who
treated Egypt’s Coptic Christians horribly due to their faith, and others were greedy thugs who
imposed very high taxes and financially discriminated against them to such an
extent that many became Muslims to escape it. Other Coptic Egyptians course
accepted Islaam since they believed it is true, but there were also cases of
people doing so to escape unjust treatment… however that happened long after
the Prophets lifetime and even after the initial Muslim conquest. That was
utterly shameful and criminal conduct and indefensible of these later Muslim rulers…
however they weren’t the ones who introduced Islaam.
Below is a citation from an article about the early Muslim
rule of Egypt, written by Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Early Arab rule
In Egypt—as in Syria, Iraq, and Iran—the Arab
conquerors did little in the beginning to disturb the status quo; as a small
religious and ethnic minority, they thus hoped to make the occupation
permanent. Treaties concluded between ʿAmr and the muqawqis (presumably
a title referring to Cyrus, archbishop of Alexandria) granted protection to the
native population in exchange for the payment of tribute. There was no attempt
to force, or even to persuade, the Egyptians to convert to Islam; the Arabs
even pledged to preserve the Christian churches. The Byzantine system of taxation, combining a tax on land with a poll tax, was maintained, though it was streamlined and
centralized for the sake of efficiency. The tax was administered by Copts, who staffed
the tax bureau at all but the highest levels.
To the mass of inhabitants, the conquest must
have made little practical difference, because the Muslim rulers, in the
beginning at least, left them alone as long as they paid their taxes; if
anything, their lot may have been slightly easier, because Byzantine religious
persecution had ended. (See Melchite, monophysite, Council of
Chalcedon.) Moreover,
the Arabs deliberately isolated themselves from the native population,
according to ʿUmar’s decree that no Arab could own land outside the Arabian
Peninsula; this policy aimed at preventing the Arab tribal armies from
dispersing and at ensuring a steady revenue from agriculture, on the assumption
that the former landowners would make better farmers than would the Arab
nomads.
As was their policy elsewhere, the conquerors
refrained from using an established city such as Alexandria as their capital;
instead, they founded a new garrison town (Arabic: miṣr), laid out
in tribal quarters. As the site for this town they chose the strategic apex of
the triangle formed by the Nile delta—at that time occupied by the Byzantine
fortified township of Babylon. They named the town Al-Fusṭāṭ, which is probably an Arabized form of the
Greek term for “encampment” and gives a good indication of the nature of the
earliest settlement. Like garrison towns founded by the Arabs in Iraq—Al-Baṣrah
and Al-Kūfah—Al-Fusṭāṭ became the main agency of Arabization in Egypt, inasmuch
as it was the only town with an Arab majority and therefore required an
extensive knowledge of Arabic from the native inhabitants.
The process of Arabization, however, was slow
and gradual. Arabic did not displace Greek as the official language of state
until 706, and there is evidence that Coptic continued to be used as a spoken language in Al-Fusṭāṭ. Given the lack of pressure from
the conquerors, the spread of their religion must have been even slower than that
of their language. A mosque was built in Al-Fusṭāṭ bearing the name of ʿAmr
ibn al-ʿĀṣ, and each quarter of the town had its own smaller mosque. ʿAmr’s
mosque served not only as the religious centre of the town but also as the seat
of certain administrative and judicial activities.
Although Alexandria was maintained as a port
city, Al-Fusṭāṭ, built on the Nile bank, was itself an important port and remained so
until the 14th century. ʿAmr enhanced the port’s commercial significance by clearing
and reopening Trajan’s Canal, so that shipments of grain destined for Arabia could be sent from
Al-Fusṭāṭ to the Red Sea by ship rather than by caravan.
Below is another interesting article about how Muslims
ruled in Egypt, that can be found on the website of Bethel University, a Christian academic institution.
Islam rose in Saudia
Arabia early in the seventh century, then swept across the Middle East and
North Africa. Egypt fell to the Arabs by the middle of the seventh century, in
large part because the rulers of both church and state were the hated imperial
Chalcedonian Christians. The Coptic-speaking monophysite majority rejoiced to
be free of Byzantine rule, gained a measure of religious toleration they had
not known since the Council of Chalcedon, and found themselves taxed at just
over half the rate they had been under the Empire.
For the first four
centuries of their rule, the Arabs treated the Copts with forebearance, in part
because Mohammed, whose Egyptian wife was the only one to bear him a son, had
said "When you conquer Egypt, be kind to the Copts for they are your proteges
and kith and kin." The Copts were therefore allowed to practice their
religion freely, and were protected as "People of the Book" as long
as they paid a special tax, called the "Geyza." The Coptic population
became an important source of revenue for the Islamic governors, and at one
point they discouraged conversion to Islam for financial reasons. The tax
advantages of becoming Muslim led to a slow decline in the Coptic population
until it stabilized at just under 10% of the population.
As it must be remembered and acknowledged, later on there
definitely were injustices perpetrated against Egypt’s Christians. These crimes
did take place, and it would be dishonest to try to deny or minimize them. They
also however weren’t perpetrated by the Prophet pbuh or his companions. They happened
much later.
Obvious similarities exist to the conduct of many
Christians, who centuries after the Prophet Jesus Christ peace be upon him,
murdered fellow Christians and non-Christians alike. Historical horrors that
included the Crusades, the Inquisition, as well as the genocidal conquest of
the Americas and Australia in addition to large parts of Africa and Asia; are examples
of only some atrocities that were done in the name of Christianity, and people also
often had the choice to convert or die.
While neither Islaam or Christianity promote or condone either aggressive warfare or religious compulsion or other crimes against humanity, it cannot be denied that Muslims as well as Christians throughout history have done horrific things in the names of our respective faiths.
While neither Islaam or Christianity promote or condone either aggressive warfare or religious compulsion or other crimes against humanity, it cannot be denied that Muslims as well as Christians throughout history have done horrific things in the names of our respective faiths.
It would be great to say that such reprehensible behaviour is a thing of the medieval past, and that we have learned from our mistakes. Unfortunately the genocides that took place in Bosnia and Armenia and East Timor- and the crimes against humanity that continue to take place in Palestine and Iraq and West Papua and Central African Republic and so many other places in our world- are a chilling reminder that among Christians and Muslims alike there are still those who choose to follow Shaitan over following God, and who decide to commit unspeakable evils against their fellow human beings.
Contrary to both what was written by Mr. Al-Hallaj… and
what is unfortunately believed by many Muslims… it is not permissible to kill
apostates. Islaam is a religion that does not have compulsion. The Quran makes
extremely clear that no one can be forced to become a Muslim, and in fact it is Allah SWT who will
guide people to Islaam or allow them to be misguided.
People who were once Muslims and choose to leave Islaam are committing the very serious sin of disbelief (or kufr) and if they die in that state they will be in hellfire forever, alongside those who rejected Islaam. People in both of these categories had to have rejected, or left, Islaam; while knowing what it teaches and having had the opportunity to study it and see that it is true. There is an eternal punishment for rejectors and apostates, however there is no earthly one. To their last breath, they have the opportunity to turn back. It is Allah SWT who gave them life and Allah SWT who will at a certain point take it away. Muslims have no such right.
People who were once Muslims and choose to leave Islaam are committing the very serious sin of disbelief (or kufr) and if they die in that state they will be in hellfire forever, alongside those who rejected Islaam. People in both of these categories had to have rejected, or left, Islaam; while knowing what it teaches and having had the opportunity to study it and see that it is true. There is an eternal punishment for rejectors and apostates, however there is no earthly one. To their last breath, they have the opportunity to turn back. It is Allah SWT who gave them life and Allah SWT who will at a certain point take it away. Muslims have no such right.
There is a great article from a Shia website regarding the issue of apostates and why it is not permissible to harm them solely on the basis of their religious decision. https://www.alislam.org/library/books/mna/chapter_7.html
Unfortunately there are Muslims who are under the
impression that the horrific crime of murdering apostates is ok. However, they
go against Gods Word.
On page 11, Muhammad Al-Hallaj mentions the story of
Urfa, a poet who the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him allegedly ordered to be
murdered for writing critical things about him. The story appears in one hadith
as well as biographies written by the Prophet pbuh by Ibn Ishaq, a man who was
born some 68 years after the Prophet pbuh died- and not the Quran. For me,
therefore, it isn’t guaranteed that this event ever happened. However, assuming
it did… one has to bear in mind that the same accounts that claim she was
killed, also claim she was the head of a tribe that robbed and murdered several
of the prophet Muhammad pbuh companions, and tried to assassinate him. She
wasn’t therefore killed (assuming this incident happened) just for being a poet, but on the contrary for being a leader of a hostile group that was launching deadly attacks
on the early Muslims. Her alleged killing was caused by her role in ordering attacks on early Muslims, not her prose.
The claim of the existence of 20 copies of the Quran
before Caliph Uthman authorized only one text, is an interesting one. What is
known is that the Quran was written down in the Prophets pbuh lifetime on
scraps of leather, bones, etc and not compiled yet into a book by most people.
Many made their own copies, but often with grammatical and spelling errors.
This sometimes meant that there was different pronunciation of words which
meant slight alteration in meanings. The potential problem seen by the early
Muslims is that if this was unchecked it could lead to different versions of
the Quran and problems like those which befell Christians and Jews. Caliph
Uthman had all the chapters written down and put into one book, and then
ordered all the other copies to be burnt. People gave their copies willingly,
some right away and others after some convincing. It wasn’t however like people
ever had chapters that were not included in the “official” copy, it was a
matter of some having versions with some spelling and grammatical errors.
This is quite different from how the Bible was canonized.
While all the 4 Gospels were accepted right away, the other books were accepted
quite later, literally over centuries. From the evangelical Christian website
“gotquestions.org”
The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was
compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament
books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea
stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and
26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to
be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of
Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.
For many years some in the early church had also a gospel
called The Shepherd of Hermas, which was regarded as canonical by some early
church fathers, including Iraneus. Eventually, it was rejected.
The author of the website gives the reason for its
(eventual) rejection as “the leading of the Holy Spirit”. One could ask why the
Holy Spirit didn’t make this clear from the beginning.
This Wikipedia article lists even more Biblical canons
that existed, and the books that were included as well as excluded initially.
Even in the Gospels today, different Bible versions will
include some verses and exclude others. For example, the beautiful passage of
Jesus pbuh saving a woman from death by stoning when he tells her would-be
executioners that whoever among them is sinless should cast the first stone
(John 7:53, 8:1-11), is accepted by the King James Version, but put in italics
for the New International Version.
On www.biblegateway.com
they write “[The
earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11.
A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36,
John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]”
Another interesting video by Christian scholar James
White on that passage and some others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYkPn2aXKds
With regards to the Quran, people had versions with some
pronunciation and spelling differences, and some were incomplete. However,
there was no issue with some chapters being accepted and others rejected. There
was never a matter of different Quran chapters whose authenticity people
disputed.
That the author of More
Than A Dream- Life with Jesus Christ rejected the Quran due to the burning
of some copies that were incomplete… but
became a Christian despite the very numerous differing Biblical texts and
versions, is quite interesting to say the least.
In page 11, the author points out that in Islaam, there
is no assurance of heaven. That is true. As Muslims, we believe that it is
necessary to both believe and do good works in order to get to Paradise. We
also believe that Allah SWT is not only forgiving and will forgive anyone who
asks for forgiveness and tries to improve, but that also good deeds are
rewarded many times whereas bad deeds are punished proportionally.
Surah Al Qasas,
Verse 84 (28:84)
84
|
If any does good, the reward to him is
better than his deed; but if any does evil, the doers of evil are only
punished (to the extent) of their deeds.
|
There are also some hadiths in Sahih Bukhari- a collection
that most Sunni Muslims believe are the words of the Prophet Muhammad peace be
upon him that are believed to have been very accurately recorded by the narrators
who are quoted in Bukhari’s compilation- that state that every Muslim who
sincerely believed and stated with conviction “laa ilaha ilAllah Muhammad al
rasul Allah” (there is no god but Allah and the Muhammad is the Messenger of
Allah), even if they had more bad deeds than good deeds and may go to hell for
a long time, will eventually enter Paradise. As long as they did not worship
anyone besides God or reject Him, and they did not do things that are prescribed
as forbidden in the Quran while claiming they are Islaamically acceptable… they
will eventually be pulled from hell.
Unlike the Quran, even the most reliable hadiths (marked
as “Sahih”) in the end may or may not be true… though I hope this one is! The
Quran does however state that the only sin that God will not forgive is shirk
(associating partners with Him), anything less than that He may forgive.
Surah An-Nisa,
Verse 48 (4:48)
Indeed,
Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than
that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly
fabricated a tremendous sin.
As previously stated in the brief synopsis of the book, on
page 79, the author stated that Odai (a
Sunni) asked his wife to pray and beg prophets from the Quran for help with an
operation.
That is definitely shirk, and is not allowed in Islaam.
There are several verses in the Quran that address this topic,
I will cite one such verse Surah Yunus, Verses 106,107 (10:106, 107):
Do not call unto any
beings other than Allah. They are capable of neither benefit nor harm. To do so
is therefore guilty in wrongdoing. When Allah invests you with an affliction,
none can remove it except Him.
I have yet to hear of any Sunni Muslim who prays to the
Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him… or anyone else… to ask for healing. Only
Allah SWT can be prayed to or worshiped, because only He is God.
It is possible Odai may have met people like that but
then I would just say that the “Muslims” that Muhammad and Odai were around-
from Muhammad’s fellow Muslims who hated all Jews and the terrorists who tried
to behead him for accepting Christianity… to Odai’s Sunni and Shia friends who
asked the prophets in the Quran for healing… were misunderstanding Islaam
dreadfully at best and were actually non-Muslims in the worst case.
On page 85, Odai’s Sunni Muslims friends allegedly said
the Prophet Muhammad pbuh cured him from his disease and his Shia friends
claimed it was Ali. I don’t know about Shia beliefs, but I know that no Sunni Muslim
would ever say such a thing.
I have to admit that I found the account presented of
Sunni and Shia Muslims praying to prophets very difficult to believe, and I have
some doubts as to the veracity of the author. However, it is possible he was around
people who were not following Islaam, and he mistakenly believed that they were.
It is very possible that he himself never was a Muslim to begin with.
I enjoyed reading his work, and I hope that Allah SWT guides
him back to Islaam… or perhaps, more accurately, that he accepts it for the
first time.
No comments:
Post a Comment