Critique of "Mere Christianity"

[IAmZamzam]

A Muslim’s Critique of C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity”
by Yahya Sulaiman, a.k.a. Ziggy Zag

When I was a Christian I was much inspired by C.S. Lewis’s theology. I tore into it greedily, and the book Mere Christianity in particular helped me when I had lapses of faith. This is not unusual: there is no theological work of his--indeed, perhaps no book of Christian theology by anyone--which is as renowned for inspiring or increasing Christian faith. Now, rereading the book as a Muslim, I am a little ashamed that I was ever misled by such sloppy arguments for Christian belief as book provides.

On page 75 (all page number references in this review will be from the 2001 HarperCollins hardback) C.S. Lewis “[henceforth] assumes the Christian point of view, and looks at the whole picture as it will be if Christianity is true”. Everything up to that point is his attempt “to explain and defend the belief [system] that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times” (page VIII). This review will focus only on the former part of the book. Not being a Christian I am no longer interested in matters addressed only to Christians, and it is in that first seventy-five pages where the missionary crux of the text lies.

The structure of the book’s argumentation is progressive. Somewhat like the book I’m writing it starts with the issue of God’s existence, then discusses theories about God and characteristics attributed to Him; then it’s on to the issue of religion. Unlike me, Lewis decides to do almost all of the task in the form of a single process of elimination, going through other worldviews bit by bit until Christianity is left as the only possibility. It is in this structure that the book makes its jaw-dropping fatal mistakes. The whole process of elimination, after starting off well, becomes nothing more than a progressively huger and more blatant series of false dilemmas. Where he might say that A and B are the only possible options he leaves out a very real C and D: then he may allege that 1, 2, and 3 are the only possibilities and that by eliminating 1 and 2 he has proven 3, when in fact the number of possibilities may range well into the hundreds.

Like I said, at the start Lewis’s argumentation is at least generally sound. He certainly makes the first few chapters a worthy read by putting forth persuasively the Argument from Morality for God’s Existence and competently refuting the common rebuttals by nontheists: absolute relativism, the “natural/herd instinct” appeal, the claims of morality being purely a matter of social convention, education, or semantics. Then Lewis starts to narrow down the issue of what to believe of this higher moral lawgiver. He talks about how all of us have defied our inner moral law and thus put ourselves wrong with the Power behind it. Most of all this is, so far as I can see, free of fallacy, though even here Lewis makes some embarrassing false bifurcations: automatically equating religion with theism, nonreligion with atheism, and hard materialism with atheism. Also, I’m not sure but I don’t think that part of the definition of pantheism is belief that God is beyond good and evil, although one could argue that it might entail that.

Lewis next moves onto an even bigger and more egregious false dilemma. He claims that the only three possible worldviews in existence are religion (again, he uses “religion” interchangeably with “theism”), hard materialism, and the belief in that ill-defined “life force” of Creative Evolutionists. Where does Buddhism fall into these three categories? Buddhists believe in the existence of immaterial realms but not in theism and certainly not in the “life-force” of Creative Evolutionists. In which of Lewis’s three categories are we to place Taoists? What about agnostics? The issue of God’s existence is well covered, as I’ve said, by Lewis’s presentation and defenses of the Moral Argument but the fact remains that agnosticism still doesn’t fit into the religion/hard materialism/Creative Evolution trifurcation. Nor does deism, technically speaking. And there’s even more where all that came from.

But that false dilemma is nothing compared to the one that follows: “There are only two views that face all the facts. One is the Christian view that this is a good world that has gone wrong, but still retains the memory of what it ought to have been. The other is the view called Dualism” (page 42).

Wow.

I don’t think I could ever count how many excluded middles are left out of that! Islam is only one of maybe thousands. Technically speaking, one doesn’t even have to subscribe to any religion at all in order to believe that this is a good world that’s gone wrong yet retains the memory of what it ought to have been. Many fanatically irreligious atheists believe that at least as firmly as your average Christian. Even if you add the part about there being a universal moral lawgiver whom we have all defied, how are Islam or Judaism automatically excluded, leaving Dualism as the sole alternative left to Christianity? Did Lewis not know that we believe that too? The Christian scriptures themselves quote Old Testament texts--Judaism, in other words--to establish the doctrine: Romans 3:10-12 is citing Psalms 53:3 (and maybe also Psalms 14:3). The Koran says that morality is a sign from God (surah 30, verse 21) and that we have all violated it to the point where if God took us to task for it He would destroy all of us (surah 16, verse 61). It agrees that because of what happened in Eden the world has gone wrong yet traces of good--embellishments of this world and potential mercy from God--remain (surah 7, verses 19-32). Yet the one and only mention of our religion in the whole text of Mere Christianity is a little snippet on page 78 about how it is not Christianity but Islam that is a teetotal religion.

Did Lewis ever even consider Islam? His autobiography Surprised by Joy is of no help. Islam isn’t even brought up there either, even though it says that what got Lewis started considering, after he had changed his mind about being an atheist, whether any religions were true was when he began to wonder if any religion was a final consummation of all previous true religion. He arrived at the conclusion that there is such a religion and that it is Christianity. He gives no evidence that the subject of whether or not that religion is Islam ever even crossed his mind, even though Islam makes more of a point than any other religion in the history of the world of alleging to be such a consummation of previous religion. I’ve read pretty much almost every theological writing Lewis has ever written and with the exception of that incidental fleeting mention of Islam as a teetotal religion of page 78 of Mere Christianity the only thing about Islam from Lewis I can ever remember reading was his claim that that if you went up to Muhammad (on whom be peace) and asked him if he was Allah, “he would have rent his clothes and cut your head off”. With such shameful ignorance as that perhaps it’s not surprising he had little to say of my religion.

And so it is with this step in Lewis’s process of elimination--leaving out Islam, Judaism, and innumerable other excluded middles--that the whole thing goes awry, preventing any following steps in the process from working since they’re all proceeding from this false and presumptuous premise. That’s the risk you take when you’re forming a process of elimination. It’s like a game of Jenga: if one piece doesn’t fit or is left out then everything above it comes tumbling down. As Lewis himself notes, “progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer” (page 28). This review could almost end right here. But the process of elimination isn't quite the only argumentation for Christianity which Lewis employs. Perhaps he continues because he himself wasn’t completely confident of that absurd bifurcation. In any case he still hasn’t yet arrived at his final conclusion on pages 61-62 that “[therefore] I have to believe that Jesus was (and is) God”. His last few arguments focus on establishing the specific central doctrines of Christianity.

If you thought that no false dilemma could top the Christianity/Dualism one, you were wrong. Throughout the home stretch Lewis's arguments for Christianity are all built, blindly, without justification or even any mention of possible disagreeing viewpoints, on the assumption that all biblical texts he uses--including all of the text of all four Gospels--are necessarily accurate. He points to this and that and the other from the Gospels, and says there, don’t you see now? He poses his famous Trilemma (“lord, lunatic, or liar” etc.), which I soundly refuted here. He takes it for granted that the Bible is right about God having chosen the Jews and so forth. He assumes that all the words the Gospels attributed to Jesus (on whom be peace) are accurate recordings of what he said. He does not devote one penstroke to argumentation for the accuracy or authenticity of any of the texts in question. And because of the alleged implications he finds in his biblical references Christianity must be true. In other words, he essentially tells us to believe the Bible because the Bible says to. Terms like “circular argumentation” and “begging the question” don’t even begin to do the situation justice. Would he have been convinced if I had pointed to texts about Muhammad (on whom be peace) in the Koran as evidence that he must be God’s final prophet and messenger?

To be sure, there is one other argument for Christianity that Lewis makes. He says that “one of the reasons he believes Christianity” is that “it is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected I should feel we were making it up. But in fact, it is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have” (pages 41-42). How many religions don’t offer people something contrary to the kind of universe they had previously expected? And why can’t there be nonreligious or even irreligious viewpoints which do the same thing too? Why isn’t Christianity the sort of thing that anyone would have made up? People could make up anything. Doesn’t scientology alone prove that there’s nothing on earth that people might not have made up? Exactly what does “a queer twist” even mean anyway?

So there you have it: this is what we get from world’s seemingly most oft toted evangelistic tract. This is the best the finest Christian apologist and theologian the world has ever seen can do. Now does that prove that Christianity is untrue? Not at all. One certainly shouldn’t reject a religion just because a single person, however relatively skilled at the task compared to most of his kind, failed miserably to argue persuasively for it. Nor does any of this mean that Islam is true. That is another subject for other articles, many of which I have already written. Not to worry: as Lewis himself remarks on page 32, “If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end.” Indeed, and you may even--God grant it--find truth. But for the reasons I’ve stated you certainly won’t find it in Mere Christianity--certainly not very far into the text after the issue of God's existence has come and gone, anyway. May God bless us all and guide us to a right path.

[Uthman]

:threadapp

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Yahya Sulaiman;

Thanks for your thoughts, I shall have to call you Dr. Zakir Naik the second. I guess Lewis wrote in the way that he was inspired himself. And any form of argument seems incomplete, as there is always a counter argument.

But for the reasons I’ve stated you certainly won’t find it in Mere Christianity--

I am not sure I would agree with you when you say mere Christianity, I would call Christianity a deep and profound faith. I sincerely believe the two greatest commandments are the most profound statement ever written.

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith friendship and understanding.

Eric

[Grace Seeker]

This could be a very good thread if we stay on topic. I am one who thoroughly loved the book. Butm even as a Christian, I too saw some flaws in it. So, reading your changing view of the book is of peculiar interest. I look forward to more readers responses and our mutual reflections.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[glo]

I read Mere Christianity and must confess that I struggled with Lewis' style of writing (rather than the arguments he was making).
Perhaps it is time for me to read the book again.

Could this be the beginning of a book club, I wonder? :)

[IAmZamzam]

Greetings and peace be with you Yahya Sulaiman.

And with you. Are you the same EricH who used to post on the Understanding Islam board?

Thanks for your thoughts, I shall have to call you Dr. Zakir Naik the second.

Is that a compliment or a mockery? I'm guessing the latter.

I guess Lewis wrote in the way that he was inspired himself.

So?

And any form of argument seems incomplete, as there is always a counter argument.

Incompleteness isn't the issue. Fallacy is.

I am not sure I would agree with you when you say mere Christianity, I would call Christianity a deep and profound faith.

I said nothing about that at all. "Mere Christianity" is the name of the book!

I sincerely believe the two greatest commandments are the most profound statement ever written.

They are not unique to your religion, and it would not prove anything if they were.

[Hugo]

I read Mere Christianity and must confess that I struggled with Lewis' style of writing (rather than the arguments he was making).
Perhaps it is time for me to read the book again.

Could this be the beginning of a book club, I wonder? :)

Lewis was a scholar and his whole outlook to me is one that asks questions and so the title 'Mere Christianity" is a question, a rhetorical one. It is rather like the way Pilate said to Jesus "what is truth?". So its a kind of throw away remark that challenges one to say what is it all about, is Christianity real or just another philosophy.

[glo]

Lewis was a scholar and his whole outlook to me is one that asks questions and so the title 'Mere Christianity" is a question, a rhetorical one. It is rather like the way Pilate said to Jesus "what is truth?". So its a kind of throw away remark that challenges one to say what is it all about, is Christianity real or just another philosophy.

Interesting, Hugo

I wondered whether the title stood for 'the simple, basic Christian belief' - which one finds when one strips away the differences between different denominations and traditions.

What I found difficult about Lewis' writing style was that
a) his terminology seemed a little 'old-fashioned' to me, and
b) being taken from a radio programme it was written very much in the style of somebody speaking to an audience.

[Hugo]

Incompleteness isn't the issue. Fallacy is.

I said nothing about that at all. "Mere Christianity" is the name of the book!

They are not unique to your religion, and it would not prove anything if they were.

The Lewis book like others presents arguments and like any argument it has its own set of premises. So any argument can be fallacious and indeed incompleteness is itself a fallacy. However, perhaps you would share with us something from the book that you regard as fallacious either because of its structure or is premises and see where that takes us.

PS
I am intrigued by your final line and the two greatest commands are love the lord your god .. and love your neighbour as yourself - I am sure you are right they are not unique to Christianity but are they found in the Qu'ran?.

[IAmZamzam]

The Lewis book like others presents arguments and like any argument it has its own set of premises. So any argument can be fallacious and indeed incompleteness is itself a fallacy. However, perhaps you would share with us something from the book that you regard as fallacious either because of its structure or is premises and see where that takes us.

The review says it all.

I am intrigued by your final line and the two greatest commands are love the lord your god .. and love your neighbour as yourself - I am sure you are right they are not unique to Christianity but are they found in the Qu'ran?.

Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL (Koran 3:31, Shakir)

There are some among men who take for themselves objects of worship besides Allah, whom they love as they love Allah, and those who believe are stronger in love for Allah. (Koran 2:165, Shakir)

The Prophet said, "None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself." (Sahih Muslim, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 12)

[Grace Seeker]

Lewis was a scholar and his whole outlook to me is one that asks questions and so the title 'Mere Christianity" is a question, a rhetorical one. It is rather like the way Pilate said to Jesus "what is truth?". So its a kind of throw away remark that challenges one to say what is it all about, is Christianity real or just another philosophy.

I'll let Lewis speak for himself as to what the title of the book might mean:

from the preface

The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian 'denominations'. You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic. This omission is intentional (even in the list I have just given the order is alphabetical). There is no mystery about my own position. I am a very ordinary layman of the Church of England, not especially 'high', nor especially 'low', nor especially anything else. But in this book I am not trying to convert anyone to my own position. Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times. I had more than one reason for thinking this. In the first place, the questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history, which ought never to be treated except by real experts. I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others. And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son. Finally, I got the impression that far more, and more talented, authors were already engaged in such controversial matters than in the defence of what Baxter calls 'mere' Christianity. That part of the line where I thought I could serve best was also the part that seemed to be thinnest. And to it I naturally went.

I am not writing to expound something I could call 'my religion', but to expound 'mere' Christianity, which is what it is and was what it was long before I was born and whether I like it or not.

All this is said simply in order to make clear what kind of book I was trying to write not in the least to conceal or evade responsibility for my own beliefs. About those, as I said before, there is no secret. To quote Uncle Toby: 'They are written in the Common-Prayer Book.'

The danger clearly was that I should put forward as common Christianity anything that was peculiar to the Church of England or (worse still) to myself'. I tried to guard against this by sending the original script of what is now Book II to four clergymen (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic) and asking for their criticism. The Methodist thought I had not said enough about Faith, and the Roman Catholic thought I had gone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonement. Otherwise all five of us were agreed. I did not have the remaining books similarly 'vetted' because in them, though differences might arise among Christians, these would be differences between individuals or schools of thought, not between denominations.

So far as I can judge from reviews and from the numerous letters written to me, the book, however faulty in other respects, did at least succeed in presenting an agreed, or common, or central, or 'mere' Christianity.

[Hugo]

Interesting, Hugo.
I wondered whether the title stood for 'the simple, basic Christian belief' - which one finds when one strips away the differences between different denominations and traditions.

What I found difficult about Lewis' writing style was that
a) his terminology seemed a little 'old-fashioned' to me, and
b) being taken from a radio programme it was written very much in the style of somebody speaking to an audience.

Yes, it is as well to remember with regard to style that Lewis was an Oxford professor and of course born in the late 1800s. He dabbled in all sorts of things but was a mediaevalist so in a way his style was coloured by that; so often for a modern reader the weight of a metaphor or illustration will be lost and that can make it hard to follow.

Just to show you what I mean I recently heard someone liken the sorrows of the disciples at the death of Jesus to the sorrow felt at the death of Hector. Well this will only make sense if one is familiar with Homer otherwise it will be more or less incomprehensible.

[جوري]

I am intrigued by your final line and the two greatest commands are love the lord your god .. and love your neighbour as yourself - I am sure you are right they are not unique to Christianity but are they found in the Qu'ran?.

I shall only comment, not out of interest of the topic, but your strong assertion that you are so well versed in the Quran and ahadith yet, the most basic concepts of either seem to elude you!

On the authority of Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him), the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be on him) said, "The right of the Muslim on the Muslim are six." It was said, "What are they, Messenger of Allah?" He said, "When you meet him, salute him; when he invites you, respond to him; when he seeks counsel, give him advice; when he sneezes and praises Allah, say to him: Allah has mercy on you; when he is sick, visit him; and when he dies, follow his funeral." (Muslim)
According to the above Prophetic hadith, Muslims have these rights on their Muslim brothers and sisters:

1. To greet them in the Islamic manner when they meet (that is, "as-salamu `alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh")

2. To accept their invitation (when offered)

3. To advise them (when the situation calls for it)

4. To seek Allah's mercy for them when they sneeze and praise Allah

5. To visit them when they are sick

6. To follow their funeral when they die

1. To Greet Them in the Islamic Manner When They Meet
The greeting of peace is a cause of love, which results in producing faith, which results in the person entering Paradise.
Allah says,
[But when you enter houses, give greetings of peace upon each other — a greeting from Allah, blessed and good) (An-Nur 24:61)
Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be on him) said,
"You will not enter Paradise until you have faith, and you will not have faith until you love each other. Shall I direct you to something which if you fulfill you will love one another? Spread peace among yourselves" (Muslim)
The greeting of peace is one of the virtuous characteristics of Islam. For verily each of the people who meet each other supplicates for the other for safety from evils, and mercy, and blessing that brings about every good. And what follows this is a cheerful face and appropriate words of greeting, which result in unity and love, and a removal of feelings of estrangement and cold disassociation. It is part of rights of brotherhood for Muslims to put on a smiling face when they meets their brothers or sisters in faith. Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said,
"Do not belittle any good deed, even to meet your brothers with a smiling face." (Muslim)
He also said,
"Your smile in the face of your brothers is an act of charity."
That is why the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had a smiling face all the time.
Thus, giving the greeting of peace is the right of the Muslim, and it is obligatory upon the person who is greeted to return the greeting with a similar greeting or o*ne that is better. And the best of the people are those who start the greeting of peace first.
2. To Accept Their Invitation
This means that when brothers or sisters invite you to a social event or food, then fulfill the request of those who have drawn near to you and honored you with the invitation. Accept their invitation unless you have an excuse. By this, Islam cements the social relations between members of the Muslim community.
3. To Advise Them
When your Muslim brothers and sisters seek your advice regarding something, you have to sincerely advise them.
In this regard, Tamim Ad-Dari reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said,
"Religion is founded on sincere advice." We said, "To whom?" He said, "To Allah and His Book, and His Messenger, and to the leaders of the Muslims and their common folk." (Muslim)
Therefore, Muslims should not hesitate to advise their Muslim brothers and sisters. However, when advising someone, you have to take care of the following ethics:
a. It should be in secret; that is to say, one should advise in secret, not in public so as not to embarrass the person.
b. Advice should be given in a kind and gentle manner.
c. The adviser should explain to the person any wrongdoing and support his or her stance with proofs from Shari`ah.
4. To Seek Allah's Mercy for Them When They Sneeze and Praise Allah
This is because sneezing is a favor from Allah. Thus the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) recommended that the person praise Allah for this favor, and he ordered for his brother/sister to say to him/her, "May Allah have mercy upon you." He also commanded the person who sneezed to answer his brother/sister by saying, "May Allah guide you and set right your affairs."
Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Whenever one of you sneezes, let him say, 'Praise be to Allah.' And then, let his brother say, 'May Allah have mercy upon you.' And then he should reply to him saying, 'May Allah guide you and set right your affairs.'" (Al-Bukhari)
However, those who do not praise Allah do not deserve that others pray for mercy upon them, and in this case, they (the sneezers) cannot blame anyone except themselves. For they are the ones who caused themselves to lose the two blessings: the blessing of praising Allah, and the blessing of their brother or sister's supplication for them that is a result of the praising.
On the authority of Abu Musa (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say, "If one of you sneezes and praises Allah, then say to him, 'May Allah have mercy upon you.' But if he does not praise Allah, then do not invoke Allah's mercy for him." (Muslim)
5. To Visit Them When They Are Sick
Visiting sick Muslims is highly encouraged. This is based on a hadith qudsi, indicating that Allah would say to His slaves on the Day of Judgment,
"My slave, I was sick and yet you did not visit Me?" The slave would exclaim, "How can I visit You when You are the Lord of the worlds?" Allah would answer, "Did you not know that My slave so-and-so fell ill; don't You know that had you visited him you would have found Me with him?" (Muslim)
`Ali ibn Abi Talib (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say, "When a Muslim visits a sick Muslim at dawn, seventy thousand angels keep on praying for him till dusk. If he visits him in the evening, seventy thousand angels keep on praying for him till the morning; and he will have (his share of) reaped fruits in Jannah (Paradise)." (At-Tirmidhi)
On visiting their sick brothers and sisters, Muslims are supposed to make du`aa' for them.
`A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported: When the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) visited any ailing member of his family, he would touch the sick person with his right hand and would supplicate, "O Allah! The Lord of mankind! Remove this disease and cure (him or her)! You are the Great Curer. There is no cure but through You, which leaves behind no disease." (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
6. To Follow Their Funerals When They Die
Following Muslims' funerals is one of their rights upon their brethren. Those who follow the funeral until the deceased's body is prayed over will receive great reward. And if they follow the funeral procession until the body is buried, then they will receive more reward. Following the funeral procession fulfills a right for Allah, a right of the deceased, and a right of the living relatives of the deceased.
Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Whoever follows the funeral procession and offers the funeral prayer for it will get a reward equal to one qirat, and whoever attends it till burial will get a reward equal to two qirats." It was asked, "What are two qirats?'' He (peace and blessings be upon him) replied, "Equal to two huge mountains." (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
Also, Muslims must keep good ties with the deceased's family and take care of their needs. Here we would like to clarify that women may offer the funeral prayer for their Muslim brothers and sisters, but it is not a duty upon them. Offering the funeral prayer is a fard kifayah (communal duty) on men. This means that it is a duty for the Muslim community to perform that prayer. If a Muslim dies in a community and some Muslims offer the funeral prayer for the deceased, then the duty will be deemed as being discharged from every one else. However, failing to offer such a prayer incurs sin on the whole community, due to negligence. According to Imam Malik, women are allowed to follow the funeral procession.
* A Friday khutbah delivered on Ramadan 21, 1427 (October 13, 2006), in NorthernNevada Muslim Community (NNMC).


http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...ah%2FLSELayout



This hadith contains the rulings concerning the tongue and the behavior of Muslims towards others. It also emphasizes that we are responsible for what we say.

Imam Haithami points out that this hadith is very similar in meaning to Hadith 13 that says: "None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself." He says that everyone is a neighbor to someone else. Therefore if this hadith is properly practiced and applied, then there will be a strong bond and love within the society or community.

Lessons

The responsibility of the Muslim regarding what he says is mentioned in the Qur'an: "Not a word does he utter but there is a watcher by him ready to record it" [Surah Qaf (50): ayat 18].

There are also other hadiths which state that the Muslim should be careful about what he says. His words can either, if they are pleasing to Allah, raise him to a higher level; or if his words displease Allah, they may cause him to be thrown into the Hellfire - as stated in a hadith recorded by Imam al-Bukhari. This shows that what we say can have a direct effect on whether it will benefit us or not.

One hadith (which illustrates the example of a bad consequence resulting from what a person says) states that the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, said that a pious man from Bani Israel use to see his fellow man always committing sins. One day the pious man swore to the sinner: "By Allah, He will never forgive you." Allah was displeased with what the pious man said because only Allah knows what is our destiny, whether someone will end up in Paradise or Hell. Because of this, when the two men died, the pious man was punished and put into Hell and the sinner was forgiven by Allah. [Sunan Abu Daud]

What we can learn here is that either we say something beneficial and good or else we should keep silent.

There are many Islamic guidelines which help us to say good things and to refrain from saying bad things, or things which displeases Allah subhana wa ta'ala. When we talk to others, whether it is relatives, friends, neighbors, etc., we should select the best terms/words and say them in a nice way. We should ensure that what we say is clear and easily understood. If we are not careful and we do not choose the right words, what we say may be misinterpreted and may lead to conflicts.

As a listener, we have to listen positively and interpret what we hear in a good way. We should not 'over interpret' what we hear; we should not try to 'read between the lines'. Thus, as a speaker we say things in a positive manner and as a listener we interpret things in a positive manner. By doing so Islam encourages us to minimize disputes and conflicts.

If we find ourselves in the middle of a dispute between two people, e.g. between relatives, we should not take sides. We should try to help and reconcile the differences; try to resolve the problems and end the dispute.

If we are being consulted by someone and asked for our advice, we should try our best to give good advice. What we say should help the person and not add to his confusion or doubt. If we do not have enough knowledge and we cannot provide proper advice, then we should keep silent.

Even if we have information which, as a result, may add to the person's confusion, we should keep it to ourselves.

We should keep away as best as we can from unnecessary or non-beneficial talk. People can talk or chat for hours but a lot of what is said is unimportant or trivial and does not benefit anyone. It wastes our time and this continuous talking may even lead us into areas where we might say something which displeases Allah subhana wa ta'ala.

When it comes to saying good things, there are many examples available: dzikrullah (remembrance of Allah), reciting the Qur'an, du'a, giving advice, etc. These are all things which are pleasing to Allah.

When we meet people who are sick, sad, feeling down, in a low frame of mind, etc., we should say things that will make these people feel better, have patience in facing their calamity, be positive, be strong, etc. This is known as al-muasah - to say good things of encouragement to help those facing problems; to not make them panic. The scholars have defined sabr (patience) as 'to refrain from panicking' - to refrain from being out of control - and to refrain the tongue from complaining.

Complaining, e.g. simply saying that the weather is hot, will lead us to impatience; it can affect our attitude and hence our work. If we want to lament we should lament only with Allah. If we do it with Allah it is munajah - it will turn into ibadah. If we do it with others it will be complaining (tashakki) - we will be violating the ibadah itself, which is sabr. So we should learn to minimize and ultimately eliminate the act of complaining.

We should refrain from saying bad things or things which may be untrue. When we hear some news, we shouldn't simply repeat it or spread it without first verifying if the news is true. This could lead to us spreading lies or rumors. We must refrain from:

1. spreading rumors, especially those that will cause harm to the community.
2. slandering, back-biting, etc.
3. sarcasm and making fun of others - this is one of the most common social ills today. It is a sin to make fun of others.

Sometimes we may encounter a situation which involves fitnah or al-fitan. We have to be careful of what we say. There are people who will take advantage of the situation and they may say things which may worsen the situation. When there is fitnah, people are in a panic and might believe anything. That's why we have to be careful of what we say because it may add to the people's fears and problems. What we should do is to help by saying positive things that will give the people hope; to uplift them and motivate them to face the problems; and not to make it worse.

The second part of this hadith stresses on being courteous and generous to our neighbors and guests. This is stated in the Qur'an - Surah An-Nisa'(4): ayat 36: "…do good to parents, relatives, orphans, the poor, the neighbor who is near of kin, the neighbor who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (you meet), and those (slaves) whom your right hand possess."

In one hadith, the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, said: "Jibril kept advising me concerning the neighbor to the point that I thought that he would inherit from his neighbor." [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]. In another hadith [also recorded by Al-Bukhari and Muslim], it is stated: "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not harm his neighbor."

Another hadith records the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, as saying that the person who does not have complete faith (iman) is the one from whose affairs the neighbor is not safe. Al-Bukhari and Muslim also records another hadith which states that when you cook stew, you should add a little bit more water and give some to your neighbors. This sharing of food between neighbors can strengthen the relationships between them. We should be nice to our neighbors and share our food even if they are not Muslims.

We should be patient with our neighbor even if he causes annoyance to us. In a hadith, the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, said that there are three types of people whom Allah loves. One of them is a person who has a neighbor who causes him harm or annoyance but he remains patient and tolerates the neighbor.

The 'guest' mentioned in the last part of the hadith is generally interpreted as a travelling visitor who has come to stay for a short while. One hadith states: "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should be generous to his guest. His special gift (to the guest) is one day and night. He (the guest) is to be entertained for three days. Whatever is beyond that is an act of charity. It is not lawful for a guest to stay with his host to the extent that he makes things difficult for him (the host)." [Al-Bukhari]. Thus, the visitor should not take advantage of a generous host.

Regarding this ruling, the majority of the scholars are of the opinion that hosting, in general, is recommended (mustahab) and not obligatory (wajib), even though it is a great and noble act. According to many scholars, the recommended act of hosting does not extend to evildoers or heretics. But some great scholars of today say that we should entertain even evildoers. This is because if we are good Muslims, when we host them and be good to them, we might influence them and cause them to change and become better people. But we should be very cautious if we were to host these sorts of people - we should only do so if we know there will not be any harm that may be inflicted on us.

Hosting evildoers would be following a general principle of Fiqh which allows us to tolerate a minor harm (e.g. allowing an evildoer to stay with us) in order to attain a major benefit (e.g. influencing him into becoming a good Muslim)

Conclusion

This hadith teaches us the proper manners pertaining to speech and entertaining guests. Following the advice given by the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, will lead to a more peaceful life and harmonious Islamic society in this life, and attaining the pleasure of Allah in the Hereafter.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

More on this Hadith can be found at:

1. http://www.islaam.net/main/display.p...40&category=24

[Hugo]

I'll let Lewis speak for himself as to what the title of the book might mean:

Thanks for putting in the preface and the kind of man Lewis was is summed up for me in the line below and one can see the twinkle in his eye as he added the bit in bold.

The Methodist thought I had not said enough about Faith, and the Roman Catholic thought I had gone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonement. Otherwise all five of us were agreed.

[glo]

Skye, if the information you quote is to be equated with Jesus' commandment to 'love your neighbour as yourself', would you say that the term 'your neighbour' refers only to other Muslims? Or to non-Muslims too?

[جوري]

Skye, if the information you quote is to be equated with Jesus' commandment to 'love your neighbour as yourself', would you say that the term 'your neighbour' refers only to other Muslims? Or to non-Muslims too?

Once the Prophet was seated at some place in Madinah, along with his Companions. During this time a funeral procession passed by. On seeing this, the Prophet stood up. One of his companions remarked that the funeral was that of a Jew. The Prophet replied, “Was he not a human being?” (Sahîh Bukhârî, Sahîh Muslim, Sunan An-Nasâ'î)

the prophet pbuh was dealing with nonmuslims in a fair and just way,he was having treaties with them,he was feeling sorry for those who died while not reverting to islam as happened with a young jewish guy where the prophet expresses his sadness when he say the jewish guy taken for burial,the sahabah said :but he is a jew O messanger of Allah,he pbuh replied is not he a human being,his soul escaped the mercy of Allah{by not reverting to islam before death}.he was having a jewish neighbour who used to put dirts by the door of the prophet pbuh before prayers,and it happened one day that the prophet pbuh did not find such dirts ,he worried about the jewish man and he knocked his door,the jewish man opened he was surprised for such visit and he explained that he did not put the dirts because he was sick,then he wondered and asked the prophet pbuh why did you visit me while I'm not behaving good to you?the prophet pbuh replied that my religion{islam}commanded me to care about my neigbours,the jewish man immediately announced the shahadah.
in fact those nonmuslims who are not involved in fighting against muslims are treated and given equal rights to the muslim citizens,islam is giving the nonmuslims three options,either to revert {by their own free will}to islam,or to stay as a nonmuslim but paying gyziah and in this condition they are called ahlul zemmah or to fight against muslims.the Qur'an justified their food for us,justified marriage between muslim men and nonmuslim women{but not the opposite},the Qur'an commanded us to call them gently and wisely to islam,the Qur'an commanded us to treat them justly as long as they do not invlove themselves in offensive actions against us.
but in the end I have to say that the prophet peace be upon him commanded the muslims to get the nonmuslims out of the muslim land{arab peninsula= jazirat al arab}.



Did you not read the Quran and adhaiths along with our dear Hugo? You say you have often enough and you certainly have been here on board long enough.. or were 'merely' asking a rhetorical question?

all the best

[Hugo]

I shall only comment, not out of interest of the topic, but your strong assertion that you are so well versed in the Quran and ahadith yet, the most basic concepts of either seem to elude you!

Thank you for you long and informative insertion but I asked where in the Qu'ran we might find the greatest commandments?

[glo]

Skye, so the Islamic interpretation of 'love your neighbour as yourself' applies to the attitude towards and treatment of Muslims and non-Muslims alike in equal measures?

[GreyKode]

Skye, if the information you quote is to be equated with Jesus' commandment to 'love your neighbour as yourself', would you say that the term 'your neighbour' refers only to other Muslims? Or to non-Muslims too?

What makes you think that what Jesus(pbuh) applies to non-chrisitians/believers?

[glo]

What makes you think that what Jesus(pbuh) applies to non-chrisitians/believers?

The information Skye gave in post 13 relates to the behaviour towards other Muslims only.
When I asked for clarification Skye explained in post 16 that non-Muslims (at least those who are tolerant of Islam) should be treated positively too.

The whole discussion at the moment seems to be about whether Islam has the same two greatest commandments ("love the lord your god .. and love your neighbour as yourself") as Christianity as asserted by Yahya Sulaiman, and where to find them.
Although I have not seen those commandments quoted directly from Qu'ran and hadith, several posts have tried to list Qu'ranic verses which may realte to those commandments - the second in particular.

So to return to the information I was given about the treatment of Muslims and non-Muslims, I am wondering whether the same treatment should be extended to both groups in equal measures.
In other words, do you consider only Muslims to be 'your neighbour', or non-Muslims too?

I hope that makes sense ... :)

[جوري]

Thank you for you long and informative insertion but I asked where in the Qu'ran we might find the greatest commandments?

greetings,

for me personally I think the first ten verses of suret al'moemnoon as well suret al'ikhlas..however it is hard to choose as all the commandments are found all throughout..

peace!

[IAmZamzam]

I gave the answer to your question, Hugo.

[جوري]

Skye, so the Islamic interpretation of 'love your neighbour as yourself' applies to the attitude towards and treatment of Muslims and non-Muslims alike in equal measures?

I assume so, but it always comes under personal preference and discretion, for instance, I know many christians allege that they 'love' their neighbor but come here with nothing but hate and well all their hate mongering sites are anything but..


all the best!

[glo]

I assume so, but it always comes under personal preference and discretion, for instance, I know many christians allege that they 'love' their neighbor but come here with nothing but hate and well all their hate mongering sites are anything but..


all the best!

Thank you for your reply, Skye.

I think for Christians the commandment seem very clear indeed:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

(Matthew 22:36-40)

If Christians spread hatred against others, then they are breaking the commandment!

In answer to Hugo's question whether those two commandments appear with such directness and clarity in the Qu'ran, would it be fair to reply that they don't?
We haven't really mentioned much about the first one - although I don't doubt that there are references to loving Allah in the Qu'ran. (Here is a great opportunity for you to mention how I claim to have read the Qu'ran but never did so properly ;D ... unfortunately I am not blessed with a photographic memory ... :shade:)

As for the second commandments, there are instructions as to how to treat Muslims, friendly non-Muslims and unfriendly non-Muslims - but as far as deciding who is 'your neighbour' seems to come down to (as you say) "personal preference and discretion".
Have I got that right?

[جوري]

Thank you for your reply, Skye.

I think for Christians the commandment seem very clear indeed:

Clear on paper only I guess, since history speaks otherwise and it tends to repeat itself!

If Christians spread hatred against others, then they are breaking the commandment!

Perhaps you should start sending some of your famous PMs to some of the Christians on board alerting them to that breech in commandments.. in your mind do you think it matters? or that since Jesus already paid for their sins in advance he'd make a few allowances?!

In answer to Hugo's question whether those two commandments appear with such directness and clarity in the Qu'ran, would it be fair to reply that they don't?
We haven't really mentioned much about the first one - although I don't doubt that there are references to loving Allah in the Qu'ran. (Here is a great opportunity for you to mention how I claim to have read the Qu'ran but never did so properly ;D ... unfortunately I am not blessed with a photographic memory ... :shade:)

So the pilgrimage thread doesn't come to mind? the one were you alleged it was a mohammedan practice and not found in the Quran, conveniently missing its mention 23 times and a chapter so entitled amongst others?

As for the second commandments, there are instructions as to how to treat Muslims, friendly non-Muslims and unfriendly non-Muslims - but as far as deciding who is 'your neighbour' seems to come down to (as you say) "personal preference and discretion".
Have I got that right?

Being a christian undoubtedly makes you right all the time...

all the best

[Uthman]

Please stick to the topic. :)

[جوري]

^^ rather I am done with this topic!

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

This could be a very good thread if we stay on topic. I am one who thoroughly loved the book. Butm even as a Christian, I too saw some flaws in it. So, reading your changing view of the book is of peculiar interest. I look forward to more readers responses and our mutual reflections.

Please stick to the topic. :)

Trying to get with the program as requested , I return to the OP:

“There are only two views that face all the facts. One is the Christian view that this is a good world that has gone wrong, but still retains the memory of what it ought to have been. The other is the view called Dualism” (page 42).

Wow.

I don’t think I could ever count how many excluded middles are left out of that! Islam is only one of maybe thousands.

Did Lewis leave out middle ground in saying that there are only two views that face all the facts? Certainly. But I think so intentionally.

Just as the Muslim divides the world into Muslim and non-Muslim, just as the Jew divides the world into Jew and Gentile, so too Lewis divides the world into and Christian worldview and a non-Christian one. Where I think he is wrong is in labeling the other worldview as dualism -- a world in which things are led by either a supernatural evil or a supernatural good. Sort of like the cartoons with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. But then, he really isn't dividing the whole world up into these to camps, because by page 42 Lewis isn't at the beginning of his argument. He has progressed to the point in his argument where he is only talking about the theistic subset of the world.

So, given that, I'm not sure that he is wrong after all. In fact, isn't Islam rather dualistic? (I'm actually asking, not declaring.) I hear that in Islam life is a test. What sort of test? Well between submitting to Allah (i.e., good) and not submitting to Allah (i.e., evil). Certainly there are many different ways that one can be found to not submit to Allah, but in the end, as I have come to understand Islam as presented on these boards, life is either one or the other. And that is all that Lewis is saying when he describes all else as Dualism.


Before proceeding, I await comment and correction in case I have mis-spoken as regards putting Islam in the Dualism camp. I know that I did not consider everything that is true about Islam, and perhaps there is something in that which I did not consider that would be reason to say that I (and therefore Lewis) is wrong about this grouping.

[IAmZamzam]

Did Lewis leave out middle ground in saying that there are only two views that face all the facts? Certainly. But I think so intentionally.

Just as the Muslim divides the world into Muslim and non-Muslim, just as the Jew divides the world into Jew and Gentile, so too Lewis divides the world into and Christian worldview and a non-Christian one. Where I think he is wrong is in labeling the other worldview as dualism -- a world in which things are led by either a supernatural evil or a supernatural good. Sort of like the cartoons with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. But then, he really isn't dividing the whole world up into these to camps, because by page 42 Lewis isn't at the beginning of his argument. He has progressed to the point in his argument where he is only talking about the theistic subset of the world.

So, given that, I'm not sure that he is wrong after all. In fact, isn't Islam rather dualistic? (I'm actually asking, not declaring.) I hear that in Islam life is a test. What sort of test? Well between submitting to Allah (i.e., good) and not submitting to Allah (i.e., evil). Certainly there are many different ways that one can be found to not submit to Allah, but in the end, as I have come to understand Islam as presented on these boards, life is either one or the other. And that is all that Lewis is saying when he describes all else as Dualism.


Before proceeding, I await comment and correction in case I have mis-spoken as regards putting Islam in the Dualism camp. I know that I did not consider everything that is true about Islam, and perhaps there is something in that which I did not consider that would be reason to say that I (and therefore Lewis) is wrong about this grouping.

Sorry I'm late in replying. Lewis defines Dualism in the book as the belief in two equal and opposite (evidently impersonal) forces behind everything (as though watered down versions of God and the Devil, but where both are each other's equal and neither will ever win--he speaks of the strange trope elsewhere, and in other books). Does that sound like Islam to you? And the important thing, as I pointed out, was how Lewis leaped right to the Christianity/Dualism bifurcation pretty much right out of the frickin' blue. He had eliminated very few worldviews beforehand even in attempt and all the sudden, out of nowhere, here comes a declaration that it all comes down to either Christianity or Dualism.

[Grace Seeker]

Sorry I'm late in replying. Lewis defines Dualism in the book as the belief in two equal and opposite (evidently impersonal) forces behind everything (as though watered down versions of God and the Devil, but where both are each other's equal and neither will ever win--he speaks of the strange trope elsewhere, and in other books). Does that sound like Islam to you?

No. That doesn't sound like Islam. But it also doesn't sound like Lewis. I'll have to get out my copy of Mere Christianity and re-read for what you describe. But I know that it the idea you presented does NOT reflect Lewis' larger theology. Books such as Screwtape Letters, A Great Divorce and the Narnian chronicles make it clear that Lewis believes that evil is doomed to ultimately to lose out to good.

But, I'll double check to see if that is or is not presented in Mere Christianity.

[IAmZamzam]

No. That doesn't sound like Islam. But it also doesn't sound like Lewis. I'll have to get out my copy of Mere Christianity and re-read for what you describe. But I know that it the idea you presented does NOT reflect Lewis' larger theology. Books such as Screwtape Letters, A Great Divorce and the Narnian chronicles make it clear that Lewis believes that evil is doomed to ultimately to lose out to good.

But, I'll double check to see if that is or is not presented in Mere Christianity.

I did not say that's what he believed. I said that's how he defined Dualism: equal but opposite, both eternal, both forces.

[Grace Seeker]

I did not say that's what he believed. I said that's how he defined Dualism: equal but opposite, both eternal, both forces.

OK. Thanks for the correction. But what, then, is wrong with that definition?

Or perhaps your objection is not with the portrayal of Dualism, but in Lewis saying that it is either Christianity or Dualism? Are you wishing to critique that Lewis did not consider Islam as just as much of an alternative to Dualism as is Christianity?

[IAmZamzam]

OK. Thanks for the correction. But what, then, is wrong with that definition?

Or perhaps your objection is not with the portrayal of Dualism, but in Lewis saying that it is either Christianity or Dualism? Are you wishing to critique that Lewis did not consider Islam as just as much of an alternative to Dualism as is Christianity?

All of the above. I have already addressed each and every one of those three questions with what I've said just above and in the review itself.

[Grace Seeker]

Well, I can see where you are coming from with that critique. One wonders whether Lewis even considered Islam at all at the time of his writing?

So, let's talk about Islam. I see two different answers given by Islam with regard to the problem of evil in the universe. One answer is that life is a struggle. But struggle though it is you must choose good and not evil. The other is that though you fail to measure up to God's standard, God is merciful and will judge you based on your heart.


If one was to place those ideas on a scale with a world created good by God on one end and a dualistic world where evil and good are opposite forces in an eternal struggle for dominion, would those two ways of thinking end up at opposite ends of the scale. And quite honestly, the one I hear expressed as representative of Islam most often on these boards is the first and more dualitic of the two approaches toward life.

[IAmZamzam]

Well, I can see where you are coming from with that critique. One wonders whether Lewis even considered Islam at all at the time of his writing?

Precisely. Or of his very conversion, and the rest of his whole life, all of which worries me as to the fate of his soul. I said it all in much more detail and evidence in the review.

So, let's talk about Islam. I see two different answers given by Islam with regard to the problem of evil in the universe. One answer is that life is a struggle. But struggle though it is you must choose good and not evil. The other is that though you fail to measure up to God's standard, God is merciful and will judge you based on your heart.

The heart is part of it...the actions, really...the two things aren't mutually exclusive, nor the two "answers".

If one was to place those ideas on a scale with a world created good by God on one end and a dualistic world where evil and good are opposite forces in an eternal struggle for dominion, would those two ways of thinking end up at opposite ends of the scale. And quite honestly, the one I hear expressed as representative of Islam most often on these boards is the first and more dualitic of the two approaches toward life.

I repeat: Dualism, as defined by Lewis, is marked by it being forces of good and evil behind the universe and these forces being equal and equally eternal. In Islam we are taught that Satan is (1) not a force but a created, conscious entity, (2) not eternal but created and mortal, and (3) anything but equal to God--indeed, even further away from His equal than traditional Christian thought would have it, given that he's a mere djinn instead of a literal, true angel (if indeed it is possible to be lesser than God in degrees--it may be like subtracting numbers exponentially from infinity).

[Grace Seeker]

OK. Thanks. Which leads me to want to discuss the different ways that Islam and Christianity deal with the problem of evil, but I think that probably deserves its own thread.

[Hugo]

OK. Thanks. Which leads me to want to discuss the different ways that Islam and Christianity deal with the problem of evil, but I think that probably deserves its own thread.

Yes that sounds like it might be an interesting thread because if one is a believer at all then how God grants forgiveness is a serious question even if ultimately we cannot understand why evil exists.