[G778G9P0]

I'm not sure if we are on the same page or not, but he himself was talking about Dante when he said he wanted to defend him in relation to how Dante placed Prophet Muhammad only in the part of hell that was reserved for those who caused division and not for those false Prophets, which means that Dante was showing him some respect. He later goes on to say that Dante didn't actually mean Muhammad by the person, but rather it was just a name used to promote an idea.



He used the word defend in relation to Dantes speech about where he placed Prophet Muhammad did he not? Since he did, please tell me what you have understood from his word usage in the context that he used, perhaps I am mistaken.

Watch the second video down, from 9 minutes on. http://adoptingorthodoxy.wordpress.c...nte-alighieri/

Hamza Yusuf Said,






I don't think it was either, but one sentence is enough when it comes to such a statement in regards to Rasool Allah .

salam,

strange, i clearly missed that part of the discussion.

i must have zoned out i remember what he said right after and right before.

i don't know what to make of it...

[muytreda]

No. He didn't. He used the word defend to mean defending the use of Dante's work in such contexts (he used it when approaching Western audiences about the subject of morality).

I'm not going to argue about it, to me it's clear that he is trying to defend Dante's work (even though he disagrees with it) by basically saying "Well At least he didn't place Prophet Muhammad in the hell for false Prophets", as well as "The name Muhammad was metaphorical for an action and not really the Prophet " you are free to feel otherwise, it's him alone who will stand on the last day and answer concerning it.

Right now, what you said and what I said is technically the same thing. Whether he is defending it all, or defended parts of it... He never made it entirely clear that he completely disagrees with it, and he feels it to be wrong.. and My question is, WHY NOT? He could have easily said I do not agree with this part at all, neither in reality or metaphorically as a Muslim this is absolutely incorrect, and then he could have continued on talking about the book.

[Speaking of the eighth circle] and then soars of scandals and schism. This is where unfortunately

for Muslims he has the Prophet Muhammad with Ali…now I want to… and I… you know… It is

difficult for me but I would like to defend a little bit Dante. Dante… Dante put him in… in… among But again his word defend for Dante came right after the commentary concerning the Location of the Prophet , so I don't see how you can say his defensive stance was anything other than for him trying to say that Dante wasn't as bad as he could have been.

[Rounteetepehryn]

Shakespeare and Dante are both still a part of pop culture in the West. They still release popular films, shows, etc based on Shakespeare (the most recent that comes to mind was that one about the Roman general who turns on his own city) and there was even a video game about Dante's Inferno a year or two ago.

Well, I don't know what films or games you're referring to, but they're probably watered-down adaptations if anything. How many people do you know knew that the Lion King was inspired by Hamlet? Anyway, I think it's pretty clear that Dante is not essential when reaching out to the vast majority of Americans. But since there's no way to actually prove it, I don't want to keep arguing about it.

[egershna]

But why can't he simply use the work in whatever good way you suppose it would do to the audience, while making it absolutely clear that he disagrees with what was Said about Prophet Muhammad () and Ali, metaphorical or not. Wouldn't the audience still take in what he said regarding the rest of the book, and respect him for fully standing up to a principle that he should have layed down concerning his Prophet ()?

It seems as if he put himself into an awkward situation (which in itself is extremely dangerous) for absolutely no good reason.

I don't think it was that he accepts what Dante said, or that he agrees with the belief, rather it's that he attempted to DEFEND IT, rather than just disagree with it completely.

I heard him say this about Dante in one of his old lectures though. I guess he just doesn't mention it everytime he mentions Dante

[Heacechig]

Are there any alternatives though? Serious question.

The usurious money lending practices and prevalence of pornographic culture are not condemned by anyone "mainstream" in the West. In fact they try to use pseudo-science (evolutionary psychology, twisted economics and other things) to justify the behavior. Dante really was the highlight of European literature on this subject (morality) and during that period of time.

There is of course the Bible (which condemns both these things clearly) but everyone's already given up on the Bible as some backwards thing in the West (and he isn't speaking to an audience of evangelicals). Referring to Dante is kind of a big deal, it anchors his argument in the West's own rationalist morality's roots.

What else is there? It's not like they can use science because both Christians and Muslims seem to ignore that these days while the humanists and atheists dominate it and twist it to their own ends where necessary in the "social sciences". I'd love to see more studies exploring the long term effects of pornography for example but they are really few compared to the immediate studies which show pornography decreases sex crime because it provides a short term outlet but which is used by people to argue for its harmlessness. As for economics, there's no chance of Muslims producing enough people versed in the language of mathematics and statistical analysis to say anything. Muslims who go into graduate-level fields tend to do so as Westerners themselves or demarcate religious view of the world from their career or field's philosophical view of the world. If they cannot even understand their religion's view of the world fully or the West's view of the world fully (instead of blindly imitating both) what hope is there to construct a new world view? One exception that comes to mind is Nassim Nicholas Taleb (author of Black Swan) who has written some interesting but subtle things which can be seen as criticisms of some foundational errors in the mode of thought of Western economists. He's Lebanese but Christian (Greek Orthodox). But he's thoroughly Westernized himself.

Plus SHY is a religious scholar, his talks are based on spirituality. He's going to take the moral angle, he can't be expected to arm himself with mathematical or scientific arguments.

With what little he had to go on he did a pretty effective job. If anyone's got better alternatives to his approach let's hear it, I'm certainly interested to know more.

[HomePageOEMfreeSOFTWARE]

Should Shaykh Hamza really have to say that he disagrees with Dante and the contents of his work? He is a muslim, of course he disagrees. Mentioning that he rejects it is unecessary as it is expected and understood. If a person needs him to say such a thing, they obviously are not of the intellectual capacity where it is appropriate for them to critique the Shaykh. I disagree with a lot of things the Shaykh says, but really... scolding him for not saying "I do not agree with Dante putting our beloved Prophet in hellfire"...?

[muytreda]

Should Shaykh Hamza really have to say that he disagrees with Dante and the contents of his work? He is a muslim, of course he disagrees. Mentioning that he rejects it is unecessary as it is expected and understood. If a person needs him to say such a thing, they obviously are not of the intellectual capacity where it is appropriate for them to critique the Shaykh. I disagree with a lot of things the Shaykh says, but really... scolding him for not saying "I do not agree with Dante putting our beloved Prophet in hellfire"...?

I'm not too sure that a Non Muslim would automatically assume that, and secondly even if they did assume that, I still think it would have been appropriate for him to say so, simply from the aspect of a Da'wah oppurtunity.

As for anyone elses intellectual capacity, Masha'a Allah, But I've already stated that I don't think he intended otherwise, however without explaining it at that particular time it still leaves a sour taste in some who love Rasool Allah and could have been easily and simply avoided.

[st01en_lox]

Are there any alternatives though? Serious question.
...

I think the best way to connect with western audiences is through Allah SWT. By that I mean, Allah SWT should be our ‘audience’ because ultimately, it’s Allah SWT Who SWT turns hearts and convinces. If our Habib (saw) were sitting in his audience, I really wonder if he would have delivered the same speech. Allahu a’lam. May Allah SWT guide our Shaykh further on to the straight path and may he surpass his potential. Ameen. Insha Allah ta’alaa he will make us all very proud.

[Rounteetepehryn]

If a Westerner is a Christian, then the Bible is enough to convince him that porn is wrong. If he isn't a Christian, Dante is going to be just as ineffective as the Bible. So...I just don't see the relevance.

Ultimately, leaving sin is a spiritual, not an academic exercise. There are many Muslims (and Christians) who know porn is haram, but they still view it. No amount of medieval literature is going to change that.