Islam for the Western Mind

[Ghassan Kanafani]

Originally posted by spidergoat
Can you prove animals are not as concious? They are not as smart as us, but if you have ever had a pet, you might have noticed that they seem very concious. What are they then, unconcious?

Smart is another issue , but they certainly are less conscious than humans , they have lesser complex awareness .

I think religion is like a virus.

And why is that ? How do you distinguish religion from the ususal sociological and psychological viri within the human mind ? I would say ignorance is the virus , not religion .

 

[Canute]

According to the theory of 'memes' all ideas are viruses.

 

[Flores]

You people have officially lost it. Are we now catering Islam to the specifics minds...are we even in the business of catering Islam at all.

When are the Muslims going to realize that Deen or religion belongs strictly to god and not to people. We are told to enter in the religion of god or in Deen Allah.

Edkholo Fe Deen Allah

It's not our freakin Dean, it's strictly Allah's Dean and thus we have no business interpreting/translating/protecting/spreading/preaching/none absolutely none. Islam is not a property to be ascribed to certain people or given to the new borns at our whims. Islam or submission in peace is the property of god, to which only god may grant entry to. It's Deen Allah and any thing preached or spread out there is Dean elNas or people's religion not gods.

You all say sister and brother like you somehow have a crystal ball to show you the insides of people. You deny brotherhood and sisterhood to others who don't want to talk your language and grant it to those who follow your cult. How the hell do you know that the westerner who is working raising kids and doing his business is not your brother. Why is he the son of the bitch and the others who speak as you want them to speak all of a sudden dear brothers?

Kafir is not someone that do not believe or worship idols. Kafir is one that is ignorance and covering up the truth. Muslims can be Kafir as much as a non believer could be a Kafir for all I care. Nobody knows.

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

I agree with everything you said except for :

iwe have no business interpreting/translating/protecting/spreading/preaching/none absolutely none.

As far as interperting/translating goes , clearly that needs to be done otherwise there can be no understanding of Qu'ran whatsoever to mankind .As long as there is consideration of the fact that the explenations/translations are human thus imperfect and subject of questioning through reason and logics , I see no problem with doing so .

Afterall there is always some interpertation in the mind of the individual and by doing away with all human alternatives you pretty much automatically uphold your own without making it subject to questioning .

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
As far as interperting/translating goes , clearly that needs to be done otherwise there can be no understanding of Qu'ran whatsoever to mankind .

You are right Ghassan, but even the reading and understanding of the Quran is not a requirement for being a muslim. I'm serious now, dead serious. This is true if you consider that during the prophet age there was no internet, no copiers, and not even complete Quran. Many early muslims entered into the Deen of Allah just by hearing that there is One creator that have created us all equally that is just. They got the simple message and that's what got them going. These early muslims never read the Quran every night or done the Taraweeh prayers every night, but the religion never left their heart in all their actions. There were even early muslims who never heard the prophet speak nor have they ever seen a Quran. And as muslims claim, Abraham and Moses and Jesus were muslims while none of them knew the prophet nor read the Quran. So the requirements for Islam can not really be captured and any effort to capture them is getting us in deep trouble. It's like capturing thin air...it's useless.

What happened to the simple message....it's so complicated beyond belief.....I wish I can fast rewind this mess, but the tangled loops are double knotted using a blind knot technique.

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
As long as there is consideration of the fact that the explenations/translations are human thus imperfect and subject of questioning through reason and logics , I see no problem with doing so .

There are plenty of problems with all of the above. I wouldn't know where to start.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
To discuss the position that religious belief should have in Western thought presents certain problems. Islam has a definite set of prescriptions on what is good thinking and hence the sort of thinking which leads to religious belief.

Your thread have some merit. Afterall, the muslims need to think hard about how they will bring down the walls and barriers that they have been busy building between them and others...How they hell do we bring these artificial walls down so we may all communicate on common grounds...

 

[Canute]

Of course people build barriers. Otherwise there's be a Mcdonalds every two miles wherever you went on the globe.

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
I disagree, Humans are NOT animals...it is like saying: Animals are humans !!

Yes humans are animals. Yes one can say "Animals are humans". Which is different than saying all animals are humans.

Look at it this way:
All humans are animals
All Trees are plants
Not all plants are trees
Not all animals are humans

Really you can categorize anyway you like. It just so happens that the nomenclature taught universally is one in which humans ARE in the animal category. And as the word “animal” has been used LONG before you decided you didn’t like it’s meaning – well that’s just too bad for you To me it’s like no different than if you were arguing that you don’t like the “milk” category. And now you, for some religious and/or personal reason, think “milk” shouldn’t include human’s milk because humans milk is tastier and somehow special Of course you are entitled to your opinion and you can deny all you want that humans make milk. For what little good it will do ya. And that isn’t going to change the universal meaning of the word milk and how it is used to categorize things.

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

Islam

Originally posted by Flores
You are right Ghassan, but even the reading and understanding of the Quran is not a requirement for being a muslim. I'm serious now, dead serious ...... Abraham and Moses and Jesus were muslims .

I could not agree more , unfortunatly what you are saying is not something the majority of Muslims is aware of . This is because Islam today is being seen through a certain mind-frame , and this mind-frame is defined by the placement of in what that what is considered Islam , a religion .

This means that the value within Islam does not lie in it's meaning , but in some "set of beliefs and practices" as explained in Fiqh . In reality this is nothing but idolization .

The word Islam is the infinitive of the so-called fourth verbal form of the regular intransitive stem salima, "to be safe", "to be secure", etc. In its second verbal form (sallama) it means "to make some one safe" and "to free", "to make secure", etc. In its third form (salama), it signifies "to make peace", or "to become at peace", i.e. to be reconciled". In its fourth form (aslama), the infinitive of which is islam, it acquires the sense of "to resign", "to submit oneself" or "to surrender". Hence Islam, in its ethico-religious significance, means the "entire surrender of the will to Allah", and its professors are called Muslimun (sing. Muslim)

What is oftenly forgotten is that the root of Islam is Sin-Lam-Mim and that the Muslim is nothing but Mim-Sin-Lam-Mim , as indication that there is a performer of the given concept .

Untill this far no Qu'ran is involved , but when we are contemplating on how to achieve peace & security through submission , you cannot do without it as u testified Muhammad Rasoel Ullah in Shadahah .

Obviously Jesus and the gang couldnt acknowledge the ways of Muhammad as recitated and fixated within Qu'ran as Deen Allah , only La Illaha Illa Allah is what is eternal and independant .

In the Qu'ran Allah is defined and explained through his names , if you would take a closer look you would see 900 years before Muhammad there was Aristotle who philosophized an ethical system revolving around virtues , truth and justice , merci and compassion , all such things that Allah is identified by as eternal superior over them .

It is obvious that any rational human being can discover the virtues and take perfection in his ethical being as that what is the will of Allah .

And then what remains is those who are compassionate , mercifull , honest , just , and so on who truly are Muslims . Obviously this stands completely loose from the sect and cults that peoples try to belong to by idolizing traditions , practices and ignorance .

There are plenty of problems with all of the above. I wouldn't know where to start.

You can start by telling me what the problem is with acknowledging human imperfection and be as considerate as possible of reason and logic in the explained/translated ?

The fact that peoples can find out things for themselves does not mean they will .

 

[Michael]

you animal

Originally posted by spidergoat
Can you prove animals are not as concious? They are not as smart as us, but if you have ever had a pet, you might have noticed that they seem very concious. What are they then, unconcious?

As far as the difference between humans and animals, have you ever seen a gorrilla? They can be taught sign language, and they use tools. I think the human mind is great, but it leaves us vulnerable to being fooled by religion.

1) Some other animals are unquestionably conscious while others are not (such as yeast)
2) All humans ARE animals not all animals are humans

Originally posted by spidergoat
I think religion is like a virus.

I think you mean – meme. From [/i]Publishers Weekly Over a decade ago, Richard Dawkins, who contributes a foreword to this book, coined the term "meme" for a unit of culture that is transmitted via imitation and naturally "selected" by popularity or longevity. Dawkins used memes to show that the theory known as Universal Darwinism, according to which "all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities," applies to more than just genes.

You may like these books:

The Selfish Gene

The Meme Machine

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
How about consciousness and the advanced development in it

Other animals are conscious or at least have a brain that can recognize a self. Dolphins have the ability to use sonar to recreate a three dimensional image in their mind even if the object is out of view (covered by a screen). Also, dolphins have been shown to communicate complex ideas. Lastly, dolphins have EVERY sense that humans have (sight, smell, touch etcetera) with the ADDTION of the sense of sonar. So, maybe dolphins should be outside of the animals kingdom? Perhaps in a “higher” category than humans? You can see how ridiculous this can get. Simply put the animal kingdom is a broad category which contains humans.

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Perhaps you care to participate in the folowing thread , it deals with semantical issues revolving religion etc :

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29917

I read this thread. It is very interesting. I feel if I were bilingual I would have a much better appreciation for semantics – as that’s when word meaning becomes more meaningful. So I may not be of much use there? But it’s a good read.

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

Re: you animal

Originally posted by Michael
Also, dolphins have been shown to communicate complex ideas. Not as complex as humans have been shown to communicate , I say it's an entirely different level . Their ability to communicate complexity is relative .

Lastly, dolphins have EVERY sense that humans have (sight, smell, touch etcetera) with the ADDTION of the sense of sonar.

This merely indicates that they have the potential to develop consciousness through in one more way than us , that does not mean that this in addition to the rest of their abilities brings higher results in consciousness than humans do .

So, maybe dolphins should be outside of the animals kingdom? Perhaps in a “higher” category than humans? You can see how ridiculous this can get.

Simply put the animal kingdom is a broad category which contains humans.

So obviously the dolphin-point doesnt go , this however does not mean that I claimed in any way that human are non-animals . Humans are animals that developped themselves distinct through superior consciousness .

I feel if I were bilingual I would have a much better appreciation for semantics – as that’s when word meaning becomes more meaningful. So I may not be of much use there?

I think being multi-lingual encourages semantical consideration yes , but I surely do not believe such awareness depends on this . .

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think that to live with out "religion" takes great courage.

To leave the security of the collective the group and stand on your own and ask the big questions.

It takes great courage to do this......to say to others I am willing to find my own pathg in life is like growing up and leaving the support of home and family. Go rent your first appartment and make you own decisions. This takes courage.

To say to the group mind hey I 'm an individual and you can't fool me.

Unfortunately the Group mind is going to think you a fool. But you have the courage to say "stiff shit" it's my journey and I'll do it My way.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
This means that the value within Islam does not lie in it's meaning , but in some "set of beliefs and practices" as explained in Fiqh . In reality this is nothing but idolization .

I completely agree with you. I also believe that the intent of Fiqh has lost it's meaning and while it was meant to clarify and aid others in their spiritual strive, it has evidently simplified the meanings to a few cookie cutters steps that people quickly idolized, again the intent of the people may be good yet misguided, but will god judge us purely on our intents or on our application of wisdom and understanding that we were given.

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
The word Islam is the infinitive of the so-called fourth verbal form of the regular intransitive stem salima, "to be safe", "to be secure", etc. In its second verbal form (sallama) it means "to make some one safe" and "to free", "to make secure", etc. In its third form (salama), it signifies "to make peace", or "to become at peace", i.e. to be reconciled". In its fourth form (aslama), the infinitive of which is islam, it acquires the sense of "to resign", "to submit oneself" or "to surrender". Hence Islam, in its ethico-religious significance, means the "entire surrender of the will to Allah", and its professors are called Muslimun (sing. Muslim)

Those were some new meanings that I didn't know. I only finished arabic grammer for middle school. I knew though that the word Salam have many meanings in one identifying peace, safe, submission, ect.

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Untill this far no Qu'ran is involved , but when we are contemplating on how to achieve peace & security through submission , you cannot do without it as u testified Muhammad Rasoel Ullah in Shadahah .

You are right, but even our Shehada has problems in my view. I feel as if it was added upon or even that the intent of its use has changed. La Illah Ila Allah is really the root independant more correct form. If you look into the meaning and intent of adding Muhammed Rasoul Allah, you'll find that there are many issues in the correctness. First off, Muhammed is not the only Rasoul allah, he's the last of the rasoul, so perhpas we should be saying. La Illah ila Allah, Wa ana Muhammed khatem el Rosel. Again, god tells us in the Quran that no prophet is better than another, so why single out Muhammed in our shehada. Why can't we testify out loud that La Illah Ila Allah and internally recognize the gifts of prohets that was sent to us by god to deliver the message. The second part of our Shehada is creating a barrier and causing all sort of troubles. Again, that's just my opinion.

The Cow
[2.285] The apostle believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers; they all believe in Allah and His angels and His books and His apostles; We make no difference between any of His apostles; and they say: We hear and obey, our Lord! Thy forgiveness (do we crave), and to Thee is the eventual course.

You see the intent of Islam is to set up god higher than all and not differenciate between the apostles and the creations. This would limit the worship to one creator and abolish the ranks that are setting us apart and causing problems. We all believe in god and his creation period. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and even Atheists may be able to agree on that, if we refrain from descrilbing god further than the force behind the creation of this universe. We need to make no distinction...so why do we single out Muhammed and thus single ourselves from others while we are all creations of the one god.

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Obviously Jesus and the gang couldnt acknowledge the ways of Muhammad as recitated and fixated within Qu'ran as Deen Allah , only La Illaha Illa Allah is what is eternal and independant .

Amen to that. Islam could use the return of the gang to clarify some issues.

 

[buddhafish]

good and bad things happen to people of all faiths, and even those with no faiths. i am tolerant, and try to be understanding of people's beliefs. the muslim pilgrimage to mecca is quite impressive, and i do not for one second doubt the enormous spiritual impact is has on muslim followers. i have read most of the qu'ran by now (i am not muslim, nor will i ever be. i just enjoy learning) and i will admit the most troubling aspect of the faith, to me, is the articles on how persecution is worse than killing (therefore anyone percieved to be persecuting the islamic people may be justifiably 'retaliated' against). it does seem to teach a form of religious tolerance, but in the same breath says that those who do not follow islam are, quite simply, going straight to hell, and you should not concern yourself with them.

saying that religion is necessary to teach us how we should think, to me, is unnecessary. a far better way of going about things, is to simply advocate a good up-bringing based on respecting nature and the environment (which thustly includes all living things). it does not take a book to tell me that pain hurts. i can logically derive that another person's pain must hurt as much as mine, so i would not inflict pain on them, and they not unto me. then we're all happy, and die peacefully. you cannot take your riches with you into the next existence (whatever it may be, one with nature, rebirth, nobody truly knows, and it really is irrelevant), so by this reasoning there is no reason to horde. simple answers obtained from within by simply asking yourself and allowing your inner being to answer. i know it sounds naive, but it is true, and it works.

:m: peace :m:

 

[Proud_Syrian]

Originally posted by buddhafish
i just enjoy learning) and i will admit the most troubling aspect of the faith, to me, is the articles on how persecution is worse than killing (therefore anyone percieved to be persecuting the islamic people may be justifiably 'retaliated' against). it does seem to teach a form of religious tolerance, but in the same breath says that those who do not follow islam are, quite simply, going straight to hell, and you should not concern yourself with them.
==============================
P S:

I dont know what kind of Quran you are reading my friend, did not you read all these verses that talk about MERCY AND TOLERANCE TOWARD NON-MUSLIMS ?

16:82 But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you).

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you (of your own choice) a guardian over them.

4:79, 80 (Say to everyone of them,) 'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have (O Prophet) sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

11:28 (Noah to his people) He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If 1 act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?°

17:53, 54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you (Unto men O Prophet) with power to determine their Faith.

21:107 to 109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour (of Judgment) is near or far."

22:67 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites (of prayer) which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord (since that is the main objective of religion). You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, (then say,) `God best knows (the value of) what you do."

88:21, 22; also see 24:54 And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

48:28 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the (task of spreading) Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every (false) religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.

36:16, 17 (Three Messengers to their people)Said (the Messengers), "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.'

39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

42:6, 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

67:25, 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."

60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

60:9 Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

=====================================
saying that religion is necessary to teach us how we should think, to me, is unnecessary. a far better way of going about things, is to simply advocate a good up-bringing based on respecting nature and the environment (which thustly includes all living things). it does not take a book to tell me that pain hurts.
=====================================
P S:

I totally disagree, you do need a BOOK to teach you the principles of biology for example, you do need a TRAFIC LIGHTS to organize the car movement in your cities...

We do need the Noble Quran to organize our life and be the MORAL COMPASS of our life..you cant live without law, you cant live without consitution, the Noble Quran is our law and our consitution.

 

[Quantum Quack]

may be I am being a little simplistic when I ask:

Do we believe in the same God? and are only quibbling over the nature of the messenger? Whether Mohammad or Jesus (excuse spellings)

Afterall which is more important the messenger(s) or the message?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by buddhafish
saying that religion is necessary to teach us how we should think, to me, is unnecessary. a far better way of going about things, is to simply advocate a good up-bringing based on respecting nature and the environment (which thustly includes all living things). it does not take a book to tell me that pain hurts. i can logically derive that another person's pain must hurt as much as mine, so i would not inflict pain on them, and they not unto me. then we're all happy, and die peacefully. you cannot take your riches with you into the next existence (whatever it may be, one with nature, rebirth, nobody truly knows, and it really is irrelevant), so by this reasoning there is no reason to horde. simple answers obtained from within by simply asking yourself and allowing your inner being to answer. i know it sounds naive, but it is true, and it works.

:m: peace :m:

Hooray for naivety.

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
I totally disagree, you do need a BOOK to teach you the principles of biology for example, you do need a TRAFIC LIGHTS to organize the car movement in your cities...

We do need the Noble Quran to organize our life and be the MORAL COMPASS of our life..you cant live without law, you cant live without consitution, the Noble Quran is our law and our consitution.

Perhaps you need traffic lights , all I need is my eyes and attention to recognize a car coming my way , electricity and technology are luxury's not all of us can afford . There are various levels of utility that you can use to guide you through life , not living by the latest does not mean you do not live by any .

Afterall what is the Qu'ran ? What causes somany different interpertations ? What defines Fiqh ? The only thing Qu'ran stands for is perfection , it does not stand for your interpertation of it to be of any more value than than of one without Qu'ran by definition , the other can understand more of Islam without ever seeing a Qu'ran while you can try all your life to understand Ayat and fail .

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

Originally posted by buddhafish
i have read most of the qu'ran by now (i am not muslim, nor will i ever be. i just enjoy learning) and i will admit the most troubling aspect of the faith, to me, is the articles on how persecution is worse than killing (therefore anyone percieved to be persecuting the islamic people may be justifiably 'retaliated' against). it does seem to teach a form of religious tolerance, but in the same breath says that those who do not follow islam are, quite simply, going straight to hell, and you should not concern yourself with them.

As you read the Qu'ran please consider the semantical complications and variety of translations , perspectives and deduced rules & laws .

Now you speak of behaviour/attitude against non-Muslims . Before you judge an act against them , please read my post in this thread regarding the meaning of ISLAM . It may sound very religious segregative but as Arabic is our language it has no religious relation , cultism is human intepertation of Islam and does not represent therefor it should not be treated as such .

We can see why in the prohibition of Takfir :

According to the Quran, if a person says Assalamu Alaikum ([May PEACE be upon you) to us to indicate that he is a Muslim, we cannot say to him "you are not a believer.'' (4:94)

The second thing we learn from this verse is that if, from among a non-Muslim people, a person addresses us by assalamu alaikum, that is sufficient proof that he is a Muslim. When such incidents took place during the Holy Prophet's life-time, sometimes it was suspected by some Muslims that such a person was not sincere. But the Holy Prophet would say to them: "Did you tear open his heart to see what was in it ?''

Thirdly, the verse cited above goes on to say: "You yourselves were like this before.'' That is, you too embraced Islam in this way, so what was sufficient for you is sufficient for them.

So who is the Muslim ? Do we segregate Jews , Christians , Alawis , Druze ......... up untill when ? What is the Muslim if it is not the submitter for peace & security ?

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

Originally posted by Flores
I completely agree with you. I also believe that the intent of Fiqh has lost it's meaning and while it was meant to clarify and aid others in their spiritual strive, it has evidently simplified the meanings to a few cookie cutters steps that people quickly idolized, again the intent of the people may be good yet misguided, but will god judge us purely on our intents or on our application of wisdom and understanding that we were given.

I found that many times will is more often the factor than incapability , intention is a relative term and has little value unless we can objectivize it which we cannot . Eventually true intention is what counts , we are bounded by our potential but as I said more than often these boundries are created by will rather than capability .

You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them .

The second part of our Shehada is creating a barrier and causing all sort of troubles

http://www.submission.org/true-shahada.html

To profess their faith in Islam , the Sunnis make this declaration: "I bear witness that there is no god except God and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God. "Ash hadu anlaa ilaaha illallaahu wa ash hadu anna muhammadar-rasulallah"). This testimony is called the Shahadah and according to Sunni belief it must be recited by every Muslim as an attestation of their allegiance to Islam. Consequently any person who does not 'bear witness' is not accepted as a Muslim by them.
However this testimony is not sanctioned by the true teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, which are found in the Quran, the veritable word of God.

The Shahadah testimony that is recited by the Sunnis originates from Abu Hurairah and is recorded in the 'hadith' - the oral traditions attributed to the prophet Muhammad.

One day Abu Hurairah went to the people and told them that the Messenger had authorized him to go and tell them to recite the Shahadah "ash hadu anlaa ilaha illallhu wa ash hadu anna muhammadar-rasulullah". Another version reads " muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluhu". The first person Abu Hurairah came across to give the Shahadah was Saidina Omar (later the second caliph). When Omar heard it he promptly punched Abu Hurairah in the chest and knocked him to the ground. Then Omar put his foot on Abu Hurairah's neck and asked him how dare he utter such a blasphemy.
Abu Hurairah (who is recorded in the hadith as having received quite a few beatings from Omar during his lifetime) then cried out and named the Messenger as his authority. When again challenged by Saidina Omar, Abu Hurairah pulled out a pair of leather slippers and showed them to Omar. The slippers, he said, were given to him by the Prophet, as proof for what he was saying. Recognizing the prophet's slippers, Omar simmered down. Everyone then happily started reciting the shahadah.

The explenations offered on this site pretty much reflects my personal issues with part 2 , as it offers potential for cultism , religious segregation and idolization .

The prophet Abraham who, although not a Jew or a Christian, was such an excellent example that God commanded his Messenger Muhammad to follow him. And Muhammed responded by saying:

" I have submitted my wholeself to God and so have those who follow me..."

There is a semantical issue with the word "follow" that can explain the misunderstanding . One can follow person X or one can follow in the practice of person X , following as in going after he went .

Unfortunatly peoples easily take the first and follow the person instead .