The above "explanation" from Mazhar is a plain disrespect in the name of common sense, critical thinking, philosophy and literary studies. Not only does he attract his personal limited worldview to 2:8-20, which by the way states nothing about arrogance, which is what a narciss per definition is, it is personal arrogance and solipsism, but it speaks about delusion/cover; he actually makes two distinguishable erreneous conclusions:
1. His explanation of 2:8-20 contradicts 2:34, when a methaphisical created is termed as kafiruun, whereas the former verses speak of ordinary human beings. Now when I bring this up look him trying to solve this, he will say it has to do with "rejection" on his side for this reason he is termed like this. So, is he a disbeliever, an arrogant narcisstic persona, or a rejector?
If Iblis is a disbeliever - that does not make sense, he gives an oath to God and speaks in a quite respectful manner to him;
If Iblis is a rejector - well, yes, he refused to bow to Adam, but how is this sort of rejection relate to 2:8-20?
If Iblis is arrogant - again, in the beginning of Baqara it states that their hearts are sealed, meaning they have no choice believing or disbelieving in God, or their condition is flawed to an extent they cannot see obvious processes happening in their lives (something I notice among inhabitants of this forum as well); therefore arrogance or narcissism is nowhere defined explicitly at least in 2:8-20.
By the way, there is nothing mystical in the Quran according to Mazhar's earlier conclusion, so therefore 2:34 should not even bother him altogether.
2. He said:
Quote from: Mazhar on October 11, 2018, 05:58:01 AMMuhammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam
If something demands to call himself like this, with exalted titles and mantras, that is he who is an arrogant narciss, which is everything we know about Mahomet.
So again, we clearly see contradictory and dualistic views of Mazhar. If something is culturally accepted, for instance, that the Kings of Ancient Egypt were "bad", fine, let's make up a diatribe "proving" their psychological disorder (as if hundreds of other kings can't be measured with such); but if something in his culture is regarded as "good", let us say 'salallaahoalaih wasalam' after his name.
Now, substitute Firun and Mahomet and there we go, in a parralel universe Mazhar would write the very same diatribes proving that Mahomet was a narcisstic persona and Firun alallaahoalaih wasalam was God's messenger...
And what is the difference between Salallaahoalaih wasalam and Firun?
1. Both were rulers, meaning they had a personal army;
2. Both were rulers and therefore had slaves;
3. Both probably led a very excessive lifestyle in regards to power, faith and sexual pleasures, because that's what culturally comes to mind when we speak of Pharaoh's and that's what is known from the ahadith literature about Mahomet (read below what I think about this first);
4. Both were rulers and were higher standing in social hierarchy;
5. Both were murdering people, including unarmed folk, including contract murdering or murder per order;
6. Both were arrogant and demanded special treatment towards their 'divine' persona.
Except that we know nothing about the Biblical and Quranic Firun as a historical persona outside of Biblical and Quranic narratives,
which make it an archetype and not a historical figure as I alreday told; and the facts about Mahomet are contradictory and have authenticity issue
(like anything in history). But, if we only measure them by the Qur'an, for instance, then what is the point of saying salallaahoalaih wasalam after someone who is not even mentioned in there?
Quran says nothing about a person called Mahomet, and these 4 words allegedly attributed to him (out of more 6400+ verses in the whole book) do not even explain a context about him, and clearly mean a different thing, not a person.
I know what 'muhammad' in the Quran refers to. But people being subject to their own flaws and degraded worldview do not let alone require answers.
And in the context of his discourse he by the way mentions:
Quote from: Mazhar on October 11, 2018, 05:58:01 AMA critical reader will find
as if he himself is unsure whether his explanation is "critical" enough so that he tries to impose his view by stating that only "critical minded individuals like I am" will understand it.
