Support NeoGAF

[OttomanScribe]

Yes you are right. He was a well known person of him time and I don't doubt that there are hadith which are somewhat accurate or completely accurate, the mutawatir hadith being good candidates. The major problem is that even within the sahih hadith, there is doubt. They are probably accurate, but probably doesn't cut it especially when God is so clear about telling us not to take any other scripture as a source of law. You keep equating the hadith to Muhammad, but the hadith are reported sayings of Muhammad, but they are not his substitute. At most they give us a good glimpse of who he was, but to accept them as being a 100% correct and then basing practices on them even when they contradict the Quran is wrong.

Well known? People would collect everything they could of him, down to his fingernails! They would not be so flippant about him as to discard things of him so readily. The entire work of Islamic civilisation went into the recording and scholarship of his life. How could it be that things like the poetry of Rabia al-Adawiyya are transmitted to us (from one generation or so later), but all the hadith are unreliable?

You use the word 'scripture' to describe the hadith, when that word does not describe what they are at all. There is nothing innately sacred about them, what is sacred is what they describe. They are equated to the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) because they ARE what we take of him, they are what remains. Even if we cannot be 100% certain, they make up the closest to certainty that we can achieve.

As to your final point... as far as I understand it, all the madhabs will take the Qur'an when there is a contradiction between a hadith and the Qur'an, so this point does not work when it comes to talking about the basis of law. They are clarifications of the law itself, the fulfilment of Quranic imperatives.

Within 30 years of Jesus absence, he was considered divine throughout the Roman empire.
How did this happen? I would put trust in the mutawatir, but I don't hold them as equal to the Quran if they contradict or add to it.

How many disciples did Jesus (alayhi salaam) reportedly have? Now how many Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam)? Considering the great imperative upon the Muslim community to not lose that which had been transmitted to them, and not have it changed like what happened with the Christians. Not to mention that the Romans were not an oral culture like the Arabs, who were used to preserving great tracts of poetry across the generations.

200 years. Words get around

Not really not from Yemen to Iraq, not in the way that would be required to get 10 different people in 10 different places to say the same words... not just for one hadith, but for hundreds upon thousands upon hundreds of thousands.

Too bad none of these survive as well as Umar ibn al-Khattab putting a ban on writing down the hadith. If I was a collector of hadith, I would also make sure to collect hadith claiming that hadith have always been written down.

How do you know he did, if not through the same way that the hadith got to you? the same sources that say he banned the writing down of hadith, are those that say the Uthman (radiAllahu anhu) told the Muslims to write them down. If you accept the first account, do you accept the second?

I have a terrible memory actually. I don't remember much of anything besides the Quran.

I can, off the top of my head, remember hundreds of the sayings of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). I do not say this to post, or posit that I am better than you in any way, I merely point out that it is possible to remember such things easily, especially if one has trained the brain to do so.

This is me, a white dude, who came to Islam with half his braincells gone from his youth, and coming from a recording culture, a culture whose emphasis is rarely on recalled information.

Nothing has the same classification as the Quran as the Quran is the only book accepted by all Muslims regardless of school of thought or sect.

The Shia accepted the mainstream Sunni traditions until the coming of the twelvers irrc. When I say classification, I refer to in terms of authenticity based on number of transmissions, I would never imply that the hadith have the same classification in terms of being the book of God.

Mutawatir is a term which is misapplied and misunderstood. You say that mutawatir are so well founded that they can't be disputed, but this isn't true. For example, Raf'ul yadein(raising hands in prayer) is considered as mutawator by Imam Al-Bukhari, but the Hanafis deny its tawatur. Similarly the hadith of fatiha khalf al-imam is considered mutawatir by Bukhari, but not everyone agrees. It's case specific. What gives sure knowledge to one may not give it to others. Mutawatir give the same "sure" knowledge if they are rigorously authenticated. Anyone compiling the mutawatir would be using his ijtihad, which may be contested. However there are only a few which everyone would agree on. That is why the definition of mutawatir is also disparate. Some say 10 narrators at every level is the bare minimum and some 100 and some decrease it to less than 10.

I use the term 'Mutawatir' specifically to refer to the Hanafi use of the term, the equivalent term amongst those who aren't Hanafi is 'Mashur'. The difference you are saying exists does not seem to be a difference between Mutawatir (which is a specific term in Hanafi fiqh) hadith, but rather between those considered Mutawatir by the Hanafis, and those on the similar level of 'Mashur' by others. Every Mutawatir hadith is Mashur (which can be translated as 'well known') but the opposite is not true. When you talk about numbers of narrators, we are talking usually about the number initially, always amongst the Sahaba. Only in very rare cases do we ever see the number of transmitters in any generation diminish, for obvious reasons: a number of companions tell a group of different people, who all remember the hadith, and then pass it on to another group, thus the number expands continually.

When you talk about the difference between what Hanafis say is Mutawatir, and what others refer to as Mashur, you are comparing apples and oranges, because they are distinct categories (albeit with some overlap). That is, at least, how I have been caused to understand it.

Ottoman, if hadith came directly from the Prophet or any of his companions, I would have no problem accepting them, but they don't.

The Qur'an did not come to you directly from Gibril (alayhis salaam) but was conveyed to you in the form of a compilation that was transmitted to you in a similar form to the ahadith, at times memorised and not written down, but still conveyed to you in a coherent form.

That there are some doubtful hadith does not mean that all are doubtful, or that all are useless. That they are a central part of the understandings of all the Muslims is not a mere coincidence, it is God's will.

1) Commands which were specific to his contemporaries are obviously only applicable to them, such as how to split spoils of war among each other, or not to marry his wives, etc.

That is clear, however not all of those that you claim to be specific to his contemporaries are confined to immediate concerns. Like the aforementioned commands that relate to obeying him and more specifically, to take his example. So much of the Qur'an is concerned with occurrences at the time, yet without the context conveyed in the Seerah and the hadith one cannot understand these in the least. You may understand them, but this is not because they are made clear in the Qur'an, but rather because they have been conveyed to you from your culture and your education. Without the hadith, you would not even know who the companions referred to in the Qur'an actually were.

1) Muhammad did not invent Islam. He did not make the rules. God did. God says Obey the Prophet because what the Prophet is saying is from God, ie the Quran. If I follow the Quran, I follow the Prophet and God. Think of it like this, if I send a messenger to you carrying a letter and tell him dictate it to you and in it I say, listen and obey to whatever this man has to say. When that messenger reads the letter to you and then you obey him, who and what are you obeying? You are obeying him as I asked you to, but you are only obeying him by obeying the message I sent with him. That is why God says "if you obey the messenger you have obeyed Me."

This analogy does not work brother. The Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was not merely a Messenger, he was a Prophet! The Qur'an does not merely say 'obey' it says 'refer to him when you have differences', it says 'take him as your example'. I return to my previous point: if Allah in the Qur'an tells us that differences will occur between us, and that the method exists to resolve them (the Prophet sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) what do we, today, refer to when it comes to our differences if not the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and the living tradition that remains of him?

Is this messengers message distinct from mine? No, the message is my message. You are just obeying him. Now what if in that letter I said, btw messenger don't invent anything on your own or else I'll kill you. That'd be a pretty serious threat no? So why do you think he would invent his own laws?

That is how we know that the laws that come to him are divinely inspired. Are you denying that the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) acted as a law giver? He did not invent his own laws, he transmitted the laws that were the path to God, that were the embodiment of that which is conveyed in the Holy Qur'an.

To what end are these laws conveyed otherwise? Was the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) disobeying Allah when he conveyed them? This is a central point, the Sha'riah in this sense, as conveyed by the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is an indispensable part of the Messenger's role as a Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). How can then our best form of action be to abandon the laws he put down, as a leader? Why would Allah use him as a mute Messenger to the people, with a message that was all they needed, and then make the Sayyidina Rasul'Allah sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam an example and a conveyor of law to the people? Why are all the Prophets in the Qur'an (alayhis salaam) shown as lawgivers and guides to their people, if their role was merely as mute transmitters?

And they ask"What ought we to spend "? Say "Spend whatever you can spare." Thus Allah makes His commands clear to you so that you may think about the good of both this world and the Hereafter.

If God didn't tell you to give to charity 2.5%, why are you giving 2.5%? Give more. Give less. Give what you can, give with every chance you get, that is what Muhammad did, that is what Jesus did, and that is what all the prophets have done.

What is this if not making your own ijtihad? How is 'whatever you can spare' defined? You say you would take things if they were conveyed to you from the companions, but are you really arguing that Abu Bakr (radiAllahu anhu) went to war against those deviants who determined that what they could spare was 'nothing', if that decision was merely up to them? Or do you not trust that account also?

I don't understand how one can know their religion without knowing their Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). I don't understand how one can see so many commands in the Qur'an to take the example and orders of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and then have those things be something that dissipates immediately upon his passing.

Because if you read the Quran you would know that you can not kill another Muslim unless it is for murder, that the punishment can not exceed the crime, that God does not love aggressors, and also the fact that the word translated as “beat” also has different uses in the Quran, but that is another topic.

So you can beat her as much as you like, as long as she is not dead? Of course the translation of 'beat' is a shaky one, but it is shaky because of the contemporary use of the word at the time, which you don't know because the Arabic that would allow you to know it is transmitted through even less sound ways than the Hadith.

Muhammad arranged the Quran as it is today, this command is given to him in the Quran itself. The current format of the Quran has been like this since it's compilation.

How do you know? That is not something in the Qur'an (it refers to the arrangement of them as being something given to the Rasul sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam, but the revelations are not numbered), the description of the compilation and arranging of the Qur'an is in the hadith....

however that is not what I referred to. What I am referring to is the order of revelation, something of prime importance when it comes to determining which verse comes first in terms of abrogation. Like I said, without the hadith, how do you know the order in which revelation occurred, in order to know which verses come first and which comes second?

Go buy a copy of the Quran. As far as the ahruf go, they have been around since the time of Muhammad.

Which you know through the hadith. Without the hadith, and the tashkilat, you could not know how to pronounce the Qur'an at all. The hadith are what record the very fact that different ahruf can be used. There is no such reference in the Qur'an.

All prophets are law givers, they deliver the laws God commands them.

Exactly, and not all of them are Messengers, which shows that the laws that they deliver from God do not come in the form of the Qitab, but in the form of the Prophetic example. This is a very central point. There is a clear distinction between Prophets and Messengers, and the two titles describe different roles. The Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was both, a conveyor of a qitab; in the form of the Qur'an, and a conveyor of the law in the form of the Prophetic example, the Sunnah.

Subhan'Allah! Isn't the a point enough? How else would we know what God wants?? You can ask God yourself when you meet Him I suppose. He is the One who told his messenger that he is only a deliverer of the message and nothing else. (4:80, 6:107, 10:108, 39:41, 88:22,

We know what God wants from His giving of us the perfect example to follow as is described in the Qur'an. Otherwise that is a contradiction, he is an example to follow, and yet nothing more than a delivery boy?

Those verses don't work, 4:80 doesn't say that, nor 6:107, or 10:108 or 39:41 or even 88:22..

That's right, if God had not send a prophet, we wouldn't know what was right or wrong because we wouldn't have God's message.

Refer to above distinction between Prophet and Messenger.

Muhammad was sent for all the worlds. Why did he die if had to be around for all beings for the rest of eternity have to follow him?? Why didn't God make him immortal? Because he was not the message. He recited the message and it has been preserved by God. When you obey the message, you obey the messenger.

He did not need to be immortal in order for him to be an example for us. Our striving to emulate him, as what we have of him reduces, is jihad for us, part of the entropy foretold in the Qur'an. If that entropy does not occur, and all that is needed for the community is the Qur'an and copious ijtihad, then why is this Quranist thing such a bidaa?

When the message says 'take the Messenger as your example and the way to separate disputes about the message' and then you say 'no! Despite having copious access to his example in the preserved traditions of the community, I am going to instead make up my own mind about such things, without any reference to his example'... then you aren't obeying the message.

Because he is the only one with the message. If God spoke to everyone individually, he probably wouldn't ask us to follow anyone.

Prophet Muhammad being the greatest one.

Wow. Really?

What is clear in the Qur'an is that the Prophet Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was given guidance by Allah, outside of the bounds of the Qur'an. One example is the third verse in Surah at-Tahrim, where he is asked by his wives how he knew something and replies 'The Knower, the Aware hath told me.'. Yet the information conveyed does not exist in the Qur'an, which shows that the Rasul'Allah sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam was not confined to the Qur'an.

Unless you can show me somewhere in the Qur'an where that information exists?

Religion always becomes corrupt and divides into sects. This is nothing new. It happened with Judaism, it happened with Jesus (I won't even call Christianity his religion). Why do you think Islam is so special? Has God taken some oath that he will protect it from change or people who invent or divide it?

Indeed God has described that the Muslims will lose close to everything until near the end. However this does not respond to my question. If the state of the world is one of continual decay, from whence comes this Quranist movement? If not as a reprehensible innovation? If what you say is true, and this is the right path, then why were there not more arguing it in the past? The giants of Islamic scholarship, from Al-Ghazzali to Rumi were not inclined toward it, why then does it come now? Why throughout Islamic history has there been none arguing this point and then suddenly, coming from a Western critique of the hadith (which is, funnily enough, no longer so widely accepted) there arises this Quranist movement, apparently restoring the Haqq?

Doesn't sound likely to me.

God does not lead people astray, people lead abandon God's words and lead themselves to doom.

? Whomever he has guided, none can lead astray, whomever he misguides, none can return...

Look at the state of the Muslims today. You say you have a hard time believing “God would lead a community astray”, then why did the companions of the Prophet wage war against each other and kill each other?

The fitna was a product of their own political differences, it did not however involve any differences within the religion itself. The sectarian aspect (in terms of law and theology) only came about much much later, and even then the law and theology of both still remain far similar than the kind of sectarian differences that exist amongst the khuffar.

Why did they fracture into sects so soon afterwards? Why have Muslims killed each other through out history? To kill another Muslim is unforgivable in the Quran, yet it has happened since the beginning. God never promised to protect people from themselves or protect the ummah, rather it is the working towards good that is almost the whole message of the Quran. To each is their works. We can't say to God, “but I was only following what I found my scholars doing”, this is what the people entering hell will say according to the Quran.

It has been given to us that this will occur, that our community will collapse in time. However that does not mean that the core of the community has not remained steady, even throughout the wars and turmoil that have wracked our nations. Do you think that those who become Quranists will be any less burdened with their own nature? Indeed looking at what they must resort to: literalism without recourse to the hadith for explanation, the only product of such seems to be self-deception or extremism. Like I said before, why aren't you out chopping off the heads of non-Muslims, considering that the context for the verse and its practical application exists in the Sha'riah and the hadith?

I don't. Anyone who believes in the One God, his angels, his books, his prophets, the last day, and does good will have nothing to fear, that is Allah's promise.

If someone believes in commands of the hadith as being commands of God, then they should follow them because that is what God will judge them by. God gives an example of this by telling us that he didn't command monks to be hermits, but they invented it themselves, but after that they didn't even follow it properly. So if you believe in it, follow it.

Again, we don't believe in the hadith as the direct commands of God. The hadith are not a Qitab. Rather they are an example of the example of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) they are what is given to us as the lived tradition of the religion, that which protects and nurtures what remains of it. You say 'invented it themselves' and therein lays your problem. All of your interpretations are invented by yourself... you do not refer to Allah's command to judge differences according to the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam).

The sects already exist. I follow God's scripture, in it is clear guidance. The sects follow what God never authorized. I am not calling anyone to abandon their beliefs, to each their own. My wife believes in the hadith, so does my mom, I don't give them trouble about it. There is no compulsion in religion.

A sect is defined as a group that separates itself from the main. Allah's command says 'don't separate yourself'. The Ahlul'Sunnah have always been the majority. What are Quranists if not a group who 'seperates themselves' creating a group of innovation

I pray for everyone to be guided. No one knows if they are on the right path. We all have to constantly strive to be in God's mercy and be in fear of his abandonment. The moment one believes he is righteous, he has lost.

Indeed, yet one must believe that they are right, or they are lost also.

I respect your views Ottoman, and some of what you have said has inspired me to look deeper into the hadith, and who knows maybe someday I'll agree with you, but I have yet to find any convincing evidence that the hadith should be treated as equal to the God's words or Muhammad's own words. When the faultyness of the human memory is considered, and Jesus can become divine in 30 years, and the ummah plunge into civil war within the first generation, it's difficult to believe sayings of the Prophet could survive unaltered for 200 years.

The sayings of the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) survived for 200 years, indeed they survived more than 1433 yeras, because they were the central concern of the Muslims. Beyond politics, they are the legacy of the Islamic civilisation, the great work of the tens of thousands of Sahaba and those whom they taught. Almost all of what you know about the Beloved of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) comes through them. They are not 'equal to God's words', no one is saying they are. What they are is the foundation for our understanding our Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) which forms the foundation for understanding the Qur'an.

Whom is more reliable when it comes to conveying an understanding of the Qur'an to you, those who you have been told to ask 'those who know', or yourself? This especially goes for those whose Arabic isn't up to scratch (including myself). The best way to understand the Qur'an is in the systematised manner in which it has been conveyed to us, the manner which was viewed as the best way to do so throughout Muslim history.

And Allah knows best.

 

[crazy monkey]

my god ottoman. This reminds me of nizars days.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Haha.. beat the character limit alhamduliLlah.

As to ColdFoot, at this stage he is just repeating Riz's points with a different intent, so I don't see the point in replying.

As to Ashura....

I take the classical Sunni position, namely that the Shia are not non-Muslim, but are misguided. Average Joe Blow Shia is not culpable for the misguidance of his sect, but their Ulema should know better.

As far as I know, there are not any major examples of kufr in mainstream Shia theology. I recommend Sheikh Nuh's talk 'Bida and Shia' on this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5nPWyeB5Sc


I think that every new person that comes into this thread with a bone to pick (which they have undoubtedly got from some anti-Muslim website) should actually read the thread before they troll it, considering that most of their questions are answered in there sometime.

 

[OttomanScribe]

my god ottoman. This reminds me of nizars days.

What can I say, I have a problem with being succinct.

 

[Patapwn]

Hey Muslims, I have a question. Why did god wait 600 years to supposedly right a mistelling of his word?

Was he sleeping?

 

[crazy monkey]

Write or right

 

[Patapwn]

Write or right

To right a wrong.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Hey Muslims, I have a question. Why did god wait 600 years to supposedly right a mistelling of his word?

Was he sleeping?

He was not sleeping. He does not 'wait'. Time has no meaning to God.

 

[Az]

Love following this thread, but I do hate the quote feature just because of here..

 

[Patapwn]

He was not sleeping. He does not 'wait'. Time has no meaning to God.

But time has meaning to humans. And many a soul were without his word for the death of millions.

So the question is to be posed again. Why did god wait 600 years to right a wrong?

 

[crazy monkey]

^ what are you referring to?

 

[Patapwn]

^ what are you referring to?

Christianity? Islam considers Jesus a prophet but the religion of his name to be misrepresentation of god's word. The 'event' or time of Jesus was 600 or so years before Islam.

Does that offer clarification?

 

[OttomanScribe]

But time has meaning to humans. And many a soul were without his word for the death of millions.

So the question is to be posed again. Why did god wait 600 years to right a wrong?

The Islamic understanding of the movement of time is of waves of revival and entropy. A community will decay continually from the time of the coming of a Prophet (alayhis salaam) who gives the law or a Messenger (alayhis salaam) who gives scripture and law, to the time where the community has decayed in its entirety and a new Prophet or Messenger (alayhis salaam) is brought in order to reinstate the haqq (truth) that has almost entirely left the community.

The coming of the Rasul'Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is the last point in history where this will occur, from now on, entropy will ensue until only the return of Jesus (alayhi salaam) can bring regrowth before yawm'ul qiyama (the final judgement).

600 years is apparently the point where a Prophet, in this case the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was meant to come. As to why not 30 years, or 1000, Allah knows best. It is not an out of the ordinary occurrence, considering the time in between other Jewish Prophets (alayhis salaam) and Yahya (alayhis salaam).

 

[Patapwn]

The Islamic understanding of the movement of time is of waves of revival and entropy. A community will decay continually from the time of the coming of a Prophet (alayhis salaam) who gives the law or a Messenger (alayhis salaam) who gives scripture and law, to the time where the community has decayed in its entirety and a new Prophet or Messenger (alayhis salaam) is brought in order to reinstate the haqq (truth) that has almost entirely left the community.

The coming of the Rasul'Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is the last point in history where this will occur, from now on, entropy will ensue until only the return of Jesus (alayhi salaam) can bring regrowth before yawm'ul qiyama (the final judgement).

600 years is apparently the point where a Prophet, in this case the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was meant to come. As to why not 30 years, or 1000, Allah knows best.

Christianity was taught in it's supposedly incorrect form hundreds of years before Islam.

As far as community goes, it was decayed day 1. Which still leaves us with that damn question...

 

[OttomanScribe]

Christianity was taught in it's supposedly incorrect form hundreds of years before Islam.

As far as community goes, it was decayed day 1. Which still leaves us with that damn question...

Ever heard of Unitarians? There have always been Christian communities that believed that Christ was not God (the greatest misguidance of the Christians being the later deification of Jesus alayhis salaam).

As to the question of why then specifically; I don't know. It doesn't seem like a theological problem to me.

 

[Patapwn]

Ever heard of Unitarians? There have always been Christian communities that believed that Christ was not God (the greatest misguidance of the Christians being the later deification of Jesus alayhis salaam).

As to the question of why then specifically; I don't know. It doesn't seem like a theological problem to me.

Unitarians? I don't think your very familiar with their history...

The theological issue (as far as your religion goes) is that god has a cyclical process of taking interest in humanity, going away for god knows how long (haha the pun!), then returning to offer his words to one and only one man. In this case, Judaism--> Christianity --> Islam. But more specifically, I'm focusing on the transition from Christianity to Islam.

As a Muslim, you must accept the idea that god had cometh, the words were transcribed incorrectly, then god sat on his laurels for over 600 years (or in his playtoy's terms, millions of lifetimes). It seems awfully bipolar for such an omnipotent being to exhibit extreme caring and extreme atrophy at the same interval directly before and directly after Christianity. God cares about his word and man (supposedly), yet you didn't see him stepping into the situation when Paul preached the wrong words to the world. It's a contradiction if you will.

I am not a Muslim OR a Christan for that matter. But I do study and talk of them. And I do draw some conclusions on them. As far as my answer for this apparent contradiction (if you are open to an alternative possibility), I don't think the god of Christ and the god of Muhammad are one in the same. Actually, I don't think there was ever a god in the equation at all. As in, I think Muhammad made his religion up for whatever reason man makes religion, and plagiarized the contents of the torah and bible (It certainly wasn't the last time someone tried to rewrite Judaism with themselves as a prophet BTW). This accounts for why god, the carer of man, took a long breather on the side bench as the entire world was being dazed by Christianity.

Certainly my explanation is logical, no? Are you even accepting of that possibility? And I suppose this transitions into a bigger theological point of debate. Why is it's always one man telling the world what god says, never god telling the world?

Anyway, whatever your apologetics has taught you, I'm always interested in how people deal with such questions. But you didn't really seem to find the original question very problematic to begin with so...

 

[OttomanScribe]

Unitarians? I don't think your very familiar with their history...

I use the term to refer to those who did not deify Jesus (alayhis salaam) not merely the movement by that name, apologies, I should have been more specific.

The theological issue (as far as your religion goes) is that god has a cyclical process of taking interest in humanity, going away for god knows how long (haha the pun!), then returning to offer his words to one and only one man. In this case, Judaism--> Christianity --> Islam. But more specifically, I'm focusing on the transition from Christianity to Islam.

This is an incorrect characterisation of the beliefs of my religion regarding the cyclical process, this is not a matter of God having cycles of 'interest' (how one defines something omniscient to have 'interests' is beyond me) but merely cycles of history, the decay is as much the will of God as the revival.

As a Muslim, you must accept the idea that god had cometh, the words were transcribed incorrectly, then god sat on his laurels for over 600 years (or in his playtoy's terms, millions of lifetimes). It seems awfully bipolar for such an omnipotent being to exhibit extreme caring and extreme atrophy at the same interval directly before and directly after Christianity. God cares about his word and man (supposedly), yet you didn't see him stepping into the situation when Paul preached the wrong words to the world. It's a contradiction if you will.

Characterising it in terms of 'care' is inaccurate, Allah would not be altered in any way were all of humanity to be like the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) or like Abu Jahl. Thus there is no contradiction, as the entropy is His intent, just like the revival.

I am not a Muslim OR a Christan for that matter. But I do study and talk of them. And I do draw some conclusions on them. As far as my answer for this apparent contradiction (if you are open to an alternative possibility), I don't think the god of Christ and the god of Muhammad are one in the same.

No! An Atheist! On NeoGaf.. bless my stars, now I've seen everything

Actually, I don't think there was ever a god in the equation at all. As in, I think Muhammad made his religion up for whatever reason man makes religion, and plagiarized the contents of the torah and bible (It certainly wasn't the last time someone tried to rewrite Judaism with themselves as a prophet BTW). This accounts for why god, the carer of man, took a long breather on the side bench as the entire world was being dazed by Christianity.

The Qur'an is an entirely different thing to the Torah and the Bible. The Torah and the Talmud are a collection of religious musings, and the Bible is a collection of various supposed accounts of the life of Jesus (alayhis salaam). The Qur'an is not a book like that. That the unlettered Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was the Messenger for a book which taught a similar message to that of the Christians and the Jews is a logical result of him being in part a mujadid (reviver). The Qur'an as a book is a work nothing like, at least linguistically, that of the Bible and the Torah, so in terms of accusations of plagiarism, that doesn't really work. If the themes are similar (with huge exceptions, so plagiarism again is challenged) can be explained by either of us.

Certainly my explanation is logical, no? Are you even accepting of that possibility? And I suppose this transitions into a bigger theological point of debate. Why is it's always one man telling the world what god says, never god telling the world?

It is one explanation, but it is far from irrefutable. The Qur'an is viewed as a proof of God for a reason, in that its poetry is so exquisite (in the language of its transmission of course) as to be beyond the realm of human creation.

As to your second point, what is the difference? Every situation one is presented with is produced by God. That homeless man asking you for money.. is (in a metaphorical sense) God asking you if you will be charitable. All situations stem from God, and therefore being presented with the Holy Qur'an is God telling you, personally, what the deal is.

Anyway, whatever your apologetics has taught you, I'm always interested in how people deal with such questions. But you didn't really seem to find the original question very problematic to begin with so...

And I still don't. There are times of decay in between every Prophet (alayhis salaam) the time between Jesus (alayhis salaam) and Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is of no issue. There may indeed have been many Prophets (alayhis salaam) in that intermittent period, we are simply unaware of them.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Anyone seen this:
http://www.thenewstribe.com/2011/12...at-khalid-bin-walid-r-a-arab-tv/#.TuBgAPLheZR

Subhan'Allah.

They're chucking a Saudi!

 

[Meadows]

Apologies for my incorrect wording, didn't mean to offend anyone.

Here's something else I was wondering about:

The Qur'an says, multiple times, that hypocritical people will be punished (by hell/fire etc), but the Qur'an is hypocritical in many places (as any book as long as that would be). What do you make of this?

One example is that in the Qur'an, it is said that Earth was created after heaven, but in another chapter that heaven was created first.

Do you mean hypocritical or contradictory? that example is an example of a contradiction not an example of hypocrisy. I think. right?

To make a mistake and then claim that God can make no mistake and that this is the direct word of God is hypocritical. Sorry I should have been clearer.

Can anybody answer my question?

Oh, and apologies if I sound blunt, I'd like to make it clear again that I respect all of your belief systems, and especially respect discussion and debate of belief systems.

 

[Ydahs]

Hey Muslims, I have a question. Why did god wait 600 years to supposedly right a mistelling of his word?

Was he sleeping?

That's a good question. We can also ask why did God allow for his word to be mistold in the first place. These are questions which we, as the followers of God, cannot answer. We really don't have a concrete understanding of why things unfolded the way they did, but we must acknowledge that what God has predestined will or has occurred.

Of course, as an athiest, what I said might not have much meaning, but as one who is a follower of God, it means that we must trust in God's plan and the destiny he laid out for his followers. Did God know the mistelling of his word was going to occur? Absolutely. One of the traits of God is The All Knowing. He knows what has occurred and what will occur. Why did he wait 600 years though? Heck, why did he supposedly send down thousands upon thousands of Prophets to our Earth and allow all to fail? One answer to that though may be the purpose of Muhammad as opposed to other Prophets. Others were sent down to guide their nation while he himself was sent down to spread his message to all of mankind.

I'm sorry if my answer just led to more questions (undoubtedly), but it's the best I could do to answer it. Really, no matter who you ask you probably won't get a more concrete answer.

Can anybody answer my question?

Oh, and apologies if I sound blunt, I'd like to make it clear again that I respect all of your belief systems, and especially respect discussion and debate of belief systems.

Can you provide the verse which make the contradiction? I doubt I'll be able to answer since I'm not exactly too informed on these matters.

Also, the example you brought up isn't a contradiction (you probably wrote it out wrong).

 

[Patapwn]

Characterising it in terms of 'care' is inaccurate, Allah would not be altered in any way were all of humanity to be like the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) or like Abu Jahl. Thus there is no contradiction, as the entropy is His intent, just like the revival.


The Qur'an is an entirely different thing to the Torah and the Bible. The Torah and the Talmud are a collection of religious musings, and the Bible is a collection of various supposed accounts of the life of Jesus (alayhis salaam). The Qur'an is not a book like that. That the unlettered Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was the Messenger for a book which taught a similar message to that of the Christians and the Jews is a logical result of him being in part a mujadid (reviver). The Qur'an as a book is a work nothing like, at least linguistically, that of the Bible and the Torah, so in terms of accusations of plagiarism, that doesn't really work. If the themes are similar (with huge exceptions, so plagiarism again is challenged) can be explained by either of us.

It is one explanation, but it is far from irrefutable. The Qur'an is viewed as a proof of God for a reason, in that its poetry is so exquisite (in the language of its transmission of course) as to be beyond the realm of human creation.

As to your second point, what is the difference? Every situation one is presented with is produced by God. That homeless man asking you for money.. is (in a metaphorical sense) God asking you if you will be charitable. All situations stem from God, and therefore being presented with the Holy Qur'an is God telling you, personally, what the deal is.

And I still don't. There are times of decay in between every Prophet (alayhis salaam) the time between Jesus (alayhis salaam) and Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is of no issue. There may indeed have been many Prophets (alayhis salaam) in that intermittent period, we are simply unaware of them.

You're repeating the same thing about decay. There was no decay. The world did not decay as Christianity was the same for 600 years. And it's god's intent that people be led astray and die without hearing his word? What of equal opportunity? God must not be for such things then lol. Seriously, he either cares or he doesn't. He comes to share his knowledge or he doesn't come at all. The fact that god apparently is 'wishy washy' puts his omnipotence into question.

The qur'an is viewed as proof why again? Because of it's poetry? The poetry from heaven? The quran is a book of what god supposedly proclaimed to man, the same as every other religious text. Specifically, it's a work in the vain of Christianity and Judaism. That's what it IS. You can make claims of what it's LIKE but there is a discrepancy. And really, my opinion of the poetry aspect is that it's bullshit. The very fact that it was transcribed into words contradicts the assertion that such a document could not be made by man. It's no surprise that people who claim it to be the word of god make it out to be the word of god... I hear my Christan mother say the same thing about the bible. "if only you read it with the holy spirit in you etc. etc. etc."

And on the portion about every situation being created by god... I have something I would like you to think about. Prophets are contacted by god correct? They are, either directly or by an intermediary, contacted. Or at least that's what the bible and qur'an imply. That's what happened to Muhammad at least. Where the fuck is my contact? Why must I believe these people who may or may not be full of shit? Why can't we get a free pass like Muhammad and have Gabriel come to us? This goes back to my equal opportunity thing.

Apparently, god gives direct understanding to one man in the hopes that understanding be shed to all, yet why not just give understanding to all? How many pacific islanders without the opportunity to hear gods word have lived and died? Or anyone from any place during any time for that matter. It seems that the intent of god and power of god struggle to manifest outside the minds of one single men, in a cave somewhere, 600 years after the second attempt, and not of equal opportunity. Does that not seem... interesting? That the same method that Buddhism was manifested, Hinduism was manifest, whatever lie you claim is a lie, was the same method that Islam came about? Though the mouth of a man? And as we know the way of man...

It's strange how this question makes complete and absolute sense when the possibility that someone told a pretty big fib comes into the equation.

 

[Meadows]

Can you provide the verse which make the contradiction? I doubt I'll be able to answer since I'm not exactly too informed on these matters.

Also, the example you brought up isn't a contradiction (you probably wrote it out wrong).

Sura 2:29/Sura 41:9-12 contradicts with Sura 79:27-30.

A contradiction, yes, but if God is all knowing and the Qur'an is the direct word of God, then to be contradictory is to be hypocritical.

 

[Yasir]

Thought this was quite beautiful so thought I'd share:

"For your sake, I hurry over land and water:

For your sake, I cross the desert and split the mountain in two,

And turn my face from all things,

Until the time I reach the place

Where I am alone with You." - Al Hallaj

 

[Ydahs]

Sura 2:29/Sura 41:9-12 contradicts with Sura 79:27-30.

A contradiction, yes, but if God is all knowing and the Qur'an is the direct word of God, then to be contradictory is to be hypocritical.

I read the translations on quran.com and it appeared to me that too that it was a contradiction. Though I then read another translation and it seems that there is no contradiction. The below are the verses from a non-contradictory translation:

2:29 It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; Moreover His design comprehended the heavens, for He gave order and perfection to the seven firmaments; and of all things He hath perfect knowledge.

41:9 Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.

41:10 He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).

41:11 Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."

41:12 So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

79:27 What! Are ye the more difficult to create or the heaven (above)? ((Allah)) hath constructed it:

79:28 On high hath He raised its canopy, and He hath given it order and perfection.

79:29 Its night doth He endow with darkness, and its splendour doth He bring out (with light).

79:30 And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);

I then realised that this may be one of those translation issues, where certain words have different meanings and can thus be translated differently. I did a bit of Googling and found this article which seems to go into more detail on a different issue, but also crosses on the differences in translation of the verses you've given.

Link: http://muxlim.com/blogs/Yahya_Snow/an-alleged-contradiction-in-the-quran-is-false-by-yahya-snow/

 

[BocoDragon]

My Shia friend was explaining to me the layers of complexity in the split between Sunni/Shia. I already know the difference academically, but it's interesting to hear what Muslims individually feel about it.

But it got me thinking.... have there ever been those who recognize the prophecy of Mohammad, but reject the whole "lineage" debate as irrelevant? I don't mean a Shia or Sunni who respects the other side... but simply someone who rejects the whole concept of having to worry about any descent of leadership? ....or that there should have ever been leadership in the first place?

Isn't it possible that God would send his true message, and then humans, as they do in nearly every endeavor, will fight over that message and divide themselves into camps, that are utterly irrellivant to the message of God?

Maybe there wasn't supposed to be any leader at all... not even Mohommad? I can recognize that the events of his life put him into a position of influence, and that helped spread God's message.... but maybe there was never supposed to be a formal "community" of belief at all, and no leader necessary. It seems to me that the whole community + lineage aspect to the religion could be the kind of thing fostered the by institution of the community itself... not necessarily something mandated by God. It may be entirely irrelevant to the message of God itself?

 

[Pollux]

Ever heard of Unitarians? There have always been Christian communities that believed that Christ was not God (the greatest misguidance of the Christians being the later deification of Jesus alayhis salaam).

As to the question of why then specifically; I don't know. It doesn't seem like a theological problem to me.

Could one also say that the greatest misguidance of the Muslims is there lack of faith that Jesus is the only Son of God?

 

[Pollux]

Had a question but figured it out. Are interfaith religious debates allowed in this thread?

 

[Ydahs]

Had a question but figured it out. Are interfaith religious debates allowed in this thread?

I personally don't mind it, but I don't think that's really the intention of this thread.

 

[Patapwn]

Had a question but figured it out. Are interfaith religious debates allowed in this thread?

Hopefully or else I'm screwed lol

 

[Kad5]

My Shia friend was explaining to me the layers of complexity in the split between Sunni/Shia. I already know the difference academically, but it's interesting to hear what Muslims individually feel about it.

But it got me thinking.... have there ever been those who recognize the prophecy of Mohammad, but reject the whole "lineage" debate as irrelevant? I don't mean a Shia or Sunni who respects the other side... but simply someone who rejects the whole concept of having to worry about any descent of leadership? ....or that there should have ever been leadership in the first place?

Isn't it possible that God would send his true message, and then humans, as they do in nearly every endeavor, will fight over that message and divide themselves into camps, that are utterly irrellivant to the message of God?

Maybe there wasn't supposed to be any leader at all... not even Mohommad? I can recognize that the events of his life put him into a position of influence, and that helped spread God's message.... but maybe there was never supposed to be a formal "community" of belief at all, and no leader necessary. It seems to me that the whole community + lineage aspect to the religion could be the kind of thing fostered the by institution of the community itself... not necessarily something mandated by God. It may be entirely irrelevant to the message of God itself?

It doesn't hurt to have a leader who represents God in terms of solving contemporary issues.

Shi'a support the idea of a "divinely influenced" lineage because the prophets were chosen the same way. All the Abrahamic prophets come from a common line that reaches back to Abraham who's line goes back even further to Adam who was the first prophet of God.

 

[Ashes]

Can anybody answer my question?

Oh, and apologies if I sound blunt, I'd like to make it clear again that I respect all of your belief systems, and especially respect discussion and debate of belief systems.

Os sort of did; and it's been covered a fair few times. Translation is one solution, and another is the basic reasoning of the passage. Especially when one considers the other passages. Is the god in the Quran talking in consecutive series?

Muslim philosophers digested these things for hundreds of years. Forgetting the charge of hypocrisy for a second, a 'mistake' would have to be looked at. It's not just a case of a more accurate translation, it's also looking at things from an ideas standpoint. School x says this, school y says that. Muslims are not suppose to go with what's right and wrong, but what's true.

 

[Meadows]

Os sort of did; and it's been covered a fair few times. Translation is one solution, and another is the basic reasoning of the passage. Especially when one considers the other passages. Is the god in the Quran talking in consecutive series?

Muslim philosophers digested these things for hundreds of years. Forgetting the charge of hypocrisy for a second, a 'mistake' would have to be looked at. It's not just a case of a more accurate translation, it's also looking at things from an ideas standpoint. School x says this, school y says that. Muslims are not suppose to go with what's right and wrong, but what's true.

but how do you know what's true?

 

[Ashes]

but how do you know what's true?

That's a very good point. Reason, reflection, discussion, seeking knowledge, god's help? But the muslim concept of god is slightly different, it's not god=love, it's God chooses to help you, or it chooses not to help you. And there is other stuff about 'ijtihad', the independent seeking of knowledge and the truth..

Basically, I don't know. ;p You should try to the best of your ability.

 

[Wazzim]

but how do you know what's true?

You don't know, just choose what fits you right and go with it.
Everybody saying they fully know what's true are lying, the uncertainty is part of our believe.
I personally don't take anything scholars say as the real truth, I just take things they say and use what I feel is right for me.
Maybe I'll end up doing the wrong things but at least the way I live know makes me feel a good and fair Muslim, human and citizen of the country I live in.

 

[Kad5]

but how do you know what's true?

Well ideally in Shi'a islam the 12th imam would tell you what's true. The problem with that is that he is in occultation.

Shi'a muslims usually follow a high-ranking islamic cleric such as an Ayatollah for guidance.

I guess if you were a sunni muslim you would follow certain certain schools of islamic law to decide certain issues.

Of course there are muslims who simply choose to follow their own judgment on both sides.

I am one of those muslims. I identify myself with Shi'ism however.

 

[Pollux]

I personally don't mind it, but I don't think that's really the intention of this thread.

The reason I ask is that some of my main questions about Islam relate to Islam's interpretation of Christianity, Jesus, and things of that sort.

I can't really ask my question without bringing in teachings from Jesus and the Bible and how they might or might not relate to teachings in the Quran.

Considering the purpose of this thread is to help those of us who aren't Muslim better understand Islam, I figured it would be reasonable.

When I said "interfaith religious debate" I didn't mean who was right or wrong, but as I said above, my questions can't be answered without referring to the Bible...thus leading to interfaith discussions.

The source of a Muslims conduct is not confined to the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a book, within which are commands. An example would be 'establish the prayer'. However the prayer itself is not described in the Qur'an. To understand the how of prayer, one looks to the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). God does not give a command, and then give no way to carry it out. The same is true of modesty, if Allah commands the believers to be modest or chaste, then the example is given in the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and that which he told others.

So for Catholics, for example, the sources of conduct and the "how to" and whatnot are not just confined to the Bible. Would you agree?

Now, with that being said, I've noticed that Muslims tend to cite religious scholars, and the teachings of those scholars are viewed as law...is that correct?

Do Muslims accept the teachings of Jesus? So what Jesus said would be considered to be the teachings of God, and thus applicable to Muslims?

 

[OttomanScribe]

Can anybody answer my question?

Oh, and apologies if I sound blunt, I'd like to make it clear again that I respect all of your belief systems, and especially respect discussion and debate of belief systems.

I think people care less that you are blunt, and more that you don't care to read any of the thread, I'm sure that someone who read the same thing as you (this isn't something you came up with while reading the Qur'an no doubt), ask the same question, and got the same answer.

Maybe read the thread? It is a Christian apologetics thing, cherry picking, selective translation etc.

You're repeating the same thing about decay. There was no decay. The world did not decay as Christianity was the same for 600 years.

It really wasn't. The council of Nicea didn't occur til 325 AD, and decay and conflict amongst the Christians continues to this day, the great schism between the East and West Churches occurred some 1000 years later, and then we move on into further fracturing between Protestant and Catholic.

The assertion that Christianity was the same for 600 years is absolutely contradicting all the historical evidence. Do you still assert it? If so, on what foundation?

And it's god's intent that people be led astray and die without hearing his word? What of equal opportunity? God must not be for such things then lol. Seriously, he either cares or he doesn't. He comes to share his knowledge or he doesn't come at all. The fact that god apparently is 'wishy washy' puts his omnipotence into question.

Simply because people do not have direct access to a Prophet or Messenger (alayhis salaam) does not mean that they are without access to the word of God. Every community has been visited by a Prophet at some point in time, and so every community has access through their own traditions to something of the truth. They are held accountable to their reaction to this truth, not to their reaction to the original message, that they don't have access to in its pure form. This is how equality exists, where an individual is held accountable to what he knows, not what he doesn't.

You are heavy on the strawmen and weasel words, how about you tone it down a bit? No need to degrade this discussion with such things.

The qur'an is viewed as proof why again? Because of it's poetry? The poetry from heaven? The quran is a book of what god supposedly proclaimed to man, the same as every other religious text.

You are confused here. Christians do not believe that the Bible, just like Jews do not believe that the Torah and Talmud, are the literal word of God. They may, in the case of the Christians, believe that their scriptures are divinely inspired, but they do not believe that their books are the Word of God. For the Christians anyway, they believe that Jesus (alayhis salaam) is the 'Word' of God.

Specifically, it's a work in the vain of Christianity and Judaism. That's what it IS.

Not at all. The book, in the way that it is viewed (as the literal word of God) and its form (structured poetry, not written by individuals) is distinct from that of Christianity or Judaism, to say that it is in the same vein is inaccurate.

You can make claims of what it's LIKE but there is a discrepancy. And really, my opinion of the poetry aspect is that it's bullshit.

Do you base this opinion on anything in particular? While I respect you right to hold your opinion, I am very persuaded by an argument that says 'well in my opinion, you're wrong!'.

The very fact that it was transcribed into words contradicts the assertion that such a document could not be made by man. It's no surprise that people who claim it to be the word of god make it out to be the word of god... I hear my Christan mother say the same thing about the bible. "if only you read it with the holy spirit in you etc. etc. etc."

The Qur'an sets up a test; create something like it. Create something from scratch that contains anything approaching the complexity and beauty of the Arabic poetry. Of course this will be hard for you specifically to appraise. To which I say 'don't appraise it then', you don't have to be convinced, but you also can't be convinced the other way. You simply can't have an opinion on something you have no experience of. That doesn't mean you have to take my word for it. It just means that you are only expressing your subjectivity when you make claims as to its verifiability or not.

And on the portion about every situation being created by god... I have something I would like you to think about. Prophets are contacted by god correct? They are, either directly or by an intermediary, contacted. Or at least that's what the bible and qur'an imply. That's what happened to Muhammad at least. Where the fuck is my contact? Why must I believe these people who may or may not be full of shit? Why can't we get a free pass like Muhammad and have Gabriel come to us? This goes back to my equal opportunity thing.

What makes you think you should be? What in life makes you believe that equality is something bestowed upon you automatically by the Universe? We exist as reflections of the attributes of God. God is al-Rahmen (the Most-Merciful) so there exist people, the Believers, as objects of His mercy. However he is not limited to 'Mercy' as an attribute, he is also al-Hakam (the Ultimate Judge) and so those exist who will be receivers of His judgement. He is al-Muthil (the Degrader) the one who brings degradation upon people.

What makes you think you are the first and not the second and third?

Apparently, god gives direct understanding to one man in the hopes that understanding be shed to all, yet why not just give understanding to all? How many pacific islanders without the opportunity to hear gods word have lived and died? Or anyone from any place during any time for that matter. It seems that the intent of god and power of god struggle to manifest outside the minds of one single men, in a cave somewhere, 600 years after the second attempt, and not of equal opportunity. Does that not seem... interesting? That the same method that Buddhism was manifested, Hinduism was manifest, whatever lie you claim is a lie, was the same method that Islam came about? Though the mouth of a man? And as we know the way of man...

Hinduism and Buddhism may have started with Muslim Prophets, God knows best. There are even some who claim that the Buddha was al-Khadir described in Surah al-Khaf. Similarly, we believe that Prophets have come to all people at one part in their history, from the remotest Pacific Island communities to the depths of the Amazon. They are held only to what remains of the teachings of that Prophet.

My Shia friend was explaining to me the layers of complexity in the split between Sunni/Shia. I already know the difference academically, but it's interesting to hear what Muslims individually feel about it.

But it got me thinking.... have there ever been those who recognize the prophecy of Mohammad, but reject the whole "lineage" debate as irrelevant? I don't mean a Shia or Sunni who respects the other side... but simply someone who rejects the whole concept of having to worry about any descent of leadership? ....or that there should have ever been leadership in the first place?

Isn't it possible that God would send his true message, and then humans, as they do in nearly every endeavor, will fight over that message and divide themselves into camps, that are utterly irrellivant to the message of God?

Maybe there wasn't supposed to be any leader at all... not even Mohommad? I can recognize that the events of his life put him into a position of influence, and that helped spread God's message.... but maybe there was never supposed to be a formal "community" of belief at all, and no leader necessary. It seems to me that the whole community + lineage aspect to the religion could be the kind of thing fostered the by institution of the community itself... not necessarily something mandated by God. It may be entirely irrelevant to the message of God itself?

The role of the Caliph is a central one in Sunni communities, the main point of which is to stop movements like the Wahhabis and Khwarij. Without some form of central authority, who can draw upon the expertise of the Ulema combined with the power of the Ummah itself, there is no way to stop the crazies and schizmatics.

The assertion that there was maybe never supposed to be a community of Believers is not something that would be held up the Qur'an or the hadith literature, in the sense that the Ummah forms a central part of what it is to be Muslim. The fact that the Muslims at the time thought succession was so important speaks to this

Could one also say that the greatest misguidance of the Muslims is there lack of faith that Jesus is the only Son of God?

They could, indeed they do. So?

Are interfaith religious debates allowed in this thread?

I think the main thing frowned upon in this thread is when discussions move from Islam to more general theological debates about the existence of God. Then they should move to the theology thread.

So for Catholics, for example, the sources of conduct and the "how to" and whatnot are not just confined to the Bible. Would you agree?

In the case of Catholicism? Not at all Protestantism.. maybe.. but not Catholicism. Catholics do tradition in a big way and the Church, like Papal bulls, are a major source of the 'how to' of being a Catholic.

Now, with that being said, I've noticed that Muslims tend to cite religious scholars, and the teachings of those scholars are viewed as law...is that correct?

Yes. The Sha'riah, which is linguistically related to the paths that would lead to water in the desert, is systematised through the scholars.

The scholars (in the Sunni tradition) are the inheritors of the knowledge of the community. Each of them has been the recipient (otherwise they are not a scholar) of ijaza and are at the end of a sanad. Ijaza is a qualification to teach something they have learnt. My Sheikh for example has achieved Ijaza in Hanafi fiqh, Arabic morphology, several books of tafsir and the Maktubat of Imam Rabbani (rahimullah). An ijaza is not like a university degree or qualification, it is a pass fail, and up to the discretion of the Shaykh. If he believes that the student has not only learnt, but also practices what he has learnt, then and only then, can he teach.

This brings me to the second thing, the sanad (in Arabic this word means 'support', also used is 'isnad') is the chain of learning. My Sheikh learnt from his Sheikh who learnt from his Sheikh who learnt from her Sheikh who learnt from his Sheikh all the way back, in an unbroken chain, to the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). In this manner, the teachings are guarded, through the preservation of the Prophetic tradition, not merely in dead scholarship and literary criticism, but also in the form of a lived tradition.

The 'how to' of being a good Muslim is not confined to a set of beliefs and rulings, but rather is concerned ultimately with the everyday. Every moment of one's life is done with the intent that it will be for God, this is why, if you hang around pious Muslims, you hear that half their speech is filled with Arabic verse and prayer, either consciously or unconsciously. When a Muslim is asked how they are, they answer 'alhamduliLlah': All praise is due to God, I am well. In the person of a legitimate Sheikh, with ijaza and a sanad, one finds the ultimate expression of this. That expression is what brought me to the religion.

Do Muslims accept the teachings of Jesus? So what Jesus said would be considered to be the teachings of God, and thus applicable to Muslims?

The teachings of Jesus (alayhis salaam) and the other Prophets (alayhis salaam) talked about in the Bible were acceptable for their communities. The only thing acceptable for any community however is the teachings of the most recent Prophet/Messenger (alayhis salaam) that has come to them.

Additionally, all that we have of the 'teachings of Jesus' are not trustworthy accounts, having been discredited as having been to subjected to the whims and misguidance of their community. While I have heard mashaykh quote the Bible, this is usually to illustrate a general principle in Islamic aqidah or fiqh, that is described aptly in a Biblical parable. They always make it clear by saying 'Allahu alim on its veracity' or something similar. Of course the primary source for Muslims who learn the teachings of Jesus (alayhis salaam) is not from the Bible, but rather the Qur'an, in which I believe he is the second most common speaker, beside Ibrahim (alayhis salaam).

 

[F#A#Oo]

The reason I ask is that some of my main questions about Islam relate to Islam's interpretation of Christianity, Jesus, and things of that sort.

I can't really ask my question without bringing in teachings from Jesus and the Bible and how they might or might not relate to teachings in the Quran.

Considering the purpose of this thread is to help those of us who aren't Muslim better understand Islam, I figured it would be reasonable.

When I said "interfaith religious debate" I didn't mean who was right or wrong, but as I said above, my questions can't be answered without referring to the Bible...thus leading to interfaith discussions.

Ok so what are the questions?

Don't feel apprehensive...

 

[OttomanScribe]

Ok so what are the questions?

Don't feel apprehensive...

I thought he asked them? basically one about if Muslims take the teachings of Jesus (alayhis salaam). I am trying to assume the best and hoping that this isn't going to lead into one of the old hat Christian arguments about the Qur'an saying that Muslims should follow the Bible, and therefore believe that Jesus (alayhis salaam) is God. It is quite a common argument put forth on their anti-Islam websites.

I'm hoping he is more interested in actual interfaith conversations which is entirely possible.

 

[Pollux]

They could, indeed they do. So?

Nothing more than just pointing out that it goes both ways there. You're cool with that, I'm cool with that, end of discussion on that one.

I think the main thing frowned upon in this thread is when discussions move from Islam to more general theological debates about the existence of God. Then they should move to the theology thread.

Yea, anything I was thinking about were relating to the relationship between Christianity and Islam, nothing as nebulous as, "Is there a God?"

Yes. The Sha'riah, which is linguistically related to the paths that would lead to water in the desert, is systematised through the scholars.

The scholars (in the Sunni tradition) are the inheritors of the knowledge of the community. Each of them has been the recipient (otherwise they are not a scholar) of ijaza and are at the end of a sanad. Ijaza is a qualification to teach something they have learnt. My Sheikh for example has achieved Ijaza in Hanafi fiqh, Arabic morphology, several books of tafsir and the Maktubat of Imam Rabbani (rahimullah). An ijaza is not like a university degree or qualification, it is a pass fail, and up to the discretion of the Shaykh. If he believes that the student has not only learnt, but also practices what he has learnt, then and only then, can he teach.

This brings me to the second thing, the sanad (in Arabic this word means 'support', also used is 'isnad') is the chain of learning. My Sheikh learnt from his Sheikh who learnt from his Sheikh who learnt from her Sheikh who learnt from his Sheikh all the way back, in an unbroken chain, to the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). In this manner, the teachings are guarded, through the preservation of the Prophetic tradition, not merely in dead scholarship and literary criticism, but also in the form of a lived tradition.

The 'how to' of being a good Muslim is not confined to a set of beliefs and rulings, but rather is concerned ultimately with the everyday. Every moment of one's life is done with the intent that it will be for God, this is why, if you hang around pious Muslims, you hear that half their speech is filled with Arabic verse and prayer, either consciously or unconsciously. When a Muslim is asked how they are, they answer 'alhamduliLlah': All praise is due to God, I am well. In the person of a legitimate Sheikh, with ijaza and a sanad, one finds the ultimate expression of this. That expression is what brought me to the religion.

First and foremost I just want to say that that expression took me about a week to pronounce properly in my Arabic class back in undergrad.

So if you were in a discussion with someone about your faith, you would be able to cite not just the Quran but also these scholars as legitimate authorities on Islam?

Just as I, as a Catholic, would cite not just the Bible but also the writings of the Saints and Popes etc.

The teachings of Jesus (alayhis salaam) and the other Prophets (alayhis salaam) talked about in the Bible were acceptable for their communities. The only thing acceptable for any community however is the teachings of the most recent Prophet/Messenger (alayhis salaam) that has come to them.

Additionally, all that we have of the 'teachings of Jesus' are not trustworthy accounts, having been discredited as having been to subjected to the whims and misguidance of their community. While I have heard mashaykh quote the Bible, this is usually to illustrate a general principle in Islamic aqidah or fiqh, that is described aptly in a Biblical parable. They always make it clear by saying 'Allahu alim on its veracity' or something similar. Of course the primary source for Muslims who learn the teachings of Jesus (alayhis salaam) is not from the Bible, but rather the Qur'an, in which I believe he is the second most common speaker, beside Ibrahim (alayhis salaam).

Regarding the Quran, is it not said that you need a witness for pretty much everything? Marrying a wife, buying or selling property, and a number of other things?

Ok so what are the questions?

Don't feel apprehensive...

Mainly what I'm asking now, and then others as they come. I've said it before, I'm a Catholic, and I'm very interested in understanding Islam, how it relates to the other Abrahamic religions, etc. This seemed like a good thread to have a discussion about that.

I thought he asked them? basically one about if Muslims take the teachings of Jesus (alayhis salaam). I am trying to assume the best and hoping that this isn't going to lead into one of the old hat Christian arguments about the Qur'an saying that Muslims should follow the Bible, and therefore believe that Jesus (alayhis salaam) is God. It is quite a common argument put forth on their anti-Islam websites.

I'm hoping he is more interested in actual interfaith conversations which is entirely possible.

The bolded. Basically I've always been confused about the, I don't really know how to phrase it, but I guess you could say the overall authority of scholars in Islam and the influence they have on religious thought. OS did a very nice job explaining the basics, but see above for a more detailed question.

Mainly I'm trying to understand not just faith, but the structure of that faith and the religion.

As for the Italics...Let's all be honest here --> As a Catholic I believe in what I believe. As Muslims y'all believe what you believe. Nothing I or you say is probably going to convert the other. So why bother. I think I'm right. You think you're right. Let's leave it at that and get back to discussing the interfaith dialogue that could actually prove highly interesting.

In the discussion of the comparative roles of Christ (Eesa A.S) in Christianity and Islam, what's often ignored is the similarity between their prophecies of the apocalypse/day of judgement; in both Holy books, he descends to kill the anti-Christ and then establishes a kingdom of God with him leading it. So whilst the Islamic response to the question of salvation through Christ is muted, the idea that he is "just one of the many prophets of God" isn't entirely accurate in the greater context.

This is also something that's fascinating to me. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't Muslims also consider Jesus, or Isa as you call him (I think), the Messiah? Just not the son of God. May be wrong here, been a long time since my class freshman year on Islamic theology. Forgotten a lot of it.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

In the discussion of the comparative roles of Christ (Eesa A.S) in Christianity and Islam, what's often ignored is the similarity between their prophecies of the apocalypse/day of judgement; in both Holy books, he descends to kill the anti-Christ and then establishes a kingdom of God with him leading it. So whilst the Islamic response to the question of salvation through Christ is muted, the idea that he is "just one of the many prophets of God" isn't entirely accurate in the greater context.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

This is also something that's fascinating to me. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't Muslims also consider Jesus, or Isa as you call him (I think), the Messiah? Just not the son of God. May be wrong here, been a long time since my class freshman year on Islamic theology. Forgotten a lot of it.

This is true. And it opens up another interesting discussion altogether. Here is a short article that addresses this

 

[F#A#Oo]

I thought he asked them? basically one about if Muslims take the teachings of Jesus (alayhis salaam). I am trying to assume the best and hoping that this isn't going to lead into one of the old hat Christian arguments about the Qur'an saying that Muslims should follow the Bible, and therefore believe that Jesus (alayhis salaam) is God. It is quite a common argument put forth on their anti-Islam websites.

I'm hoping he is more interested in actual interfaith conversations which is entirely possible.

Yeah I hope it's an interfaith conversation too...

I recently attended a Christian debate...on Trinity and I couldn't even call it a debate...they essentially just quoted verses at each other for 1 hour...with very little actual input and their own thoughts. It wasn't even free entry I had to pay £3...

I lost it when they failed to mention Comma Johanneum and Matthew 28:19 being insertions...so I just blurted it out. I never saw so many people shuffle for their phones.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Quick reply before I leave for Juma'a

First and foremost I just want to say that that expression took me about a week to pronounce properly in my Arabic class back in undergrad.

Lol.. my main dificulty was with astaghfirullah lol.

So if you were in a discussion with someone about your faith, you would be able to cite not just the Quran but also these scholars as legitimate authorities on Islam?

Yes. Indeed the consensus of the scholars would be what one would define as 'Islam' in the way you are using it now. In general, legal rulings are not to be made by individuals without training. Because of this, while people may quote hadith or the Qur'an, if such people are not a scholar (people like me) such things are always to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Just as I, as a Catholic, would cite not just the Bible but also the writings of the Saints and Popes etc.

Something similar yes.

Regarding the Quran, is it not said that you need a witness for pretty much everything? Marrying a wife, buying or selling property, and a number of other things?

For legal purposes many things require a varying number of witnesses. What specifically are you asking about?


As for the Italics...Let's all be honest here --> As a Catholic I believe in what I believe. As Muslims y'all believe what you believe. Nothing I or you say is probably going to convert the other. So why bother. I think I'm right. You think you're right. Let's leave it at that and get back to discussing the interfaith dialogue that could actually prove highly interesting.

This is also something that's fascinating to me. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't Muslims also consider Jesus, or Isa as you call him (I think), the Messiah? Just not the son of God. May be wrong here, been a long time since my class freshman year on Islamic theology. Forgotten a lot of it.

Yes, the Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) is both the Mesih (the Messiah) and also the one who will return in the lead up to the day of judgement. One of his roles then will be to tell all you Nasiri to not worship him

 

[Pollux]

This is true. And it opens up another interesting discussion altogether. Here is a short article that addresses this

Thanks. Good read. This paragraph especially was interesting:

Linguistic scholars of the Arabic language have proposed a number of reasons for the usage of 'Al-Maseeh', as an appellation for Jesus (pbuh) [1]. Some hold that the word means 'truthful', and was used as an appellation for Jesus (pbuh) to imply to his truthfulness. Some hold it was used as an appellation for Jesus (pbuh) because he lived his life without taking for himself a permanent abode (as the Arabic phrase 'Masaha al-Ardh' implies a person who travels a lot). Some think that the reason for this appellation was that Jesus (pbuh) used to correct others of their diseases merely by the touch of his hands, and thus was called 'Al-Maseeh', implying the one who anoints for removing disease. Some hold that the reason for this appellation was that Jesus (pbuh) was anointed with blessings. While, some hold that the appellation was given to Jesus (pbuh) because he came into this world out of his mother's womb, naturally and divinely anointed with oil.

Does Islamic tradition say that Jesus was divinely conceived?

Yeah I hope it's an interfaith conversation too...

I recently attended a Christian debate...on Trinity and I couldn't even call it a debate...they essentially just quoted verses at each other for 1 hour...with very little actual input and their own thoughts. It wasn't even free entry I had to pay £3...

I lost it when they failed to mention Comma Johanneum and Matthew 28:19 being insertions...so I just blurted it out. I never saw so many people shuffle for their phones.

Most likely a late addition. However, and I don't want this to get off topic, it's possible to point to the existence of the Trinity without citing Matthew 28:19.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Thanks. Good read. This paragraph especially was interesting:

Does Islamic tradition say that Jesus was divinely conceived?

Do you mean if he was born to a virgin mother? If so, yes. Eesa's (A.S) birth and life (including the miracles he performed) are reiterated in Islam. The contended issue lays in what followed his sentencing to be crucified.

 

[Pollux]

Quick reply before I leave for Juma'a



Lol.. my main dificulty was with astaghfirullah lol.

Ugh. class killed my GPA, but it was fun. Took 3 semesters and then switched back to Latin.

Yes. Indeed the consensus of the scholars would be what one would define as 'Islam' in the way you are using it now. In general, legal rulings are not to be made by individuals without training. Because of this, while people may quote hadith or the Qur'an, if such people are not a scholar (people like me) such things are always to be taken with a huge grain of salt.



Something similar yes.

Ok, so it's the same as if I were quoting the Bible, I may read the passage and think I understand it but without the proper, as you say - training, I am just as likely to misinterpret it as I am to fully understand (probably more likely to misinterpret).

Makes sense. But are there scholars who are widely influential even though the ideas for their scholarship isn't directly in the Quran? (Like Saint Augustine and The City of God)

For legal purposes many things require a varying number of witnesses. What specifically are you asking about?

That was the question lol, I was talking to someone today and the subject of witnesses came up and he claimed you only needed a witness for marriage. I thought he was wrong, I asked on here, and I was right lol.

Yes, the Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) is both the Mesih (the Messiah) and also the one who will return in the lead up to the day of judgement. One of his roles then will be to tell all you Nasiri to not worship him

Why is it Jesus returning and not M.? The answer to that would be the bolded?

Do you mean if he was born to a virgin mother? If so, yes. Eesa's (A.S) birth and life (including the miracles he performed) are reiterated in Islam. The contended issue lays in what followed his sentencing to be crucified.

So Christ was created through the Word of God? By that, would that not make the Christ part of the Word? If that is the case and the Word is part of God, would that not make Christ also part of God?

EDIT: This is where any discussion between faiths get's thorny. I don't want to come off as telling you you're wrong, but by trying to interpret through the lens of Christianity we're going to have theological differences. (please don't take any of the above questioning as me telling you you're wrong or anything of that nature)

 

[F#A#Oo]

Most likely a late addition. However, and I don't want this to get off topic, it's possible to point to the existence of the Trinity without citing Matthew 28:19.

I blurted it out just before they started their closing comments section...

Yeah it is possible...it was quite a dishonest discussion and alot of cherry picking was involved...for example instead of giving full context and starting from say John 10:23 they would quote from John 10:30 onwards which means the audience has missed massive chunk of context...it was picked up on though which was good.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

So Christ was created through the Word of God? By that, would that not make the Christ part of the Word? If that is the case and the Word is part of God, would that not make Christ also part of God?

EDIT: This is where any discussion between faiths get's thorny. I don't want to come off as telling you you're wrong, but by trying to interpret through the lens of Christianity we're going to have theological differences. (please don't take any of the above questioning as me telling you you're wrong or anything of that nature)

If that were so, then wouldn't both Adam and Eve be part of God's word? I'm not the best person to ask about Eesa's specific role in Islam because it is a topic that I'd myself would like answers on. Simple answer is: I don't know [how to answer that other than to say it's not a logic I've ever seen in Islam]

And don't worry man, I don't think anyone in these OT threads gets offended by this type of interfaith dialogue. You don't come across condescending at all. Keep engaging in conversation here. The differing perspectives aren't offensive but in fact thought provoking.

 

[Pollux]

I blurted it out just before they started their closing comments section...

Yeah it is possible...it was quite a dishonest discussion and alot of cherry picking was involved...for example instead of giving full context and starting from say John 10:23 they would quote from John 10:30 onwards which means the audience has missed massive chunk of context...it was picked up on though which was good.

22 At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; 23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. 24 The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are [c]the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. 26 But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 [d]My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

To which context are you referring? Just curious.

I'm going to try to do the Trinity without referring to Matthew 28:19.

So according to Jason Raize (citing the Quran I'm assuming), Jesus was created through the Word. As seen below (John 1:1-3) the Word was with God in the beginning, and the Word was God. If the Word was with God, and was God, that would make it an aspect of god (the Holy Spirit), and if the Word, through God or by God's will, impregnated Mary, then Jesus would be part of the Word (Holy Spirit). If Jesus is part of the Word, and the Word is part of God, then Jesus by extension is part of God. Thus 3 aspects are apart of 1 God.

While it is true that it's very difficult to understand and comprehend...who are we to comprehend God? God is mysterious, it is impossible to know God.

That's just my two cents. Was it more interesting than your talk or pretty much the same thing?

If that were so, then wouldn't both Adam and Eve be part of God's word? I'm not the best person to ask about Eesa's specific role in Islam because it is a topic that I'd myself would like answers on. Simple answer is: I don't know how.

And don't worry man, I don't think anyone in these OT threads gets offended by this type of interfaith dialogue. You don't come across condescending at all. Keep engaging in conversation here. The differing perspectives aren't offensive but in fact thought provoking.

As I understand it (and as OS pointed out earlier it is easy for one not trained in this sort of thing to misinterpret, so i'll give it my best shot) Adam was created through God's Word, and was part of God's Word.
John 1:1-5 -

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

So since everything in the beginning was created through God...that leads to it all being part of God.

I don't know how literally y'all take the creation myth but...*shrug*

And, sounds good. Just let me know if I say something that might come off as offensive. I'm coming to your thread for discussion after all.