Support NeoGAF

[OttomanScribe]

Prophet Muhammad wasn't a “mute” messenger, I never said that. He was probably the greatest politician, uniter of men, and leader the world has and will ever see. His job spiritually was simply to warn mankind and deliver God's message and this the Quran is very clear and repetitive about. However, he was also a husband, a politician, a leader, and military strategist. He performed to the best of his abilities in those roles, but those were not his spiritual mission. The mission was to simply convey the message. That message we have and it's the only thing that has come to us preserved a 100% from him. The hadith try to capture all the rest of him, but unfortunately they come 200 years later which is ample time for history to be distorted.

As a husband, a politician, a leader and a military strategist, he embodied the Message that he brought with him. How could he not? The Qur'an would not refer to him as the one to obey and seek explanation from, if he was not 100% compliant with the revelation that was given to him. As the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) he is the example of the perfect believer. The way that a Muslim can become a true believer is through emulating the best of us, the perfect example.

That opportunity remains, because the hadith remain, there may be differences in legal schools and a small margin of error but it is exactly there: the margins. A Muslim is safest when he is emulating the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam).

It is following the Quran as the source of law. God knows everyone can afford to give different amounts of charity. It's a beautiful verse when you consider what it is saying. Each one of us knows what we can spend. If I was a billionaire I could spend much more than 2.5% of my wealth and if I am living off of food stamps and welfare, how can I spare to give anything?

What if you were a billionaire and decided that you couldn't spare a cent? You need a new lambo to crash, so you just can't spare it. That is not following the Qur'an as the source of law, that is not a law at all. The purpose and function of zakat is social welfare, the redistribution of a portion of wealth from those can afford it, to those who need it. If that is something that can be opted in and out of at a whim, then its function is completely degraded.

Your original question was how do we know how much to give because God doesn't say, now you see that God did say but now ask “how is 'whatever you can spare defined'” and I wonder why is it so hard to follow what is a very simple command? If God wanted it to be 2.5%, don't you think he would say so? He does give us figures for inheritance after all. No, but you are now seeking another source of law and you don't seem to realize. Consider my friend the story of the children of Israel. God said, “sacrifice a cow”. Instead of following the simple command, they made it complicated and kept asking for more details, “what color is she? How old is she? What condition should she be in?”. In this is a great lesson. Ponder over it.

He did not need to say, the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) defined it on his behalf, in the role as arbitrator that the Qur'an described.

If taking the command of the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) on these matters is 'taking another source of law', then so is what you describe as a Quranist.

The question is 'how is whatever you can spare defined' and there are two answers:

a: how the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and his companions defined it.
b: how I choose to define it now.

If a is seeking another source of law, so is b. I don't need to say which one I believe is the more trustworthy judgement on the question at hand.

Consider what I have said above, but to answer this, Abu Bakr didn't go to war over interpretations of the Quran. He went to war because these tribes refused to pay allegiance to his rule. They claimed their allegiance was only to Muhammad and with his passing they no longer had to be part of his community or follow Abu Bakr. It was politics more than anything else.

Abu Bakr (radiAllahu anhu) went to war not because they refused to pay allegiance to his rule (he was chosen by majority consensus), that Medina and the Caliph were due allegiance was not in question, what was in question was the distribution of zakat. They were under the impression that the zakat was a tax deal they had made with the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam), while in reality, it was and is an integral of the religion.

The verse in question can't be taken alone without the regard to the rest of the Quran which consistently encourages the listener to be forgiving, patient, and not aggressive.

That is certainly the way in which the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) acted, however without his example, what is to stop one from cherry picking? While the hadith literature and the consensus of the scholars is against the 'beat your wife' understanding, what if your forgiveness runs dry, along with your patience, and aggression results?

Islam is not merely aimed at those perfect in character, it is aimed at the uncouth, the rude, to enjoin upon them good conduct and reign them in when they break such conduct. How would you reign one such person in without the hadith? Or would you just define 'spreading corruption in the land' in whatever way you liked?

The Quran is arranged as it is because God chose it to be arranged this way and that's how it's been memorized since the beginning. I trust God did it for a reason. There are hadith which say so and so ayah was revealed at this time, but again, how accurate are they? Can't be sure. There has never been a consensus on when certain ayahs were revealed.

Abrogation is not something that's been accepted by all Muslims, and this is not something recent. Not everyone is even able to agree on what should be abrogated and what not.

I don't believe the Quran abrogates itself. It does abrogate verses God has sent in the past though, verses of previous scriptures.

Even without abrogation, this still is a massive stumbling block in understanding the meaning of the Qur'an. One example is that of alcohol. If one takes the revelations out of order (or without order) one can make alcohol permissible. Without it being clear that the verse in Surah Maidah, one can argue that alcohol is permissible. Do you disagree? Is this not an issue?

The Quran was arranged by God (25:32). The placement of each ayah is not recorded in the hadith, it is a part of the Quran itself.

As to the arranging of the Qur'an, it is not a 'part of the Qur'an' in that it is not something recorded in revelation (for example there is no verse saying 'Surah Fatiha goes first') but it was something conveyed to the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) that was then enacted and preserved by the believers. The process being described in the hadith, as far as I am aware. I'll admit we are at semantics now, this discussion stemmed from a misunderstanding in the first place anyway.

The hadith don't record how to pronounce the Quran.. They just record the fact that it can be pronounced differently.

And different pronunciation styles (which are transmitted to us through oral tradition) can have the possibility of creating different meanings. How do you know how to pronounce the Qur'an, if not through the very method of transmission which you view as inadequate?

They don't give their own laws though, they let the rest of us know what God is saying his laws are. They judge by the laws of God. The prophetic example is living the Quran, and that is all the prophet follows. He has no authority to come up with his own religious laws. God told him to follow what was revealed (7:3, 7:203, 10:15,46:9, etc.), and so Muhammad said “...I but follow what is revealed to me." (6:50, 6:106).

I agree, and this supports the traditions of the majority of the Muslims more than the Quranists. It shows that any of the laws which the Rasul'Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) gave to us, are his interpretation of the Qur'an. That which is revealed to the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) by God, is not confined purely to Quranic verses, surely we can both agree on that?

Thus there is not the contradiction you imply between him following that which is revealed to him, and dispensing with laws that are not explicitly stated in the Qur'an (though they are implied, or you disagree that they are explicitly stated, none contradict anyway).

In Muhammad was a good example for people to see, and God says this like in Surah Al'Ahzab when He points out that the Prophet is brave in the face of danger (33:21). Nowhere does God give Muhammad the right to preach his own separate law.

What the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was not 'preaching his own separate law'. What he was doing was acting as the guide described, embodying the Quranic injunctions and providing an example of all of them.

Consider, what it is that Prophet Muhammad will complain to God about on the day of Judgement: “O my Lord, people have treated this Quran as a thing forsake.” (25:30). Why won't he mention people abandoning his sunna or his sayings? No, the Quran is what has been abandoned.

It is not needed to say. One who abandons his Sunnah, his example and his arbitration, is one who loses the meaning of the Qur'an, as understood by the most able to understand it. To forsake the most sound way to understand the Qur'an, is to forsake it.

As stated many times above, the “delivery boy” only followed the Quran, not his own laws. Yet according to the hadith, he invented other laws. Read them again then. He was only a plain warner. Not my words.

What verse says specifically that he was only to follow the Qur'an? Not Allah?

Let me be clear. I don't need the results of a 200 year long game of chinese whispers to tell me how the Prophet behaved, his behavior and practices were based on the same book that I have right besides me. Those copious examples are not reliable.

I don't mean disrespect by this, but what makes you think that you are as capable of interpretation as he? What makes you think that your own ijtihad is so sound? Especially when it contradicts the multitude of those who came before you?

All knowledge is from God. When I find something I lost, I praise Allah because He is the one who revealed me its location. It doesn't require Him coming down in person. When I learn something new, it is God that has taught me. This verse doesn't imply what you are saying.

Explain the translation to me? All I got from it was the question being asked 'who told you this?' and the replying being, essentially; God told me.

If I asked you, 'who taught you maths', would you say 'God taught me Maths'? I mean alhamduliLlah, in a literal sense this is true, but in terms of all the tafsir I have read, your interpretation of this verse seems unique. What made you take it this way specifically?

People have argued against the hadith. Imam Shafi'i was having heated debates with them in the 2nd century hijra.

Could you give me a reference on that? I am familiar with his life and his writings, he debated with those who relied more on deduction and recognising intent than upon a combination of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, but those he debated with were not those who were against the hadith, but rather those who viewed them as a source for extrapolation in cases where a specific issue was not covered. As far as I know anyway.

His view won and his views were taken as canon by people following him.

His methodological approach was recognised as one of the four valid methodological approaches, and this approach became named after him. To say that his 'views' more generally, in terms of his rulings anyway, were followed by all as 'canon' is not true. Refer to the ruling in the Shafi'i school on beards

Paul debated with James (Jesus's own brother of all people!) and in the end Pauline Christianity prevailed.

Unless you consider yourself a Prophet, this is not a good analogy to make.

Allah has already told us that people divide into sects, and follow other than God's scripture after the revelation has come to them. This has happened with those before us too.

Indeed, and once it happened in truth, and the revelation became lost, it was only revived by a Prophet or a Messenger (alayhis salaam).....

I don't consider myself to be a sectarian. I have no issue praying with Shias or Sunnis. I am neither a hanafi or a shafi or a quranist, I am one who submits to God's will (clear and perfect in the Quran). It isn't the Quran that divides people, it is all that is besides it that does that.

Having just made a bunch of comparisons between mainstream Islam and Christian deification of Jesus (alayhis salaam), this rings a bit hollow.

It was their fitna which led to the fracture whih eventually led to the sects and introduced countless fabricated hadith.

The sects did not exist for a long time after the fitna. Shiism only really began in Safavid Persia as a separate theological and fiqh movement. Before then Sunnah and Shia were not separate in the way they are now. This separation occurred after the great hadith compilations.

Tell me, where does the Quran tell me to chop of the heads of unbelievers for no reason?

I did not say without reason. I just said chopping off heads.

If the hadith are not scripture and do not override the Quran, then why do you stone adulterers?

I haven't stoned anyone recently. How do you take the verse about slaying those who 'spread corruption in the land'? I gather that most scholars refer to that in relation to that justification.

In the beginning was the Quran only. It was the sole source of law which Muhammad himself used to make his decisions. Then he died. 200+ years went by. His legend spread, and as with any famous person, a lot of false ideas attributed to him spread as well. Innovations calling for the ban of music, for the stoning of adulterers, predictions of an anti-christ. Bukhari went around and collected what he thought were the most sound. People came to accept them. Later, when education is a norm and people aren't threatened for their religious views (well they still are in most Muslim countries), people started noticing that the Quran doesn't agree with the hadith in all places and were able to freely question it. Turns out the hadith were compiled centuries after Muhammad. Rejection of hadith is nothing new, it's always been around. Their views have been suppressed, and lost through the centuries. Just because Paul won doesn't make him right.

Alternatively:

Allah revealed the Qur'an to Sayyidina Rasul'Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam), the Qur'an came as a revelation, a confirmation and clarification of what came before, and a proof. The Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) came as the clarification of the revelation, the lawgiver and interpreter, the example for the believers to follow and refer to for guidance. After his death, his community did their best to uphold the traditions and interpretation he had given him, taking efforts to record both the Qur'an and his way and example (the Sunnah). Over the course of the next 150-200 years, his traditions were kept by a community dedicated to his religion.

Then it seemed that the hold on the rope was slipping, and so systematic ways of accessing that example grew up around the great scholars of the age, who checked the stories behind the hadith (not just Bukhari), to ensure they were not fabricated. The hadith science, fiqh and aqidah of the age were formulated to hold on to the rope that lead back to the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam), formalising something that already existed.

This tradition continued in the form of the Ahlul-Sunnah Wa Jamaat to this day. Then in 1800s, a modernist movement arises under British rule in India. Chiragh Ali, in an attempt to reinterpret various accepted understandings within the Muslim community, was the first Muslim scholar that I can find who questioned the veracity of the hadith literature in general (as opposed to the veracity of individual hadith). Then later on you have a few other notables, including a few Western non-Muslims, who agreed. These ideas, both about the role of the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and about the role of the Qur'an, are new.

This is something that is so clear when one reads the works of people like Imam Shafi'i, the idea that the entirety of the hadith literature were untrustworthy and that basing the conduct of the Muslims partly upon them went against the Qur'an, would seem to have been preposterous. If it were not, you surely would have seen many of those who were 'analogists' of the school of Imam Abu Hanifa, going down that road.

I don't understand akhi, how you can say that 200 years is a long time in terms of transferred information, and then assert that you and the people in this modernist movement have discovered something that everyone missed. What new information exists out there?

The fundamental issue here is that I don't find the hadith to be reliable as you do. Until my heart can be content knowing that I am following something which is a 100% reliable, I can't seek another source of law besides the Quran.

I don't feel that the hadith are a source of law, the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is a source of interpretation of the Qur'an, and the hadith are a source about him. It is as simple as that for me. I have been lucky enough to study the hadith sciences (nowhere near an ijaza lol) with some great scholars, and what I know of how hadith are evaluated and transmitted, is sufficient for me. I also trust that God would not conserve the wording of the Qur'an, without conserving its meaning.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Wow. That is enough for me for the time being.

'Now there is a kind of man whose views on the life of this world may please thee greatly, and (the more so as) he cites God as witness to what is in his heart and is, moreover, exceedingly skillful in argument. But whenever he prevails, he goes about the earth spreading corruption and destroying man's tilth and progeny, and God does not love corruption'

Insha'Allah this does not describe me

 

[Darackutny]

That is not a contradiction, Umar (radiAllahu anhu) forbade the writing down of hadith, lest they become confused with the Qur'an, then Uthman (radiAllahu anhu) encouraged people to do so, once that danger was gone.

Akhi OttomanScribe, even though this view is pretty popular, I've noticed that those that reported this only did so through disconnected narrations.

Mohammed Mustafa Al-A'athami, on the other hand, collected a few narrations that did indicate that Omar used to write down hadiths.

Perhaps the only companion that comes to mind that was against writing down hadiths after the death of the Prophet was Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudari.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Akhi OttomanScribe, even though this view is pretty popular, I've noticed that those that reported this only did so through disconnected narrations.

Mohammed Mustafa Al-A'athami, on the other hand, collected a few narrations that did indicate that Omar used to write down hadiths.

Perhaps the only companion that comes to mind that was against writing down hadiths after the death of the Prophet was Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudari.

JazakAllah khyer for the correction

 

[Darackutny]

Wiyakum.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Why is the punishment for rape the same as the punishment for adultery or fornication?

 

[F#A#Oo]

Why is the punishment for rape the same as the punishment for adultery or fornication?

What? Adultery carries flogging but rape gets stoning iirc...

Edit: Ahhh different schools...its not in the Qur'an that's for sure...

 

[Ydahs]

Man, I just had a discussion with someone regarding white wedding dresses... yeah, you heard right.

He was arguing that it's ideologically wrong (not haram) to wear one, since it's imitating the kuffaar. Not only is this a ridiculous claim to make, but how is it really imitating the non-believers when there isn't an Islamic dress code for women during weddings to being with? The argument was that the Europeans oppressively forced their culture onto the lands in which they invaded so we must do our best to avoid such cultural influences linked back to the Europeans (then why are we in Australia?!). If one is living in a Muslim country with European influences wouldn't really be imitating the kuffaar either, since the influences are now part of the culture and have been for many years. Cultures adapt, times change. Why is this an issue?!

As I said, I disagree with this claim, but I'd like to see what other Muslims on GAF think about this. Nothing wrong with a white dress for a wedding? Of course, for someone like OttomanScribe, white dresses are apart of his culture, since he's an Aussie convert, but for others living in non-western countries, would you feel that it's wrong for a woman to wear a white wedding dress because of it's cultural link to the Europeans?

This also led me to another issue. Is there really a problem with imitating the kuffar if what is being imitated is not considered haram? I've only heard that we can imitate if we are imitating something good, but we can't imitate something that's neither good or bad. I also don't agree with that and think that if something isn't haram, there's no harm in imitating it.

 

[Ashes]

Wedding dresses are related to culture. White in places like Turkey and the middle east and Europe. Red in places like South Asia. And that is different to the African tribes etc.

Dress colour is cultural.

 

[F#A#Oo]

Man, I just had a discussion with someone regarding white wedding dresses... yeah, you heard right.

He was arguing that it's ideologically wrong (not haram) to wear one, since it's imitating the kuffaar. Not only is this a ridiculous claim to make, but how is it really imitating the non-believers when there isn't an Islamic dress code for women during weddings to being with? The argument was that the Europeans oppressively forced their culture onto the lands in which they invaded so we must do our best to avoid such cultural influences linked back to the Europeans (then why are we in Australia?!). If one is living in a Muslim country with European influences wouldn't really be imitating the kuffaar either, since the influences are now part of the culture and have been for many years. Cultures adapt, times change. Why is this an issue?!

As I said, I disagree with this claim, but I'd like to see what other Muslims on GAF think about this. Nothing wrong with a white dress for a wedding? Of course, for someone like OttomanScribe, white dresses are apart of his culture, since he's an Aussie convert, but for others living in non-western countries, would you feel that it's wrong for a woman to wear a white wedding dress because of it's cultural link to the Europeans?

This also led me to another issue. Is there really a problem with imitating the kuffar if what is being imitated is not considered haram? I've only heard that we can imitate if we are imitating something good, but we can't imitate something that's neither good or bad. I also don't agree with that and think that if something isn't haram, there's no harm in imitating it.

I've had this discussion before with muslims...I agree with you...nothing wrong with white dress. On a subsconcious level I also think white is seen as "pure"...thus why many people of different cultures choose it.

 

[Zapages]

imitating something that is good of a non-Muslim is a good thing. Nothing against it at all from what I understand.

 

[RiZ III]

The Ebionites were heretics. They were heretics then, and they are still considered heretics now.

Yea, they were considered heretics by the Roman church, that doesn't mean they were actually heretics. The Ebionites were remnants of the Church of Jerusalem after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. Recall it was not the Jerusalem church that broke off from anyone, it was Paul who broke off from them. Historically, if anyone is to be considered heretical, it was the Hellenistic Christians. They were the ones who splintered off from the original Jewish message of Jesus and his followers in Jerusalem. The churches that Paul established throughout Rome were mostly made of non-Jewish converts who had no background in Judaism and nor were they interested in it. The only link they had to Jesus was through Paul who was still under the authority of James until Paul splintered off in Antioch in a famous even described by Paul in Galatians (2:11-14). By the time Rome destroyed Jerusalem, the Jerusalem Church had mostly fled to Pella and from there on we know them as the Ebionites(Tabor). With Jerusalem gone, the churches founded by Paul remained unaffected and eventually it was this line of people from whom the Church in Rome came to be. When their writers write much later in the 3rd century, they call the Ebionites and Nazoreans heretics because of their Jewish beliefs. The Jewish Christians were not heretics, they were the original followers of their Jewish Messiah prophet.

They were following a Gospel that was apocryphal.

According to who? Until the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, there were hundreds of texts considered true by the Christian community. In many cases “forms of Christianity later regarded as heterodox chronologically preceded the 'orthodox' communities. 'Catholic' and 'heretical' views existed side by side fro decades in the same communities... before orthodoxy established itself under Roman influence in the second century” (The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide).

The modern western Christian canon (eastern Churches don't have the same canon) is just a small subset of what used to exist and be considered true. The canon wasn't formalized for centuries after Jesus and Paul. Some of these were even considered forgeries by early Christian writers. Revelations being an example which people argued was a heretical writing written by someone named Cerinthus “who forged the account in order to promote his false teaching that there would be a literal future paradise of a thousand hears here on earth” (Forged by Bart Ehrman). Letter of Jude was also considered fake by some writers such as Jerome. Today, only 7/13 of the letters of Paul are considered to be authentic. Then there is the issue of the synoptic gospels having conflicting stories amongst each other as well as internal errors.

You're forgetting Peter. Who sided with Paul.

No. Peter was subservient to James and he didn't agree with Paul as Paul himself states in Galatians 2:11-14. The idea that Peter was with Paul comes from the Acts , but it's been long recognized that the author of Acts marginalized James and the family of Jesus to portray Paul and Peter being the pillars of the growing movement. He portrayed a rosy picture of Paul and Peter but Paul's letters show exactly the opposite. The author of Acts probably never imagined that one day we would have his works and Paul's letters right next to each other in one book.

And while Paul never met Jesus while he was alive, the Resurrected Jesus appeared to him and delivered His message to him.

Paul does say he had this vision yes, but again, why are Paul's teachings to be considered superior to those whom Jesus actually spent years of his life with? The truth is, Paul didn't teach anything radically different from the Church of Jerusalem, they had disagreements of circumcision, dietary restrictions, and how much of the Law non-Jewish followers of Jesus had to to follow. Modern day Christianity is the the creation of Paul, it is just the result of the heavy influences of Hellenistic philosophy and Roman politics. Jesus being the actual son of God, atonement of sins, and the trinity were foreign concepts to Paul and everyone at the time. Atonement of sins was introduced by Amselm of Canterbury in 1097, Jesus being the physical son of God comes from a gross misunderstanding of the Jewish title by the gentile communities, and the trinity wasn't part of the canonical beliefs until the 5th century. You will learn these if you take any course in Christian history or if you pick up a book about the historical Jesus.

While Paul did indeed have a great effect on the conversion of Gentiles it was still Peter who had the ultimate say. James may have been the Bishop of Jerusalem but Peter still had primacy.

James led the movement after Jesus, and after James it was his brothers. Peter served under Paul, a fact which is clear in Galatians as I pointed to above.

Peter believed that Jesus was the Son of God,

Peter was a Jew. Jews believed in a divine Unity. The term Son of God was a wholly Jewish term which is used often in the Old Testament. It is applied to anyone who is considered holy or close to God. It was also applied to the Jewish kings after they had been anointed with oil and thus became Messiahs (anointed ones). David is called the son of God who God has begotten (Psalms 2.7). The old testament is full of "sons of God", as has been put by Zakir Naik, in the old testament God has sons by the tons.

As to your point about James, he ended up siding with Peter and Paul.

James never sided with Paul. It was Paul who was summoned and monitored by James as he had news that Paul was teaching other Jews to stop obeying the laws of the prophets.

The last that we hear of James and Paul is when Paul returns to Jerusalem to present the “collection for the poor” to the Jerusalem Church which he had collected during his missionary trips. When he meets James and the church elders, they tell him how many thousands of people have come to believe among the Jews and “they are all zealous for the law.” Then they go to ask him about the news they had heard about him telling Jews to abandon the law. (Acts 21:20-22)/ It is plain that James and the leaders were quite proud of the zeal for the law that the Jewish believers possessed, something lacking among the gentile converts of Paul's. After this they advice him to take the gentile converts of his and have them go through the Jewish rites of purification , and this is what Paul did (Acts 21:23-24). What's interesting is what happens next, at the Jewish temple, some Jews from Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) see Paul and tell everyone that he's the one who's been telling people to abandon the law. At this point there is a big riot and Paul is nearly killed. Instead he is saved by the Roman soldiers and put on trial. Now, what's interesting is that James and the church never come to his rescue. As James Dunn states in his book*

“When Paul was arrested and put on trial we hear nothing of any Jewish Christians standing by him, speaking on his defense [sic] – an this despite James's apparent high standing among orthodox Jews... Where were the Jerusalem Christians? It looks very much as though they had washed their hands of Paul, left him to stew in his own juice. If so it implies a fundamental antipathy on the part of the Jewish Christians to Paul himself and what he stood for.” [italics are Dunn's]

Also, it should be noted that Acts doesn't mention Paul's money being accepted probably because it was rejected. Luke doesn't like showing the fact that Jerusalem and Paul didn't get along, so he just skips it. “The silence about the collection being delivered has caused more than a few scholars to conclude that the collection was actually rejected by the elders, for the official acceptance of a collection gathered from Paul's gentile congregations would be seen as approval oof Paul's teachings.” (The Secret Legacy of Jesus, Jeffery Butz)

To summarize, James, Peter, and the Church never came to terms with Paul.

*Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity
*Tabor - The Jesus Dynasty by James D Tabor

 

[RiZ III]

and my second question is do you have any scrolls/antiquities to back up your claim that the 4 accounts of jesus (matthew, mark, luke, john) are grossly error and misinterpreted?

That information has been available for about 200 years now actually. The search the historical Jesus began in the early 1800s. There have been countless books written on the subject. Bart Ehrman has written several books on the topic, his most recent one being "Forged" which is all about the forgeries in the New Testament. Ehrman comes from a conservative evangelical background, so if you want to read up on it, I would recommend his books.

 

[Chaplain]

Ehrman comes from a conservative evangelical background, so if you want to read up on it, I would recommend his books.

Satan was God's number one angel who rebelled against God and is now the one behind all lies. Just because someone was a follower of Christ, does not mean anything if they deny the Messiah. God says that many are going to be cast into the lake of fire who claimed to follow the Messiah but were deceivers.

My point? It is easy to find people who lie about God and His Son.

 

[RiZ III]

Satan was God's number one angel who rebelled against God and is now the one behind all lies. Just because someone was a follower of Christ, does not mean anything if they deny the Messiah. God says that many are going to be cast into the lake of fire who claimed to follow the Messiah but were deceivers.

My point? It is easy to find people who lie about God and His Son.

Ok? But how can you know he is lying before even reading what he has to say? He actually talks mostly about what Pastors learn in Seminary school. The fact that the gospels are all pseudonymous and full of contradictions has been recognized for centuries now and this is taught in seminaries. The general public just doesn't know about it. In the last few decades a lot of books have come out discussing these matters though.

edit: The point is that yes there is ample evidence that "4 accounts of jesus (matthew, mark, luke, john) are grossly error and misinterpreted?". Ehrman's books are a good place to start if anyone wants to know the details.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Ok? But how can you know he is lying before even reading what he has to say? He actually talks mostly about what Pastors learn in Seminary school. The fact that the gospels are all pseudonymous and full of contradictions has been recognized for centuries now and this is taught in seminaries. The general public just doesn't know about it. In the last few decades a lot of books have come out discussing these matters though.

edit: The point is that yes there is ample evidence that "4 accounts of jesus (matthew, mark, luke, john) are grossly error and misinterpreted?". Ehrman's books are a good place to start if anyone wants to know the details.

Have you seen his avatar, he isn't going to read anything that contradicts his already established views?

 

[OttomanScribe]

Congrats on that

Thanks mate was awesome.

Sundae toppings ftw!

Ps. Is OS in the vid?

No.. lol. Should I be?

There are stories of Muhammad (saw) as a child meeting Christian and Jewish monks and rabbis that recognised him as a prophet before it'd be finally revealed during his adulthood. Can someone more knowledgable talk about this, his mark of the seal between his shoulder blades, and generally anything that foretold his coming

Don't know much about the second part. But the first part I have heard.

Have you seen 'the Blessed Tree'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CNF8AWiytM

It discusses Bahira the Monk, who was a Christian mystic that recognised the Rasul'Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) as a child.

Why is the punishment for rape the same as the punishment for adultery or fornication?

Is it?

As I said, I disagree with this claim, but I'd like to see what other Muslims on GAF think about this. Nothing wrong with a white dress for a wedding? Of course, for someone like OttomanScribe, white dresses are apart of his culture, since he's an Aussie convert, but for others living in non-western countries, would you feel that it's wrong for a woman to wear a white wedding dress because of it's cultural link to the Europeans?

Why would one wear a white dress? It is a sad trend, where Muslim cultures with a rich tradition of their own abandon their traditions and turn up to weddings dressed like the nasiri, in a white dress and all wearing suits. This doesn't just extend to the clothes worn, but the way that the wedding is conducted too. With all the sunnah parts neglected in favour of a 'white wedding'.

As to its permissibility, I am not a Mufti.

On a subsconcious level I also think white is seen as "pure"...thus why many people of different cultures choose it.

Really? Most of the Muslims I know associate white with funerals and death. At least it is out of the ordinary for women to wear white, though a Sunnah for men to do so.

 

[Pollux]

**Snip**

That's long. Good points, it's late so I don't have time to respond, I will though.

I have one, maybe two questions though that tie into this "forged and fake NT" discussion.

I've heard that Muslims like to point to areas of the New Testament (and Old) and say that there are prophecies about Muhammad? What areas are these. If the NT is so untrustworthy, how are these verses that are cited about Muhammad reliable?

 

[F#A#Oo]

Ok? But how can you know he is lying before even reading what he has to say? He actually talks mostly about what Pastors learn in Seminary school. The fact that the gospels are all pseudonymous and full of contradictions has been recognized for centuries now and this is taught in seminaries. The general public just doesn't know about it. In the last few decades a lot of books have come out discussing these matters though.

edit: The point is that yes there is ample evidence that "4 accounts of jesus (matthew, mark, luke, john) are grossly error and misinterpreted?". Ehrman's books are a good place to start if anyone wants to know the details.

Game Analyst doesn't really debate...he makes a post and doesn't come back ...

 

[Pollux]

Also just a general thought for those calling Paul's authenticity into question...

How is Paul receiving a vision from Jesus, less reliable than Muhammad receiving a vision in his dreams from God?

 

[Killer]

Also just a general thought for those calling Paul's authenticity into question...

How is Paul receiving a vision from Jesus, less reliable than Muhammad receiving a vision in his dreams from God?

That because prophet's dreams are true visions and messages from god. (see Abraham peace upon him story when he saw in his dream sacrificing his son, but in the end he didn't since it was a test from god).

 

[Pollux]

That because prophet's dreams are true visions and messages from god. (see Abraham peace upon him story when he saw in his dream sacrificing his son, but in the end he didn't since it was a test from god).

That's the best reasoning you have?

Why isn't Paul's vision true?

 

[Killer]

That's the best reasoning you have?

Why isn't Paul's vision true?

I don't think being a saint and servant of Jesus will grant any true vision since ALL prophets dreams are true . Think of it as prophets' exclusive.

 

[Patapwn]

I see several assertions here made without support. The first bit I cannot understand 'This idea that decay is incorrect because the words and ideas are always equally incorrect'....

Even with the brackets removed it still is incomprehensible.

It's actually quite understandable. I suppose calling something incomprehensible is a convenient way to not address it. So let me explain again: Christianity, even in all its slightly different form, did not match up with Islam, which you claim is the word of god. So in essences, there was never a breakdown from a correct word. The population of the world sat on something incorrect without intervention from god. And as I have been discussing and will discuss later in this responses, is something uncharacteristic of the god presented in Islam thus showing a contradiction of motives by way of inaction.

STAY TUNED!

Additionally the second bit is an example of 'begging the question', where you assume 'God's absence' as part of your point, in support of another point. What investigation specifically, did you read my previous post?

God's absence demonstrates that god does not care if people know his will or whatever makes god talk to people. Yet the fact that, well in your faith, god talks to people show he indeed does hold interest. It's a play off god's inactions and failure.

The orthodox Muslim belief is that in addition to those 'deens' called Judaism and Christianity, there are many others given to different communities throughout the world. This would include the various obscure examples you may come up with. They are not in an identical form to Judaism or Christianity or what you call 'Islam'.

So it's nothing more than an article of faith. Good, I'm glad we cleared that up. Also, why did you put the Islam in apostrophes?

And this ties back into my point, why does god make an effort to essentially fail? He continually 'sends' people in your opinion who fuck up so badly classic islam does not even recognize them as 'of the book' like it does Christianity and Judaism. It is uncharacteristic of what one could even call 'God'.

You are missing my point here entirely. The Qur'an, structurally, is not like the Torah or the Bible. The Qur'an comes as a single compilation, in the same style, with a single source, from a single moment in time. Neither the Old or New Testaments come in that form. They also, on the whole, are not poetry.

The quran is but a vessel for stories and ideas. The same for the bible and the torah. In addition, the stories and ideas presented in the quran can in many scenarios be tied to stories and ideas presented in the two latter books. That was the point.

BTW @ bolded, you said something outright incorrect. In your Muslim view, you should believe that the quran was not given in a single moment in time, but in revelations over the course of many years. Why do you believe in such unorthodox ideas?

You also seem to not understand exactly what plagiarism is. Plagiarism is taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own. The Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) does not claim to have 'made up' the things described in the Qur'an. He is open about the fact that the revelation he received describes events that are described in the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was a fulfiller of the traditions of the Jews and the Christians both. The final seal of their Prophets (alayhis salaam). He did not bring anything radically new, but merely came to restore them to that which they should already have been doing.

I put plagiarism in parentheses because I wanted to emphasis a point but not make it formally apart of this debate. So let me explain, I am not a Muslim. I'm not a christian, a Jew, a Buddhist or a Hindu. I have seen zero compelling evidence to buy into the words of any religion. So I hold a position that one would take if they weren't a Muslim. The position that Muhammad did not receive revelations from god, but merely invented his own religions on accounts of Judaism and Christianity from knowledge attainable over 40 years before claiming prophet-hood. You're a Muslim so you claim they were revelations etc. but considering I have yet to see compelling evidence for your religion I take the only other alternative, that of plagiarism. You obviously don't agree but you can see the point of using that word yes? And as I said, if we make that officially apart of this debate we're caught in the whole faith argument that should probably just be exported into the theist vs. atheist thread.

Within this, there doesn't seem to be a point. Either you are in a position to appraise the claim or you are not. If you are not, just say 'I can't say either way, but that doesn't mean you are right' and move on..

You believe that the quran is the word of god. You believe that the word of god is of a nature no creature but god could write (regardless of the fact that the quran is written in words and could even be randomly generated by not even a computer but a human given time)

Your opinion of the quran's greatness is an article of faith on a foundation of circular logic. It's all fine and dandy that you think it's so great, but claiming it's 'evidence of it's own greatness' is not a claim you should be making. Honestly, it's fine that think that, not the best idea to bring up in a debate.

You believe that 'equal opportunity' as you put it, when it comes to access to God, is something that should be a given. Why?

I'm just making the assumption that god want's people to follow his will. It certainly seems that given your own religion, the actions of your prophet, and the countless additions god makes to his prophet card collection every hundred or so years, that god not only wants but makes countless attempts to get this. I don't know how someone could claim to be Muslim and not believe this.

You make claims that god is a judge who judges all the little girls and boys on how they were bad or good according to Islam. Equal access would certainly dispel doubt, questions, and as you continuously claim 'decay' that arise from only one man getting the extraworldy transmissions from god as opposed to everyone. And accordingly, it would allow people to be judged equally, no prophets getting free passes over the not-so-fortunate-to-have-been-contacted-by-god plebeians. Equal. Like a judge who judges should judge. That would not only be the fairest way, but it would be the most efficient way. And as has been shown again and again, your god at least lacks efficiently.

Here you are begging the question again. You say 'in the context of God wanting man to know his word', as though that is the entire purpose of revelation and Prophethood. This is not an assumption that I have made, why do you make it?

What purpose do you believe are revelation and prophet hood if god doesn't care if people know his word? Does he or doesn't he? It's one of two and you can't have it both ways.

This is entire point is attempting to flow from what is essentially a flawed assumption. So it doesn't hold up. You are assuming that God's Will is purely that 'man will know his word', and that the most effective way of achieving that is through direct revelation.

Why do you assume that it is God's will specifically that 'man will know his word' and that the best way for that to occur is direct revelation? This is not something I have said to you in our discussion, so why do you assert it?

If the purpose of humanity was purely to 'know God's word', then there are a million ways that could be accomplished, direct revelation being only one of many. However that isn't the point of humanity. Humanity exists because God exists and has attributes. We exist as a reflection of these attributes, He is Merciful, and so those exist upon whom his Mercy is extended, He is the Judge, so those exist upon whom is judgement falls, etc.

The purpose of humanity is not merely as dumb receivers of God's word.

First off, direct revelation is the fairest and most efficient method. Why use a less efficient method to get what you want across? Is god not powerful enough to be assed with talking to everyone whom him will all judge the same?

And humanity exists because god exists and has attributes? Err, what? Now THAT is an unsupported assumption. Humanity exists because god exists for starters. Why does god need to create humanity if it exists? So god is not allowed to exist without creating humans? Did a greater god set up this rule? Is allah merely a player in a larger scheme?

In addition because god has attributes... I'm not sure what is being said here. We are extensions of gods attributes? Perhaps. We do love, we do judge, we do lie, we do cheat, we do murder, we do demand vengeance and blood, we are apathetic, and we do often take inaction in the light of empathy. All, attributes of the Islamic god forsure. But us needing to exist because of such things? Or perhaps you mean because god needs to be a judge? He likes to judge his creations on criteria that he fails to even get across on multiple occasions? Or perhaps he just wants little robots to revel in his greatness and sing him praise like a king expecting bows from his subjects?

Either way, I don't see why people need to exist because god exists, aside from the 'revel in his glory bit'. But that would require people to know him which historically he fails to get across considerably.

 

[Pollux]

I don't think being a saint and servant of Jesus will grant any true vision since ALL prophets dreams are true . Think of it as prophets' exclusive.

So being a saint and servant to Jesus will grant 0 true dreams? Period. None. For anyone?

Well it's a good thing that Saint Paul did not dream this encounter with God but had a talk with Him on the road to Damascus.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

That's the best reasoning you have?

Why isn't Paul's vision true?

Haha that was awesome. Fantastic reasoning.

Edit: Just to be clear, it was Killer's reasoning that I found humorous.

 

[XtremeRampage]

I'm nearly finished reading "The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You a Happy Birthday - Unexpected Encounters in the Changing Middle East" by Neil MacFarquhar. He was a journalist who covered the Middle East for years and the book is about his life there.

This isn't a book about extremism or terrorism or suicide bombs. This is a book about the regular people going about their lives within an Islamic community. There are lots of challenges ahead before the Middle East becomes in any way fair or equitable - never mind democratic.

I was fascinated by the chapter on fatwas. Not the big 'calling for death' fatwas like Salman Rushdie but the everyday 'getting through life being a pious muslim' fatwas of which any given country will issue thousands a day. That entire system is basically fucked to hell and prevents any society from developing thinking, analytical people.

The spread and extent of Wahabbi ideas is also explored and that shit is just plain daunting to read about. Thanks to Saudi oil and the fact that many Middle Eastern countries have neglected their public education system, the Wahabbi madrasas have flourished in the region over the years. This is why many Middle Eastern countries are becoming more strict and intolerant in their outlook. Wahabbi - amongst other things - teaches that non-Wahabbi are evil, corrupted, and essentially sub-human. These ideas are simply not compatable with a modern, interconnected world.

It's a good read and while the author remains optimistic I have serious doubts.

Not just Middle Eastern countries, but also in South Asia and Southeast Asia. In no small part it's due to appalling state of judicial system, poverty, along with government's corruption and impotence. I think a similar European event would be the state of Huguenots and Roman Catholic in 16th century.

 

[coldfoot]

Although Islam apologists "explained" why a man would be given twice as much inheritance than women due to the men's role in taking care of their wives, I'd love to see how they justify why a man's testimony in court is worth two women's as stated in Al-Baqarah:282.

 

[sagi446]

Although Islam apologists "explained" why a man would be given twice as much inheritance than women due to the men's role in taking care of their wives, I'd love to see how they justify why a man's testimony in court is worth two women's as stated in Al-Baqarah:282.

You ever heard a woman telling a story? You/Your liberal sex-equality might not like this, but there are more differences between the sexes besides dicks and vags.

That's long. Good points, it's late so I don't have time to respond, I will though.

I have one, maybe two questions though that tie into this "forged and fake NT" discussion.

I've heard that Muslims like to point to areas of the New Testament (and Old) and say that there are prophecies about Muhammad? What areas are these. If the NT is so untrustworthy, how are these verses that are cited about Muhammad reliable?

I don't mean to offend them or call them out, but if they're basing their faith on the Christian Testaments... They need major re-evaluations.

Christianity in its current form(s) should be treated as is, a religion that's no longer acceptable to worship with. That's not to say that the Testaments are all false or anything, just that we don't know what is true and what isn't. And the thought of using another religion as prove to your own is just odd and shaky.

I'm nearly finished reading "The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You a Happy Birthday - Unexpected Encounters in the Changing Middle East" by Neil MacFarquhar. He was a journalist who covered the Middle East for years and the book is about his life there.

This isn't a book about extremism or terrorism or suicide bombs. This is a book about the regular people going about their lives within an Islamic community. There are lots of challenges ahead before the Middle East becomes in any way fair or equitable - never mind democratic.

I was fascinated by the chapter on fatwas. Not the big 'calling for death' fatwas like Salman Rushdie but the everyday 'getting through life being a pious muslim' fatwas of which any given country will issue thousands a day. That entire system is basically fucked to hell and prevents any society from developing thinking, analytical people.

The spread and extent of Wahabbi ideas is also explored and that shit is just plain daunting to read about. Thanks to Saudi oil and the fact that many Middle Eastern countries have neglected their public education system, the Wahabbi madrasas have flourished in the region over the years. This is why many Middle Eastern countries are becoming more strict and intolerant in their outlook. Wahabbi - amongst other things - teaches that non-Wahabbi are evil, corrupted, and essentially sub-human. These ideas are simply not compatable with a modern, interconnected world.

It's a good read and while the author remains optimistic I have serious doubts.

Your post reeks of emotional bs. However, I guess I should comment on something that's really off in your post.

Do you even know the definition of a fatwa? Basically any idiot can make one up, there's no "system". The thing that keeps them in check is that if you make one up yourself, you are responsible for each and everyone who follows it, every damn mistake or good thing that comes up of a Fatwa is logged and everyone will be judged accordingly by God. Whether in this life or the next.

Now following a fatwa, you have to evaluate it. If it makes sense, the harm it could cause, the positive effects, how does it make me a better muslim, etc. I and many many more muslims didn't go out to "kill sum kuffar americuhnz" when some assholes made these up for their agendas because these pieces of crap were chuck full of emotion and bastardized laughable explanation of some ayat of the Quran as their "proof".

And lol at the sub-human part. Are you serious? I didn't know people can evolve from sub-humans to humans by saying one line.

 

[coldfoot]

You ever heard a woman telling a story? You/Your liberal sex-equality might not like this, but there are more differences between the sexes besides dicks and vags.

I've head enough men and women telling stories to know that they can all forget, misinterpret, etc. In fact my fiance is much better than me at remembering every detail of an event, or what someone was wearing etc.

If you're not a "liberal sex-equality" supporter in front of the law, you're pretty much an uncivilized barbarian society.

 

[Pollux]

You ever heard a woman telling a story? You/Your liberal sex-equality might not like this, but there are more differences between the sexes besides dicks and vags.

I don't even really know what to say to this.

I don't mean to offend them or call them out, but if they're basing their faith on the Christian Testaments... They need major re-evaluations.

Christianity in its current form(s) should be treated as is, a religion that's no longer acceptable to worship with. That's not to say that the Testaments are all false or anything, just that we don't know what is true and what isn't. And the thought of using another religion as prove to your own is just odd and shaky.

Prove it.

You say Christianity is no longer acceptable to worship with. I'm not going to even touch this with a 10 foot pole since we've been having a very courteous back and forth before you came along, however, you start calling out my faith I start pointing out all the holes in yours. Let's keep this civil.

More like where's your proof to the original one? That Bible is the only one with any value.

Even IF it still exists, Christianity is no longer a viable religion if you want to worship God.

so what is?

 

[SmokyDave]

You ever heard a woman telling a story? You/Your liberal sex-equality might not like this, but there are more differences between the sexes besides dicks and vags.

Priceless. Just priceless.

I can almost hear the slapping of 1000 palms against 1000 foreheads as the sensible members of Muslim-GAF read your post.

 

[RustyNails]

Yes, indeed a Surah is named after his mother, Maryam (alayhis salaam) and she is one of the exalted examples for Muslim women to follow.

Wat? Quran doesn't say at all Jesus was conceived divinely. Jesus was brought into existence in Mary's womb without any conception, divine or otherwise.

 

[Pollux]

Priceless. Just priceless.

I can almost hear the slapping of 1000 palms against 1000 foreheads as the sensible members of Muslim-GAF read your post.

and the thousands of other slaps as everyone else reads it and slaps their foreheads as well.

Wat? Quran doesn't say at all Jesus was conceived divinely. Jesus was brought into existence in Mary's womb without any conception, divine or otherwise.

And what is more Divine than creating something, from NOTHING?

 

[IceCold]

I don't even really know what to say to this.



Prove it.

You say Christianity is no longer acceptable to worship with. I'm not going to even touch this with a 10 foot pole since we've been having a very courteous back and forth before you came along, however, you start calling out my faith I start pointing out all the holes in yours. Let's keep this civil.




so what is?

Has to be the Bahá'í Faith since it's the successor of Islam.

 

[Pollux]

Has to be the Bahá'í Faith since it's the successor of Islam.

No you have to be wrong. Jesus MUST be the Son of God and Christianity Must be right.

How do I know this? Four words ---> Tim Tebow says so.

 

[Azih]

It is a sad trend, where Muslim cultures with a rich tradition of their own abandon their traditions and turn up to weddings dressed like the nasiri, in a white dress and all wearing suits.

Disagreed. Completely and totally disagreed. Cultures change and as long as they're not doing anything that contradicts the Quran (or the Sunnah if you want to go that route) then why be sad? Muslims in South Asia don't get married like Muslims in Central Asia, or the Middle East or the Far East or Northern Africa and frankly all of them don't get married now like they did 50 years ago and those didn't get married like they did 100 years ago etc. Which one of these incredibly diverse methods is the 'correct' way that should be persevered and everything else is bad? Diversity isn't a bad thing and change is inherent in human nature.

I heard a story from an older Indian Muslim man who had lived in a lot of different places about how he was living in some country in North Africa and had made some local friends who they invited to dinner. As a part of the evening the hosts brought out their wedding album. Their guests took one look at the album and got up to leave, the hosts were confused and asked what was going on and the answer was that they didn't know that the hosts weren't Muslim and they weren't going to eat with Non-Muslims. The hosts objected saying that they were muslims to which the guests responded that the bride was wearing a red dress at the weddings and only Hindus do that.

I absolutely HATE attitudes like that, obsessing about the minute details over what is the correct Muslim way to do anything and everything, and looking askance at everybody else who does things differently.

 

[Azih]

Although Islam apologists "explained" why a man would be given twice as much inheritance than women due to the men's role in taking care of their wives, I'd love to see how they justify why a man's testimony in court is worth two women's as stated in Al-Baqarah:282.

First that verse is specifically about witnesses for debt contracts and nothing else. No other testimony.

Second here's the portion of the verse itself:

"then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses"



And from the verse itself the purpose of the rule

"so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her."

"That is more just in the sight of Allah and stronger as evidence and more likely to prevent doubt between you"

In a society where women are judged to be just as financially competent and able to witness the signing of a debt contract as men and having one woman as witness wouldn't cause the same doubt in debt contracts that God is seeking to prevent the purpose is satisfied without the need of the rule.

 

[coldfoot]

First that verse is specifically about witnesses for debt contracts and nothing else. No other testimony.
Second here's the portion of the verse itself:
"then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses"
And from the verse itself the purpose of the rule
"so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her."

But the one man that you're replacing it with two women can't err? Because he doesn't get anyone to remind him. How about Man #1, why can't he remind a single woman if she errs? Why do you need two women but only a single man, in addition to Man #1 who's present in all cases?

"That is more just in the sight of Allah and stronger as evidence and more likely to prevent doubt between you"

In a society where women are judged to be just as financially competent and able to witness the signing of a debt contract as men and having one woman as witness wouldn't cause the same doubt in debt contracts that God is seeking to prevent the purpose is satisfied without the need of the rule.

Where does it say in the Quran that 2:282 that it doesn't apply if the woman is deemed to be as competent in these matters as a man? Does it ever acknowledge that a woman could be as competent as a man in these matters?

 

[Azih]

Alright at least you acknowledge that reading it as being for all testimony in court was a misreading on your part

But the one man that you're replacing it with two women can't err?

In a society where women aren't expected to be versed in financial matters acting as a sole witness in a debt contract would be more likely to cause doubt on the whole contract (which is what these rules are being set up to prevent) and this is a way so that even in those societies women can act as witnesses on a contract of debt. That's as far as it goes in my interpretation of the verse.

 

[coldfoot]

Alright at least you acknowledge that reading it as being for all testimony in court was a misreading on your part

In a society where women aren't expected to be versed in financial matters acting as a sole witness in a debt contract would be more likely to cause doubt on the whole contract (which is what these rules are being set up to prevent) and this is a way so that even in those societies women can act as witnesses on a contract of debt. That's as far as it goes in my interpretation of the verse.

So one woman clueless about financial matters = bad, but two women, both clueless about financial matters is OK? How does that work?

 

[Azih]

So one woman clueless about financial matters = bad, but two women, both clueless about financial matters is OK? How does that work?

As the verse says, so that the other woman can help out the first if the first is having trouble.

 

[Pollux]

As the verse says, so that the other woman can help out the first if the first is having trouble.

And what if they guy is having trouble....

 

[Azih]

And what if they guy is having trouble....

As long as the society accepts the validity of the contract after the fact then I guess who cares? The purpose of the rule as explained in the verse is that the debt contract be acceptable in the community as strong and valid.

 

[Pollux]

As long as the society accepts the validity of the contract after the fact then I guess who cares? The purpose of the rule as explained in the verse is that the debt contract be acceptable in the community as strong and valid.

To quote the perfect post to respond to this:

Priceless. Just priceless.

I can almost hear the slapping of 1000 palms against 1000 foreheads as the sensible members of Muslim-GAF read your post.

 

[Azih]

To quote the perfect post to respond to this:

I don't see how. I already noted that

In a society where women are judged to be just as financially competent and able to witness the signing of a debt contract as men and having one woman as witness wouldn't cause the same doubt in debt contracts that God is seeking to prevent, the purpose is satisfied without the need of the rule.

And also that:

this is a way so that even in those societies (where women aren't thought of as being financially competent) women can act as witnesses on a contract of debt.

 

[sagi446]

I don't even really know what to say to this.

Convince yourself otherwise/reassure your faith in "facts"/w/e you liberals do.

Prove it.

You say Christianity is no longer acceptable to worship with. I'm not going to even touch this with a 10 foot pole since we've been having a very courteous back and forth before you came along, however, you start calling out my faith I start pointing out all the holes in yours. Let's keep this civil.




so what is?

I cannot "prove" what my faith is in. That's the point of it.

Look up Surat Al-Kafroon, last ayah.

 

[Pollux]

Convince yourself otherwise/reassure your faith in "facts"/w/e you liberals do.



I cannot "prove" what my faith is in. That's the point of it.

Look up Surat Al-Kafroon, last ayah.

"you liberals"...the only thing you've done so far is be continuously insulting. I don't really know what you're adding to this discussion.

We come to this thread to be respectful, to try and understand your faith and reach across a gap. However, you don't want discussion and an exchange of ideas you want to tell us how wrong we are. I could do this to you as well, I'm not going to. People can believe what they want. I'm not going to judge them for their faith, like YOU seem to do. Faith is private, and it is you telling me that my Book and my faith is unfit, that I become angry.

And I can't prove my FAITH to you. I have absolute conviction that Christ is the Son of God. You disagree. That's fine. You think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong.

However, to say that the Bible and the New Testament is wrong and unfit to worship God with...Do you expect me not to take offense to that? You claim this, yet you offer no argument. You offer nothing except "It's unfit".

 

[RustyNails]

sagi, dont do stuff like "you liberals" or "you conservatives"...

 

[coldfoot]

I don't see how. I already noted that
In a society where women are judged to be just as financially competent and able to witness the signing of a debt contract as men and having one woman as witness wouldn't cause the same doubt in debt contracts that God is seeking to prevent, the purpose is satisfied without the need of the rule.

Where does it say that in the Quran? How do you know if the rule doesn't apply when the women are just as competent as men in these matters? If it did, the rest of the surah would have "unless, the women are just as competent...etc" in it, but it doesn't. Maybe Allah doesn't think women will EVER be competent in these matters, hence the surah. There are no exceptions made in the Quran itself against any kind of women about this issue.