Interesting. How did you come to Islam Ottoman? I'm sure you probably mentioned it somewhere in this thread, but I haven't read every page.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official Islamic Thread
- Thread starter AmMortal
- Start date
Interesting. How did you come to Islam Ottoman? I'm sure you probably mentioned it somewhere in this thread, but I haven't read every page.
Pollux
Member
Well if you're going to start throwing others' words at me without trying to interpret them yourself, and then basically tell me to refute them, I guess I can do that to.
Tell me how Saint John of Damascus is wrong:
Pollux
Member
And if the Quran is the perfectly correct word of God, then how do you explain the historical inaccuracies?
There are other examples at this website...http://www.fatherzakaria.net/
There are other examples at this website...http://www.fatherzakaria.net/
Patapwn
Member
Well, I guess it's that time of night when I get responses. It's unfortunate that I can't have my own response from you OS 
I need be bunched in with others!
Can you point to a historical group, any written evidence or even spoken legend, of people who believed the in the time of Jesus the words and ideas of your religion (islam)?
Let me make this very simple:
1. Are you a muslim and do you consider the quran the words and ideas of god?
If yes...
2. Do you believe that god sends a prophet after a 'period of decay' ?
If yes...
3. Do you believe that with Jesus, pre muhammad islam was given to man?
if yes...
4. Do you believe that somewhere in the transition things got corrupted by man?
if yes...
5. Do you claim there were people who practiced the uncorrupted version?
if yes...
6. What evidence do you have this?
if nothing...
7. If you have no evidence, why would you be making these assertions?
Not at all. This entire debate (argument) I've been giving you the benefit of assuming your god exists.That's the foundation of me making assertions about how your god doesn't make sense in the context of your own religion. I say absence not using the to say "oh look he was physically gone! proof he don't exist" but merely to point out periods where the world was not supposedly following his religion and he sat idol.
Where did I assume lack of prophet = lack of god?
As I said, there is a distinction between what something is and what something is like. For example, I compared the 3 as books filled with ideas supposedly from god. I think in your last response to me you admitted that it was an agreeable definition, but was too vague or something? As I compared, I understand that one can also contrast the 3 books. You were splitting hairs over contrasting and attempted to argue something there was no need to even argue.
BTW, if you can't back up the quran being proof of gods word please refrain from saying so.
As I mentioned, I used the word in parentheses. But here's the idea, muhammad knew of OT + NT and wrote his own version over the course of many years passing them off as revelations as opposed to citing them as verses and ideas taken from the bible and torah alone. He claimed god as the author but himself as the revolator thus tying him into the frame. Plagiarism is passing ones work off for yourself. In the confines of this situation, muhammad was passing off the work and revelations of jesus, moses, etc. as his own revelations.
As you make little effort to address there is a major difference between being contacted by god and being forced to follow on faith alone.
How does your god judge a Muslim who becomes an apostate for reasons of lack of evidence? How does your god judge a atheist (I'm not anti Muslim nor raging )who knows all the words and ideas of the religion (NOT merely told by someone else) but cannot believe and follow the religion just because some man a thousand years ago said so?
From my understanding, not so favorably. And given the situation (as I have described previously) the situation for judging messengers of god and those who must follow on faith is unequal, yet still all are judge in an equal manner. Those who you claim are kafir, if only god would talk to them like he did the supposed prophets...
If I ask you a question, I'm asking for your position. That's all you got?
This part was meant to be a joke founded on logical fallacy. It was to be a lighthearted follow up to the previous question you didn't give an answer to (or an answer I wasn't satisfied with).
I need be bunched in with others!Can you point to a historical group, any written evidence or even spoken legend, of people who believed the in the time of Jesus the words and ideas of your religion (islam)?
Let me make this very simple:
1. Are you a muslim and do you consider the quran the words and ideas of god?
If yes...
2. Do you believe that god sends a prophet after a 'period of decay' ?
If yes...
3. Do you believe that with Jesus, pre muhammad islam was given to man?
if yes...
4. Do you believe that somewhere in the transition things got corrupted by man?
if yes...
5. Do you claim there were people who practiced the uncorrupted version?
if yes...
6. What evidence do you have this?
if nothing...
7. If you have no evidence, why would you be making these assertions?
Not at all. This entire debate (argument) I've been giving you the benefit of assuming your god exists.That's the foundation of me making assertions about how your god doesn't make sense in the context of your own religion. I say absence not using the to say "oh look he was physically gone! proof he don't exist" but merely to point out periods where the world was not supposedly following his religion and he sat idol.
Where did I assume lack of prophet = lack of god?
As I said, there is a distinction between what something is and what something is like. For example, I compared the 3 as books filled with ideas supposedly from god. I think in your last response to me you admitted that it was an agreeable definition, but was too vague or something? As I compared, I understand that one can also contrast the 3 books. You were splitting hairs over contrasting and attempted to argue something there was no need to even argue.
BTW, if you can't back up the quran being proof of gods word please refrain from saying so.
As you admitted, that was indeed an aspect
As I mentioned, I used the word in parentheses. But here's the idea, muhammad knew of OT + NT and wrote his own version over the course of many years passing them off as revelations as opposed to citing them as verses and ideas taken from the bible and torah alone. He claimed god as the author but himself as the revolator thus tying him into the frame. Plagiarism is passing ones work off for yourself. In the confines of this situation, muhammad was passing off the work and revelations of jesus, moses, etc. as his own revelations.
As you make little effort to address there is a major difference between being contacted by god and being forced to follow on faith alone.
How does your god judge a Muslim who becomes an apostate for reasons of lack of evidence? How does your god judge a atheist (I'm not anti Muslim nor raging
)who knows all the words and ideas of the religion (NOT merely told by someone else) but cannot believe and follow the religion just because some man a thousand years ago said so?From my understanding, not so favorably. And given the situation (as I have described previously) the situation for judging messengers of god and those who must follow on faith is unequal, yet still all are judge in an equal manner. Those who you claim are kafir, if only god would talk to them like he did the supposed prophets...
If I ask you a question, I'm asking for your position. That's all you got?
This part was meant to be a joke founded on logical fallacy. It was to be a lighthearted follow up to the previous question you didn't give an answer to (or an answer I wasn't satisfied with).
Yea, my best friends mom is like that. She's tried converting me for years lol. She's also a good friend of mine. Anyways, the holy spirit isn't something you can see, touch, or read. It is faith based on a feeling. Converting by reading the Qu'ran isn't converting because of a mystical being entering your body. It's reading a book that literally is speaking to you (God addresses the reader directly in the Quran).
As my sister's Catholic friend who recently converted put it:
“ I never imagined that the poetic articulations of God's bounty and the precision of His creation would appeal so vividly to my analytical nature, or that the breathtaking language would stand out as supreme above anything I had read before. I am an avid reader and, as an attorney, have been trained to critique language and spot the weaknesses in arguments. And yet by the time I was halfway through the Quran, I realized I could no longer read it as a cultural experiment or as an idle intellectual pursuit or as a gateway back into my Catholic faith.
I was simply reading my book. Even across centuries of time and strained through English interpretations, I knew I was reading words sent down by God. In mere days of reading the first chapter the Quran, my transformation began. I fought it for only a few more weeks, devouring the Quran a second time to be sure, before I said my shahada.”
http://www.altmuslimah.com/a/b/mca/4542/
You, Patapwn, may not see the miraculous nature of the speech of the Quran, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. It's like looking into one of those magic-eye books, the 3d symbols are there if you search for them. You can't blame the Quran or God if you turn away in arrogance without even considering it. So before you say there is no reason to believe, first at least read what you speak against.
There are a lot, and they fall into different categories. First is actually the omission in the Quran of scientifically inaccurate statements found in the Bible. If Muhammad copied from the Bible, it's rather strange that he left these out.
Creation:
Biblical Version]
The ordering of when things came to be found in the bible is completely wrong and contradictory sometimes. I'm sure you are aware of these, but let's reiterate: man created before animals, earth created before stars, water on earth before land, plants before the sun and sun after the stars, birds and land animals at same time.
Quranic version:
The heavens and earth were joined into one piece until they were split asunder (21:30)*, everything was gas before it was brought together (41:11)**, all life came from water (21:30)***, the sky has seven layers as well as the earth (Universe also said to have 7 layers) (65:12)****, the Sun is in it's own orbit***** (36:40), the Sun will swallow the moon(75:9)****** , Sun will darken(81:1)*******
*Big Bang
** The Universe started in a hot gaseous state
***True
****Earth's atmosphere has 7 layers, Earth has 7 layers
*****Sun does have an orbit
******Sun will eventually become a red giant
*******Sun will go from being white dwarf to a black dwarf
Exodus
There is actually a lot of interesting features about the Quranic exodus, but I will only mention a few because you don't believe it to be a historical event. Nevertheless, it is worth taking note of some of the unusual differences between the two version especially since according to you Muhammad copied the Bible.
-A rather interesting claim that the Quran makes is that God preserved the body of the Pharoah as a sign for people. This is interesting because this claim isn't found in the Bible. Knowledge of ancient Egyptian language and religious practices had mostly vanished by the first century, so for the Quran to imply that the body of a Pharaoh is still out there is rather intriguing. Of all the destroyed peoples the Quran talks about, the Pharaoh is the only one whom this is said about.
-Unlike the Bible, which claims upwards of a 3 million people left Egypt, the Quran implies it was a small group. Of course you don't believe in the Exodus, but I'm just pointing out this difference because of the false belief that the Quran randomly copies the Bible. The difference here is significant because there weren't more than a couple million people in all of the Levant at the time the exodus is purported to have happened! So when the Biblical version is so famous, why does the Quran suggest that it was a small group? Surely if Muhammad was well versed enough in the Bible to know so many other details he would have known this very important detail.
-The Quran speaks of a religious advisor to the Pharaoh named Hamman. The High Priest of Amun (spelled also Ἅμμων Hammon ) was the highest ranking priest during the New Kingdom. Again, there is no mention of such person working for the Pharaoh in the Bible.
-The Quran mentions the Pharaoh asking for a tall building to be built so he could go see the god of Moses. In ancient Egyptian religion, it was believed that if you ascended a tall building or tower, you could speak to the gods.
Joseph
This is more of a textual difference, but an important one considering how famous the story is. You don't have to believe in the story for this to matter.
-In the both versions, Joseph has a dream with 11 stars, the sun and the moon, submitting to Joseph. 11 stars symbolizing his brothers. The sun his dad, and the moon his mother. Now, the Biblical version is very clear that his mother dies and in the end it is only his brothers and dad who bow before him. This is a famous famous story, so it is interesting that if Muhammad was straight up copying the Bible why he changed it. In the Quranic version, there is no mention of his mother at all until the very end when she also bows before him along with his dad and brothers. You might say that Muhammad probably just noticed this error and fixed it, but this was actually something that wasn't noticed recently. Also interesting to note that the Surah has 111 verses when 11 plays such an important role in the story.
-In the Biblical version, the ruler of Egypt is called a pharaoh, but in the Quranic version he is always referred to as a king. Interesting because the consensus among both Muslims and Biblical scholars is that Joseph was probably living at a time when the ruler of Egypt was not called a pharaoh. Again, why did Muhammad decide to change it from Pharaoh to king in the story of Joseph?
Jesus
I'm not going to argue that the Quranic version of Jesus is the right one, but one thing to note is that if Muhammad wanted, he could have just denied Jesus completely. He found people worshipping all sorts of different gods and preached that they were false gods and they didn't exist. So why not the same with Jesus? He was surrounded by people who worshiped Jesus as a god, and Jews who rejected him as a god or any leader worth of mention. So why make his life even more difficult and claim something completely new? That Jesus was instead a prophet? He didn't do this with any other deity. Now, before you jump to saying that Jesus didn't exist, the Jewish figure behind the god figure of Jesus Christ certainly existed. This isn't my statement, this is the view “held by the majority of serious scholars in NA and EU” (Ehrman, Jesus:Interrupted). So now It's rather interesting that modern scholarship agrees so closely with the Quran's version of Jesus. As Jeffery Butz puts it in "The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity", "It is more than intriguing that the Muslim understanding of Jesus is very much in conformity with the first Christian orthodoxy - the original Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus." (186)
And in "The Jesus Dynasty", Professor Tabor says
"Muslims do not worship Jesus, who is known as Isa in Arabic, nor do they consider him divine, but they do believe that he was a prophet or messenger of God and he is called the Messiah in the Qu'ran. However, by affirming Jesus as Messiah they are attesting to his messianic message, not his mission as a heavenly Christ [something proclaimed by Paul alone]. There are some rather strking connections between the research I have presented in The Jesus Dynasty and the traditional beliefs of Islam. The Muslim emphasis on Jesus as a messianic prophet and teacher is quite parallel to what we find in the Q source [the source the three synoptics based their gospels on], in the book of James, and in the Didache. To be the Messiah is to proclaim a message, but it is the same message as that proclaimed by Abraham, Moses, and all the Prophets. Islam insists that neither Jesus nor Mohammed brought a new religion. Bouth sought to call people back to what might be called the “Abrahamic faith.” This is precisely what we find emphasized in the book of James. Like Islam, the book of James, and the teaching of Jesus in Q, emphasize doing the will of God as a demonstration of one's faith. Also, the dietary laws of Islam, as quoted in the Qu'ran, echo the taechings of James in Acts 15 almost word for word: 'Abstain from swineflesh, blood, things offered to idols, and carrion' (Qu'ran 2:172).” (315-216)
-The Quran implies that Jesus was born around August/September as it speaks of Mary eating ripened dates, this occurs in that region around that time. This happens to be around the time which scholars now believe he was born:
http://jamestabor.com/2010/09/22/happy-birthday-to-jesus/
Man
-The Bible implies that not only is the universe earth centric, but also that man is by far God's greatest and most precious creation, so much so that it says man was created in God's image. Of course we know now that the earth is not at the center of anything, nor do we humans compare at all to the enormous Universe (or maybe Multi-verse).
-Strange then that the Quran has such a different view. Not only does it never mention anything about humans being created in the image of God, but we aren't even considered the greatest of His creations as God says “Assuredly the creation of the heavens and the earth is a greater matter than the creation of men. Yet most men understand not” (40:57). Rather, man is made from the earth, created here in stages, compared to the sprouting and growing of plans (71:14, 71:17).
There are a lot of differences such as these. You can just scoff at them as coincidences, or you could think about them. That's the main difference stated in the Quran between people who believe, and people who don't. To ponder the signs of God, or to deny and turn away. The choice is each of ours to make and there is no compulsion is religion (2:256).
Which of those is memorized by millions of people? Or were uttered by a single illiterate man? Or even have the linguistic beauty of the Quran? None of those, besides the works of Hubbard, even have a single version to memorize. No my friend, none of those satisfy the challenge.
South Park is hardly an inspired piece of work! Lol, I mean it can make for good comedy, but are you really going to compare that to the works of Rumi or the beautiful prayers* inspired by the Quran to a crude episode of South Park?? Come on ;p
example (one of my favorites):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcWH61y6Y-g
You were stopped by Amnesty Internation right? They're targeting stoning in Iran right?
I was stopped an hour or so ago...they used your same line of thought...
Patapwn
Member
-I'm afraid this is FISKING the official thread. But here we go! Again, the same argument can be presented for any other religious text. And I don't turn away out of arrogance, I just don't see anything other than another religion of which there are many. The quran did not bring the world science, nor did it bring the world understanding. It was another decree of what god supposedly said but god could not say it himself it was funneled through a man who then turned to military action which killed many many people.
And like the bible I have read the quran. But I have a question for you, how many religious text have you read? Or religions you've fancied in your time? I mean, how many religions could RiZ III have been proclaiming were the 'words of god' if he was born in a different situation? How many Imams or religious zealots in the middle east would be different men proclaiming different ideals if they were born in the bible belt America? or mainland china? Or India? See, religion is a cultural phenomenon. And as it appears god also seems to be a cultural phenomenon. The god of islam is very different from the non-god world of Buddhists or the pantheon of Norse or roman gods. He's very different from the Aztecs or the Olmec and what they thought of as god an spirits. He's very different from what the Celtics thought were magic elements like the sun and stars.
Ottamanscribe thinks these people are just following islam as it's been given to them. But perhaps you are more reasonable than that? I would like you to fancy a different idea for a moment. That people invent religion for what they do no understand or because doing so benefited them (Scientology) or perhaps for a combination of the two.
The counter claim is that Muhammad took from these books and made his own thing. Not a word for word copy. As is know, there wasn't 1 finite version of the bible anyways.
The big bang is in the bible (supposedly) and supposedly in many other religions. The layers of the earth and atmosphere are generalized and aren't considered to have 7 layers but many. For example, the generalized 'crust' isn't an exact but has many different layers in many different locations. The world has always known the sun has an orbit, the question of if the earth was the center or not has been the question. And the Islamic world thought the world was genocentric.
And looking at specific verses, the one where the asunder word: "Do not eh unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together before we lclove them asunder?" (21:3)
Soon followed by: "Then he turned to the heaven, which was only smoke at that time. He said to the heaven and the earth "come ye together, willingly or unwillingly" (41:11)
Do you see the contradiction here? So were the heavens and the earth split apart or were they pushed together?
We could play this game all day. It's what comes about many times when looking at creating myths were things are not pinpointed scientifically allowing for mammoth wiggle room of interpretation.
With that said, there does not exist in the Qur'an any information that wasn't already known to civilization that long preceded the birth of Muhammad.
How many things in the quran can be directly linked to the bible and torah? If you copied and made your own version of something wouldn't you put your own spin on it? Just take the story of Jesus, muhammad couldn't have him being who Christianity proclaimed. So, perhaps it's possible, he downgraded his status to prophet instead of 'god'.
There is actually no evidecne for the connetions. And even if there was, I have a name in life that many others share. Jesus also shared his name with many other people even in the same time in the same city as 'things were happening.
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/katz/haman/app_hammon_hemiunu.html
I can't find any evidence to support your claim. The Gods lived in the underworld in the Egyptian religion. And the only towering buildings in Egypt were the pyramids which were not built to 'talk to the gods'. They were built to 'make the pharoh immortal.' Actually, in the new kingdom burial ground were moved underground almost exclusively in what is know as the valley of the kings. It's possible that Muhammad knew of the pyramids, made a possible connection, and put it in his book. Perhaps Muhammad's claim is a contradiction of reality?
King and pharaoh mean the same thing. The only difference between the two, I suppose, is that pharaoh has religious connotations where a king sort of doesn't have such connotations. But the pharaoh was playing up a religious connotion as far back as 3000BC building the pyramids for reasons of immortality which is as far back as you can get historically without going in to prehistory. The term pharaoh, as an actual ancient Egyptian word is though to have come about around 1350BC. But it's just a word that means king. And we are discussing arabic here was doesn't have the word pharaoh in it's vocabulary. And we are discussing the arabic word 'king' which does not sound like king in English so this seems like nothing more than a play of linguistics.
If he straight up denied Jesus, how do you think the Christians he was trying to convert would feel about that? A little defensive? It's the difference between saying 'oh, that little bit right there, it's just a little off' as opposed to 'everything you know is wrong.'
I don't have a video record of muhammad doing this and thus have no direct evidence to the occurrence. But it's an interesting idea to assess.
There is no evidence that the Jesus of the quran or bible ever existed at all. Well, aside from those religious texts. And even then, a birth date is even less knowable. Forget about that for a second, you say the quran 'implies' a birth around august/September. Why not a direct date? Could god not give specifics?
The Islamic world believed the earth was the center of the universe. This, again, is going back and changing things to fit the current scientific understanding. It's something that all religious do. It would have certainly been something if muhammad made these claims and righted scientific misunderstanding but that's not happened. Ain't that odd?
Most creation myths, including the bible take progression based view to creation. First this than that etc. There was a reason why evolution did not come from the islamic world. And there's a reason why people ascribe vague progressions as proof of these scientific discoveries (mental gymnastics after the fact).
First off, many. Second off, why does such criteria matter? And why does thou think muhammad to be so resourceful? He wrote the quran over a 20 year period (or so) having faithful scribes write down his words and ideas (which supposedly came from god). He was a military commander who was responsible for the deaths of many people.
This just illustrates my point. You have your precanned criteria which has been chiseled to fit the quran, others do the same thing for other works. It displays the workings of religion, and perhaps more importantly, the workings of the religious.
I do agree that it's always important to search for the truth however. That's why I'm debating in this thread. If I wanted to run away from different ideas, I wouldn't be here.
Pollux
Member
Which is what Saint John of Damscus basically said. There's also a theory that Gnostic teachings were taught to Muhammad and that he incorporated those into his own version of a divine message.
If he wanted to be taken seriously as any type of prophet he would have to downgrade and humanize Jesus since there were to be no messengers after Jesus from God until Judgment Day.
According to both the Bible and the Quran Jesus was born at some time in the summer. The reason the Church celebrates Christmas in December was because a number of pagan festivals fell within that time frame and it made it easier to convert pagans. Sort of getting back to your point about Muhammad saying Jesus is a prophet, not the Son of God, to make Christians more receptive to his message. Honestly I think 75% of the reason the early Church made praying to Saints OK is because the Saints just stepped in and filled the specific spots that were left empty when pagans became Christians. I don't think Protestants believe in, or at least pray to, the Saints.
And there actually is a historical account of Jesus, from Tacitus. In Book 15, chapter 44, Tacitus discusses the historical Jesus and the Christians:
Tacitus said:
This is actually interesting, since there are people in this thread who say that the one Quran we have today is the same message as preached by Muhammad. That's just flat out not true. There are many verses that have been changed. If you want to read more about it Go to the "books" section here, and read the book about "abrogation" in the far right column.
There is also youtube video of an interview with the author of the above paper, who is explaining the abrogation of the Quran. He is a theologian who studies the short comings of the Quran. He presents evidence that there were at least 10 different Qurans that were all considered the "real" teachings of Muhammad, yet there is only one that remains in full since the other versions were destroyed to lend credence to the claim that the Quran is the single, unchanging direct word of God.
It's very interesting. The man who wrote the article, and in the youtube video, makes very good points and solid comments about the fallibility of the Quran, and Islamic Extremists (such as al-Qaeda) declared Father Boutros public enemy #1 of Islam.
In the youtube video, Jason Raize, he discusses a number of inconsistencies and changes that have been made in the verse on the stoning of adulterers. I mention you in particular since I think you were asking about it earlier.
Darackutny
Junior Member
zmoney said:
There is a solid narration in Tafseer Al-Tabari in which Mohammed affirms that she isn't his sister biologically, and that Jews back in the day, used to refer to others by attributing them to pious predecessors.
@ Hadith rejectors:
I asked this on the bottom of page #88 and I didn't receive a response. How are contradicting recitations reconciled if we reject the hadith system?
Qur'an-only Muslims act as if only hadiths were incorrectly attributed to the Prophet, but aren't aware that verses were incorrectly attributed to him as well.
Pollux
Member
Could you provide a link? I can't find what your talking about. Thanks in advance.
Darackutny
Junior Member
I'm afraid I don't have the quote in English. Would you like me to quote it here in Arabic and provide a translation?
Pollux
Member
Darackutny
Junior Member
Yeah, those are hadith collections but it isn't in any of those.
عن المغيرة بن شعبة، قال: بعثني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى أهل نجران، فقالوا لي: ألستم تقرءون( يَاأُخْتَ هَارُونَ ) ؟ قلت: بلى وقد علمتم ما كان بين عيسى وموسى، فرجعت إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فأخبرته، فقال: "ألا أخْبَرْتَهُمْ أنَّهُمْ كانُوا يُسَمّونَ بأنْبِيائِهمْ والصَّالِحِينَ قَبْلَهُمْ".
Al-Mugheera bin Shu'ba said: I was sent by the Messenger to the people of Najran, and they asked, "Do you read, 'O sister of Harun'?" I said, "Yes." They said, "Don't you know about what was between Eisa and Musa?" I returned to the Messenger to and told him this. He said, "Couldn't you have told them that people used to refer to others by the names of the prophets and pious people of old?"
Al-Tabari then said:
يقال للتميميّ: يا أخا تميم، وللمُضَرِيّ: يا أخا مُضَر
(This is similar to) what is said to those (from the tribe) of Tameem, "O' brother of Tameem!" And the Mudhari, "O' brother of Mudhar."
عن المغيرة بن شعبة، قال: بعثني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى أهل نجران، فقالوا لي: ألستم تقرءون( يَاأُخْتَ هَارُونَ ) ؟ قلت: بلى وقد علمتم ما كان بين عيسى وموسى، فرجعت إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فأخبرته، فقال: "ألا أخْبَرْتَهُمْ أنَّهُمْ كانُوا يُسَمّونَ بأنْبِيائِهمْ والصَّالِحِينَ قَبْلَهُمْ".
Al-Mugheera bin Shu'ba said: I was sent by the Messenger to the people of Najran, and they asked, "Do you read, 'O sister of Harun'?" I said, "Yes." They said, "Don't you know about what was between Eisa and Musa?" I returned to the Messenger to and told him this. He said, "Couldn't you have told them that people used to refer to others by the names of the prophets and pious people of old?"
Al-Tabari then said:
يقال للتميميّ: يا أخا تميم، وللمُضَرِيّ: يا أخا مُضَر
(This is similar to) what is said to those (from the tribe) of Tameem, "O' brother of Tameem!" And the Mudhari, "O' brother of Mudhar."
Pollux
Member
Thank you.
Darackutny
Junior Member
You're welcome.
There is no contradiction. All matter was joined together at one point at an infinitely small and infinitely dense point until it blew apart. The other verse speaks of the things coming into being.
Sure, you can say it's just a coincidence. Muhammad just happened to guess right.
That link mostly argues against the conflicting views of answering-christianity.com. AC is a hodge podge of information. Their argument against Haman being associated with the priest of Amun is a weak one. Even if the high priest lived in a different city, the incident in the Quran where Hamman is present explictly mentions the Pharaoh gather people from different cities. Again, you can just say this mention of a religious figure in the court of Pharaoh who has a phonetically similar name is just a coincidence. Muhammad made up a story and just happened to have guessed right.
Look harder? It's mentioned in “Temples, Tombs & Hieroglyphs” by Barbara Mertz. Unfortunatly I have left the book at my parents house so I can't quote it. It was also mentioned in a ancient Egyptian documentary I recently saw in netflix.
The title of Pharoah was not used for Egyptian kings until the New Kingdom as mentioned. Before then, they were called kings. I am not discussing the sound of the Arabic word, I'm saying that the Quran differentiates between King and Pharoah in ancient Egypt. Something which is accurate, something which is not found in the Bible. Again, you can just say Muhammad made it all up and just happened to come up with the right titles for Egyptian rulers during two different periods of time.
Uh..he “straight up denied” all other gods. All of the gods of Arabs were deemed false and made up, not having any real history. He never tried appeasing the Arabs even when they constantly tried killing him, so why a such a different take on Jesus? Muhammad encountered Jesus as just another God, same as Al-Lat or Al-Uzza, but Jesus is given a history, and a person. A very accurate picture of the historical Jesus as we know now.
You don't need a video, his dialogs and views are recorded in the Quran.
There is no evidence that the Jesus of the quran or bible ever existed at all. Well, aside from those religious texts. And even then, a birth date is even less knowable. Forget about that for a second, you say the quran 'implies' a birth around august/September. Why not a direct date? Could god not give specifics?
There is more than enough evidence actually. If you would stop getting all your information from zietgiest and actually consult scholarly works from Professors and researchers all over the world, you would know this.
The Quran isn't written in the form of a history book as the Bible is. The Quran doesn't care about names or dates (something the Bible obsesses on), rather, it is focused on morals and lessons which are meant to instill ethical values. The implication of the time of Jesus's birth comes from the verse where his mother, after giving birth, is advised to eat ripened dates from a date tree. On it's surface this isn't talking about a day, but what it implies is that it must have been around September or August, as that is when dates ripen in that region.
The Quran is not a book of science. The point is to instill values, and warn of the coming judgement. The Quran doesn't say the earth is the center of the universe or that it isn't the center. The statements it makes about the heavenly bodies are not out of line however. Even the statements it has made, you deny. So if the Quran had explicitly said the earth was not the center, you would have brushed it off just as you brush it off when it speaks of embryology, formation of clouds, the fact that the Sun will swallow the moon and later die, or the expansion of the universe.
Actually, the idea of evolution did come from the Islamic world as early as the 8th century. Muslim scientists had already realized that humans came from lower forms of life and probably took “billions of years” in order for us to be in our current form. Their writings were influential works of science all through out Europe's dark ages, and existed to be even until Darwin. Both Darwin and his grandfather Erasmus Darwin were influenced by the work of Muslim scientists who lived centuries before them. In Shanavas's book “Islamic Theory of Evolution”, he quotes john William Draper (1812-1883), first president of American Chemical Society, a contemporary of Darwin, and a former president of New York University as he summarizes the deliberately induced academic amnesia in the West. Draper acknowledges the fact that Muslims described the theory of evolution in their schools centuries before the West did:
“I have to deplore the systematic manner in which the literature of Europe has contrived to put out of sight our scientific obligations to the Muhammadans. Surely they cannot be much longer hidden. Injustice founded on religious rancor and national conceit cannot be perpetuated forever.”(Draper, John William. The Intellectual Development of Europe, p. 42.)
“[Christian] theological authorities were therefore constrained to look with disfavor on any attempt to carry back the origin of the earth to an epoch indefinitely remote, and on the Muhammadan theory of evolution which declared that human beings developed over a long period of time from lower forms of life to the present condition.” “Sometimes, not without surprise, we meet the ideas with which we flatter ourselves with having originated our own times. Thus our modern doctrine of evolution and development were taught their [Muslim] schools. In fact they carried them much farther than we are disposed to do, extending them even inorganic and minerals.” (The History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, John William Draper, pp. 118, 187-188.)
There are more than several Quranic verses which speak of humans being created from the earth, in various stages, being cast into whatever shape God wills. In fact, one of the attributes of God is Al-Bari: "The Evolver".
Nothing meets the criteria so now you will claim the criteria doesn't matter? No, the problem is the criteria is too difficult to match. The criteria matters because that is the challenge the Quran presents. Those are a few of the reasons the Quran has always been considered unique and amazing. The Quran itself says "We[God] have made this easy to remember", and it is. It's not just a claim it makes, it is evident in the fact that it has been memorized by millions of people, many of whose native tongue isn't even Arabic. You say Muhammad made it all up, so bring me a book written by an illiterate man and lets compare it to the Quran. Forget matching the grammar, rhyme, linguistic play on words, and other qualities which make the Quran stand out. Just bring me a book written by an illiterate person so we can compare it.
Yes, the Quran came together over a course of 23 years, which makes its attributes even more amazing. Peoples styles of writing changes over time, yet the Quran retains the same style throughout. Certain words occur in equal amounts, and more amazingly, it often came down on the fly. As if Muhammad was just doing improv, yet it is still considered the best use of Arabic by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. A famous example recorded in the Quran itself is the story of the blind man who came to him while Muhammad was trying to convince the elders of the town of his message. This was in the very early years of his preaching, he was so involved with some tribal chiefs that when this blind man asked for his attention, Muhammad frowned and turned away from him. Right there came this Surah and he started reciting it in front of all of them:
http://youtu.be/dBRg1TurbRE
The Meccan's tried to kill him and massacre all of his people, what was he to do? He defended himself.
No, it really doesn't lol. South Park can in no way be compared to any piece of fine literature, religious or non-religious. You chose a very poor example I'm sorry.
Yea, I do see that. To end this post, I'll say that you could just continue going to anti-Islamic websites and finding supposed errors, and contraditions (all of which have rebuttals on their opposing websites usually), but if you really want to debate the Quran, you have to read it first. I'm not even saying that because I think you'll convert or necessarily even have a change of heart, but it doesn't make sense to criticize something you haven't read propery, no?
??So a Christian monk is saying Jesus was the Son of God and the Muslims are wrong. How is this any sort of argument zmoney??? I can also get a fundamentalist Muslim to say the Christians are wrong without any evidence besides theological beliefs.
The excerpts I posted to you were not from a Muslim cleric or a Jewish rabbi, they are the views of the majority of western scholar on the subject of Jesus since the early 19th century. Why are they more reliable? Because unlike Saint John of Damascus, we actually have about 6000 variant Greek manuscripts which he didn't have, we have early works of Christians which were long forgotten or lost during his time (thanks to the Church), and we have very well developed methods of textual analysiswhich didn't exist until the early 18th century. All of this could have probably been found out much earlier if it wasn't for the Church routinely massacring people who questioned or disagreed with its beliefs.
You don't have to take my word for it though, or any researcher or professors. You can find a lot of this out yourself, just open the New Testament. Start reading the 4 gospels, and read them side by side. You won't need me or anyone to point out the discrepancies for you, you will see them yourself. This is a very simple exercise given to any new student of New Testament literary analysis. Do that, just start off with the first quarter of the gospels and tell me what you find.
Pollux
Member
This will be brief as I'm on y phone. Will go more in depth tomorrow. You never addressed the issue of witnesses. Muhammad was the final prophet right? Making a final covenant beteretn man and god? Then where we're the witnesses. The creation of the old testament between Moses and god had witnesses. The creation of the new testament by Jesus had witnesses. Who was there I witness the truth of the claims made by Muhammad? You need a witness to buy a cow, but not to verify the theology that your betting your soul on? So the purchase of a cow is more important than your soul...got it.
And again we come to these claims of the "corrupted bible". Tell me when was the bible so irreparably corrupted? Was it prior to Muhammad? I'd that's then case then why would he tell Jews and Christians to look to their own scriptures for the verification of what Muhammad had to say? We have copies of the gospels that predate Muhammad so just when was there corruption. Point it out to me.
So should we consult our scriptures or not? Why would your infallible god ask us to consult corrupted scriptures? Makes no sense.
And again we come to these claims of the "corrupted bible". Tell me when was the bible so irreparably corrupted? Was it prior to Muhammad? I'd that's then case then why would he tell Jews and Christians to look to their own scriptures for the verification of what Muhammad had to say? We have copies of the gospels that predate Muhammad so just when was there corruption. Point it out to me.
So should we consult our scriptures or not? Why would your infallible god ask us to consult corrupted scriptures? Makes no sense.
Pollux
Member
You are all kinds of helpful tonight. Again, thank you
If I can give credit where it's due...every single muslim argument I've read has been so meticulously colored and underlined and indented that it makes finding relevant info and verses etc. extremely convenient. Reading now. Sorry for that aside.
Pollux
Member
But why about Surah 3:48 that says god taught the Torah to Jesus? So Jesus knew of the uncorupped Torah. So therefore his teachings that are series from the Torah would be uncoruppted since he would have pointed out to the Jews the errors of their corrupt ways. Yet he doesn't. And we hav copies of the Torah from 200 years pre-Jesus from his time andfrom the one of Muhammad...no change.
So did god teach Jesus a corrupt version of the Torah? In that case the Quran would have lied, but the Quran is the truth...so god DID teach Jesus the Torah uncoruppted and it was wih that that he taught his apostles.
It's also been verified although debatable that the gospel of John was written by the apostle. So your tellin me that Jesus couldn't even transmit the correct message to his own apostle? Then he must be the worst prophet ever. But wait...te quran says he was second only to Muhammad. So again either the Quran is wrong or we can at least view the gospel of John as reliable. We have copies of that dating to when John was still live to write it and they are virtually the same as copies of the gospel of John from when Muhammad wrote the Quran...
So did god teach Jesus a corrupt version of the Torah? In that case the Quran would have lied, but the Quran is the truth...so god DID teach Jesus the Torah uncoruppted and it was wih that that he taught his apostles.
It's also been verified although debatable that the gospel of John was written by the apostle. So your tellin me that Jesus couldn't even transmit the correct message to his own apostle? Then he must be the worst prophet ever. But wait...te quran says he was second only to Muhammad. So again either the Quran is wrong or we can at least view the gospel of John as reliable. We have copies of that dating to when John was still live to write it and they are virtually the same as copies of the gospel of John from when Muhammad wrote the Quran...
Darackutny
Junior Member
I'm no expert on the above, nor do I know much about the reliability of the Gospels, so I can't really comment on what you've mentioned without doing any research.
I would like it though if you were to expand on the reliability of the Gospel of John by giving details about who wrote it, and who preserved it, etc.
I would like it though if you were to expand on the reliability of the Gospel of John by giving details about who wrote it, and who preserved it, etc.
Pollux
Member
I'll do it in the morning when I'm at an actual computer. Riz will verify that I always respond...may not be a great response but it is a response...
Darackutny
Junior Member
Much appreciated.
Zmoney, even if there witnesses, it makes no difference because we have no evidence of that now. Who among us witnessed the witnesses? How do we even know there were witnesses? Also, I don't know what you're talking about the "new testament" or "old testament" having witnesses in their creation. Moses didn't write the whole OT, only the Torah is attributed to him and even that in its current form isn't written by him as it speaks about his death in third person..
Same with the new testament. Jesus didn't write the NT. The NT is composed of 4 different accounts of his life written decades after him by people who never met him, and then a bunch of letters, most of which are now considered forgeries.
Yea, Moses split the sea, and Jesus raised the dead, but are we able to witness it? No. The Quran is Muhammad's miracle and it is here to stay. Every time I recite the Quran, I am a witness to the miracle. The language is magnificent, the message is timeless, and the power of it carries over even in translations. You say he invented it, so the Quran challenges you to bring something equivalent to it. I already posted this above to patwn, but bring me a book written by an illiterate man where the speech is considered to be the best of the language, that is able to be memorized by millions of people, and have the linguistic rhyme and beauty of the Quran.
It's been corrupted, by accident and on purpose, through the centuries. If you really want to know, I recommended you some books, read them. To put it bluntly, "there are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament" (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, page 90).
Some of it, most of it. Depends which gospel or letter or other writing you're asking about.
Because if you read the Gospels, you won't find any unequivocal statement of Jesus saying "I Jesus am God, worship me". Jesus told people to keep the law and worship God. Jesus was a Jew. And if you are a Jew, then practice what the scripture commands, even if it is corrupted or changed. If you are a Christian, then realize that God is not three, He is One and Jesus was not nor ever claimed to be God. That is the message of the Quran and it is in perfect agreement about what is known about the real Jesus. You can keep trying to go around the facts my friend, but facts are facts. Read those books, or just read the Gospels side by side.
There are entire books written pointing out errors, contradictions, and corruptions to the NT text. There are countless websites dedicated to the subject I'm sure. So here are just a few which I have written in my notes:
-In Mark, Jesus cleanses the temple at the end of his minstry, in John it is at the start. Both writers claim that Jesus only did this once though.
-Woman go to the tomb of Jesus. They see:
-a man (mark)
-two men (luke)
-an angel (mathew)
-Date of death:
-Mark - Day of Passover
-John - Day of Preperations
-Mathew recounts prophecies in the OT which don't exist or messes them up because he was using the Greek Septuagint. A good example being him quoting Isiah 7:14 by saying “A virgin shall conceive”. The error being that the Hebrew doesn't say virgin, the Hebrew says “young woman” which is a completely different word than the Hebrew word for virgin.
I could go on and on, but there's no point. If you really do want to know the answers to all these questions you keep repeating, just pick up any book on the historical Jesus. However, if you're not going to actually bother doing a little research on your own and keep insisting that there's nothing wrong with the NT and the Quran is wrong about Jesus, then that's fine, you can continue believing that but then we have nothing to discuss any further. I've explained to you as best I could that the original teachings of Jesus were with the Church of Jerusalem, not Paul. For this you had no rebuttal, so why are you still even arguing any further? No, go pick up any of the books I suggested and read them.
Yea, go consult them. Start from the Torah, and make your way to the letters of Paul and James. After you do that, you won't need the Quran to tell you there are discrepancies and mixed messages in them, you'll realize it yourself.
Because you don't accept the newer revelation, so at least follow the older one. The whole point of sending a new revelation is because the old one is so corrupted that you might be misled from the path of God by reading it. So go ahead and consult the Bible if you wish, and follow all of its commands. And know that God is One and has no partners. Keep those things in mind, and read and follow what you think the Bible is saying. There is no compulsion in religion, follow what you think is true. But don't try to ignore the truth when it is in front of you. Ignorance is not bliss, it is an opportunity lost. The modern day religion of Islam is not the only path to God, the Quran doesn't even say this. Rather, whoever submits his will to God is he who will have no fear in front of God. Believe in God, his angels, his books, his messengers, the hereafter, and do good works and you will have nothing to fear. The Quran is the straight path because it makes God's will clear, but if you don't accept it, then follow the older commands. The Laws of the prophets which Jesus himself observed.
What always baffled me about the additions of the New Testament and the Qur'an is each book is based on a new prophet being Jesus and Muhammad to deliver a new message from God.
If someone can answer this with logic and a realistic answer ill be baffled.
Assuming God is omniscient and omnipotent, why would God need to send multiple prophets? God under these circumstances knows exactly the outcome to everything he does so why would he need to say for example send another prophet Muhammad to "complete" or "resend" the message in another way when he could just send one prophet in the very beginning to tell his message/rules exactly how he wanted them too.
Sorry but this logic makes no sense to me why God would need to send multiple prophets to share different messages.
Another thing I can't get over with the Christian/Jewish/Islamic faiths are how exactly do we have freewill if God knows the outcome to everything and knows everything. Seems like we were just given the illusion of freewill.
If someone can answer this with logic and a realistic answer ill be baffled.
Assuming God is omniscient and omnipotent, why would God need to send multiple prophets? God under these circumstances knows exactly the outcome to everything he does so why would he need to say for example send another prophet Muhammad to "complete" or "resend" the message in another way when he could just send one prophet in the very beginning to tell his message/rules exactly how he wanted them too.
Sorry but this logic makes no sense to me why God would need to send multiple prophets to share different messages.
Another thing I can't get over with the Christian/Jewish/Islamic faiths are how exactly do we have freewill if God knows the outcome to everything and knows everything. Seems like we were just given the illusion of freewill.
This question is quite straight forward. You equate knowledge of the future with the cause of future events i.e foreknowledge equals causality. It's not the case though...
For example if I know my mother is going to wake up a 9:00 am tomorrow morning, and when the morning comes she does wake up at that time, what caused her to wake up? It surely isn’t my knowledge of the fact that she will wake up at the time; rather it’s her biological ‘clock’ – not to forget that it is also due to the fact that she is hungry, has things to do etc etc! Similarly if I know I will read 5 chapters of a book tomorrow does that mean that my knowledge of knowing I will read 5 chapters lead me to do it? No, the fact is that my choice of putting the book in my bag and in my spare time reading on public transport, has caused me to be able to read 5 chapters, and not the knowledge of the fact that I can.
So God’s foreknowledge of future events, including His own actions, doesn’t mean that His knowledge caused Him to act in a certain way.
For example, the fact that He created the world and placed human beings as prophets and messengers on it doesn’t mean His foreknowledge of it forced him to do it. Also God’s foreknowledge of the fact that He will enter people in paradise doesn’t make Him do it, rather His mercy is the reason. This is summarised in The Creed of Imam Al-Tahawi,
“He guides, protects, and preserves whomever He wills by His grace. And He misguides, forsakes, and afflicts whomever He wills by justice…God has always known the total number of those who will enter paradise and those who will enter the fire. Nothing is added to or subtracted from that number.”
So His guidance will not manifest itself because He knows who would be guided, rather it is due to His grace, and God doesn’t contradict His nature. In summary foreknowledge doesn’t equal causality.
I love the fact this thread has turned into Subzero vs. NetherRealm...
That is all I have to contribute
lol...
I'm quite enjoying the back and forth...I'm not that well versed in theology and history so I'm learning quite a bit from the exchanges...
Pollux
Member
Before we continue, so I can think logically about what I want to say in response to Riz -- so I don't say something offensive which causes him to punch me in the face (kidding, kidding), I think we should take a quick break to discuss a topic that I find to be absolutely fascinating.
That topic is Arabic Calligraphy.
This stuff is gorgeous. And what absolutely blows me away, is the ability to take a simple word or phrase and then turn it into something that looks nothing like a word, but still retain every bit of the orignal meaning. Below you'll see the Arabic word al-Jazeera, which is then turned into the logo for the news network:
Amazing isn't it?
Within the practice of Arabic Calligraphy, there are a number of different styles. The two that I find the most interesting, besides the one already mentioned (of turning the word or phrase into a shape), are Maraya (a technique that reflects one side of the image onto the other - examples to follow), and zoomorphic calligraphy (turning a word of phrase into the shape of an animal).
Below are examples of the maraya (or muthanna) technique:
Below are examples of the zoomorphic technique:
Unfortunately I couldn't find any translations for these, except the first one, if anyone can work out translations for the rest that would be awesome.
The first one apparently says "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful"
That topic is Arabic Calligraphy.
This stuff is gorgeous. And what absolutely blows me away, is the ability to take a simple word or phrase and then turn it into something that looks nothing like a word, but still retain every bit of the orignal meaning. Below you'll see the Arabic word al-Jazeera, which is then turned into the logo for the news network:
Amazing isn't it?
Within the practice of Arabic Calligraphy, there are a number of different styles. The two that I find the most interesting, besides the one already mentioned (of turning the word or phrase into a shape), are Maraya (a technique that reflects one side of the image onto the other - examples to follow), and zoomorphic calligraphy (turning a word of phrase into the shape of an animal).
Below are examples of the maraya (or muthanna) technique:
This one translates translates both ways as "Ali is the vicegerent of Allah":
This translates to "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful":
This translates to "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful":
Below are examples of the zoomorphic technique:
Unfortunately I couldn't find any translations for these, except the first one, if anyone can work out translations for the rest that would be awesome.
The first one apparently says "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful"
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Alright, on a lighter note, I want to ask a question to the more knowledgeable Muslims in this thread.
I've been asked to become a Santa-Claus for a Christmas-related event for young children in the place that I work (since I have the figure to do so >______________>) I love children, and I think this is a good opportunity to experience something fun that I have never experienced before.
I am a Muslim, of course. What do you guys think?
I've been asked to become a Santa-Claus for a Christmas-related event for young children in the place that I work (since I have the figure to do so >______________>) I love children, and I think this is a good opportunity to experience something fun that I have never experienced before.
I am a Muslim, of course. What do you guys think?
crazy monkey
Banned
Just do it. lol it will be fun.
victreeb3l
Member
simply gorgeous. i love zoomorphic calligraphy, and arabic writing in general. so elegant and beautiful
you should say random arabic to the kids as santa claus to freak out the moms and possibly end up on the evening news :3
victreeb3l
Member
no trees, ornaments, etc. but my mom and i exchange presents with our non-brown/muslim friends. its all in good fun
aside from my ex gf's dad, ive never met or heard of anyone that celebrated christmas for the religious aspect
Pollux
Member
Among Muslims or just period?
victreeb3l
Member
in general. muslims dont celebrate christmas
I think so, you just have to trace the letters.
I can spot:
Ali
Mohammad
Mathharohoum
Al Naoum (?)
Hobeh/ yoheboh (?)
The mention of Ali makes it seem like a shia painting! And google confirms it!
Pollux
Member
Huh, we've always gone to Mass on Xmas and try to keep the religious aspect of the day in mind. Most other people I know over here generally do the same.
I never thought about it like that, but that really does make sense. Good catch.
Well played...did you find an actual translation?
Call upon 'Ali in whom miracles are made manifest. You will find him a help to you when misfortunes occur. All anguish and sorrow will be dispelled through your closeness [to God] oh 'Ali, and your prophethood, oh Muhammad.
from this site:
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O67547/painting/
Pollux
Member
absolutely amazing....
OttomanScribe
Member
Will reply properly when I get a bit more time free insha'Allah. Loving the calligraphy
In general those 'Lion' ones are Shia/Persian.
I was lucky enough to have a friend give me as a gift a work of calligraphy done by a Chinese Muslim master:
The photos don't quite do it justice. It says mine and my wife's names.
In general those 'Lion' ones are Shia/Persian.
I was lucky enough to have a friend give me as a gift a work of calligraphy done by a Chinese Muslim master:
The photos don't quite do it justice. It says mine and my wife's names.
Sutton Dagger
Member
Why? Other than a few idiots, both Muslims and non-Muslims came up with legitimate solutions, including turning the volume down or only playing the call to prayer during times that comply with the noise disturbance laws.
I also accept that the motive behind it is likely nefarious by Israel, but to my mind it doesn't take away from the legitimacy of the claims.
Darackutny
Junior Member
Not at all. I'd would've took me ages to figure it out.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
A question to my fellow Muslims
I've been wondering about the law imposed on Mecca that stating that non Muslims are forbidden to enter the city. Is there a basis/rule in Islam for this law?
Islam is supposed to be "Rahmatan lil' alamin", blessings for all living beings in the universe, so I think it is rather strange that such law that appears to be very "Us/Them" is enforced in its most important site.
Sorry if this question seem noobish
I've been wondering about the law imposed on Mecca that stating that non Muslims are forbidden to enter the city. Is there a basis/rule in Islam for this law?
Islam is supposed to be "Rahmatan lil' alamin", blessings for all living beings in the universe, so I think it is rather strange that such law that appears to be very "Us/Them" is enforced in its most important site.
Sorry if this question seem noobish
OttomanScribe
Member
A question to my fellow Muslims
I've been wondering about the law imposed on Mecca that stating that non Muslims are forbidden to enter the city. Is there a basis/rule in Islam for this law?
Islam is supposed to be "Rahmatan lil' alamin", blessings for all living beings in the universe, so I think it is rather strange that such law that appears to be very "Us/Them" is enforced in its most important site.
Sorry if this question seem noobish
Hanafis, as far as I know, disagree on the ruling.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
As far as you can tell, does Prophet Muhammad SAW ever specifically told us his followers to forbade non Muslims to enter Mecca? I don't know, he is really not the kind of person I would imagine ever enforce a rule that differentiates people so blatantly like this.
As far as I am aware the Qur'an also does not say anything about this.
So if it really has no basis whatsoever in Islam, why is it there?