Islamic viewpoint on the Pope [Archive] - Understanding Islam Community

Al-Boriqi

5th April 2005, 13:30

Two things.
1. Whoever meets the conditions listed below is automatically warranted as a kaafir and takfeer is performed by the layest of muslims if they know that such a person has fallen into oe of these characteristics.

The Qu'ran uses the word Kufr to denote people who cover up or hide realities. The Qu'ran uses this word to identify those who denied Allah's favors by not accepting His Dominion and Authority. Kufr thus is an antonym for Iman or disbelief in Allah and a Kafir is a non-believer. This type of Kufr is called AL-KUFRUL AKBAR or major kufr. There are many types of Al-Kufrul Akbar

1. Kufrul-'Inaad:

Disbelief out of stubborness. This applies to someone who knows the truth and admits to knowing the truth and admits to knowing it with his tongue, but refuses to accept it and refrains from making a declaration. Allah(swt) says: Throw into Hell every stubborn disbeliever [Surah Qaaf (50), Ayah 24]

2. Kufrul-Inkaar:

Disbelief out of denial. This applies to someone who denies with both heart and tongue.

Allah(swt) says: They recognize the favors of Allah, yet they deny them. Most of them are disbelievers. [Surah Nahl(16), Ayah 83]

3. Kufrul-Kibr:

Disbelief out of arrogance and pride. The disbelief by the devils (Iblis) is an example of this type of Kufr.

4. Kufrul-Juhood:

Disbebelief out of rejection. This applies to someone who aknowledges the truth in his heart, but rejects it with his tongue. This types of kufr is applicable to those who calls themselves Muslims but who reject any necessary and accepted norms of Islam such as Salaat and Zakat.

Allah (swt) says: They denied them (OUR SIGNS) even though their hearts believed in them , out of spite and arrogance. [Surah Naml(27), Ayah 14]

5. Kufrul-Nifaaq:

Disbelief out of hypocrisy.This applies to someone who pretends to be a believer but conceals his disbelief. Such a person is called a MUNAFIQ or hypocrite.

Allah( swt) says: Verily the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of Hell. You will find no one to help them. [Surah An Nisaa (4), Ayah 145]

6. Kufrul-Istihaal:

Disbelief out of trying to make HARAM into HALAL. This applies to someone who accepts as lawful (Halal) that which Allah has made unlawful(Haram) like alcohol or adultery.Only Allah(swt) has the prerogative to make things Halal and Haram and those who seek to interfere with His right are like rivals to Him and therefore fall outside the boundries of faith.

7. Kufrul-Kurh:

Disbelief out of detesting any of Allah's(swt) commands. Allah(swt) says: Perdition (destruction) has been consigned to those who disbelieve and He will render their actions void. This is because they are averse to that which Allah has revealed so He has made their actions fruitless. [Surah Muhammed (47), Ayah 8-9]

8. Kufrul-Istihzaha:

Disbelief due to mockery and derision.

Allah (swt) says: Say: Was it at Allah, His signs and His apostles that you were mocking? Make no excuses. You have disbelieved after you have believed. [Surah Taubah (9), ayah 65-66]

9. Kufrul-I'raadh:

Disbelief due to avoidance. This applies to those who turn away and avoid the truth.

Allah(swt) says: And who is more unjust than he who is reminded of his Lord's signs but then turns away from them. Then he forgets what he has sent forward (for the Day of Judgement) [Surah Kahf(18), Ayah 57]

10. Kufrul-Istibdaal:

Disbelief because of trying to substitute Allah's Laws. This could take the form of: (a) Rejection of Allah's law(Shariah) without denying it (b) Denial of Allah's law and therefore rejecting it, or (c) Substituting Allah's laws with man-made laws.

Allah (swt) says: Or have they partners with Allah who have instituted for them a religion which Allah has not allowed. [Surah Shuraa(42), Ayah 8]

Allah(swt) says: Say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely (that) is lawful and this is forbidden so as to invent a lie against Allah. Verily, those who invent a lie against Allah will never prosper. [Surah Nahl (16), Ayah 116]

2. As for your links then a majopr error occured

Simply put, you state that only those who knowingly reject Allah's message can be considered Kafirs. Since no human can know in an absolute sense whether or not such rejection is truly deliberate and made in full knowledge of it being the truth, we cannot brand anyone as being a Kafir.
The person is attempting to use or justify the excuse of not knowing the absoloute sense of rejection by which the end result is not pronouncing that which that person has fallen into. It does not matter whether someone doesnt see the truth in Islam and reject it, they are still a kaafir for their rejection of Islam regardless of their not realizing the truth of Islam. Kufr can occur without realizing it nor intending it so one who does this and disbeleives in it automatically falls into that which Allah has peformed of him.

The terrible consequense of this beleif is stated by the very questiner in the nest sentence when he said

This concept is then extrapolated to infer that non-muslims also have an equally good chance of gaining Allah's Pleasure in life to come.

Wa iyaadhubillahi mina dhaalik wallahul-musta'an.

a. Whoever has a speck of eman shall see jannah. So by stating this, the person is actually affirming eman for the one who rejected Islam.

b. This negates Allahs promise to Ibless when he said "I will fill the hellfire with all of them" the disbeleivers or those who had not a speck of faith IN ISLAM since that is the only faith acceptable to Allahu tabaraku wa ta'ala.

c. If the ones who rejected faith were able to gain Allah's pleasure thne what is the use being Muslim. That menas I can enjoy all the women and do all the drugs i want and this and that and still disbeleive in Islam and think that I can gain the pleasure of Allah. Indeed this is no different than the end result of the doctrine of the nasaara in that they can throw all of their sins on Jesus since "he forgave them" and they can do what they want like eat pork and disbeleive in the law even though Jesus alaihi salam came ot uphold the law of the prophets. How do you judge.

d. On top of this, this does not fit what Allah speaks. Holding this concept of the kaafir is actually thinking that Allah will reward the evil doers. So when this questioner made the statement

While this concept seems in keeping with my own finite appreciation of the concept of justice Then his understanding of justice is actually injustice for Alah is not going to reward the evildoer.

So then he said

and I am totally certain that Allah would not punish anyone for unknowingly rejecting Islam, No one can enter the state of "unknowingly reject islam". There is no third state. The third state is if someone dies without hearing of the message. But when someone hears the message then there is no "unknowingly reject Islam" there is either acceptance or rejection. But of course a person adding this state which cannot happen justifies their view that takfeer should not be performed on a people whom takfeer ought to be performed on and is.

I'd like to know to what extent this definition of Kufr and Kafir prevailed in the "Golden Era" of Islam. It is safe to say that the Islamic scholars of that age, living chronologically closer to the Prophet's time and living in a less complicated world would also have come to this conclusion in their understanding of Islam.

This was not their conclusion and non of the imaams of the sunnah ever spoke with this type ofspeech. on the contrary they fulfilled the act of takfeer upon thsoe whom takfeer became warrented. Kufr is soemthing that anyone and everyone can fall into. If the muslim can fall into it and falls in one of those types of kufr mentioend above then the act of takfeer is performed on that so called "muslim" or group of "muslims". So the same goes for a non muslim. If they fall into any of that and reject the matter of islam then the act of takfeer is automatically applied on them. the difference between the two is that with the muslims then the people of knowledge and imamas of the sunnah are the ones to perform this act, and for those who are nto muslims then the commoner can do this. This is the only difference betwee the two.

then this person mistakenly said

I ask because this definition of Kufr will probably not be accepted by the majority of Muslims today. If you could demonstrate that your understanding of what Kufr entails was also shared by the classical Islamic scholars it would go a long way into convincing people that rather then creating an innovative and political correct interpretation of this concept, you are in fact taking them back to an understanding that was distorted over the ages.

Because 1. it goes againt thejama'aa of the muslims of ahlu-sunnah. they were upon the same thing as that of the first generations and adopting a view other than this or opposite is actually falling under what this person is accusing the muslims of falling into.

the question that was answered by this shaykh was

Before I answer your question, I would like for you to appreciate that we stress the point that people of other faiths cannot be declared Kaafir (i.e. disbeliever) in the sense that they have rejected the faith and are destined to go to hell.

Allah declared the people of other faiths as such. and no one from the ummah of Muhammad or outside of it can negate this haq. And I dont want to go into what happens when one does negate what Allah has said.

As for this other stuff

After the Prophet, the Companions with the institution of Khilafah, were able to represent the truth in its most perfect form (second only to the Prophet (sws). Since there is no institution of Khilafah, what are the implications for Muslims today in terms of our obligation to present and represent the Truth? The results of this inadequacy (no Khalifah, assuming it is a witness for mankind), places the present day Non-Muslim in a status of "not knowing or being convinced" of the complete truth (Islam), is this correct?

It truly is appauling how far the muslims are willing to bend or make t'aweel of the shariah of Allah in other than the way it is to be understood

1. The hujjah (the proof of Islam) that comes to a non muslim and their rejection of it, then their rejection makes them what has been established already.

2. the condition of the muslims is not a prerequisite of the hujjah being against the one who disbeleives. So with or without a khilafah, the proof is for them or against them. On tp of this, it is nealry impossible that the disbeleivers would simply beleive in Islam just because we have a state. This would have happened more so in our era if such a concept was true.

Also ther eseem to be that some muslims have fallen into a misunderstanding of the use of ignorance. So here aresome reflections by which in it is a proof for what is currently viewed or adopted

Censure Of Ignorance.
It should be known that our saying that ignorance is an excuse does not mean that we encourage and call to ignorance, nor that ignorance has any merits, nor that we are satisfied and pleased with it, rather it is as one of the Salaf said: "Allaah has not been disobeyed with any sin worse than ignorance."And ignorance is the reason for sin and incites it and leads to it.
Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullaah) says: The eminently truthful and upright Yoosuf, (‘alaihi ssallam) said:
And unless you turn away their snare from me, I should feel inclined towards them and join the ranks of the ignorant. [Yoosuf 10:33].
(The word `Jaahil’ (ignorant) being used) to mean: Those who do that which You have forbidden. And Allaah - Most High - says :
Allaah accepts the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance. [An-Nisaa 4:17].
Qataadaah said: "The Companions of Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) agreed that everything by which Allaah is disobeyed is ignorance."
And others said: "The Companions agreed that everyone who disobeys Allaah is an ignorant one (Jaahil)."
And ‘Alee (radiallaahu anhu) said: "It is enough honour for knowledge that he who is not able leaves it; and one becomes happy if he is labelled with it. And it is enough of a censure for ignorance that its people disassociate themselves from it."[10]
And someone said:
"And there is in ignorance a death for its people before death
And their bodies before burial are graves,
And their souls are in grief on account of their bodies,
And there is no resurrection for them until the Resururection."
And the cure for ignorance is to question and to learn, as the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said: Indeed the cure for ignorance is to ask. [11]
So he (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) made ignorance a disease and declared asking to be its cure.
And Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullaah) aid in ash-Shaafiyatul-Kaafiyah:
"And ignorance is a fatal malady and its cure is in
Two things together in agreement:
A text from the Qur.aan or from the Sunnah
And a physician possessing knowledge of the Deen."
PART THREE: Not Everyone Who Is Excused From Ignorance Is Free Of Sin.
The fact that a certain person is excused due to ignorance does not mean that he is free from sin - since there are some people who are excused due to ignorance and are not sinful and are not punished and do not leave the fold of Islaam upon committing an action of Kufr or holding a belief of Kufr ignorantly. And then there are other people who are excused due to ignorance, meaning he does not become a Kaafir and is not punished for that particular action. However, he is punished for failing in the duty of acquiring obligatory knowledge - just as ‘Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) excused the Abyssinian woman who committed fornication not knowing that it was forbidden, and ‘Umar (radiallaahu anhu) excused those Companions who drank wine based on their interpretation of the aayah :
On those who believe and do deeds of righteousness there is no blame for what they ate (in the past). [al-Maa.idah 5:93].
So the rulings in this life and the Hereafter apply when the message is conveyed and warning given, Allaah - Most High - says:
Nor would We punish until We had sent a Messenger (to give warning). [al-Israa 17:15].
And Allaah - the Mighty and Exalted - says:
This Qur.aan has been revealed to me by inspiration, that I may warn you and all whom it reaches. [al-An’aam 6:19].
Ibn Hazm said: "He - the Most High - says : Nor would We punish until We had sent a Messenger (to give warning) therefore it is established that there is no punishment upon a Kaafir until the warning of the Messenger reaches him."[12]
And ash-Shanqeetee said: "Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic - does not punish anyone from His creation in this world or the Hereafter until He sends to them a Messenger to warn them."[13]
Shaikh ‘Abdur-Rahmaan ‘Abdul-Khaaliq said: "And the well-known Sharee’ah principle is that a person is taken to account only after having received knowledge, He - the Most High -says :
And Allaah will not mislead a people after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid. [at-Tawbah 9:115].
That is, the Muslim is not counted as being misguided and astray unless he knows the truth and then turns away obstinately from it ."[14]
And this part is connected to and explained by the following:-

On top of this

And he (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said : I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped but Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah so if they say that then their blood and wealth are safe from me except with its right and their accounting is with Allaah.[39]

Ash-Shaikh Sulaimaan ibn Sahmaan said: " What appears to me - and Allaah know best is that the proof is not established except by one able to establish it - as regards one who is not able to establish it such as one who is ignoring and does not know the rulings of his Deen, nor what the scholars have mentioned about that - then as far as we know the proof is not established through him and Allaah knows best."[43]
And it is a condition that the proof is from the Book and Sunnah, and that is clear containing no ambiguity and dispels every doubt which the person has.And some matters do not require a scholar, for example one who hears about an Aayah of the Qur.aan - then it is enough to show him the Mushaf and if he obstinately rejects after that then he is a Kaafir. .

So I hope this puts and end to the misatke of justifying the rejection of the rejectors due to whatever reasons laid forth by such people inshallah and Allah is the All Hearing All Wise.
asalamu alaikum

Al-Boriqi

5th April 2005, 13:32

raised

Vajradhara

5th April 2005, 21:08

perhaps i'm being a bit dim today..

why is this in the "interfaith" discussion section since this is an "Islamic" view point?

hey... i think i remember something...

doesn't Allah proclaim that He will forgive whom He chooses?

Al-Boriqi

5th April 2005, 21:54

newsX

6th April 2005, 01:30

the koran enjoins muslims to protect and upkeep churches, temples and synangogues in their care, in spite of the fact that Muslims view the gods worshipped in them to be shi'rik.

Muhammad's standing up for a person who was not of his faith should be placed in the context of the koran's general compassion toward all humanity. A compassion that his questioning companion did not, at first, realize.

Even though the beliefs surrounding the pope do not exactly sit well with islamic doctrines, the koran's message of mercy pleads that Muslims show respect to the grief of millions.

To bring up what some people here have brought up, in the midst of so much grief, is simply perverse and insensitive.

Allegorically, this action can be equated with the action of Muhammad's companion, whose first instinct was to sit down and not pay respect to the dead of other faiths.

Al-Boriqi

6th April 2005, 11:55

Muhammad's standing up for a person who was not of his faith should be placed in the context of the koran's general compassion toward all humanity. A compassion that his questioning companion did not, at first, realize.

Well Im glad the religion is not to be followed according to your whimes and desires and that which suits what you like.

Any ways what I have posted concerning this incident is enough of a clarification of the matter and a refutation of such a ridiculous thought of yours and Allah is Azeezul-Hakeem

Vajradhara

6th April 2005, 14:42

maybe your right in the section its in, but I only posted it here due to its relation (the pope) with other than Islam hence the difference of views between the catholics and the muslims.

And your right He does except you forgot the next part of that ayaah were He says "except shirk" except worshiping more than Allah and making men and the created things as Allah just as they did with Jesus.

He forgives ALL sins except this.

Salaam,

and since Allah is the only being that *truly* knows a persons heart... don't you think it would be prudent to allow Allah the place of judgement, rather than finite and fallible humans, like ourselves?

Al-Boriqi

6th April 2005, 15:24

I like your tone ya Vajradhara as you have the more Islamic ettiquette than many of us.

as for your saying

and since Allah is the only being that *truly* knows a persons heart... don't you think it would be prudent to allow Allah the place of judgement, rather than finite and fallible humans, like ourselves?

There is no doubt that Allah has total judgement on all affaris. Maybe I should explain how the ayaah is to be understood.

Some people that are non muslims, and sadfully muslims as well tend to beleive that in Islam even though Allah is the Oft-Foprgiving Most Merciful and allthese great things that only He has the attributes in total perfection, that he will forgive any and all despite what faith they are. On top of this, if a person has good work or good deeds and action with a kind heart, then that person enters the rank whom Allah is pleased with and that the general arguement that all humans have faults and that we should over look eachothers faults is something that has been misunderstood by many and unfortunately the muslims as well, those who claim the sunnah and follow the shariah wallahul-musta'an.

But anyways Vaj, I must explain for the purpose of clarifying this matter, hopefully once and for all, that When I said that he forgives all sins except shirk, then the meaning of it is exactly that.
Shirk nullifies all good deeds, as Allaah the Exalted said, ‘‘And if they associate others with Allaah, whatever they have done is nullified.’’ [Sooratul-An’aam 6:88]
And Allaah the Exalted said, ‘‘And it was already revealed to you and to those before you, that if you should associate anything with Allaah, your work would surely become worthless, and you would surely be amongst the losers.’’
So this is the general ruling for all who fall in to this category. If a person meets Allah with the beleif of shirk in their hearts, then what He has revealed is upon him or her point blank end of discussion.

So you see that the actions of men are accepted by Allah with conditions.

The Imaam Sufyan ath-Thawree narrated to his student in partial narration that "No speech is accepted except with action, and no speech and action are excepted except with intention, and no speech, action, and intention are accepted unless they agree with the sunnah (the sunnah of muhamamd) and that cannot be possible unless that person has accepted Islam. Indeed the origination of the truth of what this Imaam of Islam and the sunnah has said lies in what Allah has said "I have chosen for you (mankind) Islam as your millah and anything other than it wshall not be accepted by Me".

Keep in mind that we are talking about the herafter of either a muslim or nonmuslim, in general (not specific) and we are not talking about being kind hearted towards one another as that is another subject and keeping this in mind can prevent much discussion so pelase I ask to bear with me since what we are talking about is what I have just mentioned.
So anyways, you see that the good deeds are nullified and if a person died in this state meets what Allah has revelaed in His book and no one on earth ,even a muslim can nullify this shar'i understadning.

So I dont say that the pope is in hellfire nor do any right minded muslim would say that. We say if they did not accept Islam then that which Allah has spoken of them is upon him and Allah is not one who breaks his promise.

Shaykh Saalih Ibn Fawzaan al-Fawzaan says,
‘‘Shirk is to designate an associate/partner (shareek) with Allaah in His Ruboobiyyah (Lordship), or His Uloohiyyah (Divinity). In most cases, the association (ishraak) is in the uloohiyyah, by calling upon someone along with Allaah, or designating for other than Allaah something from the various types of worship such as: sacrifice, taking oaths, and fear, and hope, and love. Shirk is the greatest of sins and that is due to the following matters:
1. It is resembling the creation with the Creator in characteristics of uloohiyyah. So whoever associates someone with Allaah, then he indeed resembles him to Him, and this is the greatest injustice, as Allaah the Exalted said, ‘‘Verily Shirk is a great injustice.’’ [Soorah Luqmaan 31:13] And injustice (dhulm) is to put something out of its proper place. So whoever worships other than Allaah, then indeed he puts worship out of its proper place, and he directs it to one who does not deserve it, and that is the greatest injustice.
2. Allaah informed that He does not forgive the one who does not repent from Shirk. ‘‘Verily Allaah does not forgive that Shirk be made with Him, but He forgives whatever is below that to whomever He wishes.’’ [Sooratun-Nisaa 4:48]
3. Allaah has informed that He has made Paradise unlawful upon the one who commits Shirk and that his dwelling place will be in the fire of Hell, Allaah the Exalted said, ‘‘Verily whosoever associates partners with Allaah, then indeed Allaah has made Paradise unlawful for him, and his station is the Fire. And the transgressors will not have any helpers.’’ [Sooratul-Maa‘idah 5:72]
4. Shirk nullifies all good deeds, as Allaah the Exalted said, ‘‘And if they associate others with Allaah, whatever they have done is nullified.’’ [Sooratul-An’aam 6:88] And Allaah the Exalted said, ‘‘And it was already revealed to you and to those before you, that if you should associate anything with Allaah, your work would surely become worthless, and you would surely be amongst the losers.’’ [Sooratuz-Zumar 39:65]
5. The blood and wealth of the mushrik (one who commits Shirk) is lawful, as Allaah the Exalted says, ‘‘So kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit and wait for them at every place of ambush.’’ [Sooratut-Tawbah 9:5] And the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, ‘‘I have been ordered to fight the people until they say, ‘There is none worthy of worship besides Allaah.’ So if they say it, their blood and wealth is protected from me, except with due right.’’ [7]
6. Shirk is a deficiency and a problem that Allaah has negated from Himself. So whoever associated others with Allaah, then indeed he has affirmed for Allaah what He negated from Himself. And this is the goal of muhaadah (turning away) from Allaah the Exalted, and the goal of mu’aanidah (denial) and mushaaqah (deviation) with Allaah.’’ [8]
THE GREATEST INJUSTICE:
Imaam Ibnul-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d.751H) - rahimahullaah – said,
‘‘Allaah the Exalted informed that the purpose and affair of creation was to know His Names and to worship Him alone, without associates so that the people could become trustworthy (qist), and that is the justice (’adl) by which the heavens and the earth are established, as Allaah the Exalted said,
‘‘We have already sent our messengers with clear evidences and sent down with them the Book and the balance that the people may maintain their affairs in justice.’’ [Sooratul-Hadeed 57:25]
So Allaah the Glorified informed that he sent His messengers and revealed His books to establish the people upon fairness (qist) and that is justice (’adl). And from the greatest fairness is Tawheed, and it is the head of justice, and its maintainer, and Shirk is injustice, as Allaah the Exalted said,
‘‘Verily Shirk is a great injustice.’’ [Sooratul-Luqmaan 31:13]

Here the porphet luqman said as Allah reveled that the greatest of all injustice on earth, the greatest, even greater than the kinlling of innocent blood, greater than wars and imperialism and tyranny, is shirk. So Allah named that this beleif, in worshiping others along side him, or worshiping other than him, or completely disbeleiving in his existance is the worst of opression that could ever happen in this world, and maybe those who are non muslims dont have to agree with what their Lord said to them (let them worry about that when they meet Him), but the Muslim has to agree with this haq.
So Shirk is the greatest injustice and Tawheed is the best form of justice. So what can be a greater denial than this meaning, so it is the greatest of major sins; to the extent that it is said when Shirk itself negates something, it becomes the greatest of major sins absolutely. And Allaah has prohibited Paradise upon everyone who commits Shirk, and He has made his blood, wealth, and family permissible for the people of Tawheed, and that they may take them as slaves for themselves since they abandon His ’uboodiyyah (worship). Allaah the Exalted has refused to accept any actions from the mushrik (one who commits Shirk), nor is there any intercession for him, neither is his final supplication answered, nor is it accepted sue to his hope. Because the mushrik is the most ignorant person concerning Allaah, since he makes something from His creation one to be called upon. And that is the utmost limit of ignorance concerning Him, as is the utmost limit of injustice to Him. And if the mushrik only knew the reality, he would not commit transgression upon his Lord, and the transgression is only upon himself.’’ [9]
MAJOR SHIRK:
Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee says,
‘‘Major Shirk (Shirkul-Akbar) is to make something from the various types of worship for other than Allaah, like sacrificing for other than Allaah, or taking an oath by other than Allaah, or calling upon other than Allaah, or seeking aid from other than Allaah; like those who seek aid from statues and idols and awliyaa‘ (close allies of Allaah), and the righteous; upon the basis that this will bring them closer to Allaah. The ruling upon this type of Shirk is that it is disbelief (kufr) which ejects one from the Religion. Allaah does not accept anything from the one who commits Shirk and his dwelling place is the Fire if he dies upon that, as the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, ‘‘Whoever dies whilst calling upon other than Allaah enters the Fire.’’ [10] So verily Shirk is the absolute worst sin, and Allaah will never forgive those who die upon it, as Allaah the Exalted said,
‘‘Verily Allaah does not forgive that Shirk be made with Him, but He forgives whatever is below that for whomever He wishes. And whosoever associates others with Allaah, then he has indeed strayed far away.’’ [Sooratun-Nisaa‘ 4:48]
And Allaah the Exalted said,
‘‘Verily whosoever associates partners with Allaah, then indeed Allaah has made Paradise unlawful for him, and his station is the Fire. And the transgressors will not have any helpers.’’ [Sooratul-Maa‘idah 5:72]
And Allaah the Exalted explained that whosoever commits Shirk will not have his actions accepted:

On top of this here is the Statement by one whom all people (of supposedly monotheists) agree that He is God when He revealed to mankind
“And whosoever seeks other than Islaam as a religion, then it will never be accepted from him. And in the Hereafter, he will be from amongst the losers.” [Soorah Aali-’Imraan 3:85]
And this is the Religion of Ibraaheem (’alayhis-salaam) and whoever dislikes it is foolish.” [17]
So there is no room for "well he was a good man let God judge him". the matter has already been decided for whoever falls into this from the pope or those like him. He, the Most High has called them fools and losers in this life and the herafter. Indeed they lost their after life for doing that which Allah warned mankind not to do (commit shirk). And this is why Allah says "Indeed mankind is in a state of loss, except those who beleive (in Islam), and do rightoues deeds, and enjoin eachother in that"

So the doing of righteous deeds, and enjoining others to it can only be a gain and not a loss if that person beleives, and beleif is only in that which Allah has revealed as His last and final revelation to mankind, otherwise the base, root, or foundation (of beleif) is uprooted and the good deeds have nothing to rest on, do to the beleif being uprooted by which the actions are nullified.

‘‘And We will approach what they have done of good deeds and make them like scattered dust.’’ [Sooratul-Furqaan 25:23]” [11]
There is no "Well let Allah decide" since the matter has already been decided since day one. In the law of Old the punishment for this was death and performing shirk is what made the distinction between the people of beleif and the people of disbeleif. This was His law from day one and l will say it again that no one even a muslim can negate this haq or truth that has already been established by Allah and His messenger.

Its kind of surprising that such beleifs are prevelant since eventhe church beleves that whoever does not accept the "christ" as his/her Lord and savior will not be saved (which means in the fire) so while I hold what I hold in what was previously stated by me, the pope holds what he holds of me and muslims despite his words ever spoken since this goes against the creed of the church (that anyone who doesnt accept the christ is saved sicne what would be the point of accepting the christ) and the same goes for the Jews

In their creed whoever is not of them will reside in the fire. this is known from them. So you see that they have their conditions as well in who is saved and not according to their doctrine and creed, now the followers are a different story since in the religion of the christian and the jews they can adopt views contrary to what they teach and the texts and still be okay with it, but in Islam, is nothing like that. Either you follow the texts yupon the way it is to be correctly understood upn the intent of Allah and His messenger or deviate from that which warrents other threats which is in itself another subject.

So I hope people can understand here that what the tread is about is a matter of beleif of a people r person and the viewpoint of another beleif contrats to it, and nota matter of showing respect and being nice as this points to another subjectr and realizing my intent on this tread could close up a lot of what we call fitan or trials and Allah is Azeezul-Hakeem

Al-Boriqi

6th April 2005, 15:52

raised

Yahya Sulaiman

6th April 2005, 22:47

Who is better than Allah to judge for a people who are sure? (Koran 5:50, Shakir)

If there is a party of you who believe in that with which am sent, and another party who do not believe, then wait patiently until Allah judges between us; and He is the best of the Judges. (Koran 7:87, Shakir)

Surely your Lord will judge between them on the resurrection day concerning that about which they differed. (Koran 16:124, Shakir)

vinod

7th April 2005, 04:24

Salam Al-Izaree

Just a few comments on your long post -

1. It would be best if emotional reactions are not expressed in the post. That would make it more academic. For eg -

Wa iyaadhubillahi mina dhaalik wallahul-musta'an

2. Some of your sentences are not making sense by themselves or in their context. Pls take some time to re-visit your post and edit these sentences to make them crisp, short and coherent. Such as -

Whoever has a speck of eman shall see jannah. So by stating this, the person is actually affirming eman for the one who rejected Islam.

No one can enter the state of "unknowingly reject islam". There is no third state. The third state is if someone dies without hearing of the message.

The person is attempting to use or justify the excuse of not knowing the absoloute sense of rejection by which the end result is not pronouncing that which that person has fallen into

But of course a person adding this state which cannot happen justifies their view that takfeer should not be performed on a people whom takfeer ought to be performed on and is.

3. Very often the logical connection of your counter-argument to a particular quote simply fails to stand out - For eg -

This was not their conclusion and non of the imaams of the sunnah ever spoke with this type ofspeech. on the contrary they ...

Because 1. it goes againt thejama'aa of the muslims of ahlu-sunnah. they were upon the same thing as that of the first generations and adopting a view other than this or opposite is actually falling under what this person is accusing the muslims of falling into.

Pls take some time to edit your post to establish rigorously their connection to the quote preceding them.

4. You have many quotes ftom the following authorities which will not mean much to most -

a. Some one said -
b. One of the salaf said -

5. I have no problems at all with all yhe categories of kufr that you described and I don't see them as contradicting my stand on takfeer.

6. An incorrect understanding of yours that I'd like to point out is -

But when someone hears the message then there is no "unknowingly reject Islam" there is either acceptance or rejection.

What the autor means by "unknowingly reject islam" is many such as 1. the truth of Islam over other belief systems is not distinct 2. reservations due to actions of Muslims 3, failure to comprehend some concepts ...etc

Pls re-read that part again in the light of the above.
At this point, it would help if you could revisit the "Juhood and Istihlal" thread and re-read some of the posts there.

I'll also suggest taking up the course "Interpreting the Quran" at www.studying-islam.com

I'll stop here for now.

Was-salam
Vinod

Vajradhara

7th April 2005, 13:35

Salaam Al-Izaaree,

thank you for the post.

I like your tone ya Vajradhara as you have the more Islamic ettiquette than many of us.

you can thank the knowledgeable members of this site for that, i've learned greatly from them.

There is no doubt that Allah has total judgement on all affaris. Maybe I should explain how the ayaah is to be understood.

Some people that are non muslims, and sadfully muslims as well tend to beleive that in Islam even though Allah is the Oft-Foprgiving Most Merciful and allthese great things that only He has the attributes in total perfection, that he will forgive any and all despite what faith they are.

well... in my own case, i do not harbour this belief.

i've actually tried to get very specific with regards to these sorts of questions, as you may imagine.

On top of this, if a person has good work or good deeds and action with a kind heart, then that person enters the rank whom Allah is pleased with and that the general arguement that all humans have faults and that we should over look eachothers faults is something that has been misunderstood by many and unfortunately the muslims as well, those who claim the sunnah and follow the shariah wallahul-musta'an.

so... do i understand you correctly here... it is not good deeds engaged in with a kind heart that allows a person to enter the ranks of beings with whom Allah is pleased?

But anyways Vaj, I must explain for the purpose of clarifying this matter, hopefully once and for all, that When I said that he forgives all sins except shirk, then the meaning of it is exactly that.

that's pretty clear.

the issue, of course, is how one goes about determining what is in anothers heart and consciousness when they are engaged in worship, in my view.

Shirk nullifies all good deeds, as Allaah the Exalted said, ‘‘And if they associate others with Allaah, whatever they have done is nullified.’’ [Sooratul-An’aam 6:88]
And Allaah the Exalted said, ‘‘And it was already revealed to you and to those before you, that if you should associate anything with Allaah, your work would surely become worthless, and you would surely be amongst the losers.’’
So this is the general ruling for all who fall in to this category. If a person meets Allah with the beleif of shirk in their hearts, then what He has revealed is upon him or her point blank end of discussion.

So you see that the actions of men are accepted by Allah with conditions.

interesting.

naturally my understanding of deity is a bit different in this regard.. but interesting nevertheless.

The Imaam Sufyan ath-Thawree
[quote]

who is this? what role does this person have in Islam?

[quote]
narrated to his student in partial narration that "No speech is accepted except with action, and no speech and action are excepted except with intention, and no speech, action, and intention are accepted unless they agree with the sunnah (the sunnah of muhamamd) and that cannot be possible unless that person has accepted Islam. Indeed the origination of the truth of what this Imaam of Islam and the sunnah has said lies in what Allah has said "I have chosen for you (mankind) Islam as your millah and anything other than it wshall not be accepted by Me".

i suppose that i would disagree with this view, however, if it is in keeping with traditional Islamic doctrines, then i wouldn't have any critique to make.

Keep in mind that we are talking about the herafter of either a muslim or nonmuslim, in general (not specific) and we are not talking about being kind hearted towards one another as that is another subject and keeping this in mind can prevent much discussion so pelase I ask to bear with me since what we are talking about is what I have just mentioned.

i wasn't under the impression that we were speaking of the condition of others hearts... which i, personally, believe is not within our capabilities to do. i do understand that you are speaking of after this lifespan has terminated. of course, my view is much.. much different than yours in this regard.. rebirth and all of that sort of thing.

So anyways, you see that the good deeds are nullified and if a person died in this state meets what Allah has revelaed in His book and no one on earth ,even a muslim can nullify this shar'i understadning.

well... i can see that in the opinion of some that good deeds are nulllified without the correct belief. i, personally, do not feel that this is so. nevertheless, that is probably fairly inconsequential for our discussion.

So I dont say that the pope is in hellfire nor do any right minded muslim would say that. We say if they did not accept Islam then that which Allah has spoken of them is upon him and Allah is not one who breaks his promise.

sort of a difficult think to know, isn't it?

5. The blood and wealth of the mushrik (one who commits Shirk) is lawful, as Allaah the Exalted says, ‘‘So kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit and wait for them at every place of ambush.’’ [Sooratut-Tawbah 9:5]

naturally, i would object to such an injunction. i realize that it is acceptable within your religious paradigm to engage in unskillful behavior such as this. i, however, could never do so... the karmic ramifications of such actions are staggering.

And the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, ‘‘I have been ordered to fight the people until they say, ‘There is none worthy of worship besides Allaah.’ So if they say it, their blood and wealth is protected from me, except with due right.’’

another difference between our traditions, it would seem.

Here the porphet luqman

i'm sorry... whom?

said as Allah reveled that the greatest of all injustice on earth, the greatest, even greater than the kinlling of innocent blood, greater than wars and imperialism and tyranny, is shirk.

wow. talk about a different world view :)

So Allah named that this beleif, in worshiping others along side him, or worshiping other than him, or completely disbeleiving in his existance is the worst of opression that could ever happen in this world, and maybe those who are non muslims dont have to agree with what their Lord said to them (let them worry about that when they meet Him), but the Muslim has to agree with this haq.

i'm not certian that shirk is disbelieving in Allahs' existence. are you certain it isn't associating partners with Allah?

And Allaah has prohibited Paradise upon everyone who commits Shirk, and He has made his blood, wealth, and family permissible for the people of Tawheed, and that they may take them as slaves for themselves since they abandon His ’uboodiyyah (worship).

hmm... do you believe that you should be allowed to enslave me?

‘‘Verily Allaah does not forgive that Shirk be made with Him, but He forgives whatever is below that for whomever He wishes. And whosoever associates others with Allaah, then he has indeed strayed far away.’’ [Sooratun-Nisaa‘ 4:48]

if this is so, then i'm ok :) i associate none with Allah and i engage in skillful moral and ethical actions... at least when i'm able to, that is.

On top of this here is the Statement by one whom all people (of supposedly monotheists) agree

who is that?

So there is no room for "well he was a good man let God judge him". the matter has already been decided for whoever falls into this from the pope or those like him.

whilst it may be decided, that decision is unknown to us.

He, the Most High has called them fools and losers in this life and the herafter. Indeed they lost their after life for doing that which Allah warned mankind not to do (commit shirk). And this is why Allah says "Indeed mankind is in a state of loss, except those who beleive (in Islam), and do rightoues deeds, and enjoin eachother in that"

Islam is a confusing thing to me. on one hand... you folks extoll the proper belief statements as indicators of faith. on the other hand, you extoll the value of moral and ethical actions, yet claim that moral and ethical actions are, essentially, meaningless unless accompanied by the appropriate statement of faith. very confusing.

There is no "Well let Allah decide" since the matter has already been decided since day one.

by whom was it decided? i propose that it was Allah that decided. whom do you believe decided?

Its kind of surprising that such beleifs are prevelant since eventhe church beleves that whoever does not accept the "christ" as his/her Lord and savior will not be saved (which means in the fire) so while I hold what I hold in what was previously stated by me, the pope holds what he holds of me and muslims despite his words ever spoken since this goes against the creed of the church (that anyone who doesnt accept the christ is saved sicne what would be the point of accepting the christ) and the same goes for the Jews

i'm not sure how versed you are in Christian theology, however, there are three distinct views on this matter within the paradigm of Christian thought... Arminisim, Calvinism and Universalism. depending on which position that one holds... shapes their views. in the Universalist view, Jesus came for all beings and thus, all beings are saved through Jesus... even if we don't acknowledge the sacrifice of Jesus, per se, that does not negate the sacrifice itself.

of course, Christain theology is not my theological paradigm as such, perhaps a knowledgeable Christian can elaborate.

hawk

7th April 2005, 13:49

Its kind of surprising that such beleifs are prevelant since eventhe church beleves that whoever does not accept the "christ" as his/her Lord and savior will not be saved (which means in the fire) so while I hold what I hold in what was previously stated by me, the pope holds what he holds of me and muslims despite his words ever spoken since this goes against the creed of the church (that anyone who doesnt accept the christ is saved sicne what would be the point of accepting the christ) and the same goes for the Jews

Actually this is blatantly untrue.

The Church says "we do not know, and cannot comment on the state of souls outside of Christianity"

Far be it from us to condemn/damn anything.

I wonder how muslims like Muhtadiyyah and Xp, reconcile the verses above (quoted by al-izaree) with their faith?

Why should I not fear islam (which i do), if a muslim can quote such verses, and another muslim is unable to stop him, because it is mandated by God (allegedly)

Ansar Al-Haq

7th April 2005, 14:20

Which verse are you referring to, specifically?

noori

7th April 2005, 14:54

i can only say one thing regarding this article,

"may Allah protect us from ignorance, injustice towards others, ill manners ,ill thoughts of others, may Allah give us humbleness spiritually that we will not point fingers to others but look with in our own selves ,those who are dead their matter is decided by GOD , non of us should judge others ,
especially the matter of faith is something hidden in heart ..and Allah is aware of our iman (faith) ..

i remember about prophets life "the one who believed in him as prophet ..after revelation was first given to him in cave hira was khadijah's cousin waqarah who was christian "monk' and said to prophet "i will not live to see that you 'oh mohammed will be the prophet of arabia...'

Another christian monk who recognized him as "prophet" was BAHINRA when mohammed (pbuh)was traveling with his uncle abu talib ..to syria,when he was a young boy and mohammed (pbuh) found affinity with him ...

what about those verses of quran that says" among ahl-kitab are those who stand humbly in front of lord and worhsip him in nights"

if mohammed(pbuh) has pointed out about any "jew" it doesnot mean all jews or those other ahl-kitab are non -believers, there is difference b/w non-beliver and ahl-kitah ,ahl-kitabh (people of book) can be believers and have faith in god ... where as jew, christain and even muslim can be non-believer (if his /her heart is empty of faith in god) so what if they are called "muslim by name
just being "muslim" doens't mean we are savedgroup ,just associating with certain creed, ritual doenot make you muslim..but one who has IMAN deeply rooted in heart is ' MUSLIM" ...similarly any christain or jew who believe in god ..can be believer

" 2:62...surah baqarah

" THOSE WHO BELIEVE ,THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES,
AND THE CHRISTIANS AND THE SABIANS,WHO BELIEVE IN ALLAH ,THE LAST DAY AND WORK RIGHTEOUS ,
SHALL HAVE THEIR REWARD FROM THEIR LORD,ON THEM SHALL BE NO FEAR NOR WILLTHEY GRIEVE.'

think of what about those who were born before mohammed (pbuh) islam is not merely following certain rituals and laws, IMAN is essence of islam,it is condition of heart and devotion to god ..there must be people before mohammed( pbuh)who were "devoted to god' they might not be called muslim b/c this was .. name given after mohammed (pbuh) brought the message to people,
no matter if they were given name or not they were devoted to god in their heart..and ALLAH knows who has faith in him ...

may ALLAH guide us to right path and bring us out of ignorance to light ,
we all share with (people of book ) something common..

xp²

7th April 2005, 20:07

Actually this is blatantly untrue.

The Church says "we do not know, and cannot comment on the state of souls outside of Christianity"

Far be it from us to condemn/damn anything.

I wonder how muslims like Muhtadiyyah and Xp, reconcile the verses above (quoted by al-izaree) with their faith?

Why should I not fear islam (which i do), if a muslim can quote such verses, and another muslim is unable to stop him, because it is mandated by God (allegedly)

Peace Hawk,

If you can tell me which verses, may be I can tell you my understanding of them.

Al-Boriqi

8th April 2005, 01:52

Wow, How could I respond to so much, nevertheless

Inal-Hamdulillah wa salatu wa salamu 'ala ashraafil-anbiyaa e wal-mursaleen
wa b'ad

to vinod
It would be best if emotional reactions are not expressed in the post. That would make it more academic. For eg -

Wa iyaadhubillahi mina dhaalik wallahul-musta'an
_________________

The meaning is I seek refuge in Allah from this (meaning this concept)

the you said
______________
Some of your sentences are not making sense by themselves or in their context. Pls take some time to re-visit your post and edit these sentences to make them crisp, short and coherent. Such as -

Quote:
Whoever has a speck of eman shall see jannah. So by stating this, the person is actually affirming eman for the one who rejected Islam.
________________

Meaning that it is in the sunnah that whoever has a speck of eman will see jannah, and this is known. Now the irony is that even though one truthfully rejected Islam, some of us still hold that they have a chance at the akhira which totally defies the texts. If we are affirming that the kaafireen can have a chance at the akhirah then what we are really affirming is that they have eman even if it is a speck of it. So if one has eman then they are automatically muslim. I hope you understand that eman is conditional to la ilaha ilallah muhammada rasulullah so all the faith or emaan the size of the sun can amount to nothing if they disbeleive in what their Lord has revealed.
I dont want to stay with this so I hope this cleared this statement up

you did not understand when said this
_____________________
No one can enter the state of "unknowingly reject islam". There is no third state. The third state is if someone dies without hearing of the message.
_____________________
O dont see what the misconstruence lies. It is clear, either a person beleives or disbeleives (when one receives the message). There is no such thing as someone hearing Islam and due to their not getting it then this would be called "unknowingly reject islam", since it is either an issue of accepting or rejecting that which you hear, regardless whether one doesnt understand why Allah did this or did that.

next
The person is attempting to use or justify the excuse of not knowing the absoloute sense of rejection by which the end result is not pronouncing that which that person has fallen into
______________________________

Meaning that a person (whoever posted before the tread I posted and I dont have the desire to find their statement) was saying that a person who receives the message of islam can be in a state of not knowing the absolute sense of rejection. So the end result oft he muslim holding this view is that they do not pronounce that which that person (one who rejected Islam) has fallen into( meaning the muslim does not say that they are a kaafir after they have fulfilled the conditions of being one)

Next
But of course a person adding this state which cannot happen justifies their view that takfeer should not be performed on a people whom takfeer ought to be performed on and is.
____________________

I dont see how this was unclear but again, If a person who holds the view that most of you are holding (hence the expression "adding this state" meaning to add this third state of unknowingly reject Islam) which cannot happen (i said it before that this state does not exist) justifies their view (meaning you brothers and sisters who hold this view) that takfeer should not be performedon a people whom takfeer ought to be perfomred on (due to their state as being rejectors).

Next
Very often the logical connection of your counter-argument to a particular quote simply fails to stand out - For eg -

Quote:
This was not their conclusion and non of the imaams of the sunnah ever spoke with this type ofspeech. on the contrary they ...
_______________________________________________

Meaning that none of the Imaams of the sunnah ever held this viewpoint that many of us are hold in regards to emaan and kufr and between the muslims and the disbeleivers

next
Because 1. it goes againt thejama'aa of the muslims of ahlu-sunnah. they were upon the same thing as that of the first generations and adopting a view other than this or opposite is actually falling under what this person is accusing the muslims of falling into.
________

In all honesty I dont remember which statement that this statement (the one above) was trying to refute, forgive me Im only human

next
You have many quotes ftom the following authorities which will not mean much to most -

a. Some one said -
b. One of the salaf said -
__________________________________

This is my point i have made in another thread startyed by newsx about firqatu-najiyyah. Unfortunately many of the muslims have lost the will and way to refer back to those who know which is also a command by Allah and there are many ayaah attesting to the pure knowledeg of the ulema and they are the men of understanding.

On top of this many of the ulema have already have given the characteristics of ahlu-sunnah wal jam'ah. One of those characteristics is as follows

They follow the trustworthy scholars- the companions and those who traverse upon their way (the salaf)-following them in knowledge, actions, and calling to Allah. They keep away from those who oppose their path.

So this is one sad truth and a reality that no one care what the salaf said or what one who is knowledgeable of the religion who is known for upholding the authentic sunnah has to say about anything, rather what is important is what one thinks and what one can understand for himself, especially in many of those issues where thinking and understanding the texts can lead to open and wide deviation.
So when you say that not really anybody cares for that then I say in reply that I dont care what they hold because they are going to have to answer to their Lord for that not me.

you said

I have no problems at all with all yhe categories of kufr that you described and I don't see them as contradicting my stand on takfeer.

There is a contradiction.You hold, as well as others, that takfeer cannot be performed on the ones who reject Islam, and that it was only limited to the time of the prophet and the sompanions which is total contradiction to the texts and the way of the companions and those who followed them. Whooever died without Islam did a death of a kaafir or jaahiliyyah, this was with the companions and those who followed them and inshallah will be all the way to the day of Judgement. So my post was in regard to that.

Also

What the autor means by "unknowingly reject islam" is many such as 1. the truth of Islam over other belief systems is not distinct 2. reservations due to actions of Muslims 3, failure to comprehend some concepts ...etc
Whatever the person meant by their statement, then all the points play a role or are a factor in rejecting islam, but those things are not at fault for rejecting Islam, it is them for making the decision. Example, one who accepted Islam on the bat, like Khadijah, Ali ,Abu Bakr radhiyallahu anhum. They did not need to understand more concepts. There were plenty other sahabah after many years of Islam and accepted Islam on the spot. So they became Muslims, others did not accept Islam on the sopt, rather it took times like months and years. So we know this and there is no difference between us in this (i hope). Now the parting of the way in which I say that I have to disagree with you is that during the state of ones rejection of Islam then that person is a kaafir. before Umar accepted he was a kaafir, before Abu Sufyaan accepted he was a kaafir, before I accepted I was a kaafir, before anybody accepts Islam after hearing it, is a kaafir, and if they die in the state of no Islam, then they die a kaafir, and this is what I mean that this is the beleif and usool of the jama'ah of the muslims, ahlu-sunnah wal jama'ah.

Next Vaj

Al-Boriqi

8th April 2005, 03:01

if this is so, then i'm ok i associate none with Allah and i engage in skillful moral and ethical actions... at least when i'm able to, that is. Hey Vaj

Quote:
On top of this, if a person has good work or good deeds and action with a kind heart, then that person enters the rank whom Allah is pleased with and that the general arguement that all humans have faults and that we should over look eachothers faults is something that has been misunderstood by many and unfortunately the muslims as well, those who claim the sunnah and follow the shariah wallahul-musta'an.

so... do i understand you correctly here... it is not good deeds engaged in with a kind heart that allows a person to enter the ranks of beings with whom Allah is pleased?

Yes, because the deeds have to be based on a foundation. The foundation is la ilaha ilallah muhammada rasulullah

then you said

i wasn't under the impression that we were speaking of the condition of others hearts... which i, personally, believe is not within our capabilities to do. i do understand that you are speaking of after this lifespan has terminated. of course, my view is much.. much different than yours in this regard.. rebirth and all of that sort of thing.

I was referring to the matter generally and not specifically sicne I cant say that anyone can go to heaven or hell. So I was speaking between the hearts that beleive and disbeleive, and not "well john and frank are going to the fire".

sort of a difficult think to know, isn't it?

This was said in response to my saying that we dont say that he is in the fire (the pope). That is why we dgo off of that which is appaerent. The rule applies for all and everyone even a muslim. Ifa muslims was knoown to be a munafiq (a true inward disbeleiver in Islam, and outwardly [professes and practices it) and his munafiq hood has been known and established by the muslims, then we say that he was a munafiq and died a death of a munafiq, the same with a christian, that he died a death of a christian, the same with a jew, that he died the death of a jew, the same with a hindu tha he died a death of a hindu, the same with a budhist, that he died a death of a budhist, the same with a muslim who dies a death of a muslim, and Allah says to all who profess faith, "do not die except in a state of Islam" (being Muslim). So what is known is that the pope died in a state that is known (that he is a christian) and no one says that he was a muslim.

you said

naturally, i would object to such an injunction. i realize that it is acceptable within your religious paradigm to engage in unskillful behavior such as this. i, however, could never do so... the karmic ramifications of such actions are staggering.

This was due to an ayaah that I quoted. So let me point out to you the reason for this and when it is to be done. The ayaah was reveled when the idol worshipers were persecuting the Muslims vehemtly along with the jews. This ayaah was in the defense of the muslims since before this ayaah came down the muslims were just taking the attacks. So it is like enough is enough, and at this time they were able to do such a thing (retaliate). On top of this one has to weigh the quran with the quran, the sunnah with the quran, the quran qwith the sunnah, and know that which is clear and unclear, that which is abrogating and the abrogated, and so on and so forth. So the ayaah that puts another angle to look at the one you commented one is that Allah says "except those who come to you in peace". So you see that there is additional knowledge to this that was hidden form you and due to my humanhood overlooked to explain that ayaah for you. So its not that the muslim can just go and run around crazy and kill people of this beleif just for the heck of it, sicne what is with us are principles, and this is the propblem that many non muslims realize that everything Islam has its place and time and we stick to the principles and we must now that which is first and so on and so forth. On top of this I hope I have explained by way of this how serious and open to deviation it is when one just refers to the ayaah alone and understands them in the way they wish or according to what their intellects allow them to understand.

you said
"Im sorry, who?
The prophet Luqman

Quote:
said as Allah reveled that the greatest of all injustice on earth, the greatest, even greater than the kinlling of innocent blood, greater than wars and imperialism and tyranny, is shirk.

wow. talk about a different world view

That is because all, all, all injustice to man, himself, to others is the negation of tawheed (that Allah is alone and one without partners, and nothing from creation can be Him) which is shirk, is the base for all injustice. the reason for all injustice on earth is due to this concept and the injustices done by the muslims is due to them leaving the book and the sunnah behind their backs.

i'm not certian that shirk is disbelieving in Allahs' existence. are you certain it isn't associating partners with Allah?

Shirk is associating partners along with Him, It is also disbeleiving in His existance because the atheist or agnostic is also a mushrik (one who does shirk) and has the same ruling as one due to their transfring the creational abilites of Allaha and other attirbutes that are soley His and transfering them to other than Him like nature, the big bang or whatever. So

hmm... do you believe that you should be allowed to enslave me?

Enslavement is not like people think. usually when people think of it, it is like the way they see the slaves in the ten commandment or the slaves of the 17th and 18th century of America. In Islam slavery is totally different with right beyond what any non mulims has given a slave of rights. As for me and you this is doen only in a state of war.I cant just walk up to your house or those like you and claim you. On top of this there are many reasons for this like the family of those who were conquered could have been killed do to them fighting or whatever the case.

if this is so, then i'm ok i associate none with Allah and i engage in skillful moral and ethical actions... at least when i'm able to, that is.

The concept of associating none with Allah is great. It entails that nothing from the creation has any of his attirbutes like healing the sick, removing harm and placing good upon His servants, not praying or supplicatin to other than him in hope of Him answering it, not supplicating to the righteous person or the saint or thinking that they will get you closer to Him. There are many works in Islam dedicated to this field in of itself. Again as I have said before that all of it has to be in accordance with the sunnah which is Islam as Allah said to those who profess faith "do not die except in a state of Islam"

who is that?

Allah

Islam is a confusing thing to me. on one hand... you folks extoll the proper belief statements as indicators of faith. on the other hand, you extoll the value of moral and ethical actions, yet claim that moral and ethical actions are, essentially, meaningless unless accompanied by the appropriate statement of faith. very confusing.

Indicators of faith is not faith otself. Example if a christian or whoever said "God is One" that is an indication of faith and a statement by truth. But there is what you call nullifiers of faith. So for example if a muslim says la ilaha ilallah Muhammada rasulullah and then he says that Ali is Allah after the proofs are presented to him otherwise then his testification of faith is nullified because in the sattement of tawheed "No one is owrthy of worship except Allah alone" in it is a negation and an affirmation. The negation is everything that is not Allah and the affirmation is only for Allah. So when he says that Ali is Allah then he just lied in contrast to his testification. Again if someone comes to me and says this statement and says that Muhamamd is God then he nullified his testification. If someone says this and they say that Jesus is God then he has nullified his testification. These are what you call nullifiers of Islam. If one goes to the grave for worship or to su[pplicate to tyhem or the likes then these actions have nullified the testimony of one who testifies that "there is no god worthy of worship except Allah alone" and Muhammad is His messenger". if a Muslim comes with the beleif that the quran is the only revelation and not the sunnah (the authentic hadeeth) then they have nullified their testification.

So it is very clear that the quranic ayah that extols good deeds are through faith, and faith lies in the path of Muhamamd just as faith lied in the path of Jesus before Muhammad, and just as faith lied in all the prophets and in Moses before Jesus alaihi salatu salam.

i'm not sure how versed you are in Christian theology, however, there are three distinct views on this matter within the paradigm of Christian thought... Arminisim, Calvinism and Universalism. depending on which position that one holds... shapes their views. in the Universalist view, Jesus came for all beings and thus, all beings are saved through Jesus... even if we don't acknowledge the sacrifice of Jesus, per se, that does not negate the sacrifice itself.

I didnt come across this. Im strictly talking about the orthodox view of the church which was catholocism, since all these other ways are actually considered heretic by the orthodox view. I did not get a chance to study all the different sects and there variance in beleifs between others.

Al-Boriqi

8th April 2005, 03:59

My man Hawk, peace

you said
I wonder how muslims like Muhtadiyyah and Xp, reconcile the verses above (quoted by al-izaree) with their faith?

Why should I not fear islam (which i do), if a muslim can quote such verses, and another muslim is unable to stop him, because it is mandated by God (allegedly)

That is because Allah says "But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad SAW) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission. (Chapter #4, Verse #65)

So they cant say nothing. No one can refute that which Allah revealed and intended by something which they conjure up.

You dont have to fear Islam. No muslim is going to ever force you to be Muslim. you can be what you want sicne it is you that is going to face your Lord.

To Noori
__________________________________________________ __
i remember about prophets life "the one who believed in him as prophet ..after revelation was first given to him in cave hira was khadijah's cousin waqarah who was christian "monk' and said to prophet "i will not live to see that you 'oh mohammed will be the prophet of arabia...'

Another christian monk who recognized him as "prophet" was BAHINRA when mohammed (pbuh)was traveling with his uncle abu talib ..to syria,when he was a young boy and mohammed (pbuh) found affinity with him ...

what about those verses of quran that says" among ahl-kitab are those who stand humbly in front of lord and worhsip him in nights"

if mohammed(pbuh) has pointed out about any "jew" it doesnot mean all jews or those other ahl-kitab are non -believers, there is difference b/w non-beliver and ahl-kitah ,ahl-kitabh (people of book) can be believers and have faith in god ... where as jew, christain and even muslim can be non-believer (if his /her heart is empty of faith in god) so what if they are called "muslim by name
just being "muslim" doens't mean we are savedgroup ,just associating with certain creed, ritual doenot make you muslim..but one who has IMAN deeply rooted in heart is ' MUSLIM" ...similarly any christain or jew who believe in god ..can be believer

" 2:62...surah baqarah

" THOSE WHO BELIEVE ,THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES,
AND THE CHRISTIANS AND THE SABIANS,WHO BELIEVE IN ALLAH ,THE LAST DAY AND WORK RIGHTEOUS ,
SHALL HAVE THEIR REWARD FROM THEIR LORD,ON THEM SHALL BE NO FEAR NOR WILLTHEY GRIEVE.'

think of what about those who were born before mohammed (pbuh) islam is not merely following certain rituals and laws, IMAN is essence of islam,it is condition of heart and devotion to god ..there must be people before mohammed( pbuh)who were "devoted to god' they might not be called muslim b/c this was .. name given after mohammed (pbuh) brought the message to people,
no matter if they were given name or not they were devoted to god in their heart..and ALLAH knows who has faith in him ...
________________________________________________

And this is the danger of not knowing how to weigh the texts to eachother between the clear and unclear ayaah, abnd between the abrogating and the abrogated, and others from the sciences of the Quraan.

It is known in the seerah of the prophet and the science of the Quraan that the christians now and the jews now are not like they were in those times. You see. before the completion of Islam all the christians and jews were ahlil-kitaab. Those whom Allah praised in His book were referring to those who accepted Islam even secretly like the king of Abysiniyyah an-Najasha. These were the true ahlil-kitaab because they truely beleived and followed their book. This does not encompass those now due to 1.These verses are those that have been abrogated for those whom Allah has replaced with something like it or better due to Allah's statement
106. Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh (We abrogate) or Nunsiha (cause to be forgotten), We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is Able to do all things) (107. Know you not that it is Allah to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth And besides Allah you have neither any Wali (protector or guardian) nor any helper.) and have been replaced with all the other ayaah in which Allah dispalys to the beleivers the falsehood,and evil that is with them.
2. The end of the era of beleiving and following the previous revelations is over.

Here the actual tafseer of such versus in praise of them
Allah said,

[أُوْلـئِكَ لَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ]

(for them is a reward with their Lord) [3:199].

When Ja`far bin Abi Talib recited Surah Maryam [chapter 19] to An-Najashi, King of Ethiopia, in the presence of Christian priests and patriarchs, he and they cried until their beards became wet from crying. The Two Sahihs record that when An-Najashi died, the Prophet conveyed the news to his Companions and said,

«إِنَّ أَخًا لَكُمْ بِالْحَبَشَةِ قَدْ مَاتَ، فَصَلُّوا عَلَيْه»

(A brother of yours from Ethiopia has passed, come to offer the funeral prayer.) He went out with the Companions to the Musalla lined them up in rows, and after that led the prayer.

Ibn Abi Najih narrated that Mujahid said that,

[وَإِن مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَـبِ]

(And there are, certainly, among the People of the Scripture), refers to those among them who embraced Islam. `Abbad bin Mansur said that he asked Al-Hasan Al-Basri about Allah's statement,

[وَإِنَّ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَـبِ لَمَن يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ]

(And there are, certainly, among the People of the Scripture, those who believe in Allah).

Al-Hasan said, "They are the People of the Book, before Muhammad was sent, who believed in Muhammad and recognized Islam. Allah gave them a double reward, for the faith that they had before Muhammad , and for believing in Muhammad (after he was sent as Prophet).'' Ibn Abi Hatim recorded both of these statements. The Two Sahihs record that Abu Musa said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«ثَلَاثَةٌ يُؤْتَوْنَ أَجْرَهُمْ مَرَّتَيْن»

(Three persons will acquire a double reward. )

He mentioned among them,

«وَرَجُلٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ آمَنَ بِنَبِيِّهِ وَآمَنَ بِي»

(A person from among the People of the Book who believed in his Prophet and in me.)

Allah's statement,

[لاَ يَشْتَرُونَ بِـَايَـتِ اللَّهِ ثَمَناً قَلِيلاً]

(They do not sell the verses of Allah for a small price), means, they do not hide the knowledge that they have, as the cursed ones among them have done. Rather, they share the knowledge without a price, and this is why Allah said,

[أُوْلـئِكَ لَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ]

(for them is a reward with their Lord. surely, Allah is Swift in account.)

Mujahid commented on the verse,

[سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ]

((Surely, Allah is) swift in account), "He is swift in reckoning,'' as Ibn Abi Hatim and others have recorded from him.

Allah said next,

[وَلَوْ أَنَّ أَهْلَ الْكِتَـبِ ءَامَنُواْ وَاتَّقَوْاْ]

(And if only the People of the Scripture had believed and had Taqwa...) Consequently, had the People of the Book believed in Allah and His Messenger and avoided the sins and prohibitions that they committed;

[لَكَفَّرْنَا عَنْهُمْ سَيِّئَـتِهِمْ وَلاٌّدْخَلْنَـهُمْ جَنَّـتِ النَّعِيمِ]

(We would indeed have expiated for them their sins and admitted them to Gardens of pleasure (in Paradise).) meaning We would have removed the dangers from them and granted them their objectives.

[وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ أَقَامُواْ التَّوْرَاةَ وَالإِنجِيلَ وَمَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيهِمْ مِّن رَّبِّهِمْ]

(And if only they had acted according to the Tawrah, the Injil, and what has (now) been sent down to them from their Lord,) meaning, the Qur'an, as Ibn `Abbas and others said.

[لاّكَلُواْ مِن فَوْقِهِمْ وَمِن تَحْتِ أَرْجُلِهِم]

(they would surely have gotten provision from above them and from underneath their feet.) Had they adhered to the Books that they have with them which they inherited from the Prophets, without altering or changing these Books, these would have directed them to follow the truth and implement the revelation that Allah sent Muhammad with. These Books testify to the Prophet's truth and command that he must be followed. Allah's statement,

[لاّكَلُواْ مِن فَوْقِهِمْ وَمِن تَحْتِ أَرْجُلِهِم]

(they would surely have gotten provision from above them and from underneath their feet.) refers to the tremendous provision that would have descended to them from the sky and grown for them on the earth. Allah said in another Ayah,

[وَلَوْ أَنَّ أَهْلَ الْقُرَى ءَامَنُواْ وَاتَّقَوْاْ لَفَتَحْنَا عَلَيْهِم بَرَكَـتٍ مِّنَ السَّمَآءِ وَالاٌّرْضِ]

(And if the people of the towns had believed and had Taqwa, certainly, We should have opened for them blessings from the heaven and the earth.) Allah's statement,

[مِّنْهُمْ أُمَّةٌ مُّقْتَصِدَةٌ وَكَثِيرٌ مِّنْهُمْ سَآءَ مَا يَعْمَلُونَ]

(And among them is a Muqtasid Ummah, but for most of them; evil is their work.) is similar to Allah's statement,

[وَمِن قَوْمِ مُوسَى أُمَّةٌ يَهْدُونَ بِالْحَقِّ وَبِهِ يَعْدِلُونَ ]

(And of the people of Musa there is a community who lead (the men) with truth and establish justice therewith.)[7:159] and His statement about the followers of `Isa, peace be upon him,

[فَـَاتَيْنَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ مِنْهُمْ أَجْرَهُمْ]

(So We gave those among them who believed, their (due) reward.) Therefore, Allah gave them the highest grade of Iqtisad, which is the middle course, given to this Ummah. Above them there is the grade of Sabiqun, as Allah described in His statement;

[ثُمَّ أَوْرَثْنَا الْكِتَـبَ الَّذِينَ اصْطَفَيْنَا مِنْ عِبَادِنَا فَمِنْهُمْ ظَـلِمٌ لِّنَفْسِهِ وَمِنْهُمْ مُّقْتَصِدٌ وَمِنْهُمْ سَابِقٌ بِالْخَيْرَتِ بِإِذُنِ اللَّهِ ذَلِكَ هُوَ الْفَضْلُ الْكَبِيرُ - جَنَّـتُ عَدْنٍ يَدْخُلُونَهَا يُحَلَّوْنَ فِيهَا مِنْ أَسَاوِرَ مِن ذَهَبٍ وَلُؤْلُؤاً وَلِبَاسُهُمْ فِيهَا حَرِيرٌ ]

(Then We gave the Book as inheritance to such of Our servants whom We chose. Then of them are some who wrong themselves, and of them are some who follow a middle course, and of them are some who, by Allah's permission, are Sabiq (foremost) in good deeds. That itself is indeed a great grace. `Adn (Eden) Paradise (everlasting Gardens) will they enter, therein will they be adorned with bracelets of gold and pearls, and their garments there will be of silk.)[35:32-33]

[يَـأَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَاللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يَهْدِى الْقَوْمَ الْكَـفِرِينَ ]

(67. O Messenger! Convey what has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. Allah will protect you from mankind. Verily, Allah guides not the people who disbelieve.)

So the people before the completion of Islam that beleived in Allah were ahlil-kitaab. There is no more ahlil-kitaab because Allah has already stated that they wetre those who truely beleived in their books and in that which stated that there wouldbe on to come which was Muhammad. that is why so many of them knew that muhammad was that prophet that was revealevd in their scriptures like the chrisitan monk Waraqah and the Roman Emperor Heracules only he died rejecting it. And since they beleived in their book they automatically by default beleived in Muhammad and what Allah sent to him. So akhee there is no such christian like that now or any jew. There is no christina that knows that Muamad is in their books as the unlettered one even though their own ancestors knew of him from the learned ones to the laymen. This is why Allah condemned them to the fire. They have disbeleived.
So no doubt there are those who are nice and have a tremendous good character but they are not in the state of those whom are called ahlil-kitaab, on top of which the era itself is over. The religion of Ibraheem, Moses, Jesus and Mumhammad is complete which is the fundamental reason why Allah revealed the verse "“And whosoever seeks other than Islaam as a religion, then it will never be accepted from him. And in the Hereafter, he will be from amongst the losers.” [Soorah Aali-’Imraan 3:85]

So I hope this is clear for you akhee

asalamu alaikum

newsX

8th April 2005, 05:53

Any ways what I have posted concerning this incident is enough of a clarification of the matter and a refutation of such a ridiculous thought of yours and Allah is Azeezul-Hakeem

er...i might have missed it, but what did I say that you find quite so ridiculous?

Guest

8th April 2005, 10:56

Salaam All.

You know one thing which i always find thought provoking, was that when that guy tried to assasinate the Pope, he was imprisoned. And the Pope went to meet him, after his recovery, to tell him that he had forgiven him. Only a noble soul could do that, right??

hawk

8th April 2005, 12:30

That is because all, all, all injustice to man, himself, to others is the negation of tawheed (that Allah is alone and one without partners, and nothing from creation can be Him) which is shirk, is the base for all injustice. the reason for all injustice on earth is due to this concept and the injustices done by the muslims is due to them leaving the book and the sunnah behind their backs.

Would you please explain how shi'irk leads to all the injustices in the world.

I didnt come across this. Im strictly talking about the orthodox view of the church which was catholocism, since all these other ways are actually considered heretic by the orthodox view. I did not get a chance to study all the different sects and there variance in beleifs between others.

I thoought i made it clear, the Church has never in its history commented that people outside of the faith are condemned/damned.

noori

8th April 2005, 19:24

even at the time fo prophet mohammed (pbuh) not every one believed in him ahl-kitab or not , some excepted islam and others didnot .
in case of jesus(pbuh) not every one believed in him , some did and other tried to hurt him ...

it is a matter of FREE WILL ,it self in quran allah say
wa man sah yumin ,waman sha yafkur
whoever wish to believe ,let them believe and who ever deny let them deny
when Allah has given us this freedom of will and HE will judge us according to our choise ..why should you point fingers on others

why are we so QUICK to judge who are momin or kafir , ahl-kitabh or not- ahl kitabh ...
" READ the beautiful message of quran by (reflecting) not by taking others people opinion and folowing blindly ..it will remove many misconceptions ... such things are called SPIRITUAL IMPURITIES in quranic language ..

what if some one you think is kafir or non-believer, is pious in the sight of Allah due to his love of god .

THANKS GOD ,Allah has not given humans the authority to decide other people fate, whether they are people of jannah or hell(HE HAS KEPT SUCH MATTERSIN HIS HANDS)..still we donot fail to label others by our words

Al-Boriqi

9th April 2005, 00:01

it was said
it is a matter of FREE WILL ,it self in quran allah say
wa man sah yumin ,waman sha yafkur
whoever wish to believe ,let them believe and who ever deny let them deny
when Allah has given us this freedom of will and HE will judge us according to our choise ..why should you point fingers on others
______________________________________________

Allah pointed at them. I only manifested what He the Most High satted about them. I dont say anyone is condemned. Allah had already made the furqaan (the criterion) and I only stated that which Allah has stated. me stating what Allah said about them is not pointing a finger at them and is definately not judging them.

you said

why are we so QUICK to judge who are momin or kafir , ahl-kitabh or not- ahl kitabh ...
" READ the beautiful message of quran by (reflecting) not by taking others people opinion and folowing blindly ..it will remove many misconceptions ... such things are called SPIRITUAL IMPURITIES in quranic language ..
____________________

There is a difference in reffering to those who know which is the true ittiba and the blind following of what your talking about. We are in a balnaced way, we do nto lean towards the right nor the left, so we dont follow blindly, nor do we act so loss in neagting that which Allah revealed and choosing to undertsand the texts in a way that suits our desires. On top of this, I rather rest my religion on those who truely know what islam necessitate ws versus those do not know nothing and especially when they enjoin an understanding that was not with the people of knowledge of Islam.

what if some one you think is kafir or non-believer, is pious in the sight of Allah due to his love of god .

You missed not only what I posted, but what Allah said about them
I hope you heed the words again

Shirk nullifies all good deeds, as Allaah the Exalted said, ‘‘And if they associate others with Allaah, whatever they have done is nullified.’’ [Sooratul-An’aam 6:88]
And Allaah the Exalted said, ‘‘And it was already revealed to you and to those before you, that if you should associate anything with Allaah, your work would surely become worthless, and you would surely be amongst the losers.’’
So this is the general ruling for all who fall in to this category. If a person meets Allah with the beleif of shirk in their hearts, then what He has revealed is upon him or her

In another ayah (dont have refernec) He the most High made the deeds of such a people as scattered dust. So all the righteous actions in the undiverse is not going to save anybody who falls into disbeleif. I hope you can come to beleive one day that which Allah has revealed because appearently your view which you stated "what if some one you think is kafir or non-believer, is pious in the sight of Allah due to his love of god " is totally against what Allah and His messenger revealed and that which was intended by them which is the way that was understood and taught by the companions, their sucessors and those who followed them in their way.

To Hawk

Would you please explain how shi'irk leads to all the injustices in the world.

I will hopefully, but it is too long of a discussion and would be better in another seperate thread.

I thoought i made it clear, the Church has never in its history commented that people outside of the faith are condemned/damned.

Its been a long time since i actually looked to the statem,ents of the people of the christians in the earlier times and review what I remembered from church as I was a pentacostal, also went to baptist, methodist, catholic, and definately has been a loong time since I went to sunday school and for a long time I wis in what is called the "charismatic" church. I remmebr me going to these study seesions regarding the "savior" Jesus and that whoever doesnt accept him will be of those who are lost (meaning damned). I know very well the doctrine so you may be the first who actually defies the original principle and beleif of the church in this issue.

Also i sense that the main topic or difference is in "labels" and apperantly is has been misunderstood that labels is a bad thing and prevents unity and the likes. If indeed there was any truth to such an unsubstantiated claim, then Allah and His messneger would have made it haraam and would not have spoken in the manner they had, and the companions and those who followed them would not have stuck to their ways and views concerning labelling which I am earnestly trying to defend from its opposite understanding that you and others have been promoting.

asalamu alaikum

hlatif

9th April 2005, 02:27

Salaam all,

I just wanted to share with you my sentiments on this issue. When each of us follows a certain religion, then we believe that this is our pathway that will lead us to the truth. Therefore, in a sense we may believe that this is the better way to the truth than others.

However, our concern is only ourselves and we should not go and condemn every one that does not exactly believe like us. Hell is really GOD's business. It seems that many muslims feel that they have to say this and that negative thing about other religions. AS if, they are trying to prove to all the world that they are right, when they really need to prove it only to themselves.

I also do not see why a christian would be bothered by what a muslim thinks related to heaven and hell and who goes there. I would love for a christian person to enlighten me on that.

There are many christians who believe that muslims will go to hell and that muslims worship the devil. They will not bother me as long as I feel safe in my system of belief and worship.

All this should not prevent each of us from respecting the humanity in each of us and from living in peace together. After all, there is no compulsion in the religion.

Salaam and I hope that I was helpful

Hussein

Yahya Sulaiman

9th April 2005, 05:49

There are many christians who believe that muslims will go to hell and that muslims worship the devil. They will not bother me as long as I feel safe in my system of belief and worship.

Indeed, dear brother. I once had a dialogue with a Catholic who was convinced that the Koran was inspired by Satan, this being evidential from the way that an angel revealed the Koran instead of Muhammad (P) meeting God face to face, even though the Bible repeatedly denies that anyone ever sees God directly and the Koran says that God revealing Himself in all his glory once turned a mountain into dust. This Catholic also used this explanation to explain the Koran's seemingly impossible scientific precociousness. I tried and tried to reason with him, but as with most devout Christians, I was talking into a dead phone. I may as well have tried to reason with a brick. Saying, "The Devil made [anyone] do it [anything]!" is a childish rationalization, and yet many Christians are convinced that this Koran which teaches you to follow good and reject evil, to worship God and shun Satan, to take refuge in God from Satan, was itself inspired by Satan! They should heed the words of their own holy text:

How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house. (Mark 3:23-27)

Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. (Matthew 7:16-18)

hawk

9th April 2005, 12:56

How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house. (Mark 3:23-27)

Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. (Matthew 7:16-18)

I think one has to examine the nature of the prophet.

Even though many muslims will say the hadith are fallible, they cannot do away with the sunnah.
The Mohammed's actions were highly questionable in the light of Jesus
eg: a man who tells one of his followers to lie (liar) to be able to apporach an adversary, that he may kill him.

We are told in the Bible of prophets in sheeps clothing, but they are ravening wolves underneath it.

Perhaps this Catholic was just subscribing to that belief.

Ofcourse the fruits (the Koran) of the tree (Prophet) cant be good if the tree is bad.

Point in case sura al izaaree on these boards giving his interpretation of 9:5

5. The blood and wealth of the mushrik (one who commits Shirk) is lawful, as Allaah the Exalted says, ‘‘So kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit and wait for them at every place of ambush.’’ [Sooratut-Tawbah 9:5]

Now is the Koran revealed for all time? or just for the time of Mohammed?
If it is revealed for all time then it is your duty according to islam to seek me out and kill me.

I dont think I need say more, my point is suffeciently made

Yahya Sulaiman

9th April 2005, 15:11

I have proven that Islam is a religion of peace here (http://www.xyapx.com/ziggyzag/doesislampromotepeace.php). The Sunnah and the ahadith are both fallible (meaning that some are authentic and some are not), being different parts of the same collection from oral tradition.

hlatif

9th April 2005, 16:57

Peace Hawk,

Thanks for pointing me to the post by Al izaree. Brother Al Izaree took an AYA out of context and made a conclusion that I do not agree with. Here is my reasoning:

9:1 A (declaration) of dissociatoin from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual deal (of promise and obligation on both sides):-

Therefore it is talking about a specific group of people with whom they had a peace agreement and those people broke it, therefore the dissociation.

9:3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

Therefore they were asked to repent

9:4 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into contract/deal (where there is promise and onligation on both sides) and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

So the deal is not broken to all, and the muslims are obligated to respect those that kept respecting it.

9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

So, there is no taking of the money, and there is a way out. However, what is so important to remember is that the pagans broke a deal and therefore deserved this.

9:6 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for protection, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then help him reach his place of safety. That is because they are men without knowledge.

Therefore, you don't attack one, whatever he/she believes if they ask a muslim for protection. It is an obligation to grant it. You expose them to the word of GOD, but you don't force them to convert.

Now is the Koran revealed for all time? or just for the time of Mohammed?
If it is revealed for all time then it is your duty according to islam to seek me out and kill me.
The messages for all time that I get from this is:
1- mulsim will break their treaties only if others break it.
2- That would be the time to fight, but you don't fight those that don't break treaties with you and you don't fight those who don't attack you.
3- Even while fighting, if a non believer asks for protection, then grant it, help him/her reach their place of safety and allow them to hear the word of GOD, without forcing them to convert.

I hope that this helps

Hussein

Al-Boriqi

9th April 2005, 19:50

Many times when I read peoples reply to what I say, I actually question if they understood my words or even if they ever read them and understood them completely.

So to squash the misconseption now before I begin in regards to the ayaah

The blood and wealth of the mushrik (one who commits Shirk) is lawful, as Allaah the Exalted says, ‘‘So kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit and wait for them at every place of ambush.’’ [Sooratut-Tawbah 9:5]

And then Hawk replied

Now is the Koran revealed for all time? or just for the time of Mohammed?
If it is revealed for all time then it is your duty according to islam to seek me out and kill me.

I dont think I need say more, my point is suffeciently made
__________________________________________

and hlatif said in explaining it

Thanks for pointing me to the post by Al izaree. Brother Al Izaree took an AYA out of context and made a conclusion that I do not agree with. Here is my reasoning:

9:1 A (declaration) of dissociatoin from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual deal (of promise and obligation on both sides):-

Therefore it is talking about a specific group of people with whom they had a peace agreement and those people broke it, therefore the dissociation.
________________________________________

But i have already explained it to Vaj when she took it in the general and absolute sense. It was only in a stated of war and what I forgot to add was that this is in regards to an alliance that has been broken.

So Hawk when you made that statement about our duty to seek you out, then you have misunderstood the ayaah as your understadning of it goes againt the intent and reason for its revelation which makes your claim weak from its foundation. But of course I had already explained for the most part of that ayaah to Vaj that it was conditional during war and with it (I forgot) that it is due to a breach of contract. On top of this I explained to Vaj after this that Allah revealed "except those who come to you in peace, which is proof in and of itself that Islam lives up to its name (Islam-Salam-Peace) which refutes any of your misguidaed concepts that Islam is contrary to peace.

And this is the problem with trying to understand the texts according to what you think or what tyour intellects can achive and muster in your own mind.

Indeed there are two fundamentals by which muslims themselves dewviate regarding Islam. 1. is through the texts meaning that they deviate because of their flawed interpretation of the texts and the second 2. is that they deviate with no proofs from the texts at all. I would expect for a non muslim to understand the texts in a way that they are supposed to be understood but I do suspect that Muslims would do so. It is like not expecting a baby to clean up their room but you should expect for your 10 year old boy to clean his room up.

hlatif
you said

However, our concern is only ourselves and we should not go and condemn every one that does not exactly believe like us. Hell is really GOD's business. It seems that many muslims feel that they have to say this and that negative thing about other religions. AS if, they are trying to prove to all the world that they are right, when they really need to prove it only to themselves.
I dont see how you don't understand our position.

The muslim confines himself to the best speech (quran) and the best of guidance (hidayatil-Muhammad). So I only repeat that which Allah has already said, legislated, and the way the first Muslims behaved concerning this. The examples of the sahaba and those after them from the next two generations of rightly guided Muslims are top great to enumerate in their stance toward the people of disbeleif (those who did not accept Islam) and their statements to them. It seems that many of us so called muslims have a miconstruence that because we repeat the condemnation of Allah on the people of disbelief (for their false beleifs that their predecessors made up with no linkage to their actual prophets), since the originator of all of this is Allah Himself and no one can negate this, that automatically this means totral disrespect fort hem as a people. No this is not the case.

I beleive that if me and the christians like Hawk and others were to meet in real life I would probably display a better character than you people (the ones thinking it is wrong to condemn others based on what Allah had already condemned them for) and I dont say that to brag or to show off, but by way of example that this has nothing to do with respecting ones beleifs. And example is that I wouldnt say anything about certain belefs t hat are false but when someone like hawk or anyone of his like were to question me on a topic and my viewpoint on a matter (example, different beleif systems) then Im going to honestly (not hidingly) answer with that which is the most truthful of speech (Kalaamullah, Quran) and the best of hidayaah (the sunnah). and Im not going to withold from telling him the truth of the matter as 1. I would be oppressing the truth which is oppressing Allah and His messenger and 2. opress hawk himself or others like him for not relaying to him the turht of what Islam has to say on a matter. And I beleive that they (the non muslims) would rather have an honest and foward answer then an answer that seems like your hiding somethingor not revelaing the whole truth.

Also it seems that you hawk and even some msulims have a view concerning the sunnah and hadeeth.

it was said by brother Sulaiman (by the way I like that name akhee)

I have proven that Islam is a religion of peace here. The Sunnah and the ahadith are both fallible (meaning that some are authentic and some are not), being different parts of the same collection from oral tradition.

I must refute this akhee because the sunah is infallable. The messengers guidance is infallable as Allah spoke of him that "he does not speak of desire"

as for sunnah and hadeeth. then one must understand the matter in detail if your going to delve into the subject.

the sunnah is the actual sayings of the prophet Muhammad, his actions, his recommendations, his prohibitions, his judgments, and even the things he didnt do or left off is also the sunnah.

Now the hadeeths are the narrations of that sunnah. So Allah blessed His nation with a mighty sword (metaphorical) by which the leaders and defenders of this sunnah battled the enemies of Allah the disbeleivers, the non muslims, and t he heretical people of innovations within Islam. This noble weapon is called the isnaad. The hadeeth sciences are very crucial and learning it is as such sense part of the sciences of hadeeth has to do with uloomul-rijaal or the knowledge of men (the narrators). So this knowledegas the people of knowledge and hadeeth said that "this knowledge (meaning the knowledge knowing and narrating hadeeth only raises in status the truthful) so through this science, the leaders of knowledge of this nation were able to seperate the weak, fabricated, and made up hadeeth with that which is authentically reported from the prophet salallahu alaihi wa salam. And by this the promise of Allah came to pass when e, the Most High, said "And surely We will protects it (the Islam). so the quraan and the sunnah have been preserved and protected and along with it its explanation to both, which is why Islam is so stirct regarding if adherence to it as it allows no room for open interpretation from the ignorants and those who wish to distort islam whether outside or from within.

So since this is the case then Hawk said

Even though many muslims will say the hadith are fallible, they cannot do away with the sunnah.
The Mohammed's actions were highly questionable in the light of Jesus
eg: a man who tells one of his followers to lie (liar) to be able to apporach an adversary, that he may kill him.
______________________________

First of All I am not aware of this. Were did you get this narration from. On top of this, if the narration is authentic, then I know with a sure knowledge thatthere is a reason behind it by which its reason became hidden to you.

On top of this you people only preach one side of what Jesus is according to your book and that side is your side.
While you make the world perceiving to beleive that Jesus was only a nice hearted man (and thats it) your own book testifies to the truthfulness and legitimacy of defending the religion of Allah when he (Jesus) alaihi salam in which he expicitly and CLEARLY said "Think not that I came to send peace on the earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword" and if my memory is correct thisis in Mathew in chapter 10 but I dont know which verse.
So this shows the religionfo Allah on earth that it must be adhered to.

On top of this there are clear and explicit narration from the words of your so called "lord" and "savior" (allegedlly) that whoever rejects him has nothing to do with the kingdom of heaven and whoever does nto mention him (beleive inhim) shall not be mentioned tot he father. Sio it is very clear that whoever rejects Jesus is condemned, but Im not worried as I due respect him and those who say they accept him as the "savior" actually reject him and even Jesus rejects yall in the very bible byu which Allahj says as well that Jesus will be questioned regarding the actions of his so called followerd by which Jesus replies to Allah " Ya Allah, you know me, I had no right to tell them to worship me". I forget which surah bu there is also a passage in t he bible of this effect rejecting the actions of his followers. But anyways

asalamu alaikum

noori

10th April 2005, 12:16

it was said
it is a matter of FREE WILL ,it self in quran allah say
wa man sah yumin ,waman sha yafkur
whoever wish to believe ,let them believe and who ever deny let them deny
when Allah has given us this freedom of will and HE will judge us according to our choise ..why should you point fingers on others
______________________________________________

Allah pointed at them. I only manifested what He the Most High satted about them. I dont say anyone is condemned. Allah had already made the furqaan (the criterion) and I only stated that which Allah has stated. me stating what Allah said about them is not pointing a finger at them and is definately not judging them.

you said

why are we so QUICK to judge who are momin or kafir , ahl-kitabh or not- ahl kitabh ...
" READ the beautiful message of quran by (reflecting) not by taking others people opinion and folowing blindly ..it will remove many misconceptions ... such things are called SPIRITUAL IMPURITIES in quranic language ..
____________________

[QUOTE]
Shirk nullifies all good deeds, as Allaah the Exalted said, ‘‘And if they associate others with Allaah, whatever they have done is nullified.’’ [Sooratul-An’aam 6:88]
And Allaah the Exalted said, ‘‘And it was already revealed to you and to those before you, that if you should associate anything with Allaah, your work would surely become worthless, and you would surely be amongst the losers.’’
So this is the general ruling for all who fall in to this category. If a person meets Allah with the beleif of shirk in their hearts, then what He has revealed is upon him or her

TRUE, I am not "nullifying any command of god" DONOT JUDGE ME
as there are people who believe in GOD there are others who dis-believe ,there are people in ahl-kitabh who do shirk and there are others who donot...if you have personally come in contact with such christians who believe in ONENESS of GOD (not concept of trinity you would have not said this) ..you have to expand your understanding about (ahl-kitabh)there are same as they were at the time of prophet ,
some believers among them and others NOT.

Even in muslims there are some believers among us, some not ..i know people who are in fold of islam but donot follow any commands .....(what would you say about them) what will be there END ... quran talk about variety of people ,their inner attitude towards god ..any one who does SHIRK is NOT forgiven by god " in nallah la yagh faru ayn yusk rika bihi"
ALLAH will not forgive one who does shirk.....there is no dispute about it .. but AGAIN this is not my business b/c ONLY allah is aware of our inner attitude and faith ...WE cannot look in other people heart ..so avoid making judgements about others...

.
I hope you can come to beleive one day that which Allah has revealed because appearently your view which you stated "what if some one you think is kafir or non-believer, is pious in the sight of Allah due to his love of god " is totally against what Allah and His messenger revealed

i say that b/c in my heart i am fearful of ALLAH "he is THE ONLY ONE AWARE none can make judgements it is HIS JOB not mine ,what is with in us is ONLY known to HIM ... EDUCATE your self in the meanings of KAFIR,KUFR ,ahl- kitabh(difference in ahl-kitabh..among them are believers and among them are non belivers) do not take words literally there is always lesson to learn from such example when given about kufar,shirk not to point fingers to others but to learn a lesson and purify our self
..
EVEN those muslims who fall IN TO KUFR (in gratitude ,ungreatfullness) will have their deeds nullify too ... (learn the arabic meaning of kufr..and how many times and how it is used in quran ..learn arabic grammer and try to understand the spiritual lesson in it ... i have been teaching quran for many years .. i know what i am talking about...

QAD AFLAHA MAN ZAKAHA
one who purify hiimself/herself will prosper in the sight of Allah
we should think have we STRUGGLE to purify our self what will happen if you are suddenly faced with death ... how pointing fingers to others will save us in the sight of ALLAHprophet mohammed (PBUH) WAS CHOOSEN AS PROPHET ,HE WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY ,we are not given that AUTHORITY .. we are not to make judgements

I.

Al-Boriqi

10th April 2005, 14:16

Two things Noori.

1. As for ahlil-kitaab, then the understanding by ahlul-hadeeth is that there is no more. And the ones who do reject the concept of trinity like some denominations do, some still do things in the name of Jesus (shirk) and even those who do not and fulfill the absolute monotheism then the ruling of Muhammad comes to them when he told Umar radhiyallahu anhu after he caught Umar reading the Torah that "Ya Umar, if the prophet Musa were here in our times he would surely follow me"
attesting to the fact that those earlier revealed scriptures and those who truely beleived have been abrogated by the completion of Islam. On top of this Allah said to all mankind that no other faith will be accepted.

2. as for the beleifs and condemnation then it applies to any and all, even the muslims. whoever (muslims or nonmuslim) does not beleive in the Islamic directives, and choses a fatih other than it, then that which Allah said would come to pass on such a people will come to pass most definately. If a muslims does shirk and ifthe proofs come to him that this is faslehood, and that muslims rejects, then he has also rejected himself out of Islam.

Also, one of the nullifiers of Islam is if a Muslim beleives that their is some hidayaah (guidance) or that there could be some truth to the other religions, then he has ejected himself out of the fold of Islam if the proofs have already been established against him.

asalamu alaikum

xp²

10th April 2005, 22:25

Peace/Salaam Hawk,

I can understand your feelings, and they are valid to some extent, because of the way in which that verse was presented. (i.e. 9:5)

However, I hope you are open enough to acknowledge, that as humans, we are fallible and prone to mistakes. This deficiency in our being should not have a significant effect on the truth of any given matter, aslong as we are sincere and continually seeking.

Personally, I disagree with alot of muslims, and at times they get on my nerves in their propagation of Islam. In fact, for a great part of my life, I was driven away from the beautiful teachings of Prophet Muhammad, not because of any fault of the Prophet, but rather because of the shortcomings of his followers. In my teenage years, I was averse to Islam. The message of Islam has always been the same, but my faculty of vision and understanding was lacking, in that I couldn't differentiate between the character of muslims and what Islam truly represents.

However, at the same time, I feel blessed by God, to have been given a clear and sharp vision, which allows me to come to terms and be at peace with what I have experienced. I can understand now why muslims do what they do, and see the reasons behind it. I also understand that I am not burdened with a position or authority to drive others away from their religion, or to damn others to hell as disbelievers or kafirs. Everyone will come before their Lord, and have to answer for their actions and speech. They will be bare and alone, and regret a great part of their lives, if they failed to learn the lessons of life.

Because of that, I try my utmost to live with no regrets. Although I have done questionable and shameful deeds in my past, I don't regret them. This can be considered blasphemy to some, and they might think; he doesn't regret his sins! but why should I? I feel that anything else would be disrespect or disharmony with the divine decree. My only fault could be the failure to seek out the hidden meanings and wisdom behind all actions, and to profit from it by learning.

Diamonds come from the deep ground. They are usually surrounded and covered with dirt and soil, but a diamond is still a diamond.

If I were to liken that gem to truth, I would say there is a diamond in every one of us, but it is covered over with the dust of our being. To find and view that heavenly jewel in it's pristine form, we have to dig deep within ourselves through all the negativity that we can keep throwing over it. Sometimes, lower, base desires and whims can pollute the scene of Reality, with our own wishful thinking or fantasy. We shouldn't settle for anything less than seeing the truth as the truth. Not the truth, with a cobweb of illusion covering it, which we might weave so that it is to our liking. The difficulty in this path, is that we have a nafs, an ego, which can oppose us. The Prophet said about that, it's like a horse... unless you grab on its reins and direct it, it will run wild and in all manner of directions. Thus, what is being alluded to here, is that we have to tame our horse, to 'break it in', so that we can mount it and put it to use. And useful it can be. It is the means by which we can reach the King's palace. However, that horse/dust is not allowed to enter, only the rider, the soul.

That journey is our life. We are given a wild horse, and some guidance, and told to return to the God. If we are smart, we will utilize what we have and make for a smooth ride, before there comes a time when every wild horse will automatically be headed in the same direction, tame or untame, and that ride will not necessarily be bump free.

Jesus said that if you come to know the truth, the truth shall set you free. That freedom is not a naturally wild horse, but one that has been tamed yet runs wild and free under your command. Jesus aswell as the other Prophets are those who have been to the King's palace, and have returned under His order, to help the rest of us get our ride's going.

That freedom and liberty which the Prophets spoke of, will not profit us aught, if we are superficial about it. That true and deep peace is profound, and allows one the comfort and security to be in harmony with all apparent chaos. A person once said, everyone loves good people, that is easy; the art is in learning how to love the bad people.

That freedom which comes from subduing the nafs, is what allows one to accept and acknowledge truth, even if it comes at the hands of an enemy. If our allegiance is to the Truth, then truth prevails... but if we are slaves to our selves and our self-interests, then truth can be a bitter pill. But truth doesn't have to be bitter, it should be sweet. Truth is only bitter for falsehood, because it is annihilated, just as darkness before Light.

Anyway.

Others here have explained that verse (9:5), but let me just remind you on a few points, and the importance of context. I am sure that if you took out a little time to read the first few verses of Surah 9, you would see for yourself the real circumstances of that revelation, and its implications. Throughout the Quran, there are references to the mocking attitude of the rejectors, but interestingly, there are verses which say 'We know what they say, but you are not one to dispose of their affairs', or 'you are not one to compell them to believe' and that 'bear with patience at what they say'. This is the clemency of the Author of Quran, which continued to call the people to Islam, day after day, year after year, even though some of these people were hostile and arrogant.

During all this time, the muslims were forbidden by God, to launch any war as a collective people. Instead, they had to bear their transgressions, and were commanded to forgive them [45:14]. Yet despite the moral superiority of the believers in that time, they were still wrongly attacked and taunted. and for what? Just because they were muslims and said that their Lord is Allah alone. The rejectors, knew that Islam was the truth and their hearts had no decision in affirming or denying the Prophethood of the Messenger... but their tongues and their hands betrayed their heart's, because they couldn't see profit, but only loss, in terms of their superficial desires for the world of dust. That desire led them to not only reject, but to actively strive on the offensive against the muslims from practising their faith or living in peace.

Even so, the Prophet made peace treaties with them, on terms which were mostly in favor of the rejectors. Despite all this, the enemies of Islam broke their word, and fought on the offensive. Naturally, this invoked the divine punishment. Sometimes it comes in the form of floods, showers and other natural disasters, and sometimes at the hands of the faithful. Even with the decree of punishment looming over their heads, they were given the chance to repent from their ways, and be received into mercy.

Now, anyone is free to take verses out of context or distort their reality, but it doesn't mean it will hold up to a careful and sincere study. Al-Qaeda may try to cite verses like that to rally support for their cause, but it means nothing more, than anyone trying to use the Bible to support slavery or burning witches, for example.

Al-Qaeda have done a great harm to the cause of Islam. Anyone who is familiar with their ideology, may think that when the Quran is talking about fighting, that it somehow means to join the ranks of al-qaeda and employ their tactics, confusing it over the actual teachings and noble ethics of Islam.

While this should be enough to explain that verse, let me quote you one other, which should dispel any doubts;

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

If there's anything else, just let me know.

Take care.

Al-Boriqi

10th April 2005, 22:49

Al-Qaeda have done a great harm to the cause of Islam. Anyone who is familiar with their ideology, may think that when the Quran is talking about fighting, that it somehow means to join the ranks of al-qaeda and employ their tactics, confusing it over the actual teachings and noble ethics of Islam.

100 percent pure truth. May Allah sever there affairs for bringing more harm to Islam than benefit.

They twist the text in a way to suit their own desires by which our prophet wanrned us of them when he said "And if they were here now, I would hunt them down and kill them" which was a hadeeth about the khawarij.

So the ruling on such a people Islamically in a Islamic state is that they are to be hunted down and killed, due to their harm they bring to the muslims and Allah's refuge is sought.

asalamu alaikum

noori

12th April 2005, 22:14

[

Also, one of the nullifiers of Islam is if a Muslim beleives that their is some hidayaah (guidance) or that there could be some truth to the other religions, then he has ejected himself out of the fold of Islam if the proofs have already been established against him.

You have made such a statement that i am compelled to ask you " what is your sourse of knowledge"
have you devoted many nights of you life studying quran ?
where is your knowledge coming from ? or is it your emotional response ?

b/c if you are saying that who ever think that there is TRUTH to any other religion has ejected himself from the fold of islam .... this is mentioned by YOUSAF ALI who has translated quran " that there is a spark of truth in other religions " so according to u , that one person who has devoted his life to god and translated quran that is read allover the world by many, according to you is OUT OF FOLD OF ISLAM ??????

it could be very possible that your understanding is limited ...and may be YOU ARE FAILING TO SEE THAT NO MATTER IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE OR NOT THERE HAVE BEEN MESSANGERS OF GOD IN PAST IN MANY NATIONS (speaking different languages in different time and age...so may be the truth is not shining due to the changes in scripture but the SPARK OF TRUTH IS THERE .. you just need spiritual eyes to see it......and hope you will be able to see that ...

Vajradhara

12th April 2005, 23:08

Salaam al-Izaaree,

thank you for the post.

Vajradhara:

so... do i understand you correctly here... it is not good deeds engaged in with a kind heart that allows a person to enter the ranks of beings with whom Allah is pleased?

Yes, because the deeds have to be based on a foundation. The foundation is la ilaha ilallah muhammada rasulullah

as it turns out, i don't speak Arabic :) can you translate the Arabic phrase please?

in our view, ethical and moral actions are predicated on the relative spiritual development of the being. the foundation, as it were, in our paradigm is Bodhichitta, or, the Heart of Compassion.

I was referring to the matter generally and not specifically sicne I cant say that anyone can go to heaven or hell. So I was speaking between the hearts that beleive and disbeleive, and not "well john and frank are going to the fire".

fair enough. it seems a bit moot to go on about it then, doesn't it?

This was said in response to my saying that we dont say that he is in the fire (the pope). That is why we dgo off of that which is appaerent. The rule applies for all and everyone even a muslim. Ifa muslims was knoown to be a munafiq (a true inward disbeleiver in Islam, and outwardly [professes and practices it) and his munafiq hood has been known and established by the muslims, then we say that he was a munafiq and died a death of a munafiq,

well.. true.. you can claim that. that claim, however, does not make it so. from what i have learned of your tradition, Allah isn't all that pleased when humans go running about saying who will be saved and who will not. strictly speaking within your paradigm, are you certain that this is the wisest course of action to engage in? isn't there some particular thing that happens to a Muslim that presumes to be able to judge another?

the same with a christian, that he died a death of a christian, the same with a jew, that he died the death of a jew, the same with a hindu tha he died a death of a hindu, the same with a budhist, that he died a death of a budhist,

well... you couldn't really say that about a Buddhist... but i take your meaning.

the same with a muslim who dies a death of a muslim, and Allah says to all who profess faith, "do not die except in a state of Islam" (being Muslim). So what is known is that the pope died in a state that is known (that he is a christian) and no one says that he was a muslim.

however, you do not know and cannot know the actual condition of his heart. let's try not to presume upon our knowledge of other people spiritual conditions too much, if we can help it.

This was due to an ayaah that I quoted. So let me point out to you the reason for this and when it is to be done. The ayaah was reveled when the idol worshipers were persecuting the Muslims vehemtly along with the jews. This ayaah was in the defense of the muslims since before this ayaah came down the muslims were just taking the attacks. So it is like enough is enough, and at this time they were able to do such a thing (retaliate).

of course, this is one area where our two traditions have a great deal of difference. revenge is never a positive thing, in our view.

On top of this one has to weigh the quran with the quran, the sunnah with the quran, the quran qwith the sunnah, and know that which is clear and unclear, that which is abrogating and the abrogated, and so on and so forth.

i understand that this is how it is in your tradition. for my own part, i have confined myself to Al Qur'an and have not read the Sunnah or any of the Ahadiths. i'm not equipped and, honestly, not very motivated, to spend the time it would take to be able to discern for myself which Ahadith that i would view as reliable and which is not.

So the ayaah that puts another angle to look at the one you commented one is that Allah says "except those who come to you in peace". So you see that there is additional knowledge to this that was hidden form you and due to my humanhood overlooked to explain that ayaah for you.

well... it's not really "hidden" in the sense of being unfindable or unseen. it is in Al Qur'an, yes? if so, then i can find it easily enough, i'd hope :)

i'm clear enough on the concept of warfare in the Arabic culture and the means for conducting it.

So its not that the muslim can just go and run around crazy and kill people of this beleif just for the heck of it,

clearly; and i hope that you don't think that this is my view. my view is that no sentient being has the right to kill another sentient being.

sicne what is with us are principles, and this is the propblem that many non muslims realize that everything Islam has its place and time and we stick to the principles and we must now that which is first and so on and so forth.

i'm not sure that i follow.. could you rephrase, please?

On top of this I hope I have explained by way of this how serious and open to deviation it is when one just refers to the ayaah alone and understands them in the way they wish or according to what their intellects allow them to understand.

do not scholars of Islam also understand based on their intellect? whilst i completely understand the nature of concensus and it's value, i am not convinded that my intellect is deficient in some manner which would preclude me from being able to rationally investigate and understand a teaching.

as such, why should i not use my own reasoning and intellect to come to decisions that are, in the end, only going to effect me?

you said
"Im sorry, who?
The prophet Luqman

who is the prophet Luqman?

al-Iz:
said as Allah reveled that the greatest of all injustice on earth, the greatest, even greater than the kinlling of innocent blood, greater than wars and imperialism and tyranny, is shirk.

Vaj:
wow. talk about a different world view

That is because all, all, all injustice to man, himself, to others is the negation of tawheed (that Allah is alone and one without partners, and nothing from creation can be Him) which is shirk, is the base for all injustice.

clearly, we have a different ontological view in this regard.

the reason for all injustice on earth is due to this concept

which is a nice religious view but doesn't seem to have much consonance with reality. i suppose that it serves its purpose as well as any of the other ideas regarding this topic.. so who am i to complain? i simply do not see it in the same way... but... i will strive for the same goals for a different reason. perhaps that will be sufficient for now.

and the injustices done by the muslims is due to them leaving the book and the sunnah behind their backs.

this is a much more defensible statement. i would tend to agree, from what i know of Islam, with your view set forth here.

Shirk is associating partners along with Him, It is also disbeleiving in His existance

hmm... are you certain that this is so?

because the atheist or agnostic

you know those are different views on the issue, right?

is also a mushrik (one who does shirk) and has the same ruling as one due to their transfring the creational abilites of Allaha and other attirbutes that are soley His and transfering them to other than Him like nature, the big bang or whatever.

agnostics don't disbelieve... they don't believe either. they say that they simply don't know... for a variety of reasons. just ask some and you'll find out.

Enslavement is not like people think. usually when people think of it, it is like the way they see the slaves in the ten commandment or the slaves of the 17th and 18th century of America.

i, personally, think of serfs.. but that's just me.

In Islam slavery is totally different with right beyond what any non mulims has given a slave of rights.

oh? how do you know that this is so?

As for me and you this is doen only in a state of war.I cant just walk up to your house or those like you and claim you.

well.. that's probably a good thing, then, isn't it?

The concept of associating none with Allah is great.

well.. i'm glad that we agree :)

It entails that nothing from the creation has any of his attirbutes like healing the sick,

ok.. so what are antibodies? what about penicillin?

removing harm and placing good upon His servants, not praying or supplicatin to other than him in hope of Him answering it, not supplicating to the righteous person or the saint or thinking that they will get you closer to Him.

well... excellent! i do none of these things and in fact, our teachings also instruct us not to engage in these types of practices.

There are many works in Islam dedicated to this field in of itself. Again as I have said before that all of it has to be in accordance with the sunnah which is Islam as Allah said to those who profess faith "do not die except in a state of Islam"

i thought that Al Qur'an was, by itself, sufficient. are you saying that it actually isn't sufficient and requires the commentary to be sufficient? interesting view.

Allah

you replied with Allah when i asked the "someone" that all monotheists would agree upon. would you like to reconsider your answer?

Indicators of faith is not faith otself. Example if a christian or whoever said "God is One" that is an indication of faith and a statement by truth.

yes.. i see... provided that the statement agrees with your formulations, it's a statement of truth :)

But there is what you call nullifiers of faith.

interesting... so, if i can extrapolate. in your view, a being is either completely correct or completely wrong. they can not have a dissenting view or even profess a misunderstanding and remain within their statement of faith.

wow... i'm glad that my tradition isn't like this.

So for example if a muslim says la ilaha ilallah Muhammada rasulullah and then he says that Ali is Allah after the proofs are presented to him otherwise then his testification of faith is nullified because in the sattement of tawheed "No one is owrthy of worship except Allah alone" in it is a negation and an affirmation.

do you have a Qur'anic source for this view? i don't recall seeing it before, thanks.

The negation is everything that is not Allah and the affirmation is only for Allah. So when he says that Ali is Allah then he just lied in contrast to his testification.

hmm... so here... you are able to read anothers mind and know their heart. how are you certain that this being is simply not mistaken? one can be mistaken without being a liar.

Again if someone comes to me and says this statement and says that Muhamamd is God then he nullified his testification. If someone says this and they say that Jesus is God then he has nullified his testification. These are what you call nullifiers of Islam.

they are what you call nullifers of Islam... i am not certain that i can assent to that proposition at this time.

If one goes to the grave for worship or to su[pplicate to tyhem or the likes then these actions have nullified the testimony of one who testifies that "there is no god worthy of worship except Allah alone" and Muhammad is His messenger".

i disagree. i'm pretty certian that your religion is like mine in that each being is held responsible for their own actions. thus, you saying something would not effect me in any shape, form or fashion. and the same is true of me to you.

if a Muslim comes with the beleif that the quran is the only revelation and not the sunnah (the authentic hadeeth) then they have nullified their estification.

do you have a Qur'an source for this view? i'm pretty certain that Al Qur'an claims that it is complete and sufficient for guidance. it seems that you do not view this as so. interesting view point, i must say.

So it is very clear that the quranic ayah that extols good deeds are through faith, and faith lies in the path of Muhamamd just as faith lied in the path of Jesus before Muhammad, and just as faith lied in all the prophets and in Moses before Jesus alaihi salatu salam.

i'm not sure how clear it is, at this time. i'll have a better understanding when i have a chance to review the Qur'anic sources for your claims.

I didnt come across this.

clearly :) Christianity has a depth of view that many beings are not aware of.

Im strictly talking about the orthodox view of the church which was catholocism, since all these other ways are actually considered heretic by the orthodox view.

well... which is it? the Orthodox view or the Catholic view? they are not the same. naturally, any view that does not fit within the paradigm is considered to be heretical.. this is true in every religion that i'm aware of.

hawk

13th April 2005, 02:32

of course, this is one area where our two traditions have a great deal of difference. revenge is never a positive thing, in our view.

Violence begets violence.
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

We are taught in christianity that the circle of violence can only be broken when one realises, that any power the other has over you, is what you give them.
Thus if one acts, rather than reacts, to combat the violence, then one has effectively broken the chain of misery.

xp²

13th April 2005, 18:12

Violence begets violence.
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

We are taught in christianity that the circle of violence can only be broken when one realises, that any power the other has over you, is what you give them.
Thus if one acts, rather than reacts, to combat the violence, then one has effectively broken the chain of misery.

Peace Hawk,

Does that view, make you look at that verse of the Quran, in a negative light?

While I agree with having some self-restraint, and choosing forgiveness and mercy over retaliation, but there has to be some balance. This mindset can work on an individual level, but overall, there has to be some law and order, or chaos will ensue.

Or do you feel that there shouldn't be any laws?

Al-Boriqi

13th April 2005, 18:42

To noori,

This is a well known established principle amongst ahlu-sunnah that when soemone beleives that there is hidayah in other than Ilam, then this nullifies ones Islam which is because of disbeleif in Allahs statement that well actually I'll let you read it with the proofs from the quraan and the sunnah on the pdf I will upload inshallah for you as you seem to not know this principle and actually there are ten concepts that can negate Islam if the muslim comes to adopt these concepts and then given the proof for the invalidity of their holding these concepts.

Yusif Ali was an Ashari, muatazilee, and I beleive a qadiyani or some other group in his beleifs. His interpretation fo the Quraan is to be left due to the misguidance due that it contains, yet his translations is good.

I cant reply to you Vaj right now cuz your post is long and i gotta go in a sec

to Hawk you said

Violence begets violence.
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

We are taught in christianity that the circle of violence can only be broken when one realises, that any power the other has over you, is what you give them.
Thus if one acts, rather than reacts, to combat the violence, then one has effectively broken the chain of misery.

Two things 1. I guess Jesus died by the sword as he said that he came to bring it. 2. I also guess that the church teaches you something other than what jesus alaihi salam taught his followers

hawk

13th April 2005, 21:09

Peace Xp2;

Indeed i would see that as being a problem in Islam, for the truth of the matter is that violence only begets violence it is the law of the world, to break this law, we have to turn away from our nafs.

I was hard pressed on this issue a while ago, by the argument that Naziism had to be fought with violence.

Until one of the christians "lamp" i think pointed out that "it was 6 million jews dying" that caused naziism to be defeated, it wasnt the british who invaded germany.

Do we have to fight???

But then you think about religion, religion exists to bring you closer to God, it cannot be exorting you to make war.
That just doesnt make sense.

Think about it this way, if the whole world believed that violence does not solve our problems , would we ever need to go to war???

Now think about the wars we have fought right through history, do we fight that many wars today???
No, we do not, because we are realising the truth of the statement "If you live by the sword , so shall you die"

As more people (muslim, christian, buddhist, santana dharma) realise the natural law of God, we will turn away from war completely.

Tell me if all the world were muslim, would war still be ordained for muslims?
So why should a life have less value when the life is not muslim?

32. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

33. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

you see this verse is often used to say, that islam forbids killing, but look at the next verse, anyone who commits excesses shall be killed/crucified etc etc

What are excesses in the land???

Excesses in the land may be understood to be preaching christianity or judaism or God forbid teaching Santana Dharma or buddhism(which i consider to be a path of truth) along with islam in some sense.

Islam teaches its adherents many good things, but i would never be able to subscribe to its philosophies.

In christianity, we are here to emulate Christ, to serve mankind as he served us, to teach as was taught to us.

To be close to God, we must serve each other, because we are created in His image and likeness.

hawk

13th April 2005, 21:22

Two things 1. I guess Jesus died by the sword as he said that he came to bring it. 2. I also guess that the church teaches you something other than what jesus alaihi salam taught his followers

Al Izaaree

The verses in question are explicit.

Matthew 10:34 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Very clearly Jesus isnt talking about fighting, he is saying, that one must be ready to even fight with ones immediate family, to follow God.
To deny Jesus Christ, God, is to lose ones life.

But how does one lose ones life?

To lose ones life is to be cut off from the Truth, the Life, and the Path.
To be cut off from the light.

To be in the absence of God.

Does this mean all non-christians are going to hell???

NO, it means if you are christian, and you do not adhere to christian teachings you shall be inviting destruction.

xp²

13th April 2005, 22:50

Peace Hawk,

I am not sure if less wars have been waged in recent times, than further back in history. May be someone has some statistics on that, but I was under the impression that the wars and fighting has been quite bloody in the 20th century.

Turning the other cheek is noble, and an ideal to strive for. I don't doubt that. Similar principles of forgiveness and mercy over revenge is even expressed in the Quran. However, while it is ideal, in a larger context.. it is not always realistic.

I don't really understand your question about the world being muslim, and wether war would still be ordained for them. It isn't about fighting non-muslims, in Islam. War is meant to be a struggle and fight against oppression and injustice, regardless of religious affiliation.

If there was no one to uphold the law, and enforce justice, there would be great corruption throughout the earth. People don't always obey God or refrain from bad deeds, just because it is the right thing to do.. on the contrary, many people will restrain themselves for fear of punishment and retaliation. Besides, not everyone is religious. What would you do against a militant athiest who believes that theists are inferior creatures and should be wiped out? Survival of the fittest. What would stop him?

Humans, aswell as other creatures, generally tend to operate on a reward/punishment basis. If there is profit, they follow it.. if there is harm for themselves, they avoid it. This is the general rule.

On a basic level, why else would our religions talk of heaven and hell? It is that appeal to our basic natures.

As for that verse, it is referring to 'waging war', and causing corruption in the land, on a large scale. This could be classed as treason, or any other crime which threatens the stability of the society and the safety of its people. It does not translate as 'preaching X religion'.

So I am left wondering now, if establishing justice for some peace in the land, is viewed in a negative light, or is a problem for Islam. How do you look at the wars, which Moses took part in? and Joshua, and any others which are mentioned in the Bible? What about the flood of Noah, and the other natural disasters... are they not 'the sword of God'? Do you view God's commands from the Old Testament as a problem, in the same way you look at Islam?

xp²

13th April 2005, 23:39

Come on Hawk!

We're both online, so look at this thread first. I'm eagerly awaiting your response. :D

Al-Boriqi

13th April 2005, 23:43

To Vaj

as it turns out, i don't speak Arabic can you translate the Arabic phrase please?

inside of brakets is meaning and outside brakets is the english equivalent

There is no deity worthy of worship (nwhether it be man, animal, rock, tree, money, self, angel, prophet, messenger, muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, food, planets, science, medicine, or anything in the universe) except Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of that God who is Alah, the God, of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Jesus alaihi salatu salam. So this is the best meaning I could summon for you

fair enough. it seems a bit moot to go on about it then, doesn't it?

Thats because everybody (even the muslims) seem to negate what has been established in the religion so that is why there is so much stess.

well.. true.. you can claim that. that claim, however, does not make it so. from what i have learned of your tradition, Allah isn't all that pleased when humans go running about saying who will be saved and who will not. strictly speaking within your paradigm, are you certain that this is the wisest course of action to engage in? isn't there some particular thing that happens to a Muslim that presumes to be able to judge another?

This warning is for the muslim. The prophet said "whoever makes takfeer on his fellow muslim then the takfeer goes on one of them" there are other hadeeths through various routes of transmission. So this threat is between muslim to muslim, and never did it apply between muslim and non muslim and this was never the undertsanding and no muslim can find this in the quraan, the sunnah nor any of the statements of the early generations of muslims. So the warning about pronouncing takfeer (to excommunicate from Islam) is for the muslims from muslim to muslim.

And then you say that Allah isn't pleased when humans run around about being saved. In reply then no one ever claimed so and I gave my position about myself in another thread so I definately am far removed from such an action as some have mistakenly perceived about me.

you said

however, you do not know and cannot know the actual condition of his heart. let's try not to presume upon our knowledge of other people spiritual conditions too much, if we can help it.

Faith in the heart requires action or else the faith is useless. So the actions of the pope was not the actions of Islam and his profession of the tongue was defiantely not Islam, so his heart is what. ToAllah made the actions and the tongue a reflection of that which is in the heart. On top of this the muslim IS to judge by that which is appearent. example, we are not permitted to allow the dead of other than the muslims to be buried along with the muslims. So If the pope just so happened to be in my country and we were in a court (lets say) I would have to prove him to be a muslim in order for him to be buried along with the muslims. But if i was the attorney trying to make the pope a muslim I would be bankrupt as there is no evidence of this ever being the case. So therefore that which is known is that he was a christian.

You see if I died then the inward thought of everyone here is that IO was a muslim whne I died. No one in their sane mind would say that I was a christian or a jew or anything else. The same goes for my man Hawk. If he passed away no one would consider that he died a death of a muslim, rather he died a death of a christian. So the muslim goes by that which is known and the heart is for Allah and that which is known is usually what that is in the heart. So I cannot say that "oh Vaj your not a budhist" If I did that then I would be judging you in the wrong form of judgement, but If I said to people "yeah Vaj is a budhist" then I would be revealing that which is correct openly.

So it is clear in an ayaah that Allah said "oh ye who beleive (meaning those who actually beleive in God, do not die (command) except in a state of Islam." So it is known that the pope did not die in a state of Islam. This in itself is rejection of Allah's command on humanity for those who beleived from mankind. So this is why we say that he died the death of a christian and will be judged as such.

you said

of course, this is one area where our two traditions have a great deal of difference. revenge is never a positive thing, in our view.

1. Allah also said "and to restrain yourself is better" so Allah said not revenging is better. But not all revenge is permissible in Islam anyway. Yet a type of revenge is better than not doing nothing at all. example, if you had a child and someone killed it, due you think that that should just remain. or do you think that some type of retribution on this person (that killed your child) is not good at all as you have said.

Well in the time of the companions anf the prophet it was either do that which Allah let them to do or face annialation (since the polytheists were slaughtering them). So logically when your people are about to become extinct tthen one or such a people would come to nothing except defence.

Example, the palestinians who have been thrown out of their own homes literally because foreigners gave THEIR land to other foreigners and on top of loosing their homes while being raped at the same time in losing their homes, they were also being killed off just because they existed. So no their very existance has been in jeopardy, so the logical thing to do or the human thing to do is what. I'll let you answer that.

you said

i understand that this is how it is in your tradition. for my own part, i have confined myself to Al Qur'an and have not read the Sunnah or any of the Ahadiths. i'm not equipped and, honestly, not very motivated, to spend the time it would take to be able to discern for myself which Ahadith that i would view as reliable and which is not.

two points. 1. If you only have or know some of quran then really your not in a position to use it and apply it to muslims and say "this is how it should be or done" as ignorance of the rest of the religion has to be wieghed along with knowledeg that you have of the religion.

2. you are not in a postion to decipher and delve into the sciences of which hadeeth are week and strong. not even the more knowledgeable of muslims can do that. This is a field like that of medicine where it takes a lifetime and then some to master. Out of over a billion in a half muslims in the world there was only one who truely mastered the feild in this age and that was Muhammad Naasru-Deen al-Albanee who had memorised 100,000 hadeeths along with its chain of narration along with those people of the sunnah from the schoalrs of the past to present in what they said about those hadeeths.
So as you can see that the feilfd of hadeeth is probably the most hardest part of the religion since it is so intense and takes much time. Im not saying this to spark an interest in you rather for clarification to plainly put that you are definately not in a position to authenticate and prove hadeeth to be false and true.

you said

clearly; and i hope that you don't think that this is my view. my view is that no sentient being has the right to kill another sentient being.

Thats were we differ because another condition is put on what you said by Allah and that is "unless by due right" meaning that that human has casued oppression and killing and turmoil, like Usman bin laden. If I was governer then his recompense in this life is that I chop his head off. So accoding to you then he should just live and let bygons be bygons so to speak

you said

i'm not sure that i follow.. could you rephrase, please?

That we have principles that wer follow. Certain actions haveto be followed up by clarity or certain things have to be wieghed wityh others before we act. Example in an Islamic court if I wanted to accuse brother ansaar of being a Jahmee (one who negates Allah's attributes) then I would have to come with proof for my claim as the prophet said "the burden of proof is upon the claiment". On top of this the judge has to verify my proofs before he gave his ruling. This is just a corny example but I hope this serves as clarity.

you said
_________________
do not scholars of Islam also understand based on their intellect? whilst i completely understand the nature of concensus and it's value, i am not convinded that my intellect is deficient in some manner which would preclude me from being able to rationally investigate and understand a teaching.

as such, why should i not use my own reasoning and intellect to come to decisions that are, in the end, only going to effect me?
___________________________________
The first part of your question then they use their intellects as the last source for guidance not the first because as we say again "all good is in following the way of the predecessors, and al evil is in following the later day generations. That is because instead of relying on the texts the way they should be undertood like the companions id and their implementaion the later day peoples used their own intellects, whims, and desires to interpret the texts.

as for the second part of your first paragraph, then the aswer is that intellects are limited to the person itself. You see intellects are affected by region (where in the world you live) , education backround) and others such features which affect the intellect. So if everyone of the muslims used their own intellects to interpret the quran then we would have a milluion more odd sects in Islam each teaching what they view the texts means to be instead of the already 1000 or so that already exist,. So you see while the intellect has some weight, using it to interpret what Allah and his messenger meant is dangerous because one is basing their beleif in that texts on their afterlife or more simplty put someone's afterlife (heaven or hell) is on the line. So If I wanted to beleive in So in so's own understanding of what the ayaah of Allah when he said "And whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed are the kafireen". So If I relied my salvation on someones interpretation of this ayaah, then they can lead me FAR astray with their interpretation of the ayaah which the end result is that I can be lead staright to the fire for allowing myself to understabnd and implement this ayaah the way so and so interpreted (due to what his intellect told him what the text meant). So since the purpose of religion is to be saved and to gain the Mercy of God and to be accepted in paradise (in monotheistic religions not yours) then it follows that you or anyone else would want t he clear and uncut version of what Allah and His messenger intended by their statements. The reason being that many statements have more than one meaning or have ways of being interpreted.

and this shoukld also be an answer to the last part of what you said about your intellect is going to affect you in the end. That is right because if your own intellect leads you to beleive in a certain text or the whole religion in other than the way it is to be understood then it follows that you have sacrifice your OWN end due to your or any one elses understanding of the texts (due ot their intellect). I will give you a real life example of the true deficieancy of intelect and their pivital effect in understadning texts regarding beleif and implementation.

A group have understood the ayaah I just mentioned ("Whoever does not rule by what Allah has revelaved then such are the kaafireen" or disbeleivers). So due to this verse a group of known as the khawarij in Islam have used this verse to implement this on the rulers of Islam meaning the Islamic governors and kings. So here is a narration that will help you to understand that using your intellects much leads to much deviation. Im trying to find it but I have to narrate it from the top of my head.

A man from the khawarij came to the ruler Caliph Haroon Rasheed (785-808 AH) and it was said by him (the khariji) "all of you rulers are kuffar (disbeleivers)", so the Caliph Haroon asked him 'What is your proof' the man replied 'The proof is in the Quraan' and he narrated the ayaah so the Caliph asked 'how do you know that it has been revealed' and so the man replied 'Because it is the consensus of the muslims who narated it' (meaning that it was narrated by the trustworthy companions and their students) and so the Caliph responded to the man 'Just as you accept the consesus of the muslims on its revelation then you should also accept the consensus of the muslims on its understanding" And so the man was of those refuted due to him using his desire and intellect and following someone who did the same in regards to the very verse I'm speaking about.

On top of this, then in our times a group adopted their way in understanding the verse due to their intellects and they are the groups likes al-qaida and those aligned with them. So you see using ones intellect can produce faulty and at times dangerous consequences land the likes of al-qaida is a pure sign and proof for what Im talking about.

So even though we use our logic and intellect sometimes, our intellects is not a proof for anything rather what does amount to proof is the understadning of the companions since they got the pure message in the way it was to be understood.

You said

which is a nice religious view but doesn't seem to have much consonance with reality. i suppose that it serves its purpose as well as any of the other ideas regarding this topic

Actually if you reflect it does. All the actions that enumerate from oppresion and killing is due to power or other things, which in of itself is shirk as Allah says in the quraan "Have you not seen one who takes his lowly desires as a god" meaning that he takes his own desires and ambitions to be his god and living his utmost for his god which is his own desire. All of this is considered shirk in Islam. So all of these actions of opression come from this.

you said

hmm... are you certain that this is so?

Yes disbeleif in His existance is certainly so.

and ton top of it both the atheits and agnostic are still the same and they differ in how they go about it.

you said

agnostics don't disbelieve... they don't believe either. they say that they simply don't know... for a variety of reasons. just ask some and you'll find out.
UI used to work with one. Yes they disbeleive. You see ignorance is not a removal of condemnation nor is it an excuse for someone to hid under on the day of judgement. So when i propagated Islam to this agnostic I used to work with, he disbeleived in it. So even though he is confused in his mind or whatever the case he is in, this does not negate the reality of his rejection of the Creator in what He has legislated for him. And on the day of judgement his aswer to Allah like "well I was still not convinced" is not going to help him or excuse him either.

You said in response to the difference between the Islamic form of slavery and other than it

oh? how do you know that this is so?

History bears witness

you said

ok.. so what are antibodies? what about penicillin?

We are not talking about medicine which helps heal. but since you wish to include that into the discusion then i can include that to because it doesnt matter all the penacillen or antidotes in the world will not save anyone or heal anyone unless He allows for it to happen anyway. The prophet said "in black seed is a healing for almost any kind of sickness except death" yet the muslim has to beleive that Allah is the one who allows it to happen. The muslim does not place total reliance on the actual medicine in and of itself as if that medicine had total and all power of healing.

you said

i thought that Al Qur'an was, by itself, sufficient. are you saying that it actually isn't sufficient and requires the commentary to be sufficient? interesting view.

As I have already demonstrated the quraan with the incorrect understanding of it is described by the prophet when he said about a people who recites it better than the companions he said " You will (meaning the companions) come across a people who's prayer seems better than yours, and their recitation of the quraan may seem better than yours but their recitation does not go past their throats" (meaning they do not have an accurate understanding of it, and this was reffering to the same group that I narrated above in regards to the khawarij who are those who revolt and excommunicate the muslim ruler based off of that verse in the quraan about ruling by other than what Allah revealed.

you said

do you have a Qur'anic source for this view? i don't recall seeing it before, thanks.

Yeah it is "None has the right to be worshiped except Allah"

you said

hmm... so here... you are able to read anothers mind and know their heart. how are you certain that this being is simply not mistaken? one can be mistaken without being a liar.

You for some reason are not getting what Im saying, More simply put if I told you that there is nothing in my cabinet, and then you open it up and t here is something then my original statement is what? a falsehood (and Im not saying the individual lied to just lie) So it is like this, that If I say that none has the right to be worshiped and yet i say Ansaar is Allah then my original testification has been nullified. Simply put two opposites cannot make a congruency. Its either one or the other. If Im not a male then Im a female. If I said the sky cannot be any color except blue and then told you that it is green then what becomes the reality of my first statement. I hope this is more clearer now.

You said

they are what you call nullifers of Islam... i am not certain that i can assent to that proposition at this time.
I dont call them this. This was the principle with the people of the sunnah, the muslims before I was even though off. I just simply learned it from them (like the people of the past and thsoe who followed them or the early generations of muslims)

you said

i disagree. i'm pretty certian that your religion is like mine in that each being is held responsible for their own actions. thus, you saying something would not effect me in any shape, form or fashion. and the same is true of me to you.

Yes each being is responsible for their own actions so I dont know how you presummed from me otherwise. So I will expound on it the way I understood that you understood what I said due to your wording. If I worshiped you or supplicated to you then you would not be held accountable for what I did with you rather I would. If it were as if you said then Jesus would suffer the consequenses of what the chrisitans do but this is not the case.

you said
do you have a Qur'an source for this view? i'm pretty certain that Al Qur'an claims that it is complete and sufficient for guidance. it seems that you do not view this as so. interesting view point, i must say.

Allah says in the quraan that "It is We who have revealed the Book (Quraan) ANDthe hikmah (arabic wisdom)" meaning that the hikmah was the sunnah. This is the tafseer of all the muffasireen (those who give exegesis and interpretation of the quraan) in that the word used by Allah "hikma" is the sunnah that was with the prophet. The both of the m are divinely inspired and are the two sources of revelation by which the Muslim refers to upon the understanding of the pious predecessors (the first three generations of muslims)

lastly you said

well... which is it? the Orthodox view or the Catholic view? they are not the same. naturally, any view that does not fit within the paradigm is considered to be heretical.. this is true in every religion that i'm aware of.

I can speak for 10 years on this so Ill keep it brief. There is no orthodox view and that which is considered orthodoz is catholocism since the protestants are the ones who split not the catholocs. On top of this any of the views of any of the sects of christiandoem is not orthodoz at all in deep honesty as 1. they lost the revelation given to them by Jesus followers as the earliest writting on the gospesl took place as early as fifty years after his disappearence. On top of this the views and beleifs are not and far removed from the views and beleifs of the messiah or Jesus alaihi salam. So therefore in honest reality there is no demoniation that is considered orthodox in the view of Jesus. If anything the ones who truely follow Jesus is the muslims but that is a whole other subject that I could care less to get into.

I hope I have brought soem mroe clarity on what you have brought

Al-Boriqi

13th April 2005, 23:44

Al-Boriqi

13th April 2005, 23:45

look

hawk

14th April 2005, 00:30

Turning the other cheek is noble, and an ideal to strive for. I don't doubt that. Similar principles of forgiveness and mercy over revenge is even expressed in the Quran. However, while it is ideal, in a larger context.. it is not always realistic.

I agree with you that it is not always realistic in our world today, but we learn from history.
There was a time when war was the only way to settle any dispute.
Yet today we have negotiating talks, and avert many many wars.
What is the path to peace in the middle-east with arabs and jews.
Was it ever war? Do you think it will ever be war?
Yet the guns are silent today, Israel is withdrawing, why??
Because peace is achieved through negotiation. We have the means to talk, we have the means to communicate, we have similar understandings of life.
We are capable of empathy.

Now let me put to you another question.
Say you were dealing with a people, who have not got the same understandings, people who kill their own babies, who sacrafice their women to satan. whos very understanding of life is so different from ours, that negotiation is not a solution you could implement.

Then you must use agressive negotiation.

Was this the case with the jewish tribes surrounding Al-madinah?
Were they so depraved that no form of negotiation was possible at all?

If there was no one to uphold the law, and enforce justice, there would be great corruption throughout the earth. People don't always obey God or refrain from bad deeds, just because it is the right thing to do.. on the contrary, many people will restrain themselves for fear of punishment and retaliation. Besides, not everyone is religious. What would you do against a militant athiest who believes that theists are inferior creatures and should be wiped out? Survival of the fittest. What would stop him?

Humans, aswell as other creatures, generally tend to operate on a reward/punishment basis. If there is profit, they follow it.. if there is harm for themselves, they avoid it. This is the general rule.

On a basic level, why else would our religions talk of heaven and hell? It is that appeal to our basic natures.

As for that verse, it is referring to 'waging war', and causing corruption in the land, on a large scale. This could be classed as treason, or any other crime which threatens the stability of the society and the safety of its people. It does not translate as 'preaching X religion'.

I think you have just supported my point.
If these people are depraved raging maniacs, obviously they do not understand the concept of turn the other cheek, nor fair play.
I grant you that there individuals like that in the world, infact there are societys controlled by lunatics like that.(North Korea)
But even these people can be made to negotiate.
The nature of the world has changed, we are more connected with the TRUE nature of ourselves than ever before.
We are moving away from a culture of death that characterised the last millenium into a culture of life.

So I am left wondering now, if establishing justice for some peace in the land, is viewed in a negative light, or is a problem for Islam. How do you look at the wars, which Moses took part in? and Joshua, and any others which are mentioned in the Bible? What about the flood of Noah, and the other natural disasters... are they not 'the sword of God'? Do you view God's commands from the Old Testament as a problem, in the same way you look at Islam?

You have to admit that the tribes in canaan were depraved.
They killed their own children, (we still do it in abortion, but thats a different debate completely, and inshallah, such a thing will stop completely as humanity realises its true self, and moves away from the culture of death we exist in. I would have no problem with Islam or muslims, if they were to understand life and respect for life in the same way that I do.
But i fear that they will never, because there will always be some lunatics who interprets it as meaning they will have to go out and kill the kaafirs and believe that God ordains it.
Why? al-izaaree has been posting justifications for why all non muslims are going to hell because God has ordained Islam as the only path.
As i pointed out, with that attitude its a small step to go toward a culture of death, as happened in the middle ages in catholic europe, surely the church was being misled in that time.
But we know better today, as I am sure muslims 500 yrs from now will look back at this period and say it was the dark ages of islam.

Do you not think that there is no room to war with anyone today, except when the people you deal with cannot negotiate with you.

xp²

14th April 2005, 02:52

Peace Hawk,

I agree with your post. There may be a few assumed misunderstandings, but overall, we are thinking along the same lines.

I am not 'pro-war' or violence. Ideally, one should always opt for peaceful negotation and resolutions. To overlook faults, and forgive. To move forward, not backward.

However, there are times, when peaceful, and non-violent methods do not work. In such cases, a war or physical struggle can be employed, as a last case resort.

Some of the laws which Islam brought, are not necessarily of a 'religous' nature. I mean, 'lowering your gaze', can be called a religious or spiritual directive, because its dealing with the heart and soul. Then there are other laws, such as 'do not steal, or murder'. This type of law is dealing with social stability and order. It keeps things ticking in a balance for this world. If someone commits murder, they can potentially pay with their life in this world, to relieve the aggrevied party's family. However, the pain that one might suffer in this world, is nothing compared to what that person will have to face in the hereafter.

Another aspect of enforcing relative justice, is that it acts as a deterrant. Keep in mind, though, that the law of Islam, has to be tempered with the spirit of Islam too. In the Quran, while it sets certain punishments, also leaves the door open for mercy and forgiveness, if one is sincerely repentant.

Anyway.

At the advent of Prophet of Islam, there were some cruel practices. For example, the people would be ashamed to have given birth to a female, and would bury them alive. They also mistreated the animals. At times, they would cut of a certain piece/bodypart of an alive animal and cook it.. while the animal was left to live, to die another day. This sort of cruelty came to a stop with Islam. However, even though the people were 'depraved', the wars could be justified without these reasons.

The muslims were being persecuted, and prevented from practising their faith freely. There were violent attacks against them throughout, and torture was not uncommon, especially in the early history of Islam. Yet the Prophet continued to preach in his peaceful manner, and invited to Islam. He also formed peace treaties with the rejectors, even though the terms were unreasonable and biased against the muslims... but for the sake of peace, the Prophet accepted it. What more could he do?

Despite the attempts for peace, the enemies of Islam continued to break their word, and would attack unsuspecting muslims. They plotted several schemes to kill the Prophet, and to eradicate Islam.. but they always failed. When in this situation, what is one supposed to do? They had no choice but to fight the oppressors. When Sa'd, a former jew, pronounced judgement on the Qurayzah tribe, according to Jewish law... he was not punishing them for one transgression, but countless wrongs, and betrayels. The jewish tribes of Madina had a pact with the muslims to protect the city together. When another jew tried to persuade one of the tribal elders, to turn against the muslims, he refused at first... saying that Prophet had been faithful and kept his word with him, and that he too would stay true to his word. But in the end, he crossed the line, and gave into the false hopes, when he was told that there was a great army gathering, which had a chance to rid the lands of Prophet and Islam, forever. In fact, the families of the muslims were living in these jewish areas, who these jews were supposed to be protecting.. but they were treacherous, and nearly caused the downfall of Islam. The only thing which made Islam survive was the Divine backing. Thus, when Sa'd pronounced judgement, he was looking at all the different factors, the treason, and how the jewish tribes had betrayed the muslims in the past. Plus, the muslims in general needed some form of justice, because of their suffering and loss.

However, at the same time, there are several incidents where the Prophet displayed great acts of mercy and forgiveness, on an individual level. So while the Prophet would forgive any wrong done against him, he could not exactly forgive the wrongs which were inflicted on the muslims at large. In the Quran, it exhorts to practice forgiveness and mercy, as opposed to revenge... but at the same time, it allows room for the sake of justice. Prophet used to encourage the people to be lenient and forgiving, and would say; 'Do you not wish that Allah is merciful to you?'

Anyway. It is kinda late here, and I am a little tired, but we can discuss some of these incidents in more detail later, if you want.

Just one last point though... when you look at muslims, or anyone for that matter, and they are preaching about God... remember what Eric here said once, that a person's idea of God, reveals more about the person (and his heart), than it does about God.

The_Other_Admin

14th April 2005, 03:35

What about Pharaoh, Moses, and Israelites? Turning the other cheek would have worked for them?

Al-Boriqi

14th April 2005, 15:46

Hawk my man you have said
They killed their own children, (we still do it in abortion, but thats a different debate completely, and inshallah, such a thing will stop completely as humanity realises its true self, and moves away from the culture of death we exist in. I would have no problem with Islam or muslims, if they were to understand life and respect for life in the same way that I do.

But i fear that they will never, because there will always be some lunatics who interprets it as meaning they will have to go out and kill the kaafirs and believe that God ordains it.
Why? al-izaaree has been posting justifications for why all non muslims are going to hell because God has ordained Islam as the only path.
_________________________________________

You, still after all these eplies have misunderstood the whole of that which I brought.
First of all you have linked the lunatics of islam and joined them with my teachings (which is Islam). I will come and show you the light of this matter later on in this discusion but what i wish to point out is that that which i say and do does not lead the way or pave the road for killing and pillage nor does it make me have to war with you or kill you and far am I removed from such a claim. Rather to be honest that which is opposite to what I have said can be easily lead to that which you say you fear. On top of the the muslims are the very ones who understand the true value of life in its totality and at that we are justly balanced in this. We hold a middle way by which leaning to the other way is unjust and leads to that which is evil and true oppression. Allah said "if one of you kills it is as if you have killed all of mankind" and this was what Allah said trhat He revealed to the Children of Israel and this also is applied to us as well So we dot not go against this truth and do opposite of what Allah has said. On top of this Allah also said in other versus that "except in just cause" that the life that is taken is only due in just cause. So do you think that with all the atrocities and muder that Bin Laden has commited that he should not be punished at all. This is the just balance that im talking about. So we dont kill people peroid (muslim or not) and at the same time people who commit oppresion and tyranny must be pu8nished. So we do not just let them go and do as they wish. So leaving one of these two set ways as ordainded by Allah is opression anyway. So the muslim adopts this and is justly balanced which is the way I choose.

The next part I wish to clarify is that when I narrate that Allah said that no other religion is excepted except islam Im reffering to ones after life as this was the intent of ALlah. This does not mean that I kill you if you do not except Islam nor does another muslim do the same. we or that which my whole arguement is based on is the after life, not the life of this world. So iff you choose your way or anyone esle choose their way then so be it. I dont care. The only thing I care about is your after life so I can only tell you the message. So if you deny the message then this is your business and the muslim is compelled to accept this and respect your decision no matter what. So know I do not hold the belifs of the extremist as you may have mistakenly understood which i will point out right now.

So now I begin in making the distinction between me and those whom you attributed to me. The extremist from the likes of Bin Laden and others whom I will not mention due ot its not importance have adopted a way and methodology other than what I have been sincerily enjoining the muslims to follow and explaining to the non muslims what it is. These extremists take all the versus in the quraan and hadeeths about fighting againt the kaafir and such related topic and interpreted them and implemented them in other than what the contexts of tthe texts meant and use their own desire for interpreting these texts while I have the whole time been refuting the fact of using our whims and desires for interpreting and implementing these texts.

On top of this if you had the power to gather these extremist and me on a plat form it would not be a pretty site as they would accuse me of being soft and loyal and deviant while I would be doing the same to them that they are deviant and the likes and Im currently working on a project in refutation of these people and will send it to those who need it amongst the people of the sunnah and Islam. So you see there is a world of a variance and gap between me and those whome you likened me to. And I perceive t hat the reason of this misunderstanding is due to my posts in regards to the people of beleif and disbeleif and I can honestly say that you have mistaken the contexts I have mentioned in my post (about the after life of humans) and transferred them to be punishments carried out in this life.

Clarification of a matter- It seems that many people like you hawk and also the muslims have taken on a beleif that the future of humanity can be changed for a blissful way of living through peace and non violence and agression. Let me be the one to take the veil out of your vision for you and others that this is no where near what Allah has ordained nor was it the prophecy of any of the prophets of old including Jesus. Even Jesus told you that i nthe days to come there will be increased war and killing and evil. In Islam Muhaammad salawatu alaihi wa salam has clearly defined the future without any ambiguity that there will be wars, killing evil of the likes and the most evil people on earth and is also established that the later or more the generations come, the degradation of morals occur. So in the fututre more and more of these immoralities will continue to exist and strengthen and history just by itself (without the prophecies of the prophets) is enough of my proof for the claim. So in actuality when people are for and allign themselves to proclaim and work for a peaceful future is null and void. I do not say that peace should be our goal but we or at least the muslims should not loose sight of the very fact that this will not be the case. And the only time in our future that we will have poeace is when Jesus comes back for (I beleive 40 years) to destroy the cross, kill the pig, and slay the dajjal or the false messiah or anti christ. Then and only then will humanity experience peace once again like the early days of Islam. And when this ends then the age of corruption will begin and there will be no one on earth who will beleivein Allah and will be as barbarians. As for the muslims how can we loose sight of this while you know as well as I know that this is not the life any way. this is but a mere trial, a test. This life was not meant for such bliss and fantasy and Allah clearly stated "whoever chooses the life of this world we shall grant it to him" and we know what happens to him. And part of this choosing this life is trying to change that which is certyain to become of it. peace or I should say total and utter peace that you and others are trying to achieve can never be accomplished here rather this was saved for the beleiver in the next life. Did not our prophet say "be in this life as if you were a stranger" we were taken out of this peace and delight and given to this life a test, a trial, nothing more. We should not be complacent and use to trying to make this life the best it can be because in the end you will die and that which you have accomplished will gain no fruit for as the next generations morals will have degraded and delved in further into immorality. This is why Allah says "many from the prevoius generations, and few from the later ones" and this is puirely evident for those who see and Allah is Azeezul-Hakeem

Vajradhara

14th April 2005, 17:56

Salaam Al-Izaaree,

thank you for the post.

i'm off to accupuncture in a bit so i don't have alot of time to respond...

There is no deity worthy of worship (nwhether it be man, animal, rock, tree, money, self, angel, prophet, messenger, muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, food, planets, science, medicine, or anything in the universe) except Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of that God who is Alah, the God, of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Jesus alaihi salatu salam. So this is the best meaning I could summon for you

thank you for the explanation :)

Thats because everybody (even the muslims) seem to negate what has been established in the religion so that is why there is so much stess.

And then you say that Allah isn't pleased when humans run around about being saved. In reply then no one ever claimed so and I gave my position about myself in another thread so I definately am far removed from such an action as some have mistakenly perceived about me.

actually, i think that i said that this is my understanding of the situation.. it could be wrong.

however, i do not believe that i am at this time. it does seem that you have knowledge which the rest of the world lacks, specifically, you know what state the Pope died in. i'm not clear how you were able to hear his last words or know what he thought. perhaps you can explain.

Faith in the heart requires action or else the faith is useless. So the actions of the pope was not the actions of Islam and his profession of the tongue was defiantely not Islam, so his heart is what.

you don't actually know what he professed, do you? if you do, how do you know?

ToAllah made the actions and the tongue a reflection of that which is in the heart. On top of this the muslim IS to judge by that which is appearent.

fair enough. i would tend to disagree with that methodology but if it works for you..

example, we are not permitted to allow the dead of other than the muslims to be buried along with the muslims.

why not? does something happen to you rotting flesh in the ground if a non-Muslim is near it?

But if i was the attorney trying to make the pope a muslim I would be bankrupt as there is no evidence of this ever being the case. So therefore that which is known is that he was a christian.

herein lies my issue. what "evidence" have you discovered that would allow you to make a determination that the Pope didn't believe in God?

You see if I died then the inward thought of everyone here is that IO was a muslim whne I died.

that's not entirely accurate :) but i take your point.

No one in their sane mind would say that I was a christian or a jew or anything else. The same goes for my man Hawk. If he passed away no one would consider that he died a death of a muslim, rather he died a death of a christian.

i suppose that i'm different than you in this fashion as well. i, for instance, wouldn't be able to know if Hawk was a Christian or Muslim, for that matter. of course, i don't believe that faith is a matter of properly formulated belief statements and all of that.. so my view on this isn't very clear :)

So the muslim goes by that which is known and the heart is for Allah and that which is known is usually what that is in the heart. So I cannot say that "oh Vaj your not a budhist" If I did that then I would be judging you in the wrong form of judgement, but If I said to people "yeah Vaj is a budhist" then I would be revealing that which is correct openly.

actually.. you could say that i'm not a Buddhist and you would be correct as well.. Buddhism isn't like your tradition in this regard :)

So it is clear in an ayaah that Allah said "oh ye who beleive (meaning those who actually beleive in God, do not die (command) except in a state of Islam." So it is known that the pope did not die in a state of Islam.

i'm pretty sure that the Pope believed in God and was in submission to God. he may not have agreed with Islam or Mohammad (pbuh) but he sure did agree with God.

i leave knowing the condition of ones death state to beings more qualified than i to know these things.

1. Allah also said "and to restrain yourself is better" so Allah said not revenging is better. But not all revenge is permissible in Islam anyway. Yet a type of revenge is better than not doing nothing at all.

i completely, totally and wholeheartedly disagree. i cannot disagree more strongly.

example, if you had a child and someone killed it, due you think that that should just remain. or do you think that some type of retribution on this person (that killed your child) is not good at all as you have said.

of course it is not good. in fact, it is the opposite of good. how could it be good? now, instead of one person being dead, there are two of them, and i am responsible for one of them. that is, in our view, quite unskillful action.

Well in the time of the companions anf the prophet it was either do that which Allah let them to do or face annialation (since the polytheists were slaughtering them).

false dichotomy. there are more than two choices in these things.. for instance, the Muslims could have left the area to avoid the fighting and all of that sort of thing.

Example, the palestinians who have been thrown out of their own homes literally because foreigners gave THEIR land to other foreigners and on top of loosing their homes while being raped at the same time in losing their homes, they were also being killed off just because they existed. So no their very existance has been in jeopardy, so the logical thing to do or the human thing to do is what. I'll let you answer that.

you and i have not had a chance to dialog much. you will find, in time, that there is no scenario that you can present to me which i will agree that the taking of life is the best or even only course of action.

India didn't fight the British to overthrow their rule. peaceful resistance does work and, in fact, it is a real solution to the problem. violence begets violence, not peace. i suppose it really just depends on what you want and what you are willing to do to get it.

two points. 1. If you only have or know some of quran then really your not in a position to use it and apply it to muslims and say "this is how it should be or done" as ignorance of the rest of the religion has to be wieghed along with knowledeg that you have of the religion.

clearly. which is why i phrase my posts like i do.

2. you are not in a postion to decipher and delve into the sciences of which hadeeth are week and strong.

that's what i said :) which is why i rely strictly upon Al Qur'an for my understanding of Islam and, of course, the knowledgeable posters here that answer questions for me when something is confusing.

Thats were we differ because another condition is put on what you said by Allah and that is "unless by due right" meaning that that human has casued oppression and killing and turmoil, like Usman bin laden. If I was governer then his recompense in this life is that I chop his head off. So accoding to you then he should just live and let bygons be bygons so to speak

of course i would disagree with this. does killing bin Laden have any value? does it bring those that he's killed back to life? if it does not, then your killing of him would simply be another death. revenge does not do anything for the victim, it is only for others that this is engaged in.

again a false dichotomy. there are more than the two options of killing him or just letting things alone. society has an interest in keeping people that are intent on harming society from doing so. to that end, imprisonment is the way to go, in my view.

________________
do not scholars of Islam also understand based on their intellect? whilst i completely understand the nature of concensus and it's value, i am not convinded that my intellect is deficient in some manner which would preclude me from being able to rationally investigate and understand a teaching.

as such, why should i not use my own reasoning and intellect to come to decisions that are, in the end, only going to effect me?
___________________________________
The first part of your question then they use their intellects as the last source for guidance not the first because as we say again "all good is in following the way of the predecessors, and al evil is in following the later day generations.

how did they learn to read, then? further, there was a point in Muslim history where there were no "predecessors" what then? i understand that Abu Bakr arranged Al Qur'an in the order that it is now. wouldn't this have required intellect to do?

i've got to run... i'll pick this up a bit later...

Al-Boriqi

14th April 2005, 18:59

just a quick reply you said

of course it is not good. in fact, it is the opposite of good. how could it be good? now, instead of one person being dead, there are two of them, and i am responsible for one of them. that is, in our view, quite unskillful action.

So in your view then the number iof dead is worse. So increasing the number of dead is worse. So when someone kills for the heck of it and kill people blatently and has no fear, should all the people die at his hands or should he be put to death in order to preserve the saftey and lives of innocent people.

you said

herein lies my issue. what "evidence" have you discovered that would allow you to make a determination that the Pope didn't believe in God?

That is because Allah said to the beleivers or those who beleive in God "Oh ye who beleive , if you love Allah, then follow the messenger (Muhammad) and indeed Allah will love you". Here Allah equated that the sign, the outward action of loving Allah is that they follow he messenger of Allah who is Muhammad. So Allah made the road and way to that which pleases Him theMost high through Muhammad and this is known in the islamic beleifs. So We know that the pope did not follow Muhammad nor make him a judge in anything despite his beleif in God. So beleif in God beomes valid only through that which Allah has ordained and that is following His Messenger. So no one in their sane mind will say that the pope adopted muhammad as his model to follow nor that he accepted Islam. So hence there is no evidence where the pope stated that he beleived in Islam and took Islam as his way, but it is evident that his religion was christianity. You see no one not even Hawk can say that the pope was not a christian not can anyone say that he was a muslim. SO I hope this is clear to you now

you said

suppose that i'm different than you in this fashion as well. i, for instance, wouldn't be able to know if Hawk was a Christian or Muslim, for that matter. of course, i don't believe that faith is a matter of properly formulated belief statements and all of that.. so my view on this isn't very clear

Aah Now I find my problem in why im logiclaly and religiously incapable of explaining to you soem of the fundamentals of islam since you have clearly stated that this is not your view that beleif statements are what constitutes someones beleif. Although I mayexpound on this I would say that this is truly foreign. but I dont have to to explain

you said

India didn't fight the British to overthrow their rule. peaceful resistance does work and, in fact, it is a real solution to the problem. violence begets violence, not peace. i suppose it really just depends on what you want and what you are willing to do to get it.

And that is why Inda like Japan are those who surrendured to the ways of British imperialism. So in all honesty I dont think that India acheived anything rather they not only lost their heritage but how they behave and act as the actions of present day Indians are like t he British in most instances and Im pretty sure that they are not the same as the ral Indians of old before the British conqueered them but that is another issue I dont wish to open up.

you said

false dichotomy. there are more than two choices in these things.. for instance, the Muslims could have left the area to avoid the fighting and all of that sort of thing.

Left how. They ahd nothing. The polytheists took everything from them to the point that they would collapse due to hunger. so 1. They were incapable of leaving and 2. the wisdom and decision of ALlah I beleive are a lot more wise and bring benefit than the ideas brought by man

you said

that's what i said which is why i rely strictly upon Al Qur'an for my understanding of Islam and, of course, the knowledgeable posters here that answer questions for me when something is confusing.

Point taken, I must have misunderstood the intent of what you were trying to say, sorry

in matters of intellect you replied

how did they learn to read, then? further, there was a point in Muslim history where there were no "predecessors" what then? i understand that Abu Bakr arranged Al Qur'an in the order that it is now. wouldn't this have required intellect to do?
I had this discussion with my brother Haroon and that is that what I say in followuing them without using intellects is to be in maters of beleifs in Islam and methodology and i dont ave time to explain these maybe another time. So not like the matters of compiling the quraan. People even muslims have a tendency to apply the matters that are outside of beleifs or fundamentals of creed and methodology and applying it to what Im talking about in regards to following the companions instead of their own intellects. For example you brought reading as if I warn against this. This has nothing to do with beleifs and methodology but I gotta go

Vajradhara

14th April 2005, 21:07

continued....

To Vaj

as for the second part of your first paragraph, then the aswer is that intellects are limited to the person itself. You see intellects are affected by region (where in the world you live) , education backround) and others such features which affect the intellect.

i'm not sure that i agree. i would agree that these things would effect knowledge... i'm not sure it would effect intellect, which, as you see, i view as seperate things, so to speak.

So if everyone of the muslims used their own intellects to interpret the quran then we would have a milluion more odd sects in Islam each teaching what they view the texts means to be instead of the already 1000 or so that already exist,.

that's not necessairly so. it seems to be a slippery slope fallacy. it may be that there would be more groups of Muslims... by the same token, it may end up that it decreases the amount of groups. there really is no way to know one way or the other.

So you see while the intellect has some weight, using it to interpret what Allah and his messenger meant is dangerous because one is basing their beleif in that texts on their afterlife or more simplty put someone's afterlife (heaven or hell) is on the line.

clearly.. some scholars have used their intellect to determine what is meant in some of the teachings. using your innate intelligence to determine truth from falsehood should never be discouraged, in my view. and since heaven or hell is at stake, in your tradition, all the more reason to exercise ones own discernment, in my view.

So If I wanted to beleive in So in so's own understanding of what the ayaah of Allah when he said "And whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed are the kafireen". So If I relied my salvation on someones interpretation of this ayaah, then they can lead me FAR astray with their interpretation of the ayaah which the end result is that I can be lead staright to the fire for allowing myself to understabnd and implement this ayaah the way so and so interpreted (due to what his intellect told him what the text meant).

isn't this exactly what you are asking others to do here? accept your explanation of the teachings when a doubt arises?

this seems a bit of a contradiction to your last point. the previous paragraph said that i shouldn't rely on my own intellect.. yet, here, you are saying that i shouldn't rely on someone elses' intellect either. as it stands, then, there is nobody to whom i can turn for assistance with my queries.

So since the purpose of religion is to be saved and to gain the Mercy of God and to be accepted in paradise (in monotheistic religions not yours) then it follows that you or anyone else would want t he clear and uncut version of what Allah and His messenger intended by their statements. The reason being that many statements have more than one meaning or have ways of being interpreted.

hmm... perhaps its semantics... however... i am not sure how i would have a clear understanding of their "intentions" without reliance upon somebody to explain what said intentions were. their statements, by contrast, stand on their own and i can read them just like any other being that can read.

however, i am quite aware of the linguistic complexities involved in translations.. the same issue exists for my tradition in this regard.

and this shoukld also be an answer to the last part of what you said about your intellect is going to affect you in the end. That is right because if your own intellect leads you to beleive in a certain text or the whole religion in other than the way it is to be understood then it follows that you have sacrifice your OWN end due to your or any one elses understanding of the texts (due ot their intellect). I will give you a real life example of the true deficieancy of intelect and their pivital effect in understadning texts regarding beleif and implementation.

i'm glad that my religion doesn't have only one proper way to be understood :)

A man from the khawarij came to the ruler Caliph Haroon Rasheed (785-808 AH) and it was said by him (the khariji) "all of you rulers are kuffar (disbeleivers)", so the Caliph Haroon asked him 'What is your proof' the man replied 'The proof is in the Quraan' and he narrated the ayaah so the Caliph asked 'how do you know that it has been revealed' and so the man replied 'Because it is the consensus of the muslims who narated it' (meaning that it was narrated by the trustworthy companions and their students) and so the Caliph responded to the man 'Just as you accept the consesus of the muslims on its revelation then you should also accept the consensus of the muslims on its understanding" And so the man was of those refuted due to him using his desire and intellect and following someone who did the same in regards to the very verse I'm speaking about.

sounds like the Caliph made a very valid point. if one is going to accept the consensus on the revelation, it seems quite illogical to reject the consensus on the understanding. of course.. it sounds like the man from the khawarij was using his own intellect as well.

On top of this, then in our times a group adopted their way in understanding the verse due to their intellects and they are the groups likes al-qaida and those aligned with them. So you see using ones intellect can produce faulty and at times dangerous consequences land the likes of al-qaida is a pure sign and proof for what Im talking about.

so.. let me see if i understand. because some beings can come to incorrect conclusion when using their own reasoning and understanding, no beings should use their own reasoning and understanding.

if that is an accurate summation, i would have to say that i categorically disagree.

Actually if you reflect it does.

i do reflect and it does not in my paradigm. this may be so in your tradition, however, it is not so in mine.

UI used to work with one. Yes they disbeleive. You see ignorance is not a removal of condemnation nor is it an excuse for someone to hid under on the day of judgement. So when i propagated Islam to this agnostic I used to work with, he disbeleived in it. So even though he is confused in his mind or whatever the case he is in, this does not negate the reality of his rejection of the Creator in what He has legislated for him. And on the day of judgement his aswer to Allah like "well I was still not convinced" is not going to help him or excuse him either.

i've actually had several different responses to this.. some of them, are like yours. others of them are quite different. there is a type of proof that a Prophet can show which other beings cannot, this type of proof is incontrovertible, so it is said. this gets into some areas which i've discovered many Muslims do not like to talk about.

in any event... at this point in time my understanding is that there is a qualitive difference between the proofs of a Prophet and the proofs of anyone else.

History bears witness

history is not a sentient being, it cannot actually do anything... espeically view and remember something. history does not bear witness to anything... perhaps some book on events that have already taken place do.. but history, per se, does not.

in any event... i would encourage you to read more of those texts from other nations... especially those of us from the East.

We are not talking about medicine which helps heal.

this is a religious belief, right? you are aware that medicine actually can and does heal illnesses and injuries, right? there are some medicines that act as helpers to our own immune system and others that work seperate from it. medicine is neat and humans have benefited greatly from it.

but since you wish to include that into the discusion then i can include that to because it doesnt matter all the penacillen or antidotes in the world will not save anyone or heal anyone unless He allows for it to happen anyway.

ok.. so it is a religious belief. that's fine.

You for some reason are not getting what Im saying, More simply put if I told you that there is nothing in my cabinet, and then you open it up and t here is something then my original statement is what?

you're trying, essentially, the same game as Lewis who tries get you with a false delimma. there are more than two choices in this scenario. you said the cabinet was full and i checked and it wasn't. you didn't say that it was full last week or not.. but that could have been what you meant. you could have referred to another cabinet or you could simply have been mistaken. you could also be deluded, suffering from a mental illness, under the influence of drugs or any number of things. as you can see, trying to pick only two responses is not likely to result in a fair representation of the scenario.

If Im not a male then Im a female.

hemaphrodites are both male and female. you see the world as black or white. right or wrong. left or right. this is not how i see it... the world is both black and white.. left and right.. right and wrong.. all at the same time. the Buddhist tradition, whilst not espousing monism, is not a dualistic tradition by any means, thus i cannot assent to a dualistic view of reality in any meaningful sense.

If I said the sky cannot be any color except blue and then told you that it is green then what becomes the reality of my first statement. I hope this is more clearer now.

i understood what you meant, i disagree with your assessment that is all.

I dont call them this. This was the principle with the people of the sunnah, the muslims before I was even though off. I just simply learned it from them (like the people of the past and thsoe who followed them or the early generations of muslims)

relying on someone else to explain this..? that doesn't seem to be consistent with your previous statement of not relying on others to interepet the teachings and explain them. i'm actually now a bit confused in this regard.

Yes each being is responsible for their own actions so I dont know how you presummed from me otherwise.[/qutoe]

i presumed that you didn't think so due to your statement:

"If one goes to the grave for worship or to su[pplicate to tyhem or the likes then these actions have nullified the testimony of one who testifies that "there is no god worthy of worship except Allah alone" and Muhammad is His messenger".

which means, that if i go to a grave and worship or supplicate some being, then my action would nullify your testimony. that's why i stated that i think that our traditions are alike in that we are each responsible for our own actions.

[quote]
Allah says in the quraan that "It is We who have revealed the Book (Quraan) ANDthe hikmah (arabic wisdom)" meaning that the hikmah was the sunnah.

is Arabic Wisdom supposed to be the deeds of the Prophet?

I can speak for 10 years on this so Ill keep it brief. There is no orthodox view and that which is considered orthodoz is catholocism since the protestants are the ones who split not the catholocs.

all i can say here is that your knowledge of church history is not accurate.

So therefore in honest reality there is no demoniation that is considered orthodox in the view of Jesus.

please understand.. you are entitled to your views. i will dispute, however, you claim to know the mind of Jesus and what he would or would not think. you'll have to bring some intersubjective evidence if you are going to go that route.

i do appreciate the time you've taken to respond. it is difficult to have a conversation if one side isn't interested :)

Vajradhara

14th April 2005, 21:42

Namaste Al-Izaaree,

thank you for the post.

by the way.. what does your screenname mean?

So in your view then the number iof dead is worse.

not exactly. in my view, any dead is worse.

So increasing the number of dead is worse. So when someone kills for the heck of it and kill people blatently and has no fear, should all the people die at his hands or should he be put to death in order to preserve the saftey and lives of innocent people.

what is wrong with your justice system? don't you have prisons where you live? you arrest them and you put them in jail. killing them does absolutely nothing for the victim or their family. it simply kills another being. besides... how do you know that if the killer had time to reflect on their actions they wouldn't repent and embrace Islam? would you really want to deprive them of the chance?

That is because Allah said to the beleivers or those who beleive in God "Oh ye who beleive , if you love Allah, then follow the messenger (Muhammad) and indeed Allah will love you". Here Allah equated that the sign, the outward action of loving Allah is that they follow he messenger of Allah who is Muhammad. So Allah made the road and way to that which pleases Him theMost high through Muhammad and this is known in the islamic beleifs. So We know that the pope did not follow Muhammad nor make him a judge in anything despite his beleif in God. So beleif in God beomes valid only through that which Allah has ordained and that is following His Messenger. So no one in their sane mind will say that the pope adopted muhammad as his model to follow nor that he accepted Islam. So hence there is no evidence where the pope stated that he beleived in Islam and took Islam as his way, but it is evident that his religion was christianity. You see no one not even Hawk can say that the pope was not a christian not can anyone say that he was a muslim. SO I hope this is clear to you now

oh.. it was clear enough before... it is just a strange idea to presume upons someones spiritual condition predicated on their verbal statements. it is certainly a different approach than we take with it. not to discount the value of words... ultimately though.. words aren't the object of the discussion, are they ;)

Aah Now I find my problem in why im logiclaly and religiously incapable of explaining to you soem of the fundamentals of islam since you have clearly stated that this is not your view that beleif statements are what constitutes someones beleif.

indeed. though you will find that i'm logically quite capable of following rational thought. religiously, you are absolutely correct...i have a hard time following your thought.

And that is why Inda like Japan are those who surrendured to the ways of British imperialism.

i think that your understanding of these things is flawed. nevertheless, this is not a history discussion.. my point was that India threw off the British rule without resorting to violence and, as a result, the British and the Indians are not enemies today.

So in all honesty I dont think that India acheived anything rather they not only lost their heritage

that happened when Muslims invaded the country and destroyed our temples and colleges, centuries before Britian arrived.

but how they behave and act as the actions of present day Indians are like t he British in most instances

many industrialized nations have similar views and engage in similar actions. nevertheless, i would certainly challenge your assertion that present day Indian are like the Brits in most cases.

and Im pretty sure that they are not the same as the ral Indians of old before the British conqueered them

oh? so they've become a different ethinicity now?

Left how. They ahd nothing. The polytheists took everything from them to the point that they would collapse due to hunger.

walk.. just like everyone else. if they took everything from them, how, then was the Migration accomplished?

I had this discussion with my brother Haroon and that is that what I say in followuing them without using intellects is to be in maters of beleifs in Islam and methodology and i dont ave time to explain these maybe another time. So not like the matters of compiling the quraan. People even muslims have a tendency to apply the matters that are outside of beleifs or fundamentals of creed and methodology and applying it to what Im talking about in regards to following the companions instead of their own intellects. For example you brought reading as if I warn against this. This has nothing to do with beleifs and methodology but I gotta go

reading has to do with intellect, some beings cannot read and some can. some cannot read because they are not intellectually capable and others simply because they have not been taught. being proficient in business requires ones intellect. the Prophet was successful in his business, thus, he successfully used his intellect.

i suppose that this is another difference in our traditions. my tradition even goes so far as to say that if you cannot verify a teaching for yourself, don't put it into practice. a very different approach than Islam.

Al-Boriqi

14th April 2005, 22:06

it was said

that happened when Muslims invaded the country and destroyed our temples and colleges, centuries before Britian arrived

If this was 100 hundred percent correct then there would not have been temples there in that time, but there clearly was

as for the last arguement
you said

reading has to do with intellect, some beings cannot read and some can. some cannot read because they are not intellectually capable and others simply because they have not been taught. being proficient in business requires ones intellect. the Prophet was successful in his business, thus, he successfully used his intellect.

Again you included a matetr of worldly matters into beleifs in fundamentals and methodology. You included that the prophets doing business was a form of intelectualism. While the actual statement is correct, applying it to understand the beleifs and methodologies of Islam is incorrect. I did not warn that we should use our intellects in business or thew likes I say wedo not use our intellects in matters of beleifs and methodology. Example if I used my intellect in the matter that I posed to you by ruling by other than what Allah had revelaed then my own intellect would land me to utter deviance from that which Allah intended when He the Most High revealed that verse. That is becauseI would be like those people who are like bin Laden. But sicne I dont use my intellect on THIS matter and other similar matters I stick to the narrations and understanding of the companions which would not land me to deviance on the matter. I hope this serves as a clarification of the matter

xp²

14th April 2005, 23:42

Salaam and Namaste Vaj,

I'd like to offer a little different perspective on one of the topics you are discussing with Al-Izaaree. I understand that you like to hear about the varying views and interpretations from the adherents themselves, so you may already know this, but for the sake of clarity and perspective, here is my take on it.

I believe what is being misunderstood, is the directive of the Quran, not to take or follow our own [vain] desire, over the commandments of God. This does not translate literally as 'don't use your intellect', because the intellect is crucial in determining the correct and/or reasonable belief.

Rather, the directive/meaning, is that one should not allow their own desire, selfishness or self-interest, to interfere with the actual intended meaning of any commandment. Thus, more accurately, what is being alluded to, is a distortion of the text, due to a motivation of self-interest. For example, in the Quran, it mentions the case of some jews who would read with their mouths, what was not in the actual Book's. And it goes on further to say, you may think it was part of the Book, but it is not.

In another instance, the Quran mentions what it is to be an obediant servant of God, and describes those who refrain from certain sins and trespasses against truth or reason.

I would tend to think that aligning with truth and reason would require some use of the intellect.

Al-Boriqi

15th April 2005, 14:20

a more knowledge based reply to that which XP brought, barakallahu feek, is what I will try to explain Vaj

Example. When it comes to Allah's Names and Attributes like Allah is merciful or Allah has a hand or other such attributes. Thn the principle that was with the prophet, and his companions and those early generations of rightly guided muslims is that they would take their meaning (the versus about Allahs names and attributes) on their literal meaning. So it is obligatory to take these versus on their literal and apperant meaning and no one can understand them or interpret them to mean other than their literalmeaning. Example a sect called the ashariyyah and the muatazilah have made the interpretation about Allah';s verse "Nay, Both of His hands are spread out" to mean that He has all the power. So this is what I mean, that they used their intellect of interpreting this verse instead of the established principles for proper deduction of the texts so that deviation from the correct islamic beleif does not occur.

Again I will present another scenario. The Muatazilah sect or scholl of thought (an innovative beleif) interpreted the verse of Allah "He rose over the thrown in a manner that befits His majesty" . So they interpreted the part of the verse about rising (rose over the thrown "rose) to mean to conquer. They used their intellect in determining that this was the meaning while in actuality this was not the meaning of Allah, His messenger, nor as understood by the companions.

Another example. Soem of the later day people of innovative beleifs in Islam started to say that if Allah is above the heavens and the earth (this is already established in the quran and hadeeth that Allagh is above) then this means that He the Most high is confined and limited. So If the Muslims where to speak in the most truthful speech that Allah is above and point their finger to the sky just as the slave girl did when the prophet asked her where is Allah and she pointed to the sky and the prophet said "she is a beleiver" meaning that what she spoke was the truth. So if the muslim does this to this devaint group of people who used their intellect in this issue, then they would say that we have confined Allah and attributed a direction for him. It is true that it is a direction for him, but by their intellect then their intellect made them beleive that attributing direction for Allah was by default saying that Allah is confined and limited in a space. So utterly due to them using their intellects, they denied that Allah was above the heavens and the earth 9just as Allah has revealed about Himself), and promoted the doctrine of wahdatul-wujood or what is called unity of existance in which everything that exist isAllah so Allah is in everything. According to the Islamic beleif the muslim who holds this beleif has ejected himself from the fold of Islam, and all of it was due to their intellect. So Imam adh-Dhahabee a scholar of the 7th century refuted them by saying that their intellects landed them to illogicalness. That is because in reality Allah is above the throne of authority (as is in the Islamic beleifs) and we consider that everything under the throne is limited and confined while anything above the throne is not and since Allah is the only One above the throne then it suits that everything from creation is confined and limited and not the other way around that was posed by the people of intellect. SO this is what is meant that in amtter of beleif or fundamentals and methodology then what takes precedence is that which the companions undertsood and said, and then the imaams or leaders of the nation of Islam who are the scholars, sicne they know best the understanding of the companions sicne they deidcate their lives to that field, and then our own intellects are last in these matters.

So we cannot attribute the matters outside of beleifs and methodology to beleifs and methodology. example you saying that using the intellects for business and other subsidarary matters like trade or handling money, or the likes is not a matter of beleif and methodology.

Again another principle is that the muslim does not speak about the unseen or that which he does not know for indeed Allah said
Say (O Muhammad SAW): "(But) the things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are AlFawahish (great evil sins, every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse, etc.) whether committed openly or secretly, sins (of all kinds), unrighteous oppression, joining partners (in worship) with Allah for which He has given no authority, and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge." (Chapter #7, Verse #33)

So when I interpret the verse "ALlah is with you" should I use my intellect on the matter or should I understand them the way they are supposed to be understood. well as for the first 1. If i sued my intellect I can land right in the land of deviance as those before me did and saying that this ayaah means that Allah can be with someone literally. So this was not what is emant by Allah and is not what was understood bythe prophet nor his companions so in matter os this nature, the principles of islam supercede thatc intellect and since intellect is very limited to A. a person upbringin B. a persons education C. a persons livelihood then it follows that if all the muslims used their intellect then there would be a billion peopleon the earth interpreting the versus as the way they see it, instead of what was meant by Allah and His messenger. So I beleive that anyone would rather have the pure, unadulterated undertsanding of the texts versus what somebody thinks of the texts because after all the beleifs that one has determines the outcome of someone's afterlife. So as for me, I do not want to rest my afterlife on someone's interpretation or even my own if I knew that it was going against the understanding of those who best understood it and those who were attested to be saved just as Allah and His messenger have already established that they were saved (companions).

I hope this is a much mroe in depth clarification of the matter

Vajradhara

15th April 2005, 14:42

If this was 100 hundred percent correct then there would not have been temples there in that time, but there clearly was

you can read about the history of the Muslim invasions of India in many places. if you don't have access to any good library, this link may be of some value:

http://www.indianmirror.com/history/hist4.html

or

The Hindu Struggle for Independence against Muslim Tyranny

Thus the struggle of the Hindus to resist the Muslim aggression into India was spread over a period of 600 years from 715 C.E. up to 1328 C.E. This contrasts with the the swift Muslim victories in Persia (Iran) over the Zoroastrian Sassanians and in Mesopotemia, Egypt and North Africa over the Romans (Byzantines). The Muslims could not subjgate India with ease. And even after subjugating different parts of the country, they were never able to rule it enitrely. The next 400 years from 1328 up to 1720 was marked by a valiant and ceaseless struggle for independence by Hindus to deliver India from Muslim tyranny.

This struggle was first led in North India by the Rajputs and then by the Jats, Marathas and Sikhs. In the South this struggle was embodied in the Vijayanagar Empire. This struggle for independence culminated when the Marathas began to bring an end to the Muslim domination of India. The Gurkhas came in later in the 18th century, but their activities also played a role in weakening the Muslim power in North India which was on its last legs in the 18th century. The Gurkha struggle was more with the British East India Company. But more of this later.

The Muslim rulers built on the same Feudal Base* of the Hindu Period… But the successful aggression of the Muslim invaders did not change the Base of the earlier pre-Muslim society. Base* defined as the land ownership system and the system of making land grants to middlemen (feudal lords) who collected taxes for the higher authority - the king (Sultans of Delhi in the context of the middle ages). The very first act of the Muslim invaders was to pillage the well endowed Hindu temples at Somnath, Thanesar, Mathura, Kannauj; and other places. By this, with one stroke, the riches concentrated in the hands of these temples through many centuries of grants from Hindu rulers, fell into the hands of the Muslim invaders from Ghazni and Ghori.

..But the Muslims Aimed at Totally Destroying the Superstructure** Associated with the Hindu Period

The Muslims aimed to totally destroy the Superstructure associated with the Hindu (http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/hinduism.html) period. The term Superstructure** which the Muslims aimed at destroying included a wide spectrum of aspects of social life including Indian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism), language (Sanskrit and its various vernaculars), universities (like Nalanda), traditions of learning (ashramas, gurukulas), architectural symbols (temples, Chaityas, Viharas, Stupas), etc. The policy during the 700 years of Muslim occupation of India was to totally replace the superstructure of the Hindu period with a typical Muslim one. Towards this end the Muslim invaders undertook the desecration of places of worship, destruction of universities like Nalanda, the wholesale slaughter of the monks and priests to wipe out the intellectual bedrock of the people they overran. Such tyrannical polices which the Muslim rulers folllowed since their rule was established in 1194 C.E. they left a trail of bitterness in the regions which passed under their domination. Hindu tradition survived only in remote corners of the country like in Orissa, Assam and parts of South India.

http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/landalienrule.html

Again you included a matetr of worldly matters into beleifs in fundamentals and methodology. You included that the prophets doing business was a form of intelectualism.

please re-read what i wrote. i wrote that being successful in business requires the use of intellect. not, by contrast, intellecutalism.

While the actual statement is correct, applying it to understand the beleifs and methodologies of Islam is incorrect.

why? is there some injunction against trying to understand things for yourself? this seems to be a very strange position to advocate.

it seems to me that you are convinced that if you use your intellect you will come to a different understanding of the teachings that what is held by tradition. why is that? how do you know that you will come to a different conclusion? how do you know that your intellect won't discern the correct understanding of the teaching?

of course.. i'm not on the earth to "get it" nevertheless... i don't.

Vajradhara

15th April 2005, 14:50

Salaam and Namaste XP,

thank you for the post and the explanation :)

I believe what is being misunderstood, is the directive of the Quran, not to take or follow our own [vain] desire, over the commandments of God. This does not translate literally as 'don't use your intellect', because the intellect is crucial in determining the correct and/or reasonable belief.

which is precisely what i am thinking... i'm glad to see this view presented. i could not imagine making a commitment to a religious tradition wherein i was not permitted to use my faculties to understand the teachings. my tradition also has in injunction against basing our understanding predicated on our desires, we are enjoined to understand properly.

Rather, the directive/meaning, is that one should not allow their own desire, selfishness or self-interest, to interfere with the actual intended meaning of any commandment. Thus, more accurately, what is being alluded to, is a distortion of the text, due to a motivation of self-interest. For example, in the Quran, it mentions the case of some jews who would read with their mouths, what was not in the actual Book's. And it goes on further to say, you may think it was part of the Book, but it is not.

is this, perhaps, alluding to the Oral Torah and not the written commentary? i understand your point regarding distortions of the teachings predicated on motivated self interest.

In another instance, the Quran mentions what it is to be an obediant servant of God, and describes those who refrain from certain sins and trespasses against truth or reason.

I would tend to think that aligning with truth and reason would require some use of the intellect.

i would tend to think that one would not be able to engage in most religious praxis without engaging their own intellect to determine the value of the teaching and to discern skillful from unskillful actions.

thank you for explaning your view, XP. you are correct, i really do enjoy hearing from acutal adherents of the tradition how they practice. it's all fine and dandy to read in a book what is "supposed" to happen. i'm acutally interested in what "actually" happens... if that makes sense?

Al-Boriqi

15th April 2005, 14:59

you said

it seems to me that you are convinced that if you use your intellect you will come to a different understanding of the teachings that what is held by tradition. why is that? how do you know that you will come to a different conclusion? how do you know that your intellect won't discern the correct understanding of the teaching?

I have already proved religiously that it does lead to the opposite of what the texts meant, so im not going to keeping on exhausting myself in the ssame topic so I can truthfully say that the Islamic history is proof in and of itself that this is so. I dont have the exact or precise dates in which each devaint school or sect of islam began but it is due to their using the intellect on many Islamic fundamentals and beleifs that lead eventually to their straying far from the Islamic directives as laid down by the prophet and his companions.

noori

15th April 2005, 17:23

.

Tell me if all the world were muslim, would war still be ordained for muslims?
So why should a life have less value when the life is not muslim?

I HAVE BEEN READING YOUR POST AND WANTED TO ADD FEW POINTS HERE .
what you are talking here is JIHAD ,
what really jihad is ? it means to srtuggle and strive with in your self and this is spiritual struggle that every one is encouraged to go through ..whether you are muslim or christian or belonging to any other faith ..each and every one of us struggle in one form or another in their life (removing bad habits and impurities from with in & struggleing towards goodness)this in ARABIC or in quranic language is called jihad ..

beside this kind of spiritual jihad there is a social jihad ..which is not directed towards non muslims .but against the INJUSTICE OF SOCIETY.if whole world was muslim still war will be fought AS LONG AS THERE IS INJUSTICE AND OPPRESSION in society ... THE WORD JIHAD come in to existance b/c muhammed was born in the lawless society of arab ,unlike jesus who was born when there was rule and regualtions of romans..so muhammed was the one who established the "new state" forming rules and laws ,every thing from scratch .. ..it was not an easy task with much opposition .

this group of followers of muhammed who were (discouraged to fight) at first and were commanded to tolerte ,were given permission TO DEFEND THEM SELVES & to finally STAND UP AGAINST INJUSTICE AND OPPRESSION OF SOCIETY DOESNOT MATTER WHO IS THE OPPRESSOR WAS...

jihad is not and should not be directed towards perticular religion ,creed ,BUT AGAINTS ILL OF SOCIETY ,INJUSTICE OF SOCIETY

i wanted to know HONEST answer "lets say if a rober enter your house in the middle of night and take your belonging away ..threaten to kill your family and hishonor your family ...would you turn your another cheek... those who fight for the right why are they CALL HERO then in this society .. those who stand up against injustice why they become LEGEND ..for generations to come .. because of their courage and brave act.

the only difference is when people misunderstand JIHAD and take it as aggression towards others , lisence to kill those who are non-muslims just b/c they belong to differnent faith this is not JIHAD according to quran ..this is misunderstood jihad ...

33. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

These verses that you are refering are with out context .. you have to read it according to what happened in the history ..what was the historical background for revealtion of such verses..
when you take computer classess ,don't you make efforts to understand the TERMINOLOGY of that perticular subject ,u can not understand it with out knowing what files are, what is down load,what is wondows. it has its own language that need effort to be learned...
quran it self is a book that contians lot of history and if you take a verse and jump to conclusion with out doing any research or understanding its terminology that it is short coming on our part not that something is wrong with this book b/c i am unable to understand...or it could be that i am not taking pain to learn its terminology

xp²

15th April 2005, 18:16

Namaste and Peace Vajradhara,

it's all fine and dandy to read in a book what is "supposed" to happen. i'm acutally interested in what "actually" happens... if that makes sense?

I understand. It's nice to hear about someone who has the magic beans, but we sure want to see it planted too.

is this, perhaps, alluding to the Oral Torah and not the written commentary? i understand your point regarding distortions of the teachings predicated on motivated self interest.

This is a good question. Actually, the Quran does not explicitly say that it was the jews, in that verse.

003.078 There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues ....

I assumed it to refer to the particular jews who have been accused of corrupting the Book (Old Testament?) elsewhere in the Quran. There are some reports in the hadith literature, I think, which explains that some people used to 'weave' loopholes in the law, so that they could do certain things on the Sabbath.

However, in the actual Quran itself, it is a general statement/criticism against the People of the Book. In fact, the verses which follow are about Jesus, his mission as a messenger, and how it is not possible for a Prophet to command others to worship him besides God. So in that sense, it could apply to any form of revelation.. and particularly the Bible.

Peace.

Al-Boriqi

16th April 2005, 01:03

Quote:
Tell me if all the world were muslim, would war still be ordained for muslims?
So why should a life have less value when the life is not muslim?
______________

What Noori aid in reply to this is correct. I would like to add another angle so that maybe you and others could reflect. A life in general is equal and and should not be taken for no reason. Yet there are two aspects that need to come in to mind regarding this. 1. is that spiritually then life is not the same from person to person. The value of one is worth more than the other. So just as Alah says in the quraan "are those who fear Allah and those who dont equal. Say, Are those who know and those who know not the same". So this is alluding to the fact that all peoples are of varying degrees and some are made to be over others both muslims and non muslims.

2. The second part to look at is sicne the first aprt is spiritual and this part is literal meaning in the worldly life. Not all humans are equal and the same. example even though Im a life, my life to you is not as vital or important or really of any value to you than the life of lets say Budha himself (or the founder of it since I forget if that was his name or not). The same goes for any one esle. Im sure my life is not equal to hawk as that of Jesus and I admit myself that my life is in no way to be even in the same universe with the likes of Jesus alaihi salam. So even though everyone professes that all life is equal and the same, the people of China would rather protect and serve their own and those in power like the preseident of China than me. To them my life is of no value except that it is general (meaning generally the may hold that no one should kill me but yet they are not affected) and the same goes for everyone else between varying peoples.

Yahya Sulaiman

16th April 2005, 13:21

To tell you the truth, I kept having to pray for forgiveness at my initial reactions of gladness when I found out that he was dying and that he was dead. I was no fan of the Pope, believe you me. He did everything he could to keep the Catholic church from progressing out of the Middle Ages. I pray to Allah that the next pope will finally allow people to use birth control and take away the nonsense about sex being solely for reproduction, and that he'll actually do something about all the molesting priests--more than Karol Wotea did, anyway. I'm not saying he didn't do good things, and it is up to Allah to judge him, not I, but I don't think that the world is a significantly poorer place without this guy, and I hope the next pope is much better.

hawk

16th April 2005, 14:39

hawk

16th April 2005, 14:46

Yahya, i think you are filled with a tremendous amount of anger.
you are a sensitive person, but you need to deal with this anger and resentment you feel.
maybe you should talk to a pastor or something

Yahya Sulaiman

16th April 2005, 15:50

Yahya, you dont understand theology very well, if you think that sex was for anything other than procreation. We beleive contraception is a sin for very good reason.

My religion teaches that men and women were made for each other, to find pleasure in each other as spouses. What, pray tell, is this "very good reason"? I'm interested.

Yahya, i think you are filled with a tremendous amount of anger.
you are a sensitive person, but you need to deal with this anger and resentment you feel. maybe you should talk to a pastor or something

I appreciate your concern, but (a) pastors are for Christians, and I am not a Christian, and (b) I am not angry at all. I just have strong opinions. I very seldom get angry at all. I am a very unemotional person, this being a result of my Aspberger's Syndrome, a condition which in a nutshell is like a very mild form of autism. Things don't bother us like they do most people.

hawk

16th April 2005, 18:00

My religion teaches that men and women were made for each other, to find pleasure in each other as spouses. What, pray tell, is this "very good reason"? I'm interested.

And the expression of the pleasure you feel for your spouse, results in children sometimes, to have sex, willfully obstructing this natural outcome is to have sex just for pleasure without the responsibility attached to such an outcome.

It is to deny your human nature, to think that the pleasure is the outcome of your union, it is just part of the whole.

Your religion too, teaches the same thing, but not explicitly. If you think that you can have sex for the pleasure of it alone, then you have missed the point in your faith.

I appreciate your concern, but (a) pastors are for Christians, and I am not a Christian, and (b) I am not angry at all. I just have strong opinions. I very seldom get angry at all. I am a very unemotional person, this being a result of my Aspberger's Syndrome, a condition which in a nutshell is like a very mild form of autism. Things don't bother us like they do most people.

Pastors are for any one who is in trouble.
You seem very agitated. It was a suggestion, i know muslims often dont have a spiritual advisor of the same nature as a pastor.
Besides the anger I am talking about isnt on the surface, its deep inside, some kind of pain you suffered when you were young, that makes you "opinionated" in the way that you are.
I am "opinionated" too, but i recognise it as being trapped by my "nafs"

Yahya Sulaiman

16th April 2005, 19:40

And the expression of the pleasure you feel for your spouse, results in children sometimes, to have sex, willfully obstructing this natural outcome is to have sex just for pleasure without the responsibility attached to such an outcome. It is to deny your human nature, to think that the pleasure is the outcome of your union, it is just part of the whole.

Not at all. It is in the nature of any animal that gets intelligent enough--so far, humans and dolphins--to have sexual intercourse for pleasure.

Your religion too, teaches the same thing, but not explicitly. If you think that you can have sex for the pleasure of it alone, then you have missed the point in your faith.

Where does it teach that, explicitly or implicity?

Pastors are for any one who is in trouble.

I am not in trouble, and if I were, talking to my brothers and sisters in Islam would be enough for me.

You seem very agitated. It was a suggestion, i know muslims often dont have a spiritual advisor of the same nature as a pastor. Besides the anger I am talking about isnt on the surface, its deep inside, some kind of pain you suffered when you were young, that makes you "opinionated" in the way that you are. I am "opinionated" too, but i recognise it as being trapped by my "nafs"

I don't know what "nafs" are, but it seems to me that you somehow think that you have the psychic power to know my emotions as well as facts about my childhood. Care to prove this psychic power? Or will you just accept that you are unable to do either thing? Like anyone would, I know better than other people what I feel, and my youth has nothing whatsoever to do with my rejection of Christianity.

hawk

16th April 2005, 20:52

Not at all. It is in the nature of any animal that gets intelligent enough--so far, humans and dolphins--to have sexual intercourse for pleasure.

Yahya,
This statement of yours, is in itself, a denial of Islam, that God created humans, a special creation, separate from animals.
Here you have actually said that humans are just like other animals.

Are you sure you are muslim?

Where does it teach that, explicitly or implicity?

In Islam the marriage of a man and a woman is not just a financial and physical arrangements of living together but a sacred contract, a gift of God, to enjoy each other physically and continue the lineage.

"And God has created for you consorts from amongst yourselves, and out of your consorts He created children and grandchildren for you, and provided you out of His bounty. Will they then believe in vain things and be ungrateful to God's favor?" (16:72)

"Among His signs is that He created consorts for you amongst yourselves, so that you may find tranquility with them, and He set love and compassion between you. Verily in this are signs for people who reflect." (30:12)

The Prophet (SAW) has emphasized marriage by saying: "Marriage is my tradition. He who rejects my tradition is not of me." In fact he described marriage as half of religion, the other half being God fearing.

Therefore violation of this sacred contract of marriage by a biomedical technique is violation of Islamic law:

Some prophets were childless and asked God to give them children (ref Quran 19:2-7 and 21:89-90 for the prayers of Zakariya and 51:28-39 for the story of Abraham and Sarah). Therefore it is justified to recognize who controls parenthood.

"To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and earth. He creates what He wills, He bestows female upon whom He wills, and He bestows males upon whom He wills. For He is all knowledgeable, all powerful." (42:49-50)

Can you deny God what he would gift you?

I am not in trouble, and if I were, talking to my brothers and sisters in Islam would be enough for me.

From what I have been given to understand, you dont listen to them either.

I don't know what "nafs" are

Then i think you should find out.

Yahya Sulaiman

16th April 2005, 21:00

Yahya, this statement of yours, is in itself, a denial of Islam, that God created humans, a special creation, separate from animals.
Here you have actually said that humans are just like other animals. Are you sure you are muslim?

Of course I'm sure. One can't run a website spreading the Word of Islam and not be a Muslim, can one?

In Islam the marriage of a man and a woman is not just a financial and physical arrangements of living together but a sacred contract, a gift of God, to enjoy each other physically and continue the lineage.

"And God has created for you consorts from amongst yourselves, and out of your consorts He created children and grandchildren for you, and provided you out of His bounty. Will they then believe in vain things and be ungrateful to God's favor?" (16:72)

"Among His signs is that He created consorts for you amongst yourselves, so that you may find tranquility with them, and He set love and compassion between you. Verily in this are signs for people who reflect." (30:12)

The Prophet (SAW) has emphasized marriage by saying: "Marriage is my tradition. He who rejects my tradition is not of me." In fact he described marriage as half of religion, the other half being God fearing.

Therefore violation of this sacred contract of marriage by a biomedical technique is violation of Islamic law:

Some prophets were childless and asked God to give them children (ref Quran 19:2-7 and 21:89-90 for the prayers of Zakariya and 51:28-39 for the story of Abraham and Sarah). Therefore it is justified to recognize who controls parenthood.

"To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and earth. He creates what He wills, He bestows female upon whom He wills, and He bestows males upon whom He wills. For He is all knowledgeable, all powerful." (42:49-50)

Can you deny God what he would gift you?

In none of those passages do the scriptures actually say that sex for any reason other than reproduction is forbidden. It is a Catholic, not a Muslim, doctrine. Nothing is forbidden unless the Koran or Sunnah explicitly tells you that it is.

From what I have been given to understand, you dont listen to them either.

I don't think that's true at all. Could you provide some examples of this obvious misunderstanding?

Then i think you should find out.

I think that you, like many people on this site, should finish a sentence in English when you start a sentence in English, rather than mix two languages together.

nr_

16th April 2005, 23:39

In none of those passages do the scriptures actually say that sex for any reason other than reproduction is forbidden. It is a Catholic, not a Muslim, doctrine.

No, this doctrine isn't a Catholic doctrine. Sex is the expression of marital love. (Procreation is really the fulfillment of this love; it's God's plan. It's probably incorrect to say it's the reason. The reason is marital love.)

Nothing is forbidden unless the Koran or Sunnah explicitly tells you that it is.

Where does the Koran or the Sunnah tell you this?

Al-Boriqi

17th April 2005, 00:36

Indeed the topic strayed off to three different paths.

So to get back to the straight path (lol) I have to end and say that indeed the Pope was a christian and was the leader of the catholic christian world and some type of leader for others outside of catholocism. So What can honestly be said (from the Islamic Viewpoint) is that he died and passed away as a christian and may Allah grant him that which he deserves and Allah is not at all unjust to His slaves, Ameen.

hawk

17th April 2005, 01:39

Of course I'm sure. One can't run a website spreading the Word of Islam and not be a Muslim, can one?

Do you think thats what you are doing?

I think you are interested in justifying your conversion to yourself, by trying to convert other people.

In none of those passages do the scriptures actually say that sex for any reason other than reproduction is forbidden. It is a Catholic, not a Muslim, doctrine. Nothing is forbidden unless the Koran or Sunnah explicitly tells you that it is.

I think nr_ has brought up a good point in his post.

I think that you, like many people on this site, should finish a sentence in English when you start a sentence in English, rather than mix two languages together.

I think that if you claim you are muslim, you are bound to find out about your religion, its not becoming that a Catholic should be teaching you a basic concept such as "nafs".
The english equivalent i think is "lower nature" as opposed to "higher nature" as muslims would term it.
or "human nature" as opposed to "divine nature" as Christians would term it

However I find muslims subscribe to these ideas (that break tawheed) and change words and so semantically claim they adhere to tawheed.

This was an innovation of later scholars, at what point did the Prophet come up with the rules for Tawheed in the Koran?

Yahya Sulaiman

17th April 2005, 01:59

No, this doctrine isn't a Catholic doctrine. Sex is the expression of marital love. (Procreation is really the fulfillment of this love; it's God's plan. It's probably incorrect to say it's the reason. The reason is marital love.)

That's your belief, and it differs from my own; we must agree to disagree.

Where does the Koran or the Sunnah tell you this?

The Koran claims in several places to be infallible, and it tells you to follow the Messenger of God (P); the way to do that is through the ahadith/sunnah. These are our scriptures and as such, they are the only basis of Islamic doctrine, as well they should be. Anything else is considered the sin of innovation.

hawk

17th April 2005, 02:09

Where does the Koran or the Sunnah tell you this?

Nothing is forbidden unless the Koran or Sunnah explicitly tells you that it is.

Where does the Koran say, everything is permissable that is not made unlawful explicitly.

So cocaine is lawful, cos i know that it isnt mentioned in the Koran.

Yahya Sulaiman

17th April 2005, 02:11

Do you think thats what you are doing? I think you are interested in justifying your conversion to yourself, by trying to convert other people.

Once again, you think that somehow you know things you can't possibly know about my inner motives and feelings. I have no need whatsoever in justifying my conversion to myself, as it came by and large from religious experience. Rather, I was made (like all humans and djinni) to serve God, and I was extremely appreciative that God gave me back my faith. Being a d'ai is doing what I can to serve and repay Him.

I think that if you claim you are muslim, you are bound to find out about your religion, its not becoming that a Catholic should be teaching you a basic concept such as "nafs".

I learn more about my religion all the time, and one thing that separates it from all other religions is the fact that the more I know, the truer and truer it looks. But there is a mountain of facts to know about it, and it takes a long time to learn them all.

The english equivalent i think is "lower nature" as opposed to "higher nature" as muslims would term it. or "human nature" as opposed to "divine nature" as Christians would term. However I find muslims subscribe to these ideas (that break tawheed) and change words and so semantically claim they adhere to tawheed. This was an innovation of later scholars, at what point did the Prophet come up with the rules for Tawheed in the Koran?

16:22 Your God is one God.

16:22 Why, were there gods in earth and heaven other than God, [the heavens and the earth] would surely go to ruin; so glory be to God, the Lord of the Throne, above that they describe!

27:43 We were given the knowledge before [the queen of Sheba], and we were in surrender, but that she served, apart from God, barred her, for she was of a people of unbelievers.

Note that "serve" and "worship" are the same word in Arabic. If it is the Trinity you're talking about, the Koran denies it in Surah 4, Verse 171.

Hischam Khan

17th April 2005, 04:37

I think you are interested in justifying your conversion to yourself, by trying to convert other people.What if the same was said about you? Should we be judging others? I’m just asking…

I think that if you claim you are muslim, you are bound to find out about your religion, its not becoming that a Catholic should be teaching you a basic concept such as "nafs".What is it you are trying to do on the many other issues you are discussing with Muslims e.g. your claim that the Qur’an teaches that everything has been predestined or that there are missing verses? You were not trying to teach us about our own religion?

The english equivalent i think is "lower nature" as opposed to "higher nature" as muslims would term it.
or "human nature" as opposed to "divine nature" as Christians would term it”Perhaps this will help, Inshallah: Nafs and Satan (http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=2649)

hawk

17th April 2005, 06:12

What if the same was said about you? Should we be judging others? I’m just asking…

Hischam, you are right, that was the case with me, it may or may not have been apparent on this site to start off with, but yes i had been searching for the past 3-4 years, obviously being married to a muslim woman, i had the wonderful opportunity to get an insiders view of the faith.
It was then that i started going to a masjid and learning about islam.
I spent alot of time weighing with no pre-determined mind the merits of Islam alone.
You could never have called me either Christian or Catholic before this time.
I was an apostate of Christianity.
And proud of it too.
I was very close to professing my faith openly in islam many times, but there were aspects of the faith I was never comfortable with, I had some very good people try to talk me into professing my faith, and i was very swayed by their arguments, not because of their argumetns, but because Islam seemed to make them wonderful people.
I am not sure how I got around to talking to a Catholic priest, I think I just strolled into a chapel one day.
And I talked to him about everything I learnt about Islam.
And then we spent some time talking about the Catholic interpretation of the the same things.
I was thunder struck at how much sense the Catholic view made to me, as compared to any other view of life, it was so true, that I remember feeling awe at the amazing truth of it.
After that there was no turning back, i knew I had come home.
This was my faith for life, I remember talking to my wife about it, and her answer was so simple that I was blown away, "If your faith brings you nearer your creator, then that is all that matters". Sometimes she understands the Catholic perspective and is drawn to accepting Christ, not because of my logic, but because of its affect in my life, an affect that has changed our existences so completely its shocking.

What is it you are trying to do on the many other issues you are discussing with Muslims e.g. your claim that the Qur’an teaches that everything has been predestined or that there are missing verses? You were not trying to teach us about our own religion?

Perhaps this will help, Inshallah: Nafs and Satan (http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=2649)

I am sorry sometimes I have a tendency to unnecesarily stir up trouble.
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

I have been trying to avoid doing this.

hawk

17th April 2005, 07:06

In the post you directed me too, I would have to say that it sounds very Christian as I explained to Yahya, the idea of the "ruh" is a divine spark, it is the breath or essence (since God doesnt have breath literally) of God. And the Divine essence is present in Man.

Dont you think that presents a problem for those Muslims that say the God is not present in creation?

Al-Boriqi

17th April 2005, 17:05

A Great Error Was Said

This was an innovation of later scholars, at what point did the Prophet come up with the rules for Tawheed in the Koran?

The rules for tawheed is not an innovation of itself and speaking with the speech that it is, is an innovation in and of itself. The classifications of tawheed was due to classifications, not for theissue of making up or inroducing a new matter into the religion. This is like the scholars of hadeeth in classifying the sciences of hadeeth into matters like "shaadh" "mursal" "dhaeef" "hasan" "saheeh" and other such matters. On top of this the classifications of these different tawheeds is in the quran and in the tafseer of Ibn Katheer (the best authentic tafseer in the english language).

On top of this, it seems that you have receieved some type of Islamic knowledge (even though it is itself obscure) so I would only speak in matters that are clear to you like the issue of nafs since you are for some reseaon almost well verse in it, but do not speak in amtter outside of this like in beleifs and fundamentals of religion since you will distort the already distorted kno0wledge you received on it along with your beleifs (of christian doctrine) into it.

Another thing you have mistaken is t hat muslims dont sweem to havea leader or person of guidance who they can refer their matter to like you can whom you clearly said the "pastor". Indeed this is also errornous as the religious leader of the muslim in one single community of the Imaam or leader and this is where we refer our affairs and for religoius knowledge and trhe like to the leaders of the sunnah of the muslim nation the scholars or ulema or muhaditheen or the scholars of hadeeth as they have the greatest and best of authentic knowledge of Islam and its history and are able to send remedy to those who need it.

you said

This was my faith for life, I remember talking to my wife about it, and her answer was so simple that I was blown away, "If your faith brings you nearer your creator, then that is all that matters". Sometimes she understands the Catholic perspective and is drawn to accepting Christ, not because of my logic, but because of its affect in my life, an affect that has changed our existences so completely its shocking.

No wonder the muslims are in a state of destruction for indeed Allah said "whatever befalls upon you, it is indeed from that which you have brought upon yourself" and since the best of generations would not make such a deviated statements of this like, it follows that the success of muslims will not return, EVER, until we refrain from the statements of kufr and misguidance that leads to Allah's wrath and return back to the pure guidance inalillahi wa ina elaihi raji'oon.

So it seems that you have gotten the message of Islam, subhanallah, yet rejected it due to you not being comfortable with some of its principles or whatever it is that you stated.

may Allah guide you or grant you that which you deserve Ameen

Hischam Khan

17th April 2005, 17:13

Sigh. I’m not sure I like touching upon this field. I came here to discuss religion not to discuss people’s sincerity in the faith they ascribe to. So why did I ask these questions? Well, in this post as in others previously, you do question people’s genuineness. So, I was asking whether that is necessary. You reply by telling me your story. That’s fine too I suppose. But now I want to comment on a few things but at the same time feel uneasy about it seeing as I feel that a person's genuineness is between him/her and God. I’ll be treading on slippery ground so I’ll have to be careful. But let me ask, were you trying to explain that your story supports you genuineness while Yahya’s case is not so? He too told us of his story, you know? Well, anyway, I haven’t ever been fond of your habit of questioning whether people are of a bona fides nature. It’s kind of an ad hominem in a sense.

“I was very close to professing my faith openly in islam many times, but there were aspects of the faith I was never comfortable with, I had some very good people try to talk me into professing my faith, and i was very swayed by their arguments, not because of their argumetns, but because Islam seemed to make them wonderful people.”Now here is a clear difference in us. Ansar mentioned it too. You appear to look more at the people then the actual religion. I don’t think I could ever do this. Bottom line is that no matter how good a character the adherents have; if the actual religion does not convince me, I would not convert. As one Scholar would put it; if charm could convert, perhaps I would, but it’s not just about being charming. Another thing is that I reckon you have a great number of misconceptions of our faith so how you rejected it after having fully understood it, I do not know. Of course you will simply sweep that aside as my answers being excuses and so you get my point in that discussing people’s genuineness is generally worthless. Then I also see you bringing up useless arguments like how some Muslims mistreat their families as they convert in order to push people away from our faith. What is that; genuine?

“Sometimes she understands the Catholic perspective and is drawn to accepting Christ, not because of my logic, but because of its affect in my life, an affect that has changed our existences so completely its shocking.”I honestly find it appalling that if you truly have a wife like that and she is Muslim as you say; that you would then make a mockery of her faith as you have done here repeatedly.

“I am sorry sometimes I have a tendency to unnecesarily stir up trouble.
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

I have been trying to avoid doing this.”Aha… 2 posts la’er he’s back at it? Listen, my view is different to yours. I do think you could teach a Muslim about Islam. Why not? Only, how you do so - with an affectionate heart or otherwise - is a point that may need deliberation.

In the post you directed me too, I would have to say that it sounds very Christian as I explained to Yahya, the idea of the "ruh" is a divine spark, it is the breath or essence (since God doesnt have breath literally) of God. And the Divine essence is present in Man.It was actually more so directed at Yahya, but of course anyone can read it.

What do you think he means by “Divine spark”? Wouldn’t you say he means a “Divine gift”? Man has been blessed with the ability to differentiate between good and evil. Man has been gifted with an inner conscience which bricks at him when he makes the wrong choice. Such are gifts as no other creature has like us. Is this not the “Divine spark” in man?

“Dont you think that presents a problem for those Muslims that say the God is not present in creation?”How do you mean God is present in creation? Is God something that can split up? Is He like a piece of cake for instance; you can cut it into pieces and eat it and hence it’s in different people lol? Better still, is He like dough which you can separate into many different pieces of different shapes and sizes and then put together again? Can’t you see by this very method that we are wandering completely into the unknown? We are taught that we could never imagine God’s nature and therefore such are but wild hits in the dark.

Yahya Sulaiman

17th April 2005, 19:29

nr_

17th April 2005, 22:11

The Koran claims in several places to be infallible, and it tells you to follow the Messenger of God (P); the way to do that is through the ahadith/sunnah. These are our scriptures and as such, they are the only basis of Islamic doctrine, as well they should be. Anything else is considered the sin of innovation.

Basing a belief on a source and directly saying something is wrong are two different things, I think. Much like when we say cocaine is wrong, we don't mean the Bible directly says drugs are wrong; we mean that using these type of drugs contradicts the principles and purposes espoused by the faith. Protestants believe in sola-scriptura, so they're deriving these things based upon the Bible. As for the sin of innovation, I'd hardly call calling something a sin, which isn't a sin, a sin. To me, it can only become a sin unless if they know what their calling a sin isn't sin. Before, it was only a mistake. Now, my personal experience in attempting to rationalize whether something is a sin or not is that it will lead to mistakes. For sure, we'll have to rationalize to others so that they'd believe us and perhaps investigate on a more personal level, but accepting the rationalization without the change to the heart is less effective. In such a way, accepting what a book says is wrong is a form of rationalization. But, if you're able to believe with the heart, then the book only serves to check what the heart believes.

Yahya Sulaiman

18th April 2005, 02:53

Innovation is Islam is a sin because it's a human being proclaiming the authority that only God can have. (While the prophets made similar proclamations, they were doing so only as messengers telling us what God said.)

And there's nothing wrong with believing in whatever a book says if you have good reasons to consider it inspired by an infallible Being.

hawk

19th April 2005, 02:53

A Great Error Was Said

No wonder the muslims are in a state of destruction for indeed Allah said "whatever befalls upon you, it is indeed from that which you have brought upon yourself" and since the best of generations would not make such a deviated statements of this like, it follows that the success of muslims will not return, EVER, until we refrain from the statements of kufr and misguidance that leads to Allah's wrath and return back to the pure guidance inalillahi wa ina elaihi raji'oon.

So it seems that you have gotten the message of Islam, subhanallah, yet rejected it due to you not being comfortable with some of its principles or whatever it is that you stated.

I thank God that there are many muslims who do not share your narrow minded interpretation of your faith.

may Allah guide you or grant you that which you deserve Ameen

I suppose you believe that is jahanam.

hawk

19th April 2005, 03:00

Very well said, Hischam. Let us pray together (as well as any other Muslim reading this thread) that hawk learns that his comfortability with something has nothing to do with whether or not it's true, and stops rejecting the Truth, clinging to reasons we've disproven in the pretense that they are new subjects (again, like the mistranslation of 4:34).

It's not too late, hawk. It never is while you're alive. But someday you won't be alive and it will be too late.

Yahya,
Please find out what the word for "beat them" in arabic is.
I find it very hard to beleive that every major translation agrees it is "beat them"
But you, who doesnt even speak arabic, can turn around and say its a mistranslation.

hawk

19th April 2005, 03:07

Very well said, Hischam. Let us pray together (as well as any other Muslim reading this thread) that hawk learns that his comfortability with something has nothing to do with whether or not it's true, and stops rejecting the Truth, clinging to reasons we've disproven in the pretense that they are new subjects (again, like the mistranslation of 4:34).

It's not too late, hawk. It never is while you're alive. But someday you won't be alive and it will be too late.

Perhaps comfortable was not the right word.

I claim outright that Christianity is the only Truth

hawk

19th April 2005, 03:11

How do you mean God is present in creation? Is God something that can split up? Is He like a piece of cake for instance; you can cut it into pieces and eat it and hence it’s in different people lol? Better still, is He like dough which you can separate into many different pieces of different shapes and sizes and then put together again? Can’t you see by this very method that we are wandering completely into the unknown? We are taught that we could never imagine God’s nature and therefore such are but wild hits in the dark.

Actually this is completely untrue because you are well aware of Gods nature.

You are given 99 attributes of God, come now Hischam, surely you know the nature of God by those very attributes.

And the "Ruh" or "Ruah", is the divine essence that makes us ultimately "children of God"

Ansar Al-Haq

19th April 2005, 03:24

I thank God that there are many muslims who do not share your narrow minded interpretation of your faith.
What's narrow-minded about what Br. Al-Izaree said?

Please find out what the word for "beat them" in arabic is.
Idribuhunna.

If you would really like an in-depth tafseer of that verse, please read the following article:

http://www.load-islam.com/C/Women/TafsirAyah34

Yahya Sulaiman

19th April 2005, 03:35

Perhaps comfortable was not the right word.

Then what is the right word? I'd like to know.

I claim outright that Christianity is the only Truth

Claiming that is a waste of webspace if you don't support your claim with any reason to believe it. I, on the other hand, claim that Islam is the only Truth, and I have an entire section of my website (which is ever growing) supporting this claim.

Hischam Khan

19th April 2005, 03:53

Actually this is completely untrue because you are well aware of Gods nature.

You are given 99 attributes of God, come now Hischam, surely you know the nature of God by those very attributes.Why am I the one who needs to come? We are clearly discussing the “physical” nature of God. This is what I mean by “nature of God”. I thought that was clear. I’m sorry if it wasn’t.

”And the "Ruh" or "Ruah", is the divine essence that makes us ultimately "children of God"You never responded to my questions and didn't seem to consider what I said.

Yahya Sulaiman

19th April 2005, 03:59

You never responded to my questions and didn't seem to consider what I said.

He rarely does, for you or any of us. I've been praying that he'll stop being evasive and eventually see the light of Islam and let it light up his heart; join me in that prayer.

EDIT: I do not intend this to be insulting, and I'm sorry if it comes across that way. I made the post because I feel that what I said needs to be said.

hawk

19th April 2005, 05:21

1) How do you mean God is present in creation?

2) Is God something that can split up?

3) Is He like a piece of cake for instance; you can cut it into pieces and eat it and hence it’s in different people lol?

4) Better still, is He like dough which you can separate into many different pieces of different shapes and sizes and then put together again?

5) Can’t you see by this very method that we are wandering completely into the unknown?

6) We are taught that we could never imagine God’s nature and therefore such are but wild hits in the dark.

God is present in creation.

1) If you believe at the very least that heaven is part of creation, and at the third hour of the night "Allah" descends to the lowest heaven.
Then God by definition is present in creation.

Also "Ruh" the "divine spark" is present in man.
Also "Ruh Al Quds" the essence of Divinity, permeates humanity.

2) Thats a good question, and one that muslim scholarship refuses to deal with, even though there is enough of support for the idea of the "Christian" understanding of the "Holy Spirit" in the Quran. In fact the Muslim understanding that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel has no foundation is the Koran

3) I would say that is a good analogy, if you believe that the "Ruh" animates the body that is simply a vessel. Tell me is that your belief Hischam? Do you believe the body is a vessel and the "Ruh" is the animator.

4) Come now, do you expect an answer to this?

5) If you call exploring the teachings of your own scripture to be wandering into the uknown

6) Once again, we are talking about Gods nature, I think the 99 descriptive names are a good place to begin.

physically isnt God supposed to be "OMNI PRESENT"?

Yahya Sulaiman

19th April 2005, 05:38

I'll leave the other points to Hischam, but I feel I must address this one:

The Muslim understanding that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel has no foundation is the Koran.

In reality, it has a foundation not only in the Koran, but also the Bible! First, the Koran refers to Gabriel as "Our Spirit" (Surah 19, Verse 17) in a passage parallel to another one which labels him an angel. (I guess, then, that we don't know for certain if it was Gabriel and not some other angel; if there are any ahadith about this, I'd like to know.) This is confirmed by the Bible, as the Bible refers to angels by a term synonymous in Trinitarian Christianity with the term "Holy Spirit", as you can see from this excerpt from my FAQ (http://www.xyapx.com/ziggyzag/faqfromchristians.php):

Christians consider the phrase “the Spirit of God” to be a synonym of the phrase “the Holy Spirit”--see, for instance, the “Holy Spirit” supposedly descending in Matthew 3:16, the verse calling it “the Spirit of God”. But this phrase which you consider synonymous with “Holy Spirit” can also mean angel: compare Revelation 5:6 to Revelation 8:2.

hawk

19th April 2005, 05:41

The Holy Spirit in the Qur’an
By Mohammad Nabeel Ashraf
MA Islamic Studies

The mention of the Holy Spirit (Ruh-al-Quds) in the Qur’an has been an issue of much contention in the Christian-Muslim debate. The Christians believe that the mention of the Holy Spirit in the Qur’an is a reference to the Holy Spirit as it appears in the Christian doctrine. However, Muslims believe that the Qur’an is referring to angel Gabriel (the celestial carrier of the word of God) wherever it refers to Ruh-al-Quds. However, the examination of these verses suggests otherwise.

The Qur’an mentions the Holy Spirit (Ruh-al-Quds) at no less than three places. Verses 2:87, 2:253 and 5:110 make an explicit reference to the Holy Spirit. Surprisingly enough in all three of the above mentioned verses, the Holy Spirit is associated with Jesus, i.e.

"...We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear arguments and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit…" (Qur’an 2:87)

"...O Jesus son of Mary! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit…" (Qur’an 5:110)

"We have made some of these apostles to excel the others. Among them are they to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by rank; and We gave clear miracles to Jesus son of Mary, and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit…" (Qur’an 2:253)

One can arrive at the following statements through the study of the above-mentioned verses:

* Jesus was an exalted apostle because the Holy Spirit strengthened him.
* The Holy Spirit strengthened no other apostle except Jesus.
* The Holy Spirit was something awarded in addition to the clear arguments, signs and miracles.

The examination of these statements should lead any Muslim to question how Gabriel can be the Ruh-al-Quds if Jesus was the only one strengthened by it? According to the Muslim belief, Gabriel brought the word of God to Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. If Gabriel is the Ruh-al-Quds, then why does the Qur’an say that Jesus was the only one strengthened by it? One can deduce from this argument that Ruh-al-Quds and Gabriel are not one and the same thing as interpreted by the Muslim scholars.

This argument can be supported by many authenticated sayings (Hadith) of Prophet Mohammad for example Hadith 1.444 in Sahih-al-Bukhari:

Narrated Hassan bin Thabit Al Ansari:

I asked Abu Huraira "By Allah! Tell me the truth whether you heard the Prophet saying, ‘O Hassan! Reply on behalf of Allah’s Apostle. O Allah! Help him with the Holy Spirit.’" Abu Huraira said, "Yes."

If the Holy Spirit is Gabriel, then how can he help strengthen Hasan? Is not the role of Gabriel limited to that of a message carrier in Islam? It is evident from this Hadith that the Holy Spirit and Gabriel are not synonymous.

If then Ruh-al-Quds is not Gabriel, then what is it? Allah refers to himself in Qur’an as Qudoos (the Holy one, root Quds) at several places e.g. "Whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare the Praises and Glory of Allah - the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Exalted in Might, the Wise" (Qur’an 62:1). Qudoos is only one of the ninety-nine proprietary names of Allah that are mentioned in the Qur’an. For centuries Muslim scholars have debated if God can possess all of these ninety-nine characteristics at one time as many of them contradict each other. The most important argument in this regard was set forth by the Muta’zalia school of thought that saw a contradiction between God being most powerful (Qadeer) and God being most just (A’adil) at the same time. They therefore concluded that God has more than one nature and He chooses what His nature would be at any given time and instance. Using the same logic, one can state that being the Qudoos or the Ruh-al-Quds is yet another nature of God. From this argument one can imply that Qur’an is referring to the Ruh-al-Quds in the most Christian sense i.e. the Holy Spirit when it says the Jesus was strengthened by it.

Faqt Wa’Allahu A’alam Bisawab

(Only God is a greater knower and the most reasonable.)

Yahya Sulaiman

19th April 2005, 05:52

If you're going to respond to me, then respond to my own post. I grow very weary of your evasions.

hawk

19th April 2005, 06:01

If you're going to respond to me, then respond to my own post. I grow very weary of your evasions.

I have responded to your post.

By posting what I have posted, I have shown you how your interpretation may be erronious.

Yahya Sulaiman

19th April 2005, 06:08

hawk

19th April 2005, 06:34

I am not interested in whether it may be erroneous, but only whether it is erroneous. Tomorrow, if none of my brothers or sisters have already done the job, I will debunk the article you've posted. Kindly give me the same honor by responding to my post (as in responding to what I actually said, directly).

Now it would seem that you do have a problem.

Because my post is referring to verses in the Koran that seem to contradict other verses (16:102) in the Koran.

So then the Koran is contradicting itself here.

Either that, or it was partly revealed by the Holy Spirit (Ruah Hakadosh) and partly by Gabriel.

But this is where Muslim scholars refuse to go, since it would refute the "rules of Tawheed" which are bidaa.

These rules were made up in the 3-4 century hijraa.
They are not what the prophet ever taught.

Yahya Sulaiman

19th April 2005, 06:53

Now it would seem that you do have a problem. Because my post is referring to verses in the Koran that seem to contradict other verses (16:102) in the Koran. So then the Koran is contradicting itself here. Either that, or it was partly revealed by the Holy Spirit (Ruah Hakadosh) and partly by Gabriel.

You can't say that two passages are contradictory just because they chronicle the same event but use two, different names to refer to the same person involved in the event.

But this is where Muslim scholars refuse to go,

They never refuse to go there. In fact, Osama Abdallah of Answering Christianity has written article after article on the subject. If I can find the links tomorrow, I'll give them.

since it would refute the "rules of Tawheed" which are bidaa. These rules were made up in the 3-4 century hijraa. They are not what the prophet ever taught.

I am getting very, very, very tired of your bringing up topics already discussed as if they were new. We've been over this already; either drop it or say something new.

Hischam Khan

19th April 2005, 07:13

“If you believe at the very least that heaven is part of creation, and at the third hour of the night "Allah" descends to the lowest heaven.
Then God by definition is present in creation.”You are making reference to the following Hadith, I think:

“Our Lord - Blessed and Exalted is He! - descends every night to the lowest heaven in the last third of the night and says: Who is supplicating Me so that I may answer him? Who is asking forgiveness from Me so that I may forgive him?” - Bukhari

I understand this to be symbolic of how close God’s mercy is to a person who gets up in the night in order to supplicate and pray to the Almighty. When you turn to him like that, He in response turns to you too, figuratively speaking; He descends. This is actually similar to the following narration:

"If My servant comes near Me one hand-span I come near him one cubit. If he comes near Me one cubit I come near him an arm's length. If he comes to Me walking, I come to him running."

This is obviously not meant literally, it is figurative. It means that the harder you try to get nearer to God (spiritually), the more God will respond and hence come nearer to you.

Also "Ruh" the "divine spark" is present in man.
Also "Ruh Al Quds" the essence of Divinity, permeates humanity.”Here you are making a statement and I do not know where you get it from.

“Thats a good question, and one that muslim scholarship refuses to deal with, even though there is enough of support for the idea of the "Christian" understanding of the "Holy Spirit" in the Quran. In fact the Muslim understanding that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel has no foundation is the Koran”You have a right to your opinion. I see you have presented an article and I shall endevour to reply shortly, Inshallah.

“I would say that is a good analogy, if you believe that the "Ruh" animates the body that is simply a vessel. Tell me is that your belief Hischam? Do you believe the body is a vessel and the "Ruh" is the animator.”So God is now like a piece of cake. God splits into several pieces and goes into bodies. Where is the evidence for this? All this does is confuse a person.

Your question I feel I cannot answer because I have very little knowledge on the “Ruh” but then, I suppose this is the case for us all.

“Come now, do you expect an answer to this?”Would I ask it if I did not? You may think I’m making a mockery and I do admit it is kind of funny but it is a genuine question. This whole problem we get into only because we are so eager to poke our nose where it is not meant to be. At least that’s how I see it. There are times when a humble servant backs out and admits his limitations instead of wandering carelessly into the unknown and thus being misled.

“If you call exploring the teachings of your own scripture to be wandering into the uknown”There is a difference between exploring a teaching and wandering into the unknown. No, my Scripture doesn’t even address the “physicality” or “essence” as you put it, of God. On the contrary, it declares that He is unique, beyond imagination. I reckon that probing into this does no good whatsoever for us.

“Once again, we are talking about Gods nature, I think the 99 descriptive names are a good place to begin.” The Qur'an gives His qualities/attributes and not His "physical characteristics".

“physically isnt God supposed to be "OMNI PRESENT"?”In knowledge and power, yes. If you are objecting to the use of “physically” then do note that I put it in inverted commas purposely and I used it for lack of a better word.

I shall respond to the pasted article shortly Inshallah.

hawk

19th April 2005, 07:20

So God is now like a piece of cake. God splits into several pieces and goes into bodies. Where is the evidence for this? All this does is confuse a person.

Your question I feel I cannot answer because I have very little knowledge on the “Ruh” but then, I suppose this is the case for us all.

Hischam, Is it not suffecient for you to know that Allah blows his essence "ruh" into man to animate him?

What can this mean? How much more would you want to know?

Do you think that it is justified to believe that the Creator is separated from Creation in any way?

Ofcourse God, like a piece of cake goes into our bodies, your own faith teaches you as much.

Hischam Khan

19th April 2005, 07:37

You are making it sound as though I was the one probing whereas it is you who can’t let go, not me. The Qur’an states that God breathed into man, of His Spirit. It does not then tell us what this meant. What is this Spirit? God? Is it part of His essence? Or is it His gifts such as life, wisdom, knowledge etc… What?

So if you teach that God goes into our bodies like a piece of cake, then God became less than He was. He separates into many pieces like dough. So in a sense there are billions of gods each in their own shapes and sizes and with different strengths. We might also worship each other, why not? God is in us!

No Hawk, I don’t think that you have established that my faith teaches me that.

Hischam Khan

19th April 2005, 09:28

Concerning the pasted article then...

The Qur’an mentions the Holy Spirit (Ruh-al-Quds) at no less than three places. Verses 2:87, 2:253 and 5:110 make an explicit reference to the Holy Spirit. Surprisingly enough in all three of the above mentioned verses, the Holy Spirit is associated with Jesus, i.e.

"...We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear arguments and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit…" (Qur’an 2:87)

"...O Jesus son of Mary! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit…" (Qur’an 5:110)

"We have made some of these apostles to excel the others. Among them are they to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by rank; and We gave clear miracles to Jesus son of Mary, and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit…" (Qur’an 2:253)

”One can arrive at the following statements through the study of the above-mentioned verses:

* Jesus was an exalted apostle because the Holy Spirit strengthened him.
* The Holy Spirit strengthened no other apostle except Jesus.
* The Holy Spirit was something awarded in addition to the clear arguments, signs and miracles. Actually, the Qur’an makes special reference to the fact that God strengthened Jesus (pbuh) with the 'Holy Spirit' because the Jews were claiming that he was inspired by the devil.

The examination of these statements should lead any Muslim to question how Gabriel can be the Ruh-al-Quds if Jesus was the only one strengthened by it? According to the Muslim belief, Gabriel brought the word of God to Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. If Gabriel is the Ruh-al-Quds, then why does the Qur’an say that Jesus was the only one strengthened by it? One can deduce from this argument that Ruh-al-Quds and Gabriel are not one and the same thing as interpreted by the Muslim scholars.This is a logical fallacy. Even if the Qur’an did not explicitly state that others were also strengthened by the 'Holy Spirit', it would not necessarily mean that they weren’t. As I have said, there was an accusation hurled especially against him and so the Qur’an explicitly mentions this to negate that accusation. Besides this, the Qur’an actually declares:

“Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.” - Surah Al Nahl 16:102

Here it not only mentions that the ‘Holy Spirit’ brings the revelation from God but that by it he strengthens the believers. Clearly then, it is mentioned for other than Jesus (pbuh). Another thing is that the Qur’an mentions in Surah Al Baqarah:

“Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel -for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe” - Surah Al-Baqarah 2:97

On this basis I would say that it is pretty reasonable to conclude that ‘Holy Spirit’ as well as the other phrases such as ‘An Honourable Messenger’ (surah 81:19), and ‘The trustworthy Spirit’ (26:193) are attributive nouns for this Angel.

If the Holy Spirit is Gabriel, then how can he help strengthen Hasan? Is not the role of Gabriel limited to that of a message carrier in Islam? It is evident from this Hadith that the Holy Spirit and Gabriel are not synonymous.”This has already been refuted in the verse of the Qur’an which states that he strengthens the believers.

The rest of the article then also falls apart in my view, on the above basis.

peace

hawk

19th April 2005, 14:16

So if you teach that God goes into our bodies like a piece of cake, then God became less than He was. He separates into many pieces like dough. So in a sense there are billions of gods each in their own shapes and sizes and with different strengths. We might also worship each other, why not? God is in us!

No Hawk, I don’t think that you have established that my faith teaches me that.

The problem with your understanding of God, is that you are limiting God by saying God is less than, or more than, simple mathematics will tell you infinity - a large number is still infinity.

Hischam, in Islam you do not ascribe characteristics to God, yet you would impose your limited logic on His nature, to make him conform to your beliefs.

In fact Hischam God is really in us.

That is why in Christianity we are told, as you do onto the least of your brothers, so you do unto me.

Now there is ample support for this understanding even in the Koran.

But Muslims in the 10th century, in their enthusiasm to differentiate themselves from the Christians innovated their faith.

It is known among arab christians, that Islam was taught to Mohammed from Warraqa, who was an ebionite monk, and a chief priest at Medinah.

It might do you well to just look at ebionism, it would shock you to see the similarities in their teachings and Islam. I mean SHOCKING similarities.
So much so, that one can say that they are the same faith.

The Ebionites were an early Jewish/Christian sect who denied the divinity of Christ and all of Pauline soteriology. Some believed Jesus was virgin born, but none affirmed his pre-existence (Isa. 9:6; Mic. 5:2; John 1:1-2; 17:5). They were ascetics who camped on Jesus’ teaching regarding the poor in spirit (Matt. 5:3; Luke 4:18; 7:22) and continued to strictly adhere to the Law and circumcision1. They believed that Jesus was selected by God as the Anointed One because he perfectly kept the Law. For this reason, this group is sometimes associated with the Judaizers that Paul wrote against in some of his epistles (most notably, Galatians).

Today, many believe that Jesus of Narazeth was not divine. These include the various inquiries into the 'Historical Jesus' (such as the Jesus Seminar), Mormons, Muslims, and atheists.

They flourished in the 5th century in Arabia, if you really want to understand islamic logic, then you must look to ebionism.

The point I am trying to make is that ebionites, and I think its safe to say, Prophet Mohammed would look at the teachings of Islam today and wonder where they come from, given his understanding of the "Ruah haKadosh" was simply the same one found in the Bible.

Ansar Al-Haq

19th April 2005, 20:29

Your first few statements reflect a common christian misconception. I think I have already mentioned this to you before, but I don't think you read my post. here it is again:

When we say that the trinity is illogical, are we trying to comprehend God's nature within our limited scope of comprehension? Is that why we cannot comprehend trinity? Or is it because of something else?

There is a distinct difference between admitting that we cannot comprehend God's nature or appearance, and attributing something to God which defies reality. Allow me to elaborate.

1 is not equal to 3 (provided that the units are consistant). Those three units cannot operate with the same properties as the one unit. If one was equal to three then it wouldn't be one. Is this a matter of attempting to comprehend God? No, it is simply a matter of defining constant values in our universe.

According to trinitarian Christianity, God sent the Son to the world. The sender and the one being sent cannot be the same. Jesus called out to God and prayed to Him. The caller and the one being called upon cannot be the same.

So the notion that there are three persons in one God, 3 in 1, is really nothing more than polytheism, because 1 God is 1 person, not three.

Now a trinitarian may argue, "Well God can do everything. Why are you placing limits on God?"

The answer is yes, God can do anything and we are not placing limits on God, BUT within the scope of reality of our universe, certain properties are real and defined. We live in a real universe, therefore, all elements within this set must be real.

Can the immortal die? A trinitarian will say, "God can do anything" but the correct answer is no, the immortal cannot die because that defies his attribute of immortality. If you die, you aren't immortal! It's not a matter of setting limits on God, its a matter of consistency in describing our universe. Can the All-Mighty be overcome? A trinitarian would say, "God can do anything" but again, this has nothing to do with God's potential.
Death and being overcome, these are not abilites they are inabilities. Death is the inability to live, therefore, the Eternal cannot die. NOT because of any lack in His potential, but because it defies His set attributes.

Moving on, trinitarians ask muslims, "you believe in the virgin birth of Christ. If you believe in the biologically impossible, why do you blame us for believing in the mathematically impossible?"

The answer is that those two beliefs are not analogous. What the trinitarian is describing as biologically impossible is still CONCEIVABLE. We can understand the notion of God placing an already fertilized zygote within Mary, or acheiving this virgin brith through some similar mechanism. When God suspends the standard laws which govern the universe, we term this a miracle. In this case, it is a biological miracle. It is conceivable because we are not bringing equality between two unequal elements. Nor are we interchanging elements of disjoint sets. In the real universe, all properties are real. in the real universe, God is One.

But trinity is not a mathematical miracle the way that the virgin birth is a biological miracle. Trinity is inconceivable. It defies the attributes that have been set in stone. When God says He is ONE, it means He is ONE. Not three. Trinity attempts to make the Eternal/immortal die. Trinity attempts to make the unequal equal.

Such things are not properties of the universe we live in. So the trinity canot be accepted by anyone because it is logically self-contradictory. Furthermore, it finds no support in the Tanakh, the New Testament, or the Qur'an.

Peace

Ansar Al-Haq

19th April 2005, 20:30

Peace, thanks for the post Sinner.

Not feeling well today, so just one short post on the Holy Spirit
Hope you get well soon.

First of all, both you and I agree that the spirit takes many different meanings in the Bible. The only definition we are not agreed upon is that you say it is a person in a trinity, while I say that it is the Angel Gabriel.

Perhaps it would be better if our Jewish members answered your quotes from the Old testament. For now I will comment in general.

One of the meanings of the 'spirit of God' is seen in the following verses:

Isaiah 11:1-3
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him (Jesus)-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD (Jesus fearing his GOD)--
and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears;

As we see in Isaiah 11:1-3, there is:
1-* Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding.
2-* Spirit of Counsel and of power.
3-* Spirit of Knowledge.
4-* Spirit of the fear of the LORD.

So a vast majority of these biblical references to the spirit are really metaphorical. And I showed you many many people in the Bible who recieve the 'spirit of God'.

Judges 14:6 "The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told
neither his father nor his mother what he had done."

Here we see that the spirit is power here. Its like if we say, "Lets have a discussion in the spirit of peace and unity" we do not mean an actual spirit but the nature of our feelings.

So that is one meaning and that explains many of your quotes. The Bible also speaks of the spirit of inspiration which is Angel Gabriel.

The Spirit has the attributes of God :
* eternal, having neither beginning nor end (Hebrews 9:14)
* omni-potent, having all power (Luke 1:35);
Luke 1:35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
I don't see how you got the omnipotent idea here. This could mean a number of things. Either it refers to the personal human soul of Prophet Jesus. Or it refers to the Angel Gabriel who appeared to Mary. Or it refers to the 'spirit of God' in one of the metaphorical meanings given above i.e. power, wisdom, peace, etc.

As far as eternal spirit is considered, this can also be interpreted in the above manner.

* omni-present, being everywhere at the same time (Psalm 139:7); and
* omni-scient, understanding all matters ( 1 Corinthians 2:10,11).
If you read the context, you can see that this is just referring to God. There is no indication that it refers to a distinct person.

Thus the Holy Spirit can not be a created being such a human or an angel.
In such passges it cannot. But as we have already agreed it does not have the same meaning throughout the Bible.

The Holy Sprit is distinct from the Father and Son:

Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
But how do we know that the spirit of God does not refer to the meanings already outlined? Here it could easily refer to the Angel Gabriel.

Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
I think this refers to the metaphorical usage of 'spirit'. Peace, security, harmony, etc.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Well, let's see what your own Biblical scholars say about this verse.

John W. Ritenbaugh writes the following:

Matthew 28:19

Speaking "in the name of" something does not necessarily mean that one is speaking of the name of a personality. A cliché we hear frequently in old crime movies illustrates this. Sometime during the film, a policeman invariably comes running out with his gun drawn and aimed at the suspect, and he says, "Stop in the name of the law!" Does the law have personality? Is it a personality? No, it is an inanimate thing. The policeman was commanding the robber to stop in the name of an authority, the law.

So just because the baptism formula includes within it the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does not mean that the Holy Spirit is a Person. It is mentioned, undoubtedly, as the means through which the repentant sinner is brought to the point of being baptized. God tells us clearly that the Holy Spirit is given to convict us of sin (John 16:8-9). God stirs up our minds by the power of His mind, using His Spirit to lead us to think of things in a way that we never have before, and He thereby brings us to repentance.

By the same means, He also reveals to us the real Jesus, and by the same means, He gives us the power to believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin. The Holy Spirit, then, is the power that God uses to bring us to that point.

Peace

Hischam Khan

19th April 2005, 21:00

“The problem with your understanding of God, is that you are limiting God by saying God is less than, or more than, simple mathematics will tell you infinity - a large number is still infinity.”The problem Hawk is not that I am limiting God, I am reasoning with you. All the while I totally agree that we have next to no knowledge of God’s “Being”. Had you not pushed me into the unknown with what you think God must be like, then I would not have done so. As I mentioned so many times before, I do not like talking on this issue because I can sense that all that is being done is wild guessing and then sweetening this as though it were matter of fact. I don’t see much substance in your explanations thus far, that’s all.

”Hischam, in Islam you do not ascribe characteristics to God, yet you would impose your limited logic on His nature, to make him conform to your beliefs.”It is you who seems to think that you need to know the tinniest of details about Him so if anyone is limiting Him it’s you. Look, I’m just playing along in a sense. You want to tell how God is; then you should make some sense in what you are talking about. You are the one who seems so sure of himself. You are the one making the claim that God splits up into several parts and enters different people as though He were an ocean that you drink out of. What guarantee dost thou have?

”In fact Hischam God is really in us.”Well you sure are confident as you are in all your posts. You are always ‘matter of fact’ while we are only ever ‘glossing over’, right? Nice attitude!

”Now there is ample support for this understanding even in the Koran.

But Muslims in the 10th century, in their enthusiasm to differentiate themselves from the Christians innovated their faith.”When you are ready to produce something to back your argument we are here to see it. Now, you are merely blowing your own trumpet. If there is “ample support” for this “in the Qur’an” then show it to us. But please, be fair; don’t twist Scripture or read it out of context.

“It is known among arab christians, that Islam was taught to Mohammed from Warraqa, who was an ebionite monk, and a chief priest at Medinah.”Now, this all finds no support on any authentic source on the life of the Prophet (pbuh). The man lived his life in Mecca, a small Town in which each individual knew the next very well. So well in fact, that when a stranger was among them, they realised it immediately. The man’s life was an open Book to his people. They knew him from cover to cover. They called him ‘Al Amin’ (i.e. The Trustworthy) and ‘Al Sadiq’ (i.e. The Truthful). Whenever anyone left for a travel and had to leave his belongings behind, he would be the first on their list to leave it with. Whenever there were arguments they were most happy to have him settle the account. He was their golden boy, born and bread. For this very reason, the Almighty asks him to state it out loud and clear:
But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them, those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say: "Bring us a reading other than this, or change this," Say: "It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it: I follow naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the penalty of a Great Day." Say: "If Allah had so willed, I should not have rehearsed it to you, nor would He have made it known to you. A whole life-time before this have I tarried amongst you: will you not then understand? Who does more wrong than such as forge a lie against Allah, or deny His Signs? But never will prosper those who sin.The above is a most potent common sense argument that he was told to present to his people. Seeing as they knew him inside out and even labelled him as their best, why would he then all of a sudden change so drastically that he would forge something and ascribe it to the Almighty? Who can be more wrong than that? Yet they always testified to the brilliance, the honesty, the integrity and genuineness of this man! So, if he did not do so and is merely declaring what has been revealed to Him, then indeed there can be none more wrong then them.

The Prophet (pbuh) was unlearned. He could neither read nor write. Thus, he never studied other literatures or works. There is no evidence in the vast literature on his life that would suggest that he studied or learnt from others. Quite to the contrary, in his first forty years, he showed no interest in lecturing to his people at all. It was all a spontaneous occurrence and this indeed is why it shocked them so. The Qur’an he was reciting was inimitable even to their most learned men, while they knew he had no learning. There were hardly any Jews or Christians in his town and there is no evidence that he dwelled or studied with them. The theory that he learnt from Waraqah Ibn Naufal is utterly unsubstantiated. Quite to the contrary, it appears that the Prophet (pbuh) hardly even knew the man. Besides this, the man died almost immediately after this revelation. The Qur’an continued being revealed in a wide array of different contexts and situations and provided answers to problems while remaining in complete harmony with itself, there is no twisting bending or turning. No developments in thought are to be found in it.

It might do you well to just look at ebionism, it would shock you to see the similarities in their teachings and Islam. I mean SHOCKING similarities.
So much so, that one can say that they are the same faith.

The Ebionites were an early Jewish/Christian sect who denied the divinity of Christ and all of Pauline soteriology. Some believed Jesus was virgin born, but none affirmed his pre-existence (Isa. 9:6; Mic. 5:2; John 1:1-2; 17:5). They were ascetics who camped on Jesus’ teaching regarding the poor in spirit (Matt. 5:3; Luke 4:18; 7:22) and continued to strictly adhere to the Law and circumcision1. They believed that Jesus was selected by God as the Anointed One because he perfectly kept the Law. For this reason, this group is sometimes associated with the Judaizers that Paul wrote against in some of his epistles (most notably, Galatians).Read up on the Nazarene Judeo-Christian sect if you like (perhaps you already have). The Ebionites have their similarities with them. The Nazarenes seemed to have been the flourishing Christians around the Arab lands. They too did not appear to believe in the atonement of sin. It seems that they believed in the Divinity of Jesus, Mary and God Almighty. They had their own Aramaic Gospel, unlike the Gospels of Christianity that we know of. The point is that just because there are similarities between this and Islam (e.g. the rejection of inherited sin) does not prove that one copied the other. The Prophet’s (pbuh) life is a testimony against it. The Qur’an itself is a testimony against it. Perhaps it isn’t for you, but it is for me. The Prophet Jesus (pbuh) grew up amongst Jews who believed in God, the Torah, and the Prophets and so on. Did he forge from them? One can make a much better case here and indeed with the many other Biblical Prophets, then one could ever make with Muhammad (pbuh). Stand to reason!

The point I am trying to make is that ebionites, and I think its safe to say, Prophet Mohammed would look at the teachings of Islam today and wonder where they come from, given his understanding of the "Ruah haKadosh" was simply the same one found in the Bible.Well, both your viewpoint and mine are here on the forum. It's not like I didn't respond with my own understanding of the issue. You might feel that you have hard facts but I feel that you have only made unsupported claims. This is all fine, we cannot all think alike! The readers too will make up their own mind. Isn't it beautiful? :p

regards

Yahya Sulaiman

19th April 2005, 21:50

It is known among arab christians, that Islam was taught to Mohammed from Warraqa, who was an ebionite monk, and a chief priest at Medinah.

It might do you well to just look at ebionism, it would shock you to see the similarities in their teachings and Islam. I mean SHOCKING similarities.
So much so, that one can say that they are the same faith.

The fact that two things have similarities does not automatically mean that one copied from the other. If the Koran tells the Truth about everything as we believe, then whatever is true (and mentioned in the Koran) from the beliefs of the Ebionites or anyone else will naturally be a part of it. There is ample evidence (http://www.xyapx.com/ziggyzag/koranparallelstradition.php) for this being the case.

nr_

19th April 2005, 22:10

Hischam Khan

19th April 2005, 22:20

A similar argument can be used to attack Islam. God is everywhere but we can't worship idols, persons, and trees.How can it be used against Islam, nr? Where does God say that He is “everywhere” in His actual "essence"?

The explanation is that God's presence within persons is not substantial, in other words we can't worship them, but is a different kind of presence than in material objects--He's active in our life.You are telling me vaguely that He is present but you are not telling me exactly how. He can be active in our life and indeed close to us without actually being in us with His own "Being" or somehow part of His "Being". I have no objection with the saying that "God is with us" but when you say that “You have God in you” or “God is in His creation” I think it is pretty clear that you are trying to explain something specific.

regards

hawk

19th April 2005, 22:29

Concerning the pasted article then...
Actually, the Qur’an makes special reference to the fact that God strengthened Jesus (pbuh) with the 'Holy Spirit' because the Jews were claiming that he was inspired by the devil.

Where in the Koran is this stated?

This is a logical fallacy. Even if the Qur’an did not explicitly state that others were also strengthened by the 'Holy Spirit', it would not necessarily mean that they weren’t. As I have said, there was an accusation hurled especially against him and so the Qur’an explicitly mentions this to negate that accusation. Besides this, the Qur’an actually declares:

“Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.” - Surah Al Nahl 16:102

Here it not only mentions that the ‘Holy Spirit’ brings the revelation from God but that by it he strengthens the believers. Clearly then, it is mentioned for other than Jesus (pbuh). Another thing is that the Qur’an mentions in Surah Al Baqarah:

“Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel -for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe” - Surah Al-Baqarah 2:97

On this basis I would say that it is pretty reasonable to conclude that ‘Holy Spirit’ as well as the other phrases such as ‘An Honourable Messenger’ (surah 81:19), and ‘The trustworthy Spirit’ (26:193) are attributive nouns for this Angel.

Ah but you think I am arguing that the Holy Spirit was the only entity that was part of the revelation process.

I would like to point you to the alternative that makes more sense later in my post.

This has already been refuted in the verse of the Qur’an which states that he strengthens the believers.

The rest of the article then also falls apart in my view, on the above basis.

peace

Now you say the Holy Spirit strengthens the believers, yet is this not Gods function?

Is not the angel Gabriel the messenger? Does the angel strengthen all the believers, is he omni-present?

Anyway that is not really my point.
Hischam, you have based your understanding that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel on one argument,
You say the Holy Spirit reveals the Koran, and the angel Gabriel reveals the Koran, therefore they are the same.

How about they are two separate entities?

Why is it that you cannot go there?

Because then you are forced to deal with breaking the rules of tawheed.

Hischam, these rules were never taught by your Prophet. At least do him the honour of following his teachings properly. The only reason you must interpret these verses this way is because of some innovation of later centuries.

In fact it so easily explains the last verse of Sura baqara.
Suddenly it makes sense, think about it, do yourself that favour, after all i am not asking you to beleive anything that is not in the Koran.

I am showing you an alternative interpretation that is more true to the text, than your current interpretation.

Yes Gabriel reveals the Koran.

Yes the Holy Spirit (Ruah haKadosh) reveals the Koran too.

Now all the Scholraship of the past is also true, all the jewish scholars knew that the Holy Spirit is poured upon man to inspire the Prophets.

Yahya Sulaiman

19th April 2005, 22:34

hawk, Hischam already showed six ways from Sunday why it is that it is reasonable to consider the "Holy Spirit" and the angel of revelation (probably Gabriel) to be the same thing in the Koran. I'm sick and tired of your ignoring our refutations and bringing up the points refuted again and again as if we had not said anything in the first place.

Where in the Koran is this stated?

And most certainly We gave Musa [i.e. Moses] the Book and We sent apostles after him one after another; and We gave Isa [i.e. Jesus], the son of Marium [i.e. Mary], clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit.... (Koran 2:87, Shakir)

hawk

19th April 2005, 22:38

And most certainly We gave Musa [i.e. Moses] the Book and We sent apostles after him one after another; and We gave Isa [i.e. Jesus], the son of Marium [i.e. Mary], clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit.... (Koran 2:87, Shakir)

Yahya,
where does it state that Jesus was accused of being possessed by the Devil?

hawk

19th April 2005, 22:45

How can it be used against Islam, nr? Where does God say that He is “everywhere” in His actual "essence"?

You are telling me vaguely that He is present but you are not telling me exactly how. He can be active in our life and indeed close to us without actually being in us with His own "Being" or somehow part of His "Being". I have no objection with the saying that "God is with us" but when you say that “You have God in you” or “God is in His creation” I think it is pretty clear that you are trying to explain something specific.

regards

Hischam,

You are told that God blows his Spirit (now the word Ruah is specific, it doesnt mean strength, it doesnt mean wisdom, it means breath, essence)

I dont know what more you could want to know about Gods presence in man.

In the psalms we are told to be god-like.
Ofcourse we are asked to be god-like, it makes sense, since we are created in the image and likeness of Him.

And if His spirit animates us, (and your scripture says exactly the same thing)
Then I cannot even begin to understand how you cannot see God and Humanity intertwined.

Are we Gods? no we are not Gods, but we can be gods, empty ourselves of our natures (nafs) and serve Our Lord by serving each other.

For doesnt God say - as you do unto the least of your bretheren , so you do unto Me.

Does Islam teach anything different in essence?

Everything else that contradicts these teachings in Islam is actually some kind of innovation, to differentiate its self from Christianity.

hawk

19th April 2005, 22:49

hawk, Hischam already showed six ways from Sunday why it is that it is reasonable to consider the "Holy Spirit" and the angel of revelation (probably Gabriel) to be the same thing in the Koran. I'm sick and tired of your ignoring our refutations and bringing up the points refuted again and again as if we had not said anything in the first place.

Yahya,

Nothing has been refuted, I am offering an alternative interpretation that makes more sense, and is truer to the text.

Yet you can persist if you like, but the entire theology of Islam (today) is based on some innovation of man.

Ansar Al-Haq

20th April 2005, 02:34

Am I going to get a response to posts 123 and 124?

Yahya Sulaiman

20th April 2005, 02:56

Yahya, where does it state that Jesus was accused of being possessed by the Devil?

I don't remember the Koran saying that, but the Bible says it (Mark 3:22).

hawk

20th April 2005, 03:08

Am I going to get a response to posts 123 and 124?

Ofcourse my freind

hawk

20th April 2005, 03:30

When we say that the trinity is illogical, are we trying to comprehend God's nature within our limited scope of comprehension? Is that why we cannot comprehend trinity? Or is it because of something else?

There is a distinct difference between admitting that we cannot comprehend God's nature or appearance, and attributing something to God which defies reality. Allow me to elaborate.

1 is not equal to 3 (provided that the units are consistant). Those three units cannot operate with the same properties as the one unit. If one was equal to three then it wouldn't be one. Is this a matter of attempting to comprehend God? No, it is simply a matter of defining constant values in our universe.

According to trinitarian Christianity, God sent the Son to the world. The sender and the one being sent cannot be the same. Jesus called out to God and prayed to Him. The caller and the one being called upon cannot be the same.

So the notion that there are three persons in one God, 3 in 1, is really nothing more than polytheism, because 1 God is 1 person, not three.

Firstly let us not get stuck on the word Trinity.

Simply put:

We know that God the Father is God
We know that Jesus is God (“Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” – John 20:28)
We know that the Holy Spirit (Ruah hakadosh) is God. (2 Corinthians 3:17-18)

Simply put we know because it was revealed thus.

Ofcourse when pressed on the matter of Tawheed, the muslim from his own understanding of Ruah hakadosh is left foundationless.

God creates man by blowing the "divine essence" into him. And that alone presents all sorts of problems for Muslims when asked about our true natures.

You will notice however, that the Christian understanding, is actually completely true to scripture.

It is actually the Muslim , who has to redefine "The Holy Spirit" to Gabriel.
and then cannot deal with the "ruh" that is described in the Koran.

It seems that the inconsistent understanding is actually the Muslim understanding.

Such things are not properties of the universe we live in. So the trinity canot be accepted by anyone because it is logically self-contradictory. Furthermore, it finds no support in the Tanakh, the New Testament, or the Qur'an.

Once more, when faced with the truth of the revelation, the Muslim's only recourse is to fall back to logic.

Ofcourse that would be permissable if logic was ever a criterion, but it isnt.

A muslim when pressed on the issue of "ruh" cannot explain it, and says that it is a mystery.

However it is no mystery, it is revealed in the Koran, and is easily available to those who care to look.

Similarly the Trinity is revealed as is, we simply beleive what is revealed to us.

Yahya Sulaiman

20th April 2005, 03:49

We know that Jesus is God (“Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” – John 20:28).

No, we don't. I don't know things that aren't true, quite naturally. And the fact that Thomas (allegedly) said that does not mean that it is true. Was Thomas infallible? Please look at this (http://answering-christianity.com/john20_28.htm) as well.

We know that the Holy Spirit (Ruah hakadosh) is God. (2 Corinthians 3:17-18)

2 Corinthians 3:17-18 speaks only of "the spirit of the living God" (this being mentioned earlier in the chapter). Why should this term not be synonymous with the word "God"?

Once more, when faced with the truth of the revelation, the Muslim's only recourse is to fall back to logic. Of course that would be permissable if logic was ever a criterion, but it isnt.

I am getting so tired of this double standard. I faced it time and time again in the Lutheran high school I attended, Lutherans being founded on the man who taught that "reason is the Devil's whore". You use logic when it suits you and reject it as a criterion when it doesn't. Your answers to us in this very thread attempt to use logic to refute us, and when we respond, you say that "the Muslim's only recourse is to fall back to logic. Of course that would be permissable if logic was ever a criterion, but it isn't." You can't have it both ways, hawk. Either logic is to be used in religion or it isn't: pick one. You can't just switch back and forth between the two at your convenience.

Yahya Sulaiman

20th April 2005, 03:57

By the by, I have five articles (and those are just the ones I've written so far) on my website disproving the Trinity:

http://www.xyapx.com/ziggyzag/bibleslackoftrinitydoctrineexamined.php

http://www.xyapx.com/ziggyzag/bibleslackoftrinitydoctrineexamined.php

http://www.xyapx.com/ziggyzag/trinitymonotheismandincomprehensibility.php

http://www.xyapx.com/ziggyzag/gospelsdonotsupporttrinity.php

http://www.xyapx.com/ziggyzag/refutingansweringislamsarticleontrinity.php

Ansar Al-Haq

20th April 2005, 04:21

Ofcourse my freind
First of all, what you posted was NOT a response to my post. You did not address any of the points I raised about trinity, but instead went off discussing trinity as you desired. You were unable to refute the point that it was self-contradictictory at all.

But that's fine. I play both ways. I'll answer your points even if you neglect to answer mine.

Your claim that the trinity is in-line with the New Testament is also incorrect.

We know that Jesus is God (“Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” – John 20:28).

It is often claimed that since Thomas referred to Jesus as "My God, my Lord (John 20:28)," that Jesus was God. An ignorance of the context of the verse and of Christian doctrine prompts this claim. *The context of the verse talks about an unbelieving Thomas being surprised when Jesus offers him evidence.
The exclamation, "My God," on his part was just astonishment. We use such exclamations everyday while talking to people. This doesn't mean that the person we are talking to is God. For example, I see John cutting his wrist with a Rambo knife. I say: "My God, John what are you doing?" Do I mean that John is God? Of course not. Similar is the use of the expression by Thomas. If you go into Jewish or Muslim societies even today, you'll hear people exclaim "My God, my Lord," at every situation which surprises them or causes them anguish or is astonishing. *In the verse above Thomas says: "My God, my Lord." He was not claiming that Jesus was his (1) God and (2) Lord. If he did then the church and the disciples should have stamped him as a heretic right there and then. *Because claiming that Jesus is Lord and God is a violation of Christian doctrine, which asserts that there is One God, the Father and One Lord, Jesus. Jesus can't be God and Lord. *"...yet for us there is but one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ ...(I Corinthians 8:6)". *Believing the above (i.e Jesus is Lord and God) would leave a person with unorthodox doctrine branded by the church as Sabellianism, Patripassianism, Monarchianism.

*

Further from Muslim-SA:

1.2.2.11 John 20:28

"Then saith he (Jesus) to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

Once again, when I was first quoted this verse, I immediately thought that I had at long last found my elusive goal. Finally, I had found a verse that explicitly claims that Jesus "is" God. However, it was not long after that, upon further research into Christian theological literature, I once again would come to find that the true meaning of this verse was quite different than what a casual glance might have me believe.

This verse is at best an example of an "implicit" affirmation of a "Duality." This is because this verse appears to imply that Thomas thought that Jesus was God Almighty. The words are those of Thomas and not Jesus. However, there are a number of problems with interpreting this verse to mean that Jesus is God.

Firstly, the phrase "Thomas answered" is somewhat misleading since nowhere before this verses was Thomas asked a question. Thomas' words could more appropriately be referred to as an "outburst" or an "exclamation." This is indeed why most translations of the Bible (excluding the King James Version) follow this exclamation with an "exclamation mark" as follows: "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God !"

Christian scholars such as Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-428), the Bishop of Mopsuestia, interpreted this verse to not be directed at Jesus but at God "the Father." Thus, it is similar in meaning to our modern exclamations of surprise "My God!" or "My Lord!." In other words, this was an outburst designed to display surprise and disbelief rather than an affirmation that Jesus was in fact God "the Father."

Secondly, the word translated in this verse as "God" is indeed the Greek "Ho theos" (The God), and not "theos" (divine). However, when studying the history of this verse in the ancient Biblical manuscripts from which our modern Bibles have been compiled we find an interesting fact, specifically, that the ancient Biblical manuscripts themselves are not in agreement as to the correct form of this word. For example, the codex Bezae (or codex D) is a fifth century manuscript containing Greek and Latin texts of the Gospels and Acts, which was discovered in the 16th century by Theodore Beza in a monastery in Lyon. The predecessor of the codex Bezae and other church manuscripts do not contain the article "Ho" ("THE") in their text (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman, p. 266). What this means is that this verse in it's original form, if it is to be understood to be addressing Jesus (pbuh) himself, only addresses him as "divine" and not as the "Almighty God." Thus, it is similar in meaning to the meaning conveyed when prophet Moses is described as being a "god" in Exodus 7:1 (or when all Jews are described as being "gods" in Psalms 82:6, or when the devil is described as god in 2 Corinthians 4:4), effectively reducing the exclamation of Thomas, if it were indeed directed to Jesus, to "My lord the divine!," or "my divine lord!"

For a Muslim the matter is simple. The Qur'an very explicitly states that Jesus was not forsaken by God to the Jews to be crucified, rather "it was made to appear so to them." So the claim that Jesus came to Thomas and asked him to witness the imprint of the nail in his hand and the spear in his side is, for a Muslim, clear evidence that this whole episode was a fabrication and later insertion. However, since a Muslim's claim in this regard would not be regarded as authoritative unbiased proof in this matter, therefore, it is necessary to use a little logic to arrive at the truth.

Since we now have on our hands a dispute between the ancient Biblical manuscripts themselves as to what Thomas actually said, therefore, let me pose this very simple request. Please get out a pencil and a piece of paper, stop reading this book for the moment, and in your own words, please write down in about twenty words, very concisely but as directly as possible, what is the foremost obvious conclusion you are able to draw from Thomas' outburst. Study your words carefully and write them down as if your very life and the salvation of thousands of generations depend on what you are about to say. Make it clear and to the point. Have you finished?. Okay, let us continue.

Let us now compare what you have just written with what the actual author of this Gospel had written when faced with the same requirements I have just presented you with. If we were to continue reading from this same Gospel of John, we will find that immediately following this discourse between Jesus and Thomas depicted by the author of "John," the same author of "John" goes on to write:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

John 20:30-31

If the author of John had recognized Thomas' words to be a testimony that "Jesus is God" and if the author interpreted Jesus' silence to be his approval of this claimed testimony, then John would have written "that ye might believe that Jesus is the Almighty God" and not "that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ..." (For an explanation of the terms "son of God" and "Christ" please read sections 1.2.3.2, and 1.2.3.8 which are coming up soon).

To make this matter clearer let us first remember that Christian scholars tell us that the disciples did not fully comprehend who Jesus "was" until after the resurrection. They admit that the Trinity was not "fully" incorporated into Christianity until three hundred years after the departure of Jesus (see rest of chapter one). However, they then point to this verse in order to exhibit to us how in the end the "true" nature of Jesus was made clear to the apostles. Now, we need to ask, what is the single most important piece of information we have just learned from Thomas' outburst? What is the single most glaring, obvious, and outstanding, piece of information we have learned from this statement? Any random missionary would tell us that it is the fact that "Jesus is God!" In other words, the disciples have just spent many years with Jesus learning from him, following him, obeying him, and preaching his message. Suddenly he is allegedly taken away, crucified, buried, and then he is resurrected. Now Thomas sees him and according to the testimony of "John," he realizes that Jesus is "God the Father" who has come down to earth to walk among us. So what would we logically expect to be the foremost topic of most urgent and critical concern in the eyes of the author of "John"? Obviously, it should be the instillation within us of the "fact" that "Jesus is the 'incarnation' of God Almighty!" Does this not stand to reason? Why then does the author now casually disregard such an earth shattering observation and choose to simply return to describing Jesus with the benign terms of "son of God" and "Messiah/Christ"(see sections 1.2.3.2, and 1.2.3.8)? Did the author of this book not make the connection which we have just made? Did the author of "John" have less understanding of what he was writing than us? Think about it.

Furthermore, some Christian scholars believe that the whole episode of "doubting Thomas" is a later "insertion." "The Five Gospels" mark this passage as being a complete fabrication and not the word of Jesus (pbuh).

There are a number of other verses which could be brought up in this comparison, however, the ones just quoted are the strongest and most often quoted verses. A number of other verses that are brought up in such discussions shall be dealt with in chapter 1.2.3 since they are more directly applicable to the concept of the divinity of Jesus or the claim that he is the physical/begotten son of God than they are to the discussion of the Trinity.

Muslim-SA@acsu.buffalo.edu

Last modified: Sun Nov 17 01:58:07 EST 1996

I could give you more, but I'll leave you with that. If that is the only proof you have for the divinty of Jesus, I think you may need to start searching for the truth.

:w:

nr_

20th April 2005, 04:39

How can it be used against Islam, nr? Where does God say that He is ?everywhere? in His actual "essence"?

Don't all muslims believe God is omnipresent? My understanding is that God isn't present everywhere in his essence because to do so would change the essence of the material object. God's omnipresence is required, I think, because in the beginning there was just God, there being no creations.Because God's attributes don't change and He was omnipresent at the beginning, He must remain omnipresent through his creation.

He can be active in our life and indeed close to us without actually being in us with His own "Being" or somehow part of His "Being".

When I first used "in" I was referring to God's omnipresent and ignoring the spatial meaning of the word.

I have no objection with the saying that "God is with us" but when you say that ?You have God in you? or ?God is in His creation? I think it is pretty clear that you are trying to explain something specific.

I don't think so. When most Christians use the word "in" in this sense, they don't mean the material meaning but rather their relationship with God.

Yahya Sulaiman

20th April 2005, 04:46

Allah encompasses all things. (Koran 4:126, Shakir)

hawk

20th April 2005, 05:16

The exclamation, "My God," on his part was just astonishment. We use such exclamations everyday while talking to people. This doesn't mean that the person we are talking to is God. For example, I see John cutting his wrist with a Rambo knife. I say: "My God, John what are you doing?" Do I mean that John is God? Of course not. Similar is the use of the expression by Thomas. If you go into Jewish or Muslim societies even today, you'll hear people exclaim "My God, my Lord," at every situation which surprises them or causes them anguish or is astonishing.

This is the stupidest post I have seen in a while, I wonder who the Moron is who came up with it.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain."

Jews, right upto today never ever ever ever ever say "My God", unless they mean it

I cannot believe that Thomas, a believing jew would say it.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Yahya Sulaiman

20th April 2005, 05:22

This is the stupidest post I have seen in a while, I wonder who the Moron is who came up with it.

As if it weren't bad enough that you refuse to take me seriously, now you're flametrolling.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain." Jews, right upto today never ever ever ever ever say "My God", unless they mean it. I cannot believe that Thomas, a believing jew would say it.

1. There are various interpretations of what that commandment means.
2. Thomas was not exactly supposed to be the most faithful of the apostles, was he? So it isn't inconceivable that he would make that kind of mistake.
3. When people are in a state of shock, they often end up reflexively making exclamations like, "Oh my God!" even if they believe in not doing that, because people make mistakes. We're only human.

hawk

20th April 2005, 05:39

Thomas was not exactly supposed to be the most faithful of the apostles, was he? So it isn't inconceivable that he would make that kind of mistake.

It isnt conceivable because there is no such exclamation in hebrew or aramaic.

What happens to the people on the day of repentance, the one day that the high priest can take the name of God.
They all fell flat on their faces.

One simply didnt say things like "my God" unless one seriously meant it.

3. When people are in a state of shock, they often end up reflexively making exclamations like, "Oh my God!" even if they believe in not doing that, because people make mistakes. We're only human.

In english - yes.

In hebrew/aramaic - no.

People dont exclaim about such deep rooted traditions.
Its just not done.

hawk

20th April 2005, 05:42

As if it weren't bad enough that you refuse to take me seriously, now you're flametrolling.

If I dont take you seriously, its only because I dont want to let your posts get to me.
You post things, you know will offend Christians on this site.
You may claim not to offend, but you do.
Your Muslim brothers have asked you about this, yet you persist.
So you reap my freind as you sow.

Yahya Sulaiman

20th April 2005, 05:43

Please read that article from Answering Christianity that I linked you to.

Yahya Sulaiman

20th April 2005, 05:47

If I dont take you seriously, its only because I dont want to let your posts get to me.

What do you mean, "get to you"? Do you not want my posts to influence you with the Truth? ;)

You post things, you know will offend Christians on this site.

The truth hurts, and I don't like that fact, but there's nothing any of us can do about it. I don't actually attack Christianity the way you have accused me, and if I have, I would like to see even one example. There is a difference between rebutting someone and attacking them.

You may claim not to offend, but you do.

I never claimed that. The emotional effects of what I post on other people are not up to me, nor can I necessarily predict them.

Your Muslim brothers have asked you about this, yet you persist. So you reap my freind as you sow.

When have they "asked me" about that? Where? And aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek? I take you seriously, now take me seriously.

hawk

20th April 2005, 05:47

Please read that article from Answering Christianity that I linked you to.

Which one is that?

Yahya Sulaiman

20th April 2005, 05:50

This one. (http://answering-christianity.com/john20_28.htm)

hawk

20th April 2005, 05:54

What do you mean, "get to you"? Do you not want my posts to influence you with the Truth? ;)

If you spoke of the truth it would have to be Christianity.
Your truth is half baked logic that is summarily dismissed as it is posted.

The truth hurts, and I don't like that fact, but there's nothing any of us can do about it. I don't actually attack Christianity the way you have accused me, and if I have, I would like to see even one example. There is a difference between rebutting someone and attacking them.

You arent rebutting anyone, I really believe that you have been wounded or hurt when you were younger. I know this much, you are hurting from something, and the more you run frm it, the worse it will be for you.

Yahya, you will turn back to Christ. :)

Its just a matter of time with you. I think you are going through those rebel years, but in time you will come around.

:) :) :) :)

And the wonderful part is that you will be that much stronger a christian for it.

That ofcourse has been my own experience, I am so much a stronger Christian, after learning about Islam.
Ofcourse I never got as far as you, in so far as I never proclaimed the Shahada, but i think I know what you are going through.
But then I also think I know alot more Islam than you do, even though I am not a Muslim.
Still I have a good sense about these things, you will turn back to Christianity.
God does work in mysterious ways doesnt he?

Yahya Sulaiman

20th April 2005, 06:05

If you spoke of the truth it would have to be Christianity.
Your truth is half baked logic that is summarily dismissed as it is posted.

Sticks and stones, hawk. That you dismiss it doesn't make it untrue.

You arent rebutting anyone.

Excuse me? Is an enormous section of my website, all of which I have probably posted on the board at some point, not rebutting Christianity?

I really believe that you have been wounded or hurt when you were younger.

How could you possibly know such a thing? Whence do you draw this conclusion? I'm very curious.

I know this much, you are hurting from something, and the more you run frm it, the worse it will be for you.

I am hurting from some academic and personal matters, but only mildly. And I never run from anything.

Yahya, you will turn back to Christ. :) Its just a matter of time with you.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that in my own crystal ball. ;)

I think you are going through those rebel years, but in time you will come around

Rebel? :lol: I left Christianity because I came to see it for its essential emptiness and extremely flawed nature. I am not rebelling against anything or anyone religiously. I cannot imagine myself being a Christian at any time in the future. Literally. I really can't conceive of it. I really can't imagine it. The doctrines of Christianity are too blatantly false, and that has been confirmed by the failed efforts of missionary after missionary after missionary after missionary. Should anyone ever offer me a convincing argument to go back to Christianity, I will--if I don't die of shock first. ;) But it's been many years since I've left Christianity, and in all that time I have run into an endless stream of Christians, including you, who could not give me a single, convincing argument either for Christianity or against Islam. Each time it happens my faith gets stronger--so perhaps I should actually be grateful to you.

hawk

20th April 2005, 06:38

Rebel? :lol: I left Christianity because I came to see it for its essential emptiness and extremely flawed nature. I am not rebelling against anything or anyone religiously. I cannot imagine myself being a Christian at any time in the future. Literally. I really can't conceive of it. I really can't imagine it. The doctrines of Christianity are too blatantly false, and that has been confirmed by the failed efforts of missionary after missionary after missionary after missionary. Should anyone ever offer me a convincing argument to go back to Christianity, I will--if I don't die of shock first. ;) But it's been many years since I've left Christianity, and in all that time I have run into an endless stream of Christians, including you, who could not give me a single, convincing argument either for Christianity or against Islam. Each time it happens my faith gets stronger--so perhaps I should actually be grateful to you.

Listen to yourself, so much of anger in your voice.
You sound like you have to convince yourself of it

I am not rebelling against anything or anyone religiously. I cannot imagine myself being a Christian at any time in the future. Literally. I really can't conceive of it. I really can't imagine it.

How many times did you need to say this to yourself to believe it?
:) :) :)

The doctrines of Christianity are too blatantly false, and that has been confirmed by the failed efforts of missionary after missionary after missionary after missionary.

Yahya, God wills what he wants for the Church.

But I'll tell you one thing, islam isnt from God buddy.

vinod

20th April 2005, 07:12

Salam Yahya

Hawk is playing psychological games with you. It's best if he is left alone. I know of this tactic well enough where instead of making counter-argument one tries to psychologically put the opponent down by hinting towards supposed past experiences/fears/insecurities and thereby trying to sound more pyschologically superior or something.

Was-salam
Vinod

Yahya Sulaiman

20th April 2005, 08:04

Hawk is playing psychological games with you. It's best if he is left alone. I know of this tactic well enough where instead of making counter-argument one tries to psychologically put the opponent down by hinting towards supposed past experiences/fears/insecurities and thereby trying to sound more pyschologically superior or something.

You're absolutely right, and thank you! I have seen this tactic before as well. It's part of the natural tendency that people have who are unwilling to accept that they're wrong when they've been proven wrong to resort to ad hominem attacks once their arguments have failed. I give up, hawk. I have tried for so long, and there's nothing I can do for you. If you're going to continue with your pseudo-Freudian nonsense, there's no point in even acknowledging your existence here--that is, unless you can present me with proof of a Ph.D. in psychology (and preferably also an M.D.).

Ratatosk

20th April 2005, 08:27

Salaam,

But I'll tell you one thing, islam isnt from God buddyDear Hawk, I would be pleased if you could refrain from this kind of insulting behaviour in the future. I believe the members of this forum are fully at ease in their own faith and can brush off comments like the quoted one with naught much more than a passing chuckle. That said, I'd still like to see straightforward dialogue and discussion, instead of respectless and immature statements such as the aforementioned. I know that you have the knowledge and wisdom to engage in a fruitful discourse; please do so, no?

Reagrds,

Yahya Sulaiman

20th April 2005, 08:37

In case you didn't notice, Ratatosk, he also said, "This is the stupidest post I have seen in a while, I wonder who the Moron is who came up with it." I think the moderators need to know about things like that.

vinod

20th April 2005, 08:52

Yahya

Noted that.

Hawk

Since you did not direct that statement against a member of the forum, I'll let it pass with an orange light coz it still makes for poor and arrogant dialogue.
I'll tell you this that if it had been directed at any of the members, you would have been put up for the ban-candidate.
Be careful with your words, hawk. You have recently been flirting at the borderline of the forum etiquttes.

Regards
Vinod

xp²

20th April 2005, 21:39

But I'll tell you one thing, islam isnt from God buddy.

Peace Hawk,

While you know that I respect your right to your opinion and beliefs, I have to say, this is rather amusing and ironic, since you just tried to perform some kind of psychoanalyis on Yahya. but hey! don't have all the fun, let me join in and hold up some mirrors, and maybe read some hearts. lol

I believe that Islam is the most simple and most natural religion of all. Someone will quickly blurt out; "but you have to pray such and such times everyday, and you have to fast, and all these other practices, that's not simple, that's hard!". In some sense, true. However, Islam is not the end-all, with some physical practices or rituals. Rather, this praying, fasting, and charity, are a kind of tool or means for governing the body, mind, heart and soul of the human being. If someone is performing yoga, or some kind of meditation, they may be doing it for enlightenment (or inner peace, tranquility etc). The 'religion' therefore, is towards englightenment, not merely some kind of stretching, exercise, or sitting still in the dark.

So how is it simple, or natural? Islam is not practices, books, or forms. Islam is a state of being, a reality of kinds. Islam is the state of being in submission to God. Simple as that! So when someone says, "Islam is not from God, or Islam is from the devil", then it sounds absurd, and even ridiculous, when Judaism and Christianity work towards this very end, this submission to God, or 'doing His will'.

Islam, on a basic and core level, is as natural as 'la ilaha il Allah'. There is no god but Allah (The God). Islam is our relationship before that Being, willingly or unwillingly, conscious of it, or unconscious, in one way or another, we cannot escape from the state of 'Islam'. We are subject before God, and His majesty, as the smoke is subject before the fire. Oneness and Unity of God, is also appealing to the sense, atleast I'd think for most people. The affirmation that there is only one God, one Omnipotent and Sovereign 'Force', removing any conflict between 'wills', had there been several 'gods'. It brings control and harmony, to an apparently chaotic cosmos. Simply conveyed even, God is one, unique.. leaving little room for setting up likenesses to Him, or creating 'images', where we place limits on God. It's the danger of saying we are the likeness of God. While it may be valid in some sense, it has the potential of giving the wrong impression. Sometimes I wonder if it could have been the other way around, and 'we created God in our image'. First it is; God is a man, then it is God is a man, and he has blonde hair and blue eyes, or he is black (depending on where you come from). Sometimes it's taken to such extremes that it becomes disrespectful, because of the limiting boxes that we try to place or fit God inside.

There are many people who are not 'religious', but would agree with what I have said about God. There is nothing too specific, or offensive (or unnatural) about it. They could believe in God, one God, and have the heart to do good in their lives. Even if it is harmful, they may think they are doing what is good or best. They may not be praying fives times a day, or fasting for a month of the year... but they are muslims in it's most basic sense. One may not even need to be taught these things, but arrive at the conclusion naturally.

Islam is not exclusive to one people, class or group. It is universal. It does not condemn one to an eternal lake of fire, for merely holding an incorrect belief. Rather, it asks the human being to seek the Truth sincerely, to contemplate and reflect, and follow the heart. Aslong as one does not reject what they believe to be truth after such a search, then there is no blame on them, even if they were wrong. Now, if there was no such freedom, and one had to believe, no matter what, that God came down to earth as a man, then died and resurrected, to wash our sins in his blood, otherwise there is no 'salvation'. If that salvation from hellfire rests on this one belief alone, it presents a gruesome reality for a great part of mankind. Sure, one can argue that those who didn't hear about the 'good news' will be spared, but if such is the case.. I would rather not hear the 'good news' at all, nor preach it... since it is likely that more people will be saved, if they don't know about it. You may react, oh the Church doesn't say anything about the fate of souls from other faiths. But lets take a deep hard look at the reality of the doctrine. Christians are quick to quote; 'I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me', especially for supporting the Trinity or arguing against Islam, but some may back down and mellow out, if they are confronted with the implied fate of so many people. You could be good, noble, even a saint, and never wronged anyone in your life, but if you haven't got Jesus, no good, its the pit for you. On the other hand, you could be cruel, and vile, with deep hypocrisy and little compassion for the fellow man, but you are good, and saved, and have eternal life, because you have 'Jesus inside'. Some Trinitarians will even condemn the Unitarian christians. It may not be the right thing to do, but at the end.. the salvation is based on belief alone, and not the condition of the heart. It takes no account of various factors. May be they searched and sincerely tried to understand, but were not convinced. But it's no good. The creed of the Catholics may be a little different on this point, I don't know. Anyone who has an alive heart would feel unease at that sense of justice, it's only natural.

The other thing about Islam, is that it takes into account the history of the world, in terms of religion. There is one God, Who sends messengers, with a message consistent with itself. Namely, that there is only one God, and do good to each other. Every Prophet/Messenger has brought that Message. It makes sense, because there is One God, and one religion. One Message, to One people, who were being divided.. Humanity. Islam is the religion of Oneness and Unity. Now, if I were to look at the world, through the eyes of Christianity... all the previous Prophets and Messengers preached about One God, and doing good to each other... or loving each other.. and that all the Prophets rest/hang on that... but suddenly, the last Prophet is now God, who died and resurrected to forgive, and salvation comes from this belief alone. Furthermore, the doctrine of Trinity is not explicit from the Scriptures, but it is the 'final revelation' to mankind, and your eternal fate depends on it.. eventhough the All powerful and can do anything God, did not protect it from tampering or mistakes. It makes religion into a joke, and a mockery of God.

I don't mean offense by these words, but I know you will take offense. I don't mean to be insulting either, but I know it will be taken in that way. This is just the reality of it Hawk. Many times you have said things about Islam and the Prophet, but I have remained silent, in the hope that you will come around on your own terms. I realize it may seem that I am 'critisizing' your faith as a retaliation, but it is nothing like that. You've said worse things before. I am just putting things in perspective, rather bluntly. Today, you tried to rationalize the reason that Yahya converted to Islam from Christianity. It made him out to be a rebel, and that he would come back one day. Sure, it's possible. What's more likely though, is that you've just pinned your own insecurity onto Yahya. Wishful thinking it is. Putting Islam down in non-substantial ways, is also a false sense of comfort and security, because it's translated as giving more credibility to Christianity. It's called self-assurance and validation, not true belief or certainty. This is just the way it is. If you were to say that Quran is from God... your ego's world will crumble. I could say the Bible was from God, but still be fine. I can say you could find favor with God, even if you have questionable beliefs. On the other hand, your conscience has probably been hammering you for the thought that I am going to hell, because I don't believe Jesus died or was part of a Trinity. You can rationalize it in any way you want, but you know what your Book, or rather, the doctrine formed from it says. I believe Judaism and Christianity to be a religion for God, despite some of its beliefs. Many christians would have a hard time saying the same about Islam. Islam can only be worshipping satan! because it doesn't include Jesus as an object of worship or Godhead. So who then, has more right to claim that their religion is the religion of the heart? or the religion of God, from God, for God?

Islam is natural and without negative complexities in our relationship to God. It is simple, and the essence/spirit of all other religions for God. I mean, we can call a river the Amazon or the Nile, but a river is a river, regardless of the 'superficial' names and labels we stick on it. In this sense, Islam is that river, and it's label or superficial name is also Islam.. there is not much difference. This is how it is natural, and simple, and encompasses the previous faiths. Which other religion for God is known and called as the 'religion for God' ?

These are just some things to think about. Don't be angry or mad at me, or feel hurt for anything I have said. Think deep, long and hard about what I have said. Face whatever it is inside you that is causing you to lash out at Islam in various ways. They say that the Truth shall set you free. Let me know what that feels like.

Take care.

muhtadiyah

20th April 2005, 22:58

Excellent post, xp²! :bravo:

Ansar Al-Haq

20th April 2005, 23:41

In response to my last post, hawk stated:

This is the stupidest post I have seen in a while, I wonder who the Moron is who came up with it.
:D

its sad to see someone reduced to insults and curses. Is this the best you can do? Although you are doing an excellent job of representing your religion, keep it up :)

Evidently, Christianity has no response to such points, except to hurl insults. That is the way of Christians.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain."
Saying "My God" is not taking the name of God in vain. It is reflecting on God, and is a prayer in the form of an exclamation.

Jews, right upto today never ever ever ever ever say "My God", unless they mean it
You're right, they say "My G-d". :D

I cannot believe that Thomas, a believing jew would say it.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Jesus himself said My God!!! Mark 15:34

:shakehead:

hawk

21st April 2005, 00:20

Jesus himself said My God!!! Mark 15:34

Ansar that is a reference to Psalm 22, and Jesus is not saying it in vain, but proclaiming the fulfillment of the prophecies.

hawk

21st April 2005, 00:57

[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]
So how is it simple, or natural? Islam is not practices, books, or forms. Islam is a state of being, a reality of kinds. Islam is the state of being in submission to God. Simple as that! So when someone says, "Islam is not from God, or Islam is from the devil", then it sounds absurd, and even ridiculous, when Judaism and Christianity work towards this very end, this submission to God, or 'doing His will'.

Xp,

If I were to tell you, follow me I am a prophet of God, and you see my actions and see that they are unwholesome, does it mean I am a Prophet?

I have told you Xp, your interpretation of your faith is limited to what is written in the Koran, I have never been able to understand Sola-Scriptura from the Bible, because it is not dynamic.

The truth of Christianity is in Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, that guides us.

Jesus says simply, "Beware of false prophets, they are ravening wolves under sheep skin"

I am simply being true to my faith.

Am I judging all muslims as sinners, surely not.

But is Islam from God, surely not.

Islam, on a basic and core level, is as natural as 'la ilaha il Allah'. There is no god but Allah (The God). Islam is our relationship before that Being, willingly or unwillingly, conscious of it, or unconscious, in one way or another, we cannot escape from the state of 'Islam'. We are subject before God, and His majesty, as the smoke is subject before the fire. Oneness and Unity of God, is also appealing to the sense, atleast I'd think for most people. The affirmation that there is only one God, one Omnipotent and Sovereign 'Force', removing any conflict between 'wills', had there been several 'gods'. It brings control and harmony, to an apparently chaotic cosmos. Simply conveyed even, God is one, unique.. leaving little room for setting up likenesses to Him, or creating 'images', where we place limits on God. It's the danger of saying we are the likeness of God. While it may be valid in some sense, it has the potential of giving the wrong impression. Sometimes I wonder if it could have been the other way around, and 'we created God in our image'. First it is; God is a man, then it is God is a man, and he has blonde hair and blue eyes, or he is black (depending on where you come from). Sometimes it's taken to such extremes that it becomes disrespectful, because of the limiting boxes that we try to place or fit God inside.

Islam is so much more than this Xp, you do your faith an injustice.

Does it not claim to solve all mans problems for all time, all from one book?

Now onto God being unique, is God in Christianity any less unique?
Do you understand the nature of God?
So if you dont understand the nature of God, then how can you say my understanding of God is disrespectful.

Remember you asked me, do you think that seeing breasts as sexual is perverted?

I said yes, because they have no sexual function.

Ofcourse you probably dont agree, but thats because you are condtitioned to think that way.
In the same way, your islamic conditioning makes you think that my interpretation is degrading.

However you might realise one day, that that is simply a limitation of Islamic thought, and has nothing to do with God.

The other thing about Islam, is that it takes into account the history of the world, in terms of religion. There is one God, Who sends messengers, with a message consistent with itself. Namely, that there is only one God, and do good to each other. Every Prophet/Messenger has brought that Message. It makes sense, because there is One God, and one religion. One Message, to One people, who were being divided.. Humanity. Islam is the religion of Oneness and Unity. Now, if I were to look at the world, through the eyes of Christianity... all the previous Prophets and Messengers preached about One God, and doing good to each other... or loving each other.. and that all the Prophets rest/hang on that... but suddenly, the last Prophet is now God, who died and resurrected to forgive, and salvation comes from this belief alone. Furthermore, the doctrine of Trinity is not explicit from the Scriptures, but it is the 'final revelation' to mankind, and your eternal fate depends on it.. eventhough the All powerful and can do anything God, did not protect it from tampering or mistakes. It makes religion into a joke, and a mockery of God.

Once again you are coming at it with conditioning inherent to islamic thought.

Understand that Islam doesnt ask you to just beleive in Allah.

It says you have to learn arabic to understand what God is saying to you.
It says that you have to have your women cover their faces with veils.
It says that where you find unbelievers, and if they persecute you, then they are fair game.

Contrast this is Christianity, that says the message is universal, love you neighbour as I have loved you.
Love you enemies, dont retaliate.
And God doesnt care what language you pray in.

Islam is natural and without negative complexities in our relationship to God. It is simple, and the essence/spirit of all other religions for God. I mean, we can call a river the Amazon or the Nile, but a river is a river, regardless of the 'superficial' names and labels we stick on it. In this sense, Islam is that river, and it's label or superficial name is also Islam.. there is not much difference. This is how it is natural, and simple, and encompasses the previous faiths. Which other religion for God is known and called as the 'religion for God' ?

How natural is it for me to pray in arabic, or to face mecca and pray.
How natural is it for me to throw stones at a pillar and imagine it is the devil.
How natural is it for me to kiss a black stone?
Or to run between 2 mountains.
How natural is it for me to think that God will only answer if i speak to him in arabic and bow down a certain way, in a language i dont understand.
I think the idea of God allowing me 4 wives is grotesque.
Its downright evil because it degrades women.

How natural is it to imagine that Allah is the only name for God, when all along it was YHWH

But i am not angry with you at all, I am just showing you how unnatural islam is to me.

Ansar Al-Haq

21st April 2005, 01:06

Ansar that is a reference to Psalm 22, and Jesus is not saying it in vain, but proclaiming the fulfillment of the prophecies.
Just as it is acceptable to pray to God, by saying "My God", so is it acceptable to make a prayer in surprise to God by saying "My God".

Is this the best you can do to prove the divinity of Christ?!

So now we have established that:
Trinity contradicts logic
Trinity contradicts the Tanakh/Old Testament
Trinity contradicts the New testament
Trinity contradicts the Qur'an.

I challenge you to respond to any of those points.

If you cannot then you must abandon this false doctrine and accept the truth:
la ilaha ila Allah, Muhammadur RasoolAllah!

Ansar Al-Haq

21st April 2005, 01:10

It says you have to learn arabic to understand what God is saying to you.
False.

It says that you have to have your women cover their faces with veils.
False.

It says that where you find unbelievers, and if they persecute you, then they are fair game.
False.

Love you enemies, dont retaliate.
41:34 Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!

:w:

hawk

21st April 2005, 01:16

Just as it is acceptable to pray to God, by saying "My God", so is it acceptable to make a prayer in surprise to God by saying "My God".

A prayer of surprise????

you are sinking arent you?

Is this the best you can do to prove the divinity of Christ?!

So now we have established that:
Trinity contradicts logic
Trinity contradicts the Tanakh/Old Testament
Trinity contradicts the New testament
Trinity contradicts the Qur'an.

I challenge you to respond to any of those points.

If you cannot then you must abandon this false doctrine and accept the truth:
la ilaha ila Allah, Muhammadur RasoolAllah!

Trinity contradicts logic.

Your limited logic? When what we believe has been revealed as such?

Trinity contradicts the Old Testament.

You mean where God calls him self "elohim" (plural)
The Gods, ans there is no royal plural in hebrew, so either God was senile or lying.

I have proven the divinity of Christ in the New Testament, and also the nature of 'Ruah hakadosh', whilst completely disproving the islamic understanding of the Holy Spirit as being Gabriel.

The Trinity contradicts the Koran....I better not say anything about that
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

xp²

21st April 2005, 01:56

Peace Hawk,

I may be conditioned to think a certain way, but it seems you are also conditioned, which would explain all the misconceptions you've just presented.

I will try to respond to them briefly for now, but we can go in-depth later.

According to Quran, the female chest is considered to be an aspect of beauty, or an 'ornament'.

I don't think it is wrong or perverted to view that in a sexual light, when it is used in a sexual context. Lips can be considered as mere lips in every day life, but they can become sexual in a sexual setting or 'context'. Is it wrong, or perverted? If it is, then one should not think in that way. Your idea that anything other than the "2 parts" meeting which is considered sexual is a perversion, is in itself a 'perversion' of the natural human thought. If I am wrong, then tell me... do you actively repress them thoughts? Does 'foreplay' not exist in your vocabulary, as a natural process of human intimacy? I did mention something similar to that in the other thread, but I don't think you responded.

I have an even harder time understanding how that becomes a limitation to Islamic thought, or becomes relevant to God.

Anyway.

Islam doesn't say anything about the 3 things you mentioned, the arabic, the face veils, or the 'open season' on disbelievers. While it does mention some things about warfare, in reference to the rejectors, it is not as you portrayed it. What is more accurate, is to say that Islam mentions justice. You yourself mentioned the key word 'persecution'. If they were treacherous or plotted against the state, they could be punished. It is not necessarily a death sentence either, but rather that is the maximum punishment one could give, which exludes torture and cruelty.. and leaves room for exile.

Face veils are based on a certain interpretation, which is taken from a particular context. This can be explained further.. but it is not obligatory.

It is necessary to learn Arabic to read the "word of God", as it was revealed in it's original form. However, it is not necessary to know arabic, to read "the meaning of the Quran". This is also true, in principle, of the Bible, except for the original part.

God may not care what language you pray in, with the tongue, but He may care what you pray in the heart.

Reciting some Arabic in the mosques is not necessarily for God alone, but rather, for keeping ourselves in a collective unity of some kind. The same reason for praying in the direction of the Kaba, aswell as the fact that it provides a focal point. Furthermore, it is permissible to pray/supplicate to God in one's own native tongue, in certain parts of the prayer, particularly when the Quran is not being recited aloud. It is practical this way... and there is no room for doubt that the call to prayer is a muslim one, not to mention that it sounds wonderful, even when one doesn't know arabic. If there was a multicultural society, and the mosques started reciting in several different languages, it would cause the muslims to split between different mosques... rather than it change to our own whims, we all unite under its banner.

As for the practices during the Hajj, I mentioned that earlier, and it is only a physical practice (although symbolic). It is not accurate to equate it to 'belief' in the Oneness of God, and simplicity of submitting to Him (as regards the Trinity or crufixion).

As for following you as a Prophet, I know where this path is leading, so I will get to the point, because it's rather late here. Firstly, it would need to be established that the 'unwholesome' acts which are attributed to you are actually true, without any room for doubt. In the case of Islam, it makes no difference, because my faith is in the perfect Message of Quran. However, even IF you were to use 'unwholesome' conduct as a criteria of Prophethood, then you would have to reject many of the earlier Prophets, if you were fair and not biased ofcourse, because Noah becomes a drunkard, and there are acts of incest, adultery and malicious intent to kill, along with various other 'unwholesome' acts, attributed to these men of God, and rolemodels of society, in the Bible.

Be careful about the roads you want to go down. lol

'Allah' is not the only name of God. Allah literally means The God. Arab christians use a Bible that mentions Allah (because it is synonymous for the english word God). That's how simple it is.

Jesus said beware of false prophets, and even gave a criteria to judge the character of one who claims prophethood.

What is interesting here, is that he never said 'there are no more Prophets after me'. If that was the case, he could have simply said that, but now, in your eyes, he gave a redundant and meaningless criteria, when he could have just said, no more prophets, full stop. Sure, you wouldn't agree now.. but, hey it is something to consider. God works in mysterious ways, indeed. lol

Al-Boriqi

21st April 2005, 02:26

First of all there is plural in hebrew. You also use the plural (that was translated to we in english) in the beginning of genesis where God "supposedly" said "And we have created" to signify that Jesus was already there. But of course if you read the hebrew text in hebrew glasses instead of western and greek glasses the fools who interpreteed it to mean Jesus would have known that the word is a plural of praise and this is common in the semitc languages like ofr example "And We have revealed the Book (the quraan)". This is meant as a praise for Allah and not that there is more than one God or one who shares in the divinity of God as you people have clearly misunderstood.

hawk

21st April 2005, 02:29

What is interesting here, is that he never said 'there are no more Prophets after me'. If that was the case, he could have simply said that, but now, in your eyes, he gave a redundant and meaningless criteria, when he could have just said, no more prophets, full stop. Sure, you wouldn't agree now.. but, hey it is something to consider. God works in mysterious ways, indeed. lol

Actually he does say exactly that in his very words.

The Law and the Prophets continued until John came: from that time the Good News of the Kingdom of God has been spreading, and all classes have been forcing their way into it.

Luke 16:16

It is late for you i realise, so i will reply to the rest of the post your tomorrow.

hawk

21st April 2005, 02:30

Ansar Al-Haq

21st April 2005, 20:25

A prayer of surprise????

you are sinking arent you?
Is this your response? Because I refuted you on the divinity of Christ, I'm sinking?

Trinity contradicts logic.

Your limited logic?
Not my logic, or else you could have debated it. You did not respond to my points on the trinity, so here it is again:

When we say that the trinity is illogical, are we trying to comprehend God's nature within our limited scope of comprehension? Is that why we cannot comprehend trinity? Or is it because of something else?

There is a distinct difference between admitting that we cannot comprehend God's nature or appearance, and attributing something to God which defies reality. Allow me to elaborate.

1 is not equal to 3 (provided that the units are consistant). Those three units cannot operate with the same properties as the one unit. If one was equal to three then it wouldn't be one. Is this a matter of attempting to comprehend God? No, it is simply a matter of defining constant values in our universe.

According to trinitarian Christianity, God sent the Son to the world. The sender and the one being sent cannot be the same. Jesus called out to God and prayed to Him. The caller and the one being called upon cannot be the same.

So the notion that there are three persons in one God, 3 in 1, is really nothing more than polytheism, because 1 God is 1 person, not three.

Trinity contradicts the Old Testament.

You mean where God calls him self "elohim" (plural)
The Gods, ans there is no royal plural in hebrew, so either God was senile or lying.
:lol: You do realize that I have tons of Jewish refutations on this subject and many Jewish friends who are ready to pounce on you for your foolish mistake. :D

Eat this one:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/nameofgod.html

I have proven the divinity of Christ in the New Testament, and also the nature of 'Ruah hakadosh'
Where's the proof? Let me see the divinity of Christ from the New testament. You brought up Thomas and I refuted it. You must admit that by Thomas exclaiming "My God!", to use that as proof for the divinity of Christ is very weak.

But if this is the true Christian message, surely you can show me hundreds of verses about trinity in the New testamanet.

I can show you thousands about Tawheed from the Qur'an.

So I await your list of verses on the divinity of Christ.

whilst completely disproving the islamic understanding of the Holy Spirit as being Gabriel.
Dream on. :D

xp²

21st April 2005, 20:32

Actually he does say exactly that in his very words.

The Law and the Prophets continued until John came: from that time the Good News of the Kingdom of God has been spreading, and all classes have been forcing their way into it.

Luke 16:16

It is late for you i realise, so i will reply to the rest of the post your tomorrow.
I'm not a Bible scholar or expert, but I don't see how that passage denies the coming of any more Prophets. May be someone can present some commentary, or how that was understood in the early generations.

According to the NLT, it is presented thus;

Until John the Baptist began to preach, the laws of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and eager multitudes are forcing their way in.

The Contemporary English version says;

Until the time of John the Baptist, people had to obey the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets...

I've looked for some commentaries and notes, and none of them have said anything about it as an end of Prophethood.

If it's taken literally, in the proposed manner, does it not negate Jesus as a Prophet?

According to William A. Simmons (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T389), speaking on the character John the Baptist, he writes;

In conclusion, John the Baptist is of great theological importance in the New Testament. He ended nearly four hundred years of prophetic silence and paved the way for the Messiah.

In light of this, it begins to make sense, and forms a picture of what Jesus is talking about, in Luke 16:16. What do you say?

Even if we take your interpretation on face value, it raises some serious questions. Jesus, even as a young boy, put the learned to shame, because of the knowledge and wisdom he had. Does it not strike you as odd, that Jesus would set a criteria in judging a true prophet from a false one? He could have easily said, beware of false prophets, for there are no more to come after me.. but he didn't say that. On the contrary, he stated a general test/criteria to check the character of one who claims Prophethood. I'd say it was an insult to Jesus' intelligence to think he were to speak that way, if he knew there were no more prophets.. especially since you consider him to be fully God.

Anyway, I am not interested in arguing with you on these points... they are clear, and need no further explanation. You are welcome to interpret it as you will, but the signs are infront of you.

hawk

21st April 2005, 21:35

I'm not a Bible scholar or expert, but I don't see how that passage denies the coming of any more Prophets. May be someone can present some commentary, or how that was understood in the early generations.

Actually it does negate any other prophet.

At the time there were many other people who claimed to come as prophets.
Jesus simply says, there will be no more prophets, since the good news is here.

Then Jesus says:
(This is not a statement affirming more prophets will come...simply a statement that there will be more people who claim to be prophets who are false.)

Then why provide a test????

People will come who claim to follow Jesus, and be prophets of God, and then abrogate His message

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock

Now: what are the sayings: Matthew 5

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

If Islam so much as contradicts a single one of these commandments, we as Christians can never believe it

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Theosis)

I dont think I need point out the discrepencies in the commandments.

In light of this, it begins to make sense, and forms a picture of what Jesus is talking about, in Luke 16:16. What do you say?

Ofcourse John prepares the way for the Messiah.

You say that Jesus means that John has ended the silence of 400 years.
I dont know the verse is

The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Jesus is actually telling you something very important in that sentence.
He is saying the Prophets have done their job, and the law has done its job.
There is no need for any more, because I have established the "new Covenant" and I have brought the good news.

Remember Jesus knew he was a man and a Prophet, He was also God.
And as such he distinguishes himself from man in numerous passages and verses.

Even if we take your interpretation on face value, it raises some serious questions. Jesus, even as a young boy, put the learned to shame, because of the knowledge and wisdom he had. Does it not strike you as odd, that Jesus would set a criteria in judging a true prophet from a false one? He could have easily said, beware of false prophets, for there are no more to come after me.

He actually says that in Luke 16:16. He says there are no more prophets.
Does that mean there will be true prophets ?
I think Jesus's Message is complete. I think the verse is clear that there will be no more Prophets.
Yet there will be people who claim they are prophets.
In islam Mohammed claimed to be the seal of the prophets, yet there are groups that have their own prophets dont they? (Ahmendiyyah)

Jesus is simply laying out a test to guide people even further if they have doubts.
The criteria is for someone who claims to come as a follower or in the same tradition as Jesus and previous Prophets and teach a doctrine that is false.
Someone who says well I am the same as them, so follow me, but dont do as they tell you, but now do as I do.

xp²

21st April 2005, 22:56

Peace Hawk,

I am not going to argue against your interpretation, since you are a christian, and you follow the Bible. I am not an authority in that field. However, I will just say that I find it hard to swallow, and feel that the explanation I gave of that verse, is more suitable. I don't know which translation you are using, but I presented two of them, which are more 'reader friendly', and they clearly suggest that until John the Baptist began preaching, the people had to follow the laws of Moses, and the messages of the previous Prophets, as their source of divine revelation. I don't see how that translates to 'revelation continued [and ended with] John'. Call it coincidence, but the christian commentary on John, explicitly mentioned that John the Baptist broke a 400 year long prophetic silence. This just magically fits into the Bible passage of Luke. Wether or not you propose and accept this interpretation, don't you agree that it fits like a glove?

As for the Ahmadiyyah, I don't think they claimed to have a new prophet. They claimed to have a messenger, and argued that Muhammad was only a seal of Prophets. Not 100% sure, but I think that is the case. A play on words.

Jesus did give a criteria to judge between the true and false prophets. Atleast that is how it reads to me. Actually, I think there are some denominations which believe in the continuing line of Prophethood after Jesus.. do you know any of them?

Do you have any scholarly commentary on Luke 16:16, which explains that it seals the line of prophecy?

You are damn lucky that newsX/Shiela isn't around. :D I'm just teasing. Take it easy. :) lol

hawk

22nd April 2005, 01:33

You are damn lucky that newsX/Shiela isn't around. :D I'm just teasing. Take it easy. :) lol

Where is the lovely lady gone anyway?

I miss her in a weird way, especially in the last little encounter we had over Jesus knowledge of Original sin, and the redemption of man.

nr_

22nd April 2005, 02:04

xp, quite a few of that time claimed to be prophets, including messianic one's. Whether these people were really Jewish prophets is update for debate, though.

and they clearly suggest that until John the Baptist began preaching, the people had to follow the laws of Moses, and the messages of the previous Prophets, as their source of divine revelation.

When Jesus was alive there were different Jewish sects, some following only the first five books, others following the later Jewish prophets. Jewish revelation was not closed until after Christianity. When Catholics say revelation ended with Joh, they mean public revelation not private. They also mean John the apostle not John the Baptist.

Hischam Khan

22nd April 2005, 02:15

Where in the Koran is this stated?Concerning the Jews the Qur’an says:
We gave Moses the Book and after him, We sent our messengers, one after the other. And [among them, finally,] We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, most obvious signs and strengthened him with the holy spirit [but your attitude toward Our guidance and Our messengers remained the same]. Will it always be that whenever a messenger comes to you, with such directives, which are against the vain desires of your hearts, you will behave arrogantly [and turn away from his call]? Thus [has been your attitude toward Our messengers], a group [among them] you kept rejecting and another group you kept slaying [unjustly]. They [are the ones, who] said: 'Our hearts are covered [and protected].' No. On the contrary, because of their continual rejection, God has cursed them. Therefore, [now] they will not believe, with only a minimal exception.Obviously Jesus (pbuh) was amongst those whom they rejected. The Bible tells us that their argument was that he was possessed by the Devil (Matthew 12:22-33).

“Ah but you think I am arguing that the Holy Spirit was the only entity that was part of the revelation process.”Actually, that is not what I was thinking. You brought a criticism against the popular view point that ‘Holy Spirit’ is one of the attributive nouns given to the Angel Gabriel (as) so I replied, showing you that I felt the criticism was not quite valid. Whether you believe the ‘Holy Spirit’ to have been the only entity or even if you believe that there are a thousand others; is therefore irrelevant to me.

“Now you say the Holy Spirit strengthens the believers, yet is this not Gods function?

Is not the angel Gabriel the messenger? Does the angel strengthen all the believers, is he omni-present?”Gabriel is only doing God’s work by God’s command and permission. It is through the revelation that Gabriel brought from God to the Prophet (pbuh) which in turn was conveyed to the believers, that they were strengthened. Hence, neither of your criticisms even arises.

“Anyway that is not really my point.
Hischam, you have based your understanding that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel on one argument,
You say the Holy Spirit reveals the Koran, and the angel Gabriel reveals the Koran, therefore they are the same.”It is not merely that but also that each time the one who reveals it to the heart of the Prophet is described or mentioned it appears to be describing the same identity – not different ones. So, along with the two verses we are discussing, you may want to look at the one in Surah Al NAjm (53) and Surah Al Takvir (81). You won’t have a problem finding the exact verses because the Suwar are both pretty short.

“How about they are two separate entities?

Why is it that you cannot go there?”Simply because I haven’t seen the need to (i.e. a valid reason why I should). The explanation I have makes sense. So, until and unless I find a better explanation that disproves mine, I’ll obviously keep my point of view.

“Because then you are forced to deal with breaking the rules of tawheed.”What rules are they and seeing as we are on about this, could you also explain what you were saying last time about “innovations” in the “rules of Tawhid” because I’m not sure I know what you mean.

“Hischam, these rules were never taught by your Prophet. At least do him the honour of following his teachings properly. The only reason you must interpret these verses this way is because of some innovation of later centuries.”Again, I would appreciate you clarifying what these “innovations” are.

“In fact it so easily explains the last verse of Sura baqara.
Suddenly it makes sense, think about it, do yourself that favour, after all i am not asking you to beleive anything that is not in the Koran.”You are referring to Surah 2:286? Would you like to give us the interpretation, it maybe interesting. In turn I’ll share my understanding of the verse with you, if you like.

“I am showing you an alternative interpretation that is more true to the text, than your current interpretation.”Whilst I do appreciate receiving different interpretations to mine, I must say that I haven’t found yours convincing as of yet. The reasons are as given.

“Yes Gabriel reveals the Koran.

Yes the Holy Spirit (Ruah haKadosh) reveals the Koran too.

Now all the Scholraship of the past is also true, all the jewish scholars knew that the Holy Spirit is poured upon man to inspire the Prophets.”Without meaning any disrespect are you not doing exactly what you are accusing me and the others of doing? Is the pot calling the kettle black?

“You are told that God blows his Spirit (now the word Ruah is specific, it doesnt mean strength, it doesnt mean wisdom, it means breath, essence)”Yes, we are told God breathed His Spirit into man but we are not told what that means. As I have said, at least at present, I feel that since we have no knowledge of God’s actual “Being” we cannot know what these words really represent. It would be a hit in the dark. I don’t want to speak of what I have no knowledge. I think that this is what God expects of me. The Almighty says:
It is He, who has revealed upon you this book, which contains precise verses - which form the foundation of the book - and there are others, which are analogous [in nature], As for those whose hearts are perverse, they are after the analogous among these verses, seeking discord and seeking their reality. However, [the fact is that] except God, no one knows their reality. And [in contrast to these people,] those who are firm in knowledge say, "We believe in these [verses], all these [verses] are from our Lord." And [the fact is that] only those bestowed with intelligence, understand these things. [Acknowledging their limitations, they pray to their Lord, saying:] "Our Lord, do not let our hearts go astray after You have guided us, and grant us mercy through Your own grace. You indeed are the generous granter. Our Lord, You will most certainly gather all people for a [Great] Day, in the coming of which there is no doubt. Indeed God does not go against His promises.

Are we Gods? no we are not Gods, but we can be gods, empty ourselves of our natures (nafs) and serve Our Lord by serving each other.I don’t even think this needs a response. Suffice it to say that we both know that we have a very different view here. I think we have enough to discuss without getting into this too, wouldn't you say?

For doesnt God say - as you do unto the least of your bretheren , so you do unto Me.Uhm… no?

“Does Islam teach anything different in essence?”All I can tell you in all humility is that I am presenting you with my understanding of Islam.

“Everything else that contradicts these teachings in Islam is actually some kind of innovation, to differentiate its self from Christianity.”For this, I still am awaiting some evidence.

Regards

Hischam Khan

22nd April 2005, 02:19

“Don't all muslims believe God is omnipresent?”I’m not sure they would say he is everywhere with his actual ‘Being’ or ‘essence’. For sure though, there can be a difference of opinion among “Muslims”. I would rather stick to what I Islam says. I can only tell you what I think Islam tells us.

“My understanding is that God isn't present everywhere in his essence because to do so would change the essence of the material object. God's omnipresence is required, I think, because in the beginning there was just God, there being no creations.Because God's attributes don't change and He was omnipresent at the beginning, He must remain omnipresent through his creation.”I don’t quite understand the part “through his creation”. Perhaps you can explain.

“When I first used "in" I was referring to God's omnipresent and ignoring the spatial meaning of the word.”Does that mean you agree with me here:
He can be active in our life and indeed close to us without actually being in us with His own "Being" or somehow part of His "Being".

“I don't think so. When most Christians use the word "in" in this sense, they don't mean the material meaning but rather their relationship with God.”Ah, I could be wrong but it seems like you and I aren’t really in disagreement here. But I do doubt that Hawk is saying the same thing.

regards

nr_

22nd April 2005, 16:46

I don?t quite understand the part ?through his creation?. Perhaps you can explain.

By through his creation, I meant God cannot create something that will change His attributes, because His attributes don't change.

Does that mean you agree with me here:

No, likely not. But the words "in space" are somewhat ambigious. Was Jesus within space? To have human nature, he'd have to be, I think. The apostles saw him through his human nature. But this to be within space is completely different from being constrained by space. Jesus was divine and omnipresent; he could not be constrained by space.

Hischam Khan

22nd April 2005, 17:10

“By through his creation, I meant God cannot create something that will change His attributes, because His attributes don't change.”Remind me how that is relevant to what we are on about. I am not following.

“No, likely not. But the words "in space" are somewhat ambigious. Was Jesus within space? To have human nature, he'd have to be, I think. The apostles saw him through his human nature. But this to be within space is completely different from being constrained by space. Jesus was divine and omnipresent; he could not be constrained by space.”What makes him Divine and Omnipresent? Also, if you are arguing as Hawk that we all have God in us, what makes Jesus (pbuh) special?

Also, an issue that interested me which is kind of connected; could you tell me what “word became flesh” means to you?

hawk

22nd April 2005, 17:37

What makes him Divine and Omnipresent? Also, if you are arguing as Hawk that we all have God in us, what makes Jesus (pbuh) special?

Also, an issue that interested me which is kind of connected; could you tell me what “word became flesh” means to you?

I am arguing that we have a divine nature, I am not arguing that we have God in us, though that too would be true, since we are of a divine nature.
How else can you understand "ruh", you say I dont need to know about "ruh"

I tell you, if you must know about yourself, then you must understand the implications of "ruah" the divine essence.

I am not telling you that you must know what "ruah" is. But the implication is that having this divine nature, you must be "perfect" like God, for that is the essence of your nature, your true self.

Jesus was not like us, Jesus was "Divine" fully, contrast that with You and I have a "divine nature" that we can either be true to or choose to destroy.

The "word became flesh" is the incarnation it is Yeshua.
-Debar became flesh, in which case we are actually talking about God incarnating himself.

The_Other_Admin

22nd April 2005, 20:14

Here is a quote from a Trinitarian writer on John 20:28.

I do not affirm that Thomas passed all at once from the extreme of doubt to the highest degree of faith, and acknowledged Christ to be the true God. This appears to me too much for the then existing knowledge of the disciples; and we have no intimation that they recognized the divine nature of Christ before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I am therefore inclined to understand this expression, which broke out in the height of his astonishment, in a figurative sense, denoting only “whom I shall ever reverence in the highest degree”…Or a person raised from the dead might be regarded as a divinity; for the word God is not always used in the strict doctrinal sense” (Michaelis quoted by Dana, 'Concessions of Trinitarians').

Al-Boriqi

22nd April 2005, 21:01

1. Anyone who claims to be a prophet or messenger or that a people beleive that such a person is in Islam then they have excommunicated themselves from Islam, so the Ahmadiyyah and the qadiyaniyyah are not muslims. The same goes with certain sects of the shia who claim that their leaders are on a level greater than the prophets and messengers. So using them to try and somehow refute the muslims is devoid of any real fruit.

2. i dont see how you consider the mass of your theological rhetoric as "proving the divinity of Jesus" (alaihi salam). On top of this I also can challenge you that you can never bring any clear statement from Jesus himself in your book saying that he is God or to worship him. Along with this challenge you cannot bring me any proof that God came down incarnate. This is the most ridicolous slanders against Allah that I have ever heard of in a long time.

3. We, as humans, have cetian attributes from the divine or God (Allah) but theseattirbutes are not an authority that we are divine.

4. That "WORD" that you christians seem so obsessed to propagate, we muslims actually have it. It is called "Be" and it is, and this was the "WORD" used to send Isa (Jesus) alaihi salam. This is the reality and true exegisis of the phrase "the word".

5. I dont see why you keep on trying to convince us of this rhetoric. In all the discussions in which we have replied all my brothers including myself invalidated your claims only throuhg logic and reason and Im not going to put religiously in it. The irony with this is that the only concrete evidnece that you have is some ambigious passage that a million christians interpreted in their own light, and nothing that you can bring is ever really clear in its intent. And this accounts for the whole of the bible. Most of the history book (the bible) contains much ambiguities by which with an authentic understanding of the intended meanngs of those evrsus can land someone on pluto compared to the person who actually wrote it. Unlike this, we can present to you precise and clear proofs for any of our claims.

Hischam Khan

22nd April 2005, 23:13

“I am arguing that we have a divine nature, I am not arguing that we have God in us, though that too would be true, since we are of a divine nature.
How else can you understand "ruh", you say I dont need to know about "ruh"What makes you say we have a Divine nature? Nay, what do you mean by “Divine nature”.

“I tell you, if you must know about yourself, then you must understand the implications of "ruah" the divine essence.”Not really. I can know enough about me without understanding the “ruh”.

“I am not telling you that you must know what "ruah" is. But the implication is that having this divine nature, you must be "perfect" like God, for that is the essence of your nature, your true self.”I’m not perfect like God and don’t know why I should be. My nature is not to be perfect. I am human and humans are fallible, hence the saying “I’m only human”.

“Jesus was not like us, Jesus was "Divine" fully, contrast that with You and I have a "divine nature" that we can either be true to or choose to destroy.”1. Jesus (P) was human and so are you and I. God is not human (being human is against God’s perfect nature).
2. Jesus (P) was born and so were you and I. God is not born, God is Eternal (without beginning and without end).
3. Jesus (P) died and you and I shall also die, while God does not die.
4. Jesus (P) is not omniscient and neither are you and I. God is Omniscient
5. Jesus (P) is not omnipotent and neither are you and I. God is Omnipotent
6. Jesus ate and so do you and I. God does not eat
7. Jesus (P) slept and so do you and I (only a little though :p ). God does not sleep
8. Jesus (P) drank and so do you and I. God does not drink
9. Jesus (P) got hurt and so do you and I. God does not get hurt
10. Jesus (P) went to relieve himself and so do you and I, while God does not do that.
11. Jesus (P) aged and so do you and I, while God does not age.
12. Jesus (P) was circumcised and so was I. ahem! I’ll leave you out here. It would be blasphemous to think of God like that.
13. Jesus (P) was a baby and so were you and I. It would be an insult to think of God as such.
14. Jesus (P) was non-existent and so were you and I while God is Eternal and always existed
15. Jesus (P) is comparable in appearance and so are you and I, yet God is unique
16. Jesus (P) was a worshipper (praying to God) and so are you and I. God is the worshipped but not the worshipper.
17. Jesus (P) had a mother and so do you and I. God does not have a mother.
18. Jesus (P) bled and so do you and I. God does not bleed.

“The "word became flesh" is the incarnation it is Yeshua.
-Debar became flesh, in which case we are actually talking about God incarnating himself.”In other words, God became human?

hawk

22nd April 2005, 23:52

In other words, God became human?

Bingo!!!

Its called the incarnation:

4 In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.

5 And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts their God.

6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.

7 The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.

8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;

13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;

14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

And it came to pass, as families were rended and people chose salvation

How shall you choose?

hawk

23rd April 2005, 00:00

Jesus (P) was human and so are you and I. God is not human (being human is against God’s perfect nature).
Jesus (P) was born and so were you and I. God is not born, God is Eternal (without beginning and without end).
Jesus (P) died and you and I shall also die, while God does not die.
Jesus (P) is not omniscient and neither are you and I. God is Omniscient
Jesus (P) is not omnipotent and neither are you and I. God is Omnipotent
Jesus ate and so do you and I. God does not eat
Jesus (P) slept and so do you and I (only a little though :p ). God does not sleep
Jesus (P) drank and so do you and I. God does not drink
Jesus (P) got hurt and so do you and I. God does not get hurt
Jesus (P) went to relieve himself and so do you and I, while God does not do that.
Jesus (P) aged and so do you and I, while God does not age.
Jesus (P) was circumcised and so was I. ahem! I’ll leave you out here. It would be blasphemous to think of God like that.
Jesus (P) was a baby and so were you and I. It would be an insult to think of God as such.
Jesus (P) was non-existent and so were you and I while God is Eternal and always existed
Jesus (P) is comparable in appearance and so are you and I, yet God is unique
Jesus (P) was a worshipper (praying to God) and so are you and I. God is the worshipped but not the worshipper.
Jesus (P) had a mother and so do you and I. God does not have a mother.
Jesus (P) bled and so do you and I. God does not bleed.

hmmm...its called incarnation

:)

Al-Boriqi

23rd April 2005, 00:48

hawk

23rd April 2005, 02:34

that bulk of text including the bold print had no weight at all in proving the divinity of Jesus. Yiou ahve selected to highlight an ambigous text to prove your faulty and invalid claim. I dont see howon earht did you deduce the passage to mean that God willo come incarnate as a man far removed is Allah from such an abomination wal la hawla wa la kuwata ila billah

God is talking about incarnating Himself. Jesus is God incarnate.

Once you acknowledge your divine nature, and realise that you fall so far short, that you are in desperate need of salvation, then you understand why God incarnated himself.

It is all there in the Bible, not hidden, and very visible.

I might add, in the Koran too, if only you choose to see it.

The_Other_Admin

23rd April 2005, 03:48

Once you acknowledge your divine nature, and realise that you fall so far short, that you are in desperate need of salvation, then you understand why God incarnated himself.

Hawk, as it has been proven before in the discussions God doesn't need to incarnate and sacrifice himself to save a soul from hell.

God counsels Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do good [that is, change your ways], will it not be lifted up [that is, you will be forgiven]. But if you do not do good, sin rests at the door; and it desires you, but you may rule over it" (Genesis 4:6-7). God informs Cain that repentance and subsequent forgiveness are always open to him (1 (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq123.html)).

hawk

23rd April 2005, 04:54

Hawk, as it has been proven before in the discussions God doesn't need to incarnate and sacrifice himself to save a soul from hell.

God counsels Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do good [that is, change your ways], will it not be lifted up [that is, you will be forgiven]. But if you do not do good, sin rests at the door; and it desires you, but you may rule over it" (Genesis 4:6-7). God informs Cain that repentance and subsequent forgiveness are always open to him (1 (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq123.html)).

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD . 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

Here is the verses without your comments.
The comments are a misinterpretation of the verse.

The Lord is simply laying out the rules, he is not talking of repentance, or changing of ways, he is simply laying out the rules.
Good works are accepted, bad works are not.

Ofcourse further revelation tells us that man cannot hope to live upto the expectations of God.
In fact we are told by God himself, you need to sacrafice to make up for your failings.
Ofcourse this is because God knew fully well that He Himself would have to save us.

At no point in the Bible does God say

Just repent without penance/sacrafice. I shall forgive you.
No He hammers the law in...sacrafice, penance, Sacrafice, PENANCE

And why does he do it?

So that when He actually pays the price for us, we realise the enormity of the act, and we are eternally grateful.

hawk

23rd April 2005, 05:24

For doesnt God say as you do unto the least of your brothers , so you do unto me?

Uhm… no?

In the interest of knowledge I thought i should enlighten you

Hadith Qudsi 18:
On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: Allah (mighty and sublime be He) will say on the Day of Resurrection:

O son of Adam, I fell ill and you visited Me not. He will say: O Lord, and how should I visit You when You are the Lord of the worlds? He will say: Did you not know that My servant So-and-so had fallen ill and you visited him not? Did you not know that had you visited him you would have found Me with him? O son of Adam, I asked you for food and you fed Me not. He will say: O Lord, and how should I feed You when You are the Lord of the worlds? He will say: Did you not know that My servant So-and-so asked you for food and you fed him not? Did you not know that had you fed him you would surely have found that (the reward for doing so) with Me? O son of Adam, I asked you to give Me to drink and you gave Me not to drink. He will say: O Lord, how should I give You to drink whin You are the Lord of the worlds? He will say: My servant So-and-so asked you to give him to drink and you gave him not to drink. Had you given him to drink you would have surely found that with Me.

It was related by Muslim.

hawk

23rd April 2005, 05:46

2. i dont see how you consider the mass of your theological rhetoric as "proving the divinity of Jesus" (alaihi salam). On top of this I also can challenge you that you can never bring any clear statement from Jesus himself in your book saying that he is God or to worship him. Along with this challenge you cannot bring me any proof that God came down incarnate. This is the most ridicolous slanders against Allah that I have ever heard of in a long time.

Firstly we dont have a "book" in the same manner as the Koran.
We have the Holy Spirit, that continues to guide and lead Christians for all time dynamically, just like the Holy Spirit led the Jews before Christ.
The Bible is certainly inspired, but doesnt make the same claims as the Koran.
BTW, the infallibility of the Koran is dealt with most severly on some Christian and Atheist boards, you will find them extremely interesting, I dont relish destroying your faith, but some people on those boards do. Its most distasteful to me.

Secondly Jesus did say he was God.
When he said before Abraham, "I AM".
Which in the way of that time, was equivalent to saying "hey I am God"

Jesus so often says He is God its astounding.

Thus Messiah could say: "Break down this Temple, and in 3 days I will resurrect it again!" -
How would this be done? How could he raise himself, He doesnt say My Father shall raise Me, but that He Himself would do it.

4. That "WORD" that you christians seem so obsessed to propagate, we muslims actually have it. It is called "Be" and it is, and this was the "WORD" used to send Isa (Jesus) alaihi salam. This is the reality and true exegisis of the phrase "the word".

The word is "Ruah haKadosh",the breath, my freind!!! Not "be"

5. I dont see why you keep on trying to convince us of this rhetoric. In all the discussions in which we have replied all my brothers including myself invalidated your claims only throuhg logic and reason and Im not going to put religiously in it. The irony with this is that the only concrete evidnece that you have is some ambigious passage that a million christians interpreted in their own light, and nothing that you can bring is ever really clear in its intent. And this accounts for the whole of the bible. Most of the history book (the bible) contains much ambiguities by which with an authentic understanding of the intended meanngs of those evrsus can land someone on pluto compared to the person who actually wrote it. Unlike this, we can present to you precise and clear proofs for any of our claims.

:teethshoc :teethshoc :teethshoc :teethshoc :teethshoc :teethshoc
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

The_Other_Admin

23rd April 2005, 06:05

In fact we are told by God himself, you need to sacrafice to make up for your failings.
Ofcourse this is because God knew fully well that He Himself would have to save us.

At no point in the Bible does God say

Just repent without penance/sacrafice. I shall forgive you.
No He hammers the law in...sacrafice, penance, Sacrafice, PENANCE

Wrong!

Here is the verse:

Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts.
Let him turn to the LORD , and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

(Isaiah 55:7)

There you go, no need for a sacrifice for God to pardon freely.

hawk

23rd April 2005, 08:22

Wrong!

Here is the verse:

There you go, no need for a sacrifice for God to pardon freely.

eeeps...freely pardon here does not mean pardon without sacrafice.

It means the Lord is ever merciful, if you repent and sacrafice, surely forgiveness is yours.

The_Other_Admin

23rd April 2005, 15:33

eeeps...freely pardon here does not mean pardon without sacrafice.

It means the Lord is ever merciful, if you repent and sacrafice, surely forgiveness is yours.
The passage nowhere speaks about any sacrifice only repent. It simply says, forsake wicked ways and God will show his mercy and pardon freely.

Hischam Khan

23rd April 2005, 18:17

“Bingo!!!

Its called the incarnation”I never asked you for an alternative word. I know what “incarnation” means. I just wanted to be sure that this is how you interpret it. The reason is simple, I know that this is how the general Christian does interpret it but I wanted to know whether that is the case for you too. So though this is what the general Christian believes, I don’t want to push their belief on you. Besides, you often come across Christians who give you a totally new interpretation on an issue and so you can never be too careful. Christians are no like peas in a pot, sometimes it seems like each individual is uniquely different to the other. I asked you how you would interpret it. So, now I gather that your interpretation is that God became flesh and blood. This is how the general Christian seems to understand it also.

“How shall you choose?”Hawk, if you want to show us that God came down turned flesh and blood to die for our sins, there is no need to beat around the bush to reach your goal. Get straight to the point! Show me where Jesus (pbuh) made the claim that he is God Almighty. Unless the person himself made the claim, the accusation against him is meaningless. This is supposed to be a fundamental belief of Christianity, so can you show me where he said that he is God? It’s a simple easy request and seeing as this is so important an issue, it should be just as easy to answer by producing his explicit words in this regard.

“hmmm...its called incarnation”I just gave you 18 points as to why I reckon God would not become human. It is pure and simply not godlike.

“Once you acknowledge your divine nature, and realise that you fall so far short, that you are in desperate need of salvation, then you understand why God incarnated himself.”I am not of a “Divine nature”, rather of a human nature. I may have a Divine spark but that is quite another thing. It does not necessitate that I be perfect. Quite to the contrary, I shall never be perfect simply because I am human. The so-called incarnation and death of Jesus (pbuh) for my sins did not make me perfect nor would it even if I had accepted it. It did not make you perfect. In fact, the only claim that I can imagine you are able to make is that it will save you in the hereafter. Judaism and Islam convey salvation for the good in the hereafter without needing anyone to die for them. So, I cannot see anything special here at all.

“I might add, in the Koran too, if only you choose to see it.”The Qur’an explicitly states that Jesus (pbuh) was a Messenger like Messengers before him (Surah Al Maeeda 5:75). It states that he was not God (Surah Al Maeeda 5:17) and never even made such a claim (Surah Al Maeeda 5:116-117). It says he was not crucified (Surah Al Nisa 4:157-158). It is not taught in the Qur’an!

You made a lot of claims about what the Qur’an says and concerning the supposed deceptive methods of the Muslims but when thou art pressed for evidence, thou dost fail to produce! :p

In the interest of knowledge I thought i should enlighten youThe way you put it, nobody could have guessed what on earth you are on about. Besides, your words don’t really connect to the Hadith. You said:
For doesnt God say as you do unto the least of your brothers , so you do unto me?It sounded like you were saying that we should treat God like we treat the least of the humans. The reason you gave was because we all have a divine nature. The narration ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) is embedded in allegory. It expresses the love one should have for God which in turn would make a person engage in activities to please God out of love for Him. Thus, in such a state, a person visits/feeds for God, nothing else.

Alas! So much for me saying that if we get into this we’ll be led astray from the topic at hand! It appears you had that planned all along.

hawk

23rd April 2005, 20:10

Hawk, if you want to show us that God came down turned flesh and blood to die for our sins, there is no need to beat around the bush to reach your goal. Get straight to the point! Show me where Jesus (pbuh) made the claim that he is God Almighty. Unless the person himself made the claim, the accusation against him is meaningless. This is supposed to be a fundamental belief of Christianity, so can you show me where he said that he is God? It’s a simple easy request and seeing as this is so important an issue, it should be just as easy to answer by producing his explicit words in this regard.

There is a two part response I can give you to this:

1) God says He will be incarnated in the Old testament.
Therefore by that alone we know we are to expect an incarnation.

2) Jesus says as much that he is God
a) Turn to John 8:56-58. Jesus is talking to the unbelieving Jews. "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing My day; he saw it and was glad." "You are not yet 50 years old," they said to Him, "and you have seen Abraham?" "I tell you the truth," Jesus announced, "before Abraham was, I AM!" Jesus was the great I AM from before the beginning of time; He existed before Abraham ever was. He is claiming here to be the I AM of the Old Testament. Verse 59 says the Jews picked up stones to stone Him, but the Lord Jesus slipped away. The reason they wanted to stone Him was because stoning was the death penalty for blasphemy. He was claiming to be Yahweh--Jehovah--Almighty God--I AM. (Of course, it wasn't blasphemy when Christ claimed to be who He truly was!)

John 18:4. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas and some priests and soldiers are about to take Jesus prisoner. "Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to Him, went out and asked them, 'Who is it that you want?' 'Jesus of Nazareth,' they replied. 'I AM,' Jesus said. When He said, 'I AM,' they drew back and fell to the ground."

This ofcourse was how the One God was called, to say I AM is so horrendous that people fell down in shock, to them this was blasphemy of the highest order.

Indirectly when Thomas and Peter confess that He is

And by many acts when he says "Destroy this temple, and I shall rebuild it in three days"
He isnt saying My Father shall , or any such thing but that He will.

Also they ask are you the king of the Jews
And he says "My Kingdom is not of this World"

As a prophet that you limit him as, dont you think he should have said "I am of the kingdom of God"

But he openly says that heaven is His kingdom.

Its quite apparent that Jesus is saying that He himself is God.

Now even more telling and truly blasphemous is that He says to people.

I forgive your sins, he doesnt say God forgives you, but that He forgives us our sins directly.
Not only that Jesus tells the apostles I give you the power to forgive sins on earth, as I have done.

This is either a mad man talking, or He is truly God and fully aware of it.

3. During Christ's trial, the chief priests asked Him point blank, "Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." And He said,

* "I am." (Mark 14:60-62)
* "Yes, it is as you say." (Matt. 26: 63-65)
* "You are right in saying I am." (Luke 22:67-70)

hawk

23rd April 2005, 20:32

When you read this you realise that Jesus did claim to be God.
He says he sits in Judgement on the Last Day.

Tell me what does the Koran say about Judgement day?
Who shall be the Judge on that Day?
It is ofcourse going to be God, yet here is Jesus claiming to be God, directly.

Matthew 25:31-46 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
A Public Domain Bible KJV at Zondervan Zondervan

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

hawk

23rd April 2005, 20:42

Jesus never says what would translate to the English phrase "I am God." This is evidenced by the fact that you can't find that in our English translation(s) of the Bible. However, it is said that He claims to be God. Some people might say, "Jesus is a good man; however, I don't see where he claims to be God.Can you show me?"

The reason we can't find what we are looking for, is because we were not the audience that Jesus was speaking to in the New Testament.

For one thing Jesus didn't speak in English. The languages which were prevalent in His lifetime were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

His audience was usually a crowd of people following Him, His Disciples, the Pharisees, and the Saducees (The Religious Leaders).

If Jesus were to tell any of them "I am God," they would probably have just chuckled at Him and thought he was either "a madman, a liar, or a lunatic." They certainly would not have believed that His claim was true.

However Jesus, knowing these people and their beliefs, used what they knew and could relate to them to say "I am God" to them in a way in which they understand. Jesus had to tell them in their language and cultural context, according to the beliefs and norms of their day. When he did tell them that He was God, they would undserstand clearly what he was saying, and they would be bewildered and frightened.

In the Gospel of Mark Chapter 2, Jesus spoke clearly to them in a way in which they understood. To properly interpret and understand what they understood, we must enter into the historical and cultural contexts and know who his audience was, and what they believed.

Mark (2:1) A few days later when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people had heard that he had come. (2:2) So many gathered that there was not enough room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. (2:3) Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. (2:4) Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it, and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. (2:5) When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven." (2:6) Now some of the teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, (2:7) "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! who can forgive sins but God alone?"

The_Other_Admin

24th April 2005, 16:18

I don't see a reply to post #195

If Jesus were to tell any of them "I am God," they would probably have just chuckled at Him and thought he was either "a madman, a liar, or a lunatic." They certainly would not have believed that His claim was true.

They already considered Jesus 'a madman, a liar, or a lunatic'... you missed magician. And he called them children of satan than what was stopping him to call himself God, if that was true?

Al-Boriqi

24th April 2005, 16:27

For one thing Jesus didn't speak in English. The languages which were prevalent in His lifetime were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

This is a lie against history for greeek was not in the scene at the time. Rather you are mislead o beleive this since the original texts (truely not original) of the christian books are in greek. Jesus never spoke with it nor was it the language of anyone in that part of the world in that time.

On top of this you come with such an weak arguement that Jesus was not precise in his message (that you attribute to him) of his divinity due to the mindset of the people of his time. Never did Jesus give such implecation and the words that he said was never understood by his close campanions that he was God rather this was the innovaion of those who came after him form he likes of Paul and others.

hawk

24th April 2005, 23:41

I don't see a reply to post #195
They already considered Jesus 'a madman, a liar, or a lunatic'... you missed magician. And he called them children of satan than what was stopping him to call himself God, if that was true?

They really didnt consider Him a lunatic or liar or madman, or they would never have been following Him around.

What you dont understand is that He did claim He is God.
At least in the way that they understood and took him seriously.

If Jesus were alive today and said, "I AM GOD".

No one would believe him, at the time, no one believed him either.

He didnt need to say it, because what happened was the transformation on the day of pentecost, when The Holy Spirit of God would bear witness to Jesus's claims.

Whcih is why Christianity is such a mystical faith, it requires you to search and when you find the Truth, boy its delightful. And really there are no contradictions once you force your way into the Truth, its all as clear as day. But first you have to submit yourself to God and allow Him to speak to you.

hawk

24th April 2005, 23:54

The passage nowhere speaks about any sacrifice only repent. It simply says, forsake wicked ways and God will show his mercy and pardon freely.

Chuck,
I went to strongs concordance reread the actual words with their proper translations.

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Apparently this verse is not talking about sin at all.
(I went through the commentaries and talmudic sources)

It is talking about works:
Good works shall be accepted.
Bad works will not. (Bad works are not sins, they are simply not the best works that one can do)

In this context Abel offered the fattest(best) of his flock.
Cain did not, he gave the grains that he couldnt eat.

The Lord did not accept the offerings of Cain.

And then explains to him that good works will be accepted, bad shall not.

And that he should be careful of offering bad stuff, because it was sin that made him do it.

The Lord in his wisdom is telling him here, Be careful sin is always near to you. Be wary of it.
But dont be crestfallen, if you offer the best you have to Me, that is all I expect.

hawk

24th April 2005, 23:59

This is a lie against history for greeek was not in the scene at the time. Rather you are mislead o beleive this since the original texts (truely not original) of the christian books are in greek. Jesus never spoke with it nor was it the language of anyone in that part of the world in that time.

Greek was the lingua franca of the roman empire, latin was only spoken in Rome.
So it was either greek or aramaic, or hebrew.

Hischam Khan

25th April 2005, 03:40

I was making a simple request but you have failed to provide a simple clear-cut answer. This is sad because a belief as important as this should easily be provable. It should never have to be subject to major confusion. Let us take a quick look through.

1) God says He will be incarnated in the Old testament.
Therefore by that alone we know we are to expect an incarnation.This is subject to interpretation of course. God does not explicitly say that he will become a human being and die on a cross for the sins of man. I suppose you are referring to your previously pasted verses from Zechariah which has been interpreted in many ways. I will not provide you with them all as I see it as unnecessary right now. Rest assured; it is not what I asked for. It is not explicit; it is not from Jesus (pbuh).

2) Jesus says as much that he is God
a) Turn to John 8:56-58. Jesus is talking to the unbelieving Jews. "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing My day; he saw it and was glad." "You are not yet 50 years old," they said to Him, "and you have seen Abraham?" "I tell you the truth," Jesus announced, "before Abraham was, I AM!" Jesus was the great I AM from before the beginning of time; He existed before Abraham ever was. He is claiming here to be the I AM of the Old Testament. Verse 59 says the Jews picked up stones to stone Him, but the Lord Jesus slipped away. The reason they wanted to stone Him was because stoning was the death penalty for blasphemy. He was claiming to be Yahweh--Jehovah--Almighty God--I AM. (Of course, it wasn't blasphemy when Christ claimed to be who He truly was!)”Another unclear proof for his supposed divinity. I leave the readers with a link to Sheila’s well written explanation (http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?p=25126&highlight=Abraham#post25126). It shows that Jesus (pbuh) claims no such thing (i.e. that he is God).

John 18:4. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas and some priests and soldiers are about to take Jesus prisoner. "Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to Him, went out and asked them, 'Who is it that you want?' 'Jesus of Nazareth,' they replied. 'I AM,' Jesus said. When He said, 'I AM,' they drew back and fell to the ground." This ofcourse was how the One God was called, to say I AM is so horrendous that people fell down in shock, to them this was blasphemy of the highest order.”Hawk, putting the words “I am” into capital letters does you no good because it only displays you making subjective value judgements. There was no such thing as upper and lower case letters during those days. So, let me produce the verses again:

“Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.)When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” “I told you that I am he,” Jesus answered. “If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me” John 18:4-9 NIV

They asked for Jesus of Nazareth and he replied “I am he”. If you came looking for me and I was with a group of friends. I notice from your behaviour that you are searching for someone and so I come over and ask you “Are you looking for someone”? So you say “Yes, I am looking for Hischam”. I reply “I am he”. Am I claiming Divinity? The issue of such a claim doesn’t even arise. This is an example of a gross misinterpretation of Scripture, yet it seems that almost every Christian commentary has it. Nevertheless, this only puts Christian scholarship to shame. It shows how low they are willing to go in reading into Scripture. Again, I must not let go to waste, the explanation Sheila has already given you:

"Several individuals aside from Jesus used "ego eimi" as well. In Lu.1:19, the angel Gabriel said, "Ego eimi Gabriel." In Jn.9: 9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus said, "Ego eimi." In Acts 10:21, Peter said, "Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek." Obviously, the mere use of "ego eimi" does not equate one to the "I Am" of Ex.3:14."

So hawk, are Gabriel and Peter also divine? What about me, you and any other Tom, Dicck and Harry answering “I am” to a question? There must be millions of gods!

And by many acts when he says "Destroy this temple, and I shall rebuild it in three days"
He isnt saying My Father shall , or any such thing but that He will.Once again, this does not even remotely answer my request.

Also they ask are you the king of the Jews
And he says "My Kingdom is not of this World"

As a prophet that you limit him as, dont you think he should have said "I am of the kingdom of God"

But he openly says that heaven is His kingdom.

Its quite apparent that Jesus is saying that He himself is God.No, it is not. In Heaven many will live like Kings. It’s Paradise, remember?

this even more telling and truly blasphemous is that He says to people.

I forgive your sins, he doesnt say God forgives you, but that He forgives us our sins directly.
Not only that Jesus tells the apostles I give you the power to forgive sins on earth, as I have done.From the beginning of Mark 2 we read that there was a paralytic man who was healed by Jesus (pbuh). He was told by Jesus (pbuh) "Son, your sins are forgiven." He doesn’t actually say “I forgive you”. Anyway, he sensed that there are some unhappy bunnies among the crowd and so he clarified:

"Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Arise, take up your bed and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins" Mark 2:8-10 NKJ

It should be remembered that Jesus (pbuh) was also narrated to have said that when he speaks, he speaks with the authority of the Almighty and not of his own. So, this would merely be his conveying what God wished:

“I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.” John 5:30

So, no claim to divinity here.

”This is either a mad man talking, or He is truly God and fully aware of it.”So we have the black or white fallacy again. This is such a recurring phenomenon in Christian writings. It is astonishing! This Christian conundrum that the general hot-gospeller and Bible thumper puts forth to people is a mere bait to catch fish. You are needlessly narrowing the margins saying “a” or “b” again. Things are not always either black or white; in between there are endless shades of grey. Apart from being God or a “mad man” he could be a Prophet and Messenger. You should leave this type of talk till after you have established your viewpoint.

3. During Christ's trial, the chief priests asked Him point blank, "Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." And He said,

* "I am." (Mark 14:60-62)
* "Yes, it is as you say." (Matt. 26: 63-65)
* "You are right in saying I am." (Luke 22:67-70)
Nobody is arguing over whether Jesus (pbuh) is ‘the Christ’ or ‘the son of God’. We were discussing whether he is God, remember?

When you read this you realise that Jesus did claim to be God.
He says he sits in Judgement on the Last Day.

Tell me what does the Koran say about Judgement day?
Who shall be the Judge on that Day?
It is ofcourse going to be God, yet here is Jesus claiming to be God, directly.”Once again, this is not an answer to my question. It does not prove that Jesus (pbuh) is God. Perhaps it shows us a difference between what the Qur’an says and what the Bible says, but this doesn’t prove Jesus (pbuh) is God.

However Jesus, knowing these people and their beliefs, used what they knew and could relate to them to say "I am God" to them in a way in which they understand. Jesus had to tell them in their language and cultural context, according to the beliefs and norms of their day. When he did tell them that He was God, they would undserstand clearly what he was saying, and they would be bewildered and frightened.If Jesus (pbuh) was God it would have been incumbent upon him to state it loud and clear. Otherwise he cannot blame the people for being in confusion. When Noah (pbuh) spread his message to his people, they did not like what they heard. When Moses (pbuh) went to Pharaoh and claimed that he was God’s messenger and that there is only one God, Pharaoh did not like what he was hearing. This Moses (pbuh) knew before hand but God did not give him an alternative. He could have said “You know what, don’t say that you are sent by only one God and don’t tell him that you are My Messenger, just do your miracles and let him reach the conclusion in his own way”. Indeed, every Prophet (pbut) was loud and clear in the message that they were presenting. They did not beat around the bush. The only reason why nobody would have accepted it from him had he done so is because nobody believed such a thing. They were not awaiting for God to come down in human form nor did anyone ever preach such a thing. Indeed, "God is not a man" (Numbers 23:19 NKJV).

Contrast the humongous amount of effort that needs putting in for scholars and laymen alike, to find something even remotely possible to use as showing the divinity of Christ with the emphatically clear statements made by Jesus mirroring what has already been said by previous Prophets (pbut):

Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Mark 12:29 NKJV

“So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew 19:17 NKJV

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Mark 13:32 NKJV

“I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.” John 5:30 NKJV

Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.' " John 20:17 NKJV

The above are unambiguous and categorical statements showing us that there is only one God and that Jesus (pbuh) is not Him. Now, I would ask you again to show me only one unequivocal statement where Jesus (pbuh) says that he is God but you have already agreed that there is none. I find it worthless to continue in this because your presentation of verses that are supposed to show his divinity implicitly will not convince me.

Eric H

25th April 2005, 07:42

I have read snippets of the recent conversation on this thread, and I sense that we could do both Islam and Christianity a greater service, if we were to search for the best in our respective faiths.

If we were to search for the best interpretations in each others faith, we would also see the best in each other.

I feel there is a greater need to be both loving and understanding when we talk about beliefs that have a real meaning for other people.

We do not have to agree with them.

There is another alternative, we can search for the worst interpretation in other peoples faith and we will bring out the worst in ourselves and the worst in other people.

In the spirit of searching for a meaningful interfaith dialogue.

Eric

hawk

27th April 2005, 16:28

I was making a simple request but you have failed to provide a simple clear-cut answer. This is sad because a belief as important as this should easily be provable. It should never have to be subject to major confusion. Let us take a quick look through.

This is subject to interpretation of course. God does not explicitly say that he will become a human being and die on a cross for the sins of man. I suppose you are referring to your previously pasted verses from Zechariah which has been interpreted in many ways. I will not provide you with them all as I see it as unnecessary right now. Rest assured; it is not what I asked for. It is not explicit; it is not from Jesus (pbuh).

Another unclear proof for his supposed divinity. I leave the readers with a link to Sheila’s well written explanation (http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?p=25126&highlight=Abraham#post25126). It shows that Jesus (pbuh) claims no such thing (i.e. that he is God).

Hawk, putting the words “I am” into capital letters does you no good because it only displays you making subjective value judgements. There was no such thing as upper and lower case letters during those days. So, let me produce the verses again:

“Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.)When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” “I told you that I am he,” Jesus answered. “If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me” John 18:4-9 NIV

They asked for Jesus of Nazareth and he replied “I am he”. If you came looking for me and I was with a group of friends. I notice from your behaviour that you are searching for someone and so I come over and ask you “Are you looking for someone”? So you say “Yes, I am looking for Hischam”. I reply “I am he”. Am I claiming Divinity? The issue of such a claim doesn’t even arise. This is an example of a gross misinterpretation of Scripture, yet it seems that almost every Christian commentary has it. Nevertheless, this only puts Christian scholarship to shame. It shows how low they are willing to go in reading into Scripture. Again, I must not let go to waste, the explanation Sheila has already given you:

"Several individuals aside from Jesus used "ego eimi" as well. In Lu.1:19, the angel Gabriel said, "Ego eimi Gabriel." In Jn.9: 9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus said, "Ego eimi." In Acts 10:21, Peter said, "Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek." Obviously, the mere use of "ego eimi" does not equate one to the "I Am" of Ex.3:14."

So hawk, are Gabriel and Peter also divine? What about me, you and any other Tom, Dicck and Harry answering “I am” to a question? There must be millions of gods!

Once again, this does not even remotely answer my request.

Its interesting to note that when Jesus says I AM, the people around fell to the ground.
This reaction tells you only one thing, that the word Jesus used was "YHWH"
No other word has that reaction for the Jews.

Now understand that is you are looking for the words "I AM GOD" you will not find them, simply because the people of the time would not have understood them that way, and Jesus was essentially talking to these people, we ofcourse have the benefit of past knowledge to understand what Jesus was claiming.

To them forgiving sins himself, and saying "I AM" was essentially clearly stating to the Jews at the time that he was God, for them there was no ambiguity, also note that his crucifixion was a punishment that was merited by only a blasphemer, it was the most serious of serious punishments.

The NIV translates it as "I am he" but that is only to make it clear to in english, however the words are eigo emi, whcih is simply "I AM" .
Which had to have been "YHWH" judging by the reaction of the guards.

So i would say that Jesus very unambigiously states that He is God to the people of that time.

No, it is not. In Heaven many will live like Kings. It’s Paradise, remember?

It doesnt become their kingdom does it? Are there then more than one King of heaven?

From the beginning of Mark 2 we read that there was a paralytic man who was healed by Jesus (pbuh). He was told by Jesus (pbuh) "Son, your sins are forgiven." He doesn’t actually say “I forgive you”. Anyway, he sensed that there are some unhappy bunnies among the crowd and so he clarified:

"Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Arise, take up your bed and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins" Mark 2:8-10 NKJ

It should be remembered that Jesus (pbuh) was also narrated to have said that when he speaks, he speaks with the authority of the Almighty and not of his own. So, this would merely be his conveying what God wished:

“I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.” John 5:30
So, no claim to divinity here.

The answer is that Jesus is both God and man in one person. This doctrine is called the hypostatic union. As a man, Jesus was under the law and was obligated to keep the law (Gal. 4:4). In His humbled state of being lower than the Angels (Heb. 2:9), Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man (Phil. 2:5-8). Therefore, He was incomplete subjection to the Father so that He might fulfill the law and be the high priest sacrifice for our sins (Heb. 5:10).
Furthermore, Jesus did not begin His miracles until His baptism. It was at that point that the Holy Spirit came upon Him. Therefore, Jesus was performing His miracles not by His own power, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. This explains why in Matt. 12:22-32 when the Pharisees said that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the devil, Jesus said that blasphemy on the Holy Spirit of not be forgiven. In other words, Jesus was doing His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit and not under His own divine power which He had laid aside the rightful use of while he walked this earth doing the Father's will.
Therefore, these verses do not mean that Jesus is not divine. But it does mean that Jesus, as a man, was completely and totally in submission to the will of the Father and that Jesus would only do the will of the Father as the text clearly says.

So we have the black or white fallacy again. This is such a recurring phenomenon in Christian writings. It is astonishing! This Christian conundrum that the general hot-gospeller and Bible thumper puts forth to people is a mere bait to catch fish. You are needlessly narrowing the margins saying “a” or “b” again. Things are not always either black or white; in between there are endless shades of grey. Apart from being God or a “mad man” he could be a Prophet and Messenger. You should leave this type of talk till after you have established your viewpoint.

Nobody is arguing over whether Jesus (pbuh) is ‘the Christ’ or ‘the son of God’. We were discussing whether he is God, remember?
Once again, this is not an answer to my question. It does not prove that Jesus (pbuh) is God. Perhaps it shows us a difference between what the Qur’an says and what the Bible says, but this doesn’t prove Jesus (pbuh) is God.

If Jesus (pbuh) was God it would have been incumbent upon him to state it loud and clear. Otherwise he cannot blame the people for being in confusion. When Noah (pbuh) spread his message to his people, they did not like what they heard. When Moses (pbuh) went to Pharaoh and claimed that he was God’s messenger and that there is only one God, Pharaoh did not like what he was hearing. This Moses (pbuh) knew before hand but God did not give him an alternative. He could have said “You know what, don’t say that you are sent by only one God and don’t tell him that you are My Messenger, just do your miracles and let him reach the conclusion in his own way”. Indeed, every Prophet (pbut) was loud and clear in the message that they were presenting. They did not beat around the bush. The only reason why nobody would have accepted it from him had he done so is because nobody believed such a thing. They were not awaiting for God to come down in human form nor did anyone ever preach such a thing. Indeed, "God is not a man" (Numbers 23:19 NKJV).

Actually as I have demonstrated Jesus did state this very clearly. To the people of the time he very clearly stated that He is God.
Now with reagrds the claim to unambiguity, God could simply himself one say "I AM GOD" believe in me, and this is the right way to do stuff.
He didnt have to send prophets, they just created confusion. Since I obviously dont believe in the prophethood of Mohammed, but still believe in God.

Obviously there is something that tells me that Mohammed was not a true prophet, but this is something that I shall leave aside. A secular reading of the Koran convinces me of that.

Also with regards to the verses you have posted, Jesus was a man too, and as a man, part of his ministry was to instruct man appropriately, this is just part of His teaching.

Hischam Khan

27th April 2005, 21:06

The NIV translates it as "I am he" but that is only to make it clear to in english, however the words are eigo emi, whcih is simply "I AM" .
Which had to have been "YHWH" judging by the reaction of the guards.Hawk the word ‘ego eimi’ means ‘I am’ and I think the NIV as many other translations, translates it correctly into English as “I am he”. Otherwise it may not make sense. This is often necessitated when translating into other languages. It seems you understand that. Anyone who knows another language would. However, I also told you that ‘ego eimi’ (the very same ‘I am’) were the same words which were used by Gabriel in the Bible and Peter. Then I told you that we all use the words ‘I am’ in our language. So, I ask again, how many gods do you have? You must have more gods than we have ice cream flavours, seriously!

Its interesting to note that when Jesus says I AM, the people around fell to the ground.
This reaction tells you only one thing, that the word Jesus used was "YHWH"
No other word has that reaction for the Jews.This is the proof? Jesus (pbuh) is god because when he answered “I am (Jesus of Nazareth)”, they fell down? Actually, it says that he approached them and they answered and he replied and they “drew back” and then they fell down. It could be that the way he approached them made them walk backwards till they stumbled. It could be that they were shocked to see that such a man should be guilty. Perhaps they realised that he couldn’t be. When people saw Muhammad (pbuh) they too would stare knowing inside that this is not just any man. So, I just gave you two alternative reasons why they may have fallen down. Besides this, out of all the four Gospel writers only John makes mention of such a conversation. If it contains proof of his divinity how could they not mention it? Yet we see that not one of them forgot to mention how he rode a donkey or colt (Mathew says he rode both – circus trick?) into Jerusalem! Also, why is it that John draws special attention to the fulfilment of a prophecy in verse nine (in the context of this supposed discussion) but has no mention about his claim of divinity? It seems like he saw nothing special in this claim of his just as I would think any impartial observer wouldn’t.

Now understand that is you are looking for the words "I AM GOD" you will not find them, simply because the people of the time would not have understood them that way, and Jesus was essentially talking to these people, we ofcourse have the benefit of past knowledge to understand what Jesus was claiming.What I understand about what Jesus (pbuh) is claiming is apparently much different to what you understand. Thus, the last statement means very little. Furthermore, it is not true that the people would not have understood him. They would have understood the phrase ‘I am God’ as well as anyone today. The only thing is that they would not have accepted it which incidentally is also the same as today. The reason is because we all know deep inside that God would not be another human being no matter how brilliant and amazing that human being might be. There are a number of characteristics which we humans share with each other that the Almighty just does not have. This we have all been through already of course.

To them forgiving sins himself, and saying "I AM" was essentially clearly stating to the Jews at the time that he was God, for them there was no ambiguity, also note that his crucifixion was a punishment that was merited by only a blasphemer, it was the most serious of serious punishments.I have already replied to this also. When they criticised him for what he said, he did not reply “what is the matter with you; I am God so of course I can forgive sins”. This would have been the most natural thing to say in response. Yet, each time they criticise and fling something at him he silences them with a counter argument. From his replies we can see that they were trying to catch him out and he knew it all too well. You are making your case using his enemies rather than him which is very strange. Anyway, after explaining that he is given this authority and knowledge by God the crowds’ response are most meaningful and totally contradict what you say. It says:

“When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men” Matthew 9:8

Clear as daylight! The authority was given by God to men. They understood perfectly. Again, I think you are reading into Scripture what is not there. Such simple verses should never have to become a point of contention.

So i would say that Jesus very unambigiously states that He is God to the people of that time.:wall:

It doesnt become their kingdom does it? Are there then more than one King of heaven?Of course! Why should they not have a kingdom? Bottom line is that this is no proof of his divinity. I mean seriously, Jesus (pbuh) is god because he said “my kingdom is not of this world”? Sigh!

The answer is that Jesus is both God and man in one person. This doctrine is called the hypostatic union. As a man, Jesus was under the law and was obligated to keep the law (Gal. 4:4). In His humbled state of being lower than the Angels (Heb. 2:9), Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man (Phil. 2:5-8). Therefore, He was incomplete subjection to the Father so that He might fulfill the law and be the high priest sacrifice for our sins (Heb. 5:10).
… Therefore, these verses do not mean that Jesus is not divine. But it does mean that Jesus, as a man, was completely and totally in submission to the will of the Father and that Jesus would only do the will of the Father as the text clearly says.It’s like you are doing gymnastics, twisting and turning like a bretzel just trying to clutch unto anything to keep a hold of this doctrine. A simple read through such verses shows that Jesus (pbuh) is actually only a righteous servant of God doing as he is commanded. He is completely dependent upon him. Now while this can easily be recognisable by simply producing the verses, you have to twist and turn so much so that you have to make your case using his enemies. I just feel that such reasoning is a discredit to the human intellect. It’s a real shame.

Actually as I have demonstrated Jesus did state this very clearly. To the people of the time he very clearly stated that He is God.
Now with reagrds the claim to unambiguity, God could simply himself one say "I AM GOD" believe in me, and this is the right way to do stuff.
He didnt have to send prophets, they just created confusion. Since I obviously dont believe in the prophethood of Mohammed, but still believe in God.

Obviously there is something that tells me that Mohammed was not a true prophet, but this is something that I shall leave aside. A secular reading of the Koran convinces me of that.This is just a red herring. This discussion is not about him. Let us not divert from the topic. As regards why God did not come down Himself, if He did then there wouldn’t be a need to test humans on earth. This is the Muslim view point. So the comparison is inappropriate.

hawk

28th April 2005, 03:09

It’s like you are doing gymnastics, twisting and turning like a bretzel just trying to clutch unto anything to keep a hold of this doctrine. A simple read through such verses shows that Jesus (pbuh) is actually only a righteous servant of God doing as he is commanded. He is completely dependent upon him. Now while this can easily be recognisable by simply producing the verses, you have to twist and turn so much so that you have to make your case using his enemies. I just feel that such reasoning is a discredit to the human intellect. It’s a real shame.

Hisham,
Jesus made some extermely unusual claims, that have led us to believe that He is divine, you may say that Jesus never claimed to be God, and I have shown you proof that he did according to the times in which he lived, besides the real belief in his divinity comes from reading the Bible as a continuum from genesis to revelations, when you have done that you realise that the Christian Paradigm is so true that it is unrefutable.

Unfortunately in a forum like this it is very hard for me to completely explain the Christian understanding of life. It would necesitate explaining 3000 years of revelation, which culminates in the coming of Christ, after which all revelation ended.
Because Christ is the Truth, he says:

5 They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues,
7
greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.'
8
6 As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
9
Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.
10
Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah.

Ofcourse this gives you a clear picture that God and Jesus are but one entity.
Jesus knows that there is but One God, Lord and Master, yet he says you have just one Father in heaven, and but one master- Me, ofcourse this makes sense only when you understand that He is God. and He is the Master, both.

muhtadiyah

28th April 2005, 04:09

So i would say that Jesus very unambigiously states that He is God to the people of that time.Greetings hawk,

I'd like to interject a quick question here, and then you can keep banging heads with Hischam.
So i would say that Jesus very unambigiously states that He is God to the people of that time.If this is true, why is it that none of the apostles went on to unambiguously proclaim Jesus as God incarnate? Why was the church left to argue and riot over this issue for 300 years? Peter, when preaching his first sermon on the day of Pentecost, referred to Jesus as "a MAN accredited by GOD to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which GOD did among you THROUGH HIM..." Acts 2:22. Remember, this is right after Peter was supposed to have been filled with the Holy Spirit...I should hope he's telling the truth and giving an accurate description. It seems pretty clear and straight-forward, doesn't it?

peace,
muhtadiyah

hawk

30th April 2005, 08:01

Greetings hawk,

I'd like to interject a quick question here, and then you can keep banging heads with Hischam.If this is true, why is it that none of the apostles went on to unambiguously proclaim Jesus as God incarnate? Why was the church left to argue and riot over this issue for 300 years? Peter, when preaching his first sermon on the day of Pentecost, referred to Jesus as "a MAN accredited by GOD to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which GOD did among you THROUGH HIM..." Acts 2:22. Remember, this is right after Peter was supposed to have been filled with the Holy Spirit...I should hope he's telling the truth and giving an accurate description. It seems pretty clear and straight-forward, doesn't it?

peace,
muhtadiyah

Remember Mouhtadiyyah, that the Holy Spirit has come upon man for all time, a comforter to be with us forever.

Revelation through the spirit is ongoing, remember how Kosher was removed, when Peter has this dream , then another reccuring dream and then another after that to go and eat?

Revelation through the Spirit takes time and prayer.
One of the gifts of the spirit is prophesying.

I think if you read Peters letters , you start seeing the idea coming across most strongly that indeed they thought He was God.

45And straightway he constrained his disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before him unto the other side to Bethsaida, while he himself sendeth the multitude away. 46And after he had taken leave of them, he departed into the mountain to pray. 47And when even was come, the boat was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land. 48And seeing them distressed in rowing, for the wind was contrary unto them, about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking on the sea; and he would have passed by them: 49but they, when they saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out; 50for they all saw him, and were troubled. But he straightway spake with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid. 51And he went up unto them into the boat; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves; 52for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened.

Here you can see very clearly that these disciples, being Jews were reluctant to believe that Jesus was God.
These people were struggling to understand it, just like many christians do right upto today, or for that matter muslims and jews.

Yet Here you can see that they are now beginning to understand His nature

like here

5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

But some still doubted, you can see that after seeing all this happen some of them still doubted, and ofcourse they would doubt, after all its completely unbelievable. As it would be to me too, i am sure.

Now its important to understand that Acts is about the "acts" of the apostles.
Noteworthy is what they are saying: Pay attention here, when Peter heals this man, he says "I do this in the name of Jesus. He knows very clearly that Jesus and God are one.

33 And there he found a certain man named Aeneas, which had kept his bed eight years, and was sick of the palsy.

34 And Peter said unto him, Aeneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise, and make thy bed. And he arose immediately.

35 And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord.

There are many other verses like that, that show clearly that the Apostles were absolutely convinced of the divinity of our Lord.

The fighting you speak off wasnt as wide spread as people (especially muslims and some jews) would have you believe.

I think the biggest heresy came from Arius, who taught that Jesus was a "lesser God" but God none the less.
I think Islam would have found his ideas even more distasteful than Christians today.