View Full Version : Inadequately Answered Questions
Greetings All!
Over the course of the months since Sept 11, I've learned much about Islam. However, there are a few unanswered questions, or questions I didn't really understand the answer to on other threads. People seem to have moved on to other topics, but I wanted to put the questions back out there......
Bear in mind, I do intend these questions as real questions -- not as attacks on Islam. Yet, these seem to be the tough questions that seem to stump some Muslims....
1) Surah 4.157. The question of an accurate translation was originally asked by JBJ. However, in that thread, I was questioning more that the passage seems to imply that Allah practices deception (making someone other than Isa appear to be Isa on the cross). This seems to make Allah a liar. How does Islam answer this charge against Allah as revealed in the Qur'an?
2) JBJ made some folks mad by suggesting Mohammed acted as though he were possesed by a demon. According to some hadith JBJ was reading, Mohammed made camel noises, foamed at the mouth, sweated, turned red, convulsed, and so forth while prophecying. I do not believe that Mohammed was possesed. Yet such behavior does not fit the Biblical image of prophecy. If I saw someone act like that today, I might not assume he was possessed, but I would likely think he were crazy. While all the Muslims responding on that thread denied the possibility of possession, nobody offered any other explanation for the behavior. Can anyone explain?
3) The Old Testament contains many passages that seem to possibly endorse violence. However, Christians see a general progression towards non-violence culminating in Jesus, who preached that we love and bless our enemies, turn the other cheek and so forth. Many passages of the Qur'an seem to incite violence, but it is all revealed to one person so that there is no development of morality over centuries. To Christians, the Qur'an seems a step back-wards in moral development. If Islam is a religion of peace, how do peaceful Muslims interpret these passages?
4) Several passages of the Qur'an state that they confirm the truth held by the People of the Book. Some of these passages even are translated in English as saying that our Scriptures are confirmed. Dr. Qasir offered some explanation that I could not argue against because I do not know Arabic or Arabic history. It has been suggested by him that the Scriptures that are confirmed are not the same Scriptures Christians use, or the word translated as "scriptures" is better translated as "truth". Does the Arabic really support such a reading of these texts (just seeking a second opinion)?
5) I have suggested that the word "person" as used by Trinitarians means an identity formed and completed on the basis of relationship to another. For example, to my father, I am the person of "son", while to my wife, I am the person of "husband". Thus, I am two persons in one being. I am also "brother" to another son of my father. Thus, I am three persons in one being. With this understanding of the terms "person" and "being", how do Christians sin against taweed when we say that there are three persons in one God?
6) Muslims seem to insist that consistency alone is the test of religious truth, and the Bible seems inconsistent to many Muslims. I have demonstrated that it is possible in science to have two mutually exclusive explanations for the same reality that are both internally consistent (i.e.-- Newton's physics verses Einstien). I have also demonstrated in several places that apparent inconsistencies in the Bible can be cleared up when the text is read in context of the passages around it, or in the context of the whole of the Bible, or in its historical context. Why is consistency considered the sole test of truth?
7) Very few women have spoken up about their perceptions of being Islamic women. Nzingha expressed some dissatisfaction with the notion that women have an inferior intelligence. Other than that, little has been said when asked. How do Islamic women feel about men marrying more than one wife? What about the hajib? What about being blocked from becoming an iman? What about female circumcision where it still occurs?
8) When asked if it was religious belief that Israel cannot exist permantly as a state in the Middle East, the responses were vague. The Bible promises the land to Israel's descendants, and implies the Davidic kingdom will be restored before the end times. Rasha said she would like it destroyed, but gave no insight about the religious teaching. Benzaid responded regarding that Arab Muslims lived there before the Israeli state was formed, implying a human rights issue. Yet, nobody really answered what the teachings of Islam are about Israel, if there are any. Can anyone clarify what the actual religious belief about the sate of Israel is in Islam?
9) can anyone explain why historical-critical methods of literary criticism are not used in the study of the Qur'an? Why is the development of thought and tradition over the centuries not accepted?
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
This is what i found so far:
The great prophet of Islam, Mohammad (pbuh) said: " The day of Judgment will not take place until Muslims fight the Jews. When the Jew hides behind a rock, the rock will call out for the Muslim and says: O' Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him"
Netcurtains
20-04-2002, 09:36
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 20-04-02 AT 08:38 AM (GMT)]If that was the case - the world will stand up in the style of kirk douglas in Sparticus and say "Over here I am a jew" -
no I'm a jew
- no its me - I'm the jew
We'll all be jews.
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/9766/spartac.html
Sparticus was crucified at the order of Crassus
vancouver
21-04-2002, 02:56
Greetings
God does not advocate killing humans by other humans.
"Let there be no compulsion in religion." "Thy duty is only preaching." "We have not made thee keeper over [the Unbelievers]." "What! wilt thou compel men to become believers? No soul can believe but by the permission of God." "Thy duty is to make (The Message) reach them: It is our part to call them to account." "Obey not the Infidels and Hypocrites-yet abstain from injuring them." "Summon thou to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and with kindly warning: dispute with them in the kindest manner." (Sura 2:256; 13:40, Ali; Sura 3:19; 6:106, 107; 10:99, 100; 16:126; 33:44, 47. ) Surely the foregoing are unequivocal and in harmony with the principles of justice.
Regards and peace to all
vancouver
>
>1) Surah 4.157. The question of an accurate translation was
>originally asked by JBJ. However, in that thread, I was
>questioning more that the passage seems to imply that Allah
>practices deception (making someone other than Isa appear to
>be Isa on the cross). This seems to make Allah a liar. How
>does Islam answer this charge against Allah as revealed in
>the Qur'an?
>
I've answered that already
http://www.aliasoft.com/iwc/index.cgi?az=show_thread&om=170&forum=DCForumID4&omm=37&viewmode=threaded
>2) JBJ made some folks mad by suggesting Mohammed acted as
>though he were possesed by a demon. According to some hadith
>JBJ was reading, Mohammed made camel noises, foamed at the
>mouth, sweated, turned red, convulsed, and so forth while
>prophecying. I do not believe that Mohammed was
>possesed. Yet such behavior does not fit the Biblical image
>of prophecy. If I saw someone act like that today, I might
>not assume he was possessed, but I would likely think he
>were crazy. While all the Muslims responding on that thread
>denied the possibility of possession, nobody offered any
>other explanation for the behavior. Can anyone explain?
>
I've actually dealt with this issue with other christians. There are several things to point out, one is that this physical change only happened on some occasions. Which was described by the Prophet pbuh as the most difficult. There were other forms of revelation that came much easier for him. I would think that such a physical state would be expected if one were recieving direct communication from God. In fact we can see some of this w/in the bible for instance with Saul, even some of the prophetic behaviour was in such a way that some labeled them a madman.
>3) The Old Testament contains many passages that seem to
>possibly endorse violence. However, Christians see a general
>progression towards non-violence culminating in Jesus, who
>preached that we love and bless our enemies, turn the other
>cheek and so forth. Many passages of the Qur'an seem to
>incite violence, but it is all revealed to one person so
>that there is no development of morality over centuries. To
>Christians, the Qur'an seems a step back-wards in moral
>development. If Islam is a religion of peace, how do
>peaceful Muslims interpret these passages?
>
There doesn't need to be centuries to have moral development. We can see much moral development happen over the 25 yrs of revelation. Take the instance of drinking intoxicants. It was not forbidden at first, there are three revelations in regards to this issue in the Qur'an one which states that intoxicants although have some good are more bad than good, the second states that no one can come to prayer intoxicated and the third bans intoxicants altogether. This was a progressive moral development which didn't take centuries.
Or one can look at the issue of slaves, although the Qur'an does not demand the freedom of all slaves it doesn't given means to acquire them either. In fact it calls for the freeing of slaves in many instances. Islam brought about a moral change in regards to the status of slaves and how free men were to treat them. It needed to bring them on an equal status with everyone else in order to change the moral thoughts of the early muslims who were coming from a society that treated slaves terribly.
As for violence, I personally don't agree that a totally non violent view is a good one. Violence in a violent world at times becomes necessary. However the Qur'an is clear that we are to mind ourselves and not transgress the boundries in which Allah established for us or we will be the oppressors. If you notice in the Qur'an there are more means to call for a truce and peace than there is to a call of violence when necessary.
>4) Several passages of the Qur'an state that they confirm
>the truth held by the People of the Book. Some of these
>passages even are translated in English as saying that our
>Scriptures are confirmed. Dr. Qasir offered some explanation
>that I could not argue against because I do not know Arabic
>or Arabic history. It has been suggested by him that the
>Scriptures that are confirmed are not the same Scriptures
>Christians use, or the word translated as "scriptures" is
>better translated as "truth". Does the Arabic really support
>such a reading of these texts (just seeking a second
>opinion)?
>
You'd have to give me the verses your referring to in order for me to state one way or another.
>5) I have suggested that the word "person" as used by
>Trinitarians means an identity formed and completed on the
>basis of relationship to another. For example, to my father,
>I am the person of "son", while to my wife, I am the person
>of "husband". Thus, I am two persons in one being. I am also
>"brother" to another son of my father. Thus, I am three
>persons in one being. With this understanding of the terms
>"person" and "being", how do Christians sin against taweed
>when we say that there are three persons in one God?
>
with your example your not two persons, your one person with several roles. I'm the roll of a mother a wife a student ect.. but i'm not different "persons". I am the same person who holds the same beleifs, same body, same morals, same culture.. ect ect.
To attribute such things are a vilation of tawheed no matter how you wrap it. There is the concept of God taking form, of God becoming flesh, of God being like His Creation.. this is all against Tawheed.
>6) Muslims seem to insist that consistency alone is the test
>of religious truth, and the Bible seems inconsistent to many
>Muslims. I have demonstrated that it is possible in science
>to have two mutually exclusive explanations for the same
>reality that are both internally consistent (i.e.-- Newton's
>physics verses Einstien). I have also demonstrated in
>several places that apparent inconsistencies in the Bible
>can be cleared up when the text is read in context of the
>passages around it, or in the context of the whole of the
>Bible, or in its historical context. Why is consistency
>considered the sole test of truth?
>
I personally wouldn't say sole, however if there is no consistency with God than God is open to doubt by His actions alone. If someone is not consistent with me and is every changing, i don't trust that person, I don't instill faith in that persons abilities nor do I believe that person.. because there is so much distrust.. who knows what will come next. The same holds true for God.. if God can't be trusted,, how can God be believed? This is why it is very important for God to be consistent, He is not to confuse people or cause a distrust in His Creation it is the exact opposite.
And we are not talking theories of science or interpretations subject to history for God is not bound by such things.
>7) Very few women have spoken up about their perceptions of
>being Islamic women. Nzingha expressed some dissatisfaction
>with the notion that women have an inferior intelligence.
>Other than that, little has been said when asked. How do
>Islamic women feel about men marrying more than one wife?
>What about the hajib? What about being blocked from becoming
>an iman? What about female circumcision where it still
>occurs?
>
1. Women don't have an inferior intellegence and Islam doesn't support that notion
2. I've also stated before my views on polygyny
3. Hijab isn't an issue for me at all, just a few more yards of cloth which doesn't limit me in anyway. I'm not defined by my clothing.. I define my clothing.
4. If one understands the duties of being an Imam (not Iman btw.. Imam is the leader of prayer, while Iman means faith) one can understand why women wouldn't be taking on such a role. However this doesn't mean she can never act as an Imam I have on several occasions.
5. Female circumcision I have discussed in the past. It is a cultural issue one which is not limited to a specific religion. Christians, pagans muslims, jews have it in many cultures. Depending on the form of it and the why's of it being done would dictate if Islam stands opposed to it.
>8) When asked if it was religious belief that Israel cannot
>exist permantly as a state in the Middle East, the responses
>were vague. The Bible promises the land to Israel's
>descendants, and implies the Davidic kingdom will be
>restored before the end times. Rasha said she would
>like it destroyed, but gave no insight about the
>religious teaching. Benzaid responded regarding that Arab
>Muslims lived there before the Israeli state was formed,
>implying a human rights issue. Yet, nobody really answered
>what the teachings of Islam are about Israel, if there are
>any. Can anyone clarify what the actual religious belief
>about the sate of Israel is in Islam?
>
There is no true religious issue in regards to Isreal lik there is for many zionist christians. Which base their support for the zionist development of Israel on OT promises. (one can argue that the bible is opposed to this thought)
however religiously Islam is against oppression in all its form. The government of Israel and those that support it are opprssing Palestinian peoples.. religiously we must stand opposed to such a thing and must act against it.
>9) can anyone explain why historical-critical methods of
>literary criticism are not used in the study of the Qur'an?
>Why is the development of thought and tradition over the
>centuries not accepted?
>
I wouldn't say that they are not used, however they are not used to the degree in which they are with the bible. Nor in the same manner when Muslims use critical methods when studying the Qur'an.
I also don't understand the last question, you'll have to be more specific.
Ok let me try to answer more of these now that I have some time inshaAllah....
1. Sura 4.157... I think the answers in the thread gave it all.. i have nothing else to add. Allah does what He wishes because He has wisdom and has purpose which we don't know.
2. I think I was not there when everyone discussed the story of prophet mohammad.... I'll have to read it first and see when and why etc. Will get to that later inshaAllah
3. As for the Quraan and violence.... and islam not changing and developing.... well Allah has revealed Islam and made it fit for every time and every age....and every human being all over the globe. Thus it doesn't need to be modernized ... it is the religion of god and can't be changed or else it will be the religion of man. Islam too tells us to be good, to be nice to others. Take the incident of prophet mohammad with his jewish neighbor. the neighbor used to throw garbage at prophet mohammad's door step everday. one day he didn't so the prophet worried about him!! HE went to visit him and found out he was sick... the jewish man said.. why do u care about me when i have harmed u all along!!
another incident is when a group of people said to him "Assamu 3alik" which means poisen be on you... his daughter was angry and said "And poisen be on u and the curse of Allah" but the prophet said to her... do not say that... he told her to simply say and to you.
Islam doesn't endorse violence or anything but islam doesn't allow us to be oppressed or our rights violated. If u read the quraanic verses on jihad... and if u read the tafsir to know when and why it was revealed u will notice that they are all to fight oppression and not to be ruled by none believers who treate us as inferiors!! We can go over the verses if u wish. (just give examples and everyone will help out inshaAllah)
Islam cannot change over time...it is of the highest moral level and thus doesn't need to develop..its a complete way of life sealed... will not be changed till the end of time... its the religion god accepted for us.
the passages might be revealed to the prophet... but it applies to all of us. not only to him. This is why i hate the translations that use O Muhammad in places where the passage is sometimes more general. In arabic, they do not use as much the word O Mohammad, however it is added in english because it was originally a message to the prophet. But the actual Arabic doesn't have ("O Mohammad"). Thus the passages can be read in more general way.
4. As for the truth with people of the book: Muslims believe that the original scriptures were changed by translations and also they were written by the people not the prophets and thus can't be trusted. People write things the way they believe them to be not the way God wanted it to be. Islam agrees and confirms the ORIGINAL scriptures which are not available to anyone sadly...
5. To us, a person is a body as the sis explained... i am a person... i play such and such roles... However, God is not like u. Not like me. not like any of his creations... God is God. He is only God. He can't be like us.. it is not befitting for god to be like us in anyway.
the english word person refers to people and humans not characters and thus it can't be used in the way you did use it. You are one person not 100!! You mean different things to different people but u are one person. God is not like us... God is God.. God is one... and we have no right to describe him in any way other than what he described himself.
6. Why is consistancy the sole test of truth... ok... As a student, you expected ur teacher and parents to be perfect... no mistakes are allowed.... this is because u expect them to be expert in this field. Also, human minds like to have clear cut truth... no chances for mistakes or misunderstandings.... God created us...and God is perfect.. everything about God is perfect... if the bible, the one u have right now, is the word of God... then how can god make mistakes. We said God is perfect...then his speech is perfect. If you say but these are not exact words they are the meaning... well then its not God who wrote it. If god didn't write it (i mean like its not exactly what god said) then its not God's words.. then who's words is it? Is it even the prophet's words?? If its not... then ur following a man not God!!
7. Islam and women...Women in islam are equal to men... they are simply different. Islam doesn't make women less, it appreciates their differences. As for polygamy... well islam allows it for reasons... and if u read the verse about polygamy COMPLETELY it says... men can marry 4 wives if they can be just between them... and it goes on to say... BUT U CANNOT BE JUST IN MOST CASES and thus marry one. Yes marrying 4 is allowed... there are conditions, things the man must do... rules.. it is not easy... and most men marry one wife. I have an article on this and will type it out inshaAllah soon for u. I think it explains this best.
Hijab... I have no problem with Hijab. I actually like it. It is good to walk and know everyone in the world knows ur a muslim and that u are proud of it.
Imaam... women can be imaam for other women. I don't have a problem with it... i think men can lead... its a big responsibility to be an imaam. So less work for me. Besides... women have more shyness than men... I'd feel very bad knowing that there are 100 men behind me when i pray! I'd rather pray in my room alone or in the back with them women where no one will be looking at me.
Female circumcision as our sister said is not a must in islam. ITs a tradition... almost no one do it.. or i should say very little. ISlam doesn't encourage nor discourage as far as i know.
I know for males its a must... and there was an interesting article few days ago in the news paper on that... medical news... and i liked it because it proved that islam was right when it said to do male circumcision.
(I can email it to you if ur interested)
8. Islam and Palestine.... hmmm.... don't have much info yet. We'll see what i come up with.
9. Understanding Quraan... i too do not know what u mean by literary criticism!!!!!!!! What exactly are u referring to.
Why is thought development not accepted... as we said before.. if u develop it... it is development based on how u or i understand it not what god wanted...and islam doesn't need imporovement its good for every time and age.
hope this helps. peace
Greetings Nzinaha and Huda!
1) Somehow, I skipped over your original response in the long thread to Sura 4.157. Your answer makes some sense, depending on exactly how you translate and interpret the words Shakir translates "but it appeared to them so". It seems that you are allowing that this deception was performed by human beings, and not by Allah if I understand you correctly. Is that right? And if it is right, are Christians morally at fault for believeing this deception today?
2) I accept the logic of the possibility that a prophet could undergo physical changes. Yet, I am certain that if I saw someone doing it today, I would assume he's crazy, even if he were great poet.
3) I am aware that some development is admitted over the course of the 25 years of revelation to Mohammed, and even the "abroggation" of verses in such a period. However, what I am concerned with is that some of my reading indicates that the passages inciting violence came later. I am particularly troubled by the morality in Sura 8, where unarmed men are killed by Muslims, and Allah seems to approve (or at least not disapprove). Is it that true that the more violent passages came later? If so, how can we interpret the Qur'an as a religion of peace?
4) The particular question I raised regarding places where the Qur'an seemed to confirm our Scriptures were from Dawood's translation, which seemed controversial. I raised the question originally in the thread started by Lulua called Who Invented the Trinity which I cannot seem to locate. At nay rate, here are a few of the verse reference numbers: 10.94, 2.120, and 3.93.
5) Regarding my use of the word "person" you need to remember that the word "person" developed over time. It means something different today than it meant to early Christians, or to any of the bishops at the great Councils that formulated our creeds. I explained that they used the word "person" in such a way that it is defined as an identity formed and completed on the basis of relationship. You should not impose your own meaning words on someone else when they are trying to explain their religion. The word used by early Christians for "person" originally meant a mask worn by an actor in the theater. It came to be an identity formed and completed on the basis of relationship by the time of Nicea. Today, in Englich, it can also mean a complete self-conscious human being. However, the bishops who formulted our creeds were careful to define their terms and many saints wrote commentary. If you impose the modern English mkeaning of "person" into the Nicean creed, you will undoubtedly be confused. Person was not intended to by synonymous with being! The current Catechism of the Cathelic Church also clarifies that the language used at Nicea is not to be understood in its everyday sense in many languages today. These terms were formulated in Latin and Greek based on Aramaic concepts. Regarding your assertion that what I am calling are simply "roles", there is some truth to that, but not the full truth. In saying I am husband to my wife, it is more than a role, it is who I am to her. Another way of defining "person" as Christians mean the term is that the term "person" is the answer to the question "Who?". Meanwhile, the term "being" is the answer to the question "What?". Christians say God is one in being! There is one answer to "What?". Yet, he is three in persons. I am more than three persons in one being, since I am brother, friend, son, spouse, etc...depending on who I relate to. There is nothing "mysterious" in and of itself about God being three persons. The "mystery" of the Trinity is that the three persons of the Trinity derive their identity based on relationship with one another, and not jsutr with us. Nevertheless, there is no sin against taweed to say the one God has many persons.
5) I agree with what you said about consistency not being the sole test. My main point is that Christianity is not inconsistent to anyone willing to study the issues patiently. I find the Muslim habit of bombarding christians with apparent inconsistencies all at once, or answering questions with unrelated questions a little irritating. That is the point of my constantly challenging the very assumption that consistency is the sole test of truth.
6) I accept whatever you say about being Islamic women. Is there freedom for women who chose not to follow Allah in the same way in Islamic nations? Why can't women drive cars in Saudi Arabia?
7)Regarding Israel, I understand the human rights issue for Palestinian Arabs and Muslims in the region. There seems to an idea among some non-Muslim Westerners that Islam teaches that a prophecy was made that Islam would rule all of the Arabic penninsula and the Middle East till the end of the world. However, nobody on this forum seems aware of this prophecy. I must assume the non-Muslim Westerners are incorrect.
8) Regarding "historical-critical methods", I am referring very much tot he idea we see above in the devleopment of the idea of "person". At one time, it meant a mask, then it meant an identity formed in relationship, then it meant a a full human being. Likewise, the Latin word for money, "pecunia", is rooted in the word for cow. In 1890, the word "***" meant happy and care-free. Today, it means a homosexuyal person. Ideas form in certain periods, such as communism. It didn't exist prior to the nineteenth century. Scientific knowledge develops. As a whole, humanity is gaining wider and wider knowledge and understanding. When I read in the Qur'an something like a reference to "the seven heavens", I'm seeing a reference to a world-view common to the seventh century in other literature. Muslims seem to see some type of scientific statement that there universes beyond our own. When I read in the Qur'an that a woman can declare a divorce and inherit property, I see this as an advancement for women in that time period. So I think, the spirit of the Qur'an is to advance women. Yet, in Saudi Arabia, a woman cannot drive a car. I wonder why Islam is not continuing to advance women ahead of the world around them today, as Islam advanced women in the seventh century. Historical critical methods mean that you read a text in its historic context, instead of assuming that it means the exact same thing to all people at all times. Whne you read texts in their historic contexts, it can add new layers to the meaning you get from a surface reading that assumes it means the same thing today that it meant 1,400 years ago.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
... i don't have the time to go over everything as it needs me to look up some things but i will do it hopefully tonight... as for now..
I just wanted to comment on the issue of women and saudi arabia..
first Saudi arabia shouldn't be the standard test for everything.. it is not an islamic state.. .it is the MOST islamic... but by no mean a true islamic state. Secondly... who said women in Saudi can't drive?? This is a lie... I have friends in Saudi.. they have women clubs, they go around... they have tones of things to do over there. They might be not allowed to drive in a specific place like the haram (i'm not sure about it but i wo'nt be surprised if it is).
Now its the people that make it not allowed not islam... in islam, women should not mix with men... with western idiology threatening islamic values, many women (and men of course) those who are not very religious or not very caring about their faith choose not to follow islamic traditions... a women might think so what if i go with my friend to a movie or what not.... on the other hand.. say this woman has a brother who is religious and because he loves his sister.. he cares for her safety, dignity and spiritual life... and thus he doesn't allow her to go to these places. But how can he make sure she didn't go if she drives and goes out on her own!!!! Thus, you see families not allowing the woman to drive. This is out of protectiveness not islamic values. A woman is not encouraged to be out on her own because this makes her an easy prey for those who are sick.
In Saudi, right now as we sit here, the rape rate is not 0%!!! It might be less than other countries but it is still there... and this makes it more important for families to protect their loved ones.
Islam allows a woman to drive, work, and go around so long as it is in a good environment which is not available any more (in my opinion).
In Saudi the people there are more strict islamicly which is good (I pray I will live there one day) and thus you see the implementation of islamic values more... protectiveness of women more... etc. I saw a show once where Saudi women were on TV and they said we don't mind being home.. we have our own things to do. IT is only the west that makes a big fuzz over it and put some lies in it too.. if u wish.. i can send ur questions on Saudi women to a friend of mine who is American living in Saudi and married there.... And I can let her reply and post her exact reply!! You will be amazed.. she lived there for more than 16 years... converted there... married to a man who is also married to another woman... there u go.. she is happy and has no problems what so ever... has wonderful children ... and a good life.
She said to us once that she used to take her kids to the mosque before becoming a muslim... she would wait till they are done prayers and take them back home... there u go.. how do u think she went out??
now she is involved in an international relief organization... how do u think she goes to meetings??
She could drive herself...or ask someone to driver her!!!
I won't mind getting a ride...
So you must distinguish between islamic and traditional things...
islam encourages women not to go out much as this allows for more corruption in the society... that's all... the Saudi's are simply trying to protect their men and women.. and i think for the most part they succeeded.
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 21-04-02 AT 09:51 PM (GMT)]Hi Nzingha,
Just wanted to make a few points. Yes, you're right that Muhammad's state at revelation was different at different times. First, wasn't it Jibrail who delivered the entire Qur'an to Muhammad? Or was it both he and Allah.
In fact we can see some of this w/in the bible for instance with Saul
An evil spirit from God came upon Saul. (First Samuel 18.10)
This is not Allah's revelation at all, it is evil spirit, a jinn. I could explain why the spirit is from God, but the point is if you compare Saul to Muhammad, you say Muhammad's angel was evil also.
Also I think the trinity is completely consistent with tawheed. Maybe when I finish reading Bukhari's book 93 on tawheed I'll find I'm wrong just because it's so long, but haven't yet. But! I'll be happy to recant my thought if you can show me one place in the Qur'an or authentic hadith that violates the Bible or trinity theory.
I know that the Qur'an often rejects ideas that seem like the trinity but aren't, they only refer to heretical ideas of Arab Christians of Muhammad's day. For example, the Qur'an says, "Allah is not the messiah." This is absolutely true from the Biblical standpoint. The Bible means that Jesus is Allah, but not the other way around. They sound the same, but are really different. For example, it is true that you say, Allah is something not physical, but not true that, something not physical is Allah. For because Jibrail is something not physical, that would make Jibrail Allah! :o That's one example. There are many others.
One last thing - do you not believe in the shabih? You said, "He is not to confuse people" implying that a man wasn't made to look like Jesus. I've been studying Jesus within Islam in detail lately and I'm just curious. I'm also responding to the post you linked to under "4.157" because I hadn't read it before.
Salaam!
JBJ
<<Secondly...
>who said women in Saudi can't drive?? This is a lie... I
>have friends in Saudi.. they have women clubs, they go
>around... they have tones of things to do over there. They
>might be not allowed to drive in a specific place like the
>haram (i'm not sure about it but i wo'nt be surprised if it
>is). >>
I live in Saudi and women can not drive here period. No one can drive in the haram, no cars allowed. But it is very true women can't drive here. Yes women have things to do from shopping, to clubs, to work. And it is either a husband, a taxi, a compound bus, or a personal driver that gets us around.
I will ask my friend because I heard they can drive.. not in Haram area... but take for instance Jedda!! What about there? I will check again inshaAllah
>I will ask my friend because I heard they can drive.. not in
>Haram area... but take for instance Jedda!! What about
>there? I will check again inshaAllah
Sister again I live here I know if I'm able to drive or not. No women can't drive. Not in Jeddah either no where in the kingdom is it legal for women to drive.
The only women who drive here are bedouin women, but they are so far in the desert who cares if they are doing it illegally.
Just wanted to make a few points. Yes, you're right that Muhammad's state at revelation was different at different times. First, wasn't it Jibrail who delivered the entire Qur'an to Muhammad? Or was it both he and Allah. >>
There were several ways in which revelation came. One of which is when Jabril would come to muhammad pbuh and give him revelation be in spirit form or manly form. Then there were times the revelation came like a dream to him, inspiring him like that of Ibrahim pbuh who was also inspired to kill his only son. Or it came, as aisha reported in Bukhari like the ringing of a bell, this form of inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes off after I have grasped what is inspiried
In he Quran it is clear that Allah uses several avenues to convey his revelation, for insance to Mary came Jabril in man form, to Moses pbuh was a burning bush, to Ibrahim pbuh it was a vision.
But it was Allah who gave all the revelation, He just used several different means to relay that revelation.
In fact we can see some of this w/in the bible for instance with Saul
An evil spirit from God came upon Saul. (First Samuel 18.10)
This is not Allah's revelation at all, it is evil spirit, a jinn. I could explain why the spirit is from God, but the point is if you compare Saul to Muhammad, you say Muhammad's angel was evil also. >>>
Actually according to this instance it was an evil spirit from God.. God sends the evil spirits to His prophets?? another problem for the bible from what I see. But it wasnt an evil spirit of God that went to Saul in 1 Sam 19:24 in which he got naked and laid down on the ground. And the people of course asked was he a prophet of God.
<<Also I think the trinity is completely consistent with tawheed. Maybe when I finish reading Bukhari's book 93 on tawheed I'll find I'm wrong just because it's so long, but haven't yet. But! I'll be happy to recant my thought if you can show me one place in the Qur'an or authentic hadith that violates the Bible or trinity theory. >
Your really taking a leap here and not a good one. The Quran in no uncertain circumstances denies anything which can be seen to agree with the trinity. How do you overcome the instance when Allah clearly states He is not a trinity, He is not one of three, that Isa pbuh was not Allah?
<<. For example, the Qur'an says, "Allah is not the messiah." This is absolutely true from the Biblical standpoint. The Bible means that Jesus is Allah, but not the other way around. They sound the same, but are really different. For example, it is true that you say, Allah is something not physical, but not true that, something not physical is Allah. For because Jibrail is something not physical, that would make Jibrail Allah! :o That's one example. There are many others. >>>
Your really splitting hairs here to me, and it does nothing more than cause more confusion than make things clear. However this doesnt work when it is stated clearly that Isa pbuh was not Allah.?
One last thing - do you not believe in the shabih? You said, "He is not to confuse people" implying that a man wasn't made to look like Jesus. I've been studying Jesus within Islam in detail lately and I'm just curious. >
No I dont believe that someone else was placed on the cross that looked like Isa pbuh. I do believe that if this were the case more distinct words would have been used in the Quran by Allah to state just that. However Allah only states it was made to appear to them that they had succeeded. Which to me means that Isa pbuh was on the cross, he simply did not die on it. He was alive.
Salaam Alaikum,
No I dont believe that someone else was placed on the cross that looked like Isa pbuh. I do believe that if this were the case more distinct words would have been used in the Quran by Allah to state just that. However Allah only states it was made to appear to them that they had succeeded. Which to me means that Isa pbuh was on the cross, he simply did not die on it. He was alive.
Sorry but this is not true, Isa(as) was never hanged up on the cross; we can read that very clearly from the following verse:
4:157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.";- But they killed him not, NOR CRUCIFIED HIM, but so it WAS MADE TO APPEAR to them...
We can conclude from historical books and scriptures that SOMEONE WAS CRUCIFIED, but definitaly not Isa(as), according to the Qoran. This is just my own theory: I believe that Judas Iscariot was hanged up i.s.o Isa(as). The reason why I believe in this you can found it on the topic "Deadsea scrolls".
Wassalaam.
Greetings Nzingha!
It's so cool to be conversing with people all over the world. For some reason, I assumed all this time that you were writing from the West.
So, how do you feel as a Saudi woman that is considered illegal for you drive?
And is there anyone over there who argues the point I was making -- that the Qur'an advanced women in Mohammed's day, therefore, Islam should be advancing women today ahead of the West???
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
>Sorry but this is not true, Isa(as) was never hanged up on
>the cross; we can read that very clearly from the following
>verse:
>
>4:157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus
>the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.";- But they killed
>him not, NOR CRUCIFIED HIM, but so it WAS MADE TO APPEAR to
>them...
>
as salaam alaikum
Brother we will disagree than. from the statement "nor crucified him" means to me that he did not die on the cross. To be crucified means to bring about death in a certain manner, just as the crucifing called for in the Qur'an against those who cause destruction in the land is intended to bring about their death.
There tends to be two major thoughts on this issue, one of which is what you believe the other is which I believe. Allah will bring to us all the truth in the End.
ma salaam
nzingha
>Greetings Nzingha!
>
>It's so cool to be conversing with people all over the
>world. For some reason, I assumed all this time that you
>were writing from the West.
>
>So, how do you feel as a Saudi woman that is considered
>illegal for you drive? >>
I'm not Saudi, I am american but I moved here to Saudi a little over a year ago. From a saudi womans perspective I can only tell you what I know from discussing this issue with my inlaws :) Most don't really care one way or another. They do find it inconvenient at times but it is their culture and they know nohing different. Many of the older woman wouldn't drive even if you allowed them, and there are many women who support the decision of women not driving based on religious arguments. Then of course there are some of the younger girls in the family who want to drive, who don't want to veil, who want more choices in their life.
>
>And is there anyone over there who argues the point I was
>making -- that the Qur'an advanced women in Mohammed's day,
>therefore, Islam should be advancing women today ahead of
>the West???
>
Yes, but what needs to be remembered is taht "ahead of the west" doesn't mean they want to define the advancement or freedoms from a western standpoint. Meaning, their defining of advancement doesn't include doing away w/ their clothes or cultural ways. In fact there are more embrassing such things stronger than before. Due to the criticism of the west.
I do believe that driving for women will be one of the changes made here in the near future. Women are beginning to take on many diverse roles here in the kingdom and their imput is being taken more publicly than it was several years ago. With such changes they will have to allow women to drive and ensure that their fears don't become reality and wind up taking four steps back instead of a step forward.
Of course when women do drive here it will be hard on the economy of others. Indian alone has millions of people working here and some of them are as drivers, personal, taxis, and compounds. Than of course there are places like indonesia and other asian countries that will take a hit from such changes here in Saudi. Many men depend on the income as a driver to support their families back home. So with the advance of some comes the disadvantage to others.
Nzingha
Greetings!
Aahhh. I must have picked up the American tone in some of your writings. So, if you don't mind revealing personal stories, what made you go to Saudi Arabia, and what has been hardest about living there, and what has been most rewarding?
Peace!
jcecil3
Salaam Nzingha,
There were several ways in which revelation came.
Did Allah ever speak directly to Muhammad? If so, could you give one example.
God sends the evil spirits to His prophets??
This is where Islam and the Bible disagree. In the Bible, Saul was not a prophet, he was a king. For a while he was a decent king, but soon he fell away. For a long time he tried to kill David! At the time the evil spirit came, he wasn't close with God.
Everything happens because Allah allows to, agreed? If an angel comes, he allowed it to. If an evil spirit came, he allowed it to. When Satan tempted Adam and Eve, it was only because Allah allowed it. Therefore, every spirit, good and evil, is from God. Maybe not directly. The spirit may have said, "God, allow me to go," and God let him.
Let's look at the passage in 1 Samuel:
It was told Saul, saying, "Behold, David is at Naioth in Ramah."
Then Saul sent messengers to take David, but when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, with Samuel standing and presiding over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul; and they also prophesied. When it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they also prophesied. So Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they also prophesied.
Then he himself went to Ramah and came as far as the large well that is in Secu; and he asked and said, "Where are Samuel and David?" And someone said, "Behold, they are at Naioth in Ramah." He proceeded there to Naioth in Ramah; and the Spirit of God came upon him also, so that he went along prophesying continually until he came to Naioth in Ramah. He also stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1 Samuel 19.19-24)
Here Saul is looking for David to kill him. As he sent out his men, the Spirit of God (or Holy Spirit) filled them and made them prophesy. He does the same with Saul. However, when the people question, "Is Saul a prophet," it was not because Saul was a prophet, but because he wasn't a prophet. The people didn't mean, "Is Saul still a prophet after doing this horrible thing?" They meant, "Has Saul become a prophet after prophesying."
Saul was not really naked, he was "aw-rome" meaning either partially or fully naked. There isn't an English word that means this. He probably was not fully naked because the people around wouldn't wonder if he'd become a prophet.
There is something else very important to note. In the Hebrew culture of the time, it was not wrong for Saul to take off his clothes in repentance. David did often as well. This was seen as a way to humble yourself, especially for a king who had pride in his clothing. It showed that he wasn't really a king, but just a man, and that God was the true king. When the Hebrews asked for Saul to be king, God replies,
They have rejected Me from being king over them. (1 Samuel 8.7)
Other examples are singing and dancing which David did, Muslims see as sinful. But if you understand the culture, Saul's act was righteous, not sinful at all.
How do you overcome the instance when Allah clearly states He is not a trinity?
It's important to see first that the Qur'an uses an Arabic word for trinity, so it's important to understand what that word means in Arabic. The Qur'an is used as the foundation of the Arabic language, vocabulary and grammar are derived from it. Therefore, one must use the Qur'an to find the definition of the Arabic trinity word.
So, a person would have to gather the ayat that talks about the trinity and then give trinity a definition.
From the ayat that I've read, the trinity talked about in the Qur'an is always related to heretical ideas of "Christians" in Arabia. For example, Isa says he didn't tell people to take Mary for a god beside Allah. He isn't talking to regular Christians when he says that. If he was, that would mean the Qur'an is making a mistake because regular Christians don't say she's a god. In that ayah, Isa is talking to the Arabian Christians (or Christians elsewhere) who thought she's a god. It's not the trinity I or other Christians who study it believe in, but the false trinity (or tritheism) or heretical Christians. Just like the "tawheed" of NOI isn't the tawheed you study.
He is not one of three.
Yes, the Qur'an says this. But the trinity theory agrees. Allah, or God, YHWH, whatever name you give Him, is one and there are not two others like Him. The Bible nor the trinity theory in no place say God is one of three. They say that the Father is one of three, and those are two completely different terms.
God is not the Father. However, the Bible says the Father is God. (Gospel, John 17.3) Like I said earlier, the Bible says Jesus is God, but not that God is Jesus. Likewise, we say the Father is God, but God is not the Father, and for the same reasons. Many Muslims like to use math to understand the trinity, so let's do that.
1 Father + 1 Son + 1 Spirit = 3 persons = 1 God
1 God + 1 Son + 1 Spirit = 1 God + 2 persons 1 God
Makes perfect sense. God plus two persons cannot equal one God.
Your really splitting hairs here to me, and it does nothing more than cause more confusion than make things clear.
I'm sorry to be confusing, it is a confusing concept. The world is confusing. Any branch of physics, for example. And you're right, I am splitting hairs. (My little sister does it all the time, literally, so I know how annoying it is to watch.) That's how close the trinity theory is to being contradictory. And I think if the theory was wrong, then it would be contradictory.
Let me try to explain in a different way, maybe it will seem simpler. A hawk is a bird. Every hawk you see will be a bird, no exceptions. There's wings, there's feathers, claws, a beak - it's a bird. (X is Y.)
But, does is work the other way around? Try it. Is a bird a pigeon? I look outside and see an animal flying. Is it a pigeon? Maybe, or maybe not. It might be a hawk. It might be an eagle, a falcon, a dove, a sparrow, a pigeon, etc. So a bird is not a hawk. (Y is not X.)
It works one way, but not the other way. What about the trinity? Jesus is God. X is Y. But God is not Jesus. Y is not X. Go over it in your head. Give it a chance. It will make sense eventually, but only if you let it make sense.
However this doesnft work when it is stated clearly that Isa pbuh was not Allah.
I'm quite sure the Qur'an does not say this. But if it does, then I'm wrong.
I do believe that if this were the case more distinct words would have been used in the Qurfan by Allah to state just that. However Allah only states it was made to appear to them that they had succeeded.
I completely agree. That's why I think Isa didn't ascend before the crucifixion either. According to the Qur'an, of course.
JBJ
>what made you go to Saudi Arabia,>>
A mixture of many things, my husband is from Saudi and his family lives here. I wanted my children to know that side of their family. And since his parents are older it is much easier for them to get to know each other now. I also wanted my children to know arabic so what better place to have that. I also wanted my children free of some of the social ills in the US especially in a public school system. I came to saudi twice before moving here and liked it. Plus my husband is in the oil field so travelling the world is on our to do list :)
> and what has been
>hardest about living there, >>
the heat.. unbearable during the summer. Not driving, my husband works alot and I'm used to my being able to pick up and leave. It is annoying at times to find a ride to the corner store to get some milk. But since our compound has a driver things are less difficult.
>>and what has been most
>rewarding? >>
The family atmosphere in saudi is uncomparable to the west. It is wonderful to see men taking such an active role in their childrens lives. My living conditions are wonderful, my house is huge :) so that is great. I like the fact that my children can scream their heads off in a grocery store and I don't get any funny looks (i have twins who don't know how to behave so that helps) I like the fact that I don't have to worry as much as I would in the us of my kids getting involved in drinking, drugs, gangs and other social ills. I like being able to cover and not have the entire store stare. This got a bit annoying at times for me in the US. Add in the bonus of meeting some very wonderful people here from all over the world.. muslims, non muslims, arabs, europeans, just such a mix it is great. My daughters best friend is french and doesn't speak english.. and my son plays with the compound workers from indonesia (he likes to help them dig in the dirt)..
>
>1) Somehow, I skipped over your original response in the
>long thread to Sura 4.157. Your answer makes some sense,
>depending on exactly how you translate and interpret the
>words Shakir translates "but it appeared to them so". It
>seems that you are allowing that this deception was
>performed by human beings, and not by Allah if I understand
>you correctly. Is that right? And if it is right, are
>Christians morally at fault for believeing this deception
>today?
>
Nope I'm saying, based on Qur'an I believe that Allah made it appear to people that Jesus pbuh was dead when in fact he wasn't at all.
Yes they are at fault for believing it, Muhammad pubh was sent by God to erradicate such false beliefs. Since there is a direct communication from God which clears up this matter than one either chooses to believe, or reject it.
>2) I accept the logic of the possibility that a prophet
>could undergo physical changes. Yet, I am certain that if I
>saw someone doing it today, I would assume he's crazy, even
>if he were great poet.
>
I'm sure that is what many thought of prophets past :)
>3) I am aware that some development is admitted over the
>course of the 25 years of revelation to Mohammed, and even
>the "abroggation" of verses in such a period. However, what
>I am concerned with is that some of my reading indicates
>that the passages inciting violence came later. I am
>particularly troubled by the morality in Sura 8, where
>unarmed men are killed by Muslims, and Allah seems to
>approve (or at least not disapprove). Is it that true that
>the more violent passages came later? If so, how can we
>interpret the Qur'an as a religion of peace?
>
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "violent" passages came later. The call to fight came after Muhammad pbuh migrated, or some say right before he migrated. But than there are passages calling for peac. Even the violent calls within the Qur'an are also limited, and have conditions which should lead one to peace.. it is in most cases the defensive rather than offensive, the call to mak peace is given first.. and restraint is stressed, so is giving people security. So i don't think such blanket statements do just cause to th Qur'an.
Can you be more specific with the unarmed men being killed per surah 8? or you talking about Khaybar?
>4) The particular question I raised regarding places where
>the Qur'an seemed to confirm our Scriptures were from
>Dawood's translation, which seemed controversial. I raised
>the question originally in the thread started by Lulua
>called Who Invented the Trinity which I cannot seem
>to locate. At nay rate, here are a few of the verse
>reference numbers: 10.94, 2.120, and 3.93.
>
I would have to go with the Dr on this. It is confirming the truth not all of the scripture. For the Qura'n is clear as to what is faulty and incorrect in your scriptures, surely it doesn't confirm all of it, only the truth in it.
>5) I am more
>than three persons in one being, since I am brother, friend,
>son, spouse, etc...depending on who I relate to. There is
>nothing "mysterious" in and of itself about God being three
>persons. The "mystery" of the Trinity is that the three
>persons of the Trinity derive their identity based on
>relationship with one another, and not jsutr with us.
>Nevertheless, there is no sin against taweed to say the one
>God has many persons.
>
I still see this as a faulty example, but taking it as your giving it your suggesting that God changes due to our inablity to comprehend and accept God. than there is thee matter of God chaning who He is.. in order to please humans.. his creation? And why not be as you say He is all the time? why not such a trinity belief in the OT and I'm talking apparent here.
>5) I agree with what you said about consistency not being
>the sole test. My main point is that Christianity is not
>inconsistent to anyone willing to study the issues
>patiently. I find the Muslim habit of bombarding christians
>with apparent inconsistencies all at once, or answering
>questions with unrelated questions a little irritating. That
>is the point of my constantly challenging the very
>assumption that consistency is the sole test of truth.
>
I agree i find it when christians and muslims do that as well. But i disagree that there are no incosistencies in christianity and tht they all can't be explained away.
>6) I accept whatever you say about being Islamic women. Is
>there freedom for women who chose not to follow Allah in the
>same way in Islamic nations? Why can't women drive cars in
>Saudi Arabia?
>
It is difficult to regulate who practices what where, there are different sects of muslims w/ in muslim dominated countries, some allowing for more differences than others.. depending on the politics invovled.
women can't drive here due to safety and religious reasons cited by the ruling party.
>7)Regarding Israel, I understand the human rights issue for
>Palestinian Arabs and Muslims in the region. There seems to
>an idea among some non-Muslim Westerners that Islam teaches
>that a prophecy was made that Islam would rule all of the
>Arabic penninsula and the Middle East till the end of the
>world. However, nobody on this forum seems aware of this
>prophecy. I must assume the non-Muslim Westerners are
>incorrect.
That is ahadith.. i believe a version can be found in either Bukhari or Muslim, said shortly before the death of Muhammad pbuh. Varriant readings do occur however the main point is that Islam will be the ruling religion in the land of Arabia. Jerusalem or some of the surrounding areas is not "arabia" as understood during the day of Muhammad pbuh. And is not included in such an utterence. Jerusalem was arabized.. not originally an arab land.. and isn't considered arabia.
>
>8) Regarding "historical-critical methods", I am referring
>very much tot he idea we see above in the devleopment of the
>idea of "person". >>
There has been some of this recently.. and even some throughout the history of Islamic scholarship.. perhaps not enough. The Qur'an unfortunately by many is not understood to have ben given in a historical context so the proper attention hasn't been given.
>Did Allah ever speak directly to Muhammad? If so, could you
>give one example.
>
Allah doesn't speak to anyone directly, this is per Qur'an. He does spak to them through a 'hijab' or barrier which is between Allah and the one He is addressing. You can see this in the burning bush of Moses pbuh. Muhammad pbuh was raised to heaven and recieved communication similiar to the burning bush about prayers.
>God sends the evil spirits to His prophets??
>
>This is where Islam and the Bible disagree. In the Bible,
>Saul was not a prophet, he was a king. For a while he was a
>decent king, but soon he fell away. For a long time he
>tried to kill David! At the time the evil spirit came, he
>wasn't close with God.
>
I'm confused, from what I understand he was a prophet, this not based on Islamic sources either.
http://www.naturalchristian.com/article1056.html
http://www.cyberus.ca/~dbclinton/navi.html
Also are you saying that a King can't be a prophet per christian teachings?
>Everything happens because Allah allows to, agreed? If an
>angel comes, he allowed it to. If an evil spirit came, he
>allowed it to. When Satan tempted Adam and Eve, it was only
>because Allah allowed it. Therefore, every spirit, good and
>evil, is from God. Maybe not directly. The spirit may have
>said, "God, allow me to go," and God let him. >>
there is a difference between God allowing things to occur versus God sending an evil spirit to someone.
>
>Here Saul is looking for David to kill him. As he sent out
>his men, the Spirit of God (or Holy Spirit) filled them and
>made them prophesy. He does the same with Saul. However,
>when the people question, "Is Saul a prophet," it was not
>because Saul was a prophet, but because he wasn't a prophet.
> The people didn't mean, "Is Saul still a prophet after
>doing this horrible thing?" They meant, "Has Saul become a
>prophet after prophesying." >>
Define prophet per your belief.
>
>Saul was not really naked, he was "aw-rome" meaning either
>partially or fully naked. There isn't an English word that
>means this. He probably was not fully naked because the
>people around wouldn't wonder if he'd become a prophet. >>
So he was partially naked.. but regardless if you think he was a Prophet this was Gods spirit decending upon him that made him fall naked partially or fully.
>
>There is something else very important to note. In the
>Hebrew culture of the time, it was not wrong for Saul to
>take off his clothes in repentance. David did often as
>well. This was seen as a way to humble yourself, especially
>for a king who had pride in his clothing. It showed that he
>wasn't really a king, but just a man, and that God was the
>true king. When the Hebrews asked for Saul to be king, God
>replies, >>
but this creates a problem because it is ignoring that this happened due to the spirit of God coming to him..
>Other examples are singing and dancing which David did,
>Muslims see as sinful. But if you understand the culture,
>Saul's act was righteous, not sinful at all.
>
Actually Muslims don't see the singing of David pbuh as sinful.. it is a good thing.
I guess they could be seen as righteous if the cause of the stripping of clothing was due to Sauls inentent to redem himself.. is that the case?
>How do you overcome the instance when Allah clearly
>states He is not a trinity?
>
>It's important to see first that the Qur'an uses an Arabic
>word for trinity,>>
you meand the word three? Thalathah 4:171 or the phrase third of three 5:73
>> so it's important to understand what that
>word means in Arabic. >>
it means three
>
>From the ayat that I've read, the trinity talked about in
>the Qur'an is always related to heretical ideas of
>"Christians" in Arabia. For example, Isa says he didn't
>tell people to take Mary for a god beside Allah.>>
He isn't speaking of the trinity either, there is nothing of the trinity mentioned in this verse.
>
>He is not one of three.
>
>Yes, the Qur'an says this. But the trinity theory agrees.
>Allah, or God, YHWH, whatever name you give Him, is one and
>there are not two others like Him. The Bible nor the
>trinity theory in no place say God is one of three. They
>say that the Father is one of three, and those are
>two completely different terms. >>
that is splitting hairs and trying to avoid what it really is.. God being God (one) God also Jesus (two) God also the Holy spirit (three) each being seperate as well.. so maybe we should stick to calling it like it is.
>
>Makes perfect sense. God plus two persons cannot equal one
>God. >>
only in your mind :) to me it is no sense.
>
>However this doesnft work when it is stated clearly that
>Isa pbuh was not Allah.
>
>I'm quite sure the Qur'an does not say this. But if it
>does, then I'm wrong.
>
4:171 O people of the book do not exceed the limits of your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was a Messenger of Allah and his word. which He bestowed on Mary and a spirit created by Him, so believ in Allah and his messengers sy not "three" cease, it is better for you. For Allah is One illah Glory be to Him above having a son.
43:58-60 And when the son of Mary is qouted as an example, behold! Your people cry aloud and say are our gods better or is he? they qouted not the above example except for argument Nay but thy are a quarrelsome peolle. He (jesus) is no more than a slave We gratned favour to him and We made him an exampl to the Children of Israel.
I know your going to split hairs when Allah states in the Qur'an that Allah is not the Messiah.. however it is clear from above Jesus pbuh was a messenger slave to Allah.. and not of "three"
just an observation on the described behaviour of the Prophets during revelations from God. ?possible epileptic or epileptic-type seizures brought on by the physical and psychic stress of such a communication? As a nurse, the description of behaviour during the prophesying could be seen as a seizure. If I saw such behaviour, that is the first thing that would come to my mind, not that the person was 'crazy'. There are many types of seizures w/ varying degrees of consciousness eg.; tonic-clonic w/ stertuous breathing and the classic 'foaming' at the mouth; abscence or petit-mal w/ just that..an 'abscence' of counsciousness for a few seconds to minutes, but without generalized muscle involvement; focal seizures w/ involvement of only part of the body etc... I would think a communication from God would not be like a chat w/ your neighbour in that it would be an event of such magnitude, that stress on the physical body in some form or another is bound to occur.
Assalamu Alaikum
The following link may prove helpful :
http://www.aliasoft.com/htdocs/DCForumID11/60.html
Wassalam,
Asif.
your not the first person to refer to epilepsy. In fact there have been muslims scholars such as Jamal Badawi and Muhammad Haykal who have addressed this particular issue.
there have been some problems raised with such a thought. First is that in such seisures one wouldnt be aware of what happeened. Two the age generally starts young and fazes out in adulthood. There is no recorded sickness of Muhammad pbuh when he was young. Add in that no all of the revelation came so heavy upon him that leaves even more questions.
here is a lecture by Badawi if your interested
http://islamicity.com/multimedia/radio/ch200/default.asp?inc=5.htm
re msg #23 Asif..the link you provide is a 'warning'. Am I being chastised? I am not saying the prophet pbuh had the illness, I am thinking that a communication or revelation would not be a common occurrence and could only imagine the enormity and magnitude to the receiver. Excuse me. I'll just continue to read.
LOL....sorry about the misunderstanding Jihsgo.
My message was not a response to your post. One of jcecil3's questions was on violence. I provided the link, where a reply has been given to this question of jcecil3. If you read the entire thread, you will see a response given by Muslim scholars to questions about aggression and violence.
My intention was not to give you a warning. That would be the responsibility of the moderators of this forum. Even if i did want to warn you, i wouldn't copy paste a URL, but would simply warn you directly.
I hope the misunderstanding has been cleared.
Bye,
Asif.
I admit to confusion, Asif. Sleep deprivation due to shift work. Thank-you Nzingha for further info. I will read on w/ a clearer mind. I must say from coming here, I now have a better understanding of Islam and of the political and cultural influences at work in the middle east. Which is why I came in the first place. Keep up the dialogue. Thanks again.
Greetings All!
Nzingha contacted me to advise that she had answered some of my questions. I have been busy lately on Catholic sites, arguing about solutions to some of the scandals involving American priests.
I just wanted to acknowledge that I read your responses, and I think, for the most part, you answered my questions.
I'm not entirely satisfied with the answer about passages inciting violence in the Qur'an, but I think my problem is more that I am one of the minority of Christians that rejects "just war theory" in favor of active non-violence resistence and passive resistance. In other words, I have this same argument with Christians, so why would I expect not to disagree with Islam as well....
I also want to clarify a little more that the three "persons" of God are not simply functional roles, even though they are not three separate beings either. God does not change from Father to Son to Holy Spirit for us.
Rather, the one being called God is three persons simultaneously, just as I am the person of brother and the person of husband simultaneously when in the presence of my wife and sister in the same room at the same time. Defining "person" as an identity formed and completed on the basis of relationship, the persons of the Trinity form such a relationship in their relationships with each other, and not only with us. Thus, there are three persons in one God even before we were created. The persons of the Trinity are co-eternal.
At the same time, when we say this, we do not mean that there are three beings. There is one answer to the question "What?" and three answers to the question "Who?".
The word "person" is a philosophical category that is not synonymous with being. "Being" is the underlying reality of a thing or person. "Person" is a category that "stands on" being (the meaning of the Greek hypostasis used at Nicea). It "stands on" being as a prosopon derived from a word for an actor's mask. It is a character that goes beyond WHAT something is to define the personality of the being.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
servant_of_Allah
28-05-2002, 00:18
Assalamu Alaykum !
I realise i am posting a response after such a long time. But, i had actually asked the Ulema to give a response, and Alhamdulilah, i received the answer today, and so i shall post it here.
I realise that the questions have already been answered, alhamdulilah. But, it is always good to have more knowledge, Insha Allah.
Question : Assalamu Alaykum Recently, on an Islamic Discussion Forum, a Christian asked the following question to Muslims. I'd appreciate it if the Ulema answer the question which the Christian asked. I shall quote the Christian verbatim. This is what he said: "Surah 4.157. The question of an accurate translation was originally asked by JBJ. However, in that thread, I was questioning more that the passage seems to imply that Allah practices deception (making someone other than Isa appear to be Isa on the cross). This seems to make Allah a liar. How does Islam answer this charge against Allah as revealed in the Qur'an? Plz reply to the comments of this Christian. Wassalamu Alaykum.
Answer :
Wa `Alaykum As-Salam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh.
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All thanks and praise are due to Allah and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear questioner, we would like to express our overwhelming thanks for the great confidence you have in us and hope that our efforts be satisfying.
As regards the question, Sheikh Ibrahim Salih Al-Husaini, Head of the Nigerian Fatwa Institution, issues the following fatwa:
?Revealed in Arabic, the Qur?an is to be explained and interpreted in the same language. Any one wants to understand the meanings of the Qur?an should do so after learning Arabic. In Arabic there is something called ?Mushakalah? (isomorphism). In Arabic this term is used to refer to words that resemble one another in form but the doer is different and the act is different. Verses that exemplify this meaning include the verse that reads: ?And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.? (Al-`Imran: 54) This verse does in no way mean that Allah schemed like them. Rather, it just refers that they schemed and Almighty Allah nullified their conspiracy and invalidated their scheme.
As for the verse that reads: ?They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture ; they slew him not for certain,? (An-Nisa?: 157 ), it means that Almighty Allah caused them to think of the man who guided them to the place of Jesus so that they can kill him, as being Jesus himself. He caused the man to be like Jesus in shape and thus they took him instead of Jesus. The proverb says: ?As you sow, so shall you reap.? As the man was disloyal to Jesus and helped his enemies against him, Almighty Allah punished him in the same manner and caused him to drink from the same cup. He thus caused him to be like Jesus in physical features and the enemies thought him to be Jesus while Jesus was taken up to heaven. This, in no way, is called deception, for Almighty Allah has infinite power over all shapes and forms. It is He Who can create any man or woman in any form or shape. This is His Supreme will and infinite Power.?
Almighty Allah knows best.
Fatwa editor: Ahmad M. Sa`d
Taken from www.islamonline.net
Now, i believe jcecil3 asked that why weren't the apostles informed that Isa ibn Maryam (AS) will be lifted to the heavens, and will be saved from getting crucified, and it will be someone else who will take his place.
There is a daily programme on my local television channel on the "Tafseer of the Qur'an". One day they gave the tafseer of this ayah.
As far as i am aware, the companions of Isa ibn Maryam (AS) did indeed know that Isa (AS) will be saved. They also knew that it was someone else who got crucified.
However, if i remember correctly, the scholar who gave the tafseer of this ayah on TV said that Isa (AS) asked his group of companions that who wanted to get his place in Jannah by going out there and getting crucified (it would be made to appear that he is Isa). And then one persom from the group got up and he said he would.
However, in the answer i got from www.islamonline.net , they say that the person who was leading the people to Isa (AS) so that they could kill him (Nauzobillah), is the person who was made to appear as Isa (AS) and the people killed him, and he got what he deserved.
So, i guess that as Sister Nzingha mentioned, there is a difference of interpretation. And Almighty Allah Knows Best.
Sister Nzingha, could you kindly find out for me in which Tafseer book is it mentioned that the person who was crucified was from amongst the companions of Isa (AS)? I would like to know which scholar gave this tafseer. Perhaps it is Ibn Katheer.
Wassalamu Alaykum,
servant of Allah.
________
glass pipe (http://glasspipes.net)
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.