The Unofficial "Ask a Muslim" Thread.

[amcon]

intresting and informative... their i christian debat over a preadomite world... and their is some reasoning for it that makes sence... here is what beleive:

God created earth, and ever thing on it... our bible goes in to detail how how that happened in gen.

if their was a pre adomite earth (people on earth before adam - from God of coarse) it is irrivelant and the spectualation of it doesnt change the savation needed to go to heaven...

but, i do find opinions of this debate intresting... the two people i like to study on the subject is chuck missler, doc keneth hovind, and clarence larken. all give dif perspectives i find that doc hovind is very conservative and backs his thoughts with simple bible verses, clarence larken is very informative and though i have fought against his points they are very strong and i al of late have gotten deeper in to his ideas with study, and chuck missler is very interestion because he gives very good back ground on why he beleives what he believes - some intelegent spectulation, and some detailed biblical study...

thanks for the info buffed

[BuffedGuy]

it is always delighting to read ur thread so keep it coming.
as for derek's question i think surat Al-jinn the 72nd verse (surah) in Quran it has some good explanation of al-jinn (spirits) maybe that would be helpfull to find out some extra stuff.

may god {allah} [s.w.t] give you more knowledge and guide you to the traight path.

Jazakh-Allah Khair.

I think all religions believe in some sort of spirits, demons, etc. We just call it "jinn", and yes, Satan is a jinn.

I have a question for Christians: do you guys also believe in little satans? We Muslims believe that The Satan has children, which are the little satans.

intresting and informative... their i christian debat over a preadomite world... and their is some reasoning for it that makes sence... here is what beleive:

God created earth, and ever thing on it... our bible goes in to detail how how that happened in gen.

if their was a pre adomite earth (people on earth before adam - from God of coarse) it is irrivelant and the spectualation of it doesnt change the savation needed to go to heaven...

but, i do find opinions of this debate intresting... the two people i like to study on the subject is chuck missler, doc keneth hovind, and clarence larken. all give dif perspectives i find that doc hovind is very conservative and backs his thoughts with simple bible verses, clarence larken is very informative and though i have fought against his points they are very strong and i al of late have gotten deeper in to his ideas with study, and chuck missler is very interestion because he gives very good back ground on why he beleives what he believes - some intelegent spectulation, and some detailed biblical study...

thanks for the info buffed

Thanks for your input, Amcon. Very interesting. That is a good word to use, i.e. "Pre-Adomite peoples".

[BuffedGuy]

A lil joke I made:

A black man and Muslim are sitting in the back of a police car. The black man says: "A black man can't get a fair trial nowadays!" The Muslim looks at him incredulously: "You get a trial!?"

[D7M]

I have a question for Christians: do you guys also believe in little satans? We Muslims believe that The Satan has children, which are the little satans.

bro, go bump my thread...I don't want to hijack yours if I answer that here...

[SampsonandDelilah]

Jazakh-Allah Khair.

I think all religions believe in some sort of spirits, demons, etc. We just call it "jinn", and yes, Satan is a jinn.

I have a question for Christians: do you guys also believe in little satans? We Muslims believe that The Satan has children, which are the little satans.



Thanks for your input, Amcon. Very interesting. That is a good word to use, i.e. "Pre-Adomite peoples".

Yes...they're called Democrats

(as far as I know Lucifer has no children)

[D7M]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

See, NOW we're having a juicy conversation!



First, I must say that "demons" is a pretty loose translation I used. The proper term is "jinn". In the English rendering that comes out to "genie", but then you guys think of like Aladin and his lamp and other silly stuff, haha. We believe that Satan is a Jinn, and Jinns (which is sometimes translated as demons) are made out of smokeless fire. So the two--angels and jinns--are distinct creations, one made out of light and the other made out of smokeless fire.



No, we don't believe this. We believe that they are two distinct creatures. However, we believe that The Satan (Iblis in Arabic) was--before the creation of humankind--a very pious servant of God. He was so pious that he was elevated to the rank of angels. So he was not an angel literally, but elevated to their rank in honor, i.e. honorary angel. However, then God created human out of dust and clay, declaring humankind to be superior to both angels and jinn; because of this, The Satan became jealous and filled with envy, which caused his fall from God's Grace and Good Pleasure.



The Jinns (demons) are given free will, just like human beings. Some of the Jinns are submitters to God (Muslims), whereas others are transgressing disbelievers, who are the Shayateen (i.e. little Satans, the descendants of The Satan).



It is *not* metaphorically speaking. It means they are literally made out of light.

However, you are 100% correct to say that humans--unlike angels--have the ability to attain discursive knowledge. Angels, on the other hand, are limited to immediate knowledge.



We believe that God is above all of course, and no comparison between God and His Creation. (Which you also believe.)

Yes, we do believe that the Angels are at the top, although pious human beings are above the Angels. That is one of the reasons we believe that Free Will was given in the first place, because a person who attains a state of purity on his own free will is superior to the one who is simply programmed to do that. For example, a husband who gets a gift for his wife on his own initiative gets more brownie points than a husband whose wife drags him into a store and forces him to buy a gift.

Therefore, although Angels are generally above humans, the extremely pious human beings are above the Angels.

And yes, of course animals and plants would be below human beings, although we believe that some human beings--the disbelieving transgressors--can become lower than the animals in rank. The Quran says:

"Have you seen him who takes his own evil desire for his god? ...They are like cattle. Nay, they are worse than that!" (Quran, 25:43-44)

So basically, free will allows mobility in rank. It can enable you to reach a status higher than the angels, or it could plummet you to a status worse than even the dung worm (a worm which pushes through its own feces) or dung beetle. I say dung worm because Prophet Muhammad [s] said that the racists--who boast in their tribes and nations (i.e. white supremacist, Arab supremacist, black supremacist, etc.)--are worse than dung beetles or worms that push through feces. Prophet Muhammad [s] said: "If they do not give this up, God will consider them lower than a lowly worm which pushes itself through feces." (Abu Dawood)

Similarly, Prophet Muhammad [s] said about the racists:

"In the sight of God, they are more contemptible than the black beetle that rolls a piece of dung with its nose. Behold, God has removed from you the arrogance of the Time of Barbarous Ignorance, with its boasting of ancestral glories. Man is but a God-fearing believer or an unfortunate sinner. All people are the children of Adam, and Adam was created out of dust!" (Mishkat al-Masabith)

So yes, generally speaking, it is Angels on top, then humans, then animals. However, humans can--due to their actions--go either way.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

Ok, so a few quick questions about this:

you never really answered where the Jinns came from? I understand the theology of what you said, but would you say God created them?

See this is the problem Augustine (and other Church Fathers) had...how exactly to account for their origin (which is really a theodical question, but the existence of evil). They certainly didn't want to say God created them, b/c that would mean God created evil, but on the other hand, they also couldn't say that they "just were"...it would imply a Manichean or Gnostic understanding of God and His relation to evil.

If the angels are actually, literally light, how do you define "light". I mean, even physicists argue about this. (And physicists here correct me if I'm out of date, and someone has come up with something other than wave-particle duality to describe light).

So then the Jinns are "smokeless fire"...am I wrong to assume this is literal?

It seems to me, that Islam (at least the type you are advocating here, because certainly Avincenna did) has a less advanced metaphysics than Christianity. And this is not meant to be pejorative at all. It's laudable. Your belief seems less concerned about metaphysics and etiology than it does about spirituality. Is this on track?

Finally, how specifically does Satan generate Shayateen (esp. if he is smokeless fire)?

[D7M]

as far as I know Lucifer has no children

Right.

Satan cannot physically reproduce, in the Christian tradition, because he has no physicality. As an angel (though a fallen one) he is pure intellect, a spiritual being.

The other demons are the ones who fell with Satan.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

Ok, so a few quick questions about this:

you never really answered where the Jinns came from? I understand the theology of what you said, but would you say God created them?

"God is the Creator of all things.” (Quran, 13:16)

See this is the problem Augustine (and other Church Fathers) had...how exactly to account for their origin (which is really a theodical question, but the existence of evil). They certainly didn't want to say God created them, b/c that would mean God created evil, but on the other hand, they also couldn't say that they "just were"...it would imply a Manichean or Gnostic understanding of God and His relation to evil.

This is the entire issue of: why did God create evil?

Answer:

"God creates whatever He wills." (Qur'an, 3:47)

“He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned.” (Quran, 21:23)

"All praise is due to Him...for Him is the decision!" (Quran, 28:70)

We affirm that God created evil to achieve a greater good. Among other things, Satan is a means by which the believers are put to the test, to test their mettle and see who is true and who is false. Only those who are false will follow him, and this will be a means by which they will be exposed and a proof established against them. Those who are true will not follow Satan, and thus the creation of Satan does not negate Divine Justice. The Quran says:

"The angels prostrated themselves, all of them together. Not so Satan: he was haughty, and became one of those who reject Faith...God said: 'Then get you out from here: for surely you are rejected, accursed! And My curse shall be on you till the Day of Judgment.' Satan said: 'O my Lord! Then give me respite till the Day when the dead are raised.' God said: 'Lo! Then respite is granted to you, until the Day of the time appointed.' Satan said: 'Then, by Your Power, I will put every one of them in the wrong, except Your Servants from amongst them, the sincere and purified ones.' God said: 'Then it is just and fitting--and I say what is just and fitting--that I will certainly fill Hell with you and those who follow you, every single one.'" (Quran, 38:73-85)

If the angels are actually, literally light, how do you define "light". I mean, even physicists argue about this. (And physicists here correct me if I'm out of date, and someone has come up with something other than wave-particle duality to describe light).

We only know what has been revealed to us, which is that they are created from light. The nature of this light is not known, and the light of the Unseen may not be like the light of this world. Other than this, we do not speculate on the Unseen, for fear of attributing a lie to God. This knowledge is a part of the Unseen, with belongs to God.

“Proclaim! None in the heavens and the earth knows the Unseen, save for God." (Quran, 27:65)

"Proclaim! The Unseen is only for God." (Quran, 10:20)

So then the Jinns are "smokeless fire"...am I wrong to assume this is literal?

Yes, it is literal. It is a very important tenet of Islam to take the Quran by the apparent (dhahir) meaning, without trying to change the meaning away from its most obvious meaning.

This does not mean that we take the literal (haqeeqi) meaning always. If, for example, I say: "Rommel was the lion of the desert during the war." Then in this case, the apparent (dhahir) meaning is metaphorical (majazi). What is condemned, however, is to take a word away from its most obvious meaning. Giving secondary or tertiary meanings to an Islamic text is a method used by heretics to change the text to make it mean what they want it to mean, instead of letting the text speak for itself.

Angels were made of light, and Jinns of smokeless fire. We do not know the nature of this light or smokeless fire. We accept and affirm that the Angels were made of light and the Jinns of smokeless fire, without asking how (bila kayf) or the nature thereof.

It seems to me, that Islam (at least the type you are advocating here, because certainly Avincenna did) has a less advanced metaphysics than Christianity.

Avicenna (Ibn Sina) is considered by the orthodox Islamic scholars to have been a heretic outside the folds of Islam. Imam Dhahabi--one of the foremost classical scholars of Islam--said of Ibn Sina: "He is a perverted (and) deviant philosopher.” (Meezaanal-‘Itidaal, 1/5391) Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyyah) wrote an extensive tract refuting Ibn Sina (whom you call Avicenna).

If you are saying that Avicenna used metaphysics less than Christians, then I tell you that Avicenna was condemned by the orthodox Islamic scholars for delving into metaphysics at all.

The orthodox Islamic doctrine dictates that the believer does not delve into metaphysics, beyond what was divinely revealed; what we know of the Unseen--the limited amount--is what we were told, and the rest is with God. Our religion is based on certainty, not upon conjecture.

"Those who dispute therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge; they only follow conjecture!" (Quran, 4:157)

"They have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing against Truth.'
(Quran, 53:28)

"Most of them follow only conjecture. Surely conjecture can never substitute for anything of the truth. God surely has full knowledge." (Quran, 10:36)

Your belief seems less concerned about metaphysics and etiology than it does about spirituality. Is this on track?

Yes.

Finally, how specifically does Satan generate Shayateen (esp. if he is smokeless fire)?

Bila Kayf! We affirm it without asking how (bila kayf).

God says:

"And verily, We created mankind from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape, and the jinn We created from smokeless fire." (Quran 15:26-27)

Humans were made from dust and clay, yet we reproduce: is not the matter the same then?

Hope that helps. Very interesting discussion!

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

hey buffed arent u supposed to have chock full-o-virgins waitin for ya in the afterlife???

Pleasing God, The Most Merciful, and entering Paradise are the ultimate aim that believers should wish for. If a person departs this world having won the pleasure of God, then he will have the glad tidings of all that is good after that. When he enters Paradise he will have delights and pleasures such as no eye has seen, no ear has heard and such that has not even entered the mind or imagination of any man. He will have all that he wishes for in the best of ways.

Everything that he asks for will be granted, and everything that he longs for he will get. He will never find anything to upset or disturb him, because he is in the care of the Most Merciful, as God says:

“Therein you shall have all that your inner‑selves desire, and therein you shall have all that you ask. An entertainment from The Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Quran, 41:31-32)

One of the best things that people long for in the Hereafter is the maiden virgins of Paradise. The description of the maidens of Paradise is as such:

"There will be maidens with beautiful, large and lovely eyes--like preserved pearls. A reward for the deeds of their past life!" (Quran, 56:22-23)

Their eyes will be of the most beautiful of colors and they have no fault or blemish of any kind. The maidens will have no faults or blemishes of any kind; rather they are beautiful in all ways. Every time you gaze upon her, you see nothing but that which gladdens the heart.

God says:

"Therein are maidens--chaste, modest in their gaze, whom no man...has touched...as though they were rubies or pearls." (Quran, 55:56-58)

"Verily, We have created the damsels of paradise of a special variety, and made them as pure virgins--as lovers and friends." (Quran, 56:36-37)

Prophet Muhammad [s] described the beauty of the maidens of Paradise as such:

“If a woman from among the people of Paradise were to look out over the earth, she would illuminate everything that is in between them (the heavens and the earth).”

The maidens of Paradise are for whoever enters Paradise. Even the least person in rank (due to his deeds) will get two of them. However, I do not know what will happen to me after I die, so I can only pray for God's Mercy, that He chooses to admit me into Paradise.

You said:

make sure you put in your request to allah for some Viagra, im sure he has some handy cuz he can get all the virgins his lil heart desires I imagine!

As distasteful as I found the choice of your words, the fact is that one of the Prophet's disciples did ask the Prophet [s] how it would be that one man could have so many maidens, since the libido can only handle so much. Prophet Muhammad [s] told him: “He will be given the strength (i.e. libido) of one hundred men.” (Sunan at-Tirmidhi)

The fact that the believers will get beautiful (and pure) maidens in Paradise is not something that we Muslims should be bashful about or feel ashamed about. Some of our Christian cousins try to criticize our religion for this matter, but they obviously are not well-acquainted with their own Bible. It would become a matter of throwing stones from a glass house, which unfortunately is a very common occurrence with our Christian cousins.

In any case, in life, one of the greatest motivating factors for men is women, a fact that one can ascertain simply by glancing at this forum and seeing all the images of women being posted. Therefore, a Paradise without beautiful women would make it something undesirable. Paradise is something to strive for, and it causes a person to purify his actions, to eschew sins of all kinds, and to work deeds of righteousness. Furthermore, there is no sin in the matter, since the maidens of Paradise will be pure wives. They will live in the mansions and palaces prepared for the believers, and they (the beautiful maidens who are the wives of the believers) will not be seen by any other man other than their husband.

In any case, I see nothing to "refute" here. Islam is not prudish when it comes to sex. It simply demands that sex be conducted in a legal manner ("in holy matrimony"), shunning fornication, adultery, debauchery and open lewdness.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

the honorable Elijah Mohammad and the venomus anti-semite Louis Farrakkan.

Elijah Poole (who adopted the alias "Elijah Muhammad") and Louis Farrakhan are considered by the orthodox Muslims to be disbelievers who have nothing to do with Islam. These two frauds--Elijah and Farrakhan--preached a racist doctrine, whereas Islam forbids racism altogether. Furthermore, Elijah and Farrakhan have/had even more blasphemous views which cast them out from the folds of Islam. Please read this post here:

http://forums.steroid.com/showpost.p...&postcount=235

[chicmagnet]

Hey Buffed great thread, real eye opener. Just wondering what you thought about speaking in tongues as evidence of recieving the holy spirit, as in the day of pentecost, and baptism by full immersion as John always did in a river. Baptize (greek) immerse?

[D7M]

Some of our Christian cousins try to criticize our religion for this matter, but they obviously are not well-acquainted with their own Bible. It would become a matter of throwing stones from a glass house, which unfortunately is a very common occurrence with our Christian cousins.

Buffed, you know I'm not trying to criticize your religion at all.

But I'm curious about the above statement. How is the Christian criticism of this belief of yours like "throwing stones from a glass house" when Christianity teaches that in the after life there will be no marriage? (See Matt 22: 29)

[D7M]

This is the entire issue of: why did God create evil?

Answer:

"God creates whatever He wills." (Qur'an, 3:47)

“He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned.” (Quran, 21:23)

"All praise is due to Him...for Him is the decision!" (Quran, 28:70)

We affirm that God created evil to achieve a greater good. Among other things, Satan is a means by which the believers are put to the test, to test their mettle and see who is true and who is false. Only those who are false will follow him, and this will be a means by which they will be exposed and a proof established against them. Those who are true will not follow Satan, and thus the creation of Satan does not negate Divine Justice. The Quran says:

I think this is a very difficult position to hold, theologically. To me, it's not so much a matter of Divine Justice, as it is a matter of divine goodness. If God created *something* evil, then de facto that act of creation negates his ontological goodness. Saying a all-good God creates something evil, only as a means to test us, does not absolve this objection, it only relocates the issue, namely, what kind of vindictive God would create something like Satan simply to test us?

Yes, it is literal. It is a very important tenet of Islam to take the Quran by the apparent (dhahir) meaning, without trying to change the meaning away from its most obvious meaning.

This does not mean that we take the literal (haqeeqi) meaning always. If, for example, I say: "Rommel was the lion of the desert during the war." Then in this case, the apparent (dhahir) meaning is metaphorical (majazi). What is condemned, however, is to take a word away from its most obvious meaning. Giving secondary or tertiary meanings to an Islamic text is a method used by heretics to change the text to make it mean what they want it to mean, instead of letting the text speak for itself.

Angels were made of light, and Jinns of smokeless fire. We do not know the nature of this light or smokeless fire. We accept and affirm that the Angels were made of light and the Jinns of smokeless fire, without asking how (bila kayf) or the nature thereof.

I agree to this type of Biblical interpretation. Most educated Christians would as well.

Avicenna (Ibn Sina) is considered by the orthodox Islamic scholars to have been a heretic outside the folds of Islam. Imam Dhahabi--one of the foremost classical scholars of Islam--said of Ibn Sina: "He is a perverted (and) deviant philosopher.” (Meezaanal-‘Itidaal, 1/5391) Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyyah) wrote an extensive tract refuting Ibn Sina (whom you call Avicenna).

If you are saying that Avicenna used metaphysics less than Christians, then I tell you that Avicenna was condemned by the orthodox Islamic scholars for delving into metaphysics at all.

The orthodox Islamic doctrine dictates that the believer does not delve into metaphysics, beyond what was divinely revealed; what we know of the Unseen--the limited amount--is what we were told, and the rest is with God. Our religion is based on certainty, not upon conjecture.

"Those who dispute therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge; they only follow conjecture!" (Quran, 4:157)

"They have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing against Truth.'
(Quran, 53:28)

"Most of them follow only conjecture. Surely conjecture can never substitute for anything of the truth. God surely has full knowledge." (Quran, 10:36)

Bila Kayf! We affirm it without asking how (bila kayf).

God says:

"And verily, We created mankind from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape, and the jinn We created from smokeless fire." (Quran 15:26-27)

No, I'm Avincena used metaphysics the same way Christians in his time period did.

See, to me, this is completely intellectually unsatisfying. It's like saying, "don't try to understand, just believe". Christians obviously have faith, but we believe that God has also given us reason, which we can use to come to a fuller understanding of our faith.

Avincenna was really condemned as a heretic simply for employing metaphysics? wow.

Yes, very good discussion! I'm enjoying it and learning.

One last thing. Can you please comment on the what you see the role of Sufism is in your religion?

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

Buffed, you know I'm not trying to criticize your religion at all.

But I'm curious about the above statement. How is the Christian criticism of this belief of yours like "throwing stones from a glass house" when Christianity teaches that in the after life there will be no marriage? (See Matt 22: 29)

That is not what I meant. I mean to say that if a Christian were to criticize the Quran for "sensual imagery" such as "maidens with beautiful, large and lovely eyes"--then one could easily open up the Bible and see the equal of it or indeed even more.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, ChicMagnet.

Hey Buffed great thread, real eye opener.

Thanks! Much appreciated.

Just wondering what you thought about speaking in tongues as evidence of recieving the holy spirit, as in the day of pentecost,

First, Muslims do not accept the concept of the Trinity, or a triune godhead. We firmly believe in One God without partners or parts. According to our belief, the negation of the Trinity is one of the major reasons that God Almighty sent down Prophet Muhammad [s] after Prophet Jesus [as].

The Trinity is made up of three persons: (1) the Father "who art in Heaven", (2) the Son (Jesus), and (3) the Holy Spirit. We Muslims believe that only the first one is God, the Creator of all things. The second two (Jesus and the Holy Spirit) are creation, blessed servants of God Almighty. We reject the idea that Jesus [as] is the son of God, and we believe that he is a blessed prophet like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).

As for the Holy Spirit, we believe that this is the Arch-Angel Gabriel [as]. Gabriel is the highest of the Angels, commissioned by God Almighty to convey the Message from God to the Prophets. The Quran says:

“And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs--and supported him with the Holy Spirit." (Quran, 2:87)

"We endowed the Messengers with gifts, some above others. To some of them God spoke to directly; others, He raised to degrees of honor; and to Jesus, the son of Mary, We gave clear miracles, and supported him with the Holy Spirit." (Quran, 2:253)

The Holy Spirit, i.e. Gabriel, is the one who revealed the Quran to Prophet Muhammad [s], as the Quran says:

“And when you recite the Quran, seek refuge in God...Proclaim! The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord with truth, that it may make firm and strengthen those who believe, and as a guidance and glad tidings to those who have submitted to God." (Quran, 16:102)

God said to Prophet Muhammad [s]:

"Verily this is a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds, which the Holy Spirit has brought down upon your heart." (Quran, 26:193)

And:

"Proclaim! Whosoever is an enemy to Gabriel--for surely it is he who brings down the revelation to your heart by God's Will, confirming that which was revealed before it, and guidance and glad tidings to those who believe--Whosoever is an enemy to God, His Angels and Messengers, of Gabriel and Michael--Lo! God is an enemy to those who reject Faith." (Quran, 2:97-98)

Anyways, to conclude, we say that the Holy Spirit is the Arch-Angel Gabriel [as], and not a part of, or partners with, God.

Now to answer your question (finally!): we do not believe in speaking in tongues or any such thing. If any Muslim were to claim such a thing, it would be considered an affront to the Islamic orthodoxy.

and baptism by full immersion as John always did in a river. Baptize (greek) immerse?

We believe in and affirm John the Baptist (peace be upon him), whom we consider a blessed prophet of God. The Quran says about Prophet John:

"'O John, hold fast to the Scripture!' We gave him compassion and purity, for he was righteous. He honored his parents, and was never overbearing or rebellious. Peace be upon him the day he was born, and the day he dies, and the day he shall be raised to life." (Quran, 19:12-15)

As for whether or not we believe in baptism, the answer is yes and no. When a person converts to Islam, he is instructed to have a ritual bath (ghusl), which symbolizes the washing away of spiritual impurities. However, Christians believe that the ritual bath has to do with Original Sin, the death and resurrection of Jesus. Muslims reject the idea of Original Sin, as well as the idea that Jesus [as] was the Son of God. As such, the Quran commands us to say:

"The baptism of God have we received, and who is better than God to baptize? Him do we worship." (Quran, 2:138)

So to conclude, yes we have the concept of a ritual bath which is taken upon conversion to Islam. However, it is not the exact same belief as Christians.

Hope that helps.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

Derek, we are having a very good conversation. Sorry, but I will have to reply in a bit, God-Willing. The reply to NightWolf took forever!

[chicmagnet]

Thanks buffed I speak in tongues just curious as to your beliefs, lots of similarities.

[amcon]

Thanks buffed I speak in tongues just curious as to your beliefs, lots of similarities.

hey buffed whats up i am jumping in here just a little... oxox

chickmagnet - refer to 1 cor 14 ... read the chapter and get back to me in a new thread or if buffed doesnt mind here... or pm me

good to see you a save christian - brother

...

[chicmagnet]

hey buffed whats up i am jumping in here just a little... oxox

chickmagnet - refer to 1 cor 14 ... read the chapter and get back to me in a new thread or if buffed doesnt mind here... or pm me

good to see you a save christian - brother

...

JMHO this is during the operation of the spiritual gifts during a church meeting ie 1 person speaks in tongues( whilst everyone is quietly praying) then another interprets thru inspiration of God of course, this happens 3-4 times then after this comes 3-4 prophecies all by inspiration of course. The prophecies are the most desired because requires more faith to prophecy than to speak in tongues during this time.

[amcon]

JMHO this is during the operation of the spiritual gifts during a church meeting ie 1 person speaks in tongues( whilst everyone is quietly praying) then another interprets thru inspiration of God of course, this happens 3-4 times then after this comes 3-4 prophecies all by inspiration of course. The prophecies are the most desired because requires more faith to prophecy than to speak in tongues during this time.

yes with out getting to far in to it cause im going to bed... why were tongues used to start with? and as for prof of the holy spirit is tongues needed for that? did Jesus speak in tongues when John baptized him... btw these are just questions - the only important part is we are save and will meet Christ in the sky.

[chicmagnet]

yes with out getting to far in to it cause im going to bed... why were tongues used to start with? and as for prof of the holy spirit is tongues needed for that? did Jesus speak in tongues when John baptized him... btw these are just questions - the only important part is we are save and will meet Christ in the sky.

True that... Sorry buffed it's all your's

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

Now to reply to the rest of your post.

I think this is a very difficult position to hold, theologically. To me, it's not so much a matter of Divine Justice, as it is a matter of divine goodness. If God created *something* evil, then de facto that act of creation negates his ontological goodness. Saying a all-good God creates something evil, only as a means to test us, does not absolve this objection, it only relocates the issue, namely, what kind of vindictive God would create something like Satan simply to test us?

The creation of Satan has good in it. It differentiates the true from the false. It also puts the believers to the test, which improves only themselves. There is a story of the Prophet's disciple, who used to wake up in the last third of the night to offer a prayer. One day, Satan whispered in his ear, causing him not to wake up for the prayer. The Prophet's disciple later woke up, realizing that he had missed that prayer. He threw his face on the floor, in prostration to His Lord, asking for forgiveness. He spent the next few days locked in prayer, praying as he had never done before.

By the time he was done, he had prayed so much--and earned so much reward for that--that in reality he had benefited from missing the prayer. It is like -1 and then +5000. And nobody benefited from his prayer except his own soul.

This is why it is said that the one who repents can often be better than the one who didn't sin to begin with. There is another story of one of the Prophet's female disciples, who sinned and then did such penitential acts that the Prophet Muhammad [s] said of her: her repentance would be enough to cover the entire city of Madeenah and all those living in it.

Some of the early Islamic scholars discussed the nature of prophets, and the agreed upon position of the Islamic orthodoxy (Sunni Islam) is that they *do* commit minor sins. The Shi'ites are known as The Exaggerators (Ghullat) in Sunni circles (because we say that they exaggerated about Prophet Muhammad [s] and their Imams like the Christians did with Prophet Jesus [as]). In any case, the Shi'ites held the position that the prophets are incapable of committing sin--neither major or minor; they claimed that the prophets/imams could not even commit unintentional mistakes or forget things. They accuse us Sunnis of "reviling" the Prophets by "daring" to say that it is possible for them to commit minor sins.

Yet, we Sunnis reply by saying that the capability to sin is what causes the human to rise above the angels (i.e. free will). Furthermore, when the prophets did commit minor sins, they would hasten to acts of forgiveness, and they would ask forgiveness in such a way that their penitential act caused them to rise a rank above what they would have had they never sinned at all. Therefore, it does not negate the goodness of the Prophets at all, as the Shi'ites claim. (Furthermore, the Quran itself narrates of many instances in which the prophets committed sins [but of course they always hastened to ask for forgiveness].)

Sinning for the believer is a means of good, because he hastens to acts of forgiveness. Imagine an admission committee to a university: they interview one candidate who has a 4.0 GPA and has never gotten a single bad grade in his life. Such a person might be haughty and not care for the mercy of the committee: "I can get in on my own, without their mercy." Meanwhile, the person who failed a few classes in 9th grade will realize that he has messed up majorly and needs to get his act together. He will push himself extra hard to make up for the poor grade, which will cause him to excel in his classes like never before, and this benefits only himself (since he learns in the process, which is the point of school). Let's say that the admission committee was giving out one free admission to their university to whoever came first at 6 am...the 4.0 student might not even show up...meanwhile, the borderline student will camp out and even beg the admission committee for acceptance.

Satan causes people to sin: that is his occupation. It causes the false to be exposed and a proof established against them. It causes the true to seek forgiveness from their Lord Most High, which means they will rise a higher rank than the one who never sinned at all. So I think this completely answers your question. God loves those who humble themselves and seek His Forgiveness, and nobody benefits from that other than the repentant sinner himself; God is Free of All Wants!

The Quran declares:

"If Your Lord had so willed, all on earth would have believed. Would you then compel men until they are believers?" (Quran, 10:99-100)

"If We had so willed, We could have given every soul guidance..." (Quran, 32:13)

Indeed, God Almighty made all the Angels into believers; not a single one of them is a disbeliever neither will any of them be damned. Yet, the human was created such that he has the capability to excel over the angel, because the one who does something out of free will--and with the option of sinning--is superior to the one who is compelled. Nobody who is a sincere believer will be misled by Satan, and therefore I do not see how it negates the Mercy of God at all.

As for your claim that God created some things on earth but not others, then this negates monotheism as understood by the Abrahamic tradition: we believe in an All-Loving *and* All-Powerful God Who is the Creator of all things, high and low. To cogitate that there is a creator other than God is polytheism.

I agree to this type of Biblical interpretation. Most educated Christians would as well.

I disagree with you. I think you might say you agree with it, but the reality is that you don't actually read the Bible like that. For example, you yourself have said that you do not negate evolution, yet a reading of the Bible--taking its apparent and most obvious meaning (dhahir)--without super-imposing a belief on the text--would necessitate that you negate evolution. Said another way, if the Quran said what the Bible did about evolution, I'd have to believe in it without changing its meanings away from what it is obviously trying to say. (I do not, however, negate evolution, since the Quran is largely silent on this issue.)

This issue of super-imposing doctrine onto the text--instead of first reading the text and then creating a doctrine from that--is one of the main criticisms that Islam has with Christianity. The Quran declares:

"We took a covenant from those who call themselves Christians, but they neglected a good portion of the Message that was sent to them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. Soon will God show them what it is they did. O People of the Book! Now has come to you Our Messenger, revealing to you much of what you used to hide in the Book, and forgiving much. There has come unto you a light from God and a plain scripture." (Quran, 5:14-15)

I do not think that if you gave a Bible to a random neutral person--and let him read it for a few years--that he would come up withe doctrines of Catholicism or the numerous Protestant branches. Yes, you could first expound the doctrines and then quote a verse here and there--and even then, usually the verse is half-quoted...so there will be huge swaths of text on doctrine, but only one half-quote of the Bible to back it up. I think you can do this with any text, and make any text mean whatever you want it to mean.

The Quran says in the above quote that the Christians will have "enmity and hatred between the one and the other", and by this it is referring to the fact that each Christian sect will have its own doctrine, each debating the other over it without letting the Bible being the decision-maker...I think this guy here describes it pretty well when he describes his investigation of Christianity and then of Islam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fvE1kgP_R0 (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ_mf...eature=related (part 2)

This is just what I have seen of Christians. You might disagree, and I'm sure you do. But I give you the example of evolution and your own words with regards to it. It does not seem like you take a dhahir reading of the Biblical text, rather you seem to gloss over it and try to relegate it to mean whatever you want it to mean to match your preconceived notions.

I will answer your question about Sufism shortly, God-Willing. I'm famished and need sustenance.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

This is my favorite Muslim preacher talking about how no Muslim can point to a specific Non-Muslim person and say "you are going to hell-fire":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1m7-8AtrWo#t=53m35s

It's only two minutes long or so. Watch it!

[Surreal]

What are your thoughts on temporary marriage licenses? Ever considered getting one with your flawless beauty for the purposes of taking her on a "test drive" before committing yourself indefinitely?

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Surreal.

What are your thoughts on temporary marriage licenses? Ever considered getting one with your flawless beauty for the purposes of taking her on a "test drive" before committing yourself indefinitely?

"Temporary marriage" is nothing less than prostitution, and is completely forbidden in orthodox (Sunni) Islam. It is only permissible in Shi'ism.

Temporary marriage was a pre-Islamic custom of pagan Arabia. Prophet Muhammad [s] forbade it. The Prophet's disciple and the Fourth Caliph of Islam stated:

“The Messenger of God had forbidden temporary marriage on the Day of Khaibar.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

And this is mass-transmitted from the Prophet's disciples. According to Sunni Islam, the punishment for the one who engages in it is lashing and/or death. Although the general rule of thumb is that fornication and adultery go unpunished (see my earlier post on this issue), the one who engages in so-called "temporary marriage" is punished swiftly to ensure that such atrocious beliefs do not become prevalent in society.

Keep in mind that 85-90% of Muslims are Sunnis. This issue, i.e. "temporary marriage", is one that causes a lot of friction between Sunnis and Shi'ites. Shi'ites believe that the narration from the Fourth Caliph of Islam--which forbids temporary marriage--was narrated under Taqiyyah. Taqiyyah is another belief specific to Shi'ism and rejected by orthodox Islam. Taqiyyah means that a person narrates something other than the truth for fear of religious persecution. This belief evolved in Shi'ism due to Sunni persecution of the minority Shi'ites. (A similar thing to Taqiyyah evolved in Judaism, due to Christian persecution of Jews.)

In any case, orthodox (Sunni) Muslims reject both temporary marriage and Taqiyyah. We say: how can you know anything of a religion when you don't know what is true and what is a lie? Furthermore, the prohibition of temporary marriage has been mass-transmitted through numerous disciples of the Prophet other than the Fourth Caliph.

One of my first posts in this thread (check the first page) explains the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites. Like I said there, I consider Shi'ism to be a separate religion altogether.

Hope that helps.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

Someone asked me this:

Where is dar ad-dawah, which you put as your location?

Dar ad-Dawah is not a city or a country. Rather, it translates to "The Abode of Spreading Awareness." I live in the United States, and so I am saying that I live in Dar ad-Dawah, which is a more optimistic view to those who say it is Dar al-Harb (The Abode of War). I believe in peace and reconciliation by fostering understanding and awareness. I believe that the best way to do that is by getting to know each other. I believe that the environment of war frenzy--which is prevalent in certain groups both in America and in the Muslim world--is only sustained by ignorance of the other.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[Surreal]

Peace be unto you, Surreal.



"Temporary marriage" is nothing less than prostitution, and is completely forbidden in orthodox (Sunni) Islam. It is only permissible in Shi'ism.

Temporary marriage was a pre-Islamic custom of pagan Arabia. Prophet Muhammad [s] forbade it. The Prophet's disciple and the Fourth Caliph of Islam stated:

“The Messenger of God had forbidden temporary marriage on the Day of Khaibar.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

And this is mass-transmitted from the Prophet's disciples. According to Sunni Islam, the punishment for the one who engages in it is lashing and/or death. Although the general rule of thumb is that fornication and adultery go unpunished (see my earlier post on this issue), the one who engages in so-called "temporary marriage" is punished swiftly to ensure that such atrocious beliefs do not become prevalent in society.

Keep in mind that 85-90% of Muslims are Sunnis. This issue, i.e. "temporary marriage", is one that causes a lot of friction between Sunnis and Shi'ites. Shi'ites believe that the narration from the Fourth Caliph of Islam--which forbids temporary marriage--was narrated under Taqiyyah. Taqiyyah is another belief specific to Shi'ism and rejected by orthodox Islam. Taqiyyah means that a person narrates something other than the truth for fear of religious persecution. This belief evolved in Shi'ism due to Sunni persecution of the minority Shi'ites. (A similar thing to Taqiyyah evolved in Judaism, due to Christian persecution of Jews.)

In any case, orthodox (Sunni) Muslims reject both temporary marriage and Taqiyyah. We say: how can you know anything of a religion when you don't know what is true and what is a lie? Furthermore, the prohibition of temporary marriage has been mass-transmitted through numerous disciples of the Prophet other than the Fourth Caliph.

One of my first posts in this thread (check the first page) explains the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites. Like I said there, I consider Shi'ism to be a separate religion altogether.

Hope that helps.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

I appreciate your thoughts. I understand that temporary marriage licenses have been largely granted for the purposes of prostitution, but do they serve any other purpose? For example, will it be possible for a couple to secure such a license to "tryout" marriage, or to engage in activities normally reserved for married couples (I'm thinking maybe something like sharing a room or bed together while on vacation?) before they're fully prepared and ready to commit to marriage.

Also, is it easy to secure a divorce for men of your position?

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Surreal.

I appreciate your thoughts. I understand that temporary marriage licenses have been largely granted for the purposes of prostitution, but do they serve any other purpose? For example, will it be possible for a couple to secure such a license to "tryout" marriage, or to engage in activities normally reserved for married couples (I'm thinking maybe something like sharing a room or bed together while on vacation?) before they're fully prepared and ready to commit to marriage.

You would have to ask all of this to a Shi'ite. My personal belief--and the belief of the orthodox (Sunni) Islamic scholars--is that all this, i.e. a trial period, is the same thing that some Non-Muslim Westerners do when they date women. There doesn't seem to be any meaningful difference between the two. As such, if we are critical of one (dating), should we not be critical of the other (temporary marriage)? There seems to be no difference between the two other than semantics. Does not a rose still smell as sweet by any other name?

I think that this issue--of simply renaming something--is one of the overall criticisms of orthodox (Sunni) Islam of Shi'ism. For example, the Shi'ites believe in "Imams", which we believe is the same exact same thing as "Prophets". So we accuse them of negating the Finality of Prophethood (the Quran declares Prophet Muhammad [s] as the Final Seal of the Prophets). The Shi'ites say: "No, we believe in Imams that come after him, not Prophets." But we (Sunnis) say: There is no meaningful difference between what you call a prophet and what you call an Imam; the station is the same, and you simply changed the name. Similarly, and more offensive to our orthodox (Sunni) doctrine is that the Shi'ites supplicate in prayer (du`a) to their Imams, whereas the Quran forbids all du`a (supplication) except to God directly; when we challenge them, they say: "we are not doing du`a (supplication) to them, but rather we are doing Istighatha or Tawassul (seeking a means)." Our criticism of them is that the matter is the same, but you have simply changed the name 'du`a' to 'Istighatha' even though the action is the same.

In other words, simply giving a new name to something does not change the substance of said thing. Therefore, we believe that "temporary marriage" is just another name for fornication, adultery, prostitution, and/or dating. It should be known that Prophet Muhammad [s] specifically warned the Muslims that a time would come when people would rename things in order to make them permissible. And we see this today when so many "Islamic loans" are being offered, which supposedly get rid of interest but which in reality just call the "interest" as something else.

To conclude, we orthodox (Sunni) Muslims believe that marriage must be permanent and that there can be no "trial" or "shareware" period. I understand the logic behind dating: after all, we don't buy a car without test driving it first, so how about a life partner? But we believe that the entire dating experience creates an unstable system of relationships, causes divorces to skyrocket, creates broken families, children out of wedlock without father figures, etc.

As Muslims, we are instructed to remind the People of the Book of the way which they have lost. The Quran describes itself as "The Reminder"; in other words, there is nothing new in it. It was all taught to the People of the Book, but they forgot a part of it, so the Quran was sent to remind them. So we want to remind them that their own religion--the Abrahamic faiths in general--have forbidden dating.

Also, is it easy to secure a divorce for men of your position?

What do you mean "of your position"? Can you elaborate? I'm a broke medical student who lives on a $150 allowance per month. So can you explain what you mean by "your position"? lol

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[Surreal]

What do you mean "of your position"? Can you elaborate? I'm a broke medical student who lives on a $150 allowance per month. So can you explain what you mean by "your position"? lol

Someone with a religious and cultural background akin to yours.

[BuffedGuy]

Someone with a religious and cultural background akin to yours.

Divorce is seen as one of the worst of permissible things. In other words, it is allowed but strongly discouraged. Every possible effort should be made to preserve and maintain the marriage.

However, Islam recognizes that certain marriages are simply not healthy for one or both parties. Therefore, divorce is a permissible option. The process of seeking a divorce is relatively easy.

So this is from a religious perspective.

Culturally, however, it is a bit more difficult, especially for women. (I'm ethnically Pakistani.) It should not be this way, and this goes against our religion, which was meant to facilitate ease, not to force people into unhealthy and miserable marriages.

Once a woman becomes a divorcee, she has very poor marriage prospects in the Pakistani community. She is condemned to a life of spinsterhood. This is opposed to the Islamic ethos: Prophet Muhammad [s] married old widows and divorcees. (Yes, polygamy is allowed in Islam and the Prophet [s] had many wives, but contrary to common Western [mis]perception, he married old women and undesirable women, whom nobody else would marry. Only one of his wives was not a divorcee or widow. There were multiple instances in which a woman would come to the Prophet [s] complaining that nobody would marry her due to being a divorcee, old widow, etc., and the Prophet [s] said "I will marry you." The reality then is that the Prophet's multiple marriages are not a proof against him as the Islamophobes insist...their claims that our noble Prophet [s] was a "sexual fiend" [I seek refuge in the Lord Most High from such blasphemy!] fall on deaf ears....Rather, the Prophet's marriages are a sign of his mercy, soft heart, and compassion. He became the sole leader of all Arabia, and he could easily have married the "sexiest" women of the area, like other monarchs of his time did. But instead he chose to marry pious old widows and divorcees whom nobody else desired.)

So this is an area where the Pakistani community needs to improve itself. The stigma attached to a divorcee or a widow should be removed, because such a thing goes against Islam and comes from the pre-Islamic pagan traditions of the region, which commanded the wife to burn herself when her husband dies. Islam came to get rid of all that.

As for men in the Pakistani community, being a divorcee most definitely hurts their prospects significantly, but they can usually re-marry (with difficulty), whereas the women are...screwed, so to speak. (Forgive my French.)

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

I thought I'd share some beautiful verses in the Quran about dealing with grief and tribulation, which have really helped me recently:

"It may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing which is bad for you. And God knows and you do not know!” (Quran 2:216)

“Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, ‘We believe’, and that they will not be put to the test? And certainly We tested those before them, so that God will differentiate those who are true from those who are false.” (Quran 29:2-3)

“God will not leave the believers in the state in which they are now, until He shall separate the wicked from the good.” (Quran 3:179)

“We shall certainly test you, until We know those of you who strive their utmost for God and who are the steadfast; and We shall test your reported mettle.” (Quran 47:31)

“Or do you expect to enter Paradise without facing such trials as did those before you?” (Quran 2:214)

“We will surely test you with something of fear and huger, and the loss of wealth and lives and the fruits of your toil, but give glad tidings to those who patiently persevere, who say—when afflicted with calamity—'To God We belong, and to Him we shall return!' They are on those whom descend blessings from their Lord, and Mercy. Such are the rightly guided.” (Quran 2:155-157)

“And know that your worldly possessions and your children are but a test, and that it is with God with Whom lies your highest reward.” (Quran 8:28)

“You shall certainly be tried and tested in your possessions and in your lives; and you shall certainly hear much that will grieve you…But if you patiently persevere and be pious, then surely this will be of great resolution!” (Quran 3:186)

“And none shall be granted such goodness, except those who are steadfast.” (Quran 41:35)

“Your Lord is He that makes the ship go smoothly through the sea for you that you may seek of His Grace, for He is Most Merciful to you. When distress seizes you at sea, you cry to nobody save Him, but when He brings you back safely to the land, you turn away from Him. Most ungrateful is man! ” (Quran 17:66-67)

“We shower Our Mercy upon whomever We will, and We never fail to recompense the righteous. Additionally, the reward in the Hereafter is even better for those who believe and lead a righteous life.” (Quran 12:56-57)

“By the Glorious Morning Light, and by the Night when it is still! The Guardian-Lord has not forsaken you nor does He hate you. And verily the Hereafter will be better for you than the present. And soon will your Guardian-Lord give you that wherewith you shall be well-pleased.” (Quran 93:1-5)

[BuffedGuy]

A clarification: Earlier in this thread, I described myself as a "conservative Muslim." Last night, I started thinking about this and realized that this is a bit misleading. Perhaps a more appropriate epithet for myself would be a "liberal conservative Muslim." In other words, I am a practicing Muslim who follows both the orthodoxy and orthopraxy. There are tons of liberal Muslims who don't do either. So I'm not one of those. But neither do I belong to the extreme right.

I was reading a newspaper article on one of the Islamic clerics I follow, and it described him as a "liberal conservative", so I think that is perhaps a better title for myself. I tend to dislike "conservative-conservatives" very much, and there is a constant struggle with them. They are intolerant and reactionary.

I dislike "conservative-conservatives" in both Muslim and Christian circles. I find them all to be intolerant turds. I have huge problems with the right-wing in America, who spread intolerant hatred and are always yelling down at people, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'reilly, Ann Coulter, etc. And in the Muslim world, we have counterparts to all of these, who are intolerant towards Non-Muslims.

So yeah, I'm a liberal conservative. I just had to make this clarification since I dislike the (extreme?) right-wing of both America and the Muslim world. I think the main difference between liberal conservatives and "conservative conservatives" (is that a term?) is that the former practice their religion devoutly but do not try to impose it on others, but rather try to protect the right of others to practice their own religion freely. And liberal conservatives like living in pluralistic and tolerant communities, whereas conservative conservatives want to live in isolated, closed-off societies that shun the other.

Make sense to anyone or am I just rambling? Derek?

[D7M]

you're over-analyzing it, bro.

If the label "liberal conservative Muslim" works for you, then great.

Though, I do understand your point.

You need to find a way to differentiate yourself from the extreme right.

I'm happy to be apart of your own self-understanding.

[BuffedGuy]

you're over-analyzing it, bro.

If the label "liberal conservative Muslim" works for you, then great.

Though, I do understand your point.

You need to find a way to differentiate yourself from the extreme right.

I'm happy to be apart of your own self-understanding.

Alright, cool. Liberal conservative am I.

I just don't want to claim that the problem doesn't exist, because if I do that, then there is no chance of fixing it. Plus, I just don't like being associated with intolerance, close-mindedness, etc. I like being able to practice my religion freely and letting others practice theirs freely. I don't think that it threatens my faith at all for others to practice theirs. Rather, I find great benefit in the other communities and of living in a pluralistic society. I especially do not like the "zero sum game" sort of thinking.

[BuffedGuy]

I liked this clip of David Chappelle's brother and an orthodox Jew, who is his best friend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJO6SNM7glo

That's what I like to say: cordial dialogue, appreciation, and tolerance, instead of aggressive confrontation of the other.

[BuffedGuy]

I wanted to comment on the post by BgMc in another thread. I don't want to hijack that thread, so I'll just post here in the thread almost nobody reads, lol. But to be serious, I think it is a very important issue, central to salvation. Of course I want to preface this by saying it is just our Muslim view, and obviously BgMc and others would disagree and have their own reasoning as to why they disagree. I just want to present our side of the story and hope it to be simply a part of interfaith dialogue and healthy debate, not aggressive bashing of anyone.

BgMc basically said what I think *some* Christians (and now some Muslims unfortunately) believe: they accept parts of the Scripture, and reject other parts of it. They say "we believe in God and we believe in the Book of God", but on the other hand, they say "we have rational logic, so we can make educated decisions for ourselves on which parts of the Holy Book to accept and which to reject."

In Islam, we have the very important concept that whoever rejects a part of the Book has rejected it completely. Either you accept all of it or you necessarily are rejecting all of it. God warns:

"Do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest?" (Quran, 2:85)

"They say: 'We believe in some but reject others, and desire to take a course midway'. They are in truth equally disbelievers; and we have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment." (Quran, 4:150-151)

Instead of explaining this concept myself, I am going to link to an excellent talk by an Islamic preacher, Nauman Ali Khan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zujZp...comment-page-1

It's the first 15 minutes of that talk. The talk is entitled "Do you intend to question the Messenger of God?"

I think this is the basis of faith, upon which salvation is based. Whoever questions God, His Books, or His Prophets, is in effect a disbeliever in all of them. The talk explains why this is so. He also explains the difference between asking a question *about* the religion (which is allowed and encouraged) and of questioning the religion (which is tantamount to disbelief).

I think this is an important topic in today's day and age, when religious revisionism is rampant, where people are trying to water down their religions in order to conform to man-made ethical beliefs, perhaps the greatest victory for the atheistic ethos of the post-Enlightenment belief system. But again, this is the belief of the orthodox Muslims and I know that others would disagree on this issue.

On a side-note, the guy in the video looks a lot like me (a skinnier version), and he also talks like me, haha. Oh yes, one more point: he uses a few Arabic words, so I'll just let you know what they mean here:

Ayaat = verse of the Quran
Moosa = Moses
Pharaon = Pharaoh
Yousuf = Joseph (as mentioned in the Bible)
Bani Israel = The Tribe of Israel

[BgMc31]

I wanted to comment on the post by BgMc in another thread. I don't want to hijack that thread, so I'll just post here in the thread almost nobody reads, lol. But to be serious, I think it is a very important issue, central to salvation. Of course I want to preface this by saying it is just our Muslim view, and obviously BgMc and others would disagree and have their own reasoning as to why they disagree. I just want to present our side of the story and hope it to be simply a part of interfaith dialogue and healthy debate, not aggressive bashing of anyone.

BgMc basically said what I think *some* Christians (and now some Muslims unfortunately) believe: they accept parts of the Scripture, and reject other parts of it. They say "we believe in God and we believe in the Book of God", but on the other hand, they say "we have rational logic, so we can make educated decisions for ourselves on which parts of the Holy Book to accept and which to reject."

In Islam, we have the very important concept that whoever rejects a part of the Book has rejected it completely. Either you accept all of it or you necessarily are rejecting all of it. God warns:

"Do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest?" (Quran, 2:85)

"They say: 'We believe in some but reject others, and desire to take a course midway'. They are in truth equally disbelievers; and we have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment." (Quran, 4:150-151)

Instead of explaining this concept myself, I am going to link to an excellent talk by an Islamic preacher, Nauman Ali Khan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zujZp...comment-page-1

It's the first 15 minutes of that talk. The talk is entitled "Do you intend to question the Messenger of God?"

I think this is the basis of faith, upon which salvation is based. Whoever questions God, His Books, or His Prophets, is in effect a disbeliever in all of them. The talk explains why this is so. He also explains the difference between asking a question *about* the religion (which is allowed and encouraged) and of questioning the religion (which is tantamount to disbelief).

I think this is an important topic in today's day and age, when religious revisionism is rampant, where people are trying to water down their religions in order to conform to man-made ethical beliefs, perhaps the greatest victory for the atheistic ethos of the post-Enlightenment belief system. But again, this is the belief of the orthodox Muslims and I know that others would disagree on this issue.

On a side-note, the guy in the video looks a lot like me (a skinnier version), and he also talks like me, haha. Oh yes, one more point: he uses a few Arabic words, so I'll just let you know what they mean here:

Ayaat = verse of the Quran
Moosa = Moses
Pharaon = Pharaoh
Yousuf = Joseph (as mentioned in the Bible)
Bani Israel = The Tribe of Israel

And therein lies the problem Buffed...religion to often deals in absolutes. And that is the reason it is THE major cause of more death and destruction than any other man-made phenomenon in the history of mankind.

Religion to me is deeply personal and because people are always trying to 'convert' others to their way of thinking it causes more problems than it solves.

Let's face it, holy books have been refuted by science time and again. There is no denying the fact that the Abrahamic faiths are all based on the Egyptian mythology of Horace and others. BUT that still doesn't dismiss the fact that religion has many ideas and practices that can help you live a very good life. The "Do unto others..." philosophy is based on religion and probably the greatest philosophy of how to live, there is. But you cannot possibly, in this day and age, live exactly according to any holy book written thousand of years ago.

All holy books are full of racism, sexism, and any other -ism you can think of. The bible condones these things, because it was written during a time when these things were acceptable. And because people today are still trying to follow these outdated ideals we have these ridiculous problems even within the religions themselves (ie Sunni v Shiite v Wahabist, Protestant v. Catholic v Mormon v Baptist, Othodox Jew v Hessidic Jew, etc. the list goes on and on).

The bible to me is like Aesops fables. There are lessons to learned in the stories. These lessons can be applied to many parts of one's life. I have a hard time believing in anything written by man. No one and absolutely no one alive can say that any holy book was written by a divinity. Everything in holy books is supposedly divinly inspired, akin to he said, she said. That is where faith comes into being. Your inner belief system tells you that these things happen but there is nothing concrete to prove them.

My father, a Christian minister and teacher, calls me a "convenient Christian", so be it. My father is a great man and my heroe, but we differ on many things. He doesn't love me any less for my beliefs and he believes eventually I'll come around. Religion and spirtuality is ever evolving in my life. Two years ago I was a devout athleist. But because I was missing something in my life, I decided to live a more spiritual existence. Believing there was nothing greater than myself and that I had all the answers wasn't working for me. So I began learning the principles of Christianity and found that I could live a good life following many of the principles. But I also recognized that many of my most intimate beliefs don't coincide with what the bible teaches. Therefore I cannot give myself totally to a belief system I don't whole-heartedly believe in. Saying something is concrete simply because a book, written by man, tells us so isn't logical, IMO.

Buffed, like my father, I admire your devotion to your faith. But even your brothers in Islam don't all believe as you do. Your continued defense of how Islam was "intended" to be practiced doesn't always coincide with how it IS practiced. But who am I to say which train of thought is correct.

I hope I've explained myself. If not, I welcome any and all criticism and questions.

[BuffedGuy]

A Complete English Translation of the Quran, Approved by Oxford (and BuffedGuy)

I would like to link everyone to a translation of the Quran, done by Oxford. This is by far the best translation I have ever seen. It's in PDF form. Derek, forget about the link I sent you earlier. Just use this one! Here it is:

Click here to download Free Quran Translation by Oxford

EDIT: I fixed the link. Should work fine now, God-Willing.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, BgMc.

And therein lies the problem Buffed...religion to often deals in absolutes. And that is the reason it is THE major cause of more death and destruction than any other man-made phenomenon in the history of mankind.

I agree with you. The Quran itself says that the people only differed when divine knowledge was given to them. The Quran says:

"People who were given the scripture differed after they received (Divine) Knowledge, for they were unjust to each other." (Quran, 3:19)

But this does not mean that an absolute truth does not exist. Yes, people claiming that what they have is absolute truth can be divisive; even having the absolute truth itself can cause people to become divisive. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the Absolute Truth doesn't exist at all. That would be flawed logic.

It simply means that one should be cautious of this.

So the Quranic logic is that the believer should be just, kind, and courteous with those who do not agree with our religion, even whilst it posits itself as the Absolute Truth, wherein there is no doubt. Yes, many Muslims don't follow that, but again, it doesn't necessarily follow that there can be no absolute truth just because it would be divisive. The divisiveness of the followers does not mean that the religion itself preaches divisiveness. The Quran says:

"Hold fast you all to the rope of God and do not be divided amongst yourselves." (Qur'an 3:103)

Religion to me is deeply personal and because people are always trying to 'convert' others to their way of thinking it causes more problems than it solves.

Agreed. But the same thing I said above.

Let's face it, holy books have been refuted by science time and again.

I disagree with this. I can't speak for the Bible, but all I can say is that the Quran doesn't go into the details like the Bible does. The Quran is a book of religious guidance, not science. I don't think there is anything in the Quran that is refuted by science. I urge you to read the Quran. I've linked to a very good translation above. It's totally free.

Why not print out some of it and read it? (It's just better to read on paper as opposed to the computer screen.) I usually print pdf's four pages on one page, and four pages on the backside. So I manage to get eight pages on one computer page. Or you could obviously just read it off the computer. EDIT: You know what, if you PM me your address, I'll just ship you a free Quran, God-Willing. I think that might be best.

There is no denying the fact that the Abrahamic faiths are all based on the Egyptian mythology of Horace and others.

Again, I can't speak for Christianity or the Bible, but I can speak on behalf of Islam and the Quran. The fact that the Quranic stories are also found in ancient books (from Egypt mythology or whatever) does not disprove Islam at all; rather, it affirms Islam and is a proof *for* Islam. You see, we believe that all the nations of the world were sent prophets and holy books; there were more than 124,000 prophets in all.

Therefore, just because an ancient Greek or Egyptian book talks about the flood, this doesn't mean that the Bible just copied the story from them and that it didn't happen to Prophet Noah [as]. It simply means that other nations were also sent the stories of the prophets as well. The Quran itself affirms Progressive Revelation, so there is nothing really new in the Quran. It was all told to the people of ancient times, but they all perverted it, corrupted it, added their own words, deleted words, etc. So the Quran came to verify the truth in all that and to get rid of the corruption. And we believe the Quran is the Final Testament sent to mankind, perfecting all the books that came before it, and fixing all the mistakes which were introduced into those books. And we believe that God has promised to protect this Quran from corruption, unlike any other religious book.

All holy books are full of racism, sexism, and any other -ism you can think of. The bible condones these things, because it was written during a time when these things were acceptable.

I'm not going to speak on behalf of the Bible, but I can attest to the Quran. There is absolutely no racism, malicious sexism, or any other -ism in it. I don't ask you to take my word for it, but just read the Quran yourself. I've linked to it in the previous post.

My father, a Christian minister and teacher, calls me a "convenient Christian", so be it. My father is a great man and my heroe, but we differ on many things. He doesn't love me any less for my beliefs and he believes eventually I'll come around. Religion and spirtuality is ever evolving in my life. Two years ago I was a devout athleist. But because I was missing something in my life, I decided to live a more spiritual existence. Believing there was nothing greater than myself and that I had all the answers wasn't working for me. So I began learning the principles of Christianity and found that I could live a good life following many of the principles. But I also recognized that many of my most intimate beliefs don't coincide with what the bible teaches. Therefore I cannot give myself totally to a belief system I don't whole-heartedly believe in. Saying something is concrete simply because a book, written by man, tells us so isn't logical, IMO.

Your father calls you a "Convenient Christian." I am going to go one step further, and say I don't think you are Christian at all. Now don't get offended just yet, because I don't consider you a disbeliever in God. Rather, you are a theist and believer in God.

I think that if Christianity or the Bible doesn't fit for you, then read up on other religions. Read the religious texts of other faiths. I would ask you to read the Quran. The entire purpose of the Quran--as stated by itself--is that it came to "clean up" what was wrong in the Bible. Many converts to Islam from Christianity say that it was like a sanitized version of the Bible. One convert whom I linked to earlier said: "It felt like the Quran was the Old Testament and the New Testament put through a strainer."

Maybe you'll decide Islam is not for you; then study Judaism, other faiths, etc. You've already gone from atheism to theism. So you are not someone stubborn, but rather someone who wishes to learn and expand himself, and who will entertain new ideas, beliefs, etc.

But I think that no matter which faith you pick, it only logically makes sense to follow it 100%. The logic behind this statement is explained in the lecture I linked you to (in the first 15 minutes). I didn't write on this since I wanted you to watch the link, although maybe you won't have the time to do that. But at minimum, I think you owe it to yourself to read the Quran.

There is nothing to lose. Maybe you will like it and think Islam works for you. Maybe you will not like it or decide it is not for you, but you will come out of the experience with more knowledge, experience, and self-understanding.

Anyways, I'm done preaching, hehe. I just think you owe it to yourself to read the Quran, the most memorized book in the world...just like I tell Muslims that they owe it to themselves to read the Bible, the most sold book in the world. I think it's just a must.

I know I've turned preachy on you, and moved away from just spreading awareness which was my initial purpose on this site. But I just got a special feeling about you. Had it from the start. I don't know. Just intuition. Wallahu Aalim (and God knows best!)

[BgMc31]

Buffed,

I have began investigating other religions. I don't claim to know everything about any religion but I am aware of many rituals and beliefs of all the major religions. From what I've learned of all, they all have positives and negatives.

Thank for the suggestion to read the Quaran. I've downloaded your link. As I've downloaded the bible and pieces of the Torah. I also have copies of the dead sea scrolls, many ancient greek text, and books on Buddishm, and religious egyptian text. My spiritual journey is a lengthy one, but one I am prepared and eager to continue to make. Maybe I'll find a destination, maybe I won't, but one thing for sure it will be worth the trip!!!

Again, I admire your conviction in your faith. Living the life of the truely faithful is definately an ardious one. So I respect your commitment that seems unwavering even in these most troubling times.

Peace go with you my friend!!!