Topic: Feel free to ask me anything about Islam...

[fibonacci]

Fibonacci,

While there will always be obvious tension to some degree between any two religious faiths and those two faiths will never reconcile all differences, I wanted to say I appreciate you coming here and sharing with us.  I know it may not be easy.  I wish more followers of Islam would voice themselves in the manner you have here.  I think it would help us, but more importantly it would help other Muslims.

Thanks for the kind words Kerdy.

There are quite a bit of Muslims who voice themselves, but unfortunately they're not native-English speakers.  But here are two converts (both actors) who're very eloquent in their speaking:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiJygWrkoX0

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SmofZmpFFM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBaJ9Cb1TDc

[fibonacci]

The context of the quran (which usually lacks context) is quite clear in this regaurd, that is Christ is talking to his desciples, who will be my helpers in allah? And then when the apostles answer this we are told that the followers of Christ (from the apostles) would be victorius to the day of ressurection. So theres no real way to include muslims into this category and even if you do, before islam the dominant power, the victorius ones were the Western and Eastern Empires, which were CHristian and Nicene in their definition.

You mention CHristians who rejected the trinity, certaintly there were groups, but none of them were victorius by the time Muhammad came, thus the quran cannot be talking about them and none of these groups were islamic. The arrians considered Christ the first created entity, a pre existent creature who God used and gave power to create the world and everyone in it. This is in stark contrast to the quran and Islam which has Christ as a created being on earth.

So there are categories you must find in order to avoid the obvious conclusion of the Christian roman empire being talked about;

1. They must be before Muhammad

2. They must be the victorius ones

3. They must be of the apostles who followed Christ

The only ones who fit into this category by reason and historical standards are the Orthodox Christians.

Please forgive me for my misunderstanding...  I thought you were talking about something else (christ vs anti-christ conflict).

I think you're referring to surah 30 verse 2?

Am I correct?  In that case... yes I fully agree with you that... this verse is not referring to the western roman empire.  It was a very bad translation..... and it's referring to the  Byzantine Roman Empire... and yes the Orthodox Christians.

Have you seen my other thread?  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,45203.0.html

One day, Constantinople is going to be returned to the orthodox Christians.

[JamesR]

Why can't the Abrahamic religions be cool, modern and peaceful like Buddhism?

[jmbejdl]

You never answered my question :-(

Likewise.

Fibonacci,

Is there any chance that you could answer my query as to how you deal with the errors in the Quran, given that it is my understanding (which may be wrong) that Muslims believe it to be the direct word of God?

James

Islam doesn't hold the Koran to be the direct word of God.

This is one of basics of Islamic thought and practice.

I'm going to have to assume that that was a typo and you meant 'does', otherwise you're contradicting everything I've ever heard on the subject, including from Muslim colleagues, but I'd still like to hear Fibonacci's answer. I'm interested in how Muslims actually deal with their text a lot more than I am with how non-Muslims tell me they do.

Now, most Muslims I've met would argue there are no errors in the Koran.

And yet my initial question would seem to give an indisputable example of an error in the Quran. As does someone else's question slightly further down the page and I'm pretty certain I could find more. It absolutely could be the case that Muslims 'deal' with this by bald-faced denial, but I wouldn't consider that a particularly satisfactory answer, so I'm holding out in hope for a reply from our Muslim friend at some point.

James

[Alpo]

Why can't the Abrahamic religions be cool, modern and peaceful like Buddhism?

Because we are less conservative, dogmatic and scholastic than Buddhism.

[akimori makoto]

You never answered my question :-(

Likewise.

Fibonacci,

Is there any chance that you could answer my query as to how you deal with the errors in the Quran, given that it is my understanding (which may be wrong) that Muslims believe it to be the direct word of God?

James

Islam doesn't hold the Koran to be the direct word of God.

This is one of basics of Islamic thought and practice.

I'm going to have to assume that that was a typo and you meant 'does', otherwise you're contradicting everything I've ever heard on the subject, including from Muslim colleagues, but I'd still like to hear Fibonacci's answer. I'm interested in how Muslims actually deal with their text a lot more than I am with how non-Muslims tell me they do.

Now, most Muslims I've met would argue there are no errors in the Koran.

And yet my initial question would seem to give an indisputable example of an error in the Quran. As does someone else's question slightly further down the page and I'm pretty certain I could find more. It absolutely could be the case that Muslims 'deal' with this by bald-faced denial, but I wouldn't consider that a particularly satisfactory answer, so I'm holding out in hope for a reply from our Muslim friend at some point.

James

Perhaps orthonorm means that Muslims allege that their Qur'an was received by Muhammed through the mediation of the Archangel Gabriel?

[akimori makoto]

Why can't the Abrahamic religions be cool, modern and peaceful like Buddhism?

Paging Iconodule.

[jmbejdl]

You never answered my question :-(

Likewise.

Fibonacci,

Is there any chance that you could answer my query as to how you deal with the errors in the Quran, given that it is my understanding (which may be wrong) that Muslims believe it to be the direct word of God?

James

Islam doesn't hold the Koran to be the direct word of God.

This is one of basics of Islamic thought and practice.

I'm going to have to assume that that was a typo and you meant 'does', otherwise you're contradicting everything I've ever heard on the subject, including from Muslim colleagues, but I'd still like to hear Fibonacci's answer. I'm interested in how Muslims actually deal with their text a lot more than I am with how non-Muslims tell me they do.

Now, most Muslims I've met would argue there are no errors in the Koran.

And yet my initial question would seem to give an indisputable example of an error in the Quran. As does someone else's question slightly further down the page and I'm pretty certain I could find more. It absolutely could be the case that Muslims 'deal' with this by bald-faced denial, but I wouldn't consider that a particularly satisfactory answer, so I'm holding out in hope for a reply from our Muslim friend at some point.

James

Perhaps orthonorm means that Muslims allege that their Qur'an was received by Muhammed through the mediation of the Archangel Gabriel?

Perhaps, but my understanding is that Gabriel does nothing more than deliver the word of God to Muhammed, which makes it God's direct word just as much as a letter from my brother is his direct word - the postman's mediation has no effect whatsoever on that.

James

[fibonacci]

From your Koran:

    Blasphemies

[9:30] The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!" These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated.

    Upholding the Teachings of Religious Leaders, Instead of God's Teachings



Where in the world did the jews say Ezra is the son God? Is this how you reject the law of Moses as being allegedly corrupted? This is not true.

I believe that verse was referring to Azariah.  There were jews who confused him with the angel when Azariah did the prayer.

[Theophilos78]

I believe that verse was referring to Azariah.  There were jews who confused him with the angel when Azariah did the prayer.

Who was Azariah? Confusing someone with the angel is not equal to saying that Azariah is the son of God.

Which Jews had this tenet? Can you provide historical reference? Thanks

[Theophilos78]

But here's a brief answer, and hopefully it answers other user's questions about trinity:


Firstly, you know Muslims in the future are also going to be followers of Christ as well, so it's not referring exclusively to Christians.  Also there are some Christians after the prophet's time who have rejected trinity.  

This is circular reasoning. CLAIMING that Muslims are going to be Christ's followers in the future does not prove your other CLAIMS about the Trinity.

For example, Issac Newton, who spent his whole life searching for the truth.  He spent a considerable amount of time studying the bible and spirituality, and he eventually reached a point where he secretly rejected trinity.

If someone rejects the Trinity, he/she cannot be a Christian. Is it possible for a Muslim to be a Muslim after denying a core tenet of Islam? Can we say Salman Rushdie is a Muslim who does not believe in the celestial origin of the Qur'an?

One of the things that Christians say that Jesus is the Lord or son of God, is because he's a special divine leader who didn't have a father.  But if that's the case, what would Adam be?  He didn't have a father nor a mother.

This is also one of the blunders of the Quranic author. Christianity does not teach that Jesus became the Son of God because He was born of a virgin mother, but that He was born of a virgin mother because He IS the Son of God. The Gospel of John, for instance, does not refer to Christ's miraculous nativity or Mary's virginity, but right from the start designates Jesus as the Son of God.

As for the analogy drawn between Adam and Jesus in Surah 3, it is false as Adam was not born, but directly created.

[fibonacci]

I believe that verse was referring to Azariah.  There were jews who confused him with the angel when Azariah did the prayer.

Who was Azariah? Confusing someone with the angel is not equal to saying that Azariah is the son of God.

Which Jews had this tenet? Can you provide historical reference? Thanks

It's from the story of young people in the furnace, in the book of Daniels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadrach,_Meshach,_and_Abednego#Prayer_of_Azariah

The name Azariah came out of nowhere, and they thought that he was an angel... and this angel was ranked as Bene Elohim (sons of God) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_angelic_hierarchy

if you go to book of daniels at 3:25

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/dan/3.25?lang=eng

"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no ahurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

[fibonacci]

Two quick questions about the possibility of Muslim/non-Muslim friendship.

1. Can faithful Muslims genuinely befriend Christians?

Qur'an 5.51: "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
(please also compare many similar verses from Qur'an and Hadith here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/009-friends-with-christians-jews.htm )

Of course we can be genuine friends with Christians.  Why do you think I"m here?

That verse, as I've mentioned a few times before..... is referring to a particular group who are allies of one another.  Specifically, the Edomites. 
Today we see a lot of these groups, like zionists, freemasonary, orange order, ...etc.

[jmbejdl]

But here's a brief answer, and hopefully it answers other user's questions about trinity:


Firstly, you know Muslims in the future are also going to be followers of Christ as well, so it's not referring exclusively to Christians.  Also there are some Christians after the prophet's time who have rejected trinity.  

For example, Issac Newton, who spent his whole life searching for the truth.  He spent a considerable amount of time studying the bible and spirituality, and he eventually reached a point where he secretly rejected trinity.

One of the things that Christians say that Jesus is the Lord or son of God, is because he's a special divine leader who didn't have a father.  But if that's the case, what would Adam be?  He didn't have a father nor a mother.

I didn't notice this one until just now but if you were hoping that this might address my question  re. the Trinity in the Quran (I'm not sure if anyone else asked a different question about the Trinity), I'd have to say that it doesn't even come close. Your answer appears to be that some so-called Christians have rejected the Trinity, which is certainly true, but is utterly unrelated to my question which was, effectively, 'If the Quran is from God, how do you reconcile that with the fact that it's author either does not know, or misrepresents, what the Trinity is?' I'm not trying to argue Trinitarianism with you, I'm merely asking how it can be possible that God would erroneously claim that the Trinity is God, Jesus and Mary, when this is not what Christians believe at all (and it wasn't at the time of Muhammed either and he certainly was familiar with Christians who did hold to the Trinity). As for your last point, the next Christian I hear say something like that will be the first.

James

[fibonacci]

My question:  Why is Islam so hell-bent on making life difficult for Christians in some countries which have a majority of Muslims?  (Lets also lay aside the complaint of the conversion of Muslims to Christianity because there is sufficient evidence to the contrary as well.)

The world as a whole is suffering.  A lot of people are suffering spiritually because they're suffering economically.  This is because the global economy is fundamentally flawed, because it's based on usury (riba).

As a result of the financial hardship that people face, they start to resort to tribal thinking.  That is, the group mentality.  Only be fair and kind to people in your group... and rip off people who aren't.

It's unfortunate, and this is the work of the anti-christ (dajjal).  

But on the positive side, there are muslims countries where Christians are living very peacfully

like Iran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDJEyyrmR4U

[Theophilos78]

It's from the story of young people in the furnace, in the book of Daniels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadrach,_Meshach,_and_Abednego#Prayer_of_Azariah

The name Azariah came out of nowhere, and they thought that he was an angel... and this angel was ranked as Bene Elohim (sons of God) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_angelic_hierarchy

if you go to book of daniels at 3:25

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/dan/3.25?lang=eng

"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no ahurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

Did you really read that entry in its entirety? Azariah was not an angel, but the Hebrew name of one of the three youths:

Their Hebraic names were Hananiah (חֲנַנְיָה), Mishael (מִישָׁאֵל) and Azariah (עֲזַרְיָה). It was probably by the King’s decree that Chief Official Ashpenaz assigned Chaldean names, so that Hananiah became Shadrach, Mishael became Meshach and Azariah became Abednego. (Daniel 1:7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadrach,_Meshach,_and_Abednego#Prayer_of_Azariah

Thus, Azariah was not called the Son of God either in the Tanakh or in Judaism.

Any other arguments?

[orthonorm]

You never answered my question :-(

Likewise.

Fibonacci,

Is there any chance that you could answer my query as to how you deal with the errors in the Quran, given that it is my understanding (which may be wrong) that Muslims believe it to be the direct word of God?

James

Islam doesn't hold the Koran to be the direct word of God.

This is one of basics of Islamic thought and practice.

I'm going to have to assume that that was a typo and you meant 'does', otherwise you're contradicting everything I've ever heard on the subject, including from Muslim colleagues, but I'd still like to hear Fibonacci's answer. I'm interested in how Muslims actually deal with their text a lot more than I am with how non-Muslims tell me they do.

Now, most Muslims I've met would argue there are no errors in the Koran.

And yet my initial question would seem to give an indisputable example of an error in the Quran. As does someone else's question slightly further down the page and I'm pretty certain I could find more. It absolutely could be the case that Muslims 'deal' with this by bald-faced denial, but I wouldn't consider that a particularly satisfactory answer, so I'm holding out in hope for a reply from our Muslim friend at some point.

James

Perhaps orthonorm means that Muslims allege that their Qur'an was received by Muhammed through the mediation of the Archangel Gabriel?

[jmbejdl]

You never answered my question :-(

Likewise.

Fibonacci,

Is there any chance that you could answer my query as to how you deal with the errors in the Quran, given that it is my understanding (which may be wrong) that Muslims believe it to be the direct word of God?

James

Islam doesn't hold the Koran to be the direct word of God.

This is one of basics of Islamic thought and practice.

I'm going to have to assume that that was a typo and you meant 'does', otherwise you're contradicting everything I've ever heard on the subject, including from Muslim colleagues, but I'd still like to hear Fibonacci's answer. I'm interested in how Muslims actually deal with their text a lot more than I am with how non-Muslims tell me they do.

Now, most Muslims I've met would argue there are no errors in the Koran.

And yet my initial question would seem to give an indisputable example of an error in the Quran. As does someone else's question slightly further down the page and I'm pretty certain I could find more. It absolutely could be the case that Muslims 'deal' with this by bald-faced denial, but I wouldn't consider that a particularly satisfactory answer, so I'm holding out in hope for a reply from our Muslim friend at some point.

James

Perhaps orthonorm means that Muslims allege that their Qur'an was received by Muhammed through the mediation of the Archangel Gabriel?

So do you agree with what I wrote earlier in response to this then, or are you contending that the method by which the message is delivered alters its content?

James

[orthonorm]

You never answered my question :-(

Likewise.

Fibonacci,

Is there any chance that you could answer my query as to how you deal with the errors in the Quran, given that it is my understanding (which may be wrong) that Muslims believe it to be the direct word of God?

James

Islam doesn't hold the Koran to be the direct word of God.

This is one of basics of Islamic thought and practice.

I'm going to have to assume that that was a typo and you meant 'does', otherwise you're contradicting everything I've ever heard on the subject, including from Muslim colleagues, but I'd still like to hear Fibonacci's answer. I'm interested in how Muslims actually deal with their text a lot more than I am with how non-Muslims tell me they do.

Now, most Muslims I've met would argue there are no errors in the Koran.

And yet my initial question would seem to give an indisputable example of an error in the Quran. As does someone else's question slightly further down the page and I'm pretty certain I could find more. It absolutely could be the case that Muslims 'deal' with this by bald-faced denial, but I wouldn't consider that a particularly satisfactory answer, so I'm holding out in hope for a reply from our Muslim friend at some point.

James

Perhaps orthonorm means that Muslims allege that their Qur'an was received by Muhammed through the mediation of the Archangel Gabriel?

So do you agree with what I wrote earlier in response to this then, or are you contending that the method by which the message is delivered alters its content?

James

There is no separating a message from its "method of delivery".

[jmbejdl]

You never answered my question :-(

Likewise.

Fibonacci,

Is there any chance that you could answer my query as to how you deal with the errors in the Quran, given that it is my understanding (which may be wrong) that Muslims believe it to be the direct word of God?

James

Islam doesn't hold the Koran to be the direct word of God.

This is one of basics of Islamic thought and practice.

I'm going to have to assume that that was a typo and you meant 'does', otherwise you're contradicting everything I've ever heard on the subject, including from Muslim colleagues, but I'd still like to hear Fibonacci's answer. I'm interested in how Muslims actually deal with their text a lot more than I am with how non-Muslims tell me they do.

Now, most Muslims I've met would argue there are no errors in the Koran.

And yet my initial question would seem to give an indisputable example of an error in the Quran. As does someone else's question slightly further down the page and I'm pretty certain I could find more. It absolutely could be the case that Muslims 'deal' with this by bald-faced denial, but I wouldn't consider that a particularly satisfactory answer, so I'm holding out in hope for a reply from our Muslim friend at some point.

James

Perhaps orthonorm means that Muslims allege that their Qur'an was received by Muhammed through the mediation of the Archangel Gabriel?

So do you agree with what I wrote earlier in response to this then, or are you contending that the method by which the message is delivered alters its content?

James

There is no separating a message from its "method of delivery".

The contention I have heard from Muslims in the past is that the Quran is the actual word of God delivered to Muhammed by Gabriel. In this case the author of it is God and Gabriel is acting as a sort of cosmic postman. They certainly do not belief that the author is, wholly or in part, either Gabriel or Muhammed. Assuming this is in fact a normative belief in Islam (and I've heard nothing yet to the contrary), I would like to know how a Muslim like Fibonacci deals with the obvious errors in the text.

Your attempt at philosophising, unfortunately, adds absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand (and having studied philosophy at university, albeit a decade and a half ago, I'm disinclined to roll over in awe at it). Do you have a serious point or are you just trying to convince me of how clever you are?

James

[orthonorm]

Do you have a serious point or are you just trying to convince me of how clever you are?

James

No just how naive you are. And I guess since you studied philosophy how misinformed you are.

Enjoy your polemics dressed in "questions".

Oh and on the "philosophy" business, how much Islamic philosophy have you read? You are begging the question throughout your "questions". There is a quite a long and varied discussion throughout Islam on the status of the Koran. How much have you read about that discussion? Again if you are looking for what pollsters are likely to reveal about beliefs are held among Muslims, google, not Fibonacci, is your friend.

If you already know what is "normative" among Muslims or can easily find such information, why are you asking Fibonacci the questions you are?

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Why can't the Abrahamic religions be cool, modern and peaceful like Buddhism?

You mean like those folks who are trying to assassinate the Dalai Lama because he isn't Buddhist enough?  ALL religions are peaceful, its the followers who get tripped up from time to time.  Conversely, there is a minority of ALL humans who are just inherently violent, and these tend to hijack the narrative because fecal matter stinks worse than roses smell lovely, and one piece of turd in the Garden will ruin the entire setting!  So be it Christians in America who murder abortion doctors, or be it radicalized Jihadist who blow up coffee shops with soldiers inside, , or be it radical ultra-Orthodox Jews who spit on women for wearing short sleeves in public, my point is there are bad folks everywhere, we can't let them define the norm simply because they can yell the loudest.


stay blessed,
habte selassie

[lord doog]

1. Do Muslims believe in abrogation of the Qur'an?
2. Why is chess forbidden in Islam?

1.  Yes, latter rules in the Qur'an replace initial rules.  The initial rules were there to ease the early muslims into the religion.

For example on alcohol, it initially says that they lead you to sin, then another verse talks about avoiding drunkiness, and finally a verse came out for the out right ban of it.

2.  Chess is allowed so long as you treat it as a mental exercise, and you don't become obsessed with it, to the point where it affects your emotions (anger, hubris,...etc.). 

It's the same thing with sports.  Playing it to improve your health and/or communication/team skills is not a problem.  It becomes a problem when someone becomes obsessed with it and treats it as a religion.  Today unfortunately, many young muslims are way too obsessed about professional football.  They worship it like it's a God.  They know all sorts of facts about football starts, their style of play and their private lives... but have no clue how the economy works and how usury is harming society.

1. Since the latter verses are more relevent than the earlier verses, why bother keeping the older verses at all? They are now outdated and irrelevent and, from my very limited understanding, can contradict the later verses which are now binding. That brings me to another question: How can Muslims consider Islam to be a perfect religion and the Qur'an a perfect book if it invalidates it's earlier half by abrogation?
 
2. How do you know this when the hadith does not give any conditions on playing the game? It says cursed is the one who plays chess, not the one who plays it excessively.

[Alpo]

There is a quite a long and varied discussion throughout Islam on the status of the Koran.

Even today? I thought they have pretty much settled to the "pre-existent, uncreated word of God" thing more than thousand years ago.

[Iconodule]

Why can't the Abrahamic religions be cool, modern and peaceful like Buddhism?

[Of those in] the band of enemies, who have despoiled the duties entrusted to them:
Make the male lines like trees that have had their roots cut;
Make the female lines like brooks that have dried up in winter,
Make the children and grandchildren like eggs smashed against cliffs,
Make the servants and followers like heaps of grass consumed by fire,
Make their dominion like a lamp whose oil has been exhausted,
In short, annihilate any traces of them, even their names.

- The Fifth Dalai Lama

[Nephi]

There is a quite a long and varied discussion throughout Islam on the status of the Koran.

Even today? I thought they have pretty much settled to the "pre-existent, uncreated word of God" thing more than thousand years ago.

That was my impression as well considering the development of the use of colored diacritics (to differentiate between the original divine text, and the human-made diacritics), parallel dual-language (with Arabic always more prominent over the "interpretation") translations, and a system of how Muslims/non-Muslims are to handle them (with non-Muslims, for example, touching the outer covers and not the text itself).

[orthonorm]

There is a quite a long and varied discussion throughout Islam on the status of the Koran.

Even today? I thought they have pretty much settled to the "pre-existent, uncreated word of God" thing more than thousand years ago.

They?

You know to speak of anything which has the length of history as Islam does and exists in such a widespread and disparate manner as Islam does as something monolithic is sorta myopic.

No. Whether the Koran was created or uncreated remains up for debate and what sorta hermeneutics would be required for a creature like Gabriel much less Mohamed to understand such a message either created or uncreated by Allah is also not settled.

Like most Christians (read the posts of ostensibly "educated" and "informed" Christians on this site), Muslims for the most part are absolutely unaware of the real and interesting problems their history of belief presents. Around here, "mystery" is the answer to the tough and interesting questions, if and when they ever get posed.

If you want to get into an interesting discussion rather than what is becoming of this thread, ask, whether it was created or uncreated, how is a created being capable of understanding the language of God.

Keep in mind, it is not settled whether THE Koran is in Arabic (I think most thoughtful Muslim thinkers would suggest not, but I only read around this issue for a few months so take this with a grain of salt).

Heck, if your Muslim friend thinks the Koran is some book, you already know they are poorly informed about the basics of their own religion.

[orthonorm]

There is a quite a long and varied discussion throughout Islam on the status of the Koran.

Even today? I thought they have pretty much settled to the "pre-existent, uncreated word of God" thing more than thousand years ago.

That was my impression as well considering the development of the use of colored diacritics (to differentiate between the original divine text, and the human-made diacritics), parallel dual-language (with Arabic always more prominent over the "interpretation") translations, and a system of how Muslims/non-Muslims are to handle them (with non-Muslims, for example, touching the outer covers and not the text itself).

Again it depends on what you mean by "settled". What the Pew Research institute is likely to find to today in a poll, or what productive thinkers long past, past, not so past, and present deal with.

Then again, this is like asking whether your typical Orthodox Christian can give a decent account of the Trinity or much of anything.

I would suggest not.

Thankfully, I don't think any of this stuff is that important. Well at least not to get by as your typical Christian needs to or Muslim.

[orthonorm]

1. Do Muslims believe in abrogation of the Qur'an?
2. Why is chess forbidden in Islam?

1.  Yes, latter rules in the Qur'an replace initial rules.  The initial rules were there to ease the early muslims into the religion.

For example on alcohol, it initially says that they lead you to sin, then another verse talks about avoiding drunkiness, and finally a verse came out for the out right ban of it.

2.  Chess is allowed so long as you treat it as a mental exercise, and you don't become obsessed with it, to the point where it affects your emotions (anger, hubris,...etc.).  

It's the same thing with sports.  Playing it to improve your health and/or communication/team skills is not a problem.  It becomes a problem when someone becomes obsessed with it and treats it as a religion.  Today unfortunately, many young muslims are way too obsessed about professional football.  They worship it like it's a God.  They know all sorts of facts about football starts, their style of play and their private lives... but have no clue how the economy works and how usury is harming society.

1. Since the latter verses are more relevent than the earlier verses, why bother keeping the older verses at all? They are now outdated and irrelevent and, from my very limited understanding, can contradict the later verses which are now binding. That brings me to another question: How can Muslims consider Islam to be a perfect religion and the Qur'an a perfect book if it invalidates it's earlier half by abrogation?
 
2. How do you know this when the hadith does not give any conditions on playing the game? It says cursed is the one who plays chess, not the one who plays it excessively.

1. How is abrogation invalidation in any sense? Have you spent much time reading about how some Muslims use the Koran as a message to converts? The rule on drinking for instance. Some Muslims would suggest that movement of the Koran on the role alcohol should be followed by the convert. The realization the alcohol is a problem. Then practice the avoidance of drunkenness. Then the struggle for abstinence.

This is a trivial view of how so called "abrogated" verses remain important. I am sure if you applied yourself, you could easily think of some more. Forget answering the question about how abrogation is not invalidation. Just work on some of the more easily understood aspects of the text.

2. Extra-Koranic materials are argued over in terms of whether they are binding and if so to what degree they are and have commentary upon commentary upon them, especially if they are throughout most of Islam's history found to be important and worthy of attention.

Again, I doubt the information I am giving here is that hard to find or simply "come to" with a bit of thinking, thus my wondering about the rhetorical nature of your questions as well.

[Alpo]

Well of course everything is different on the grassroot level but IIRC there was some major debate during early centuries of Islam about whether Koran was created or not and that the non-created party got their view settled. Are there any major modern Muslim scholar of Islam who claims that Koran is created?

[orthonorm]

Well of course everything is different on the grassroot level but IIRC there was some major debate during early centuries of Islam about whether Koran was created or not and that the non-created party got their view settled. Are there any major modern Muslim scholar of Islam who claims that Koran is created?

I'll see if I can find any references. Like I said I only read around the issue for a few months. I have one text left probably, but it has a decent bibliography, IIRC.

EDIT: FWIW, I would admit that most "Muslims" would probably answer uncreated and suggest that those who think the Koran to be created are not true Muslims, much the way folks around here defend their own view within Christianity. The Islamic teacher I lived with was emphatically of the view it was uncreated and rejected all current thinkers who hold it to be created, which are typically "Sufis". Also, FWIW, most Muslims are going to tell you Sufism ain't Islam. As I said, Muslim theology is a very complicated subject and one almost no Western actually or Muslim for that matter concerns themselves with outside RCs whose own theology was given to them by Islam.

//;=) Papist.

[Nicene]

Please forgive me for my misunderstanding...  I thought you were talking about something else (christ vs anti-christ conflict).

I think you're referring to surah 30 verse 2?

Am I correct?  In that case... yes I fully agree with you that... this verse is not referring to the western roman empire.  It was a very bad translation..... and it's referring to the  Byzantine Roman Empire... and yes the Orthodox Christians.

Have you seen my other thread?  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,45203.0.html

One day, Constantinople is going to be returned to the orthodox Christians.

An answer I didn't expect, but an answer that I think might have troubling implications for you. If its referring to the orthodox as the true followers of Christ, BTW it should be pointed out the East and west at this time were the one church, then you have a problem that a group that calls Christ God is the true successors of the apostles?

[fibonacci]

reader pay attention.

 those that fight against heretical ruling structure, are they fighting for religious freedom? for instance democracy as a rule of the people , can it be interprated as heresy thereby those who fight it are fighting for religious freedom which can only be realised for them when the supreme law of the land becomes Allah's law?

I agree with you that true muslims do not believe in a heretical ruling structure.and that they will fight on the behalf of the community to prevent the ideology deemed heretical from taking over. they are justified nay obligated to do so.

btw, the sufi flavor makes your explanations much more palatable , I am sure you know.

Well, yes, when you're fighting heretical structure.......... you're fighting for freedom of everything.  That's what Hussein was doing... fighting the monarchy that was forcing him to pledge allegiance to.

From what I've studied, I'm certain that Islamic laws (or any religious laws for that matter) should really be implemented at the community level, not a the national level.  Those who want to live a certain way can join the community that best matches their belief. And 'Islamic' nations, should really be free republics not democracies, monarchies, dictatorships, ...etc.

Note that, before the prophet died he never explicitly said who should lead the Muslim nation as a whole.  Because it's not suppose to be hierarchical.  You can reach God by yourself, you don't need to go to a religious leader and ask them to talk to God on your behalf.

[fibonacci]

Koran could be refering to some eccentric form of Judaism. Or Christianity for that matter when it's talking about Trinity. Who knows what might have been out there during that time considering that even today World is filled with crazy religions.

Not possible because the verse talks about the Jews in general rather than about some unknown group of the Jews.

A case can be made that since Muhammed didn't know all of the Jews of the World and their various religious views "the Jews" refers to those jews he was aware of. He was (IIRC) just a illiterate salesman and not well versed in comparative religion.

But Muhammed isn't supposed to be the author of the Koran. God is. If there are entirely human errors in the Koran, which was my point, as you suggest then you're agreeing with what Theophilos and I were talking about in the first place re. the misunderstandings of the Trinity and Judaism. I'd really like to see Fibonacci's answer to our posts as I'd like to understand how Muslims deal with this - to me it's the smoking gun that says that the Koran is not the direct word of God. So how do Muslims reconcile the details of the text with their beliefs as to the origin of the text? Or do some Muslims have a different view of the Koran, one where Muhammed is inspired rather than dictated to?

James

Firstly about the revelations of the quran...

the prophet would get an epileptic seizure....... then when it stops, he would get up, and start talking in a different tone
starting with 'In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful'

this was sign for his companion, that the prophet is about to give out revelation from God, sent to him by Gabriel.... (ie.  telling his companions to get out there 'pen and paper')

then he would give out the verse in a poetic fashion, most often the content of the verse was something relevant to what his companions were discussing or asking him

So a lot of people were paying close attention to it, and memorized the message the prophet was delivering.  They recorded it all on paper.  Then they analyzed all these notes and cross-referenced with people's memories, and made the one quranic text for Muslims to use.


About trinity, the overall message that God is delivering... is that there is only one God.  He doesn't have a son, and He doesn't have human/spiritual manifestations, like coming on earth as a human or as a holy ghost.  It was just saying that the Messiah was a prophet, not a God.   If you don't agree with that, than that's your belief.  

Furthermore, it's important to study the origins of Trinity at a deeper level.  Because undoubtedly, the Messiah never explicitly mentioned that he's God.  For example, when he was being crucified, he said 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?'.  If he's God, why would he say something like that?

Secondly, some Christians say he's God because he could do miracles.  But Moses could do miracles aswell.
Others say it's because he didn't have a human father.  But Adam was created without a human mother nor a human father.

[Nicene]

We say he is God because he did things only God could do, claimed things only God could do and the like.

[fibonacci]

Who decides a verse must be interpreted literally or figuratively and why?

These verses are interpreted after studying the topic at a closer level.  If it's talking about Jesus, then one will have to study the bible, and history... and then based on intuition, they would make a decision on whether the message is literal or figurative.

Remember what I said earlier

intuition when you're pious and in a clean environment = God talking to you

[Cognomen]

 Because undoubtedly, the Messiah never explicitly mentioned that he's God.  For example, when he was being crucified, he said 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?'.  If he's God, why would he say something like that?

Cheers, Fibonacci. 

Just as a reply (this one used to get me too), that quote you mentioned is the opening line of Psalm 21 (22 in the West).  Orthodox tradition holds that Christ was reciting the psalms during his crucifixion. This particular psalm is said to, among other things, predict the Messiah and events leading up to His crucifixion.

[ZealousZeal]

Furthermore, it's important to study the origins of Trinity at a deeper level.  Because undoubtedly, the Messiah never explicitly mentioned that he's God.  For example, when he was being crucified, he said 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?'.  If he's God, why would he say something like that?

It was always my understanding that he was quoting Psalm 22, which starts with "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?", then goes on to say:


16 For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;
17 I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.
18 They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.


I was taught that in Protestantism, so I don't know if that's the same understanding as the Orthodox have (and there's certainly more you could argue), but I find it interesting.

[ZealousZeal]

Ah, well. Cognomen beat me while I was typing and answered my question as well.

[dzheremi]

About trinity, the overall message that God is delivering... is that there is only one God.

Muhammad's god was only giving out an "overall message", so it doesn't matter if he gets the details wrong? What kind of god is this? In the Holy Bible, God gave Moses precise instructions on how to build a giant boat and save all the animals on the earth with it, and gives us exact words to pray (the 'Our Father'), and exact, authoritative expositions of the law from His own mouth (Matthew 5:21 forward), but the Qur'an completely fudges the basics of a central piece of Christian theology and we're supposed to say "well, overall it's not about that, so it's okay"? When did god get so lazy about things that, being god, he shouldn't have any trouble understanding and representing properly, even if they are wrong? I mean, right or wrong, God is supposed to know what we actually believe, right? (Isn't this a part of Islam, too?)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this is any kind of explanation.

[fibonacci]

Please don't take this wrong way, but I don't think you can combine these two distinct verses to make a conclusion like that.

But let's say you have a point.....so did you read what it says in Surah 4:76?  For a true believer, the tricks of satan are weak.

Now read the rest of Surah 12.... what happened to the woman when they saw the shirt being ripped from behind?  Did her 'mighty trick' work?

Your answer is irrelevant to my question.

I only want to know how some women's tricks are strong whilst Satan's tricks are weak. Why this contrast?

Theophilos the first verse is a direct message
the other is just a narration of the husband

I don't understand the point you're trying to make.  In any case, if the semantics of these verses is really bothering you, I suggest you speak with an expert in Arabic linguistics.

[fibonacci]

About trinity, the overall message that God is delivering... is that there is only one God.

Muhammad's god was only giving out an "overall message", so it doesn't matter if he gets the details wrong? What kind of god is this? In the Holy Bible, God gave Moses precise instructions on how to build a giant boat and save all the animals on the earth with it, and gives us exact words to pray (the 'Our Father'), and exact, authoritative expositions of the law from His own mouth (Matthew 5:21 forward), but the Qur'an completely fudges the basics of a central piece of Christian theology and we're supposed to say "well, overall it's not about that, so it's okay"? When did god get so lazy about things that, being god, he shouldn't have any trouble understanding and representing properly, even if they are wrong? I mean, right or wrong, God is supposed to know what we actually believe, right? (Isn't this a part of Islam, too?)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this is any kind of explanation.

You mean Noah?

When I said overall message...

I'm talking about how there were a few verses regarding Christ and tirinity... and in all cases, it was saying that the Messiah is a prophet, and God is one with no partners.

When I respond to these questions, I assume you can quickly see the whole picture.  But I understand that some users here are left brainers... and semantics is very important to them.  As a result, I suggest you take your time reading the Quran, and try to interpret the verses and compare it with your knowledge of Christianity.  Then we can discuss the meanings of these verses at a greater depth.

[dzheremi]

You mean Noah?

Oops. Yes. Typing too fast. Sorry. Noah, certainly. If Moses had an ark, I don't know about it.

I suggest you take your time reading the Quran, and try to interpret the verses and compare it with your knowledge of Christianity.  Then we can discuss the meanings of these verses at a greater depth.

A fine suggestion, were it not for the fact that I have already done that with an eye toward these verses in particular, and had those same discussions with other Muslims in the past. But if you have some sort of revolutionary understanding that somehow makes the Qur'an not wrong (like the last guy who told me what it "really" means in those verses), then by all means, please share with all of us.

I have yet to hear or read any explanation of them that does not simply fall back on Islamic talking points about God having no consort, Christians being associators, etc. These are not really answers any more than if this thread were reversed and we answered all of your questions with "Muslims are blasphemers" and "The Qur'an is not from God because it contradicts the Bible" or whatever, which would not really be very enlightening, whether anyone in particular finds them true statements or not.

[fibonacci]

What is the relationship between mainstream Islam and the more non-conventional forms of Islam like the Nation of Islam or the Five Percent Nation which are popular among impoverished Black folks in urban areas? Are they considered real Muslims or are they considered a weird offshoot, like the weird Evangelical Christian Churches that sometimes open up?

It's a weird offshoot.  However, I've read that many of their members later converted to Islam.  Like Mohammed Ali who converted to sufi islam and Malcom X converted to sunni islam.

[Alpo]

fibonacci, I still would like to hear your perspective on this:

What's the relationship between Islam and Jews? I've understood that Islam has more negative view of Jews than of Christians. Am I correct? Why is that?