Abraham and the Idols was (Re: Queen of Sh.)
MyTajMahal
Jameel wote:
>> The Qur'an was made up by Muhammad who incorporated stories he heard
>>from the people around him like the story from the Midrash Rabbah Genesis on
>>Abraham breaking idols
Hammad Awan
>Ad nauseum. Can anti-Islamic fundamentalists come up with something
>other than the same old rehashed garbage that has been refuted time and
>time again?
Where has it been refuted? What is there to refute? The story was made up by
a Rabbi and Muhammad heard it from the Jews and retold it claiming it to be
divine revelation even puting the words in the mouth of God.
"...We were well acquainted with him. Behold! he said to his father......"
What? the story made up by Rabbi Hiyya? or the truth? Again Muhammad has God
saying:
"We said "O Fire be though cool..." Again from the story made up by the Rabbi
Hiyya as contained in the Midrash.
Is there any greater blasphemy that putting words in the mouth of God?
>Do they think that they can repeat the same lies over and
>over again and cause them to to become the truth?
What lies?
>Or are they deluded
>enough to think that the truth can become a lie in everybody elses
>minds as it has become in theirs?
Or do some people think that a made up story from the 2nd century CE. can
become Hostorical truth and divine revelation? simply because Muhammad said
so?
Kind regards to all who seek truth and follow guidance
Jameel
hamma...@my-deja.com
mytaj...@aol.com (MyTajMahal) wrote:
> In article <84pf6f$rai$1...@samba.rahul.net>, hamma...@my-deja.com
writes:
>
> >other than the same old rehashed garbage that has been refuted time
and
> >time again?
>
> Where has it been refuted? What is there to refute?
The lies that Muhammad (PBUH) heard some stories here and there, no had
a Christian, no Jewish, no a non-Arab speaking, some imaginary teacher
who taught him these stories, which he took and made some modifications
(brilliant ones, if I should say so) and compiled the Quran.
The story was made up by
> a Rabbi and Muhammad heard it from the Jews and retold it claiming it
to be
> divine revelation even puting the words in the mouth of God.
>
Proof that it was "made up"? Proof that Muhammad "heard it" from the
Jews and "retold" it. None, whatsoever. This amounts to Jameel
blatantly calling Muhammad (PBUH) a liar, which is disrespectful to all
Muslims, and he should apologize immediately. I'll tell you just
once: Just because a story appeared before, and is confirmed in a
later "scripture" does not mean that it was copied. Get it? If you
don't, then I cannot help you.
> Is there any greater blasphemy that putting words in the mouth of God?
>
Is there any greater blasphemy in believing in a God that allows a man
to put words in his mouth without disgracing him in this world or in
the next?
>
> What lies?
What? Are you confused.?
> Or do some people think that a made up story from the 2nd century CE.
can
> become Hostorical truth and divine revelation? simply because
Muhammad said
> so?
No evidence whatsoever that the story was "made up." Just Jameel's
words which amount to nothing. A fact that is exemplified by his
reduction of the Muslim belief that Muhammad (PBUH) is the Seal of the
Prophets and the Quran is the word of God "simply because Muhammad said
so?" You should be ashamed of yourself.
--
Hammad Awan
Senior Software Engineer
Riverbed Technologies
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
MyTajMahal
>The lies that Muhammad (PBUH) heard some stories here and there, no had
>a Christian, no Jewish, no a non-Arab speaking, some imaginary teacher
>who taught him these stories, which he took and made some modifications
>(brilliant ones, if I should say so) and compiled the Quran.
I didn't claim that he was taught these things - but he was taught many things
and Muhammad had the Jewish books read to him on occassions - But in the main
he just the stories up by listening to the Jews and in his many theological
discussions with Jews and Christians who he came into contact with.
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/borrow.htm
>Proof that it was "made up"?
Midrashic illustrations are made up by the teacher they are not divine
revelation. Its that simple just like the Bible commentaries which Asim Awan
quotes from. They are not divine revelation either and most like the ones Asim
Awan quotes from are only written for the ignorant.
You can read the text from the Midrash in the article at the above link.
>Proof that Muhammad "heard it" from the
>Jews and "retold" it. None, whatsoever.
Plenty of proof from Islamic sources just need go and do some investigation:
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/borrow.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/Tisdall/WW/
<edit>
>This amounts to Jameel
>blatantly calling Muhammad (PBUH) a liar, which is disrespectful to all
>Muslims, and he should apologize immediately.
I am sorry to hurt your feelings. But there seems no easy way to say these
things.
> I'll tell you just
>once: Just because a story appeared before, and is confirmed in a
>later "scripture" does not mean that it was copied. Get it? If you
>don't, then I cannot help you.
So are you claiming that Muhammad was some sort of Psychic medium who could see
and hear the words of Bible commentaries and Midrashim in his head? - If you
think this is plain silly then he heard the stories somehow and the most
obvious thing is he heard them from Jews and Christians. Muhammad knew all
about the Jewish stories but apparently didn't know how to differentiate
between the TaNaK and the Midrashim A bit like those who pin their faith and
understanding of doctrine on 20th century Bible commentaries.
>From Bukhari: 9. 77:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
While we were in the mosque, Allah's Apostle came out to us and said, "Let us
proceed to the Jews." So we went along with him till we reached Bait-al-Midras
(a place where the Torah used to be recited and all the Jews of the town used
to gather). The Prophet stood up and addressed them, "O Assembly of Jews!
Embrace Islam and you will be safe!".....
Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4434:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:
A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah to Quff. So he visited
them in their school.
They said: Abul Qasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman;
so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah
who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew
the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in
thee and in Him Who revealed thee. ............
>From Bukhari: 9.460:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in
Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Apostle said (to the Muslims). "Do not believe
the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and
whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' "
But one can go and their own investigation and find many references.
>Is there any greater blasphemy in believing in a God that allows a man
>to put words in his mouth without disgracing him in this world or in
>the next?
It is better that one learns the truth before the day of judgement even if it
comes as a shock.
>What? Are you confused.?
I'm not confused. But there are plenty who are. Their plane is going down
with the heavy weight of Bible commentaries and other baggage. Ever seen a
Swan flying with a Bible commentary?
>No evidence whatsoever that the story was "made up." Just Jameel's
>words which amount to nothing.
The illustrative stories in the Midrash Rabbah on Genesis are never considered
"divine revelation"
> A fact that is exemplified by his
>reduction of the Muslim belief that Muhammad (PBUH) is the Seal of the
>Prophets and the Quran is the word of God "simply because Muhammad said
>so?" You should be ashamed of yourself.
I'm only sorry that you are angry with me.
Kind regards to all who seek truth
Jameel
a...@lucent.com
Some folks love to fabricate white lies with respect to Mohammad and Muslims.
The are best responded by ignoring them.
I am very annoyed at the moderators of SRI who publish these derogatory and
insulting posts. These posts have no substance. The are mere statements. The
best they can do is to site some Christian writers who actually started this
venom against Mohammad and Muslims.
The Vatican has recognized as much and apologized for it.
It is time that the moderators took a hint and stop this insults.
Dr. M S M Saifullah
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
>Or do some people think that a made up story from the 2nd century CE. can
>become Hostorical truth and divine revelation? simply because Muhammad said
>so?
Well, can Jameel show the evidence that this story is not historical and
that Abraham did not do what is mentioned in the Qur'an?
If he can't, we can simply reverse the case and say that we have to believe
this simply because Jameel said so.
Just claim something and it becomes so.
Wassalam
Saifullah
----
Islamic Awareness http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
MyTajMahal
<sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp> writes:
>Well, can Jameel show the evidence that this story is not historical and
>that Abraham did not do what is mentioned in the Qur'an?
First let me understand correctly. Is Dr Saifullah claiming, without
qualification, that this story which appears in the Qur'an is absolute
historical fact?
In the previous discussion on the Queen of Sheba there were Muslim writers here
on SRI who denied that there was any need for that story to be an historical
fact. So we need to know what position Dr Saifullah occupies in relation to
the Abrahamic story.
Another Question for Arabic scholars: In the above Qur'anic story of the
discussions between Abram and his father is Abram refered to as Abram or
Abraham? (S 6:74-77 + S21:51-71)
>If he can't, we can simply reverse the case and say that we have to believe
>this simply because Jameel said so.
There is nothing like someone trying to force pre-conditions onto what
constitutes evidence is there? Dr Saifullah thinks he is going to prove a
point from silence. But let him clarify his position first.
Dr Saifullah, in a comment in an earlier post (6 Dec 1999 02:55:38 GMT) stated:
>No sensible Jew or a Christian would claim without evidence that such a
>story is a 'myth'.
What evidence is Dr Saifullah willing to accept?
>Just claim something and it becomes so.
That is the Qur'anic way. The Qur'an says so and so it must be.....There is no
need for further proof (here we go round the mulberry bush !)
asim...@my-deja.com
> >Or do some people think that a made up story from the 2nd century CE.
can
> >become Hostorical truth and divine revelation?
>simply becauseMuhammad said
> >so?
One can only laugh at TajMahals concept of midrashic allusion., and
historcial truths and divine revelation. One only has to follow the
whole thread and see the concept of divine revelation and historical
truth, than come back and read this and see how TajMahal avoids the
point, and always comes back to the same place he started. But that
will always happen if you walk in a circle.
It further clarifies and adds on to my point they purely follow their
desires in regards to what they want. A midrashic allusion is now
according to TajMahal a false story to convey a truth, i.e. aesop's
fables. This of course is when TajMahal wants it to be. Otherwise it
becomes an outstanding prediction of some later event, via Immanuel.
One can only laugh. One can only laugh at such allusions which try and
find remsemblance between the baptism and the drowning of pharoahs army
via exodus. It is a symbolic and eschatoligical symbol, yet when there
is a minor similarity between two people (which basically amount to
they both like the same type of ketchup on their hamburger), voila,
historical literal prophecy. One does not need to keep repeating this,
one can access the whole topic.
One only has to follow the topic at hand and its relation to revelation.
As the posts continually demonstrate and which TajMahal can only answer
with childish remarks the concept of revelation has developed. As the
internal evidence of the scripture shows, their views developed
continually over the years. What it basically comes down, and one does
not need to repeat things like a parrot, books were taken, books were
rejected, and words were toyed around with. TajMahal could only come
with such massive astonishing comments as he is wrong, has been
refuted, and much more typical cop-outs. Other excuses include it is
just plain sad, or how canm a man be so full of spite. Or the old
atheist cop-out, even though Islam gave birth to modern criticism.I can
only be amused.
> Well, can Jameel show the evidence that this story is not
historicaland
> that Abraham did not do what is mentioned in the Qur'an?
One can only laugh at the Old Testaments historical accounts of Ibrahim
(AS). One can see it in their manipualtion of Moriah for marwah. Or
the narrations where Ibrahim (AS) supposedly lived. A through
geographical illustration from the testament themselves can prove my
poitnts, but
they cannot handle what I already posted. I already went through a
thorough demonstration of the baselessness of the evangelical tirades.
One only has to follow the posts of Queen of Sheba and punishment and
mercy to see this. The main points being addressed was the Islamic view
of revelation compared the Judaic-christian. I also quoted the internal
evidence from the Old Testament itself the varying conceptions of divine
revelation as they progressed through the years. TajMahal is attempting
to find another route to spew his propaganda, because he cannot spew it
through any educated person. He has only complained and whined about
20th century biblical commentaries, quadiani inspired doctrines
midrashic allusions
that are just plain nonsense as demonstrated and on and on. His latest
attempt besides the 20th century biblical commentary whine is to blame
his lack of refutations on biased moderation, though he praised it not
so long ago. One does to be an genius to know Abrahamic tradition
existed in the Arabian peninsula. Historical truth does not belong to
the Old Testament.
The Queen of Sheba had much more pertinence to the
Arabs, and in fact geopgraphers of that land testified to the wondrous
canals that were built by the people of sheba. In fact they were part
of the route that went all the way to India and china. As demonstrated
in my posts the Israelites tried to wipe out any influence of Ismaelite
tradition in their books. A major Israelite presence in Saudi Arabi was
spurned by the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, as testified to by
Josephus. According to Dr. Israel Wellphenson, this is furtehr
corraborated by arab sources. One does not need to go to William Smith
to show the Araboian influence. In fact there was plenty of contact
with 'their brethren', and one can show it with what is left in their
books. The Abrahamic legacy was not confined to such a people and it is
just trademark arrogance not worthy of any response. They think the
end-all to history lies in them. Even the word Yahweh, according to
Prof. Theophile Meek was of arabian origin. One only needs to examine
Old Testament records which connect the name with the arabian tribes of
the Negeb with southernsanctuaries like Sinai-Horeb and Kadesh. Its
roots come from hwy, to blow. The Masks of God: Accidental Myhtology,
Campble.. This is confirmed by William Albright in From Stone Age to
Chritsianiaty who says the full significance of it means "He who causes
what is to come into existence." When Jehu reolted against idolary in
II Kings 10:14, it was the Rechabite Arabs who did not hesitate to join
him as his allies. (II KIngs 10:15-18) As William Smith points out,
the east (Ezekiel 43:2) and Genesis 25:6 and many other references,
refers to Arabia. The brethren of the Israelites have played a role in
israelite history, and the toying of the cribes could not eliminate
totally.
Who is to say the Jews learn anything from their presence in Arabia
about Ibrahim (AS) from the legacy passed down through them. Even the
Quraysh had remnants of the Arabian religion. The hunafa tried to
return to it. Or maybe we shoudl believe them that the sole rights to
history belong to them. But we can only laugh when we find women
during the pharoanic times, Israelite that is, reproducing at the
rate of fleas.
> If he can't, we can simply reverse the case and say that we have
tobelieve
> this simply because Jameel said so.
He is living in the judaic-christian framework of mind. One can only be
amused to see through the self-created
illusional barrier they put up.
>> Just claim something and it becomes so.
This is their phenomenon.
Dr. M S M Saifullah
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
>>Well, can Jameel show the evidence that this story is not historical and
>>that Abraham did not do what is mentioned in the Qur'an?
>
>First let me understand correctly. Is Dr Saifullah claiming, without
>qualification, that this story which appears in the Qur'an is absolute
>historical fact?
I am sorry to say that your understanding about what I said was very poor.
Since you claimed that the story of Abraham in the Qur'an was a legend, I
asked you to furnish a historical evidence to show precisely that. By
historical evidence, we do not mean the Bible; what we mean is
extra-scriptural confirmation of your claim.
>Another Question for Arabic scholars: In the above Qur'anic story of the
>discussions between Abram and his father is Abram refered to as Abram or
>Abraham? (S 6:74-77 + S21:51-71)
Well, it would not matter to me or for that matter anyone whether Abraham
was called Abram or whatever without historical evidence. Just because the
Bible says that Abraham was called Abram is not supposed to mean anything
except that the claimant is making a circular argument.
>>No sensible Jew or a Christian would claim without evidence that such a
>>story is a 'myth'.
>
>What evidence is Dr Saifullah willing to accept?
Historical evidence, which is an extra-scriptural to support your statement.
>>Just claim something and it becomes so.
>
>That is the Qur'anic way. The Qur'an says so and so it must be.....There
>is no
>need for further proof (here we go round the mulberry bush !)
Is it?!!
Why is that you have such a great difficulty in bringing historical
evidence to claim that the story of Queen of Sheba and Solomon in the
Qur'an is a legend and that in the Bible is true? Just claim that the
Qur'anic stories are legend and it becomes so. Proof is unnecessary belief
is sufficient. And now we have Jameel treading the same path.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Islamic Awareness: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Dr. M S M Saifullah
Free Thought
"Dr. M S M Saifullah" <sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
An astonishing discussion between Jameel and Dr. Saifullah. As I read
through it, I continuously muttered to myself "so close, yet so far".
Dr. Saifullah wrote:
> >>Well, can Jameel show the evidence that
> >>this story is not historical and
> >>that Abraham did not do what is mentioned
> >>in the Qur'an?
Jameel responded:
> >First let me understand correctly. Is Dr
> >Saifullah claiming, without qualification,
> >that this story which appears in the Qur'an
> >is absolute historical fact?
The Dr's retort was:
> I am sorry to say that your understanding about
> what I said was very poor. Since you claimed that
> the story of Abraham in the Qur'an was a legend,
> I asked you to furnish a historical evidence to
> show precisely that. By historical evidence, we
> do not mean the Bible; what we mean is
> extra-scriptural confirmation of your claim.
This is a great point by Dr. Saifullah, but at the same time, what he
wrote just stares you in the face. This is what lead me to say "so
close, yet so far" to myself. Can Jameel furnish historical proof that
the story of Abraham, as found in the Bible, is true? I have a great
respect for Jameel, but I have to say he is wholly incapable of
furnishing any proof of such a thing. However, does this mean we should
scratch up a win for Dr. Saifullah? Hardly. The reality is Dr. Saifullah
is also unable to offer and historical evidence that the story of
Abraham, as found in the Koran, is authentic or, more importantly,
historical. There is not a shred of evidence that Abraham ever existed.
Many scholars are starting to believe that Abraham, Isaac, et cetera, is
nothing more than a play on the characters of folklore from earlier
civilizations, such as the Egyptians, Chaldeans, et cetera. It would
seem obvious to anyone of a secular mindset that Abraham was a figment
of the Jewish imagination. A character from Jewish folklore. The
Christians absorbed much from the Jewish faith, thus helping to spread
this character around the globe. In Muhammad's time he was surrounded by
Jews and Christians, and while Jews and Christians will disagree with my
secularist ideas, they will agree that Abraham was incorporated into
Islam because both Jews and Christians believed in him, so it was
assumed he was a historical character.
Continuing with this fascinating discussion...
Jameel wrote:
> >Another Question for Arabic scholars: In
> >the above Qur'anic story of the discussions
> >between Abram and his father is Abram refered
> >to as Abram or Abraham? (S 6:74-77 + S21:51-71)
Dr. Saifullah's response was:
> Well, it would not matter to me or for that matter
> anyone whether Abraham was called Abram or whatever
> without historical evidence. Just because the
> Bible says that Abraham was called Abram is not
> supposed to mean anything except that the claimant
> is making a circular argument.
Well, in this case I have to argue in agreement with Jameel that such a
question is important to some degree. Whether Abraham was a historical
character or not, the names Abram and Abraham have very important
meanings, particularly the latter. Abraham is hebrew fro "Father of a
Great multitude" (sort of), and it relates to the Hebrew folklore in
regards to how Abraham's descendants would multiply. Does the name
Ibrahim have any meaning at all? Are the names of prophets so ambiguous?
What does the name Ibrahim mean, and why was he given this name? How did
it relate to his mission? This can also be applied to other prophets of
Islam. How did the name Isa relate to Isa's mission? What does the name
mean? Dr. Saifullah correctly pointed out the lack of historical
evidence that Abraham's name was ever Abram. However, it should be noted
that there is also no historical evidence that his name was Ibrahim. We
have evdicence of a character named Abraham (although we have no
evidence that he really existed). Christian scriptures that date as much
as 300 years prior to Muhammad's birth speak of a character from their
folklore named "Abraham" who's name was formerly "Abram" and this can
also be found in Jewish texts dating back thousands of years prior to
Muhammad's birth. The earliest mentioning of "Ibrahim" that I know of is
the Koran. I'm sure that archeologists and linguists alike would agree.
Thus, it is possible to assume that "Ibrahim" is nothing more than an
adaptation of the "Abraham" found in Jewish folklore (which can be
further established via similarities between the Koran and the Rabbinic
literature).
Continuing onward....
Dr. Saifullah wrote:
> >>No sensible Jew or a Christian would
> >>claim without evidence that such a
> >>story is a 'myth'.
Jameel responded:
> >What evidence is Dr Saifullah willing to accept?
To which Dr. Saifullah wrote:
> Historical evidence, which is an
> extra-scriptural to support your
> statement.
Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but what about historical evidence that
this character existed at all? Is there any? Dr. Saifullah has defined
historical evidence as being "extra-scriptural". Is there any
extra-scriptural evidence that Ibrahim existed at all? There is none.
This is in reality, a squabble over which version of the Abraham story
is true (being that they disagree). If this is the argument, then I
think weight has to lean towards Jameel in a sense. The Christian
version, and the Rabbinic version both predate the Koran, and it seems
the Koran agrees verbatim with the Rabbinic version. However, I doubt
any Rabbi would say the story of Abraham, as found in the Bible, is
incorrect (which is what Dr. Saifullah is trying to assert). There seems
to be an atmosphere of, as Ibn al-Rawandi put it, intelectual
dishonesty. Neither side is willing to acknowledge the non-historical
nature of this story. Instead the debate essentially boils down to
whether or not Islam borrowed it's tales from Jewish Oral Traditions. I
think it has been strongly established that Islam has indeed taken it's
ideas from Jewish folklore. There is no proof that these characters ever
existed, yet Islam's version is incredibly similar to the version taught
orally by people who lived in the area Islam was created.
Jameel made this final comment:
> > The Qur'an says so and so it must
> > be.....There is no need for further
> > proof (here we go round the mulberry bush!)
While Dr. Saifullah seemed to be offended by such a comment, as many
Muslims would be, it's the absolute truth. Here the Christian accuses
the Muslim of assuming something is true simply because it is in the
Koran. While Dr. Saifullah has done a good job of questioning the
historical aspects of certain stories, he's heading down a rather
unislamic path. If we continue to press the non-historical issue, the
Muslim's only response is going to be "it says so in the Koran, and I
need no other proof".
Please visit the Secular Web!
http://www.infidels.org
Fariduddien Rice
On 12 Jan 2000, Free Thought (aka Denis Giron) wrote:
[...]
> This is a great point by Dr. Saifullah, but at the same time, what he
> wrote just stares you in the face. This is what lead me to say "so
> close, yet so far" to myself. Can Jameel furnish historical proof that
> the story of Abraham, as found in the Bible, is true?
[...]
> The reality is Dr. Saifullah
> is also unable to offer and historical evidence that the story of
> Abraham, as found in the Koran, is authentic or, more importantly,
> historical. There is not a shred of evidence that Abraham ever existed.
As I pointed out in my earlier post, Denis Giron's arguments here are
based upon the implication of weak logic. The implication he is making is
that "lack of evidence" for Abraham's existence (outside the Bible and
Qur'an) means that Abraham did not exist. However, this is a logically
flawed argument.
For example, prior to the discovery of the ancient Egyptian King
Tutankhamen's tomb, there was no evidence known that King Tut existed. To
conclude, however, that this meant that King Tut did not exist is
obviously wrong.
The weakness of Denis Giron's argument stares you blankly in the face, and
it is remarkable that he seems to be apparently unable to see it.
The mistake Denis Giron makes is that of weak logic. Someone who had a
basic grasp of logic would understand this flaw.
By the way, Free Thought identified himself as "Dionisio Giron" (who I
presume is the same person as Denis Giron) in email he wrote to the
moderators on Dec. 16, 1999. I thought I'd use his real name in my
posts for clarity and convenience.
Wassalamu alaikum,
__________________________________________________________________________
Fariduddien Rice Email : farid @ stormcity.com
Australian web site http://homepages.haqq.com.au/salam/
US mirror site http://www.stormcity.com/salam/
"And how many Signs in the heavens and the earth do they pass by?
Yet they turn (their faces) away from them!" - Qur'an 12:105
__________________________________________________________________________
MyTajMahal
<85h2b8$dvk$1...@samba.rahul.net>, Free Thought <cebu...@hotmail.com> writes:
Dr Saifullah wrote:
>Can Jameel furnish historical proof that
>the story of Abraham, as found in the Bible, is true?
Greetings to all
Firstly the AOL NG readers are in a total mess and so I didn't see Dr Saifullah
kind reply except via deja.com. In fact only one SRI post from the 10th and
the 11th got onto the reader - but I will reply by email to SRI.
This comment above is where Dr Saifullah has no option but to muddy the waters
of the discussion. What people may or may not claim for the Biblical account is
irrelevant and has no bearing on the validity of the Qur'anic account. The
Qur'anic accounts of Abraham must be examined for what they are and in the
light of Muhammad's agenda.
>I have a great
>respect for Jameel, but I have to say he is wholly incapable of
>furnishing any proof of such a thing.
Thanks for the compliment which is returned - However the discussion on the
validity or otherwise of the Biblical account exists in a different "paradigm"
>from the Qur'anic one and is unlikely to get through SRI moderation. All I do
say is that there is at least the possibility of an oral and a later writen
tradition preserved within the Israelite community of the father of the nation.
As far as the Qur'an is concerned there is no such link nor possibility and,
as is widely acknowledged, the sources for many of Muhammad's stories are to be
found in Jewish legends.
MyTaj...@aol.com
http://x23.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=571077845
Greetings to all
I wrote:
>>First let me understand correctly. Is Dr Saifullah claiming, without
>>qualification, that this story which appears in the Qur'an is absolute
>>historical fact?
Dr Saifullah responded
>I am sorry to say that your understanding about what I said was very poor.
Dr Saifullah earlier asked me to give evidence "....that Abraham did not do
what is mentioned int he Qur'an?" I simply asked for clarification if this
meant Dr Saifullah was claiming the Qur'anic story to be historical fact. Is
this too difficult given that he asks it of me and so he evades the issue?.
No wonder at FreeThought's amusement over our discussion :-)
Dr Saifullah
>Since you claimed that the story of Abraham in the Qur'an was a legend,
>I asked you to furnish a historical evidence to show precisely that.
>By historical evidence, we do not mean the Bible; what we mean is
>extra-scriptural confirmation of your claim.
In another post I had written:
>>Another story which found its way into the Qur'an was the midrashic story
made
>>up by the 2nd century Rabbi Hiyya about Abraham breaking idols. Once again
no
>>Jew or Christian would claim that Rabbi Hiyya wrote "Scripture". The whole
>>idea is absurd. According to some authorities Sura Anbiya, in which this
>>ficticious story appears, is also a Meccan sura.
Dr Saifullah responded:
>No sensible Jew or a Christian would claim without evidence that such a
>story is a 'myth'.
Jameel
>>What evidence is Dr Saifullah willing to accept?
Dr Saifullah
>Historical evidence, which is an extra-scriptural to support your statement.
The definition of "Historical" evidence being "extra-scriptural" is
interesting but since the good Dr elsewhere makes extensive use of the
Encyclopedia Judaica and other appeals to authority I suspect we might be
allowed to do the same with respect.
Here is a little taste of some of the "extra-scriptural" evidence - but first
the definitions:
1. A dictionary definition of Midrashic stories
"Ancient Jewish commentary on part of the Hebrew Scriptures attached to the
Biblical text" (The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary)
Nothing more than commentary and illustrations. He who investigates Jewish
religious literature understands the nature and purpose of Midrashic stories.
What Dr Saifullah is trying to do is ask for "Historical" proof that Grimm's
fairytales are fairytales
2. Definition of midrash from the Encyclopedia Judaica 1996 Jerusalem edition
vol 7
a. "The Midrash of the Torah is the lesson derived from the verse" (p1508)
b. "Genesis Rabbah...Oldest aggadic Midrash (p1510)
c. "The midrash consist of a collection of homilies (p 1510)
d. Directly under the heading "Fiction Hebrew" - "The *story* in Talmudic
Midrashic literature" (v6 p1261)
3. Rabbinic opinion
a. The testimony of a former Chief Rabbi:
"The fight against idolatry begun by the Prophets (Biblical Prophets) was
continued by the Pharisees. Abraham, the father of the Hebrew people, they
taught, started on his career as an idol wrecker. In legends, parables and
discourses, they showed forth the follow and futility of idol worship..." (
Former Chief Rabbi J H Hertz from the "Book of Jewish Thoughts" 1942 - Pub -
The office of the Chief Rabbi London)
b. The testimony Of Rabbi Dr I Epstein BA, PhD, D.Lit from the work which
contains the Midrash on Abraham breaking idols which Muhammad retold in his
own words.
"The considerable indebtidness of Mahommed to the midrash for the legendary
and other material which he incorporated in the Koran has already been proved
over a century ago by Abraham Geiger in his work..." (Foreword to the Midrash
Rabbah Genesis Page XX - Soncino edition 1961 translated by Rabbi H Freidman
BA, PhD and Maurice Simon MA)
4. More from the Encyclopedia Judaica
a. "When Muhammad began to fill his suras with stories of the Prophets,
Abraham received a large share mainly on the basis of material from Talmudic
legends.......He smashed idols of his father, was thrown into a furnace, was
miraculously saved and migrated to the Holy Land...(v2 p119)
b. On another topic of interest "There is little doubt that in one form or
another he (Muhammad) heard the story of Abraham as the founder of the Holy
Temple in Jerusalem as told in the book of Jubilees (22:23-4). With the aid
of this new material Muhammad constructed the ingenious theory that Abraham
built the Kabaa with his son Ishmael" (v2 p120)
c. "The Koranic story of Abraham which contains many Rabbinical legends is
fully covered by H Speyer in...(v2 p121)
Conclusion: It is very evident that Muhammad had a fixation with Abraham as
a foundation tool upon which to construct his own religion and claim to
prophethood. It is a far bigger topic than I have time or space to detail
here. But to answer to Dr Saifullah's statement:
>No sensible Jew or a Christian would claim without evidence that such a
>story is a 'myth'.
Yes we have the knowledge, understanding and evidence to believe that this
story which Muhammad claimed was historical "divine revelation" is indeed
rooted in legend and myth.
Finally Dr Saifullah writes:
>Why is that you have such a great difficulty in bringing historical
>evidence to claim that the story of Queen of Sheba and
>Solomon in the Qur'an is a legend and that in the Bible is true?
Lets take the two questions seperately:
1. I did not have difficulty in bring evidence from many sources including,
translators of the Targum, scholarly opinions from a number of writers and
the authorities which Dr Saifullah quotes namely the Encyclopedia Judaica and
the Jewish Encyclopedia. Dr Saifullah is at complete liberty to dismiss the
sources and evidence I brought but they have been presented and they are
there and are valid nontheless.
2. I never sought to give "Historical" evidence that the Biblical account as
preserved within the Israelite community was true. What is relevant to SRI
is a discussion about the Qur'anic story and its origins.
>Just claim that the Qur'anic stories are legend and it becomes so.
>Proof is unnecessary belief is sufficient.
Just claim that the Qur'anic stories are Historical fact and it becomes so.
Proof is unnecessary.
>and now we have Jameel treading the same path.
The same path as the believers in Muhammad?
What do you think Dr... are we from the same beautiful village in North
India?
May God bless you and kind regards to all who seek truth
Jameel
Dr. Christoph Heger
"Free Thought" <cebu...@hotmail.com> in his posting of 12 Jan 2000
05:10:00 GMT made a lot of interesting and valid points. I am curious to
read the promised continuation.
Concerning this item:
> ... Whether Abraham was a historical character or not, the names Abram
> and Abraham have very important meanings, particularly the latter.
> Abraham is hebrew fro "Father of a Great multitude" (sort of), and it
> relates to the Hebrew folklore in regards to how Abraham's descendants
> would multiply. Does the name Ibrahim have any meaning at all? Are the
> names of prophets so ambiguous? What does the name Ibrahim mean, and
> why was he given this name? How did it relate to his mission?
No, the word "Ibrahiym" has no meaning, it is no "speaking name", as we
say in German. The version "Ibrahiym" was the result of a
misunderstanding. In the early days when the Syriac script was adapted
to become a means to write Arabic various orthographic systems were
competing. You can realize that in the old Hijazi Qur'ans. If you are
accostumed to one orthographic system you will be inclined to pronounce
words written in another orthographic system incorrectly. This happened
to the word correctly pronounced "Abraham", too.
How this misunderstanding happened was made clear by Dr. Puin (you know,
the guy with the Sanaa Qur'ans!) in his speech at an orientalists
conference in Leiden, The Netherlands, in 1998. I may share with you an
abbreviated version of his evidence:
You know the specialty in Arabic orthography which is called "alif
maqSuwrah": writing a long vowel "a:" with the rasm of a "y" and not as
usual with an alif. This alif maqSuwrah in Classical Arabic is allowed
only at the end of a word, like in "dhikray", "kubray" etc. Traditional
Qur'an orthography - as opposed to usual orthography of Classical Arabic
- retains the "y" even if the "a:" is not in a final position, but
shifts into a medial position by the addition of a suffix to the word.
The usual explanation is that it is still considered as an alif
maqSuwrah for etymological reasons.
In a number of the old Hijazi Qur'ans, however, this alif maqSuwrah also
in the midst of a word is rather widely used. There you are: Write
"Abraha:m" with an alif maqSuwrah to express the long vowel "a:", after
you have forgotten that the yaa' is an alif maqSuwrah you will read
"Abrahiym". The change of "Abrahiym" to "Ibrahiym" is a lesser problem,
of course, since it does not effect the rasm, only the pronunciation.
It is very probable that this error quickly became popular as a means
for the Muslim Arabs to emancipate from Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Jews and
Syriac speaking Christians. The Arabic speaking Muslims got the chance
to boast that they, and not Jews and Christians, learnt from the Qur'an
the "right" pronunciation.
As it is daily experience from all over the world, orthographic reforms
never are complete or totally consistent in rewriting texts. There
always remain some traces of the former state of affairs. So in the
spelling of "Abraha:m/Ibrahiym", too. This may explain why you find the
spelling "Ibrahiym" throughout the Qur'an, but in Surah 2 the spelling
withouth the "y" in the last syllable, as if you were expected to read
"Abraham" (taking into account that the vowel signs are an later
addition).
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Fariduddien Rice
On 13 Jan 2000, Dr. Christoph Heger wrote:
> No, the word "Ibrahiym" has no meaning, it is no "speaking name", as we
> say in German. The version "Ibrahiym" was the result of a
> misunderstanding. In the early days when the Syriac script was adapted
> to become a means to write Arabic various orthographic systems were
> competing. You can realize that in the old Hijazi Qur'ans. If you are
> accostumed to one orthographic system you will be inclined to pronounce
> words written in another orthographic system incorrectly. This happened
> to the word correctly pronounced "Abraham", too.
Heger's theory seems to presume that the written Qur'anic text came prior
to the recitation of the text, and that subsequent recitation of the text
was then based on the written text. That is how he tries to explain what
he thinks is a misinterpretation, by having the recitation be based on
what he assumes to be a misread writing.
The Islamic point of view regarding this is the exact opposite. The
Islamic account is that the recitation of the Qur'an came first, and the
writing of it came second.
Heger's view, which seems to assume that the writing came first, and the
recitation came second, seems to me to be quite unlikely. This is because
of the various accounts of the recitation and writing of the Qur'an in the
Qur'an itself and in the hadiths, which indicate that the recitation of
the Qur'an was prior to its writing.
Heger would have to explain away the evidence we have in front of us that
the recitation was prior, in order to try to support his own speculation
that the writing was first.
However, I don't think this would be the first time Heger conveniently
ignores the facts in order to support his own speculative theories!
In academia, you are always under pressure to come up with something new,
and those who are not able to make legitimate new discoveries are
sometimes tempted to make new "discoveries" up out of nothing.
Free Thought
Fariduddien Rice <dr...@see.text.for.email.address> wrote:
>...
If I were Muslim, I would say as salaam 'ala man ittba'a ad-daleel, who
sees that there are multitudes who wish to guide, but few who wish to
offer evidence.
> As I pointed out in my earlier post, Denis Giron's
> arguments here are based upon the implication of
> weak logic.
Well, first off, my apologies for not responding to that other post. My
time available on the internet is quite limited. I promise to respond to
your other post within a week (sorry if that sounds rather long) but I
will respond to this one quickly.
> The implication he is making is that "lack of
> evidence" for Abraham's existence (outside
> the Bible and Qur'an) means that Abraham did
> not exist. However, this is a logically
> flawed argument.
Well, I would strongly disagree that the argument is "logically flawed".
As you correctly went on to point out, there have been things in the
past that could not be proven due to lack of evidence, but were then
proven at a later date. The example you gave was King Tut. Another
example might be the "Komoto Dragon", just recently found in Indonesia
within the last few decades (prior to which people waved off accounts of
some giant lizzard as myth). Regardless, I was touching more on what Dr.
Saifullah was saying. In my other post, the non-historical issue was
justifiably attacked, however in this post I was merely building on Dr.
Saifullah's comments (as I just stated). Dr. Saifullah pointed to a lack
of historical evidence to back up the Biblical account of Abraham. This
was in relation to the argument over which story of Abraham is
authentic, the one in the Bible, or the one in the Koran. Dr Saifullah
attacked the somewhat non-historical nature of the Biblical account. He
correctly pointed out that it could not be proven via historical
evidence. I was merely showing that such an assertion is correct, but it
can also blow up in the face of a Muslim who uses it (similar to the way
Andy Banister touched on Mahdi's Pharaoh's magician argument in regards
to asserting unscientific myth as found in a holy writ). Dr. Saifullah
is correct in questioning the non-historical nature of certain tales. I
just wanted to show how this process can be taken further in regards to
Islam. Dr. Saifullah pointed out there is no historical evidence to back
up the Biblical account of Abraham, and I merely pointed out that there
is also a lack of evidence to prove the Muslim version of the story of
Abraham. The squabble thus becomes a matter of faith. The Christian will
believe the Bible, and the Muslim will believe the Koran, with neither
one being backed up historically.
> The weakness of Denis Giron's argument stares
> you blankly in the face, and it is remarkable
> that he seems to be apparently unable to see it.
> The mistake Denis Giron makes is that of weak logic.
> Someone who had a basic grasp of logic would
> understand this flaw.
No, by all means I understand the flaw in such an argument. As you
correctly pointed out with the King Tut example, and I pointed out with
the Komoto Dragon example, lack of evidence does *NOT* prove the thing
does not exist. However, does this fact mean we should just accept such
a thing? As I have stated in the past, there is no evidence that Allah
exists, and there is no evidence that Ibrahim, Musa, Isa, et cetera,
ever existed either! There is no historical evidence to back any of
these stories up, which gives me every right to doubt them, and to doubt
Islam. You are correct in pointing out that a lack of evidence does not
necessarily mean a thing does not exist, but such an argument as the one
you are putting forth does not justify anything. I'm going to tell you
flat out, right now, that Santa Claus does not exist. There is no
evidence that he exists. However, being that King Tut and the Komoto
Dragons were later discovered, does this mean belief in Santa Claus is
rational? Citing examples such as King Tut, and my Komoto Dragons,
cannot justify anything. It would justify Islam just as easily as it
justifies belief in elves and Leprachauns.
The idea I put forth in that other post (which I promise to respond to)
was that the secular stance is that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are
mere myth. The idea was that non of these characters were historical,
and thus the assumption that Islam borrowed characters from the Jewish
folklore is more acceptable (and such an assertion is strongly
established by comparisons of the Koran and Rabbinic literature).
> By the way, Free Thought identified himself as
> "Dionisio Giron" (who I presume is the same
> person as Denis Giron) in email he wrote to the
> moderators on Dec. 16, 1999.
Yes, "Denis" is merely the english version of a Spanish name. Anyone who
would have asked would have known, I've actually told many people. Also,
I myself have used my name in a few posts (see my post on "Jews for
Allah" or "Interpreting the Gita (by an Atheist)".
Please visit the Secular Web's page on Islam!
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/
Fariduddien Rice
I will try to get to the heart of Giron's argument, which I think is in
the passage quoted below....
On 14 Jan 2000, Denis Giron a.k.a. Free Thought wrote:
> [...] lack of evidence does *NOT* prove the thing
> does not exist. However, does this fact mean we should just accept such
> a thing? As I have stated in the past, there is no evidence that Allah
> exists, and there is no evidence that Ibrahim, Musa, Isa, et cetera,
> ever existed either! There is no historical evidence to back any of
> these stories up, which gives me every right to doubt them, and to doubt
> Islam. You are correct in pointing out that a lack of evidence does not
> necessarily mean a thing does not exist, but such an argument as the one
> you are putting forth does not justify anything. I'm going to tell you
> flat out, right now, that Santa Claus does not exist. There is no
> evidence that he exists. However, being that King Tut and the Komoto
> Dragons were later discovered, does this mean belief in Santa Claus is
> rational? Citing examples such as King Tut, and my Komoto Dragons,
> cannot justify anything. It would justify Islam just as easily as it
> justifies belief in elves and Leprachauns.
Pointing out that the *lack of evidence* for something existing does not
preclude its possible existence, is not an argument in favor of that
thing's existence. That was not what I was trying to do. I was simply
pointing out that saying there is a "lack of evidence" for something does
not mean it does not exist.
In the context we were speaking, I was talking about evidence, outside of
the Bible or the Qur'an, for the stories of the lives of various early
Prophets, such as Abraham, Noah, Moses, etc. (peace be with them). I was
not trying to prove that they existed, but instead I was pointing out that
you have not proved that they did not exist.
An individual's faith in Islam is not usually founded upon a belief in
these earlier Prophets. Usually it is the other way around - Muslims
believe in these earlier Prophets *because* they believe in Islam, and in
what is stated in the Qur'an. So, it seems to me that Denis Giron is
looking at things backwards.
The point we come to then is, what is the evidence that the Qur'an is from
Allah? I think this is where the crux of the issue lies.
There is a lot of evidence that the Qur'an is from Allah, and which
evidence people prefer depends on who you speak to, because there are many
different reasons why people convert to Islam....
Many believe in Islam due to its general logical approach. My father, who
is a convert from Christianity to Islam, came to believe in Islam through
this approach. He thought that the idea that God (the Father) had to
kill his Son in order to save people was nonsensical. He would ask
himself, "If God can do everything, why can't God save people without
having to kill his own Son?" Many Christians still have difficulties with
this and also other aspects of the Trinity. Islam seems to be much more
straightforward -- everything really does flow on from the Shahada, "There
is no god but God, and Muhammad is his Prophet" -- and Islam doesn't seem
to have the kinds of theological conundrums which are present in many
other religions.
Another reason why people believe is due to personal spiritual
experiences. The different types of these experiences are too numerous to
elaborate upon here, so I won't elaborate on this now.
Also, many spiritual seekers often come to their own beliefs about the
world (through their own efforts), and when they eventually read the
Qur'an, they come to recognize in the Qur'an a confirmation of the beliefs
they had already come to independently. Many people speak about coming to
Islam in this way.
In fact, this seems to me to be the most common way that people come to
believe in Islam -- through reading the Qur'an, and recognizing it as
the truth, usually to their own surprise. This is because reading the
Qur'an comes to many people as a spiritual "last resort", after going
through Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, and so on....
The Qur'an refers to this phenomenon explicitly:
"And when they listen to the revelation received by the Apostle, thou
wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the
truth." [Qur'an 5:86, Yusuf Ali translation]
So, to sum up, in general Muslims don't believe in Islam *because* they
believe in Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc. (peace be with them). Rather, they
believe in these Prophets *because* they believe in Islam. So, showing
that there is no evidence outside of the Qur'an or Bible that these people
existed will not disprove Islam in any way to believing Muslims, because a
*lack of evidence* for their existence is not the same as proving that
they didn't exist!
Wassalamu alaikum,
Free Thought
Fariduddien Rice <dr...@see.text.for.email.address> wrote:
> Assalamu alaikum,
A very good post by Mr. Rice. Straight and to the point as usual.
> Pointing out that the *lack of evidence* for
> something existing does not preclude its
> possible existence, is not an argument in favor
> of that thing's existence. That was not what
> I was trying to do. I was simply pointing out
> that saying there is a "lack of evidence" for
> something does not mean it does not exist.
And your point is well taken. I agree with you 100% that pointing to the
lack of evidence does not automatically prove this thing does not exist.
I think we've both established this fact with examples such as King Tut,
and Indonesia's beautiful Komoto Dragon. However, the lack of evidence
is still quite relevant to these types of discussions. Western scholars
for quite some time have been demanding that the Jews and Christians
prove the characters in their folklore exist. John Meslier, a Catholic
Priest turned Atheist, pointed out how the Biblical characters cannot be
supported anymore than the stories told by Native Americans in the
Amazon. Now people are starting to notice Islam, and the stryking
similarities between Islam and Christianity (and Judaism). It seems odd
to many rational thinkers that Islam seems to have all the same
characters as previous folklores, that also happened to be present
during Muhammad's time and in his area. For the argument that Islam is
not from God, but rather from Christians, Jews and others, one has to
dwell on the many similarities. The Muslim explanation for the fact that
Islam and Judaism having the same characters in their folklore is to say
that these characters really existed, and that Judaism/Christianity was
at least partly telling the truth. Well, the skeptic then says "prove
it!" This is where the non-historical and lack of evidence arguments
come out.
> I was not trying to prove that they
> existed, but instead I was pointing
> out that you have not proved that they
> did not exist.
But I would argue that the burden of proof is incumbent on those who
want others to believe that they exist. Your above argument is like the
argument Muslims offer Atheists regarding Allah: "Prove he doesn't
exist." The lack of evidence is a strong argument on the skeptic's
behalf, what does the Muslim offer? Practically nothing. In these
debates, it eventually reaches the point where the Muslim says "fine,
believe whatever you want, to your way, and to me mine." the burden of
proof is not on me? It is incumbent on you to prove they exist being
that you make this claim. For example, suppose I claimed there is a six
foot carnivorous frog in the amazon that eats people. Would it be your
job to prove this frog didn't exist? Of course not. Imagine if I claimed
pink elephants exist in the arctic, and when the Scientific community
said "prove it" I responded with "prove they don't!" The point is, the
lack of evidence makes your claims extremely weak.
> An individual's faith in Islam is not
> usually founded upon a belief in
> these earlier Prophets. Usually it
> is the other way around - Muslims
> believe in these earlier Prophets
> *because* they believe in Islam, and
> in what is stated in the Qur'an.
Thanks for straightening that out for me, although this was already my
understanding of Islam (and belief in Abrahamic faiths in general). This
is what gives some the impression that Muslims stubbonly refuse to look
at their religion critically or rationally. Prove they exist. The Muslim
response is "we need no proof" or "the fact that it says so in the Koran
is all the proof I need". Yet these same Muslims get upset when
Christians say that the fact that the bible says Jesus was crucified is
all the proof they need in order to believe that he was.
> There is a lot of evidence that the
> Qur'an is from Allah, and which evidence
> people prefer depends on who you speak
> to, because there are many different
> reasons why people convert to Islam....
These days I would say such evidence is rather weak. There are the
scientific claims found with "it is truth" and Maurice Bucaille, but
that is just extreme reinterpretation. Anyone could do that. Numerous
scholars have done that with Hindu scriptures, and recently Rabbi Dovid
Brown wrote "Mystery in the Creation" a book that proves the Torah is
perfectly in line with secular science, predicted every scientific
breakthrough, blah blah blah, in he does a better job than "it is truth"
but it's still the same old nonsense, reinterpreting some vague
manuscript written many centuries ago by superstitious desert nomads.
> Many believe in Islam due to its
> general logical approach.
As do many Christians. I have been to numerous seminars where a pastor
will speak of how "this is the most logical faith" and go on for hours
and hours. Many westerners who embrace eastern philosophies such as
Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism talk about the logic and truth to these
ideologies. Anton LaVey has written books on how logical Satanism is. I
think while many people find Islam logical, many have also read the
Koran and have not been the least bit impressed.
> My father, who is a convert from
> Christianity to Islam, came to believe
> in Islam through this approach. He thought
> that the idea that God (the Father) had to
> kill his Son in order to save people was
> nonsensical. He would ask himself, "If God
> can do everything, why can't God save people
> without having to kill his own Son?"
I know the feeling, but regardless, many still find Christianity very
logical. You can't chalk up every Christian as being ignorant of Islam,
or having never questioned his faith (nor am I accusing you of doing
so). I think there are examples such as Jochen Katz, Christoph Heger,
John Gilchrist, and many others who have spent decades as a Christian,
and find it quite logical, and have also studied Islam, and were not at
all impressed. Many people do indeed find the crucifixion story absurd.
But then again, similar arguments are also pressed against Islam as
well. I find it hard to believe that Allah, a being who could do
anything, is unable to control Satan. Some will argue that Allah wills
that Satan lead people atray, but then, if it was the will of Allah, why
does he punish those people when they were lead astray by his will? It
is absurd to assume that someone should be held guilty of something when
it was the will of God in the first place. If all things are the will of
Allah, it seems as though a sick game is being played where he wills all
things, and knows all things, and then punishes people for something he
knew was going to happen, and something he set up to happen. This
argument could go on and on forever, as this is a very illogical set up.
> Many Christians still have difficulties
> with this and also other aspects of
> the Trinity.
Any many more find the Trinity perfectly logical, and many people also
have difficulty believing Islam is true. The non-Muslims out number the
Muslims 4-1 on this planet. Now, I'm not going to be so silly as to
argue that every single one of the 4 billion+ non-Muslims on this planet
have studied Islam, or are even aware of it, but I will tell you that
there are millions and millions of people who have come into contact
with Islam, and waved it off.
> Islam seems to be much more straightforward
> everything really does flow on from the Shahada,
> "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is
> his Prophet"
And the Upanishads seem to be much more straightforward in their
description of the divine nature of the supreme being, as compared to
that put forth by Islam. This is something I have said before. Brahman
is the "Supreme Self". Consider these two quick descriptions of Brahman
>from the Upanishads:
(1) The supreme Self (Brahman) is beyond name and form, Beyond the
senses, inexhaustible, Without begining, without end, Beyond time and
space, and casualty, Eternal, immutable.
[Eknath Easwaren, The Upanishads (Petraluma Calif.: Nilgiri 1987) p.
122.]
(2) Brahman our eyes cannot see, nor words express; Brahman cannot be
grasped even by the mind. We do not know, we cannot understand, Because
Brahman is different from the known And Brahman is different from the
unknown. Thus we have heard from the illumined ones.
[Eknath Easwaren, The Upanishads (Petraluma Calif.: Nilgiri 1987) p.
68.]
I am not a Hindu, but if we're going to be logical, I would think
Brahman is superior to Allah. Brahman is not a "being" like a man.
Something that is concerned with certain things, or focuses on the
earth, or gets angry. Anger is an emotion. Brahman is beyond that.
Brahman does not punish people based on which text or which prophet they
are loyal to. In Islam, if a Christian has heard Islam's message
thoroughly, and still decides to be a Christian, he will be denied
paradise. This is illogical. Imagine a perfectly monotheist Christian,
who leads a good life, being denied paradise because he wasn't convinced
Muhammad was a prophet of God. On judgementday, that Christian should
ask Allah why the arguments for Muhammad's prophethood were so
inadequate. Brahman has never ordered humans to punish those who don't
believe in him. The list goes on and on....