Could i please have a Muslim answer this question about the 72 virgins
Dave in Lake Villa
holy, moral, and of very high ethics. If Allahs nature is one of
extreme morality and holiness being The Creator , and expects Muslims to
be sexually pure in this earthly life , how can he all of a sudden
change his nature, morals, and values and give 72 Virgins for endless
sex in eternity as a reward to the faithful/moral Muslim man ? Please
explain why this is not hypocritical of Allah and the Muslim Religion .
Thank you.
Hajj Abujamal
Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
> ... 72 Virgins for endless sex in eternity as a reward to the
> faithful/moral Muslim man? Please explain why this is not
> hypocritical of Allah and the Muslim Religion.
You'll have to take your question to Hollywood and the people
there who invented this uniquely Western sexual fantasy. What man in
his right mind would want to be surrounded by 72 virgins?
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:16547-459...@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
<snip> ...
>I am told that Islam ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Isn't this a prime example of the 'coverall phrase' when commentators use
the tricky 'I am told that' or 'Many people say' predicates? Attributing to
people things they didn't say, but merely assented to, is an old
journalistic trick. Put a leading question and you get a story either way?
That is why politicians instinctively prefer not to give a straight answer
to a straight question.
It's as though Muslims in this forum have to be factual 'politicians' when
loaded questions about Islam are fallaciously slanted in this guileful vein.
Forearmed is forewarned as 'politicians' say and do tactically, it's the
only appropriate response! One might ask what has morality got to do with
this intrinsic trickery?
--
Peace
--
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
faiz....@gmail.com
this fantasy comes from baseless stories about suicide bombers.
If there are any Qur'an verses that are a source of this strange
concept, we can talk about them. Are there any---about 72 virgins or
even virgins?
Irfan
On Dec 31, 2:14 am, DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa)
wrote:
Hajj Abujamal
dhimmify wrote:
> I do not see how hollywood could have instigated this, this
> is in the quran, how is this a hollywood fabrication?
Please provide a precise reference in the Qur'an to "72 Virgins
for endless sex in eternity as a reward to the faithful/moral Muslim
man" or, when you find yourself unable to do so, admit that failure.
dhimmify
quran, how is this a hollywood fabrication?
__________
Obsession:
Radical islam's war against the West
http://obsessionthemovie.blogspot.com
Vladimir
> Salaam!
>
> Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
>
> > ... 72 Virgins for endless sex in eternity as a reward to the
> > faithful/moral Muslim man? Please explain why this is not
> > hypocritical of Allah and the Muslim Religion.
>
> You'll have to take your question to Hollywood and the people
> there who invented this uniquely Western sexual fantasy. What man in
> his right mind would want to be surrounded by 72 virgins?
Dave in Villa is asking a very good question. Will Hajj Abujamal get to
avoid the issue and let this important question be forgotten among the
threads, with just a cheap, irrelevant, prude, sexist and racist joke?
Is he denying that there are virgins in the Islamic paradise? Hajj
Abujamal might be one of those reformed Muslims who reject orthodox
Islamic views, and one who likes to pick and choose hadiths according
to his liking. Thats fine. But even reformed Muslims cannot avoid the
question of virgins in paradise because it is not only in hadeths, it
is also in the Quran.
While most world religions point at ascetism and denying the pleasures
of the flesh as a means for purifying the soul and for becoming holy,
how can Islam describe the paradise as a place of pleasure of the
flesh, with lots of sex and delicious fruits? In such a case, a Muslim
who is denying worldly pleasures for afterlife reward, is not being
moral, but only being prudent and smart. He is not purifying his soul
and becoming a more perfect being, he is only delaying pleasure to gain
more of it.
Best Regards
Hajj Abujamal
Vladimir wrote:
> Dave in Villa is asking a very good question.
And I have provided a direct and relevant answer. This "72 Virgins
for endless sex in eternity as a reward to the faithful/moral Muslim
man" myth is just another pornograsphic fantasy emerging from a
sexually repressed society that makes a commodity of women's bodies.
"You'll have to take your question to Hollywood and the people there
who invented this uniquely Western sexual fantasy" is a complete answer.
> Is he denying that there are virgins in the Islamic paradise?
Certainly not. But this "72 virgins" myth is Made In America.
> Hajj Abujamal might be one of those reformed Muslims who reject
> orthodox Islamic views ...
Sure ~ that's why Arabs call me "The Ultra-Orthodox Shaykh."
> and one who likes to pick and choose hadiths according
> to his liking.
Please produce a single hadith or any other reference to "72
Virgins for endless sex in eternity as a reward to the faithful/moral
Muslim man."
> While most world religions point at ascetism and denying the
> pleasures of the flesh as a means for purifying the soul and
> for becoming holy
Pure Nimrod. ALLAH (English: "God") is The Holy, we humans are
made of clay, not "spirit" or smokeless fire. We eat, we answer the
call of nature, we copulate, we bleed, and we die. Jesus 'alaihi
as-sallam was accompanied everywhere he went by the Ruh ul-Quddus, the
Spirit of Holiness (English: "The Holy Spirit"), and is reported to
have said "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but God."
Where does mankind get these pretensions of holiness, and why is
that associated with asceticism and abjuring the good things that
ALLAH has provided for us? We are not gods, we are not "holy," even
though some people idolize others and take creatures made of clay as
their gods, as we see in Hollywood and our mainstream media.
> how can Islam describe the paradise as a place of pleasure of the
> flesh, with lots of sex and delicious fruits?
Those who enter the Garden say "This is like what we were given
before," and enjoy the pleasurable aspects of human existence with
none of the negatives. Firdaus (English: "paradise") is described a
bit differently, although that's not relevant to this discussion.
I'm a flesh and blood man, I enjoy comforts and a broad spectrum
of pleasures, whether physical, emotional, or spiritual, all resulting
from being a physical creature. The idea of being some kind of
vaporous and vacuous "spirit" critter looping around "heaven" singing
Hosannas for all eternity holds no appeal for me whatever. I'll take
green grasses, steak and lobster tails dipped in butter, and pleasant
companions any day over some kind of ethereal insubstantiality with no
apparent point to it. I serve ALLAH by pursuing His Command to
"Produce, Proliferate, and Partake as you please," that's the human
nature and my song. ALLAH is my Friend and Companion, and is always
Present with me, just as I am, I don't need to "shed my mortal
remains" or "renounce" anything to be with Him.
> In such a case, a Muslim who is denying worldly pleasures for
> afterlife reward, is not being moral, but only being prudent
> and smart.
No, he is being deceived, most likely by himself. There is no
asceticism in Islam.
> He is not purifying his soul and becoming a more perfect being,
> he is only delaying pleasure to gain more of it.
And is in for a rather unpleasant surprise.
Just like the sucker who falls for the Hollywood fantasy of "72
virgins."
I'll enjoy my virgins one at a time, thanks. Sex is enjoyable for
good reasons. Human existence is a symphony of sensual delight,
unendurable ecstasy indefinitely prolonged. Turning away from the
good things that ALLAH has provided us accomplishes nothing in the way
of piety ~ it's just the flip side of the coin of becoming too caught
up in them so that one forgets ALLAH. So also does the ascetic run
the risk of being caught up in his own pretentious and presumptive
"holiness."
> Best Regards
James-Yaqub
Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
It is nothing to do with Islam Dave and those who use this claim to
coerce weak minded men to their bidding are the students of Satan,
nothing more.
The greatest difficulty with our religion in these times is that too
few REAL Muslims are standing up to answer perversions with truth. I
regret this and hope it will change before too long.
Yaqub
Altway
Comment:-
You have made several assumptions based on ignorance and naivity
and that is causing your confusion.
Where did you get the ideas about 72 virgins and endless sex from?
And what makes you think that "sex" is evil?
Have you not considered that the ecstacies of sex might be symbols for
the joys of paradise?
Apart from this
As Allah is the creator of all things then the notion of goodness,
morality, ethics etc.
can only come from Him.
There is no such thing as an independent Good by which Allah can be judged.
That would make him subject to it, and Good would be God.
It would be helpful and beneficial if you actually studied and understood
the Quran
before simply regurgitating propaganda you hear from stupid people.
Hamid S. Aziz
Abdelkarim Benoît Evans
DaveInL...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
I am told that Islam is a very moral Religion and that Allah is very
holy, moral, and of very high ethics. If Allahs nature is one of
extreme morality and holiness being The Creator , and expects Muslims to
be sexually pure in this earthly life , how can he all of a sudden
change his nature, morals, and values and give 72 Virgins for endless
sex in eternity as a reward to the faithful/moral Muslim man ? Please
explain why this is not hypocritical of Allah and the Muslim Religion .
Thank you.
Your observation is based on an uninformed notion of what
the Qur'an teaches about the heavenly paradise God has prepared for
those whom by his mercy will be saved. It is a myth that has been used
not only by detractors of Islam but, sadly, by some Muslim extremists
who use the promise of sexual favours in Heaven to tempt the minds of
desparate young men and recruit them for suicide missions.
The Qur'an does not promise 72, 70, 35, 5 or any number of virgins. This
is what the Qur'an says about the reward that awaits the saved in heaven:
"Give glad tidings to those who believe and do righteousness. Their
portion is gardens beneath which rivers flow. ...They have therein pure
*commpanions* and they abide therein forever." (Qur'an 2:25)
"Prepared for the righteous are gardens near their Lord, with rivers
flowing underneath. Therein is their eternal home, with *companions* and
the good pleasure of Allah. For in Allah's sight are all his servants."
(Qur'an 3:15)
"Those who believe and do works of righteousness shall we soon admit to
gardens with rivers running beneath--their eternal home. Therein they
shall have pure and holy *companions*." (Qur'an 4:57)
"We will give them *companions* with large, beautiful, shining eyes.
(Qur'an 52:20)
"We have created their companions by a special creation and made them
virgin--pure and undefiled, beloved by nature and equal in age for the
Companions of the Right Hand [i.e., the saved in heaven]." (Qur'an 56:35)
The creatures referred to are the "houris", allegorical beings of
spiritual perfection and purity. They are symbols of spiritual states of
rapture.
The commentary on 56:35 in Yusuf Ali's version of the Qur'an is
important to know:
"The pronoun "them" in Arabic is in the feminine gender, but lest
grosser ideas of sex should intrude, it is made clear that these
*companions* for heavenly society will be a special creation--of
virginal purity, grace and beauty, inspiring and inspired by love, with
the question of time and age eliminated. Thus every person [men and
women] among the Righteous will have the Bliss of Heaven and the Peace
of Allah."
In the Qur'an, hell is a fire and a place of torment whereas heaven is a
garden and place of bliss. The descriptions are allegorical and
symbolical because heaven and hell are spiritual states outside the
physical and material world that we know. The use of sensual language to
convey the idea of heaven's beauty and the bliss of being in God's
presence are well known to Christians who have read and understood the
allegorical and symbolic language used in the Biblical Song of Solomon
and Revelations.
What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. The Biblical
Song of Solomon, with its sensual and erotic images, is understood by
Christians to be an allegory of the mutual love between Jesus (peace be
on him) and the Church and the mystical union between the Jesus and his
Church, which is described as his heavenly spouse. For the Jews, it was
God's love for his people Israel. The Qur'an image of heaven and the
state of bliss in which the righteous will live is also figurative and
symbolic. It is only ignorant or lascivious minds that make it into
something else.
Where does the tale of 72 virgins in paradise for the mujihaddin come
from. In one well documented instance, it comes from the lips of a
young Muslim man, a Palestinian terrorist who was interviewed by Bob
Simon for the TV program "60 Minutes".
In the interview, the young Hamas terrorist claimed that those who blow
themselves killing many Israelis will go to Paradise and receive 70
houris. Many Muslim viewers were outraged; some of them even charged
that the story of 70 Houris promised to those who fight and die in the
name of Allah for killing the infidels had been "fabricated".
Fabricated by whom? No doubt by the Hamas leaders who subvert young
Muslims by convincing them that they will receive such a reward if they
undertake a successful suicide mission. Suicide missions are against the
laws of military jihad as proclaimed by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be
on him). Wanton killing of non-combatants and destruction of property is
also forbidden by the Prophet. Nevertheless, groups like Hamas convince
their members that such things are permissible and to help in their
recrutement of gullible suicide attackers, tell them that God will give
them 70 virgins in Heaven.
The rewards of Paradise are for all the saved--men and women. Paradise
is the eternal, direct contemplation of God. It cannot be seen or
perceived by the men and women now alive on the earth. In his
revelation to humanity, God describes Pardise allegorically and
symbolically, using terms that mortal men and women, bound by time and
space, can understand. He uses our human experience and our human
senses to describe a spritual state of being that we cannot yet
comprehend directly. This is true in the Qur'an, where the image of the
perfect garden is used and in the Bible where the images of alabaster
thrones and streets of gold are used. Both are allegorical and
symbolical descriptions meant to suggest to man's limited, mortal mind
what the unlimited pleasure and joy of heavenly communion with God will
be like.
In Surah 36, God says this about Paradise, which in the Qur'an is often
called the Garden. For desert-dwelling people Gardens were the
perfection of human comfort and pleasure.
God says: "Truly, the Companions of the Garden shall on that Day have
joy in all that they do. They and their associates will be in groves of
shade, reclining on thrones. Every fruit will be there for them; they
shall have whichever they call for. And 'Peace!'--a Word from their Lord
Most Merciful."
The "associates", who are called in some other verses "companions",
"houris", "brothers" and even "spouses", are a symbol of the shared
happiness of heaven. We will not be isolated souls, alone on some
eternal cloud. We will share everything with other souls in a place
provided with homes of happiness, situated in soothing shade, furnished
with thrones of dignity and peace. To interpret such metaphorical
language in gross terms of sexual licentiuousness is wrong. Just as it
would be wrong for a Christian to interpret the Song of Solomon in
sexual terms rather than understanding that the erotic description of
the shared delights of lovers in that Biblical book is an allegory of
the heavenly relation between Christ (the "bridegroom") and his church
(his heavenly "bride").
We might well ask ourselves if anything like human, physical sexual
differentiation will even exist in heaven. Souls, after all, are
spiritual beings and the resurrection body is not the same as our
earthly flesh and blood.
This distinction between earthly existence and heavenly existence is
shared by Christians.
In his first letter to the Christian community at Corinth, Paul says
that "all flesh is not the same flesh". The flesh of men is not like the
flesh of fish or of birds. He goes on to say, "So also is the
Ressurection of the Dead. It is planted in corruption; it is raised in
incorruption. It is planted in dishonour; it is raised in glory. It is
planted in weakness; it is raised in power. It is planted a natural
body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there
is a spiritual body. ...Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of
God. ...Behold, I show you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we
shall all be changed...For this mortal must but on immortality and this
corruptible must put on incorruption."
All faithful believers--irregardless of their physical sex on
earth--will receive the SAME reward, as we read in Surah 33:
"For Muslim men and women,-- for believing men and women, for
devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are
patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men
and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny
themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men
and women who engage much in Allah's praise,-- for them has Allah
prepared forgiveness and great reward."
And that reward is not an endless sex orgy.
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoīt Evans
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoīt Evans
forfo...@yahoo.com
Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
> Thank you.
I think your mind is working differently with many of muslims when it
come to the word "Virgin". Please tell us what is the "Virgin" means
according to you.
Usually with this way our differences and many misunderstanding solved.
John Smith
> holy, moral, and of very high ethics.
Then I encourage you do your own research.
Dont rely on 2nd hand information but get a copy of the Quran, Hadith, Sira
etc and check for yourself.
Make sure you have checked first before making statements here.
Cordially
John Smith
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1167564123....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Dave in Villa is asking a very good question. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Paraphrasing, Dave in Villa is asking a very good loaded question. So from
an ethical point of view how can the fallacious 'loaded question' ever be a
good? Isn't that the subtle distinction that's missing from most anti-Muslim
posts in this forum? Aren't you, and many others of similar ilk, judging
Muslims and Islam then on a fallacious understanding, which has no ethical
or moral foundation, intellectual or otherwise? Isn't that a good question,
if you have a ethical conscience?
--
Peace
--
For those who do not think, it is best at least to rearrange their
prejudices once in a while. [Luther Burbank]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Robert
It seems that the idea of 72 virgins can be partly traced to a hadith,
At-Tirmidi's collection, quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir. The reward
for the people of Heaven will be "an abode where there are 80,000
servants and 72 wives."
That the joys of Heaven include sex with virgins is clear from the
Koran:
"In these [gardens] will be mates of modest gaze, whom neither man nor
invisible being will have touched." (55:56)
"We shall mate them with companions pure, most beautiful of eye."
(52;20).
Putting this material together one gets the idea of 72 virgins for a
man's pleasure in eternity. So it seems it's not a Hollywood or
anti-Muslim invention, and you seem to welcome it and approve, so why
do you object?.
mugz
Two points need to be noted. First, there is no mention anywhere in the
Koran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and
second, the dark-eyed damsels are available for all Muslims, not just
martyrs.
It is in the Islamic Traditions that we find the 72 virgins in heaven
specified: in a Hadith (Islamic Tradition) collected by Al-Tirmidhi
(died 892 CE [common era*]) in the Book of Sunan (volume IV, chapters
on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah
[Prophet Muhammad], chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the
People of Paradise, (Hadith 2687). The same hadith is also quoted by
Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Koranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah
Al-Rahman (55), verse 72: "The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The
smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are
80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with
pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah
[a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'."
mugz
Mukherjee
The number seven is used symbolically throughout Semitic literature,
including the Bible, where Jesus tells his followers to forgive people
seven times seventy times. I don't think anyone would be able to keep
literal count of that. Nonetheless, there is no such reference to 70
or 72 virgins in the Qur'an.
Furthermore, Jesus speaks about drinking wine in heaven in the Gospel
of Matthew. Can we deduce from this that there will be other carnal
pleasures in the Christian Heaven as well?
I for one don't have a problem with there being physical delights in
Heaven. No one seems to object to the idea of heavenly milk, honey,
and fruits mentioned in the Qur'an. So why the objection to the idea
of heavenly "women" (although the Arabic "houri" does not have to be
translated in such a way-- for all we know, there is no translation or
even definition of what the term may be). If it refers to pure
companions or maidens, that's fine. Humans are both physical as well
as spiritual creatures. IF we continue in Heaven as both physical and
spiritual beings, then we would hope and expect both spiritual as well
as physical pleasures.
Sex is not a bad thing, and Islam does not have a hang-up about
legitimate sex. And it is God Who determines what is "pure" and
"permissible". If God deemed it permissible for Solomon to have
hundreds of wives of concubines, because of his position, status, and
society, then why can't God adjust the "terms of engagement" again?
Additionally, the Qur'an also talks about eternal boy-servants who look
as beautiful as scattered pearls. Why don't we conclude from this one
point that the Muslim Heaven is a Woman's Heaven, where women will be
served as queens by boy-servants?
It's funny how critics of Islam sometimes project their own biases and
prejudices unto Islam. For example, in response to my question above,
I have heard some critics say, "What! There will be homosexual sex in
Heaven??" In other words, some critics want to create controversy no
matter what, and they keep on twisting things out of context. If they
assume, quite naturally, that these female houris are in Paradise
primarily for the pleasure of men, why not similarly assume that the
boy-servants are there primarily for the pleasure or service of women?
After the downfall of the Taliban, a western news reporter walked
through the compound (so-called "palace") of Mullah Muhammad Umar and,
when snooping around and filming in his bedroom, remarked: "I don't
know how Umar's three wives all managed to sleep on this one little bed
with him!"
Now in my opinion, this ignorant statement (or joke?) reveals more
about western fantasies of group sex and orgies than it does about the
reality of polygamy in Islam, since group sex is not allowed in Islam
and a man is to enjoy sexual relationships with his wives one-on-one.
In the same way, a few verses about houris in the Qur'an have been
taken out of context and thrown to and by the media as a bone for
critics to chew on.
I would also recommend the following talk/essay by Peter Kreeft for a
philosophical look at the whole idea of sexual pleasures in heaven:
John Smith
> coerce weak minded men to their bidding are the students of Satan,
> nothing more.
>
> The greatest difficulty with our religion in these times is that too
> few REAL Muslims are standing up to answer perversions with truth. I
> regret this and hope it will change before too long.
I understand what you saying.
But it is not Dave or myself that you need to convince.
I have heard many Muslims express such a notion.
Now if what you saying is that the 72 virgin thing is false (i.e. not in the
Quran) , the next question I have is, "Where do other Muslims get such an
idea from?". Because for sure that is what Muslim trained sucide bombers are
led to believe.
See here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540724.stm
Extract:
Islamic volunteers are told they will wake up in paradise, surrounded by 72
virgins willing to serve their every whim.
Cordially
John Smith
Robert
I can now give references to Al-Tirmidhi's collection of hadith: the
Book of Sunan (vol IV, chapters on "The Features of Paradise as
described by the Messenger of Allah," ch 21: "About the smallest
Rewards for the People of Paradise," Hadith 2687.
Ibn Kathir's remarks are in "Tafsir" of Surah Al-Rahman (55) v 72.
John Smith
> As Allah is the creator of all things then the notion of goodness,
> morality, ethics etc.
> can only come from Him.
> There is no such thing as an independent Good by which Allah can be
judged.
> That would make him subject to it, and Good would be God.
I am speaking philosophically below without reference to Islam or my belief
system:
It depends on whether you believe that humans have personality because God
has personality (but on far far higher scale). If God does have personality,
"goodness" might simply be an facet of his character. That would mean that
ultimately everything "good" would be traceable back to God because it is a
facet of his character. The idea of independent external standard apart from
God might be nonsense and therefore the "subject" claim would not matter.
But from what I know of Islamic theology, Allah is "good" because he wills
it and he could just as easily decide to be "bad" to humans. No limitations
on Allah right? As I understand it, the 99 names of Allah, are just
attributes, rather like a hat which could be taken off. That is correct
Islam, yes? If so, it must be hard to live with. Allah could get bored with
Muslim Paradise and decides to entertain himself by torturing Muslims -
after all Allah need not be "good" from a human point of view, right?
Cordially
John Smith
John Smith
Is it? Please quote the surah and verse.
Cordially
John Smith
Surfer
============================
In Hebrew prophetic religion, what was promised was not an afterlife
in a distant dimension called heaven, but rather a future when divine
knowledge would fill the earth as the waters fill the seas.
Christianity in its primitive state also held a faith in a liberated
future, but then dualistic ideas began to creep in from hyper-platonic
sources. This lead to a divorce of eschatology from history and the
projection of the prophetic vision of liberation to a non-physical
fulfillment. The reasons for this dualism were that prophetic religion
was too much of a threat to the entrenched power of Rome. The emperors
and feudal system that followed couldn't fulfill the prophetic call
for a transformed world without giving up their domination of
the world, so they appropriated the idea of a non-physical afterlife
as an opiate for the masses.
============================
Would the Qur'an be supportive or unsupportive of any aspects of this?
Regards,
Surfer
Abdalla Alothman
dhimmify wrote:
> I do not see how hollywood could have instigated this, this is in the
> quran, how is this a hollywood fabrication?
Can you show where the word "virgin" occurs in the Quran?
Abdalla Alothman
Altway
"John Smith" <John...@ukgroupnews.com> wrote
>> As Allah is the creator of all things then the notion of goodness,
morality, ethics etc. can only come from Him.
There is no such thing as an independent Good by which Allah can be
judged. That would make him subject to it, and Good would be God.
> I am speaking philosophically below without reference to Islam or my
> belief
system:
> It depends on whether you believe that humans have personality because God
has personality (but on far far higher scale). If God does have
personality,
"goodness" might simply be an facet of his character.
Comment:-
Nothing is like Allah. He is the creator of all things including
personalities.
He is above creation and its charctertics.
He has attributes that refer to aspects with respect to the created world.
Generally speaking the word "personality" comes from the word "persona"
which refers to "masks".
We can therefore, distinguish between the "essence" and the "personality."
The former refers to what is inherent in man and the second refers to what
he
acquires and forms a crust or "rust on the mirror"
> But from what I know of Islamic theology, Allah is "good" because he wills
it and he could just as easily decide to be "bad" to humans. No limitations
on Allah right?
Comment:-
There are no limitations on Allah - correct.
Both good and evil, as we judge things subjectively, come from Allah.
Allah does not chose to do Good because Good is some external standard to
which
He must conform
But it is Good because Allah does it.
> As I understand it, the 99 names of Allah, are just
attributes, rather like a hat which could be taken off. That is correct
Islam, yes? If so, it must be hard to live with. Allah could get bored with
Muslim Paradise and decides to entertain himself by torturing Muslims -
after all Allah need not be "good" from a human point of view, right?
Comment:-
Where did you see that Boredom is an attribute of Allah
or that He renages on His promises? That seems to be a typically Greek view
of Gods
an anthropomorphism taken over by Christianity.
..
The Names or Attributes of Allah are points of view with respect to the
created world,
like looking at something from different angles.
They are revealed catergories of thought by which we recognise and judge
things.
We would not know Mercy and Benovalence without such concepts.
Hamid S. Aziz
Allah can do as He wills, but has undertaken to abide by his own Mercy.
"Say: Unto whom belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth ? Say:
Unto Allah. He hath prescribed for Himself mercy, that He may bring you all
together to the Day of Resurrection whereof there is no doubt. Those who
ruin their souls will not believe.". 6:12
Hamid S. Aziz
Abdelkarim Benoît Evans
"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote:
> I can now give references to Al-Tirmidhi's collection of hadith
Many people (including some Muslims) do not know or forget that the
authenticity of ALL hadiths is presumptive and NEVER entirely sure, even
in the case of those considered most sound.
Only the Qur'an is a categorical reality as to the nature and
inhabitants of paradise. Even then, it is understood that Qur'anic
descriptions are sometimes symbolical or allegorical rather than
literal.
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoît Evans
klei...@astound.net
Altway wrote:
> The Names or Attributes of Allah are points of view with respect to the
> created world,
> like looking at something from different angles.
> They are revealed catergories of thought by which we recognise and judge
> things.
> We would not know Mercy and Benovalence without such concepts.
This is only one point in a complex argument which I am ignoring. I
would like to make a point that, in actuality, has very little to do
with that argument.
I assume what "Altway" wrote is in line with general Islamic opinion.
Something I have only recently come to understand is that, historically
and logically, the attributes of Allah are the same things as the
persons of the Trinity.
Thus, willfully misconstruing what "Altway" wrote, I will announce that
Mercy and Benovalence are persons of Allah.
I yield to Muslims the right to feel superior because Islam gives Allah
99 (or more) attributes and Christianity only allows God to have three.
Vladimir
> Many people (including some Muslims) do not know or forget that the
> authenticity of ALL hadiths is presumptive and NEVER entirely sure, even
> in the case of those considered most sound.
What you call "all hadiths" is not actually all hadiths. Bukhari's
collection contains some 6,000 hadiths and he examined some 100,000
hadiths before canonizing just 6,000 of them. Other major hadith
scholars/historians such as Abu Dawud and Muslim also examined
thousands and canonized only a small proportion of them "all." So what
we have to day is not the "all hadith" but what the early Islamic
historians examined and canonized as "saheeh" i.e. authentic. For your
information, orthodox Islam recognizes six early hadith scholars which
canonized hadith, and al-Tirmidhi, whom Robert was quoting from, is one
of them.
Now as Benoit Evans you want to say that this or that hadith in the
books of those scholars, you should come up with *actual* arguments and
reasons to argue for your case in order to say what Bukhari or Muslim
decided to be authentic in fact is not authentic. Just a simplistic
assertion "they are not all authentic" will not do, especially not when
accompanied with emotional and subjective arguments such as "it doesn't
sound as intelligent as I imagine God's religion would be" or somesuch.
If you want to refine the authentic hadiths of the six hadith scholars
to eliminate more as fabrication and reduce the number of authentic
hadiths, and make a new canon, be my guest. I just wonder upon what
criterion you will accomplish such a task, and I cannot think of
anything other than your personal preference and your own ideal
religion in your mind instead actual historical investigation and
scholarly work. You can do such a thing in a non-Islamic country only,
because in an Islamic country you would probably be prosecuted, and
even if you did, you would have a hard time persuading all the Muslims
worldwide to accept *you* as the new orthodoxy. Good luck creating your
own personal version of Islam.
> Only the Qur'an is a categorical reality as to the nature and
> inhabitants of paradise. Even then, it is understood that Qur'anic
> descriptions are sometimes symbolical or allegorical rather than
> literal.
This is a baseless assertion on Beniot Evans' part. If you said that in
a country that was ruled according to strict Islamic laws, you would
probably be prosecuted. In order to tell what is allegorical and what
is not in the Quran you need to be a scholar on par with al-Suyuti and
Abu Hanifa many other great early scholars who actually wrote based on
actual historical investigations of all the possible interpretations of
each controversial verse and doctrine. Just because you find certain
things in the Quran and the hadith to not correspond your ideal
religion in your mind does not constitute a sound argument enough to
tell God what his religion is, assuming Islam is true that is.
You say "it is understood..." It is understood? By whom? This is not
scholarly language. This wouldn't even count as sound journalism if you
worked in a newspaper. It is understood by whom? Only you undestand it
that way and you present it as if this is the orthodoxy in Islam by
your choice of words: "it is understood this way".
Best Regards
Altway
<klei...@astound.net> wrote
>> The Names or Attributes of Allah are points of view with respect to the
created world, like looking at something from different angles.
They are revealed catergories of thought by which we recognise and judge
things.
and logically, the attributes of Allah are the same things as the
persons of the Trinity.
> Thus, willfully misconstruing what "Altway" wrote, I will announce that
Mercy and Benovalence are persons of Allah.
> I yield to Muslims the right to feel superior because Islam gives Allah
99 (or more) attributes and Christianity only allows God to have three.
Comment:-
Your own made up Logic I presume!!!
But I will ignore and forgive the sarcasm based on ignorance!
It is obvious that the attributes are not "the same thing" as the Trinity,
but a correction, a transcendence. It reconciles the Unity of God as found
in the Old Testament with the plurality of the Created world and God with
Man. The attributes are also the features that the Spirit bestows on man.
However, the reverse could be correct - that the Trinity was not originally
understood
as three persons, but as three aspects.
For instance, they could have been seen in the same way as the
Sun, the rays, the image (Father, Holy Spirit, Son).
Christian ideas were taken from Ancient Egypt or Mithra
where the Sun was taken as God or a symbol for God.
(The Quran transcends this as we can see from the story of Abraham's gradual
enlightenment. Quran 6:76-80)
The Hindus also have trinities e.g. Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu and
Vishnu appears on earth as an Avatar, an incarnation, ( Teacher, Messenger)
such as Rama, Krishna, and later identified as Buddha and Christ.
Furthermore, it seems to me that Islam deliberately absorbs and transcends
Polytheism
where many different gods are worshipped. These are regarded by more
knowledgeable
Hindus as aspects of the supreme God called, among other names, Parabrahma.
These are regarded as different personalities rather than persons.
In Islam these can be regarded as referring to the Names (attributes).
"But Allah belong the most beautiful names; call on Him then thereby, and
leave those who pervert (profane or blaspheme against) His names. They shall
be rewarded for that which they have done." 7:180
"Say: Call unto Allah, or call on Rahman (the Beneficent), unto whichever
you call it is the same; for His are the most beautiful names. And do not
say your prayers loud-voiced, nor yet silently, but seek a way between
these. And say: Praise belongs to Allah, who has not taken to Himself a son,
and He has no partner in the Sovereignty (or Dominion), nor needs He a
patron to protect Him from such abasement (or from humiliation). And magnify
Him for His greatness and glory." 17:110-111
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
news:45985405...@muslimamerica.net...
<snip> ...
> Please provide a precise reference in the Qur'an ..
<snip> ...
Comment:-
It's sad to see that the only response you have received is conjectural.
It's as though lifting a few isolated, odd-ball and eccentric so-called
Muslim ideas off the internet about Islam suffices as knowledge rather than
simply (mis) information. It's tantamount to artfully suggesting that the
highly conjectural 'Da Vinci Code' is true because it references some
so-called Christian theological and biblical sources in its entertaining
narrative.
--
Peace
--
Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have an absolute truth.
[Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
forfo...@yahoo.com
John Smith wrote:
> I understand what you saying. But it is not Dave or myself that you need to convince.
> I have heard many Muslims express such a notion. Now if what you saying is that the 72
> virgin thing is false (i.e. not in theb Quran) , the next question I have is, "Where do other
> Muslims get such an idea from?". Because for sure that is what Muslim trained sucide
> bombers are led to believe.
I listened to many and many and many lectures before the internet era
came into my life. Funnily I never heard any lecturer, either the
rookies or the pros ever mentioned the "72 virgins" - ever.
This "72 virgins" I heard it from the non muslims, first I heard it at
works. Than when I was with the internet I heard it so often that I
thought it was a kind of chain mail. The kahdith books are large, and
for the spiritual purpose we need only few for our daily life.
Therefore such the book of 40 hadiths are available for the busy
people.
I am challenging any non muslims here from the past to the present to
show us - what kind of hadiths they are scouting in the large volume of
hadith books.
The "72 virgins" is one example, so tell me what else.
But for yourself "John Smith" -- how many hadiths have you ever read?
Robert
I do not offer the hadith as PROOF of the story of 72 virgins in heaven
for the pleasure of Muslim martyrs, but as proof that this story is not
the invention of Hollywood, as Abujamal claimed, or the invention of
malicious opponents of Islam, rather its origin is authentically
Islamic. It is, indeed, current to this day: in the Palestinian
Territories school children are taught that the virgins await them if
they die as suicide bombers.
Abdelkarim Benoît Evans
"Vladimir" <for...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Only the Qur'an is a categorical reality as to the nature and
> > inhabitants of paradise. Even then, it is understood that Qur'anic
> > descriptions are sometimes symbolical or allegorical rather than
> > literal.
>
> This is a baseless assertion on Beniot Evans' part. If you said that in
> a country that was ruled according to strict Islamic laws, you would
> probably be prosecuted. In order to tell what is allegorical and what
> is not in the Quran you need to be a scholar on par with al-Suyuti and
> Abu Hanifa many other great early scholars who actually wrote based on
> actual historical investigations of all the possible interpretations of
> each controversial verse and doctrine. Just because you find certain
> things in the Quran and the hadith to not correspond your ideal
> religion in your mind does not constitute a sound argument enough to
> tell God what his religion is, assuming Islam is true that is.
>
> You say "it is understood..." It is understood? By whom? This is not
> scholarly language. This wouldn't even count as sound journalism if you
> worked in a newspaper. It is understood by whom? Only you undestand it
> that way and you present it as if this is the orthodoxy in Islam by
> your choice of words: "it is understood this way".
No, I would not be prosecuted. People who state what the Qur'an
proclaims are not prosecuted. I did not say that I was in a position to
judge which parts are literal and which are allegorical. I simply said
that both categories existed. That is not something I made up.
The Qur'an says:
"He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are
decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical;
then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the
part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give
it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except
Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in
it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having
understanding." (3:7)
To clarify your last question: It is understood by all those who know
the Qur'an and follow the way (Sunnah) that some of the Qur'an is
decisive, i.e., whose meaning is well established, and some is
allegorical, i.e., whose meaning is hidden or not well established.
It has been explained by Imam al-Nawawi in Sharh Sahih Muslim as well as
by others that the people of knowledge have two main approaches
regarding such allegorical texts. The first is the approach of most of
the salaf, and involves leaving the texts as they are, affirming them
with a meaning appropriate for Allah, without any specification or
resemblance to creatures.
The second position is that adopted by some latter scholars of the
Ash`ari school, and involves suggesting a suitable figurative meaning
for the texts based on the Arabic langauage and context. Some scholars
took a position which combines the two approaches, while others allowed
figurative interpretation only in cases of necessity, to dispel
incorrect notions from the minds of people, and this seems most
reasonable, although Allah knows best.
Abu Hamza
Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
Your modern scholars have debunked the 72 virgin theory. Its now 72
white grapes. Whats wrong with 72 white grapes except that they're not
worth 72 pence !!
Abdalla Alothman
klei...@astound.net wrote:
> Altway wrote:
>
> I assume what "Altway" wrote is in line with general Islamic opinion.
> Something I have only recently come to understand is that, historically
> and logically, the attributes of Allah are the same things as the
> persons of the Trinity.
This is silly. The names and the attributes of the creator are names
and
attributes. The persons of the christian trinity are independent
entities
that the creator cannot exist if any of the three are missing. I.e.,
god
to the trinitarian is the father, the son and the holy spirit.
Substract
one of the three, and you can't have a god. But each entity is
dependent
from the other. For example, the son was crucified, but the father and
the spirit were not.
The names and attributes, to the Muslim, are just as saying:
Jimmy is kind.
The persons of the trinity to the christian are just as saying:
Jimmy was waiting for his kindness at the airport to arrive
from gate 14.
> Thus, willfully misconstruing what "Altway" wrote, I will announce that
> Mercy and Benovalence are persons of Allah.
That's nonsense. A person has at least one name and and a few
attributes. I have four names (one which is official, of course, but
you can also call me bubader) and I surely have some attributes.
> I yield to Muslims the right to feel superior because Islam gives Allah
> 99 (or more) attributes and Christianity only allows God to have three.
That is nonsense as well. The Christians say father is god and son is
god
and the holy spirit is god: Three entities that share the same
attribute.
If all entities are the same, why can't you say the father was
crucified? Or
"Jesus" is the father, if son = father (i.e., one entity).
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Altway
"Abdelkarim Benoît Evans" <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote
> To clarify your last question: It is understood by all those who know
the Qur'an and follow the way (Sunnah) that some of the Qur'an is
decisive, i.e., whose meaning is well established, and some is
Comment:-
(1) It seems to me that the decisive verses are those that contain
instructions
and rules and statement of facts. But even these require correct motives and
abilities to understand:-
"This is a clear message to be delivered to mankind that they may be warned
thereby, and that they may know that only He is Allah, the One, and that men
of understanding may take heed." 14:52
(2) The allegorical ones require meditation and reveal their meaning
according to the degree to which spiritual development has been attained.
Verses such as the following apply where the dormant spirit in man is
reactivated:-
"....but none will grasp the message save those who possess understanding."
3:7
"He brings wisdom unto whom He will, and he who is brought wisdom is brought
much good; but none will remember save those endowed with understanding."
2:269
"O you who believe! Respond unto Allah and His Messenger when He calls you
to that which quickens you; and know that Allah comes in between a man and
his own heart; and that He it is unto Whom you shall be gathered." 8:24
"Is he who knows that what is revealed unto you from your Lord is the Truth
like him who is blind? But only men of understanding heed." 13:19
(3) The Quran also speaks of similitudes that have been provided for those
who have understanding. These could belong to the first or second category,
or perhaps a third intermediate one:-
"Behold! Allah does not disdain to set forth a similitude even of a gnat, or
anything lower or higher; and as for those who believe, they know that it is
truth from the Lord; but as for those who disbelieve, they say, "What is it
that Allah means by this as a parable? He leads astray many and He guides
many;"- but He leads astray only the evildoers;" 2:26
"We have displayed for mankind in this Quran all kinds of similitudes; but
most of mankind refuse anything but disbelief." 17:89
"As for these similitudes, We have coined for mankind, but none will
understand them, save the wise." 29:43
"And We reveal of the Quran that which is a healing and a mercy for
believers though it increases the evil doers in naught but ruin...and verily
We have displayed in this Quran all kinds of similitudes, but most of
mankind refuse aught save disbelief." Quran 17:82,89
"(It is) a Book We have revealed to you abounding in good that they may
ponder over its verses, and that those endowed with understanding may
reflect." 38:30
"Those who listen to the Word (or advice) then follow the best (meaning) of
it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of
understanding." 39:18
"Thus do We detail the Signs (revelations) unto a people who have
understanding." 7:32
"Is there not in these a lesson (evidence or admonition) for a man of
understanding?" 89:5
(4) Muslims are required to follow what they have experience not only
through the senses but also deeply in their heart. This requires
observation, study, meditation, and application of the techniques to expand
perception and also a framework within which experiences can be interpreted
in a self-consistent manner.
"And follow (or pursue) not that of which you have no knowledge; verily, the
hearing, the sight, and the heart, of all of these it shall be asked (to
give an account)." 17:36
However, hearing can also refer to the inner voice, conscience and seeing
can refer to insight or consciousness and the heart can refer to the will or
spiritual instincts - i.e. those connected with our inherent nature such as
in the following:-
"Then set your purpose for religion as a man upright by nature - the nature
made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering (the laws of)
Allah's creation; that is the right religion, but most people do not know -"
30:30
"Have they not travelled through the land? And have they not heart wherewith
to feel (understand), and ears wherewith to hear? For, indeed, it is not
their eyes that are blind, but it is the hearts which are within their
breasts that grow blind." 22:46
"Wherefore judge you between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not
their lusts (prejudices, fantasies, superstitions); but beware lest they
mislead you from part of what Allah has revealed to you ;" 5:49
"Whoever judges not by what Allah has revealed, these are the wrong-doers
(the unjust)." 5:45
These last two verses can be understood as meaning that the framework of
reference is objective because it is provided by the creator of the
Universe.
Hamid S. Aziz
John Smith
Quite a few. But only from Bukhari, none from Muslim or others. I will get
there.
Cordially
John Smith
Abdelkarim Benoît Evans
"Abdalla Alothman" <abda...@myway.com> wrote:
> That is nonsense as well. The Christians say father is god and son is
> god
> and the holy spirit is god: Three entities that share the same
> attribute.
> If all entities are the same, why can't you say the father was
> crucified? Or
> "Jesus" is the father, if son = father (i.e., one entity).
One of the problems for Muslims (and for Christians too) is to
understand some of the subtleties of the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity. First of all, it is called, by Christians themselves, a
"paradox" and a "mystery", which means that although they have tried to
define it theologically, they admit themselves that they do not fully
understand what they have defined and that their definition is
self-contradictory. If they cannot understand it, how then can we be
expected to!
The Qur'an condemns polytheism and anything that appears to associate
others with God--who is alone in power and majesty. The Christian
doctrine also condemns polytheism and declares that the Godhead is a
single being. Like Muslims and Jews, the Christians repeatedly declare
their belief in ONE God, the God of Abraham (peace be upon him). Unlike
the Muslims and Jews, they then stray into uncharted territory with
their doctrine of divine hypostases (modal manifestations of the unitary
Godhead). Unfortunately, in Latin and English, the word "hypostasis" has
been rendered as "person" and leads to confusion with the ordinary
meaning of that word as a human individual. In fact, the word comes from
Greek and orginally meant the mask ("persona") that an actor wore to
identify the character he was portraying.
For us Muslims, who recognize Prophet Jesus (peace be on him) as the
promised Messiah and the Messenger of the Gospel (as also do
Christians), we are confused by a corollary doctrine of the Christians
concerning Jesus. First of all, like us, they recognize him to be a
physical, flesh and blood human born of the Virgin Mary (God be pleased
with her) by the power of God. Unlike us they go further and give him an
SECOND, non-human, nature by also proclaiming that he is one of the
hypostatic manifestations of the Godhead (the Son).
For us Muslims, it is understandable that if (as the Christians say)
Jesus is God (i.e., a hypostatic manifestation of the One God), then it
would appear to us that God himself was (as we might understand
Christian belief) crucified in the hypostatic modality of the Son. That
however, would be a misunderstanding and contrary to Christian belief.
It is their doctrine that Jesus suffered crucifixion only in his
humanity and NOT in his divinity. To say that God was sentenced to die
on the cross is a Christian heresy. The early Christians had the same
problem with this as we Muslims still have. After the declaration of the
Trinitarian doctrine and the doctrine of the dual (divine-human) nature
of Jesus was proclaimed, some Christians taught that God himself was
crucified. They were declared heretics. Their heresy was called
Patripassionism or Sabelliunism (after the name of one of its
proponents).
Patripassionism states that there is only one person, instead of three
in the Godhead. God reveals himself in three modes, the father as the
creator and lawgiver, the Son as the redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as
the giver of grace and the regenerator. Patripassionists believe the the
eternal Godhead came down from heaven, was born of the Virgin Mary,
lived, and co-suffered with the human Jesus on the cross.
Patripassionism states that the Son was the Father but in a different
mode and that whatever happened to the Son happened to the Father, since
they were one. Sabelliunism declares that there is one essence that is
intercheangeable as the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, each appearing
at different periods of time and not existing together. The
Patripassionists used scriptures that talk about one God and passages
like John 10:30, łI and the Father are one.˛ And John 14:9, łAnyone who
has seen me has seen me has seen the Father.˛ Today, a small Christian
sect, Oneness Pentacostalism, shares the same beliefs as
Patripassionism. Sabelliunism gains attractiveness from its emphasis on
there being one and only one God.
The Qur'an condemns the polytheistic belief in three separate gods (that
was held, for example, by some Christians in the Arabian peninsula, who
taught that the Father, the Son and Mary were separate divinities. It
also condemns the belief that the Unitary Godhead is indistinguisable
from the Son of Mary.
The famous 12th century Jewish theologian Maimonides, who lived in
Andalousia and North Africa, considered the question as to whether Jews
and Muslims were monotheists who believed in the God of Abraham (peace
be on him). This question did not arise with respect to other religions.
It was clear that all the pagan religions were "avodah zara"
(idolatrous). However, in spite of their distortions, Islam and
Christianity posed a special problem for the Jews. After all, those
religions, like Judaism, claimed to keep the faith of Abraham.
Maimonides came to two conclusions. As for Islam, he considered it to be
(like Judaism) a form of pure monotheism, saying:
"These Muslims [Ishmaelim] are not in any way idolators. [Idolatry] has
already been removed from their mouths and their hearts, and they unify
G-d in the appropriate manner without any admixture [of idolatrous
beliefs]." (Responsa 448)
He held Islam in high esteem and considered it to be an ideal religion
for Muslims to live by since (as he believed) they were gentiles and
thus not part of the People of Israel (the man, not the country!)
Maimonides had more difficulty with Christianity, especially with its
Trinitarian paradox. Nevertheless, he came to the conclusion that even
Christianity was a monotheistic religion, albeit its monotheism was
"diluted".
Maimonides concluded that the doctrine of the Trinity, although a
reprehensible notion, did not in fact acknowledge additional gods before
YHVH (Elohim/Eloah/Allah). While condemning the notion of Trinity, the
Jewish scholar accepted the Christian dogma that there is still only ONE
eternal Godhead and that the hypostatic manifestations of divinity (the
"persons"), although a dangerous and distorted innovation, are not
intended to be understood as separate divine entities but modes of being
for the ONE God. Thus Maimonides declared that Christianity, while
deviant and while not the true "bris millah" (religious covenant) of
Abraham was nevertheless NOT an avodah zara, that
is, was not a pagan relgion, but a CORRUPT expression of Jewish
Monotheism.
This is essentially what the Qur'an teaches about Christianity and for
other reasons, about Judaism: they are corruptions of the true faith of
Abraham, that is the religion of Islam that God has given to humanity.
It is for this reason that the Qur'an gives a special place to the
People of the Book, who share with us the monotheism of Abraham and who
acknowlege many of God's prophets and who have received his revelation.
In that sense, Muslims, Christians and Jews have a special relationship,
so special that a Muslim man can marry a Christian or Jewish woman, who
thereafter can retain her Christian religion; so special that some of
the companions of the Prophet (peace be on him) occasionally prayed in a
synagogue or a church the time for prayer arrived but there was no
nearby mosque; so special that the Prophet gave the Christian Bishop and
delegation who came from Narjan to visit him his permission to
celebratet their Christian prayers in his mosque in Medina.
The three peoples who claim religious descendence from Abraham (peace be
on him) must be aware of their differences AND their similarities. The
Prophet Muhammad made treaties with groups from among the People of the
Book and they fought with him against common enemies. Today is no
different. The real enemies that confront us today are movements and
ideologies that are diametrically opposed to our common faith in the God
of Abraham.
Some of them are secularism (which would remove all public, communal
expressions of religions from daily life), Zionism (which has made a
whole people prisoners in their own homeland and which has destroyed in
many places the "entente cordiale" that marked Jewish-Muslim relations
for centuries, imperialism (which sometimes uses the trappings of
religion but is a godless ideology based on the use of raw power and
greed to dominate whole nations and peoples) and last but not least
religious extremism (which is found among Jews, Chrisians and Muslims
alike).
The last enemy, religious extremism, is particularly dangerous because
those who use it make people people believe that they are following the
commands of God when in fact they are following the corrupt desires of
their lower selves.
These excesses, by which people with no authority assume for themselves
a role of religious leadership, which we see in Benladenism, Talibanism
and some forms of Evangelical Christianity are condemned by God himself.
"[Be not among] those who split up their religion and become sects, each
party rejoicing in what it has within itself. (30:32)
"Those who dispute about the signs of Allah without any authority
bestowed on them--there is nothing in their hearts but the quest for
greatness, which they shall never achieve. Seek refuge then in Allah; it
is He who sees and hears." (40:56)
DKleinecke
Abdelkarim Benoît Evans wrote:
> One of the problems for Muslims (and for Christians too) is to
> understand some of the subtleties of the Christian doctrine of the
> Trinity. First of all, it is called, by Christians themselves, a
> "paradox" and a "mystery", which means that although they have tried to
> define it theologically, they admit themselves that they do not fully
> understand what they have defined and that their definition is
> self-contradictory. If they cannot understand it, how then can we be
> expected to!
I believe Benoit Evans has described the generally known situation
quite accurately and I appreciate his post.
The point I tried to make is sufficiently complicated that I have yet
to figure out how to summarize it to my one satisfaction for SRI.
It is covered in the book "The Philosophy of Kalam" by Harry A. Wolfson
which can be read (or downloaded) online at the muslimphilosophy.com
web site.
Very roughly Wolfson finds that the Ash'ari theologians of Islam
defended the concept of the attributes of Allah using exactly the same
vocabulary and concepts that their contemporary Christian theologians
used to defend the concept of the Trinity. Being a Jew Wolfson is
relatively neutral in this argument. The identity in vocabulary, of
course, is demonstrated from translations.
Wolfson concludes that, historically at least, the idea of hypostasis
underlies both the concept of the Trinity and the concept of the
attributes of Allah.
The difference between Islamic and mainline Christian belief lies not
in the Trinity but in the notion of incarnation.
Those (minority) Christians who deny the incarnation and treat Jesus of
Nazareth as an ordinary man explain the historical situation in various
ways. One common way (the Ebionite way) is to call him the greatest
prophet (remember this was five hundred years before the birth of
Muhammad). Other Christians do not work with the concept of any
prophets since Old Testament Days and view Jesus simply as an important
religious teacher.
I believe that an open-minded reading of the existing Christian Bible
will lead one to conclude that neither the Trinity nor the incarnation
are biblical teachings. On the other hand, I believe (in teeth of most,
but far from all, Islamic theologians) that the doctrine of the
attributes of Allah is not Qur'anic even though the Qur'an does mention
the names of Allah. A name is just a name - attributes are much more
profound.
I believe that Wolfson has successfully demonstrated that the so-called
attributes of Allah are, exactly like the so-called persons of the
Trinity, hypostases (whatever that means).
Altway
"DKleinecke" <klei...@astound.net> wrote
> Being a Jew Wolfson is relatively neutral in this argument.
> I believe that Wolfson has successfully demonstrated that the so-called
attributes of Allah are, exactly like the so-called persons of the
Trinity, hypostases (whatever that means).
Comment:-
Does the meaning of the Quran depend on the opinions of a Jew?
The Quran being the criterion, cannot be interpreted by extraneous sources.
You can believe whatever you fancy, but you cannot attribute that to the
Quran.
Muslims follow the Quran.
The Quran states:-
"But Allah belong the most beautiful names; call on Him then thereby, and
leave those who pervert (profane or blaspheme against) His names. They shall
be rewarded for that which they have done." 7:160
"Say: Call unto Allah, or call on Rahman, unto whichever you call it is the
same; for His are the most beautiful names." And do not say your prayers
loud-voiced, nor yet silently, but seek a way between these." 17:110
It is obvious that the Names refer to attributes e.g. Rahman, (the
Beneficent).
It does not refer to the Trinity :-
"O you people of the Book! Do not commit excesses in your religion, nor say
against Allah anything save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary,
was but the messenger of Allah and His Word, which He cast into Mary and a
Spirit from Him; believe then in Allah and His messengers, and say not
"Three." Desist! it is better for you. Allah is only one Allah, Glory be to
Him, too Exalted is He that He should beget a Son! To Him belongs all that
is in the heavens and that is in the earth, and Allah suffices as Defender."
4:171
Hamid S. Aziz