Addressing God or a deity means you worship those two beings, otherwise, you wouldn't consider them divine.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mohamed's surah 2 back-pedal.
- Thread starter stevecanuck
- Start date
Addressing God or a deity means you worship those two beings, otherwise, you wouldn't consider them divine.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
If it could be proved that the god of the Quran existed, I'd call him a ****. Wouldn't worship him.
If prayer to him actually worked, I would pray to him for him to to stop being such a ****.
Your hate of God is noted. Doesn't change that prayer includes worship or addressing what is considered a deity or divine in the view of the caller.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
God speaks through the Messengers.So how does religion work then?
If god is "unknowable", then who told you that? (Please don't say "the messengers")
God is like light, that is manifested in a Lamp (the Messenger). He can do that.
BrightShadow
Active Member
How do you know what God is addressing? Do you believe in God?
BrightShadow
Active Member
By the way I gave an example of Al Qaeda. Why are you trying to turn it into an "all Muslims" issue with your reverse spin?
It seems you would need to transport yourself back in time to understand the context and settings of early medieval close-knit tribal societies - where one tribe's population as a whole could be distinguished from another tribe by their lifestyle and practices. In such a scenario - you could address them in that fashion when one side has been notorious to the other for generations. You cannot compare it to today's world.
You also have to understand the method you have to communicate with them with. People back then used a lot of parables and examples in their dialogue.
The people back then were also known to be proud of their bloodline. When you speak to a person you address them as "son of" or "grandson of" etc. The concept of "dynasty" and family heritage was huge back then and still is in some culture.
For you it will be hard to comprehend unless you are in their shoes.
Like I said earlier - you are turning a perfectly understandable statement into a hopeless never ending discussion.
What is your reward in this? What are you trying to prove?
Quran is meant to be read in two ways...
1) A book of rules
2) Historical document.
Read the historical part as if it was directed towards the people in question. That is how it is written.
This book claims to be for generations until the end of time. The way it is written collaborates with that!
I don't believe those verses are spoken to and written for - only those particular people.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
You didn't see those definitions I posted?
Prayer is often a part of worship, but it doesn't require worship.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
1. So god is knowable.
2. How do you know they really are messengers of a real god? (Please don't say "because they say so").
A meaningless platitude.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
We can only infer it from what it says in the Quran. How else do we know anything about god?
Which god?
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
To show that your analogy was flawed. You implied that god was admonishing all Jews for the actions of a small group in the past. The passage does not refer to a small group with a specific agenda (AQ in your analogy).
Nonsense. There are still groups, cultures and societies that are clearly distinguishable from others.
Also, even in that scenario, you cannot address a whole group on the basis of the actions of a minority - something you just complained about.
Oh, did they? So you have experience of how ordinary people in 7th century Arabia communicated. Or are you making unfounded assertions based on the content of religious scripture?
As people are now.
That has been replaced by the "surname", which in many cases is exactly that - Johnson, MacDonald, Ericsson, O'Leary, Magnusdottir, etc, etc.
Is this going somewhere?
Not at all. .
So, do you think that all people from the same family or tribe or dynasty should still be held responsible for the actions of their ancestors?
I am merely responding to points made by other people. This isn't my thread.
Debate is its own reward.
How do we tell which bit is which?
And why would Allah reveal an "historical document" at all? It's supposed to be his final attempt at providing a guide for all humanity, so anything in there must have some relevance to all people and all times.
So the Quran was written only for 7th century Arabs - at least in part.
Wait! You just said..."it was directed towards the people in question".
It reads exactly like it was written by 7th century Arabs, for 7th century Arabs.
If you disagree, present a passage that makes more sense as the work of an omnipotent omniscient god rather than the work or 7th century Arabs.
So you accept that it is addressing all Jews, not just the ones present at the time.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
God's essence is unknowable. But His will and commands are knowable only through His Manifestation.
Everyone would need to investigate their claims and judge for themselves.
Hmm? Why meaningless?
There is a verse in Quran called, verse of light.
BrightShadow
Active Member
Your conclusion is based on your perception. It differs from 1.8 billion Muslims' and their scholars' conclusions. I am doubtful if there is any Jewish scholar out there - who is as adamant about this implication as you are. It seems you have devoted your life to prove that was a misrepresentation by God (Islam). While OP already pointed out that the following verses to the ones in question clarifies and assures that not all Jews are blamed and one must not misunderstand that they are blamed. But yet OP and maybe you also are calling that "back paddling"! You are demanding to know - why was it mentioned in the first place and seemingly addressed towards a group of people who were not directly to be blame.
If you are honestly not understanding then I think you are the only ones who are not getting it because the people in question did understand! And that is all that counts.
When someone asks you if you believe in a God - it is understood you are asked if you believe in a creator or not. Of course you can believe in one creator or you can believe there are multiple creators behind creating you but your answer should be "yes" or "no". Your answer shouldn't be with a question... "which god"?
Is it fair to say you don't believe in any creator at all? Are you or have you ever consider Islam? I am trying to find out where are you going with this? If you are trying to show to Muslims that their doctrine was written by someone other than God then you need better proof than what you are trying to show because even majority of qualified and learned non believers are not going to buy this. Open your shop elsewhere where you can actually sell something!
I don't have time to address all your quotes because it would be just repeating myself. I will try some.
Just google it yourself. Why are there so many Medieval Songs, chants out there? People didn't readily have pens and papers and note pads and recorders. They used parables and chants etc. and it was an effective way to communicate and pass message and at the receiving end - it would also be easier for people to remember the message, so they could rely it to someone else.
They are not held responsible. It was only used as an example to show similar long term attitude of a group of people against another group of people. When you are comparing it with today's world setting - you are getting insincerely IMO perplexed.
Once again, let me rephrase what I wrote earlier a bit...
Quran is meant to be read in two ways...
1) A book of rules
2) Historical document.
Historical part are about incidents that took place during the 7th century as well as earlier centuries i.e. Jesus, Moses, Abraham etc. and anyone reading can learn from those examples of incidents. And then there is the parts about laws and rules to follow. That is how it is written. It is not hard to distinguish between the two parts of the Quran. Take time to read it if you like rather than looking at some random verses.
When you read it you will know the difference. There is always much to learn from history. That is why historic parts are relevant. Information is inter mixed but yet easy to distinguish. Examples are shown to show actions and its results and its consequences (reward or punishments) etc.
I saw why you got it wrong. That is why I rephrased it. It is not only directed towards people of 7th century, it was written in a way that collaborated that all future generation can benefit from its examples and messages. However Quran also points out that not everyone can be guided. God tells Mohammad that even Mohammad cannot guide everyone. Only one who can guide is God himself if he so chooses.
[Quran 28:56] You surely cannot guide whoever you like ˹O Prophet˺, but it is Allah Who guides whoever He wills, and He knows best who are ˹fit to be˺ guided.
So, God in Islam already announced in Quran - "not everyone is fit to be guided"! Maybe everyone is not fit to comprehend every context because they are looking for something to prove to themselves they don't need to read any further? Just a thought!
Last edited:
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
What is god's essence?
Of which there are many different and conflicting claimed ones, so how do we decide what his will and commands are?
There needs to be a better system than that. Otherwise we just get subjectivity, confirmation bias, wishful thinking, etc.
Remember that this is supposed to be the most important decision anyone can make.
Because it has no meaning.
However, feel free to break it down and explain what it means in practical terms.
Yes. That describes Allah as "a lamp". You said the messenger is "a lamp". Are you saying that the messenger is Allah?
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Er, yeah. That applies to everyone and every subject.
You are basically saying "you only think that because that is what you think".
However, my "perception" is based on what the Quran says (also the sunnah and classical tafsir). In the context of what Islam is, what other basis is there?
So you are saying that all 1.8 billion Muslims have the same conclusions about what Islam is, what the Quran means, etc?
That is quite the claim. Are you sure?
I am not "adamant". It is not my argument. I have merely read the arguments on here and concluded that one seems more reasonable, given the source material.
You seem confused. I literally had no opinion on this particular issue until I read the OP.
You seem to have missed the point of the OP. It was to highlight a contradiction or inconsistency in the Quran.
So what is your explanation and resolution for the apparent contradiction? I am happy to consider all possibilities.
That depends on which god you are referring to. Most of them are not "creators".
So when I ask you "do you believe in god?" and you reply "yes", I can reasonably assume that you are referring to Brahman?
Of course I do. We are all creators. Some people's creations are more widely celebrated than others. Some creations have more social impact than others, but we are all creative in some way.
I have examined it in some detail, yes.
Have you ever considered Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc...?
No. It has long been demonstrated that the Quran was written by 7th century Arabs rather than an omni-everything god who created everything by magic. Muslims generally reject this idea through confirmation bias and other forms of cognitive dissonance, usually borne of childhood indoctrination. You aren't going to change your beliefs based on evidence.
I remember one Muslim telling me that "no amount of evidence could weaken my faith". Does that apply to you?
You are referring to how records of major events were maintained. Your claim was that ordinary people communicated by metaphors an parable in everyday life. So basically, someone buying bread would say something like "A man attempted to maintain his light without asking the waving crowds in the field for their help, but his light became darkness. Will you bring forth the child of those crowds to keep my light aflame?"
The point made by the OP is that Allah initially held them responsible then appeared to change his position. This isn't really about which position is more reasonable. (Obviously, the latter is, btw).
So basically, there is no practical difference between the two elements. Both are intended to inform or guide people and society, just by two different methods.
However, this still doesn't address the issue of why Allah didn't just set out every conclusion the historical passages are meant to lead to?
There is also the problem of including "historical" events like the great flood, or Gog and Magog, that can be conclusively disproved, thus showing that the Quran was not authored by god (by its own standards).
(BTW, I have read it. Two different versions. That's how I know that it reads just like it was written by 7th century Arabs, for 7th century Arabs.)
Because that was the implication of what you said. One would assume that it was an argument that you had though about, even used before. Therefore one would assume you considered it sound.
Because you now realise that it was an unsound argument in the context of the Quran being written for all people and all times in its entirety.
1. The style and content suggests it was written by 7th century Arabs, for 7th century Arabs. Large parts of it have no relevance to today's secular, liberal democracies.
How can 21st century Scandinavia benefit from the instruction to torture to death people guilty of "spreading mischief"?
You are somewhat misrepresenting the Allah here. On several occasions he specifically states that he misguides people. and he prevents them from believing, "even if they are warned".
He even says that he "surely creates many of mankind for hell". Why would he do that if he created mankind "only to worship me"?
Another odd claim. Surely those who doubt the most are the ones Allah should be guiding the most? People who have been raised as devout Muslims by family and community don't need any "guidance". Why does he only seem to send "signs" to people who already believe in him?
Basically Allah is just preaching to the choir, picking only the low-hanging fruit, and other metaphors indicating a lazy, minimal effort approach. Allah is like the best surgeon in the world who refuses to do any operations other than cosmetic surgery. He needs to pull his finger out and take his job seriously. People's eternal souls are at stake!
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
You forgot the important one...
It reads exactly like it was written by 7th century Arabs, for 7th century Arabs.
If you disagree, present a passage that makes more sense as the work of an omnipotent omniscient god rather than the work or 7th century Arabs.
BrightShadow
Active Member
You are on a mission. You have set up a shop and you are here to stay!
Do you hear yourself before writing? We are not talking about every single issue that Islam is all about. We are discussing one misunderstood verse by OP and then you jumped on the bandwagon.
1.8 billion Muslims and most other people in the world will have the same conclusion regarding OP that it is acceptable to say it like that especially when it is clarified in latter verses that ALL Jews are not the one to be blamed. The act is criticized via example of similar nature ...NOT the people! You are not comprehending that! It is the "ACT" that is criticized!
You can be given the example of your forefathers if you continue on the same path as they have been on. It is the act that has been emphasized via example!
Without highlighting your every quote - let me respond to some of what you have written.
You can believe in any God or multiple gods and I could believe in any God as well but when we say the word "God" - we usually mean our creator who created us - not just any creator who creates things. By asking you - I just wanted to see what makes sense to you because you are caught up on a simple thing here. I wanted to see what your doctrine (if any) looks like. Anyhow, no need to share if not revealing it was your intention in the first place as I see you are just beating around the bush! You may not be affiliated with any religion but you can still believe in a creator who created you and you can still consult some doctrines from various religion. I just wanted see which ones you are consulting (if any).
Think of an owner of a manufacturing company with 6,236 workers - should he shut down the company if one of his workers comes up to him and say something he didn't understand? Should he disregard all other workers? That is what you are doing. The Quran has 6,286 verses. Move on and check out other verses.
Every religion has many things that you can learn. If something is not making sense - doesn't mean you have to discard everything!
You are way off. Nobody has a free pass. If Islam is the true religion then Muslims can actually be held on higher standards (in my opinion). Many Muslims in todays world IMO are totally lost inside their own fence especially the ones who claim to be with different sects. Quran clearly advocates against sects and splitting into groups. So, in my opinion if anyone proudly distinguish themselves in a category other than just a follower of Islam - he is slightly on the wrong track already. As a result I believe every Muslim needs guidance as well. Mohammad would never want sects. Followers of any given religion should have unity and should not quarrel over anything especially minor things. All they do is - undermine their own religion! There you go - that is a better approach if you want to tell Muslims anything. Just tell them to discard their sects and have one voice.
I hope you find your version of the "truth". But I hope you are not thinking you created yourself! You certainly may have created your profile here - so you can tell Muslims that their doctrine was written by 7th century Arabs! At least you acknowledge that it was written in the 7th century. That is a start!
Here is one....
[Quran 2:256] Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
Do you believe a 7th century Arab will say there is no compulsion in religion? They would rather say the opposite!
Do you hear yourself before writing? We are not talking about every single issue that Islam is all about. We are discussing one misunderstood verse by OP and then you jumped on the bandwagon.
1.8 billion Muslims and most other people in the world will have the same conclusion regarding OP that it is acceptable to say it like that especially when it is clarified in latter verses that ALL Jews are not the one to be blamed. The act is criticized via example of similar nature ...NOT the people! You are not comprehending that! It is the "ACT" that is criticized!
You can be given the example of your forefathers if you continue on the same path as they have been on. It is the act that has been emphasized via example!
Without highlighting your every quote - let me respond to some of what you have written.
You can believe in any God or multiple gods and I could believe in any God as well but when we say the word "God" - we usually mean our creator who created us - not just any creator who creates things. By asking you - I just wanted to see what makes sense to you because you are caught up on a simple thing here. I wanted to see what your doctrine (if any) looks like. Anyhow, no need to share if not revealing it was your intention in the first place as I see you are just beating around the bush! You may not be affiliated with any religion but you can still believe in a creator who created you and you can still consult some doctrines from various religion. I just wanted see which ones you are consulting (if any).
Think of an owner of a manufacturing company with 6,236 workers - should he shut down the company if one of his workers comes up to him and say something he didn't understand? Should he disregard all other workers? That is what you are doing. The Quran has 6,286 verses. Move on and check out other verses.
Every religion has many things that you can learn. If something is not making sense - doesn't mean you have to discard everything!
You are way off. Nobody has a free pass. If Islam is the true religion then Muslims can actually be held on higher standards (in my opinion). Many Muslims in todays world IMO are totally lost inside their own fence especially the ones who claim to be with different sects. Quran clearly advocates against sects and splitting into groups. So, in my opinion if anyone proudly distinguish themselves in a category other than just a follower of Islam - he is slightly on the wrong track already. As a result I believe every Muslim needs guidance as well. Mohammad would never want sects. Followers of any given religion should have unity and should not quarrel over anything especially minor things. All they do is - undermine their own religion! There you go - that is a better approach if you want to tell Muslims anything. Just tell them to discard their sects and have one voice.
I hope you find your version of the "truth". But I hope you are not thinking you created yourself! You certainly may have created your profile here - so you can tell Muslims that their doctrine was written by 7th century Arabs! At least you acknowledge that it was written in the 7th century. That is a start!
Here is one....
[Quran 2:256] Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
Do you believe a 7th century Arab will say there is no compulsion in religion? They would rather say the opposite!
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
For example we can say essence or nature of animals are faily known to us, because we are a higher level than them due to the power of mind, and thus we can take them to lab, and examine them, study their body and behavior. But we have no access to God, and our mind is not capable of understanding God, hence the essence of God is unknowable to us.
True. When we look at various religions, we see some of their commands or Laws are different with each others. Bahaullah said, this is because the commands of God comes according to requirements and conditions of the people living in an Age and even locations. Hence He tailored the Laws to suit the occasions and situations and conditions.
I see.
Yes, in a way Allah and Messenger are one because we cannot really separate the Sun from its Ray's, or we cannot separate Light from its lamp. They become One. Hence in some verses of Quran, it says, there is no difference between God and His Messenger, likewise Jesus said, I and the Father are One.
BrightShadow
Active Member
I absolutely disagree with this statement. Nothing...NOTHING can be put on the same pedestal as God! The only thing these kind verses imply is - God and a said messenger are both aligned on the message the messenger delivered. But this doesn't mean messengers to be worshiped, spoken to in prayer etc. Messengers can only request for your pardon. They cannot control the outcome. Putting anyone (including any messengers) on same ground as God - is wrong IMO. But believe what you want. It is your prerogative.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
Even the set up of intercession, is all God's hand really and he set it up as a mercy from him, and that is why from one perspective, God is the sole intercessor and intercedes through his chosen.
God Suffices as a Guide but through his revelations and chosen ones.
However, we obey them to obey God. If our intention is not to obey God and God is not loved more, then, we will never attain proximity to God.
The one chapter the reward is explicit in saying "You must recognize Al-Qurba for who they are and aren't being asked beyond that in reality when obeying them, submitting to them, etc" (42:23) emphasizes throughout the Surah on the relationship and authority of God on his creation more then any Surah and emphasizes that God sent Mohammad (s) as part of establishing this relationship. So love means, you aren't being asked to obey them in reality, Mohammad (s) is authority true, but it's about recognizing his status in reality while submitting to God and worshiping God in reality.
So the one place it is explicit in saying the reward is nothing but love of Ahlulbayt (a) - the whole Surah is saying it's about God and right after saying God's guides by the spirit inspired/revealed in Mohammad (s) and that Mohammad (s) guides to the straight path/bridge, emphasizes "the path/bridge of God" and that all affairs return to God.
And right after 42:23, 42:24 emphasizes if not this Qurba, then God would still verify the truth with his words, and so if Mohammad (s) and his family (a) aren't his words of light, and guidance, and Mohammad (s) forged it, still, it's upon God to guide the truth and in this case even show Mohammad (s) to be false.
In other words, right after emphasize to love Al-Qurba, it says, it's not about Mohammad (s) personally, but about God's guidance. And argues even if for sake of argument, Mohammad (s) is a forger, to look for guidance of God. But whoever looks for God to guide and relies on him, will believe in his guiding words of truth brought to life, and submit.