Violent verses from Allah

[Ebionite]

Not really, Elohim for all intents and purposes, would be closer to "Rabb" in Arabic, which is 'lord' or 'deity' in the divine sense.

No, Elohim is a plural word. Allah is a contraction of al elah, where al is the definite article and elah is the singular form of elohim.

 

[dybmh]

Why should anyone believe that?


The context wasn't about Allah, and Elohim isn't the Hebrew divine name.

OK.

 

[dybmh]

Not really, Elohim for all intents and purposes, would be closer to "Rabb" in Arabic, which is 'lord' or 'deity' in the divine sense.
You can cross-language all you want as long as you understand the definitions and use them correctly.

But then in your sentence I also see the tendency (whether correct or not) of only transliterating certain words.

For instance, common translations may say "Allah created" (which would not really be translation but a transliteration), yet a more literal translation would be "God created", but the most word-for-word translation would be "The God created".

I was basing my reply on previous threads where Theo understands Elohim to be plural.

 

[ManSinha]

I thought "Elohim" referred to the "children of El" and that the original was El-elaha which was arabicized (in a manner of speaking) to Allah

"Rabb" in Arabic, which is 'lord' or 'deity' in the divine sense.

Curious as to the etymology of Rabb (rhymes with rub) - in the north Indian language of Punjabi and Urdu "Rabb" also refers to the divine deity - as an example the words "Rabb Raakha" is frequently said by friends and family members taking each others' leave in the sense of "God be with you"

 

[dybmh]

I thought "Elohim" referred to the "children of El" and that the original was El-elaha which was arabicized (in a manner of speaking) to Allah

It is best understood as God operating through the forces of nature. When I read the word in context, translating it as "Mighty Forces" works well for me.

That specific tranlsation of Elohim = " Mighty Forces" comes from Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi,The Alter Rebbe, if I recall.

Children of El would be B'nai El.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

If one examines, then everything evaporates. Religions do not ask you to question, but have faith.

I always worry about religions when they say this, it is fine to have faith once you believe you have the truth but to get to the truth one needs to question.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

I always worry about religions when they say this, it is fine to have faith once you believe you have the truth but to get to the truth one needs to question.

Islam has no sola scriptura equivalent. Belief alone is worthless as far as the Qur'an is concerned. Also Islam places experience over belief (as outlined in the very structure of the 'religion' being: Islam > Iman > Ihsan = Submission/Acquiescence towards the Divine > Knowledge/Comprehension > Experience/Gnosis)

Check these out:
Conception of Reason in the Qur'an
Chapter 1: On the Intellect

 

[danieldemol]

Islam has no sola scriptura equivalent.

I think this needs a qualifier, such as which sect of Islam you belong to.

Google defines sola scriptura as follows: “Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone in English) is a theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.”

There are certainly sects of Islam such as Quranist which appear to hold the Quran (ie Islamic scripture) to be the sole infallible source of authority.

In any case in Islam as a whole I think few would take the view that reason takes precedence over the scripture such that where reason and the Quran contradict reason takes precedence over the Quran.

So even though it’s not technically sola scriptura for most of Islam since most Muslims also rely on the Sunnah of the Prophet (and some on the Traditions of His family), I think it could still be misleading to imply that for “Islam” which one of little knowledge of Islam would take as implying “all” or “most of Islam” places experience of the individual over belief in the Scripture..

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

I think this needs a qualifier, such as which sect of Islam you belong to.

Which is what?

There are certainly sects of Islam such as Quranist which appear to hold the Quran (ie Islamic scripture) to be the sole infallible source of authority.

I already mentioned them here: Violent verses from Allah

And no, they're not a sect, they're more akin to an individualistic movement based on a view usually in opposition to Hadith as a source of either authority or reference. Quranism itself tends to be a label, they don't usually call themselves that; albeit the phrase "Qur'an-alone" is heard a lot from them.

The movement you describe doesn't have anything to do with the Protestant sola scriptura, aside from the very basic idea of having a exclusive text as a reference.
Protestantism itself still despite sola scriptura upholds most Catholic doctrines (I say Catholic in reference to doctrines taught only explicitly by that tradition and not actually by the text itself, such as the trinity and the original sin), so it's role is subservient to Catholicism despite usually acting opposed to it.

The nature of the Protestant sola scriptura in comparison to "Qur'an-alone" is also entirely different ontologically. The object, status, style etc of the Bible is drastically different as a text compared to the Qur'an - one aspect I mean here is that the Bible is a book that speaks of revelations (much like the Hadith and Seerah in Islam) but for the most part doesn't contain any.
I don't mean this derogatorily towards Christians but most of their text is made up of narrative accounts.
As well as this the Bible contains other genres of text such as poetry/hymns (Psalms), wisdom literature and letters (the Epistles).

Whereas the Qur'an's object, status and style is of a direct revelation from God, the text whilst revealed by the angel Gabriel, remains inherently the word of god in the literal sense (God directly speaking, via Gabriel). This also means the text has an extra sense of intimacy and sacredness of which makes the Qur'an for Muslims, a book to not abuse or interpret one's own ideas onto. It means that the Qur'an is a book that requires an extra level of respect and patience with, alongside that it's actual order and contents are not linear, it remains a book that has no beginning or end, literally!

(I say this to give context to the comparison).

When we compare these major difference between the Bible text and the Qur'an text, we notice that sola scriptura and "Qur'an-alone" can only ever be distinctly different, if not opposed to each other.

Also at that, someone who is "Qur'an-alone" has no knowledge nor place for the figure of Prophet Muhammad, other than the references either speaking to or of him in the Qur'an. Outside of the "Qur'an-alone" person's reference, there is no Muhammad so-to-speak.
Whereas for the sola scriptura Protestant, they still have Jesus, Paul, John of Patmos etc as well as all the earlier Prophets because the nature of their text they term "scripture" is very different in style, nature, etc to the Qur'an. Aka, the Qur'an is not about Muhammad, but the New Testament is about Jesus.

In any case in Islam as a whole I think few would take the view that reason takes precedence over the scripture such that where reason and the Quran contradict reason takes precedence over the Quran.

No, Islam takes the view that reason and intellect affirms scripture. As well as the Qur'an itself promoting a worldview that engages the reader to analyse and study the world, it does not give ignorance and blind-belief a good consideration at all (quite the opposite, it says 'don't be like those who just believe anything')

So even though it’s not technically sola scriptura for most of Islam since most Muslims also rely on the Sunnah of the Prophet (and some on the Traditions of His family), I think it could still be misleading to imply that for “Islam” which one of little knowledge of Islam would take as implying “all” or “most of Islam” places experience of the individual over belief in the Scripture..

Correct, and this relates to above because the things that Christians consider "scripture" (for instance, letters, speeches, biographies etc) are not considered scripture in the Islamic view, they are considered cushioning historical literature of which one is critical of because it's not revelation from God.
Think of it this way what Moses received on Sinai is "scripture" but Moses' life is Sunnah. Stories of Moses' life are Hadith. Same goes with Jesus and Muhammad in the Islamic view.
Christianity with the Bible, has a very far-removed view regarding this.

As for what you say about experience, experience of the divine (of God) is the very goal of sunnah of sharia of the revelation of the Qur'an. If one does not seek this (Ihsan), then I don't know why someone would choose to follow a religion.