What do you know about Islam?

[Badran]

Already done in this thread.

May be you'd be kind enough to refer to in which post you did that?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Rather than going off on another tangent, why don't you explain your rational behind rejecting what is known to all Muslims as the Five Pillars of Islam?

Already done in this thread.

No, you have not explained your rational, you have only made accusations without explaining them. This is a very poor and dishonest debating technique.

To redeem yourself, you could actually answer the question rather than using childish evasion.

Please explain your rational behind rejecting what is known to all Muslims as the Five Pillars of Islam? Why do you claim that these are not the Five Pillars?

 

[Caladan]

OK, in an attempt to get this thread back to its original purpose, here is a question (which I also posed in another thread).
How do common Muslims view the narrative and whats behind that narrative of Surah 53 (The Star), or what is infamously called 'The Satanic Verses'.

 

[kejos]

Muhammad is claimed to be a prophet. As far as events are concerned, the Qur'an is almost all retrospective, the recollections, apparently, of the deity of the Bible, but revised, and corrected. Now what sort of a prophet comes along at least 600 years after the events he revises and corrects, saying that his deity was misunderstood for that length of time? Is such an incompetent fool of a deity worth any attention?

The Qur'an is simply incredible.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

What about that Surah Caladan? I didnt get your question

 

[Badran]

Muhammad is claimed to be a prophet. As far as events are concerned, the Qur'an is almost all retrospective, the recollections, apparently, of the deity of the Bible, but revised, and corrected. Now what sort of a prophet comes along at least 600 years after the events he revises and corrects, saying that his deity was misunderstood for that length of time? Is such an incompetent fool of a deity worth any attention?

The Qur'an is simply incredible.

Is this your answer to the 5 pillars part?

However, God wasn't "misunderstood" in our belief, surely you know what we believe regarding this part.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Muhammad is claimed to be a prophet. As far as events are concerned, the Qur'an is almost all retrospective, the recollections, apparently, of the deity of the Bible, but revised, and corrected. Now what sort of a prophet comes along at least 600 years after the events he revises and corrects, saying that his deity was misunderstood for that length of time? Is such an incompetent fool of a deity worth any attention?

The Qur'an is simply incredible.

Pssst,
Remember what you said about the Five Pillars? Care to explain that?

 

[kejos]

God wasn't "misunderstood" in our belief, surely you know what we believe regarding this part.

What Muslims believe is that their deity screwed up magnificently, not once, but twice, and took from 600 to 2600 years before he finally got it right. Assuming he did, of course, and there is not another instalment to come to correct Muhammad's errors.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What Muslims believe is that their deity screwed up magnificently, not once, but twice, and took from 600 to 2600 years before he finally got it right. Assuming he did, of course, and there is not another instalment to come to correct Muhammad's errors.

That's a gross over-generalization on "what Muslims believe..". I doubt if you could find any Muslims that would take that as an accurate description of their beliefs.

No more than you could find a Christian who states that in their belief, God "screwed up'" and had to flood the earth to start over, then had to sacrifice his Son because of misplaced trust in the Jews.

Both views of "what _____ believe" assumes that one knows the minds of people of another faith.



BTW, you never have addressed your "Five Pillars" statement.

 

[LuisDantas]

Resuming a few exchanges with Badran and Fatima Bintu Islam:

#171

You know what the problem is, i agree with most of what you said, so i don't even understand what are we talking about. (...)

Fair enough. I guess I'm just not much of Abrahamic Faiths material.

#58, #145, #208

Im sorry Luis for this late reply, you know, Im a bit lost between all these posts

Quite understandable. It has been a very intense thread.



(In response to a comment of mine about tolerance of atheists)

I guess we should differentiate between acceptance and tolerance.
Because when you say Islam is not tolerant of atheists, then I have to say that the statement is wrong. But not accepting atheism could have some truth in it.

Also, I would like to repeat and repeat this statement of mine :
WHen I ask what do you know about Islam, I mean Islam not muslims . You know, these days the situation of muslims does not please neither friends nor enemies. So when we discuss Islam, we should discuss its teachings and applications.

However, its does not mean that we are theoric people, since Islam was practiced on its perfect way in the times of the prophet peace be upon him and years later, then people started distorting it, but alhamdulillah things are getting better as I see them from my angle.

(About Hadiths)

This is what we call in Islam the science of Hadeeth, I guess you can read just a simple example on how they used to gather it from one of my posts on this thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...3-muhammads-enemies-scientific-errors-15.html

Even extreme haters of Islam admitted that this science has nothing like it in its credibility, and its perfection. Scholars of all ages spent their lifes differetiating between what is coming from the prophet peace be upon him and what is not. They established rules and requirements and conditions to accept or to reject a hadeeth that are so strict that you can be sure that when its says "Hadeeth Saheeh" i.e authentic that it is truly coming from the prophet peace be upon him himself.

If you want to know more about this science, I can do you some researches about the topic Inshallah

To be sincere, I'm a bit disappointed. Religious wisdom is to be found in everyone in some degree, in acts, compassionate choices and honest insights. I don't think it is to the best interest of Muslims (or of anyone else) to limit themselves to what was written until Mohammed's time.

(About Shias and Sunnis)

Yes, it does involve religious matters which is why in Islam, Quran states that if you dont know, then ask the peophe of Zhikr ( scholars) . And in Islam, we do not accept anyone easily as a scholar, until it is obvious in both, his knowledge and his practice of his deen.

One thing that I want to focus about is that when I say scholars it doesnt mean all of them are men, and thats very specific to this religion that we had throughout the history high very knowledgeable and pious female scholars. Most of well know scholars in Islam have studied on hundreds of female scholars, one simple example is that of sheykh al islam "Ibn taymiyah" may ALlah azza wajal have mercy on his soul.
But I dont remember anyone ever ( among non muslims) mentioning this when talking about women in Islam

Wikipedia does recognize that fact, however

Sheik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although it doesn't mention names. If you want to correct that, or to point me towards some of those names, I will be glad to help in correcting that.

Again, however, I don't particularly like the idea of having a central authority on religious truth. People can and should reach their own conclusions and nurture them at heart by their own thought and experience.


(About Shia Muslims disregarding Islam's principles)

You should make a disctinction between principles and deeds. When I talk about principles, I talk about for example monotheism and similar , not stuffs like obeying your parents , or feeding the hungry. I hope you understand what I mean

I believe I do, but that is a far stronger divergence with Shia than I expected to find. Surely they feel otherwise, if they don't reciprocate the feeling completely.

(I'll continue later)

 

[YmirGF]

??????????????????????? :help:

:biglaugh:: hamster :: hamster ::biglaugh:

 

[YmirGF]

My question/comment is about the term "In šāʾ Allāh". This is most often used in the sense of "God willing". That much I understand. What I don't understand is why people would think that god directs the events that manifest in their lives. To my thinking, the events that occur to us are, for the most part, based on our own actions and not subject to the will of a god. Perhaps it is just the way I look at things, but it just seems odd to say "god willing". Again, to me, it presupposes that a given individual is of such importance that the creator of all that is would actually seek to direct their life. I don't see human animals as being all that important in the larger scheme of things. Certainly not important enough to warrant the interest of that which may have created all that exists.

Perhaps Fatima and Badran could shed some light on the somewhat fatalistic notion of In šāʾ Allāh.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

Im sorry Ymir Ill try to answer Luis first as Im a bit in a rush, and then will come back to you when I have time Inshallah

(About Hadiths)

To be sincere, I'm a bit disappointed. Religious wisdom is to be found in everyone in some degree, in acts, compassionate choices and honest insights. I don't think it is to the best interest of Muslims (or of anyone else) to limit themselves to what was written until Mohammed's time.

Dont be disappointed , the hadeeth science Ive talked about is applied also on pious and scholars sayings. We never say , such scholar (who died 1000 years ago for example ) said such and such , never. We always need an evidence, which is the narration leading straight ahead to that person. And then this science interfers to check the validity of that narration.


We have thousands if not millions of sayings from scholars and pious people that we base our lifes on. However, the advantage is to be given to the prophet peace be upon him sayings, since without his sayings they wouldnt have reached that level of piety.

So hadeeths first since they are not questionable then pious and shcolars statements , if of course it does not contradict Quran or hadeeths.

Ashafi'i (one of the most knowledgable scholars in Islam) used to say: When I tell you something, compare it to hadeeths of the prophet peace be upon him, if you see that it contradict them then throw it on the wall ( thats an arabic expression I tried to translate )


(About Shias and Sunnis)

Wikipedia does recognize that fact, however

Sheik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although it doesn't mention names. If you want to correct that, or to point me towards some of those names, I will be glad to help in correcting that.

You can try to look for Ibnatu Sirine ( the daughter of Sirine) , and the daughter of Malek as a first step. And Ill try to find you a lot of other names you can read about later Inshallah, as Im a bit in a rush

Again, however, I don't particularly like the idea of having a central authority on religious truth. People can and should reach their own conclusions and nurture them at heart by their own thought and experience.

Imam Ali may Allah be please with him ( the cousin of the prophet peace be upon him) used to say that if religion was to be lead by personal conclusions, then wiping under socks would be more rational then wiping over it.

Ill have to explain it to you of course :

In the ahkam (rules) of ablution, you can wipe over your socks if you had entered your feet in it while being Tahir ( that you've already made ablution on them). So if you were to do the rational thing, the bottom of your feet would be the one supposed to be cleaned since you walk on it not the upper part. ( Hope its kinda clear )

Now, in order to give their own conclusions, one should have studied the whole Quran and all hadeeths, and its applications ( thats what scholars do ) , so when he comes up with a conclusion he doesnt find a contradiction with one or many other hadeeths he havent studied. Islam has been protected because of this thanks God.

Regarding nurturing by their own thoughts and experiences, than the fact that we learn from pious and scholars sayings is alone a proof that they were nurturing them ( not meaning that the hadeeths are missing something, and that they are filling it, its just the conclusions and applications of the hadeeths in their daily lives that we follow)

(About Shia Muslims disregarding Islam's principles)

I believe I do, but that is a far stronger divergence with Shia than I expected to find. Surely they feel otherwise, if they don't reciprocate the feeling completely.

Of course the divergence is much bigger than you thought, if the divergence were only about the interpretation of some hadeeths, or the explanation of some verse , than we wouldnt have this whole problem, since differences in opinion were a very well know thing even in the time of the prophet peace be upon him, one simple example;

There was this time when the prophet peace be upon him sent a bunch of companions in a mission and ordered them not to pray until theyve reached their destination, and so they did. However, while in their travel , the maghreb got nearer before they reached ( Asr if the prayer before Maghreb) , so one party was saying to stick on the order of the prophet peace be upon him and delay it, others decided that what the prophet peace be upon him said was only in case they reached before maghreb.

So each one did what they thought was right, no one insulted the other telling them you're ignorant or didnt understand correctly , and when they came back to the prophet peace be upon him he agreed on both decisions.

So as you may see, its not about secondary rules, its about principles that we have this big divergence between shias and sunnis.

And I want to point out at something ( since someone were saying that it has the same divergence as christians ) ; well I dont think so, because between sunnis and shias we only make takfir on shias shcolars because they know that what they are saying is taking them out of the fold of Islam but deny it. However, we never ever claim that normal laypeople shias are unbelievers because they are excused for ignorance and you will find out that we do our best but really our best to get them back to the right path.

As for them thinking the same about us, then here I guess you should try and find out by yourself on which stuffs we differ to know whether we are wrong about their practices or not. And since it would take a lot of space to explain I suggest we delay this to another thread Inshallah

Hope I answered some of your questions
Best regards

 

[Badran]

My question/comment is about the term "In šāʾ Allāh". This is most often used in the sense of "God willing". That much I understand. What I don't understand is why people would think that god directs the events that manifest in their lives. To my thinking, the events that occur to us are, for the most part, based on our own actions and not subject to the will of a god. Perhaps it is just the way I look at things, but it just seems odd to say "god willing". Again, to me, it presupposes that a given individual is of such importance that the creator of all that is would actually seek to direct their life. I don't see human animals as being all that important in the larger scheme of things. Certainly not important enough to warrant the interest of that which may have created all that exists.

Perhaps Fatima and Badran could shed some light on the somewhat fatalistic notion of In šāʾ Allāh.

Well, when i say god willing, it means that i'll do my part, and if god has destined that thing that i'm aiming to do to happen, then no surrounding factors will stop me.

In other words, there are my actions, which of course like you said affects the events in my life, and there is another thing that also affects these events, and that is let's call it surrounding factors that i have no power over.

For example if i intended to go to visit someone tomorrow, and then i catch a cold, for no fault of mine, then the outcome was affected by something i couldn't help. So, god willing i'll go visit my friends, as in if nothing happens that i can't help, then i'll go visit them.

 

[Badran]

Fair enough. I guess I'm just not much of Abrahamic Faiths material.

What do you mean? I don't get it.

 

[kejos]

What do you mean? I don't get it.

There's only one Abrahamic faith.

 

[MissAlice]

There's only one Abrahamic faith.

I thought there was 3.

 

[kejos]

I thought there was 3.

So Abraham was a Jew two days a week, a Muslim two days a week, a Christian two days a week, and took the day off on the other one.

 

[McBell]

So Abraham was a Jew two days a week, a Muslim two days a week, a Christian two days a week, and took the day off on the other one.

Sounds about right.

Cause you know, you gotta keep that sabbath.

 

[LuisDantas]

What do you mean? I don't get it.

Abrahamic Faiths are basically an outsider's name for what I believe you Muslims would call Religions of the Book (plus the Bahai Faith).

Their main distinction, from a non-believer's perspective, is that they demand belief in Abraham's God, a creator God that demands faith in him as the one and only deity.

Some people simply can't bring themselves to that, particularly when it is also demanded that they consult some sort of religious authority to find out what does please God and what does abbhor him. It turns out that I am one of those people.

I will never truly be a Christian or a Muslim, because for me the Faiths of the Book got it all backwards when it comes to God and Religion - they see Religion as a means for reaching out for God, while it is self-evident to me that Religion created God instead (as a concept, of course).