What just happened?

[Mohsen]

Very respectfully put, but I disagree about something.

I must admit Brickjectivity, I do like our banter Sure bud, go ahead!

I am not saying Matthew must be a genius, only that he is familiar with the scriptures he is referring to. All he has to do is have a copy in front of him. What you are suggesting is that Matthew is a hoax, containing alterations so bad that no Jewish person would have tolerated them; but this requires Matthew to be both intelligent and stupid. His work is obviously adopted, so he is intelligent yet his alterations are quite obvious.

Half correct and half incorrect about what I am claiming.

You are correct in that the source(s) of Matthew are familiar with the OT, and that these are pushing to appeal primarily to a Jewish audience. Not Gentile.

Incorrect because - No biblical scholar believes that the source(s) of Matthew - is Matthew himself. The consensus itself is that the source(s) are numerous and anonymous. Thus Matthew is labelled as a Q Source. So the argument for there to be a "Matthew" to attribute the text to, fails to satisfy scholars of Christianity. Of course I can cite a number of scholars from the Christian traditions which claim what I am repeating here, and even one who used to be a Christian once upon a time, namely Bart Ehrman, who left the fold after remaining unsatisfied with various elements of the faith tradition, including the early canon.

What you are suggesting is far more unlikely that he would write this expecting no one to notice.

This is indeed problematic. This "he" you mention, is not just one person.

Put yourself into this writers shoes. So you think he is dishonest? Ok, then what does a dishonest person do. A dishonest person would relies upon ignorance to prey upon others. An honest person is careful not to make mistakes and respectful, however they might use figures of speech and other figures. For example they might use blatant inventions to indicate something is not literal. People do this all the time, so why may Matthew not do so?

I see what you are attempting to relay here, and I admire your zeal in this regard. I only wish I too could be as zealous sometimes. But being so objective about method, I lean towards the skeptical methodologies which test via historically accurate methods to ascertain the truth of said statements. It's a scientific process. Sure. So when you claim, that certain verses are allegorical in meaning, I personally have no issue with that because I know Christians usually interpret the bible the way they each individually see fit. Like this, a verse from the bible can mean one thing to one person and the total opposite to another... the issue I then have is the following question: Is God the author of Confusions?

As you can appreciate, this question is what brings the theological hammer down on the dogmatic premise of many Christians. The appeal to emotion, is, after all, hardly an intellectual pursuit!

Bless,

 

[Windwalker]

Incorrect because - No biblical scholar believes that the source(s) of Matthew - is Matthew himself. The consensus itself is that the source(s) are numerous and anonymous.

I don't think he was suggesting that, and we say "Matthew" since that is the name of the Gospel itself. It's common knowledge assigning the name Matthew to it was a later attribution. I believe he is well aware of that. It's a matter of convenience to say "Matthew" wrote it, since we don't know the actual name of the person who did. Why not call him Matthew? It was a person, and he had to have some name. Are we going to say, "When unknown wrote his gospel," since that would apply to all of them. That applies to most of the books in the Bible actually, including ones that were later attributed to Paul in name. We don't know who wrote them, and ultimately it doesn't really matter.

Thus Matthew is labelled as a Q Source.

That is completely incorrect. Matthew is not Q or the Quella. The two-document hypothesis proposes that both Matthew and Luke used a separate common "source" (which the word quella means in German). It is supposedly a "sayings Gospel" outside the Gospels which the two of them both used, which goes to why some things are verbatim in the original language between them, while they differ in the others. The saying is "Where Matthew and Luke agree, they are quoting Q, where they disagree they are saying their own things". However Q is falling into disfavor these days as not correct. The evidence shows that Luke used Matthew to create his Gospel. Matthew used Mark. Mark was the first.

I see what you are attempting to relay here, and I admire your zeal in this regard. I only wish I too could be as zealous sometimes. But being so objective about method, I lean towards the skeptical methodologies which test via historically accurate methods to ascertain the truth of said statements. It's a scientific process. Sure. So when you claim, that certain verses are allegorical in meaning, I personally have no issue with that because I know Christians usually interpret the bible the way they each individually see fit. Like this, a verse from the bible can mean one thing to one person and the total opposite to another... the issue I then have is the following question: Is God the author of Confusions?

Your approach to say that scripture needs to have scientific veracity is highly flawed. The point that people can come up with different meanings for themselves, shows in fact its validity! A good myth has many meanings! It inspires imagination and the possible, expressed in the individual and in the group. To reduce scripture to flat-facts slams it to the ground as just data to accept as true, and go one with your life, like accepting gravity holds you to the ground. When was the last time you felt inspired to write poetry about gravity? "Gravity! Oh gravity! You hold my pen to the table so I may write sweet words of thee!"

This rational approach to "prove" the divine, takes God and send him crashing to the earth to be beheld like some oddity, a space alien crash landed in the desert we can haul off to the lab and dissect to understand it rationally with our scientific minds. This is garbage, when it comes to accessing the divine. You don't approach God as a series of deductive conclusions. Rationality is the not the door to spiritual truth, let alone the measure of it.

As you can appreciate, this question is what brings the theological hammer down on the dogmatic premise of many Christians. The appeal to emotion, is, after all, hardly an intellectual pursuit!

Spirituality is not an intellectual pursuit. It is by default a subjective realization. And I'll add that spirituality is not "emotion". It's vastly deeper and beyond that, and emotions if they are had are responses to that, just as they are to your thoughts about things. You don't call your thoughts, emotions, do you?

 

[Mohsen]

I don't think he was suggesting that, and we say "Matthew" since that is the name of the Gospel itself. It's common knowledge assigning the name Matthew to it was a later attribution. I believe he is well aware of that. It's a matter of convenience to say "Matthew" wrote it, since we don't know the actual name of the person who did. Why not call him Matthew? It was a person, and he had to have some name. We are going to say, "When unknown wrote his gospel," since that would apply to all of them.

I disagree.

That is incorrect. Matthew is not Q or the Quella. The two-document hypothesis proposes that both Matthew and Luke used a separate common "source" (which the word quella means). It is supposedly a "sayings Gospel" outside the Gospels which the two of them both used, which goes to why some things are verbatim in the original language between them, while they differ in the others. The saying is "Where Matthew and Luke agree, they are quoting Q, where they disagree they are saying their own things". However Q is falling into disfavor these days as not correct. The evidence shows that Luke used Matthew to create his Gospel. Matthew used Mark. Mark was the first.

Matthew is not just Q but also M and Antiochan as well as borrowed from Mark. With hints of OT. It's more Stewart than Matthew... or should that be Stew-Art!

Your approach to say that scripture needs to have scientific veracity is highly flawed. The point that people can come up with different meanings for themselves, shows in fact it integrity! A good myth has many meanings! It inspires imagination and the possible, expressed in the individual and in the group. To reduce scripture to flat-facts slams it to the ground and just data to accept as true, and go one with your life, like accepting gravity holds you to the ground. You take God and send him crashing to the earth to be beheld like some oddity, a space alien crash landed in the desert we can haul off to the lab and dissect to understand it rationally with our scientific minds. This is garbage, when it comes to accessing the divine. You don't approach God as a series of deductive conclusions.

I actually agree with your point, see in Islam we have a method called "Tadabbur" - which means to reflect on the Qur'an, but this requires contextual study of the verses. With relation to how the Christians butcher this up with their linear reading of the New Testament though, is thoroughly different. For example, on another forum, some years ago, two Christians were arguing the meaning of a particular allegorical verse from the New Testament, each Christian was claiming to have the "holy Ghost" guiding them... and they were directly contradicting each others interpretations. The reason was simple, they were both taking a dogmatic approach without methodology, and in total ignorance of context and the actual cotext - instead, they had cherry picked the verse to push a particular narrative - which happened to oppose the narrative of the other. So I asked - "whose holy ghost is winning?". Shortly after, I got a PM from one of them claiming they'd have enough of Christianity and they now wanted to be Muslim. I told them no thanks. Whimsical Christians make for bad Muslims

Spirituality is not an intellectual pursuit. It is by default a subjective realization.

Spirituality is THE penultimate Intellectual pursuit of Objective Truths. So I disagree. Your idea of Spirituality has more holes in it than I care to shoot arrows through. Mines? appeal more to those who are actually in search of truths, whilst knowing all truth is never convenient, neither is it always pretty

Peace!

 

[Brickjectivity]

I must admit Brickjectivity, I do like our banter Sure bud, go ahead!

I respect your courage to debate in a somewhat hostile environment. Most here are not Muslims.

Half correct and half incorrect about what I am claiming.

You are correct in that the source(s) of Matthew are familiar with the OT, and that these are pushing to appeal primarily to a Jewish audience. Not Gentile.

Incorrect because - No biblical scholar believes that the source(s) of Matthew - is Matthew himself. The consensus itself is that the source(s) are numerous and anonymous. Thus Matthew is labelled as a Q Source. So the argument for there to be a "Matthew" to attribute the text to, fails to satisfy scholars of Christianity. Of course I can cite a number of scholars from the Christian traditions which claim what I am repeating here, and even one who used to be a Christian once upon a time, namely Bart Ehrman, who left the fold after remaining unsatisfied with various elements of the faith tradition, including the early canon.

I have heard of it but am not a scholar. I have looked at a book by Bart Ehrman. He writes books aimed at laypersons. I think he pulls his punches, actually. People are fragile. We are made of clay, so-to-speak and will break if dropped from too high. Girls must be told certain things, children other things and men must also be told certain things. We cannot bear to hear the truth sometimes. We are not beings composed of pure truth.

This is indeed problematic. This "he" you mention, is not just one person.

I do not have a problem with that. I also do not have a problem with referring to the authors of Matthew as Matthew, because I think this is something ancient scholars do. It is similar to how a modern professor in Europe gets credit for the work of their masters degree students. It is understood that the professor has not actually done their work alone. In the USA things are a little different with shared credit. Either way works so long as it is understood. I prefer each person involved gets individual credit, but with Matthew it is convenient to say "Matthew writes such & such," and who knows but maybe there is one main author.

I see what you are attempting to relay here, and I admire your zeal in this regard. I only wish I too could be as zealous sometimes. But being so objective about method, I lean towards the skeptical methodologies which test via historically accurate methods to ascertain the truth of said statements. It's a scientific process. Sure. So when you claim, that certain verses are allegorical in meaning, I personally have no issue with that because I know Christians usually interpret the bible the way they each individually see fit. Like this, a verse from the bible can mean one thing to one person and the total opposite to another... the issue I then have is the following question: Is God the author of Confusions?

The thing to watch out for are my spelling errors which are caused by my ruinous pride. A man seems merely a cage to keep his pride from destroying the world, and that cage rattles and bends. It also causes spelling errors. Call it superstition if you like. I'm not saying a good speller is always humble. What I am saying is that pride creates the disagreement among Christians, not the words and letters nor the authors of Matthew.

As you can appreciate, this question is what brings the theological hammer down on the dogmatic premise of many Christians. The appeal to emotion, is, after all, hardly an intellectual pursuit!

Bless,

I am not going to even attempt to convince you, nor will I force you to look at Matthew the same way as me. I believe that your compassion and skeptical nature are both great achievements. As a skeptic I can tell you that heartache will come to you through your skepticism, so do not hold yourself to an unearthly standard. A theological hammer is not the right tool.

 

[Mohsen]

I respect your courage to debate in a somewhat hostile environment. Most here are not Muslims.

I find this a welcome break from some of the forums I used to post inside of - this feels like an holiday camp - with VW Camper vans and Scooby Do and crew running amock! It's... enjoyable thanks for the welcome though my bro! I appreciate the warmth you project!

have heard of it but am not a scholar. I have looked at a book by Bart Ehrman. He writes books aimed at laypersons. I think he pulls his punches, actually. People are fragile. We are made of clay, so-to-speak and will break if dropped from too high. Girls must be told certain things, children other things and men must also be told certain things. We cannot bear to hear the truth sometimes. We are not beings composed of pure truth.

Ah I think you are referring to "Forged" by Bart? there is also a 700page behemoth of a book aimed at Scholars titled "Forgeries and Counter Forgeries" also written by Bart Ehrman !!! Not for those who aren't versed in biblical history.

I do not have a problem with that. I also do not have a problem with referring to the authors of Matthew as Matthew, because I think this is something ancient scholars do. It is similar to how a modern professor in Europe gets credit for the work of their masters degree students. It is understood that the professor has not actually done their work alone. In the USA things are a little different with shared credit. Either way works so long as it is understood. I prefer each person involved gets individual credit, but with Matthew it is convenient to say "Matthew writes such & such," and who knows but maybe there is one main author.

Ah I see how you mean to refer to the gospel of Matthew as not written by the mystery man himself now, thank you for clarification. We agree then, that the Gospel according to Matthew is "multiple sourced". Excellent!

The thing to watch out for are my spelling errors which are caused by my ruinous pride. A man seems merely a cage to keep his pride from destroying the world, and that cage rattles and bends. It also causes spelling errors. Call it superstition if you like. I'm not saying a good speller is always humble. What I am saying is that pride creates the disagreement among Christians, not the words and letters nor the authors of Matthew.

Ah bro, it's all good my end! Tragic be the Typos that Taint the Truthful Tirade of The Teachers!

I am not going to even attempt to convince you, nor will I force you to look at Matthew the same way as me. I believe that your compassion and skeptical nature are both great achievements. As a skeptic I can tell you that heartache will come to you through your skepticism, so do not hold yourself to an unearthly standard. A theological hammer is not the right tool.

I appreciate the sentiment, and feel warmed by your concern, my friend. But worry not, for the mettle I am made of, is rooted in convictions which justify themselves in ways measured, by wind sand and sea! Now, where be those pearls?

God bless,

 

[Milton Platt]

Hi YmirGF,

are you implying that Muslims often know more about the Bible than Christians do?

peace

Quite often, even atheists know more about the bible than Christians do. No, not all atheists, and not all Christians

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Three Muslims were invited by two Christians to explore the bible text and its history. What happened next was unbelievable.

Really? Click-bait on forums now?

 

[Windwalker]

Matthew is not just Q but also M and Antiochan as well as borrowed from Mark. With hints of OT. It's more Stewart than Matthew... or should that be Stew-Art!

What do you mean it's Q? The above diagram has Q as one of Matthew's sources! It "contains Q" but it itself is not Q. You see the dark blue square called "Source Q"? You see the green box called Matthew? It doesn't say "Matthew (Q)". They are different boxes and different colors. The above diagram confirms exactly what I said. Q is a hypothetically different document shared by Matthew and Luke (proto-Luke).

From Wiki:

"The Two-source hypothesis (or 2SH) is an explanation for the synoptic problem, the pattern of similarities and differences between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It posits that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection from the Christian oral tradition called Q."




See? Q is not Matthew. Q is not Luke. Q is Q. The blue bits in Matthew and Luke are from a second document outside of Mark scholars call Q. Hence the "Two document" hypothesis, Mark and Q.

Again however, this is no longer that well supported and scholars are seeing that Luke basically ripped off Matthew and Mark, that there is no "Q" at all. Here's a good article getting explaining why: Why Do We Still Believe in Q? - Richard Carrier

I actually agree with your point, see in Islam we have a method called "Tadabbur" - which means to reflect on the Qur'an, but this requires contextual study of the verses.

"Contextual study" is the use of the rational mind to come up with thoughts about God. As I said before, "You don't approach God as a series of deductive conclusions." The best you end up with is your best ideas at the time, which is not a reflection of God, but of your own mind.

With relation to how the Christians butcher this up with their linear reading of the New Testament though, is thoroughly different. For example, on another forum, some years ago, two Christians were arguing the meaning of a particular allegorical verse from the New Testament, each Christian was claiming to have the "holy Ghost" guiding them... and they were directly contradicting each other's interpretations.

A couple of things here, some Christians do exactly what you say doing "contextual study". I find flaw with that as well for the exact same reasons I said above. But the second group you cite are magical thinkers. They like to play ouija board with the Bible. "God told me this is what this means!", is prerational twaddle. There are plenty of magical thinkers in all religions, as that is actually a stage of development common to all humans, inside and outside of religion. It's the level of superstition. They don't yet realize the subjective nature of interpretations and how they are reflections of their own personalities and culture, and ascribe some sort of magical quality to them.

Then you move up to the "rational" stage, where they imagine that using "Contextual study" will bring them into a truer, more accurate interpretation and thus, "the Truth" of it's meaning. This too is flawed, just like the magical thinker's "God told me" is. Now it's "God put it in the scripture, and "My reason" told me. Though it is "better" in that it is more sophisticated, the latter has exactly the same problem as the former, in that it cannot see the factors of why no matter how you approach reading it, via the ouija board methodology, or the "contextual study" method, they are still all mediated through language and culture, and at best are a reflection of themselves projected out onto the universe as Truth with a capital T. Here's a more detailed explanation of the fallacy of this line of thought: The Impossibility of Scriptural Authority

The reason was simple, they were both taking a dogmatic approach without methodology

No, "God told me," is not a dogmatic approach, but a magical thinking approach. It's methodology is like summoning up spirits to tell you the secrets of the universe. It has a methodology, just a prerational one.

, and in total ignorance of context and the actual cotext - instead, they had cherry picked the verse to push a particular narrative - which happened to oppose the narrative of the other. So I asked - "whose holy ghost is winning?". Shortly after, I got a PM from one of them claiming they'd have enough of Christianity and they now wanted to be Muslim. I told them no thanks. Whimsical Christians make for bad Muslims

You don't know ANY Muslims who are magical thinkers??? You must not get out much. How about those who butcher the Qur'an to have make it read that it was talking about science facts magically, without the benefit of actual science? That's magical thinking too, like trying to read verses of the Bible to say "He stands upon the circle of the earth" to say they knew before anyone else did that the earth was spherical. I've seen plenty of similar type arguments from Muslims trying to use such thin, shaky interpretations as grounds to prove the Qur'an was "divinely inspired," claiming that it knew these things before anyone else did. It's pure garbage on both sides in both religions, from a rational point of view, that is.

Aside from that, do you believe in "Jinn"? Aren't they magical creatures? I know Buddhists who have magical beliefs too. But as you know, they do not define the way the religion is believed or practiced by everyone within it. It's only how they translate it based on their particular developmental lens, just as you translate it with yours. It's just different lenses or filters, reflective of the different stages.

You might find Fowler's work on the Stages of Faith to be helpful to properly "contextualize" what you see, in all religions. I think you might find it informative, and I'd enjoy discussing it with you as I use it extensively in understanding the context of stage development the person is speaking from. Chart of James Fowler's Stages of Faith | psychologycharts.com

Spirituality is THE penultimate Intellectual pursuit of Objective Truths.

According to whom? All you will end up with as the result of exploring objective truths all the way to their "end", is unanswerable paradoxes (the "deficient" phase of the Mental Epoch spanning the last 2000 years, according to Gebser). Dialectical thought falters at a certain point, and can go no further. Many scientists understand this too well, hence why you have Khun talking of the need for new paradigms. What do you think you were before you could reason? Dead? Spirituality embraces the whole person, body, mind, and soul. It not only embraces rationality, it embraces the non-rational. All you have in the pursuit of objective truths, is the external aspect of the world and yourself. It does not develop or pursue any knowledge of the subjective self. This is a poor form of Logical Positivism, you are espousing here. Nothing better than that. Knowledge of Self, or God, is not realized at the end of a good argument. It's when you've reached the end of your good argument and find yourself short of the mark, that you let go, and then you know.

Your idea of Spirituality has more holes in it than I care to shoot arrows through.

By all means, give it a shot if you think there are holes. I actually doubt you understand what, or how I think and believe, or practice these things in order to make such a boastful claim like this. There is tons of support, objectively, surrounding exactly what I am saying about these things, which I've only in this current post begun to touch on. So by all means, confidently shoot forth your arrows. My wager is they will land several hundred yards short of where I'm standing.

Mines? appeal more to those who are actually in search of truths, whilst knowing all truth is never convenient, neither is it always pretty

You think that mystics are not in search of truth? You know nothing then.

 

[Mohsen]

Peace Windwalker, it's 1am and I just finished my study lesson with a few friends and am tired, so I apologise for not replying sooner. I also apologise for not being able to give you any proper reply at this moment as I am tired and need to sleep, but I do intend on replying to your post when I next find myself with some free time God willing!

Peace

 

[MohammadPali]

The jinn do exist, some can be other religions too, the rare demonic ones are called efreet, all they have to do is stand near you and they can ruin your life. Some of them can possess you. Some times they are jealous. They can travel with you. This is not some magic thing. You don't want to mess with it. You can invoke them, and to invoke them requires alot of disgusting things that you have to do.

 

[Windwalker]

The jinn do exist, some can be other religions too, the rare demonic ones are called efreet, all they have to do is stand near you and they can ruin your life. Some of them can possess you. Some times they are jealous. They can travel with you. This is not some magic thing. You don't want to mess with it. You can invoke them, and to invoke them requires alot of disgusting things that you have to do.

Are there those you know of within your religion who do not believe the jinn actually exist, are skeptics or deniers of them, or do all Muslims believe they are actually real?

 

[Mohsen]

Are there those you know of within your religion who do not believe the jinn actually exist, are skeptics or deniers of them, or do all Muslims believe they are actually real?

Surah Al-Jinn [72]

We have to believe in their existence! As you can see, there is a chapter named after them in the Qur'an!

peace

 

[MohammadPali]

Are there those you know of within your religion who do not believe the jinn actually exist, are skeptics or deniers of them, or do all Muslims believe they are actually real?

When a muslim says he doesn't believe in the jinn, he or she is not saying that they don't believe in the jinn, he or she is saying they just don't want to be bothered with the jinn. All muslims belive they are real. But ive heard of them denying it, not because they don't exist. They want to leave them alone.

 

[Windwalker]

Surah Al-Jinn [72]

We have to believe in their existence! As you can see, there is a chapter named after them in the Qur'an!

peace

That you are "supposed" does not mean everyone actually, literally believes that is true. Symbolically true, perhaps, but that's not the same as literally. There are many Christians who love the story of Jesus walking on water, but if pressed do they believe it literally happened, they'd so no. Or if they did say "yes" it could be "not really, but people won't understand why if I said I didn't," sort of social pressure "yes". So, again, do they all really, when pressed on it, believe in them literally?

 

[Windwalker]

When a muslim says he doesn't believe in the jinn, he or she is not saying that they don't believe in the jinn, he or she is saying they just don't want to be bothered with the jinn. All muslims belive they are real. But ive heard of them denying it, not because they don't exist. They want to leave them alone.

Would you say that's true of all Muslims worldwide, including Muslim youth growing up in 1st world countries in large metropolitan communities? Somehow, I can't believe there aren't probably a great number who if pressed would say they don't exist, that they are not real, not because they are worried about them, but like any supernatural entity of our cultural traditions and stories, they aren't factually real, in any material or supernatural ways. They are creatures of our human and cultural imaginations.

I'll bet there are probably quite a few. Just as there are many Christians who don't literally believe the story of Noah's Ark is factually true, even though it's in their scriptures too. They don't "have to" believe it just because it's on the pages. They see in the context of cultural stories.

 

[MohammadPali]

Would you say that's true of all Muslims worldwide, including Muslim youth growing up in 1st world countries in large metropolitan communities? Somehow, I can't believe there aren't probably a great number who if pressed would say they don't exist, that they are not real, not because they are worried about them, but like any supernatural entity of our cultural traditions and stories, they aren't factually real, in any material or supernatural ways. They are creatures of our human and cultural imaginations. I'll bet there are probably quite a few.

We know they exist, I have stories, everyones got stories. My grand mother in jerusalem was mopping her floor. She finished mopping and took the dirty water and flung it outside near a drain. She turned around, and booom, she slid 20 feet in the oddest way with people around her.

Dogs see jinn, you got a dog ? You know it hears things. You and me cant imagine.

 

[Mohsen]

That you are "supposed" does not mean everyone actually, literally believes that is true. Symbolically true, perhaps, but that's not the same as literally. There are many Christians who love the story of Jesus walking on water, but if pressed do they believe it literally happened, they'd so no. Or if they did say "yes" it could be "not really, but people won't understand why if I said I didn't," sort of social pressure "yes". So, again, do they all really, when pressed on it, believe in them literally?

Yes, it is a literal belief! The Jinn exist! They are not mythical. But a literal reality.

Transliteration of an excerpt from 7:27 in the Qur'an: Innahu yaraakum, huwa wa kabeeluhu min hayshthu laa tarawnahum! Inna ja'alnaa ashayaateena awliyaa lilladheena laa yu'minoon!

Translation: Indeed, he (satan) sees you, he and his tribe, from where you do not see them! Indeed WE have made the devils allies to those who do not believe!

Key to note here is that They, the unseen ones (the word Jinn is from the plural of the word for the unseen creation - and satan and his flock are from this species, the Jinn) can see us yet we cannot see them. This is in the Qur'an and is literal, it is not allegorical nor is it a metaphor, but from the verses classed as Arabiyun Mubeen - meaning - clear in Arabic meaning, Literal!

Hope this helps

Peace

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, it is a literal belief! The Jinn exist! They are not mythical. But a literal reality.

There are no Muslims who don't question why it is that Jinn are only experienced in the cultures that believe in them and none outside those cultures do? There are no Muslims anywhere in the world who don't believe the Jinn are part of culture lore which were sincerely believed in by the culture at the time of Mohammed, and he believed in them too being part of that culture, but not everything in the Qu'ran must be accepted as scientifically verifiable facts in the light of today's knowledge?

You do realize there are plenty of mythological creatures and stories in the scriptures of religions the world over, including Christianity of course, that not everyone who is part of that religion believes literally? Not all Christians believe Jesus literally walked on water or turn water into wine, because we understand these things are physically impossible. Even if the original author imagined they were upon hearing the tales, that does not make them actual facts.

The key is that for them, the symbolic truth of the stories has meaning and value, without the need to sacrifice reason for faith. That is typical of modern believers with access to the tools of modern science and research. This is typical of James Fowler's Stage 4 faith I linked to before, where they are able to see the meaning of the symbol (Jinn in this case), existing independently from the symbol. For instance, the 'mischievous' or dangerous Jinn represent our subconscious mind's shadow material that frightens us, that we push into the corner and do not want to acknowledge or talk about, lest its influence rear its ugly head and open a door to something we feel we have little control over.

They come to see it's not that there are actual "demons" as non corporeal entities that literally exist, undetectable to the tools of any sort of scientific research, but that they are "true" in how they represent something very real within ourselves, which we in our dissociation of them, our violent repressions of undesirable aspects of ourselves, we objectify, and make as something "outside" of us. They understand the Jinn are really our own psychological shadow material, and then deal with it at that level of modern, rational thought, as opposed to the magical level of putting out garlic or whatever sorts of things a culture came up with as ways to symbolically deal with them.

You see, one can "believe" in these things, without the form of them of necessity to be believed in as some sort of actual external and indivisible "ghost bear", or something which literally is hiding in their closets, or under their bed. People at a Stage 4 Faith, shift away from literally believing in monsters, to recognizing them as symbolic aspects of themselves.

And my bet is there are a lot of Muslims out there who do think along lines like that. Though, I'd also bet they are not the majority, just as they are not the majority in other religions either, but becoming more and more in time.

Key to note here is that They, the unseen ones (the word Jinn is from the plural of the word for the unseen creation - and satan and his flock are from this species, the Jinn) can see us yet we cannot see them. This is in the Qur'an and is literal, it is not allegorical nor is it a metaphor, but from the verses classed as Arabiyun Mubeen - meaning - clear in Arabic meaning, Literal!

Again, just because these sorts of creatures, or stories may be in one's scriptures, it does not mean that everyone understands them exactly the same way. Some take them literally, unable to separate the meaning associated with the symbol, and other are. Even if the author himself thought they were real, does not mean they literally are. Truth is not bound to "facts", and that was my point. If faith is dependent upon believing in 'ghost bears', for instance, you place a ceiling on how the religion can have value to anyone who simply cannot believe there literally are still monsters under their beds at night.

Would you say to others, "Welcome to Islam, brother! Now please throw everything you know about the natural world out the door and believe in supernatural entities in order to be saved. If you don't, we don't want you. If you don't believe or think as I do, you're not a Muslim"? I wonder how other modern Muslims would feel about that who don't believe in Jinn? Probably the same as Christians who don't believe Noah's Ark and the flood actually happened in actual history, yet find the moral of the story to have symbolic truth, even if the original authors fantasized it was real themselves.

 

[MohammadPali]

The jinn are not going to get involved in human matters most of the time. They only get involved when they are invoked, and it has to be ritually invoked in such a way, its disgusting. They can also get involved with someone if they liked that person for whatever reason. These are rare occurrences but it happens. And since jinn live much longer than humans they know things like about someones grand mother, or grand father, and psychics if they know what they're doing can communicate with them to make people think they contacted their dead siblings.

Jinn are not monsters or the candyman, they live in a world within ours, they are made from smokeless gas or fire. They are atomically different than us. They also have a soul, and everyone of them can be christian, jew, or muslim, or athiests or demonic from the tribe of satan.

Their eyes look like cat eyes, like the grey aliens, they don't have a particular body, and they love to mess around with humans. They can travel far/fast. And they have limitations on how they can contact humans, they have to be at the right time and the right place when invoked.

 

[Mohsen]

The jinn are not going to get involved in human matters most of the time. They only get involved when they are invoked, and it has to be ritually invoked in such a way, its disgusting. They can also get involved with someone if they liked that person for whatever reason. These are rare occurrences but it happens.

Not necessarily. Reading Ibn Taymiyyah's essay may help to clear this up. For example - there are other reasons the Jaan may cause problems for humans. I'd rather not mention these here.

Jinn are not monsters or the candyman, they live in a world within ours, they are made from smokeless gas or fire. They are atomically different than us. They also have a soul, and everyone of them can be christian, jew, or muslim, or athiests or demonic from the tribe of satan.

A smokeless fire. Sounds to me like plasma.

Their eyes look like cat eyes, like the grey aliens, they don't have a particular body, and they love to mess around with humans. They can travel far/fast. And they have limitations on how they can contact humans, they have to be at the right time and the right place when invoked.

This is false, none know what their eyes look like - this is because they are Jaan (plural) - meaning "unseen" and this for very good reason, your eyes cannot see that which is designed not to be seen!

Peace