Is Islam a myth?

[Aupmanyav]

You mean Rahul Gandhi? He is 51 now.
When I was 51, my daughter was 24. By 26, she was married.

 

[juantoo3]

Thank you for the considerate conversation. Unfortunately for me, today was an unusual day and I was not able to do further research, but I intend to return as quickly as possible.

 

[RJM]

Are the words of the Quran to be taken literally? Are they ever allowed to be interpreted figuratively? Must the historical Biblical events described by the Quran be taken literally: Noah's Ark and a six day creation, amongst others?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Are the words of the Quran to be taken literally? Are they ever allowed to be interpreted figuratively?

The Qur'an itself says that much of it is figurative. It also warns about arguing about their meaning.
God knows their meaning, and He is able to guide whomsoever He wills.

Some thing clearly aren't figurative. Historical events are historical events. What is declared unlawful is unlawful.

 

[RJM]

The Qur'an itself says that much of it is figurative.

So it's a bit more subtle and mysterious than at first appears to a casual observer?

also warns about arguing about their meaning.

It's not to be debated, but literally ' taken as read'?

God knows their meaning, and He is able to guide whomsoever He wills.

So is it open to interpretation or is it not? God may guide a reader to a bit more subtle understanding then the foot stomping literal interpretation of the words? How does the reader know? How do other people know? Or do you mean this stuff isn't quite all that simple black and white?

Some thing clearly aren't figurative. Historical events are historical events.

So if Noah's Ark is not an actual historical event but an Islamic drawing from earlier biblical documents, now proven by science to be inaccurate and incorrect -- it didn't happen, get over it -- where does that go?

What is declared unlawful is unlawful.

So if the Quran declares hashish legal but alcohol illegal -- that's fine then everybody else has to go by what the Quran dictates, or else condemned to horrific suffering -- for having a brandy instead of a joint?

 

[RJM]

What causes you to insist that YOUR book is the word of God for all humanity -- to be forced upon them by horrific tortures described at length throughout the book -- instead of just for yourself, and mind your own soul and everybody else get on with minding theirs?

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's not to be debated, but literally ' taken as read'?

No .. it's a personal thing.

How does the reader know? How do other people know? Or do you mean this stuff isn't quite all that simple black and white?

The author is claimed to be God DIRECTLY, unlike the Bible which is written by inspired authors. People can believe whatever they like. Declaring oneself to be a Muslim or Christian is one thing.
Being rightly-guided is another.
i.e. it depends on the person reading it and their spiritual state

So if Noah's Ark is not an actual historical event but an Islamic drawing from earlier biblical documents, now proven by science to be inaccurate and incorrect -- it didn't happen, get over it -- where does that go?

No .. it is an historical event and it DID happen. HOW it happened is another matter.
I personally believe that the flood was local and didn't cover the whole globe.

So if the Quran declares hashish legal but alcohol illegal -- that's fine then everybody else has to go by what the Quran dictates, or else condemned to horrific suffering -- for having a brandy instead of a joint?

This is purely fiction.
Hashish is not mentioned in the Qur'an. It is a matter of debate whether it is lawful or not.
The principle is "leave that which makes you doubt for that which does NOT make you doubt"

Re. alcohol, it is not specifically declared unlawful. God tells us to leave "strong drink" alone as the devil only wishes to cause enmity between us. It speaks for itself.
You seem to be confusing fatwas and laws that countries adopt with the Qur'an.

Pig meat and blood poured forth is declared unlawful to eat. There is no doubt about that unless one has no other food.
The devouring of people's wealth through usury is similarly declared unlawful.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What causes you to insist that YOUR book is the word of God for all humanity -- to be forced upon them by horrific tortures described at length throughout the book..

You have a vivid imagination.
I have absolutely no interest in forcing anybody to believe anything. Why should I?
That being said, I'm not an anarchist. I believe that people who violate others should be held to account.
..whatever their professed religion.

 

[juantoo3]

The author is claimed to be God DIRECTLY, unlike the Bible which is written by inspired authors.

I'm stepping into the middle of a conversation here, my apologies, but I want to be certain I understand what you are saying. "The author," meaning the Prophet, claims to be "God DIRECTLY"? No offense intended, but he seems to me no more than the other "inspired authors" you would otherwise take exception to, in that G-d provided the words. That's pretty much what the definition of a prophet is. "G-d said to me" vs "I speak in the name of G-d, as G-d." To my eyes these are very different things.

People can believe whatever they like. Declaring oneself to be a Muslim or Christian is one thing. Being rightly-guided is another.

Agreed, absolutely. Someone could call themselves the King of England, doesn't make it so.

 

[juantoo3]

I was able to do some more reading today. Interesting stuff, and I'm still digesting it, but I do have some questions forming particularly around objections you've made regarding Christianity. The thoughts are not fully formed yet, so bear with me.

One thing I have noticed is how militant Islam was / is, from the very beginning. LOTS of military campaigns right out of the gate, and that's not counting civil war among themselves. Was reading a bit about the Battle of the Camel, involving the Prophet's beloved wife leading a band of rebels against their own, and how that split the faith and formed the basis for subjugating women.

 

[muhammad_isa]

"The author," meaning the Prophet, claims to be "God DIRECTLY"?

No, the author of the Qur'an is NOT the prophet Muhammad!

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
Deuteronomy 18:18, KJV

 

[juantoo3]

OK, thank you for that clarification. Though it does seem curious to me quoting the post Abrahamic Bible to support Islam.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It also warns about arguing about their meaning.
God knows their meaning, and He is able to guide whomsoever He wills.

Very convenient. Allah will guide according to the words that he has given to his messenger who holds the sword. Differ at your own risk.

What causes you to insist that YOUR book is the word of God for all humanity --

Yeah, you tell me!

OK, thank you for that clarification. Though it does seem curious to me quoting the post Abrahamic Bible to support Islam.

Nothing wrong. Islam too worships the God of Ibrahim (alayhi ṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu), so no problem. Same brood, same talk, same walk.
People of the book.

 

[RJM]

Being rightly-guided is another.

By their fruits shall they be known

 

[Aupmanyav]

By their fruits shall they be known

Cristians did that earlier, are doing it in some areas today, but they have graduated to better methods now. The goal does not change.

 

[RJM]

Cristians did that earlier, are doing it in some areas today, but they have graduated to better methods now. The goal does not change.

No denying people behaved in a medieval manner during medieval times -- including some Christians. But times have moved on.

 

[juantoo3]

Merely a generalized observation, not an excuse for the misdeeds over the centuries, but since the Reformation Christianity doesn't hold the reigns of governments like they used to. Admittedly, the legal systems are by and large founded on Christian principles, but inside these countries folks are for the most part free to believe as they wish.

Not so in Sharia countries. Those few minorities allowed are discriminated against, and those not allowed are dealt with VERY harshly.

So the goals may not have changed, but the methods and the degree of tolerance are worlds apart.

Found this:

we know that when (Thomas Jefferson) and James Madison first proposed the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom (the frame and basis of the later First Amendment to the Constitution) in 1779, the preamble began, “Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free.” Patrick Henry and other devout Christians attempted to substitute the words “Jesus Christ” for “Almighty God” in this opening passage and were overwhelmingly voted down. This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean that Virginia’s representatives wanted the law “to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.” Quite right, too, and so far so good, even if the term Mahomedan would not be used today, and even if Jefferson’s own private sympathies were with the last named in that list.

What Jefferson really thought about Islam. (slate.com)

I see nothing remotely comparable in Sharia

 

[juantoo3]

Islam too worships the God of Ibrahim (alayhi ṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu), so no problem. Same brood, same talk, same walk. People of the book.

If only that were true. In principle, perhaps. In practice, quite the opposite.

And my understanding is that Islam agrees with the Jewish Bible to the point of Abraham and the exile of the son by the handmaiden, and from the son by Abraham's wife the Bible is ignored. Quoting from the ignored portion in support of the Prophet of Islam seems to me to be an attempt at blurring boundaries...unless I missed something?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..from the son by Abraham's wife the Bible is ignored..

I'm not ignoring anything.
It is just that you have preconceived ideas.
You interpret the Bible in light of them.

In fact, much of the NT is based on Paul's claimed prophetic status .. oh no, here we go again
I'm not attacking Paul here, btw .. we all see things differently for several reasons.

The NT is primarily about the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire. It is very interesting..
..but it's not literally "God's word". That is a misnomer.

 

[juantoo3]

I'm not ignoring anything.

Perhaps, but Islam does, or so I have been told MANY times by MANY other Muslims. Are they all mistaken and only you correct?

It is just that you have preconceived ideas. You interpret the Bible in light of them.

And you do not? You overstate the obvious to take umbrage?

In fact, much of the NT is based on Paul's claimed prophetic status .. oh no, here we go again
I'm not attacking Paul here, btw .. we all see things differently for several reasons.

The NT is primarily about the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire. It is very interesting..
..but it's not literally "God's word". That is a misnomer.

The NT is about the birth of a new way of approaching G-d, a way that had always been there but people had forgotten or grown away from or politically stifled from pursuing. Qumran and the Essenes were a failed attempt to seek out a similar path. John's followers in the desert wilderness were attempting the same thing. The hermit monk is a long standing tradition, and might even rightly point at Muhammed.

The NT isn't a history book, so to blithely state that it is "about the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire" is misleading at best.

Further, and I've had this discussion with Thomas before so it is nothing new, Paul states emphatically at the beginning of several letters that his words are not "of G-d," but of his experience, his leadership, his wisdom grounded in his trials and errors.

What various sects and denominations do with that is on them, not Paul. He put the disclaimer right there at the beginning.