Isalm and its relationship to other religions

[Devadatta]

Devadatta....if you truly believe that all theists and Hindus ought to be included in Islam then why don't you call yourself a Muslim and other Hindus as such? You're a Hindu I take it? Muslim is the correct term for one who subscribe to Islam..it's the fa'il in Arabic..meaning the person who does something to the fi'il(verb)....but you know you consider yourself a non-Muslim as I understand it(you said and I quote,"As a non-Muslim, this reasoning seems to me mistaken."), thereby your proposition that Hindus ought to be included under the banner of Islam is quite silly.

Again, high again.

Let me explain. I was looking at the idea of "Muslim", or that person who submits to God and thus experiences peace (following on a definition of "Islam" as that submission to God that brings peace) from two sides, the ultimate & the conventional.

From the conventional side, to be a Muslim is to subscribe to a particular ideology rooted in a particular book & language, but built up over centuries by various religious & legal scholars & functionaries. From that side, I'm obviously a non-Muslim.

From the ultimate side, a Muslim is anyone who says yes to ultimate reality. As the Qur'an points out in many places, in its own language, to say no to this ultimate reality is to create your own hell. William James, I believe, talked about "yea-sayers, and nay-sayers". I'm a yea-sayer, and in the ultimate sense a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian, a Jew, etc., though on a conventonal level I've at long last discovered that I'm a Buddhist.

I hope that clears things up a little.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

 

[Devadatta]

Devadatta,
I am not interested in your personal views/interpretations as to what islam should be or even what you think it is even when you are told it is not. So, finally I repeat to you the last verse of the 109th chapter of the Qur'aan:
To you be your religion, and to me my religion.

Indeed. But consider that while for some the eschewing of all personal views/interpretations is an act of piety for others it is piety itself.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

 

[Out There]

Hi again.

I'm not sure you want to converse with me much further since I'm dastardly & a devil! So this exchange I guess is winding down. But I take no offense.

Again, I feel you misunderstand my ultimate meaning. If it's my manner of expression, then I apologize.

I'm merely pointing out a contradiction: if the one God is transcendent, beyond all human calculation, why would it be essential to approach that God through a particular tradition, language or book?

My impression is that you're no fully aware of how much other traditions point to the same reality. To speak, for example, of Hindus worshipping cows is to distort a highly sophisticated tradition and to ignore the fact that most Hindus are also monotheists, while employing differing concepts & practices.

As Thipps quotes below, to you your religion and to me mine, but I can't help feeling you live in a kind of bubble of your own concepts.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

As long as you present erronuous standpoints about Islam, I will continue to refute you as best I can. Whether you'll respond to my refutations or not, that's your prerogative. Yes Devadatta, I still stand with what I said. For saying that it is BLASPHEMY to follow a particular prophet Devadatta, you are DASTARDLY. It implies that we Muslims are blaspheming for FOLLOWING A CERTAIN PROPHET i.e. Muhammad s.a.w.
I believe it's established that you're a Hindu. You said that you see no point in approaching God through a particular religion, language or book because you reason that if God is transcendal, then it would be unimportant for one to approach him through the three things you suggested. If we were to take you advice then what we as Muslims are suppose to do is to just chuck away our Holy Qur'an and refer to it as a secondary or tertiary or lesser value in our pursuit to find and understand the true path. With this concept in mind, it would also suggest at the same time that you in turn should also chuck away or try not to refer to the Mahabhrata, The Vedas, the Puranas, Upanishads etc. At the same time you must also disregard the language of these scriptures which are mainly sanskrit..can you suggest to the Hindu an alternative way to understand Hinduism without referring to their religious texts in their pursuit to find God? How are you suppose to understand what exatly is that you're suppose to worship, is it God? is it natural elements? animals? WHAT? if not by referring to these texts? Do you even know what you're talking about Devadatta? You said most Hindus are monotheists, meaning they worship Brahma the unseen God. Well I would agree with what you said except for the part where you said "MOST" Hindus. I believe the majority believe in pantheism dear. Evidence to this is nearly all temples are decorated with hundreds if not millions of statues adhered and worshipped by the populace. I know, I live in Malaysia and I've been to India.

 

[Out There]

Again, high again.

Let me explain. I was looking at the idea of "Muslim", or that person who submits to God and thus experiences peace (following on a definition of "Islam" as that submission to God that brings peace) from two sides, the ultimate & the conventional.

From the conventional side, to be a Muslim is to subscribe to a particular ideology rooted in a particular book & language, but built up over centuries by various religious & legal scholars & functionaries. From that side, I'm obviously a non-Muslim.

From the ultimate side, a Muslim is anyone who says yes to ultimate reality. As the Qur'an points out in many places, in its own language, to say no to this ultimate reality is to create your own hell. William James, I believe, talked about "yea-sayers, and nay-sayers". I'm a yea-sayer, and in the ultimate sense a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian, a Jew, etc., though on a conventonal level I've at long last discovered that I'm a Buddhist.

I hope that clears things up a little.

Sincerely,
Devadatta[/quoAlas, you are distorting ISLAM yet again ! Your conclusion to this reply of yours was that "I hope that clears things up a little". Unfortunately, you've made a mess out of something clear. Yes a Muslim BY DEFINITION ALONE does mean someone who submits. However, in essence it means someone who follows the five pillars of Islam ! The first of which is to say the SHAHADAH without which a grown person is NOT a Muslim. You divided what is a Muslim into two seperate entities namely; conventional side and ultimate side. I've never come across such a division, personally speaking. You said to be a Muslim in the convetional side is to follow a certain ideological set of beliefs rooted in a particular language and book. We all know you mean Arabic and the Qur'an, why don't you just say it as it is. You know why you don't say it as it is? Because in truth you know that what you're suggesting is radically against Islam, thus you've been playing with seemingly nice and respectful terms alongside your views. By your definition the majority of Muslims today including myself will fall into your first category. Thus I take it as a PERSONAL insult that you've practically saying what I've been doing all this while as a Muslim are made up of BID'AH or innovations, never taught by the Prophet himself. THE FIRST IDEOLOGICAL TEACHING OF ISLAM IS THE CREED OF ISLAM as I have clarified to you earlier ! What you've done is saying that this creed of Islam is the development of centuries of distortions and additions by certain groups. It is to say that the CREED OF ISLAM was inexistent and never taught by the Prophet of Islam. You're going too far Devadatta....In your second category you said that, a Muslim in this sense is anyone who submits to ultimate reality. That's just pure hogwash. What ultimate reality? And where does the Qur'an says that you're creating a hell for yourself for denying this so-called ultimate reality??? What ultimate reality? Basically the bulk of the Muslim world since Prophet Muhammad's time have fallen short of this second definition of yours and have created hells for ourselves......yes I'm sure that's true.........geez

 

[Devadatta]

Alas, you are distorting ISLAM yet again ! Your conclusion to this reply of yours was that "I hope that clears things up a little". Unfortunately, you've made a mess out of something clear. Yes a Muslim BY DEFINITION ALONE does mean someone who submits. However, in essence it means someone who follows the five pillars of Islam ! The first of which is to say the SHAHADAH without which a grown person is NOT a Muslim. You divided what is a Muslim into two seperate entities namely; conventional side and ultimate side. I've never come across such a division, personally speaking. You said to be a Muslim in the convetional side is to follow a certain ideological set of beliefs rooted in a particular language and book. We all know you mean Arabic and the Qur'an, why don't you just say it as it is. You know why you don't say it as it is? Because in truth you know that what you're suggesting is radically against Islam, thus you've been playing with seemingly nice and respectful terms alongside your views. By your definition the majority of Muslims today including myself will fall into your first category. Thus I take it as a PERSONAL insult that you've practically saying what I've been doing all this while as a Muslim are made up of BID'AH or innovations, never taught by the Prophet himself. THE FIRST IDEOLOGICAL TEACHING OF ISLAM IS THE CREED OF ISLAM as I have clarified to you earlier ! What you've done is saying that this creed of Islam is the development of centuries of distortions and additions by certain groups. It is to say that the CREED OF ISLAM was inexistent and never taught by the Prophet of Islam. You're going too far Devadatta....In your second category you said that, a Muslim in this sense is anyone who submits to ultimate reality. That's just pure hogwash. What ultimate reality? And where does the Qur'an says that you're creating a hell for yourself for denying this so-called ultimate reality??? What ultimate reality? Basically the bulk of the Muslim world since Prophet Muhammad's time have fallen short of this second definition of yours and have created hells for ourselves......yes I'm sure that's true.........geez

Again, several points:

1. Our difference, I believe, is that I look at Islam in historical terms, so that I make distinctions between the Prophet, his companions, the ulama, etc., while you appear to look at Islam in a unitary fashion. So I’m not putting into question the Prophet, the Qur’an or the five pillars, but only subsequent interpretations & developments. You appear to be taking any questioning of any part of your orthodoxy as an attack on the whole. The tradition itself (to my view) makes clear that the ulama come after the companions, that the companions come after Muhammad, that Muhammad comes after the Qur’an, that the Qur’an comes after Allah. Or, to put it in reverse order, Allah comes first, the Qur’an...etc. In fact, to confound these distinctions is to put oneself in danger of “innovation”, in my view.

2. I apologize for the use of term “ideology”, which is a hot-button word. I guess my point is that should Muslims lose track of what their words & traditions point to, i.e., Allah, then they do indeed fall into mere ideology.

3. As far as submitting to ultimate reality and the reference to the Qur’an, surely, you know the Qur’an better than I do and can guess what I’m referring to. In many places it makes the point that “to sin against Allah is to sin against yourself” This can be taken literally of course as just saying do what you’re told or you’ll suffer. To me there’s the deeper message that I’ve already described, and one that connects Islam to other faith traditions.

4. This is going to sound patronizing, I know, but have you tried deep breathing before responding to my posts? Why are you so quick to put the worst possible construction on what I say? Why are you so seemingly eager to be insulted? You are quick to complain that outsiders brand Muslims unfairly as violent or aggressive, and yet your hair-trigger responses only feed that view.

You know, I live in a country, Canada, that’s always looking over its shoulder at what the U.S. thinks, and is always anxious about its “identity”. I find that frustrating. Canadians are Canadians and only need to be what they are. We are all our own worst enemies. Perhaps you should cease looking backward and jumping at every offence to orthodoxy, and start looking forward and through a spirit of inquiry help bring out the best in your tradition for the future.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

 

[thipps]

Lets try to keep it to the topic. This is a good thread and I hate for it to be ruined.
regards,
thipps - Islam board moderator

 

[lunamoth]

Again, several points:

1. Our difference, I believe, is that I look at Islam in historical terms, so that I make distinctions between the Prophet, his companions, the ulama, etc., while you appear to look at Islam in a unitary fashion. So I’m not putting into question the Prophet, the Qur’an or the five pillars, but only subsequent interpretations & developments. You appear to be taking any questioning of any part of your orthodoxy as an attack on the whole. The tradition itself (to my view) makes clear that the ulama come after the companions, that the companions come after Muhammad, that Muhammad comes after the Qur’an, that the Qur’an comes after Allah. Or, to put it in reverse order, Allah comes first, the Qur’an...etc. In fact, to confound these distinctions is to put oneself in danger of “innovation”, in my view.

2. I apologize for the use of term “ideology”, which is a hot-button word. I guess my point is that should Muslims lose track of what their words & traditions point to, i.e., Allah, then they do indeed fall into mere ideology.

3. As far as submitting to ultimate reality and the reference to the Qur’an, surely, you know the Qur’an better than I do and can guess what I’m referring to. In many places it makes the point that “to sin against Allah is to sin against yourself” This can be taken literally of course as just saying do what you’re told or you’ll suffer. To me there’s the deeper message that I’ve already described, and one that connects Islam to other faith traditions.

4. This is going to sound patronizing, I know, but have you tried deep breathing before responding to my posts? Why are you so quick to put the worst possible construction on what I say? Why are you so seemingly eager to be insulted? You are quick to complain that outsiders brand Muslims unfairly as violent or aggressive, and yet your hair-trigger responses only feed that view.

You know, I live in a country, Canada, that’s always looking over its shoulder at what the U.S. thinks, and is always anxious about its “identity”. I find that frustrating. Canadians are Canadians and only need to be what they are. We are all our own worst enemies. Perhaps you should cease looking backward and jumping at every offence to orthodoxy, and start looking forward and through a spirit of inquiry help bring out the best in your tradition for the future.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

Hello Deva.

You say you are a pluralist yet you are criticizing Muslims because they are not. How is this not relativism?

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Light]

For me, it all turns on what is meant by "Islam". If Islam means submission to God, then it should include all believers, all theists, including Hindus. If it means, subscribing to a particular monotheistic sect, with a particular prophet and language, then for me - with all respect - it's a form of blasphemy, holding a mere human being, a mere book, a mere language, or mere series of historical events to level of God. Again, no disrespect intended, but God is beyond all books, including the Qur'an.

You may as well claim it a blasphemy as you rightly claimed that you are a non-Muslims. We don't enforce you to accept what we believe. However as this is an Islam board where we try to answer question based on the teaching of Islam, I expect some respect from yourself on Islam and Muslims in the discussion.

Let's discuss this is detail. Submission to God. What does submission means? A simple google search revealed amongst others the following:

the acceptance of power from another person, accompanied by increasing understanding; rag-doll submission is a perversion in feminines which ignores the purposes of power in the search for a peace of mind which is never permanent. analog: dominance.
www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/5179/Glossary.htm
Unresisting or humble obedience.
www.athens2004.com/en/EventingGlossary

The acceptance of power from another person. Muslim accept this as the acceptance of Allah power.
Accompanied by increasing understanding; that specifically means the requirement for us to gain knowledge on the subject. i.e. the person (in the above explanation) or creator as Muslims believes.
Just by the word submission itself gives us an in-depth understanding of the true meaning of Islam.

Now, what/who is God? By a simple google search, again, it revealed (just taking one of them):

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men"
idol: a material effigy that is worshipped; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

There are many different definition of God as you can see above. However, Muslims aren't left in the dark, the Quran establishes the knowledge of understanding the true God. It defines His attributes. There is 99 attributes mentioned in total.

Back to your claim that Islam 'should include all believers, all theists, including Hindus', please then try to apply the above explanation to each of them. See if their doctorine fits all that I have mentioned. The good one is does all the above group believe in the 99 attributes of Allah?

Now, why do we question if Allah (I'll refer God as Allah from this point) decides to reveal His commandment via a certain tribe/language? There is nothing to question about as it was decided by Allah and we simply follow. I obey and I follow. That simple. And there a benefit that encourage us (non-Arab speaking) to learn the language (Arabic) that eventually lead us to unity regardless of race and language.

We, human being are well known for being complacent and always wanted things to fall on our lap. Similarly our acceptance to religion. Just because it is not revealed in our mother tongue, we reject it because one of our reason is just mere laziness to learn a new language. We want everything to just come to us as we expect in a specific language preferred by us. Such a short sightedness.

When you say holding a mere human being, mere book, a mere language or mere series of historical events to level of God, are you saying this with knowledge?

Sura Al-Imran:66 (003:066)
PICKTHAL: Lo! ye are those who argue about that whereof ye have some knowledge: Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge? Allah knoweth. Ye know not.

That should sum up what you are trying to achieve. Allah knows what is in your mind and heart. May Allah pay your deeds fairly and justly.

I myself won't claim that I have all the knowledge. Our knowledge added together is just a mere drop of water in the open sea. That is the volume of knowledge that Allah has and ours account just that drop of water.

Yes, Allah is beyond all book. However, there is no other books in the world that is well protected than Quran that Allah have revealed to Muhammad s.a.w. You can claim that there are instances of people desecrating Al-Quran. Allah will repay their deeds. However, the main essence which is the content has never being manipulated/change throughout history. That is a fact.

one final quote:

003.060
YUSUFALI: The Truth (comes) from Allah alone; so be not of those who doubt.
003.061
YUSUFALI: If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: "Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!"

Do you want to be the one to accept the above challenge?

 

[Dondi]

Let me ask a question here:

The Gospel of Matthew 22:37-40:

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Here Jesus appeals to the Old Testament that the fulfillment of the Law is perched upon these two comandments, which appears to be in the same line as submission to God in Islam. Further, the second commandment to "love thy neighbor", can be exampled in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).

Jesus is teaching that to love God is to obey God. In the Old Testament, the admonishment is, "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams." I Samuel 15:22


I realize there are differences between Muslims and Christian in the regard to the identity of Christ, but aside from this, if one follows the above commandments would that constitute Islam in the idea of surrendering to God?

 

[Devadatta]

Hello Deva.

You say you are a pluralist yet you are criticizing Muslims because they are not. How is this not relativism?

peace,
lunamoth

Hi Luna. Well, you know how I can get carried away into rhetorical excess. If I've blown my own princples in any of these recent posts, I gratefully accept your rebuke.

On the other hand, the particular post you're responding to here doesn't have much to do with pluralism. It's really about the difference I have with Aidyl over the significance of Islam; I'm saying what he presents here is too much of a literalist orthodoxy, that he's sacrificing inner sense for outward form. He disagrees. He feels (if I understand correctly) that there is no divergence between core Islam and the Islam of orthodox tradtion. So again pluralism is not at issue.

I did take exception to the violence in the tone of some of his responses, but again that's a different issue.

As to pluralism/relativism, I've pontificated on the difference many times already. In short, in relativism all opinions are equal because there is no ultimate truth; in pluralism there is ultimate truth but a variety of approaches to it.

If you look at my post on what an Islamic democracy would look like, you'll see that I accept that Islam is not pluralist. So my pluralist agenda is on the back burner. But short of pluralism my agenda is simply to address the problem of religiously sanctioned violence. The problem with all absolutist (another of my verbal tics!) positions is finding modus vivendi (sp?) in place of any agreement on ultimate principles. It seems to me that that other Abrahmaic traditions, for a variety of reasons, are currently far more successful than Islam in finding ways of reconciling absolutist metaphysics with compassionate, reasonable & effective ways of dealing with the problems of every day life, and relationship with the "other". This is the point I'm trying to make: that Islam as a whole has a deeper problem than its apologists would admit.

Making this point is not easy. So many are so habituated to the kind of age old Christian-Muslim sniping that's all over the net that they can't recognize a friendly, but truth-telling voice when they hear it.

From the beginning I've presented myself firmly as an outsider, offering an outsider's perspective. I have no interest in exchanging platitudes, or bland good wishes. I feel my tough questioning is the best thing I can offer. In this I consider myself a friend to Islam.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Luna. Well, you know how I can get carried away into rhetorical excess. If I've blown my own princples in any of these recent posts, I gratefully accept your rebuke.

On the other hand, the particular post you're responding to here doesn't have much to do with pluralism. It's really about the difference I have with Aidyl over the significance of Islam; I'm saying what he presents here is too much of a literalist orthodoxy, that he's sacrificing inner sense for outward form. He disagrees. He feels (if I understand correctly) that there is no divergence between core Islam and the Islam of orthodox tradtion. So again pluralism is not at issue.

I did take exception to the violence in the tone of some of his responses, but again that's a different issue.

As to pluralism/relativism, I've pontificated on the difference many times already. In short, in relativism all opinions are equal because there is no ultimate truth; in pluralism there is ultimate truth but a variety of approaches to it.

If you look at my post on what an Islamic democracy would look like, you'll see that I accept that Islam is not pluralist. So my pluralist agenda is on the back burner. But short of pluralism my agenda is simply to address the problem of religiously sanctioned violence. The problem with all absolutist (another of my verbal tics!) positions is finding modus vivendi (sp?) in place of any agreement on ultimate principles. It seems to me that that other Abrahmaic traditions, for a variety of reasons, are currently far more successful than Islam in finding ways of reconciling absolutist metaphysics with compassionate, reasonable & effective ways of dealing with the problems of every day life, and relationship with the "other". This is the point I'm trying to make: that Islam as a whole has a deeper problem than its apologists would admit.

Making this point is not easy. So many are so habituated to the kind of age old Christian-Muslim sniping that's all over the net that they can't recognize a friendly, but truth-telling voice when they hear it.

From the beginning I've presented myself firmly as an outsider, offering an outsider's perspective. I have no interest in exchanging platitudes, or bland good wishes. I feel my tough questioning is the best thing I can offer. In this I consider myself a friend to Islam.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

Hi Deva, OK. I see where you are coming from. However, as much as I agree with your campaign against religiously sanctioned violence, I don't think you are right to be posting your challenges in this board. Perhaps in the Politics subforum? This forum (CR) attempts to be a bit different from other religious discussion forums in that the goal is dialogue toward understanding. Thipps can correct me if I have it wrong here, but the individual faith boards are not for debating and telling others that they are basically wrong in their understanding of their own religion.

2 c,
lunamoth

 

[Devadatta]

You may as well claim it a blasphemy as you rightly claimed that you are a non-Muslims. We don't enforce you to accept what we believe. However as this is an Islam board where we try to answer question based on the teaching of Islam, I expect some respect from yourself on Islam and Muslims in the discussion.?

Hi Light. I understand that “light” is a very important concept in some Sufi traditions? Is that the source of your nickname?

Blasphemy is not really in my common vocabulary. I was following the principle of “when in Rome”. I was only making the point that while many of my opinions may be held by Islam to be “blasphemous”, the absolutist claims of Islam, from my pluralist perspective, can be at least be called impious if not blasphemous. But Luna has already rebuked me for this kind of thing, so if I’ve inappropriately brought pluralism into the mix here, in a way that was offensive, I apologize.

ack to your claim that Islam 'should include all believers, all theists, including Hindus', please then try to apply the above explanation to each of them. See if their doctorine fits all that I have mentioned. The good one is does all the above group believe in the 99 attributes of Allah?.?

I believe there’s a story in the Jewish Kabbalah tradition to the effect that G!d has innumerable names/attributes and that if all those names were ever written down the universe would disappear. (There’s a science fiction story that has a super-computer do the job!)

But I want to answer this in a way that we can agree to disagree. At issue here is whether I can call myself “Muslim” if I don’t subscribe to certain Muslim laws, doctrines or theology.

For me, the answer depends on context & intent. It’s inappropriate for me to claim to be a Muslim if the intent is literal, that is, if I’m claiming the rights & privileges connected with being part of an actual Muslim community. But if the intent is not literal, but an expression of my understanding of the implied universal principles, i.e., if I’m speaking on a theoretical level, then I believe it’s perfectly appropriate to present myself as “Muslim”.

The question remains whether it was appropriate to make this claim in the context of this forum. That is a question of being rightly understood, and ultimately a question of manners, and if I have been unmannerly, it was only in the interest of truth telling.

(You know, Al Farabi, I’m told, very early on made the sharp distinction in Islam between philosophic expressions of the truth on the one hand, and the truth expressed in images on the other. So my general approach is not necessarily foreign to the tradition.)

Now, why do we question if Allah (I'll refer God as Allah from this point) decides to reveal His commandment via a certain tribe/language? There is nothing to question about as it was decided by Allah and we simply follow. I obey and I follow. That simple. And there a benefit that encourage us (non-Arab speaking) to learn the language (Arabic) that eventually lead us to unity regardless of race and language.

We, human being are well known for being complacent and always wanted things to fall on our lap. Similarly our acceptance to religion. Just because it is not revealed in our mother tongue, we reject it because one of our reason is just mere laziness to learn a new language. We want everything to just come to us as we expect in a specific language preferred by us. Such a short sightedness.

When you say holding a mere human being, mere book, a mere language or mere series of historical events to level of God, are you saying this with knowledge?

That should sum up what you are trying to achieve. Allah knows what is in your mind and heart. May Allah pay your deeds fairly and justly.

I myself won't claim that I have all the knowledge. Our knowledge added together is just a mere drop of water in the open sea. That is the volume of knowledge that Allah has and ours account just that drop of water.

Yes, Allah is beyond all book. However, there is no other books in the world that is well protected than Quran that Allah have revealed to Muhammad s.a.w. You can claim that there are instances of people desecrating Al-Quran. Allah will repay their deeds. However, the main essence which is the content has never being manipulated/change throughout history. That is a fact.

one final quote:

Do you want to be the one to accept the above challenge?

Again, I can only answer this from my pluralist perspective. In Buddhism, there is the idea of “skilful means” that provide aid in our approach to the truth. The Qur’an, for some of the reasons you suggest, has been skilful means for millions for centuries now. There is a simplicity and clarity to its presentation of the Abrahamic view of God, and a vigorous call to realize that view, that is of value to many.

But for me, as you know, there are many other skilful means. Maybe we can look at it this way: for you, the measure of Allah’s grace is that he charts one clear path; for me the measure of the grace of life is that it offers an endless variety of paths. Ultimately, these things rest on feeling, not on thought.

In the end, I’m not going to convert you, and you’re not going to convert me, so perhaps the curses are a little de trop?

May Allah’s grace be upon you.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

 

[Devadatta]

Hi Deva, OK. I see where you are coming from. However, as much as I agree with your campaign against religiously sanctioned violence, I don't think you are right to be posting your challenges in this board. Perhaps in the Politics subforum? This forum (CR) attempts to be a bit different from other religious discussion forums in that the goal is dialogue toward understanding. Thipps can correct me if I have it wrong here, but the individual faith boards are not for debating and telling others that they are basically wrong in their understanding of their own religion.

2 c,
lunamoth

Point taken. The original intent was to argue on the basis of Qur'an and hadith, that is, a debate within the bounds of Islam. Unfortunately, my radically different take on things did overspill those confines just a bit.

On the other hand, I know that the debates within Islam are far more varied than is ordinarially represented on this forum, and that there are Muslims with views not that far off of my own. It would be nice to see more of those alternative views here from within one of the Muslim communities.

That said, I realize that my being a non-Muslim puts me in a different light. Feel free to move any of these posts to another forum, if you like. Although, at this point I think things are sufficiently setted down, thanks in part to your intervention.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

 

[Light]

Again, I can only answer this from my pluralist perspective. In Buddhism, there is the idea of “skilful means” that provide aid in our approach to the truth. The Qur’an, for some of the reasons you suggest, has been skilful means for millions for centuries now. There is a simplicity and clarity to its presentation of the Abrahamic view of God, and a vigorous call to realize that view, that is of value to many.

But for me, as you know, there are many other skilful means. Maybe we can look at it this way: for you, the measure of Allah’s grace is that he charts one clear path; for me the measure of the grace of life is that it offers an endless variety of paths. Ultimately, these things rest on feeling, not on thought.

Skilful means? Can you tell us what are they, and how can you trust that you feeling and thought is right and guided? Variety of paths?, you just can't tell us variety of path without giving examples?

In the end, I’m not going to convert you, and you’re not going to convert me, so perhaps the curses are a little de trop?

Precisely the point. What my intention is, if you believe you way is correct and you believe that there is many path as you rightly say, take up the challenge. This is not my saying but what Allah has revealed in the Quran. Turning down this challenge is just saying that you admit there is deficiency in your belief.

 

[Out There]

On the other hand, I know that the debates within Islam are far more varied than is ordinarially represented on this forum, and that there are Muslims with views not that far off of my own. It would be nice to see more of those alternative views here from within one of the Muslim communities.


Sincerely,
Devadatta

Views aired and proposed by persons such as Ali Sina do not represent "Muslim" views Devadatta. Ali Sina was according to him a Shia turned Kafir.......and being in a Muslim environment all my life, visiting other Muslims from other countries, attending an Islamic University, I have yet to come across a Muslim who shares your view that to subscribe to ask people to subscribe to a particular prophet, in this case our Prophet s.a.w. is blasphemous.

 

[Devadatta]

Skilful means? Can you tell us what are they, and how can you trust that you feeling and thought is right and guided? Variety of paths?, you just can't tell us variety of path without giving examples?.

Hi again.

Well, you are aware as well as I that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and others of various sects & practices, all purport to be means of reaching salvation. On the basis of their doctrines, and some of the fine people each of these traditions has produced, I take them at their word that each can be an effective path.

Precisely the point. What my intention is, if you believe you way is correct and you believe that there is many path as you rightly say, take up the challenge. This is not my saying but what Allah has revealed in the Quran. Turning down this challenge is just saying that you admit there is deficiency in your belief.

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm not understanding. What challenge do you want me to take up? According to Islam, this will all be sorted out on resurrection day. Only then we will know whether your Islam was the one true way.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

 

[Devadatta]

Views aired and proposed by persons such as Ali Sina do not represent "Muslim" views Devadatta. Ali Sina was according to him a Shia turned Kafir.......and being in a Muslim environment all my life, visiting other Muslims from other countries, attending an Islamic University, I have yet to come across a Muslim who shares your view that to subscribe to ask people to subscribe to a particular prophet, in this case our Prophet s.a.w. is blasphemous.

Hi Aidyl. Thanks for the correction. But in fact I don't know this Ali Sina. Who is he?

On this blasphemy issue, please don't hold this to your heart. As I tried to explain, this only relates to my particular beliefs, peculiar to me and no one else. Islam has its own definitions of blasphemy that apply to Muslims. My definitions do not apply.

Will you forgive me?

Sincerely,
Devadatta

 

[Light]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
Precisely the point. What my intention is, if you believe you way is correct and you believe that there is many path as you rightly say, take up the challenge. This is not my saying but what Allah has revealed in the Quran. Turning down this challenge is just saying that you admit there is deficiency in your belief.


I'm sorry, perhaps I'm not understanding. What challenge do you want me to take up? According to Islam, this will all be sorted out on resurrection day. Only then we will know whether your Islam was the one true way.

Yes, resurrection day will sort out the differences. However, rather than wait for resurrection, you have your chance now to rebuke or to accept as you wish and resurrection day will tell you the truth.

The challenge I bring forth is simple and yet you don't understand. How then can you support alll your arguments if you are scared to even make prayer to Allah or God that you believe so that He will curse the liar? Then this question of yours will be clear isn't it?

Until you can stand up to this challenge by Allah in His book, don't claim things that you don't know.

Allah knows what is in your heart and mine. Thus, if you intention is to find truth, may Allah guide you.

 

[Devadatta]

Yes, resurrection day will sort out the differences. However, rather than wait for resurrection, you have your chance now to rebuke or to accept as you wish and resurrection day will tell you the truth.

The challenge I bring forth is simple and yet you don't understand. How then can you support alll your arguments if you are scared to even make prayer to Allah or God that you believe so that He will curse the liar? Then this question of yours will be clear isn't it?

Until you can stand up to this challenge by Allah in His book, don't claim things that you don't know.

Allah knows what is in your heart and mine. Thus, if you intention is to find truth, may Allah guide you.

Nice to speak with you again, Light.

I looked up the reference you gave me (3:60-61). The context is a dispute with Christians over the nature of Jesus. The idea was for the families from both sides to pray together to God on the issue and for the "liars", i.e., the side with the wrong view of Jesus, to be struck down.

Now, this isn't appropriate in the context for two reasons.

First, my view of Jesus, metaphysically speaking, is closer to Islam than it is to the traditional Christian creed. So my praying with Muslims on the issue would hardly be a conflict. We would all be struck down, or none.

Second, I would never pray to call down curses on anyone, at any time. I can hardly pray to a kind of God I don't believe exists, i.e., one that strikes down believers for errors in metaphysics. For me, that would be irrational.

All I can do is continue to hold to my pluralist views, which means that while I don't dispute the core authenticity of the Qur'an, I also don't dispute the core authenticity of many other traditions.

Isn't that challenge enough?

And yes my intention, like yours, is to find truth. May we both be well-guided.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

 

[Dondi]

Can someone reply to my inquiry which I posted back in post #49?