rabbinic interpretation and jewish law is neither "worship" nor "shirk"

[Abdullah]

Nice one, no doubt when you stone someone to death you tell them jokes, to inject a little humour?

telling someone "your religion has been distorted and is no longer valid according to our religion" in a relevant and contextual way, is not the same as stonig someone to death sis; so your comparsion is ridiculous to say the least

There is simply no end to your arrogance is there Abdullah. Now let me think, should we believe BananaBrain (who is a practicing Jew) on this matter or Abdullah (who can only quote Muslim scholars on every subject)???? Hmm, now there is a hard one.

Your statement would have been more appropriate if you said "should we believe Bananabrain or should we Beleive Allah and His messenger [saw]", for I merely reflected the view of Allah and His Messenger [saw]. I also showed that this is the view which the Scholars of ahle Sunnah [mainstream islam] derived from the Quran and Sunnah, and in addition I gave the Quranic and intellectual evidence regarding it too.

Very impressive contradiction. So everyone was Muslim with a capital M as muslims today but they didn't practice as muslims today, so were in fact not muslims as we are today. Yep that makes sense.

It is just another 'fault' in your understanding sis, and not a contradiction in my statement. ; May Allah give you the ability to understand.

Now why doesnt that sprise me?!

Hyde Park speakers corner is a really good experience!; I'll reccomend anyone to try it at least once before they die .

I wonder why so many of your posts sounds so smug and arrogant then?

maybe it's because you have to resort to some kind of method to try and discredit the views which you so desperately hate , so you throw around such acusations although you know that arrogance has nothing to do with it?.

Were the Prophets arrogant when they basically said "only this path [which I preach] will bring you salvation and contradictory paths will lead you to ruin"?

As Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller clarified, it is the absolute consensus of the muslim community that no other religions other than Islam is valid [after the advent of the Prophet [saw], and that to regard other religions other than Islam as valid is kufr by consensus, so if you think that adhering to this belief is arrogance, then you have to say that the entire Muslim community is arrogant for holding a view that saves them from kufr.

below is a reminder of the contents of shaykh Nuh's article that was posted in an earlier thread [with another of his relevant comments]:

(1) matters about Islam that everyone knows, which even a child raised among Muslims would know, technically termed ma‘lum min al-din bi d-darura or “necessarily known as being of the religion”;

(2) matters that not everyone knows;

(3) and matters that are disagreed upon even by “those who know,” the ulema or scholars.

To deny anything of the first category above constitutes plain and open unbelief.

Shadhili Tariqa - Iman, Kufr, and Takfir

That Islam is the only remaining valid or acceptable religion is necessarily known as part of our religion, and to believe anything other than this is unbelief (kufr) that places a person outside of Islam

Traditional Islam certainly does not accept the suggestion that:

"it is true that many Muslims believe that the universality of guidance pertains only to pre-Koranic times, but others disagree; there is no ‘orthodox’ interpretation here that Muslims must accept" (Religious Diversity, 124).

Orthodoxy exists, it is unanimously agreed upon by the scholars of Muslims, and we have conveyed in Nawawi’s words above that to believe anything else is unbelief. As for "others disagree," it is true, but is something that has waited for fourteen centuries of Islamic scholarship down to the present century to be first promulgated in Cairo in the 1930s by the French convert to Islam Rene Gunon, and later by his student Frithjof Schuon and writers under him. Who else said it before? And if no one did, and everyone else considers it kufr, on what basis should it be accepted?"

and I'll include the all important footnote of shaykh Nuh regarding the above ruling:

“This ruling should not be mistaken as a manifesto to anathematize (takfir) others who outwardly profess Islam, which is the duty of the Islamic magistrate (qadi) alone, not the ordinary Muslim. Nor is it applicable without exception, but rather is subject to legal restrictions and conditions that have been detailed in the third following question, “Is someone who has an idea that is kufr or “unbelief” thereby an “unbeliever”?—to which Islamic law answers, surprisingly as it may seem to many Muslims of our times, “Not necessarily.”

Universal Validity of Religions

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

I get it now. You cut and paste a scholars opinion and if I do not accept that then of course I am a total moron with learning difficulties.

It is not your "acceptance and disagreement" that I was reffernig to, but merely you comprehending the concept/view explained [wether you accept the view/argument or not].

One thing I have noticed sis is that, to keep up a discussion with you, is to just go round in circles with the same arguments, so as I have said enuogh on this thread for any tom dick and harry to know what the Islamic views are regardnig the questions posed, I'll leave it at that and make this my last post.

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

I'll leave it at that and make this my last post.

Alhamdolillah. Of course you will leave it at that, you cannot provide Quranic evidence for your views, so if I were you I would bow out too.

 

[Abdullah]

Please dont waste your time replying to me sis, for I dont read your posts anymore, just like I did'nt read your latest one and all the other parts of your last one that I answered a part of; for I want to protect myself from your 'criticism' for the reason that it is 'disrespectfull' at times, to say the least

Peace.

ps: My prayers will be with you though.

 

[Abdullah]

sis, you have been successfully included in my ignore list ; now I dont have to shut my eyes anymore

Salaam.

 

[bananabrain]

as far as the question about sinless prophets is concerned, i feel it is only fair to point out that many commentators tend to attempt to excuse apparently sinful behaviour by the prophets and patriarchs. sometimes it's convincing, as in "aaron was afraid that the would-be idolators would kill him whereas by playing for time and going along with it, he would keep them busy until moses came back down the mountain" and sometimes it comes across as a bit of a whitewash, as in "uriah the hittite was eunuch/impotent, so bathsheba wasn't really his wife, so king david wasn't really committing adultery". either way the issue is not actually the Text of the Torah or the Tanakh themselves, but the interpretation of those texts.

the problem for me comes when you start to treat human interpretation itself (as in the hadith or the sunnah) as perfect and thus the situation develops that human interpretation acquires the status of Divine Speech itself, thus, to my mind, causing shirk. we resolved this problem long ago by taking the position that "both position A and [contradictory] position B are the 'Words of the Living G!D', but the halakhah (law) follows position A." in other words, in the absence of perfect knowledge of how to apply the Divine Will, a decision must be made, let's understand that what we wish to do is precisely that, apply G!D's Wishes, but let's not kid ourselves that we understand absolutely everything about them. granting the status of Divine Law to interpretation, as opposed to the Text itself, is what causes problems within the system akin to those caused within catholicism by maintaining that the pope is infallible.

I'm not saying that you have to accept the Quranic evidence bananabrain, I'm just merely giving you the islamic views

it is notable all the authorities that you are citing at such exhaustive length are mediaeval, rather than contemporaries of muhammad, because, as is abundantly clear, the Qur'an itself is ambiguous on the subject and requires scholarly interpretation. what you are doing is choosing to view sacred history through rose-tinted spectacles. it is also notable that all these "islamic views" are, without exception, couched in terms of assertion. in other words, you can be as much of a quote goblin as you like, but "sez you" continues to be the order of the day. suffice it to say that we are not in agreement with this.

I think you will find that this is possibly the view of the consensus, for I have heard it from hanafi Scholars [who are not 'Wahhabi's'], and Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips is a Canadian convert to Islam, and not 'saudi' at all...

don't bother with splitting hairs. if this were the view of the consensus, there would be no point in any religious muslim engaging in interfaith dialogue at all or in any other activity that was not driven by the desire to gain converts. my experience of religious muslims (and i can't tell you precisely which school and scholars they follow, unfortunately) does not follow this. is this the view, for example, of sheikh tantawi of al-azhar? for he is much involved in interfaith dialogue. it seems, therefore, that your assertions are contradicted by my experience. the people who tend to agree with you tend to be the sort of people who, wahhabi or not, are the product of saudi-funded religious education. put it this way, they're the same guys who go on about the "ummah" and the "khilafah" but are nowhere to be found when someone asks why unemployment is so high in the KSA or why nobody's complaining about the sudanese government killing its own [muslim] citizens in darfur.

Well you wanted to 'have it out properly', and find out the Islamic views regarding Judaism didn't you?, so I gave you them, now how can you blame me for only answering your questions and responding to your posts?

i wanted a chance to respond to your continual slurs against my religion and culture and you have given me the case at length. i find them tendentious, ignorant and illogical and (fortunately) unrepresentative of islam as a whole. if i thought you were right, abdullah, i'd give up dialogue and start supporting the "islam-is-backward" peanut gallery.

regarding the smileys, just trying to put a bit of humour in the posts; smileys are there to be used aren't they? ; and isn't a moderator supposed to promote their usage rather than be negative about them

humour requires two to tango. there is nothing remotely amusing about your opinions and the smileys just make them come across as smug, patronising and frankly creepy. and there is no onus on me as a moderator to support their use.

the 'smug' smiley is just meant to be a 'smile' and a 'ha ha I've exposed a fault in your argument' kind of thing that's just meant in a jokey kind of way

well, in that case, if it makes you happy, . orright?

Isn't the word 'Jew' derived from/named after the word 'Judah', and does that not denote that 'Jews' originally reffered to the tribe of Judah?; The definition of the term 'Jew' later got expanded to mean anyone who was a decendent of Israel 'as' or anyone who converted to 'Judaism'...but the word itself was orginally adopted to mean the tribe of Judah; the name 'Judaism' was derived from and named after Judah too, as can be seen from the encyclopedia of Religion:

The Hebrew term Yehudi, translated as Judaeus in Latin and Jew in English, originally referred to a member of the tribe of Judah.

The word "Jew" (in Hebrew, "Yehudi") is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means "Judah-ism,"

the last sentence, which i have bolded, does not mean what you take it to mean or imply it in any way. although the etymology of the english word "jew" or the hebrew word "yehudi" is as stated, it has no religious connotations whatsoever. a cursory familiarity with jewish history will reveal that the biblical kingdom of solomon split after his death into the two kingdoms, the northern kingdom of "israel" and the southern kingdom of "judah", which was ruled by the davidic male line which was of course of the tribe of judah, but included also the tribe of benjamin and much of the priestly tribe of levi. the northern kingdom was destroyed by the assyrians in 722 BCE and the ten tribes of this kingdom were "lost". thus jews today are deemed to have come from one of these two-and-a-bit remaining tribes of the surviving kingdom of judah, which was what survived until the babylonian destruction of the kingdom in 586 BCE. the reconstituted kingdom which the greeks and romans encountered, from which the word "jew" came to mean one of the surviving members of judah, benjamin or kohen/levi, is the source of the roman and greek designation, because it was subsequent to the assyrian dispersion. none of this implies a religious reorientation of the remaining bene yisra'el - all you are doing is retrofitting the etymology and distorting the value attached to it in order to suit your very modern prejudice.

"the concept of religion didn't exist then????

there is no *word* for the concept of religion before the greek privatisation of thought and the platonic separation of matter and spirit. there is certainly no word for "religion" in the Torah. what is the word for "religion" in the Qur'an?

when 'religion' is what the Prophets, starting from the very first one; Adam [as] taught to the people?

you have to understand that for us, prophecy is quite specific. a prophet is someone who prophesies. we have no record of one of adam's prophecies and, if you're honest, you don't either. we don't even use the same word for it as you do and, generally, hebrew and arabic do tend to share sacred vocabulary. you're making an argument based on english semantics and applying it to concepts that in the original have very little relationship.

was it not a 'religion' [way of life that equalls submitting to the lord of the universe] that was preached by Prophets like Isaac [as], Yaqub [as], Moses [as]?

ok, you can say there is a "way" or a teaching, or a set of laws, that's fine, you can talk in terms of deen or torah or halakhah but the english word "religion" implies theology - and theology is a greek word which cannot properly be implied to the way that judaism works.

All the true followers of any Prophet, were Muslims with a capital M, just like the muslims of today, and the name of the religion brought by all Prophets was ISLAM, as was explained by Shaykh Bilal Philiphs and ther other aritcle. This happens to be the view of the mainstream Islamic Scholars and not just those of Saudi.

for this to be the case, you'd have to maintain that the system of "islam" implemented by muhammad was a *rediscovery* and contained nothing new whatsoever. and if that's the case, are you maintaining that adam collected jiziya? in that case, who were the dhimmi he collected it from? who did he give zakat to? did he go on hajj? you don't think you're idealising this just a tad? or does it explicitly assert this in the Qur'an?

taqiyyah????!!! ; I thought I was being so candid and straightforward that Muslimwoman thought there was a hint of 'hate' to my posts, and now you claim I am hiding my real thoughts and beliefs

to be precise: what i am saying is that whereas you maintain in earlier posts and on other threads the standard bromides about ahl-e-qitab, analysis of the your opinion on the application of this status reveals that you would not consider it to apply to anyone but a jew or christian who lived before the time of muhammad, or who lived afterwards and converted to islam, in other words a muslim. any jew or christian who, since the time of muhammad, does not become a muslim with a capital M, is therefore, according to you, kuffaar. that makes you a takfir and a bigot. to imply that "islam" is tolerant of the "ahl-e-qitab" is therefore disingenuous, because in reality, in your point of view, the "ahl-e-qitab" are muslims anyway. that makes you a practitioner of taqiyyah in my book, as this quote below reveals:

once a non-Muslim told me "dont you find a problem with telling me that I'm going to hell"? [I didn't exactly put it that way to him; I was more sensitive and 'relevently contextual' [as I've been on this thread] in my words], and i explained to him...that I'm merely saying it, for he wanted to know what our view is regarding what happens to people who reject Islam and die in a state of rejection, and that I wasn't telling him it in spite, or malice, and that I was saying it in an 'invitation to Islam/warning', sense, just as the Prophets said it to people, and just as were commanded to 'spread the message' as well.

clearly we're not the first people to point out the disingenuousness of your position. dress it up in all the mealy-mouthed equivocation you like, but the message remains, "beards out for the big takfiri gang-bang".

well I used to go to hyde Park speakers corner almost every week

hah. that explains a lot. you certainly wouldn't have lasted long in any dialogue group that i know of.

by the way, there's plenty of Christians there too that are shouting from the top of their heads that if you don't accept Jesus as lord, youre going to hell

and i say the same thing to them as i say to you: 'am yisra'el hai - i'll take my chances with G!D thank you very much, for G!D knows best.

so if you think that is being 'arrogant', 'dismissive' and whatever else, then maybe you shouldn't ask for the Islamic views regarding Judaism anymore and should refrain from starting such a topic

that may be how your friends got control of finsbury park mosque and bored everyone into leaving or cowed them into submission, but here you can expect robust rebuttals of opinions that are based upon man-made ignorance and bigotry, no matter how handy you may be with your CTRL-V key. i have learnt that copious cut-and-paste quotations are generally the mark of one who is insecure in his ability to explain his own opinions and prefers to hide behind those of others.

in the thread where I expressed concern for your iq, I was basically having to do the same thing, i.e, explain the same thing over and over again cause you just didn't seem to get it [not in the sense that you didn't agree with it, for it is your right to agree or disagree, but in the sense that you weren't even understanding the concept that was explained although the issue was no rocket science at all].

you will notice that although i have attempted to explain myself till i was blue in the face, you don't seem to have understood my explanations. i nonetheless resist the temptation to impugn your mental health, although your emotional maturity is probably another matter.

Your statement would have been more appropriate if you said "should we believe Bananabrain or should we Beleive Allah and His messenger [saw]"

oh, i wouldn't dream of contradicting the Qur'an. on the other hand, i'll put myself up against *your interpretation of what some mediaeval beard interpreted a verse of Qur'an as meaning*, particularly if i can drive a coach and horses through your argument.

I want to protect myself from your 'criticism' for the reason that it is 'disrespectful' at times, to say the least

*noise of head being stuck into sand and bottom hoisted in the air*

i think that probably concludes the useful content of this thread.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Muslimwoman]

I would say something but I can't, I am on the ignore list.




I shall go and stand on the naughty spot now for being childish.

 

[Abdullah]

Peace and blessings banabrain

the problem for me comes when you start to treat human interpretation itself (as in the hadith or the sunnah) as perfect...

The 'human interpretations' regarding the Quran is from Allah too, for the prophet [saw] interpreted the Quran for us, and this interpretation was revealed by Allah in what is called the 'unrecited revelation', i.e, the revelation that is not included in the Quran itself as the verses of the Quran.

ijtihad [independent reasoning used in deriving interpretation of Quran and Sunnah] is required by those who are qualified in fiqh to derive the correct Prophetic interpretation, and in this respect, the Mujtahids [those who are qualified for ijtihad] are not infallibe and they could make mistakes, but there is a well established view in Islam that has been established decicively from the Quran and Sunnah, that the interpretation of the Quran will be protected as a neccessity, along with the verses of the Quran, and that the consensus of the Islamic Scholars could never be wrong [as there would be divine protection on consensus']

...and the view that past revelations from Allah [versions of Islam that was revealed to past Prophets, before the advent of the Prophet Muhammad saw] have been abrogated with the advent of the Prophet Muhammad [saw] and thus are no longer valid, is the view of the absolute consensus in Islam thus we can be sure that this view is not a view that is subject to error.

There is also a consensus of the islamic Scholars that the four school of thoughts, are all correct in their interpretation, thus we can be sure that it is them that have the correct interpreation of the Quran.

it is notable all the authorities that you are citing at such exhaustive length are mediaeval, rather than contemporaries...

All the contemparary Islamic Scholars, including those who are noted to be 'moderates' by the west, such as Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, Scholars from the Muslim council of Britain and even Yusuf Islam, formerrly known as Cat stevens, will agree that 'Judiasm' and 'Christianity' are no longer valid to God Allmighty. You can also hear Yusuf Islam [the great western 'moderate' Scholar? of Islam] say that Islam is the religion with Allah since time began, in the following video:

YouTube - A is for Allah by Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens)

is this the view, for example, of sheikh tantawi of al-azhar?

Yes it is...you can check it if you like.

Muslims just use the names 'Christianity' and 'Judaism' to refer to the versions of Islam revealed to the Prophets from the children of Israel [as], and Jesus [pbuh] when discussing/conversing with Christians and Jews, so as to not casue any confusion, but if you ask any of the religious Muslims that you know of wether the God given name of those religions is 'Judaism' and 'Christianity' then I'm sure inshAllah that they will basically say the same thnigs I have said on here.

for he is much involved in interfaith dialogue. it seems, therefore, that your assertions are contradicted by my experience. the people who tend to agree with you tend to be the sort of people who, wahhabi or not, are the product of saudi-funded religious education. put it this way, they're the same guys who go on about the "ummah" and the "khilafah" but are nowhere to be found when someone asks why unemployment is so high in the KSA or why nobody's complaining about the sudanese government killing its own [muslim] citizens in darfur.

Infact I oppose the 'Khilafa advocates' and the Wahhabi doctrine; you can check this for yourself, that my views [all of them mentioned in these boards] accord to the mainstream Scholars of the ahlus Sunnah [those of the four madhabs and who consist of the overwhelming vast majority of Islamic Scholars; they include even the one's that are considered as 'moderates' in the west ]

i wanted a chance to respond to your continual slurs against my religion and culture...

You shouldn't be that sensetive regardnig a discussion/debate on religion [for this subject is obviously contradictory]; esspecially when you yourself ask to be aquainted with the Islamic views regarding an issue.

Some of my 'unminced words' that were used to put the Islamic views across, was in response to misunderstandings in the posts that I replied to [whcih in turn needed a more clear and straightforward answer so as to avoid a repeat of misunderstandings] and in response to your insisting that my views weren't infact the correct Islamic views, and in which case I had to put my views across more assertively and plainly in order to get the definitive Islamic views across

You raised this discussion and when I gave you the Islamic views regardnig your queries, you not only gave me the perspective from your religion, but you replied back that the views I gave you weren't the Islamic view, so naturally I asserted and gave you proof after proof that they were indeed the Islamic views; if you just gave me the Jewish [or your own] perspective on this matter and not argued that my views weren't actually the Islamic views, then I could have just discussed/debated the perspectives put forward by you [i thnik this is why you called me 'dismissive'; because I was just asserting the islamic views rather than adress your other 'evidences'...], but I hope you can understand that my first priority will be to prove my self right concerning the views of my own religion, when you insist time after time again [this is why, my assertions and evidences and explanations for my views had to continue too] that they are not the views of my own religion, or that they are some deviant minority view .

i find them tendentious, ignorant and illogical and (fortunately) unrepresentative of islam as a whole.

Just about every Muslim in the world will tell you that Judaism is distorted [from the religion originally brought by Moses as] and that it is no longer valid; so please check it out wether this indeed is a mainstream view in Islam, before you claim that this is not a mainstream view; and as I said, you'd find that the name of Gods religion was Islam, since the time of Prophet Adam 'as', is a mainstream view as well [we could be talking about consensus here; it's upto you to check it out now before you claim it isn't]

if i thought you were right, abdullah, i'd give up dialogue and start supporting the "islam-is-backward" peanut gallery.

Couldn't the followers of past revelations distort it's teachings and thus be astray? and couldn't Allah abrogate past revelations with the advent of New Messengers?; if you think any of these two views are possible, than you shouldn't think that Islam is 'backwards' regarding these views, but rather you should look at the possibility of these views benig true from an objective point of view.

humour requires two to tango. there is nothing remotely amusing about your opinions and the smileys just make them come across as smug, patronising and frankly creepy. and there is no onus on me as a moderator to support their use.

For your comfort, I've cut down their use on this post; ain't I a charitable guy ; only joking.

there is no *word* for the concept of religion before the greek privatisation of thought and the platonic separation of matter and spirit. there is certainly no word for "religion" in the Torah. what is the word for "religion" in the Qur'an?

The Quranic word for 'religion' is 'Deen' which means 'way of life'; according to Islam, the name of the code of life that God revealed to all Prophets, was Islam, and anyone who accepted their message and submitted to God was a Muslim; some abrogations and additions to God's code of life does not change it's name, nor does it change the name of those who submit to it, so although some changes in the rulings and practices occured with the advent of new Messengers [pbuta], the name of the religion remained 'Islam' for this remains the essence of the code of life revealed by Allah; i.e, total submission to His Will, and those who submit to it, remain just that, submitters to Allah, i.e, Muslims, so there is no need to change the names...

Do not Jews beleive that God allowed them some kind of food during one time, and later forbid it for them?; well this is an example of how changes could take place in God's religion, but do not the Jews consider their religion to be allways 'Judaism' and it's followers to be 'Jews', despite any changes that may take place? ... So I hope now you can understand of how the name of God's religion and it's adherants does not need to change with the changes in the code of life that takes place with the advent of New Messengers. [Muslimwoman, you found this concept a bit hard to understand, so please take note of this explanation ; feeling a bit charitable today ]

you have to understand that for us, prophecy is quite specific. a prophet is someone who prophesies. we have no record of one of adam's prophecies and, if you're honest, you don't either. we don't even use the same word for it as you do and, generally, hebrew and arabic do tend to share sacred vocabulary. you're making an argument based on english semantics and applying it to concepts that in the original have very little relationship.

it's not based on English semantics bro , it is based on the Quran and Sunnah; from the Quran and Sunnah we know that Adam [as] was the first Prophet for mankind...

ok, you can say there is a "way" or a teaching, or a set of laws, that's fine, you can talk in terms of deen or torah or halakhah but the english word "religion" implies theology - and theology is a greek word which cannot properly be implied to the way that judaism works.

I merely meant it as the translation of the Word 'Deen' [way of life...]; language is evolving all the time, and english speaking Muslims have put new definitions and meanings to words of which the origins may be verry different from the defintion we use for them; it's all about the definition one uses ]

to be precise: what i am saying is that whereas you maintain in earlier posts and on other threads the standard bromides about ahl-e-qitab, analysis of the your opinion on the application of this status reveals that you would not consider it to apply to anyone but a jew or christian who lived before the time of muhammad, or who lived afterwards and converted to islam, in other words a muslim. any jew or christian who, since the time of muhammad, does not become a muslim with a capital M, is therefore, according to you, kuffaar.

you have got it all worng ; it would help if you quote exactly what I said, and then explain of how you understood it; I'll then correct you regardnig it... .

In a nutshell; ahle kithab are people to who'm former revelations were revealed; so those would be the Jews and the Christians; if a member of the ahle kithab adopts a view that renders him a kaafir, then he still remains 'ahle kithab', and those of the ahle kithab that are rightly guided, i.e, those that did not reject Jesus [pbuh], nor attributed divinity to him, and those that converted to Islam [the version that was revealed to Muhammad saw] after the advent of the Prophet Muhammad [saw], are the ahle kithab and Muslims/beleivers at the same time.

that makes you a takfir and a bigot.

This is a mainstream view; check it and see . Whats biggoted about acknowledging the astray path and it's people?; were the Prophets 'bigots' as well when they defined the two paths; the straight one and the astray one?.

'takfir' in this sense merely means, defining the demarcation lines between imaan [faith in the one and only true religion] and kufr [disbelief]; Allah has defined such demarcation lines, so have all the Prophets [dont the Jews consider the trinitarian Christians to be idolators and the Prophet Muhammad [saw] to be a false Prophet?, so this will make the Jews 'takfiri's' as well ; basically, if a person of any religion considers those of other religions to be in a 'false' religion..., they too are 'takfiri's' , so it's no good trying to pin this word only on us, in a negative sense ]

The negativity associated with this word, only applies in cases where some Muslims are quick to pronounce takfir on other Muslims [without verry clear and decicive evidence that that person indeed rejects something that is obligatory to faith], for the reason that the Prophet Muhammad [saw] basically said that if a Muslim calls another Muslim a kaafir, then one of the two is a kaafir, i.e, if the person called a kaafir is not a kaafir, then the caller will be the kaafir, thus to pronuonce takfir without the verry clear and decicive evidence indicates that a person is careless about falling into kufr himself, hence the negativity associated with this kind of takfir; it does not in any way apply to the mainstream views regarding who are the kaafirs, i.e, the consensus of the Muslim Ummah regard the Ahmeddiyyahs as kaafirs [for believing in a Prophet, after the prophet Muhammad saw], and such a 'takfir' has no negativity attached to it at all.

Listen to one of the most moderate Muslim Scholar; shaykh Hamza Yusuf, who even got invited to the whitehouse to advice bush after 911, explain two mainstream views of Islam regardnig this matter; one is that whoever rejects Islam is a kaafir with a big 'K' [this view is held by [approxiamately] at least half of the muslims of the world], and the other view reserves the 'Kaafir with the big 'K'' judgement for they consider the state of benig a 'kaafir' to be 'eternal' and thus, as they dont know wether a non-muslim will convert to a Muslim before his death or not, thus they reserve the kaafir with the big K judgement. But the Muslims are unanimous that if a person rejects Islam [the version of Islam bruoght by Muhammad [saw] and thereafter dies as a non-Muslim, that person will die as a kaafir and his abode will be the fire, to abide in there for all eternity :

YouTube - Sheikh Hamza Yusuf: Creed Of Imam Al Tahawi p5=

YouTube - Sheikh Hamza Yusuf: Creed Of Imam Al Tahawi p6

Peace

 

[bananabrain]

The 'human interpretations' regarding the Quran is from Allah too, for the prophet [saw] interpreted the Quran for us, and this interpretation was revealed by Allah in what is called the 'unrecited revelation', i.e, the revelation that is not included in the Quran itself as the verses of the Quran.

interesting. how is this referred to? and how does one distinguish between this "unrecited revelation" and later interpretation? how are they categorised?

ijtihad [independent reasoning used in deriving interpretation of Quran and Sunnah] is required by those who are qualified in fiqh to derive the correct Prophetic interpretation, and in this respect, the Mujtahids [those who are qualified for ijtihad] are not infallible and they could make mistakes, but there is a well established view in Islam that has been established decisively from the Quran and Sunnah, that the interpretation of the Quran will be protected as a necessity, along with the verses of the Quran, and that the consensus of the Islamic Scholars could never be wrong [as there would be divine protection on consensus']

so, if i understand you correctly, by definition G!D arranges matters so that consensus occurs. presumably this means that where consensus does not occur, it must be down to someone "innovating" or "distorting", rather than genuine grounds for disagreement - in other words, there's always one right answer, according to G!D and, by definition, it is the answer that the consensus of scholars have come up with, because G!D wouldn't let the consensus make a mistake?

it all sounds rather convenient for the scholars' authority, i have to say. and don't the sunni say that the "gates of ijtihad are closed"? in this case, does the consensus of scholars still operate, or can scholars now disagree with each other and make mistakes? because i have to say that despite your desperate insistence that there is such a consensus, i see very little evidence of it other than everyone saying that it actually exists!

...and the view that past revelations from Allah [versions of Islam that was revealed to past Prophets, before the advent of the Prophet Muhammad saw] have been abrogated with the advent of the Prophet Muhammad [saw] and thus are no longer valid, is the view of the absolute consensus in Islam thus we can be sure that this view is not a view that is subject to error.

all i can say is that you may well believe this to be the case, but i know many muslims that take a different view and i know it is based upon scholarly advice.

In a nutshell; ahle kithab are people to who'm former revelations were revealed; so those would be the Jews and the Christians; if a member of the ahle kithab adopts a view that renders him a kaafir, then he still remains 'ahle kithab', and those of the ahle kithab that are rightly guided, i.e, those that did not reject Jesus [pbuh], nor attributed divinity to him, and those that converted to Islam [the version that was revealed to Muhammad saw] after the advent of the Prophet Muhammad [saw], are the ahle kithab and Muslims/beleivers at the same time.

but this amounts to exactly the same thing! muslim = good, non-muslim since muhammad = by definition kaafir. so what difference can it possibly make?

dont the Jews consider the trinitarian Christians to be idolators and the Prophet Muhammad [saw] to be a false Prophet?

the general consensus (although there are dissenters) is that christians, trinitarian or otherwise, are not idolators, based on the PoV of the meiri, C12th france, because idolatry is not about what you believe, but how you act. as for islam, it is certainly *not* idolatrous according to all opinions, but muhammad could not be considered a navi or prophet in jewish terms, because he forbade things that were permitted by Torah (e.g. wine) and permitted things that were forbidden by Torah (e.g. working on the sabbath) there would be nothing to stop him being a bona fide Divine *messenger* to other people; but G!D would never abrogate the Law that was Commmanded to the jewish people at sinai. a prophet is not the same thing as an emissary or messenger.

All the contemparary Islamic Scholars, including those who are noted to be 'moderates' by the west, such as Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, Scholars from the Muslim council of Britain and even Yusuf Islam, formerrly known as Cat stevens, will agree that 'Judiasm' and 'Christianity' are no longer valid to God Allmighty.

cat stevens you're giving me? i think you might be under a bit of a misapprehension if you think that i care whether someone has been described as a "moderate" or not. your including those two-faced mendacious weasels at the MCB in this grouping is an indication of how little you understand non-muslims. "moderate" is clearly a relative term - if i've got a choice between an "extremist" who wants to shoot my auntie and a "moderate" who thinks that i'm a lying infidel that's going to hell, frankly they can both sod off; i'm not interested in your condescension. i also note your lumping everyone together into "the west", as if such an entity actually exists. this is typical of the groupthink displayed by people like you. "the muslims" this, "the west" that. so keen on defining groups and shoehorning everyone into your narrow little definitions.

i shall check what you said about sheikh tantawi. i know he's not exactly the most cuddly guy in the world but if he holds these views then for him to be engaging in dialogue activities is the height of hypocrisy.

Muslims just use the names 'Christianity' and 'Judaism' to refer to the versions of Islam revealed to the Prophets from the children of Israel [as], and Jesus [pbuh] when discussing/conversing with Christians and Jews, so as to not cause any confusion

confusion my rosy behind - that is utterly two-faced. one thing for public consumption, "islam is all about peace" and in private "oh, but they're all a bunch of lying, text-distorting kuffaar". do you not even get that people would find your attitude problematic?

Infact I oppose the 'Khilafa advocates' and the Wahhabi doctrine; you can check this for yourself, that my views [all of them mentioned in these boards] accord to the mainstream Scholars of the ahlus Sunnah [those of the four madhabs and who consist of the overwhelming vast majority of Islamic Scholars; they include even the one's that are considered as 'moderates' in the west.

in terms of their practical difference to me, there really isn't one except that they will be honest that they want me and everyone else to convert or die, whereas you'll equivocate publicly about what you truly believe. on the other hand, i suppose i ought to congratulate you on your candour in this thread, although frankly i had to really drag it out of you.

You shouldn't be that sensitive regarding a discussion/debate on religion [for this subject is obviously contradictory]; esspecially when you yourself ask to be acquainted with the Islamic views regarding an issue.

i'm not "sensitive" about it. i am examining the substance and structure of your views and i am letting you know how they come across and how i feel about it. i have to say you're not exactly winning hearts and minds for islam right now, rather the opposite.

if you just gave me the Jewish [or your own] perspective on this matter and not argued that my views weren't actually the Islamic views, then I could have just discussed/debated the perspectives put forward by you

the thing is that we're not actually having a debate here, because your belief system apparently obliges you to believe that my belief system and way of life is something completely different to what i believe it to be, based not upon knowledge of my belief system but on dogmatic assertion of your own. my belief system does not impose value judgements other than the most generically universal (e.g. murder and stealing are bad) on others, but yours presumes, in the most arrogant and patronising fashion, to wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent mine in the most extreme and unpleasant way. i have always been aware that such points of view as yours exist, but i am interested in finding a way for our two religions to co-exist. unfortunately your point of view is 100% incompatible with mine, so the question is unfortunately about the nature and form the conflict between these points of view is likely to take. as i said above, i think we've come to the end of useful discussion and if, as you say, "Just about every Muslim in the world will tell you that Judaism is distorted [from the religion originally brought by Moses as] and that it is no longer valid;" then i foresee the much-bruited "clash of civilisations" as unavoidable.

Couldn't the followers of past revelations distort its teachings and thus be astray? and couldn't Allah abrogate past revelations with the advent of New Messengers?

only if these followers were such depraved and wicked people as you would suggest and only if G!D changed the Divine Will which, in the Torah, it was suggested would not in fact occur, hence the use of the frequent phrase "forever". now, since my culture is not filled with such depraved and wicked people, forever plotting to thwart the Divine Plan, but, rather, bases its entire existence upon doing G!D's Will and keeping the Law and the Commandments, to sanctify the Divine Name, your ideas are obviously mistaken. that, to me, suggests that somewhere along the line either someone in *your* camp changed something, or maybe that G!D didn't actually have as much of a hand in your revelation as you maintain. in other words, isn't it slightly more likely that the followers of so-called "subsequent revelations" tried to misrepresent the past to gain converts from the adherents of "previous" revelations? that's what the early christians did to us. i can't help what someone may have inserted into your tradition. i find it hard to believe that such an impressive edifice as islam could have arisen without Divine assistance, but i find it impossible to believe that G!D would wish the jewish people to disappear after what was Revealed to us - you yourself say that G!D "arranges matters" to preserve consensus, so is it entirely beyond belief that we have been preserved by G!D, despite everything that history and people like you have thrown at us - in fact, by contrast, is it likely that we have survived as we have if G!D, as you are so keen to point out, wants us to do things differently? how could such a wicked, disobedient group not be destroyed? think about that, why don't you.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Abdullah]

interesting. how is this referred to? and how does one distinguish between this "unrecited revelation" and later interpretation? how are they categorised?

so, if i understand you correctly, by definition G!D arranges matters so that consensus occurs. presumably this means that where consensus does not occur, it must be down to someone "innovating" or "distorting", rather than genuine grounds for disagreement - in other words, there's always one right answer, according to G!D and, by definition, it is the answer that the consensus of scholars have come up with, because G!D wouldn't let the consensus make a mistake?

it all sounds rather convenient for the scholars' authority, i have to say. and don't the sunni say that the "gates of ijtihad are closed"? in this case, does the consensus of scholars still operate, or can scholars now disagree with each other and make mistakes? because i have to say that despite your desperate insistence that there is such a consensus, i see very little evidence of it other than everyone saying that it actually exists!

The answer to your above questions lies in the previous threads "discussing taqlid" and 'slavery in Islam"; these questions need a lot of indepth and contextual elaboration, so I hope you dont mind me just reffering you to previous threads rather than write it all out again

all i can say is that you may well believe this to be the case, but i know many muslims that take a different view and i know it is based upon scholarly advice.

There are only [relatively] a verry few liberal modernists who dont know any better, that advocate the perrenialism view and claim that such a view is based on the Quran; if you read the excerpts from Shaykh Nuh's article posted in one of the abvoe posts, you will see that it is the absolute consensus of the muslim Ummah that no religion other than Islam is valid [with the advent of the Prophet saw] and that to beleive in the validation of perrenialism is kufr by consensus, i.e, all the Islamic Scholars, from the time of the Prophet [saw] to this time regard such a beleif to take one out of the folds of Islam because such a person refuses to submit to evidence such as the following:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Prophet Muhammad [saw] said: "By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell" (al-Baghawi: Sharh al-sunna 1.104).[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This hadith was also reported by Muslim in his Sahih by `Abd al-Razzaq in his Musannaf, and others. It is a rigorously authenticated (sahih) evidence that clarifies the word of Allah in surat Al 'Imran[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted from him, and shall be of those who have truly failed in the next life" (Qur'an 3:85) [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and many other verses and hadiths. That Islam is the only remaining valid or acceptable religion is necessarily known as part of our religion[/FONT]

read shaykh Nuh's article in the following link; whcih also explains where the perrenialism view [amongst some modernists] stemmed from:

Universal Validity of Religions

cat stevens you're giving me? i think you might be under a bit of a misapprehension if you think that i care whether someone has been described as a "moderate" or not. your including those two-faced mendacious weasels at the MCB in this grouping is an indication of how little you understand non-muslims. "moderate" is clearly a relative term - if i've got a choice between an "extremist" who wants to shoot my auntie and a "moderate" who thinks that i'm a lying infidel that's going to hell, frankly they can both sod off;

Well according to that definition of who isn't moderate, you'll have to say that all the people of the world that beleive that Islam is not a true religion from God, and who by implication believe that the muslims are "lying infidels that are going to hell", are not moderate; the same will apply to any people who think that there are people on earth who are adhering to a 'false' religion, i.e, if Christians or jews think that hindus, bhudists, Muslims, etc, are adhering to a 'man-made' [i.e, not a true religion from God] religion [with all it's implications], then they too will be not moderate, so that will make the overwhelming vast majority of the people of the world, not moderate!

Just imagine if a hindu or a Christian who worships Jesus [pbuh], asks a Muslim, "what is the view of your religion of wether our religion is a true religion from God or not", and the muslim answers, "well according to Islam, Christianity has been distorted [from the orignial teachings of Jesus pbuh], and islam regards worshipping idols or a man to be an unforgiveable sin [if a person dies with while not having repented from it]", and he responds, "well in that case, I dont regard you as a moderate"! ; this is basically your reaction to the muslim Ummah, for the reason that they dont beleive in perrenialism!

You can keep your own subjective definition of 'moderate' [that is based on your interests for people to accept your religion as true and undistorted], and we'll keep our definition of it

i shall check what you said about sheikh tantawi. i know he's not exactly the most cuddly guy in the world but if he holds these views then for him to be engaging in dialogue activities is the height of hypocrisy.

Oh, so now it's, only those who beleive that all religions are true and that all religions lead to heaven, can engage in dialogue activiites, is it?; didn't know that rule existed! . and the notion that anyone that dont believe in perrenialism and engages in dialogue [to enhance understanding of each others religon and to advocate that alothugh we have different beliefs, we can still resepct one another and live peacefully together] is a hypocryt, is a bit far fetched [to use the more 'polite' words] dont you thnik? .

Bananbrain, just thnik for a minute what you said about that there has to be a 'clash of civilisations' between people who dont consider each others religion to be true; Just imagine if a Muslim said that, then wouldn't the whole world be in an uproar saying "just listen to that extremist, just because there's billions of people in the world that think that Islam is not true, so by their implication, the muslims are adhering to a 'false' religion, this Muslim beleives that there is no way that he can live with them in peace and that clash between Islam and the rest of the world is inevitable"!. Well let me tell you banabrain, your sounding like the Jewsih counterpart of a like minded Muslim.

I have jehovas witnesses and Christians telling me all the time, in person and on the net, that if I dont accept Jesus as Lord, that I'll be doomed to hell [directly or by implication] but I dont regard that just for this reason that a clash of civilisation is inevitable with these people, nor do I regard that peacefull and constructive, bridge buliding interfaith dialogue's, or dialogue to discuss/debate whcih religion is really the turth, will be 'hypocrytical' for them, nor do I regard that living with them in peace is impossible iether; if Muslims thuoght like you bananabrain, then they wouldn't be able to live in peace with the Christians [or the Jews; the 'Palestinian friction with the Jews' is over land and opression dispute and not for the fact that they are Jews] as they have been doing for many decades in the west, and for many centuries in the Arab world.

confusion my rosy behind - that is utterly two-faced. one thing for public consumption, "islam is all about peace" and in private "oh, but they're all a bunch of lying, text-distorting kuffaar". do you not even get that people would find your attitude problematic?

Muslims dont regard Jews in the manner your portraying Banana; and it's not good to try and paint respectable comments, whcih gives out the islamic view in a relevent and contextual way, in a manner which tries to associate hate to them, in order to try and taint the whole non-perrenialism view; because such a tactic spreads misunderstanding and could lead to Jews hating Muslims; we should try and get rid of hate and friction, and say words that engender love, peace, tollerance and understanding between us and what you are implying now; that unless we consider each and others religion to be true and undistorted guidance from God, then we cannot live in peace is exactly the kind of thnigs that an intollerant extremist is expected to say; so please try and remove yourself from the brink of this intollerance.

in terms of their practical difference to me, there really isn't one except that they will be honest that they want me and everyone else to convert or die,

Dont be silly banana, no Muslim wants you to convert or die; have you ever heard a Muslim saynig that?; your spitefull painting of Islam and muslims can only lead to harbouring hate and malice for muslims; please try to understand that you dont have to hate muslims and slander them just because they have beliefs that is different to yours.

whereas you'll equivocate publicly about what you truly believe. on the other hand, i suppose i ought to congratulate you on your candour in this thread, although frankly i had to really drag it out of you.

No muslim ever tried to hide the fact that, according to Islam, judaism has been distorted from the true teachnigs of Moses [pbuh], so save your congratualtions for more deserving deeds

the thing is that we're not actually having a debate here, because your belief system apparently obliges you to believe that my belief system and way of life is something completely different to what i believe it to be, based not upon knowledge of my belief system but on dogmatic assertion of your own.

it is no dogmatic assertion; I have given acedemic historical proofs of the origins of the name of your religion and it's people, and have shown that our beliefs regarding the current state of your religion is based on the Quran and Sunnah, and on top of that, we have the intellectual evidence of Ahmed Deedat, that has undergone rigorous debates with the experts of the Bible [old? and new testament] and have prevailed, that exposes many contradictions of the Bible.

The Holy Quran is a miraculous Book; just look at it and you'll see [inshAllah] that the style of expression, the wisdom and perfection of knowledge in it, etc, can only be from the Lord of the worlds, and we believe that that Quran is the direct word of God Allimghty, so what do you expect us to believe; what the Jews themselves maintain of their religion, or what God clarified in His latest revelation?.

Peace

 

[bob x]

Dont be silly banana, no Muslim wants you to convert or die; have you ever heard a Muslim saynig that?

He can give you academic historical proofs from a long line of non-Muslims who demonstrate that this is what Islam has always believed; why should we listen to Muslims themselves on such a subject?

 

[Abdullah]

He can give you academic historical proofs from a long line of non-Muslims who demonstrate that this is what Islam has always believed; why should we listen to Muslims themselves on such a subject?

Peace bob

There's a difference between just taking a group of peoples word for something, and taking Gods direct word for something; the former has to be verified and evidences to the contrary should not be ignored, but regarding the latter, the only verification that is needed is that it is indeed Gods words; and despite this, my argument just did not consist of "God says so", but also other acedemic historical evidences, sound aguments and intellecutal proofs were provided. And the challenge remains for anyone to try and refute these evidences!

Peace.

 

[bob x]

There's a difference between just taking a group of peoples word for something, and taking Gods direct word for something

No there isn't. You have only the word of a group of people that "God" has anything to do with the Qur'an. You have only the word of a group of people that your interpretations even have anything to do with what the Qur'an originally meant.

 

[bananabrain]

The answer to your above questions lies in the previous threads "discussing taqlid" and 'slavery in Islam"; these questions need a lot of indepth and contextual elaboration, so I hope you dont mind me just reffering you to previous threads rather than write it all out again

do you know what, abdullah? i am kind of fed up of you posting links to youtube sermons and enormous sermons, because you can't actually construct an argument yourself, to say nothing of your inability to recognise the difference between what some scholar says the Qur'an means and what G!D actually Means, as bob has just so pithily pointed out. "go and read this massive book and then you'll agree with me" is the oldest chestnut in the book as far as religious dispute goes. i could just as easily say, well, go off and study the entire Talmud - twice - and then you'd see i was correct. however, i am secure enough to feel i can rely on my own critical faculties.

There are only [relatively] a verry few liberal modernists who don't know any better,

what, don't know any better than to make the perennial mistake of universalists and assume that they are in posession of the One True Faith For Everyone? hmmmm. i notice that your argument basically amounts to rhetoric and anecdote, in other words, because you say so. i don't find that terribly convincing. i've never heard of this shaykh nuh, i've never heard of any of these people you quote, so i have no idea if they're reputable, representative or reasonable. and i have reason to believe that they are none of the above, because if they were, that would make every muslim engaged in interfaith dialogue a hypocrite and i simply don't believe in fraud on that scale.

it is the absolute consensus of the muslim Ummah that no religion other than Islam is valid

well, frankly, he would say that, wouldn't he? it would hardly be in his interest to maintain that his own view wasn't backed by the consensus of scholars, if that's as important as you say!

Well according to that definition of who isn't moderate, you'll have to say that all the people of the world that believe that Islam is not a true religion from God, and who by implication believe that the muslims are "lying infidels that are going to hell", are not moderate;

i've got no problem with however islam defines itself - i've got a problem when groups of *muslims* start to define me without reference to accuracy, tolerance or common sense. *i'm* not the one calling someone else a lying hellbound infidel - *you* are. it is therefore *you* that has the problem with moderation. and if your idea of "moderation" includes the a priori uncritical acceptance of islam as both "true" and Divinely revealed, i have to say you either don't speak english properly, or you haven't understood that moderation is generally defined by the ability to cope with complexity, ambiguity and dissenting points of view. by the same token, your use of the words "false" and "man-made" would not stand up to scrutiny by any reasonable observer.

that will make the overwhelming vast majority of the people of the world, not moderate!

this is old chestnut #2 from the Big Book of Beardy Bilge: "oh, by that definition, i'm not nearly as extreme as you!" except, again, i'm not telling you what you're not. i'm telling you what *i'm* not and you keep trying to make out that i'm the one being immoderate when it is blatantly obvious that the opposite is actually true.

this is basically your reaction to the muslim Ummah, for the reason that they dont beleive in perrenialism!

nope - this is my reaction to *you* and those like you. unlike you, i don't tar your entire group of co-religionists with the same brush. i speak as i find - and the only muslims i have found to be intolerant bigots are those who express the same views as yourself.

Oh, so now it's, only those who beleive that all religions are true and that all religions lead to heaven, can engage in dialogue activiites, is it?; didn't know that rule existed!

oh, it's not a rule, it's a practicality. generally it is a lot easier to engage in dialogue with someone if you don't believe that they're going to hell. otherwise, what you are doing is called, variously, apologetics or evangelism. as it happens, "many roads up the mountain" is a sufi saying - and i learned it originally from devout muslims....

although we have different beliefs, we can still respect one another and live peacefully together

oh, i dare say we'd be fine, until you started to try and make me pay jizya or apply the terms of the pact of umar. i'm not saying "your religion isn't true" - i'm not having the debate in those terms. i'm saying that your religion has no right to tell my religion what it is or it isn't. in short, hands off. it is absolutely irrelevant to me what you choose to believe in your own head unless you are likely to start imposing it on me - that is the basis of the enlightenment on which british democratic society is based (i assume you live in the UK) but based on what your friends at MPAC get up to, i very much doubt you'll be able to contain your desire to bend me to the "Truth" whether i like it or not. it is a prediction, not a threat - i, unlike your friends with the placards and loudhailers, are not in the business of threatening others.

I have jehovas witnesses and Christians telling me all the time, in person and on the net, that if I dont accept Jesus as Lord, that I'll be doomed to hell

but i'm not telling you that. judaism says you're entitled to a portion in the World to Come if you are a righteous person, which means that you observe (either mindfully or practically) the noahide laws, which, as a muslim, i can tell you that you already do. other than that i have absolutely no interest in changing what you think or do - until you start trying to change what i do.

if Muslims thought like you bananabrain, then they wouldn't be able to live in peace with the Christians [or the Jews; the 'Palestinian friction with the Jews' is over land and opression dispute and not for the fact that they are Jews] as they have been doing for many decades in the west, and for many centuries in the Arab world.

what absolute drivel. muslims lived in peace with jews and christians when the jews and christians were dhimmi - not as equals. i can't even begin to address a view of history that is this ridiculous.

Muslims don't regard Jews in the manner your portraying Banana; and it's not good to try and paint respectable comments, whcih gives out the islamic view in a relevent and contextual way, in a manner which tries to associate hate to them

let me be 100% clear about this, then. your views on judaism are detestable. they are factually inaccurate, historically illiterate and, to the extent that they are shared by other (although by no means all, as i have pointed out) muslims, they are patronising in intent and hateful in implementation wherever they have been implemented - like iran and saudi arabia. you may not "hate" me, but i have seen how your view of us plays out, so forgive me if i'm failing to give it the benefit of the doubt. if this upsets you - as it should and maybe even does - then perhaps you ought to examine your views, rather than trying to convince me that i have been lied to by my entire culture and history. perhaps you should learn a little about how both clerical and "scientific" anti-semitism were introduced into the middle east; neither of them are originally native to islam, although the native contempt for judaism borne out of muhammad's encounter with the unrepresentative and clearly uneducated and immoral jewish tribes of arabia is scarcely a pleasant alternative.

that unless we consider each and others religion to be true and undistorted guidance from God, then we cannot live in peace is exactly the kind of thnigs that an intollerant extremist is expected to say; so please try and remove yourself from the brink of this intollerance.

well, what alternative do you offer? remember, i'm not saying anything about your religion - you're saying somethign about mine. so it's your opinions that bear alteration, not mine.

Dont be silly banana, no Muslim wants you to convert or die; have you ever heard a Muslim saynig that?

many times. presumably next you'll be telling me the "sword verses" don't apply to me. i'm not being "spiteful", here, as you put it. i'm reacting to your words as you have said them to me - i have neither applied my reaction to *all* muslims nor to islam in general, so to suggest that i have is misrepresenting my position.

I have given academic historical proofs of the origins of the name of your religion and it's people

all of which are completely irrelevant to what the content of the religion actually is, aside from being external definitions which we do not accept!

and have shown that our beliefs regarding the current state of your religion is based on the Quran and Sunnah

no, you've ASSERTED this. you haven't "shown" anything. what you have "shown" is what a bunch of scholars say is authoritative, when i have heard precisely the opposite from people whose fairness and honesty i trust more than yours.

and on top of that, we have the intellectual evidence of Ahmed Deedat, that has undergone rigorous debates with the experts of the Bible [old? and new testament] and have prevailed, that exposes many contradictions of the Bible.

hur hur hur hur hur. and who the arse is this ahmed deedat to us? have you ever heard of the "disputation of zaragoza"? what a load of old nonsense.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Abdullah]

Peace and blessings my dear bananabrain

I put my hands up that I did indeed sound arrogant and insensetive in some of my posts and that this is no way to aquaint people with the Islamic views, and for that I apologise .

Peace.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Alhamdillah. There may be light at the end of that dark tunnel, inshallah.

 

[bananabrain]

perhaps. however, you will note that my objections to the internal logic of abdullah's views have to date remained unanswered: i fail to see a motive for this alleged distortion by "the jews" in toto - i could accept that the "jewish tribes" of arabia could be fairly accused of distorting the Torah (if the Qur'anic report of their conduct is to be given credence) but not our entire people and religion - there's simply no rhyme nor reason to the idea that an entire religion should suddenly rebel against G!D and make it the very raison d'etre of their existence; that just doesn't make sense at all, particularly when this group appears to have been preserved from annihilation despite its multifarious detractors and enemies.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Muslimwoman]

perhaps. however, you will note that my objections to the internal logic of abdullah's views have to date remained unanswered:

Shalom BB

Unfortunately this is normal, it is the circular argument but when you have no answer how do you express that? You just keep repeating the same old thing. This is one issue I have with blind following, it does not allow you to explore, to think about what you are saying, you just repeat the views of others with little understanding. Perhaps this is why blind following was introduced so late in our faith (note: by the very people that insist we must follow their view and not think for ourselves)?

I wanted to share something with you, I realise that you have had the good grace to study and communicate, so are aware that not all Muslims think the same way. However, I am troubled that others may read this thread and accept Abdullah's assertion that the Ummah all feel the same way and I am simply 'out of the fold'. I therefore sent an email to a student in Al-Azhar, she is in her 60's and has studied our faith all her life. This in itself is a demonstration that even after 50 years of constant study, we can still learn about our faith. Alhamdolillah, she agreed recently to help me with my studies, so I wrote to her about this issue and today received a reply, a section of which I would like to copy and paste:

Now Sally ,about the man who told you that other people will go to hell ,this is wrong, I repeat this is wrong & islam forbids us to judge people, it is only Allah who decides who will go to heaven &who will not, & even those who are nonbelievers,we are not to judge them, so we must leave the judgement &classification of people to Allah.

At the same time we must work hard on trying to gain blessings from Allah, it is not difficult once we train ourselves & it will become part of our daily life routine & in a very easy way.

I find it interesting and uplifting to note that she puts the emphasis on working on ourselves, if she can do this after 50 years of study then I believe she is an example to us all. Please also note that she doesn't say 'except the Jews who are hell bound en masse', hmm I wonder why that is if it is such a fact??

I hope this shows people that it is not only me, with my quirky views, that believes this. Islam forbids us to judge others, I cannot say who will or who will not be accepted by Allah. Allah simply tells us to believe in Him, He alone can decide if your belief is true. He alone can decide whether to forgive you for practices and beliefs that you have, because these have been passed down to you (and I include Muslims here).

I know your faith in G-d is strong BB and He alone can judge between us, but I believe He will do this with mercy, with compassion and with absolute knowledge of who we are and what we truly believe.

Salaam my friend
Sally

 

[bananabrain]

you're very kind. it just goes to show how important religious biodiversity is - a concept islam clearly understands given the idea of the four madhabs, as well as that of minhaj.

was-salaam

bananabrain

 

[Abdullah]

"Now Sally ,about the man who told you that other people will go to hell ,this is wrong, I repeat this is wrong & islam forbids us to judge people, it is only Allah who decides who will go to heaven &who will not, & even those who are nonbelievers,we are not to judge them, so we must leave the judgement &classification of people to Allah.

At the same time we must work hard on trying to gain blessings from Allah, it is not difficult once we train ourselves & it will become part of our daily life routine & in a very easy way".

Salaam Bananabrain

What that lady [ra] has answered is correct, and I never said that people will go to hell in the sense she meant it; i.e, I never said that your gonig to hell, or that all non-Muslims will go to hell, for we simply dont know the seal of one's life that is why we cannot be sure who is gonig where, and I have explianed this to Muslimwoman before that we can only describe the actions and the kind of seal of one's life that will lead to hell; and that is what I've been doing; describnig the actions and seal of one's life that leads to hell.

I challenge Muslimwoman to put another set of question to that lady [ra] [or any ahle Sunnah student or Scholar] and then we'll see if the answers she recieves, contradicts what I have been saying. These questions are:

if a non-Muslim recieves a clear message of Islam, and thereafter he/she rejects it and dies rejecting [i.e, dies while not having converted to Islam] does he/she go to hell?

Did the advent of the Prophet Muhammad [saw] abrogate all other previous divine revelations [shariahs revealed to Moses [as] and Isa [as], or what some refer to as "Christianity and Judiasm"] or are they still valid?

Is 'Judaism' and 'Christianty' distorted from the original teachings of Moses [as] and Isa [as]?, and is it kufr [takes one out of God true religion] to reject the Prophet Jesus [as] and Muhammad [saw]?

Here are some excerpts of the explanations given to Muslimwoman regarding in what sense Scholars say that no-one can say anyone's going to hell, and only God knows who is going to hell and who is going to heaven, and in what sense we can describe what type of people will end up in hell:

Assalamualikum sis

When the Scholars say "only Allah knows who is going to paradise and who is going to hell", what they mean is that, only Allah knows what the seal of a persons life will be, i.e, wether a person will die while being a Muslim [because a kaafir/non-Muslim can even convert in the last moments of his/her life, and even a Muslim can utter the words of kufr [Allah forbid] just before his death, thus in that sense, only Allah knows what a persons fate in the hereafter will be.

If you can find any statement of an Islamic Scholar that says "If a person rejects a clear message of Islam and dies as a non-Muslim, there is a chance that he may go to paradise", then please quote it.

There are a few sayings that I heard back in the early 90's, but i havn't heard one single Scholar, or seen a single hadith backing these sayings up, but I still keep an open mind regardnig these sayings...

These sayings are as follows:

Allah is so mericfull that He will even forgive some non-Muslims on the Day of Judgement.

events such as the following will take place on the Day of Judgement:

There will be a non-Muslim person who will see a muslim person who he/she helped one day, that person will approach the muslim and say, "hey remember that day you asked me for a glass of water and i gave you it...that helped you on your way so please ask Allah to forgive me and save me from hell...the muslim will beseech Allah and Allah will forgive the non-Muslim and save him from hell.

There was a non-Muslim on earth who remained a non-Muslim all his life [i.e. died as a non-Muslim] and one day, while he went to the market with his son, during the month of Ramadan, his son ate something...the man scolded his son saying, "how dare you eat in front of all the muslims who are hungry from fasting!" and stopped his son from eating...thus in the process, respecting one of the Farraidhs [obligatory command/worship] of Allah, and just for that reason Allah will forgive this non-Muslim and save him from hell.

Salaam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muslimwoman
How interesting, you post the above statement and then give a link to a scholar that states very clearly, and I quote "you can't say anybody is going to hell". So which is it?

He [Shaykh Hamza] said [to the extent] in his statement that the reason why you can't say anybody's going to hell, is becasue no-one knows what a persons seal is, i.e, wether a person will die as a Muslim [for a kaafir/non-Muslim can convert in the last moments of his life and a muslim can even convert to kufr [Allah forbid] in the last moments of his life]; he gave examples of Umar [ra] and Abu Sufyan [ra], who were great enemies of Islam at one stage during their life and later they became muslim [Abu Sufyan became Muslim after fightnig against Islam for 20 years!] to show how a non-Muslim/kaafir of today can become a Muslim of tommorrow, thus what he means is that, ONLY IN THIS SENSE, we cannot say anybody's going to hell.

Also, included in the reason for why nobody can say who is going to hell, is the fact that Allah may even forgive the worst sinner out of the Muslims if He chooses, and for some ashari's, how are they to know which non-Muslim has recieved a clear message of Islam before they die...?

But if you tell him, if a person recieves a clear message of islam and thereafter dies as a non-Muslim, will he go to hell"?, I'm sure his answer will be [and Dr jamal Badawi's answer or any Islamic Scholars answer will be] a resounding "yes"., for in this sense you can define what kind of people will go to hell and what kind wont. As you can see, Allah Himslef has mentioned time and time again in the Quran as to what kind of people will go to hell, so therefore this matter is not a part of the knowledge of the unseen, and we too have to believe in what Allah has told us in the Quran".

So as you can see bananabrain, the two concepts in which you cannot say anynoe's gonig to hell, and in whcih one can describe the kind of seal of a persons life that will make him end up in hell, have all been explained to Muslimwoman before, and this is the kind of thnig that I was exactly talking about that Muslimwoman fails to keep in context what I have explianed or mentioned previously in her discussions...

And that is the only way really in whcih the opponents of the consensus can try and keep their arguments going; by totally overlooking refutations of their arguments.

So in order not to cause confusion, I'll try and put the 'two concepts' in a nutshell for you:

Can I say that any non-Muslim will end up in hell? no, for the reason that I dont know what their seal will be, i.e, of wether they will convert to Islam before they die or not. Also there is the case for the ashari's [one of the two valid theological Schools in ahle Sunnah, i.e Sunni Islam] that they cannot be sure...of who has and who hasn't received a clear message of Islam, thus in this sense, even if they witness a person dynig as a non-Muslim, i.e, they hear the non-Muslim say someithng like "Oh Jesus, you are my God", at the verry second of death, yet if they do not know wether that person ahs recieved a clear and undistorted message of Islam, they will not be able to know wether he has dies as a kaafir or not, thus accroding to them, only Allah will know that non-Muslims fate.

Can I say that an adult non-Muslim who recieves a claer message of Islam, and there-after dies as a non-Muslim, or an adult person who has not heard a clear message of Islam and who is not a conceptual monothiest iether, will end up in hell?; yes, according to both Sunni theological Schools [regardnig the former type of people] and yes, accroding to one of the two theological Schools regardnig the latter type of people:

And the fact that these two views which is shared amongst the consensus, is not some views that is tantamuont to 'playing God', for 'only God knows such knowledge', can be clearly seen from the following verses:

As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting, - never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom. For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers. -- Sura 3:86-91

"Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted from him, and shall be of those who have truly failed in the next life" (Qur'an 3:85)

So the above verses and many others simmilar to it shows that the knowledge of what kind of seal of a persons life leads to hell...is not the knowledge of the unseen, for Allah has shared it with us via the Quran and Sunnah.

Aslo Allah orders us to give tidings/warnings of the hell-fire to those who reject Islam:

12. Say to those who reject Faith: "Soon will ye be vanquished and gathered together to Hell,-an evil bed indeed (to lie on)!

So we have direct orders from Allah to warn people of the consequences of disbelief, so such a warning is a 'humble' act [for any obediance to Allah is humble; hope mines have been accepted by Allah though] and not arrogant, as some people here have been implying.

Peace to All.