Which religion is closest to Islam?

[Jayda]

yes, it does. because if the qur'an is the word of God, it must be the truth.
it is as simple as that. so there really isn't room for argument.
but it is still a leap from that to conclude that jews are not monotheists. this is the part i have a problem with. jews are just as strongly monotheistic as muslims.

but you forget that that too (bold) is in the quran, as a natural consequence. so how can you think there shall be room for argument on what concerns you?

i think at this point it is better to assume they are just as interested in an objective vision of the world as i am... if the conversation gets nasty i will stop talking.

 

[snakelegs]

jayda,
i don't remember that it says jews are not monotheists in the qur'an. i have to try to find that. if you have it handy, please post.
if it does, then you're right - there is no room for argument on this one either.

 

[- Qatada -]

I'll quote it again:

First of all, this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium"absence of proof is not proof of absence". In other words, which we can refute with the expression, just because we don't have Judaic records that shows that Jews believed this, does not prove that no Jews ever believed this!

​

That's sufficient for me as an argument.

 

[snakelegs]

yes - you're right = 9: 30, 31
a muslim will not believe that anything in the qur'an is false.

 

[snakelegs]

I'll quote it again:

First of all, this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium"absence of proof is not proof of absence". In other words, which we can refute with the expression, just because we don't have Judaic records that shows that Jews believed this, does not prove that no Jews ever believed this!

​

That's sufficient for me as an argument.

this is true - it is not impossible that there were some jews in madinah who believed this. this does not mean that it is a jewish belief, any more than ahmadis represent mainstream islam.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I'll quote it again:

First of all, this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium"absence of proof is not proof of absence". In other words, which we can refute with the expression, just because we don't have Judaic records that shows that Jews believed this, does not prove that no Jews ever believed this!

​

That's sufficient for me as an argument.

That also allows one to make all sorts of wild statements about any group of people if they haven't taken the time to specifically provide refutations of those beliefs (however untrue of them they might be) in advance of your adovating that they might believe them. We could get back to the FSM, perhaps this would be the 100th name for Allah. After all, I've never seen it written in the Qur'an or the hadith that Allah is not also known by the name Fly Spaghetti Monster.

Operating under such a theory does nothing to enhance a search for what is and is not true.

 

[- Qatada -]

That also allows one to make all sorts of wild statements about any group of people if they haven't taken the time to specifically provide refutations of those beliefs (however untrue of them they might be) in advance of your adovating that they might believe them. We could get back to the FSM, perhaps this would be the 100th name for Allah. After all, I've never seen it written in the Qur'an or the hadith that Allah is not also known by the name Fly Spaghetti Monster.

And guess what Grace Seeker, you're argument falls flat on its face when we come to realise that nowhere in the Gospels does it mention clearly and explicitly that Jesus is God.


So please, if you believe that absence of proof [from some sources] cannot have validity, then know that you're a disbeliever in your faith.




Regards.

 

[Jayda]

I'll quote it again:

First of all, this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium"absence of proof is not proof of absence". In other words, which we can refute with the expression, just because we don't have Judaic records that shows that Jews believed this, does not prove that no Jews ever believed this!

​

That's sufficient for me as an argument.

except that the jewish record considers what you are decribing blasphemy. whether using the phrase 'son of God' to mean the filial son of God as was Jesus, or in the creation sense as were the angels, or in the adoptive sense as was David... these titles apply only to those people. none of them apply to Ezra, it would be blasphemy.

 

[Jayda]

And guess what Grace Seeker, you're argument falls flat on its face when we come to realise that nowhere in the Gospels does it mention clearly and explicitly that Jesus is God.


So please, if you believe that absence of proof [from some sources] cannot have validity, then know that you're a disbeliever in your faith.




Regards.

that's tremendously immature and disrespectful.

 

[- Qatada -]

that's tremendously immature and disrespectful.

Try referring to how disrespectful he was in his post, and you might come to realise why i had to say something of that sort.

We could get back to the FSM, perhaps this would be the 100th name for Allah. After all, I've never seen it written in the Qur'an or the hadith that Allah is not also known by the name Fly Spaghetti Monster.

I'm afraid that he isn't that respectful either. It would be less offensive to me if he called me a disbeliever than what he said.

 

[Grace Seeker]

And guess what Grace Seeker, you're argument falls flat on its face when we come to realise that nowhere in the Gospels does it mention clearly and explicitly that Jesus is God.


So please, if you believe that absence of proof [from some sources] cannot have validity, then know that you're a disbeliever in your faith.




Regards.

I believe it can be deduced from them. That is completely different than trying to assert that Judaism is NOT monotheistic because it is reported that some Jews made such and such a statment about Ezra. You don't see that idea -- accepting it for the moment, but as what I think is non-contextualized history, so that if they said such a thing they may have meant something completely different than what you have implied by it -- adopted by any other group of Jews, and you do find Jewish teaching that runs explicity counter to it. For me that is enough to deduce that it is not a statement that can be accepted as representative of Judaism.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

9:30 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

It seems to me the verse refers to all Jews and Christians not only those of Madinah. There is no specific reference to the Jews of Madinah and "with their mouths" can eman practically anything.

But then again, it seems strange to me that Mohammed would have ever made such a easy-checkable claim if it had been false. I would consider it very stupid and I know Mohammed wasn't a stupid man. The same goes for God of course...

 

[- Qatada -]

I believe it can be deduced from them. That is completely different than trying to assert that Judaism is NOT monotheistic because it is reported that some Jews made such and such a statment about Ezra. You don't see that idea -- accepting it for the moment, but as what I think is non-contextualized history, so that if they said such a thing they may have meant something completely different than what you have implied by it -- adopted by any other group of Jews, and you do find Jewish teaching that runs explicity counter to it. For me that is enough to deduce that it is not a statement that can be accepted as representative of Judaism.

I don't think you get the grasp either, there are people who are so called Muslims in the world today who do the exact same acts of the polytheists of old! This means that those who do that act, yes - they have deviated from the truth, although the truth is still remaining.


Therefore, if a Muslim worships a grave of a saint, i will say that the act is opposing the religion - it is unislamic, however, i will still criticisize the action, and the people who do that act will be responsible for it, although it may not be part of their religion.

 

[- Qatada -]

9:30 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

It seems to me the verse refers to all Jews and Christians not only those of Madinah. There is no specific reference to the Jews of Madinah and "with their mouths" can eman practically anything.

The verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, because they specifically stated it as mentioned in the tafsir earlier. Allah talks many times about the believers in the Qur'an, yet He is not talking about every single believer who dwells on the earth in the future also in them specific verses.


I.e:

Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error. [Qur'an 3: 164]



​

In This verse, the believers are mentioned. However, it is specifically referring to the companions of the Messenger of Allah.

Similarly, that verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, since it was they who said it. Those who did not say it, it is not referring to them.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Try referring to how disrespectful he was in his post, and you might come to realise why i had to say something of that sort.





I'm afraid that he isn't that respectful either. It would be less offensive to me if he called me a disbeliever than what he said.

Qatada, I didn't say that to be disrespectful. Indeed I changed from what I had previously mentioned because I realized what I had originally written might have been taken that way and therefore altered it to avoid that result. I apologize that is still resulted in saying something you found to be disrepectful to either you personally or your faith. It was not intended as such.

What I had intended was to merely try to follow your logic and make what I found to be obviously ludicrous statements and yet they would still be consistent with the points you were making. Perhpas that doiing so unintentionally resulted in something that was nontheless offensive illustrates why I take exception to the theory behind your argument even if the substantive points can be held as true.

 

[- Qatada -]

Okay, thankyou. I forgive you, and i hope you forgive me too.




Regards.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

The verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, because they specifically stated it as mentioned in the tafsir earlier. Allah talks many times about the believers in the Qur'an, yet He is not talking about every single believer who dwells on the earth in the future also in them specific verses.


I.e:

Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error. [Qur'an 3: 164]



​

In This verse, the believers are mentioned. However, it is specifically referring to the companions of the Messenger of Allah.

Similarly, that verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, since it was they who said it. Those who did not say it, it is not referring to them.

I came here a bit late. Could you post the tafsir again, please.:sunny:

3:164 clearly says Mohammed instructed etc those believers, so one can conclude taht it refers to his companions. 9:30 gives no such specification, neither does the entire surah 9. There's "with their mouths"... I'll wait for the tafsir before I make further comments...

 

[Grace Seeker]

The verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, because they specifically stated it as mentioned in the tafsir earlier. Allah talks many times about the believers in the Qur'an, yet He is not talking about every single believer who dwells on the earth in the future also in them specific verses.


I.e:

Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error. [Qur'an 3: 164]



​

In This verse, the believers are mentioned. However, it is specifically referring to the companions of the Messenger of Allah.

Similarly, that verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, since it was they who said it. Those who did not say it, it is not referring to them.

OK, then. This gets us back to my concern. Shakoor's original question was:

Hold on, is Judaism really pure monotheism because in surah Atouba chapter 9 verse 30 it says that the Jews call Uzair the son of Allah. Is this true? and doesnt that make them on the same level as Christians??

Shakoor is asking about Judaism -- the whole of the religion, not about a few specific Jews in Madinah. The answer regarding whether or not Judaism is really pure monotheism, even in light of the behavior of a few Jews in Madinah, cannot be determined by looking at those few Jews as if they were representatives of the whole of Judaism, especially when, as Ansar Al-'Adl noted, we don't find any other such comments anywhere else and "that only the Jews of Arabia, and not all Jews, have been thus accused." In looking at the Jews as a whole, rather than a select and apparently abherrant group, Judaism really is pure in its monotheism. That is the answer that Shakoor deserves.

 

[- Qatada -]

OK, then. This gets us back to my concern. Shakoor's original question was:

Shakoor is asking about Judaism -- the whole of the religion, not about a few specific Jews in Madinah. The answer regarding whether or not Judaism is really pure monotheism, even in light of the behavior of a few Jews in Madinah, cannot be determined by looking at those few Jews as if they were representatives of the whole of Judaism, especially when, as Ansar Al-'Adl noted, we don't find any other such comments anywhere else and "that only the Jews of Arabia, and not all Jews, have been thus accused." In looking at the Jews as a whole, rather than a select and apparently abherrant group, Judaism really is pure in its monotheism. That is the answer that Shakoor deserves.

I was giving the tafsir of the explanation of them verses, but yeah - i agree with where you're coming from.



I gota go now after the next post.




Regards.

 

[- Qatada -]

I came here a bit late. Could you post the tafsir again, please.:sunny:

3:164 clearly says Mohammed instructed etc those believers, so one can conclude taht it refers to his companions. 9:30 gives no such specification, neither does the entire surah 9. There's "with their mouths"... I'll wait for the tafsir before I make further comments...

I just wasn't good with giving a good example, try doing some research cuz i don't have anytime left now.


Here's the link to the tafsir of that verse:

http://www.islamicboard.com/893026-post123.html