Things in Islam I am curious about...
- Thread starter Grace Seeker
- Start date
- Replies 3K
- Views 402K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Yes, I got that aspect of the similarities that Imam was speaking of. But, if salaam is a peace that comes from God more than it comes from circumstances, it does leave me wondering why it should be inferred from this passage any substantiation that John and Jesus had to die non-violent deaths? Could they not still be experiencing God's peace even as others where treating them in unpeaceful ways?
Last edited:
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
I seemed to be filled with all sorts of trivial questions lately. And while I realize that many of them are inconsequential, they nonetheless remain curiousities. This one has to do with the idea of the corruption of previous scriptures.
Muslims hold that Tanakh has been corrupted. Does that mean that there were minor changes in select passages or that there were whole scale additions/subtractions?
For instance, I was reading Psalm 89 today, and was thinking to myself I wonder how my Muslim friends would understand this Psalm, and then I thought to myself, I wonder if they would recognize it at all. If the Psalms are corrupted (and I assume that Muslims consider that they are along with the rest of the Bible) would it be within the text of individual Pslams that the corruption occurs, or would it be by the addition/subtraction of entire Psalms from the corpus of the collection?
Muslims hold that Tanakh has been corrupted. Does that mean that there were minor changes in select passages or that there were whole scale additions/subtractions?
For instance, I was reading Psalm 89 today, and was thinking to myself I wonder how my Muslim friends would understand this Psalm, and then I thought to myself, I wonder if they would recognize it at all. If the Psalms are corrupted (and I assume that Muslims consider that they are along with the rest of the Bible) would it be within the text of individual Pslams that the corruption occurs, or would it be by the addition/subtraction of entire Psalms from the corpus of the collection?
whatever is proven to be corrupted is corrupted-this nowadays is easier to confirm given the (historical?) research that's been on going-, otherwise the Tanakh as well as all the previous scriptures being superseded by the qur'an means that regardless of what they mean, they are not a valid source anymore.
this has two fold meaning, the obvious one being: that we shouldn't quote or use the corrupted verses/stories etc, the second and more important: the meanings and notions implied throughout the older scriptures are not to be taken as valid, regardless of their appearent truthfulness, since their time is past, and the qur'an is enough.
thus the entire corpus is invalid form the Muslim's POV, since even that which seems to be true is still surrounded by falsified/inaccurate context, that context is probably the reason for rejecting the older scriptures, more than any specific corrupted verse or psalm, which are aplenty to begin with.
actually the qur'an is meant to be understood within context of the older scripture, in that it denies their validity/corrects them. then, to take specific passages to be correct would be to oppose the qur'anic narrative in the first place, since it's the entire Tanakh-for example- that's superseded, not just some corrupted passages.
you have good questions
, do ask, though the summer is not conductive to activity in the forum it seems.
this has two fold meaning, the obvious one being: that we shouldn't quote or use the corrupted verses/stories etc, the second and more important: the meanings and notions implied throughout the older scriptures are not to be taken as valid, regardless of their appearent truthfulness, since their time is past, and the qur'an is enough.
thus the entire corpus is invalid form the Muslim's POV, since even that which seems to be true is still surrounded by falsified/inaccurate context, that context is probably the reason for rejecting the older scriptures, more than any specific corrupted verse or psalm, which are aplenty to begin with.
actually the qur'an is meant to be understood within context of the older scripture, in that it denies their validity/corrects them. then, to take specific passages to be correct would be to oppose the qur'anic narrative in the first place, since it's the entire Tanakh-for example- that's superseded, not just some corrupted passages.
you have good questions
, do ask, though the summer is not conductive to activity in the forum it seems.adil hasnain
Rising Member
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 3
Im not sure alcohol was banned in Esa's time correct me if I am wrong
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
whatever is proven to be corrupted is corrupted-this nowadays is easier to confirm given the (historical?) research that's been on going-, otherwise the Tanakh as well as all the previous scriptures being superseded by the qur'an means that regardless of what they mean, they are not a valid source anymore.
this has two fold meaning, the obvious one being: that we shouldn't quote or use the corrupted verses/stories etc, the second and more important: the meanings and notions implied throughout the older scriptures are not to be taken as valid, regardless of their appearent truthfulness, since their time is past, and the qur'an is enough.
thus the entire corpus is invalid form the Muslim's POV, since even that which seems to be true is still surrounded by falsified/inaccurate context, that context is probably the reason for rejecting the older scriptures, more than any specific corrupted verse or psalm, which are aplenty to begin with.
actually the qur'an is meant to be understood within context of the older scripture, in that it denies their validity/corrects them. then, to take specific passages to be correct would be to oppose the qur'anic narrative in the first place, since it's the entire Tanakh-for example- that's superseded, not just some corrupted passages.
you have good questions
Alcurad, thank-you for your response. In it you spoke of both corruption and the idea that the Qur'an supercedes any previous scriptures. This also relates to the next poster who makes mention of the possibility that alcohol was not banned in Esa's time.
Just for the sake of argument (and I know it is not something that you could actually agree with) let us assume that the Bible was intact and uncorrupted. From what I understand you to have said, it wouldn't make any difference even then. Because the Qur'an was given later by Allah, the Bible no longer applies. Is that correct?
I've got some follow-up questions to that idea, but I want to be sure that I understand this point correctly before raising them, in case they should not apply.
hmm, do you mean the bible in it's current form or the oral tradition of Jesus as told by his devout followers?
I'm assuming you mean the latter-it was transmitted say as the qur'an was or Theron- as such it still would be that the qur'an supersede the Bible, since the bible would be too time-place specific for a universal message, although if that were the case, Jesus would have been a Muhammad..
I'm assuming you mean the latter-it was transmitted say as the qur'an was or Theron- as such it still would be that the qur'an supersede the Bible, since the bible would be too time-place specific for a universal message, although if that were the case, Jesus would have been a Muhammad..
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Neither. I am asking you to suppose a scenario which could not exist today. I'm asking you to suppose that rather than copies of copies of copies of the original Biblical texts being made with the mistakes that eventually crept in through the copying process, that instead a Xerox machine was on hand the moment the original manuscripts were written and that our Bible was compiled from them without any errors and passed down to us today in this uncorrupted fashion.
As I understand you, even having that uncorrupted version of the very message that Allah wanted the people of Esa's day to have would not change the fact that such a message would still be superceded by the Qur'an.
ah I see, then IMO from a certain perceptive I'd say no, if you had the exact same copy of what prophet Jesus preached-provided his message was indeed fit for every other nation-then there would be no need for any further message, ie. once the conditions for preserving revelation entirely are available, the role of messengers ends.
and as you know, Muslims assert that it was isn't as universal as Islam, but then this is hypothetical,,
the role of Islam likewise is to eliminate the need for religion and it's clergy in the first place.
and as you know, Muslims assert that it was isn't as universal as Islam, but then this is hypothetical,,
the role of Islam likewise is to eliminate the need for religion and it's clergy in the first place.
Last edited:
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Really glad I didn't ask my other questions at the same time. I was assuming the other answer. Interesting the view that if we had a preserved proprerly message from a prior prophet that you don't believe there would be a need for other messengers. Not what I would have guessed.
Is this a personal opinion, or is it based on some of the tenets of Islam? Of course, I've made this a hypothetical, so perhaps there is no way of really making that judgment.
How does what you expressed relate to the reality that the message has changed at least somewhat from David who used musical instruments to Jesus who evidently drank wine to Muhammed who said that neither was appropriate for Allah's people?
Note: I'm not accusing any one of wrong doing in having different behaviors and do assume that their behavior was in keeping with their message. But that leads me to believe that the particulars of what Allah expected were therefore different at different times with different peoples. To what degree is it reasonable for the message to change from one group to another? And to what degree must it stay the same?
um, it is the second answer, note what I highlighted: if it's fit for every other nation, then there would be no need for more, does it fit every other nation? from the Muslims perspective no, but hypothetically speaking if it did, then yes.
on the other hand the message being completely preserved-as with Islam- is an indication of it's fitness for everyone else. whether that includes the future generations or not depends on whether the basic tenets are preserved throughout or not.
which is why I said Jesus would've been like Muhammad if his message were preserved completely, rather we see him as part of the process with which the message was perfected for mankind.
well, fundamentals don't change, such as monotheism, and wine was gradually forbidden, as the Arabs were heavy drinkers, and it was reducing productivity. before, it was a part of the diet-beer especially was probably more like bread for example-and probably wine then wasn't exactly as wine was at the time of prophet Muhammad. as it were anything that intoxicates is called wine, if a wine doesn't intoxicate it's allowed. I guess then we shouldn't call it wine,,,or something like that, heh.
what are the fundamentals other than monotheism? well, whatever monotheism entails, such as all worship directed to God only, worshiping in general, ie. rituals such as prayer especially, fasting and pilgrimage and so on I'm not so certain about. the focus on good deeds and avoidance of bad ones-any thing that harms is forbidden, reward and punishment for deeds, and maybe concepts such as God being dissimilar form everyone else, can't think of more right now, but that should basically cover it, but generally speaking, monotheism+do good not bad+worship-if it exists- towards God alone, as there might have been periods when humans didn't have specific rituals.
as a note music is actually allowed, the view that it's forbidden has been amply refuted, every narration there is about it being forbidden is weak or does not indicate forbidding, only the prophet not listening to it. he held himself to a higher standard than most people, and at that time music was more associated with debauchery and lewdness, not as we have it now. I'm speaking of perspective here, otherwise it's just a sound, what accompanies it is what determines forbidding or allowing.
http://www.mynaraps.com/music.htm
http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/misc/music_in_islam.asp
on the other hand the message being completely preserved-as with Islam- is an indication of it's fitness for everyone else. whether that includes the future generations or not depends on whether the basic tenets are preserved throughout or not.
which is why I said Jesus would've been like Muhammad if his message were preserved completely, rather we see him as part of the process with which the message was perfected for mankind.
well, fundamentals don't change, such as monotheism, and wine was gradually forbidden, as the Arabs were heavy drinkers, and it was reducing productivity
. before, it was a part of the diet-beer especially was probably more like bread for example-and probably wine then wasn't exactly as wine was at the time of prophet Muhammad. as it were anything that intoxicates is called wine, if a wine doesn't intoxicate it's allowed. I guess then we shouldn't call it wine,,,or something like that, heh.what are the fundamentals other than monotheism? well, whatever monotheism entails, such as all worship directed to God only, worshiping in general, ie. rituals such as prayer especially, fasting and pilgrimage and so on I'm not so certain about. the focus on good deeds and avoidance of bad ones-any thing that harms is forbidden, reward and punishment for deeds, and maybe concepts such as God being dissimilar form everyone else, can't think of more right now, but that should basically cover it, but generally speaking, monotheism+do good not bad+worship-if it exists- towards God alone, as there might have been periods when humans didn't have specific rituals.
as a note music is actually allowed, the view that it's forbidden has been amply refuted, every narration there is about it being forbidden is weak or does not indicate forbidding, only the prophet not listening to it. he held himself to a higher standard than most people, and at that time music was more associated with debauchery and lewdness, not as we have it now. I'm speaking of perspective here, otherwise it's just a sound, what accompanies it is what determines forbidding or allowing.
http://www.mynaraps.com/music.htm
http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/misc/music_in_islam.asp
Last edited:
love_quran
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 139
- Reaction score
- 51
The Quran is more beautiful than music could ever be... I am not of any particular opinion about the music topic , however , with such a beautiful scripture who would prefer music to the Qur'an??
I have never been able to find this letter but you might like to hear another thing that Goethe said in his conversations with Eckermann (ISBN 978-0-306-80881-4 page 29) about God.
".. [if] they were impressed by His greatness they would be dumb and through veneration unwilling to name Him"
Things I am curious in Islam is the statement that there is total equality in the system of Islam but then you read in "A classical manual of Islamic Sacred Law", by Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al Misri it is not the case.
O1.1
Retaliation is obligatory (A: if the person entitled wishes to take it (dis: o3.8) against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right. (O: Intentionally is a first restriction and excludes killing someone through an honest mistake, while purely excludes a mistake made in a deliberate injury (def: o2.3), and without right excludes cases of justifiable homicide such as lawful retaliation.)
O1.2
The following are not subject to retaliation:
-1- a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2) );
-2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;
-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);
-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;
-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor's) killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.
It appears that the non-muslim, your children, grandchildren and the apostate from Islam are not equal.
Is this from hadith or is it quranic as in "fighting in the way of allah"?
O1.1
Retaliation is obligatory (A: if the person entitled wishes to take it (dis: o3.8) against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right. (O: Intentionally is a first restriction and excludes killing someone through an honest mistake, while purely excludes a mistake made in a deliberate injury (def: o2.3), and without right excludes cases of justifiable homicide such as lawful retaliation.)
O1.2
The following are not subject to retaliation:
-1- a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2) );
-2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;
-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);
-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;
-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor's) killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.
It appears that the non-muslim, your children, grandchildren and the apostate from Islam are not equal.
Is this from hadith or is it quranic as in "fighting in the way of allah"?
aamirsaab
On vacation.
- Messages
- 4,459
- Reaction score
- 1,229
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Follower, are you complaining about the fact that Islam doesn't allow you to retaliate against ''the non-muslim, your children, grandchildren and the apostate from Islam'' ?
It has nothing to do with equality or whatnot - I really don't see why you are bringing that argument up. It's actually a very clear matter: a muslim is allowed to retaliate EXCEPT against those folk.
Simple as that.
aamirsaab - Follower, are you complaining about the fact that Islam doesn't allow you to retaliate against ''the non-muslim, your children, grandchildren and the apostate from Islam'' ?
I would have no desire to retaliate in anyway.
Please read that again no one is retaliating against the non-muslim, children apostate- they are the victims of the killings. According to this law it is the killer that does not receive retalition in these types of killings.
LOL!! Not complaining just curious as to where the equality is. Now I might be complaining if I lived where sharia was practiced!
Doesn't the above say:
if a muslim kills a non-muslim retaliation is not allowed
if anyone kills an apostate retaliation is not allowed-killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences
if a parent kills their children or grandchildren retaliation is not allowed
I would have no desire to retaliate in anyway.
Please read that again no one is retaliating against the non-muslim, children apostate- they are the victims of the killings. According to this law it is the killer that does not receive retalition in these types of killings.
LOL!! Not complaining just curious as to where the equality is. Now I might be complaining if I lived where sharia was practiced!
Doesn't the above say:
if a muslim kills a non-muslim retaliation is not allowed
if anyone kills an apostate retaliation is not allowed-killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences
if a parent kills their children or grandchildren retaliation is not allowed
those are laws invented by someone, there is no clear backing for them.
((The following are not subject to retaliation:
-1- a child or insane person
-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);
-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;
-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.))
1. means that if a child or insane person kills someone, under law there is no punishment.
2. if a Jew/Christian kills an apostate, no punishment is enacted upon them.
3. parent killing child is allowed. same for 5.
now, all of these except 3 don't have backing, there are some narrations around 3, however the principle of all human life being equal and many others make it a null point as well, in short these are the words of someone from the middle ages, that represent him and his culture etc more than Islam.
((The following are not subject to retaliation:
-1- a child or insane person
-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);
-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;
-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.))
1. means that if a child or insane person kills someone, under law there is no punishment.
2. if a Jew/Christian kills an apostate, no punishment is enacted upon them.
3. parent killing child is allowed. same for 5.
now, all of these except 3 don't have backing, there are some narrations around 3, however the principle of all human life being equal and many others make it a null point as well, in short these are the words of someone from the middle ages, that represent him and his culture etc more than Islam.
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
So, if a country was to seek to implement sharia law, would these sort of middle ages representations of justice be part of the mix or would they be set aside and require the people to write their own guidelines, guided by the Qur'an and Hadith, by also in the context of the present world and culture?