Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

shafique wrote:Hold on, the council was brought together to decide which of the competing views of Christianity will be adopted as 'standard' and to choose a Bible. Arius' view was also long standing.

The only wrong "interpretation" here is yours. The council of Nicea was convened to discuss the divinity of Jesus and to examine and verify the already circulating books of the Bible. Already established because manuscripts of such where already in existence and compiled before Nicea, namely the Muratorian Canon. The Council examined and verified authorship of the books and only excluded those that were not verifiable (two). Proving veracity, getting to the Truth is a good thing you know. How the council of Nicea supports your disdain for the Bible, well I can't see it, but I hardly think you need an excuse when you've already pre-judged everything about it.

shafique wrote:Nothing wrong with debate - as long as all are seen as Christian. What becomes bad is when the Arians were branded as heretics (i.e. non-Christian) and were persecuted and killed.

can you quote historical references for this.

shafique wrote:So, are you saying that Arius' views are not heretical after all?

They're not entirely correct. Spreading misconceptions is not something to be desired, one would think. Proof of absolute divinity in Christianity: Jesus own words prove it.

shafique wrote:And, since you ask, no I don't see the persecutions of Christians by Christians as equal to treatment of apostates in early Islam (firstly there weren't any mass killings seen under Christianity, and there weren't any of the same fundamental differences between sects in early Islam - the initial civil wars were over the paying of tax (Zakaat) not theology).

riiiiigght. others would argue it was spreading of Islam by the sword.

shafique wrote:You asked previously if I had pointed out contradictions to JW, I replied that I had.

why so much evasion??? WHAT specific contradictions of the Witnesses have you pointed out? I repeat: Specific. Please specify from their doctrines and Bible.

shafique wrote:African anglicans seem to say that a practicing hom.o.s.ex.ual goes to hell. They base this belief on the Bible. Do you agree or disagree. Are there any scholars who disagree that they all go to hell?

OK. You ignore the basic teachings of Jesus and fixate on homosexuality instead. Why? Here's a concept for you: Salvation involves a lot more than an individual's se xual preference. Yeah, I know - a b s o l u t e l y...MIND-BOGGLING!!!

shafique wrote:Are there any scholars who disagree that they all go to hell?

What are you 10 years old? dude

on the subject of homosexuality. doesn't the Quran say that homosexuality is a sin but then all a homosexual needs to do is to repent from this "sin"? Isn't this a lot less harsh than the "punishment" for adultery? And doesn't this contrast with the carnal language in the Quran, specifically beautiful young guys (ghilman) who are around in heaven for entertainment purposes? The Quran doesn't seem to make such a big deal of homoeroticism or eroticism in general (actually sexual prowess is boasted by Mohammed, right?) Perhaps Mohammad was tolerant of homosexuality but observed that the Christians and Jewish tradition weren't that open to it and decided to add that little sin label there? [Serious question. And since I know you're going to dismiss it, is there anyone else here who can address it?]

shafique wrote:So whether one achieve Salvation or goes to hell is 'debatable'. Hmm.

Did I previously mention Salvation? Here's another mind-boggling concept. For Christians, salvation involves leading a meaningful life and accepting Jesus as their savior. !!GASP!!

Flying Dutchman wrote:So allow me to summarize what I learnt today. The preservation of the Quran during the first 30 years depended on recitals. Before the standardized Quran was written, there were minor differences between different written versions. Not comprosing the message though.
Shafique, I know you always like to have to last word, so go ahead

Ok - here it is:

No (and I've said this before) the primary means of preservation has always been oral recitation from memory.

The written text agrees with this unbroken chain of preservation back to the time it was revealed by the Prophet, pbuh.

We can separately look at the history of the 'written' Quran, but the very name 'Quran' means 'that which is recited' - it claims to be the literal word of God which was revealed to Prophet Muhammad, pbuh.

But to look at the history of the 'Quran' by definition we are examining the recited word, not the written word. So, I would agree with your statement if you inserted 'written' before the word Quran.

Let me know if this is unclear and I'll clarify.

Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:Hold on, the council was brought together to decide which of the competing views of Christianity will be adopted as 'standard' and to choose a Bible. Arius' view was also long standing.

The only wrong "interpretation" here is yours. The council of Nicea was convened to discuss the divinity of Jesus and to examine and verify the already circulating books of the Bible. Already established because manuscripts of such where already in existence and compiled before Nicea, namely the Muratorian Canon. The Council examined and verified authorship of the books and only excluded those that were not verifiable (two). Proving veracity, getting to the Truth is a good thing you know. How the council of Nicea supports your disdain for the Bible, well I can't see it, but I hardly think you need an excuse when you've already pre-judged everything about it.

So the Council of Nicea only rejected 2 books. I thought the list of apocryphal books was longer. Could you provide me with a reference.

You seemed to imply that Arius accepted the Council of Nicea's findings and all was lovely dovely. In fact Arius refused to sign the creed and was exiled.

Arius taught that Jesus wasn't Divine, but was created. The same view of Unitarian Christians today.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:Nothing wrong with debate - as long as all are seen as Christian. What becomes bad is when the Arians were branded as heretics (i.e. non-Christian) and were persecuted and killed.

can you quote historical references for this.

Sure, Encyclopaedia Britannica under 'Arianism' - first Arian persecution occured under Emperor Valens.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:So, are you saying that Arius' views are not heretical after all?

They're not entirely correct. Spreading misconceptions is not something to be desired, one would think. Proof of absolute divinity in Christianity: Jesus own words prove it.

'They are not quite right' / 'Jesus own words prove it'. Shame that argument did not wash with Arius and all who don't believe in the Trinity. As I said before, it shows that there is not a consensus on what the Bible says.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:And, since you ask, no I don't see the persecutions of Christians by Christians as equal to treatment of apostates in early Islam (firstly there weren't any mass killings seen under Christianity, and there weren't any of the same fundamental differences between sects in early Islam - the initial civil wars were over the paying of tax (Zakaat) not theology).

riiiiigght. others would argue it was spreading of Islam by the sword.

Never mind, we'll forgive the obvious error. You talk about violence against 'apostates' - which by definition is against people who were Muslims. Please try and keep up with your own arguments.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:You asked previously if I had pointed out contradictions to JW, I replied that I had.

why so much evasion??? WHAT specific contradictions of the Witnesses have you pointed out? I repeat: Specific. Please specify from their doctrines and Bible.

I'll happily set any Witnesses that post here straight, but I don't see any point in pointing out the contradictions here - it would serve no purpose as there aren't any JW's here to defend their views.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:African anglicans seem to say that a practicing hom.o.s.ex.ual goes to hell. They base this belief on the Bible. Do you agree or disagree. Are there any scholars who disagree that they all go to hell?

OK. You ignore the basic teachings of Jesus and fixate on homosexuality instead. Why? Here's a concept for you: Salvation involves a lot more than an individual's se xual preference. Yeah, I know - a b s o l u t e l y...MIND-BOGGLING!!!

Sorry, I could not find an answer in your text above - do practicing Gays go to heaven or hell. Are they saved or damned?

The Biblical scholars of the past that said they are damned are supported by the current African anglicans, Catholics etc. You say that it may not be important.

Is not the salvation of one's eternal soul the main concept of Christianity?

If it is not, then do you agree that pious hindus will go to Heaven (eg. will Mahatma Ghandi go to heaven?) The Christians I have consulted all say that no - he is hell bound. The Christians who uphold that the Bible condemns gays also say that gays go to hell for the sin.

And it is not my fixation - but a fundamental issue that is causing big issues in the Anglican church (and it all revolves around interpretation of the Bible).

So what is it - do gays go to hell or are they saved? Where in the Bible does your view come from?

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:Are there any scholars who disagree that they all go to hell?

What are you 10 years old? dude

Most 10 year olds would answer the question. And what did I say about name calling?

freza wrote:on the subject of homosexuality. doesn't the Quran say that homosexuality is a sin but then all a homosexual needs to do is to repent from this "sin"?

Yes it does say it is a sin (as does the Bible from what I can see - but I'm not a scholar). Repenting from a sin also means not doing it - so yes Islam does teach that repentance for sins is what a believer should do. However Islam teaches that s.e.x outside marriage is punishable if proven - therefore it ho.mo.se.xuality is punishable by society.

freza wrote:Isn't this a lot less harsh than the "punishment" for adultery? And doesn't this contrast with the carnal language in the Quran, specifically beautiful young guys (ghilman) who are around in heaven for entertainment purposes?

Sorry, must try harder. Hom.o.se.xuality is treated just as harshly as adultery and fornication.

You must also have forgotten the previous posts which talk about the afterlife being all metaphorical. There won't be men and women in heaven, just souls. But hey, why let the truth get in the way of prejudice.

freza wrote:
The Quran doesn't seem to make such a big deal of homoeroticism or eroticism in general (actually sexual prowess is boasted by Mohammed, right?) Perhaps Mohammad was tolerant of homosexuality but observed that the Christians and Jewish tradition weren't that open to it and decided to add that little sin label there?

I knew you had a sense of humour. I've heard a lot of criticism of Islam - but to accuse it of being pro-Gay takes the biscuit! Thanks, I needed a laugh. (and given your leap of fantasy is based on the false premise that gay liasons aren't punishable, there is no need to answer it further)

freza wrote:[Serious question. And since I know you're going to dismiss it, is there anyone else here who can address it?]

Well, you'll have to find someone who shares your view that Islam is pro-Gay for someone to explain it to you. Good luck, let me know how you get on.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:So whether one achieve Salvation or goes to hell is 'debatable'. Hmm.

Did I previously mention Salvation? Here's another mind-boggling concept. For Christians, salvation involves leading a meaningful life and accepting Jesus as their savior. !!GASP!!

I understand that - the question is whether a Gay Priest or Gay Christian who accepts Jesus as saviour and still sleeps with a man will be saved or not. The Bible says no, but some scholars say yes. Who is right - the Bible or the liberal scholars?

It's only the third time (I think) that I've asked - but hey, I'm persistent.

[Wow - still am in awe at my ignorance - Salvation is not a fundamental belief of Christianity and Islam is pro-Gay! You are a bundle of laughs!]

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Let me know if this is unclear and I'll clarify.

I think its clear to me now. Thanks for your time and patience.

FD - yes that's a good summary.

freza - thanks for your input as well. I always read that the books of the Bible were first agreed at the Council of Nicea at the same time that the Nicean Creed was agreed.

Reading up on the First Council of Nicea, I could not find references to Bible selections - but did find out some information about the compilation of the Bible. I'll post that info in a new thread.

When I am mistaken, I am mistaken - and on this point I concede I had the wrong idea of the Council of Nicea - that it was responsible for the selection of books of the Bible. It was responsible for agreeing what the canon of the Church was - specifically on the issue on whether Jesus was Divine or a created. (And the main thrust of my arguments is that there was dissension over the interpretation of what the Bible said, which I don't think is changed).

Arians, believed that since God the Father created the Son, he must have emanated from the Father, and thus be lesser than the Father, in that the Father is eternal, but the Son was created afterward and, thus, is not eternal. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I".

The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:So allow me to summarize what I learnt today. The preservation of the Quran during the first 30 years depended on recitals. Before the standardized Quran was written, there were minor differences between different written versions. Not comprosing the message though.
Shafique, I know you always like to have to last word, so go ahead

Just a minor clarification, during the first 30 years written Quran existed but it was not standardized into Quraishi dialect. Quraishi dialect was the Makkan dialect.

So imo mode of preservation was both written and memorization. However, Quran's tradition stems in recitation, hence, it was named "Recitation". It is recited multiple times completely every year since the time of Prophet (pbuh).

Another thing Quran is easy to memorize:
1. It is in poetic form, so it is like memorizing poetry or lyrics which makes easier.
2. There is a lot of repetition so once a person starts memorizing Quran, it becomes easy as the person progresses.

If you go to madrassa you see even many 8 year olds have memorized complete Quran.

Re: Apocrypha/Necea: Determining apocrypha and establishing canon was a process that started quite early on; some claims are that it started as early as A.D. 30 but the most significant cited evidence is found around A.D. 100-125 when an early process of authoritative compilation was found in the the writings of Ignatius of Antioch around the year 110.

But I also need to make corrections/clear things up: Necea's main reason for meeting was indeed to discuss the divinity of Jesus in response to the Arian controversy, clearly the main purpose. But I should have said around the time of the Necea Council ecclesiastical scholars were studying and debating those two writings that I mentioned earlier which are Hebrews and Revelations - of inclusion into the NT. They were not rejected (well, not by "most") but back then, they had not agreed on a rejection but were still debating because the authorship of the writings was (and is still) in question. And even to this day the debate and investigation of these two works continues.

shafique wrote:Never mind, we'll forgive the obvious error. You talk about violence against 'apostates' - which by definition is against people who were Muslims. Please try and keep up with your own arguments.

First, the definition of apostates vary and the word can be applied to other "renunciants" or disbelievers besides Muslims. But I was actually referring to the the Wars of Apostasy, as you were in mentioning conflicts over taxes, right? But some argue that other reasons for the battles also included spread of Islam through fear: to target tribes that were not "fully" Islamic because of their geographical location and/or proximity to other cultural influences.

shafique wrote:I'll happily set any Witnesses that post here straight, but I don't see any point in pointing out the contradictions here - it would serve no purpose as there aren't any JW's here to defend their views.

You had previously mentioned that you agree with the JW's interpretation of their Bible because they go back to their origins, or something like that, true? OK, I pointed out factoids (our new favorite word) about their belief system so that you can analyze it and extract *the truth* the way you analyze other works of the Bible here without a care in the world. But I see that you're clearly not up to this challenge. fine.

Re: Gays. Are all gays condemned to hell simply for the fact of being gay? No. Salvation is for everyone who believes and wants it (John 3:16) and we mere humans can hardly be the judges of someone else's eternal soul!

(as to Creed or lack of it, it matters not when it comes to facing God and eternal life.)

My questions are just that. Pls don't make them bigger than they are. This "heaven" scene:"They shall there exchange, one with another, a cup free of frivolity, free of sin., Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them: youths (handsome) as Pearls well-guarded." this means what again? I know you say it doesn't mean what it looks like it means (hanky panky in heaven with beauties of a questionable gender). But imagery and symbolism are so important in religions (and so telling) why do you think authors of the Quran chose this imagery?

Nucleus wrote:

Flying Dutchman wrote:So allow me to summarize what I learnt today. The preservation of the Quran during the first 30 years depended on recitals. Before the standardized Quran was written, there were minor differences between different written versions. Not comprosing the message though.
Shafique, I know you always like to have to last word, so go ahead

Just a minor clarification, during the first 30 years written Quran existed but it was not standardized into Quraishi dialect. Quraishi dialect was the Makkan dialect.

So imo mode of preservation was both written and memorization. However, Quran's tradition stems in recitation, hence, it was named "Recitation". It is recited multiple times completely every year since the time of Prophet (pbuh).

Another thing Quran is easy to memorize:
1. It is in poetic form, so it is like memorizing poetry or lyrics which makes easier.
2. There is a lot of repetition so once a person starts memorizing Quran, it becomes easy as the person progresses.

If you go to madrassa you see even many 8 year olds have memorized complete Quran.

FD - you are completely correct. I was going to clarify exactly the same point that the written Quran was there from outset.

Also, we can't know for sure what proportion of the written Qurans had no differences from the 'standardised' texts - it could very well be a low percentage. (i.e. we shouldn't assume that all the written Qurans before the standardised texts contained errors - eg Hafsa's Quran was returned to her and not destroyed)

Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote:Re: Apocrypha/Necea: ..

Thanks for the clarifications -I too was getting my facts wrong. I started a new thread about the canonisation of the Bible. Some Churches to this day haven't canonised Revelations (eg Syrian Church), and some Churches have more than the 27 books (eg Coptic).

So, we should be careful about specifying which Bible we are debating!

The council of Nicea was convened to discuss the interpretation of the Bible on the question of Divinity of Jesus. Arius and his followers used the Bible in defence of their views. They however lost - only 2 of the bishops voted in favour of Arius - and they and Arius were banished. (Arius later was allowed back by Constantine though)

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:Never mind, we'll forgive the obvious error. You talk about violence against 'apostates' - which by definition is against people who were Muslims. Please try and keep up with your own arguments.

First, the definition of apostates vary and the word can be applied to other "renunciants" or disbelievers besides Muslims. But I was actually referring to the the Wars of Apostasy, as you were in mentioning conflicts over taxes, right? But some argue that other reasons for the battles also included spread of Islam through fear: to target tribes that were not "fully" Islamic because of their geographical location and/or proximity to other cultural influences.

Apostates has a specific meaning to me - apologies for not realising you were using it in a non-literal way.

The wars of apostacy in early Islam were over taxes.

I'm not aware of any scholar/historian referring to any spread of Islam by force as an attack against apostates.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:I'll happily set any Witnesses that post here straight, but I don't see any point in pointing out the contradictions here - it would serve no purpose as there aren't any JW's here to defend their views.

You had previously mentioned that you agree with the JW's interpretation of their Bible because they go back to their origins, or something like that, true? OK, I pointed out factoids (our new favorite word) about their belief system so that you can analyze it and extract *the truth* the way you analyze other works of the Bible here without a care in the world. But I see that you're clearly not up to this challenge. fine.

I am happy to point out where I agree with them and that they base their views on divinity of Jesus on the Bible. Trying to goad me into listing where I disagree with their other views won't work - I repeat I don't see the relevance in doing so here.

freza wrote:Re: Gays. Are all gays condemned to hell simply for the fact of being gay? No. Salvation is for everyone who believes and wants it (John 3:16) and we mere humans can hardly be the judges of someone else's eternal soul!

I am impressed by your tolerance - most believing Christians will happily condemn all non-Christians to Hell, and many will also condemn Gays to the same fate.

I can see why you find Islam beautiful - many Christians I have debated have criticised Islam for precisely the sentiments you have just given - that God is the final judge about who goes to Heaven and it is not our job to second guess God, and only God knows who will be saved.

However, it would be fair to say that not all Christians believe that gays who believe in Jesus will be saved (or have I misunderstood the opposition to gays by Christian scholars/churches?)

freza wrote:
My questions are just that. Pls don't make them bigger than they are. This "heaven" scene:"They shall there exchange, one with another, a cup free of frivolity, free of sin., Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them: youths (handsome) as Pearls well-guarded." this means what again? I know you say it doesn't mean what it looks like it means (hanky panky in heaven with beauties of a questionable gender). But imagery and symbolism are so important in religions (and so telling) why do you think authors of the Quran chose this imagery?

The imagery of heaven portrays a blissful environment - gardens, rivers, 'pure companions', good food and drink etc. This is promised to all believers, men and women. 'Hanky panky' is not mentioned - so I'll let you conclude/research where all this '72 virgins' talk comes from and why it is being disseminated.

It seems obvious to me why this type of imagery is used - it isn't salacious or profane, but very serene. If one has a dirty mind though - one can twist words for one's purpose.

However, as discussed before, the Quran is explicit that the afterlife descriptions are metaphorical (for we cannot know what it will be like).

Cheers,
Shafique

Re: Wars of Apostasy: http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Archive/pr ... &id=135193

Re: interpretation etc. You seem to take issue with certain established Christian groups following a certain criteria on interpretation. Yet you say that groups that interpret things to fit their agenda are OK in doing so (JWs). But then you that you know a lot of Christians who don't get and don't practice what the real message of their religion is - Christians that will rather concern themselves with the condemnation of others instead of focusing on their own self-realization. So you're actually making a point for me here: Proper interpretation of the Bible is essential otherwise people will deviate from its message.

I hope that you can finally see my point!

btw, I find it so strange that you call me tolerant when a few days ago I was hateful and very intolerant! I get the feeling you'll revert to calling me hateful soon enough though.

shafique wrote: The imagery of heaven portrays a blissful environment - gardens, rivers, 'pure companions', good food and drink etc. This is promised to all believers, men and women. 'Hanky panky' is not mentioned - so I'll let you conclude/research where all this '72 virgins' talk comes from and why it is being disseminated.
It seems obvious to me why this type of imagery is used - it isn't salacious or profane, but very serene. If one has a dirty mind though - one can twist words for one's purpose.

However, as discussed before, the Quran is explicit that the afterlife descriptions are metaphorical (for we cannot know what it will be like).

But how unreal and metaphorical was this imagery really? from my understanding, these beautiful creatures that served refreshments (and possibly other things) were a part of some segments of Eastern society's version of the red-light district; and sometimes not that "underground". Would you really describe images of nymphs as "serene"? You're saying that only dirty-minded people will connect these passages with eroticism but the scenes could very well be describing things that were actually taking place back then. So what comes to mind here is: if the afterlife is indescribable, why even attempt to describe it and in this manner...btw, what's the pearl metaphor all about

Re: What you've been discussing with Flying Dutchman. Reciting by memory is nice and everything but I don't think that memorizing something equals understanding it. I think there has been too much emphasis on stating that the Quran is uncorrupted writings while not enough emphasis on corroborating these claims in an more open and exhaustive manner. It's almost as if the writers of the Quran had to heed again questioning and deep examination because they feared what this might uncover. For example: Muslims say that Mohammad was an (the) exemplary prophet. I say, he didn't even meet the basic criteria for what makes a true prophet when prophets before him met challenges and requirements of attestation but he didn't. I get the feeling you will reply with: "he didn't have to, he was special - the Quran says so."

freza wrote:
Re: interpretation etc. You seem to take issue with certain established Christian groups following a certain criteria on interpretation.

No - my point has always been that the Bible is open to interpretation. Your point of view is valid from within 'established Christian groups' - but similarly JW and other Unitarians have their own points of views/interpretations. These interpretations date back to the foundation of the Church - the Nicean creed that Jesus is same nature as God was disputed in 325 and is disputed now.

I think we agree that the Bible requires interpretation and can't function as a standalone document by which one lives one's life (you say you need scholars to tell you how to interpret the words of the Bible). I agree with you - but it then comes down to which scholars you choose to believe.

Thanks to the discussion, I now know that there is not even unity amongst all Christian churches as to which books should form part of the NT. So we must even be careful to specify which Bible we are talking about.

freza wrote:btw, I find it so strange that you call me tolerant when a few days ago I was hateful and very intolerant! I get the feeling you'll revert to calling me hateful soon enough though.

I think you are still intolerant of other Christians' viewpoints, but extremely tolerant about gays going to heaven and that God ultimately decides on the day of judgement.

freza wrote: So what comes to mind here is: if the afterlife is indescribable, why even attempt to describe it and in this manner.

Because it is the best description that we can understand.

freza wrote:..btw, what's the pearl metaphor

Beats me - what is the Quranic reference and I'll look it up.

freza wrote:Re: What you've been discussing with Flying Dutchman. Reciting by memory is nice and everything but I don't think that memorizing something equals understanding it.

Agree with you 100%.

freza wrote: I think there has been too much emphasis on stating that the Quran is uncorrupted writings while not enough emphasis on corroborating these claims in an more open and exhaustive manner.

The Quran being uncorrupted is just an interest factoid - it is only important to the extent that Islam depends on what is revealed in the Quran.

freza wrote: It's almost as if the writers of the Quran had to heed again questioning and deep examination because they feared what this might uncover.

This doesn't make much sense. Contrast the Quran with the Bible - for much of Christian history the Bible was not accessible to the lay-Christian and even today the meanings of words are disputed and the original text is written in languages no longer used. The Quran is recited in toto by all Muslims, accessible to all and invites criticism and study.

How does this equate to a suppression/cover up of the Quran's meanings?

freza wrote:For example: Muslims say that Mohammad was an (the) exemplary prophet. I say, he didn't even meet the basic criteria for what makes a true prophet when prophets before him met challenges and requirements of attestation but he didn't. I get the feeling you will reply with: "he didn't have to, he was special - the Quran says so."

I know you say he didn't - but I don't agree with this statement. I agree with you that he needs to meet the standards and requirements of prophethood for his message to be followed and I'm happy to explore all of these in another thread (so I certainly do not say he doesn't have to).

I'll start a new thread to discuss this - shall we use the Bible as a common source of criteria for a true prophet?

Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote:Re: Wars of Apostasy: http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Archive/pr ... &id=135193

Thanks - this is an interesting read. I take your point about reasons it gives for the wars - the third one is that some did not genuinely convert, and fourth that distant tribes were coming under the influence of Romans.

I've not seen the wars presented as above - the reasons for the wars was that the tribes in question did not recognise the authority of the Khalifa and refused to pay the Zakaat (tax). I understood that all were Muslim tribes and hence why it has been called 'Wars of Apostacy'.

It's not clear from the article whether the forth reason referred to tribes who had not accepted Islam - but the list of the armies does list who they fought (using terms such as 'renegade' , 'revisionary' etc to describe the opponents - all tying in with them being apostates).

I therefore see why you made the comments you did - it is a fair conclusion to draw, but not one I'm sure is valid - it may just come down to a badly described reasons for the war. I'll try and get some quotes from Western historians on these wars - but if anyone has references for the specific tribes mentioned - perhaps they can post here whether any of them were non-Muslim.

As an aside, some of the wars were fought in this region!


FD - also interestingly the article has a section on the compilation of the Quran. The Hafsa's Quran that was returned to her was compiled in the first Khaliphate:

After Zayd, may Allaah be pleased with him, accomplished the task and had organized the Quran into one book, he submitted the precious collection to Abu Bakr, may Allaah be pleased with him, who kept it in his possession until the end of his life. During ‘Umar's Caliphate it was placed in the custody of his daughter, Hafsah, may Allaah be pleased with her, the Prophet's wife. Finally, in the days of ‘Uthmaan, may Allaah be pleased with him, when different readers began to recite it differently, the Caliph had several copies of it made, and distributed them to the various countries, which comprised the Islamic world. The modern edition of the Quran is the ‘Uthmaan copy, which is considered the standard to which every other copy should conform.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:No - my point has always been that the Bible is open to interpretation.

The Bible should be interpreted to extract its entire and correct message. This does not mean it is open for anyone to interpret it as they wish, nope.

shafique wrote:I think we agree that the Bible requires interpretation and can't function as a standalone document by which one lives one's life (you say you need scholars to tell you how to interpret the words of the Bible). I agree with you - but it then comes down to which scholars you choose to believe.

Not necessarily. We've discussed this before. Memory problems I suppose...

shafique wrote:Thanks to the discussion, I now know that there is not even unity amongst all Christian churches as to which books should form part of the NT. So we must even be careful to specify which Bible we are talking about.

No. The Apocryphal books in question might or might not be included in some groups' Bibles - interchangeably. If they are, they're usually under a supplementary section. But If not included, they do not change the core message of the Bible at all. But let's understand why the writings in question are considered for exclusion by some groups. The Apocrypha are of uncertain authorship but overall considered genuine. What decision were Bible scholars to take if they come upon writings whose authorship can not be verified but the writings appear genuine and worthwhile at the same time? It's a damned if they do (include them) and damned if they don't. Your criticism is an example of this damned thing. I think that one group choosing to include Apocrypha writings while another choose to exclude them is actually a sign of a healthy debate - it provides an alternative to an issue which is difficult to decide upon for obvious reasons.

shafique wrote:I think you are still intolerant of other Christians' viewpoints, but extremely tolerant about gays going to heaven and that God ultimately decides on the day of judgement.

haha. I'm not intolerant of Christian viewpoints, I'm just not too fond of absurdities masquerading as religion. btw, how intolerant are you?

shafique wrote:This doesn't make much sense. Contrast the Quran with the Bible - for much of Christian history the Bible was not accessible to the lay-Christian

The Bible propagated in a variety of languages early on in Christian history precisely to be accessible to people of different regions.

shafique wrote:and even today the meanings of words are disputed and the original text is written in languages no longer used.

Are you saying that these factoids invalidate the Bible...in some way? When the meaning of a certain word is disputed and research is exhausted the purpose it to reach a conclusion, not to reach a dispute.

shafique wrote:The Quran is recited in toto by all Muslims, accessible to all and invites criticism and study.How does this equate to a suppression/cover up of the Quran's meanings?

The Quran is accessible to all but the evidence of the authenticity of the Quran - is it accessible to all too?

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:No - my point has always been that the Bible is open to interpretation.

The Bible should be interpreted to extract its entire and correct message. This does not mean it is open for anyone to interpret it as they wish, nope.

Arius used the whole Bible and mades a pretty good case for Jesus not being the same material as God the father.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:I think we agree that the Bible requires interpretation and can't function as a standalone document by which one lives one's life (you say you need scholars to tell you how to interpret the words of the Bible). I agree with you - but it then comes down to which scholars you choose to believe.

Not necessarily. We've discussed this before. Memory problems I suppose...

It must be my age.

Are you saying that we can understand the Bible as a stand alone book without scholars? I must have missed that post.

If I chose to believe Arius' interpretation of the Bible, I would believe Jesus was created and not of the same nature as God. Would I be wrong or right on this point?

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:Thanks to the discussion, I now know that there is not even unity amongst all Christian churches as to which books should form part of the NT. So we must even be careful to specify which Bible we are talking about.

No. The Apocryphal books in question might or might not be included in some groups' Bibles - interchangeably.

You must not have read the other thread on the compilation of the Bible.

Coptic Bibles have more than 27 books in the NT. Syrian Christian Bibles do not include Revelations and Hebrews.

freza wrote: If they are, they're usually under a supplementary section. But If not included, they do not change the core message of the Bible at all. But let's understand why the writings in question are considered for exclusion by some groups. The Apocrypha are of uncertain authorship but overall considered genuine.

Are Revelations and Hebrews considered Apocrypha? I thought that the Council of Trent (in the Western Christian Church, specified that they were not).

freza wrote: What decision were Bible scholars to take if they come upon writings whose authorship can not be verified but the writings appear genuine and worthwhile at the same time?

'appear genuine' is a little subjective.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:I think you are still intolerant of other Christians' viewpoints, but extremely tolerant about gays going to heaven and that God ultimately decides on the day of judgement.

haha. I'm not intolerant of Christian viewpoints, I'm just not too fond of absurdities masquerading as religion. btw, how intolerant are you?

Intolerance is displayed when you say another group who call themselves Christian are not 'real Christians'.

The Quran says 'There is no compulsion in Religion' - I don't deny any group from calling themselves Christian, Muslim or whatever they say they are.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:This doesn't make much sense. Contrast the Quran with the Bible - for much of Christian history the Bible was not accessible to the lay-Christian

The Bible propagated in a variety of languages early on in Christian history precisely to be accessible to people of different regions.

I guess I have a Euro-centric view of Christianity where the Bible was not known by lay people until quite late on and after stiff resistance from the Clergy. There was a great reluctance to even translate the Bible into everyday language.

Before the Bible was 'compiled', there was a lot of debate within the community about what it all meant (one of the debates resulted in the Council of Nicea).

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:and even today the meanings of words are disputed and the original text is written in languages no longer used.

Are you saying that these factoids invalidate the Bible...in some way? When the meaning of a certain word is disputed and research is exhausted the purpose it to reach a conclusion, not to reach a dispute.

They invalidate the contention (which few make) that there is a consensus of Biblical interpretation - I still think Arius' arguments are still valid today as they are based on the Bible - he used the Bible for his interpretations (as did Origen before him). Even after the Council of Nicea made their decision, many Bishops continued to preach what Arius taught and Arius himself was welcomed back to the fold and his teachings re-instated.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:The Quran is recited in toto by all Muslims, accessible to all and invites criticism and study.How does this equate to a suppression/cover up of the Quran's meanings?

The Quran is accessible to all but the evidence of the authenticity of the Quran - is it accessible to all too?

What do you mean evidence of authenticity?

The Quran is the Quran - a set Arabic words claiming to be the literal word of God - how will it prove that it is not something else?

This thread is about the integrity of the Quran - we have seen in another thread that I can back up claims of no contradictions in the Quran, so it is free of internal contradictions. It also claims to contain a complete and final set of religious values. It fulfils all the criteria of a Divine scripture and is unique in not having any evidence of it being changed since it was revealed.

I also don't understand the question - if the Bible is known to have changed over time (eg Mark 16 added) and contains contradictions/errors - are you advocating that the Bible should be rejected because of these additions/errors?

Are you saying there is some doubt about the Quran because it appears to be too perfect?

It is audacious to believe that the Quran is the work of a number of authors - that they could fool all the people of Arabia (the majority of whom were opposed to Muhammad, pbuh, and sought to kill him) and have the chutzpah to make prophecies about the religion and claims about the Quran that were to be proved correct!

The Bible tells us that only true prophets make prophecies that come true. So, if Muhammad, pbuh, is not the narrator of the Quran - who are these other 'true prophets' who told lies (that the Quran is the literal word of God)?

The evidence that the Quran is true is historical empiral evidence and also the fulfilment of prophecies contained in the Quran (the very name itself is a prophecy that has literally come true - the opening chapter is the most recited prayer in human history, and 'Quran' means that which will be recited often).

Cheers,
Shafique

Re: wars of apostacy,

Bernard Lewis in 'The Arabs in History' says that the wars were political and not religious. Wikipedia's summary has some good references (and it appears that some Muslims have called the wars 'religious' rather than 'political' - I was always told by Muslim scholars that the wars were political!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr#Ridda-Wars


This phenomenon was later regarded as primarily a religious movement by Arabic historians. However, the early sources indicate that in reality it was mainly political.[18][19] After all, the revolting Arabs only refused to pay taxes, but they did not refuse to perform the salah.[19] Bernard Lewis states that the fact that Islamic Historians have regarded this as a primarily religious movement was due to a later interpretation of events in terms of a theological world-view.[16] The opponents of the Muslim armies were not only apostates, but also - if not most of them - tribes which were largely or even completely independent from the Muslim community.[19] However, these revolts also had a religious aspect: Medina had become the centre of a social and political system, of which religion was an integral part; consequently it was inevitable that any reaction against this system should have a religious aspect.[20]

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm not FD

shafique wrote:

Nucleus wrote:

Flying Dutchman wrote:So allow me to summarize what I learnt today. The preservation of the Quran during the first 30 years depended on recitals. Before the standardized Quran was written, there were minor differences between different written versions. Not comprosing the message though.
Shafique, I know you always like to have to last word, so go ahead

Just a minor clarification, during the first 30 years written Quran existed but it was not standardized into Quraishi dialect. Quraishi dialect was the Makkan dialect.

So imo mode of preservation was both written and memorization. However, Quran's tradition stems in recitation, hence, it was named "Recitation". It is recited multiple times completely every year since the time of Prophet (pbuh).

Another thing Quran is easy to memorize:
1. It is in poetic form, so it is like memorizing poetry or lyrics which makes easier.
2. There is a lot of repetition so once a person starts memorizing Quran, it becomes easy as the person progresses.

If you go to madrassa you see even many 8 year olds have memorized complete Quran.

FD - you are completely correct. I was going to clarify exactly the same point that the written Quran was there from outset.

Also, we can't know for sure what proportion of the written Qurans had no differences from the 'standardised' texts - it could very well be a low percentage. (i.e. we shouldn't assume that all the written Qurans before the standardised texts contained errors - eg Hafsa's Quran was returned to her and not destroyed)

Cheers,
Shafique

Nucleus wrote:I'm not FD

Sorry Nucleus, will be more careful next time

At least I didn't call you another name!

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique

Re: More/Less books in the Bible of different Christian groups....so what? What is the issue here? They differ in the number of books, we discussed this already - some writings are questionable either in origin, authorship, message, some groups think that even if the authorship is uncertain the "inspiration" is not. These differences of weather to include or not include disputed writings, don't invalidate the true message of the Bible, why should they. http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Agreed_Offi ... x_Churches
(btw, I think the Coptic Church also photographs very well, it's very beautiful in a mysterious and "noir" way).

I don't consider myself intolerant of Christian groups, despite the label you have so easily put on me. I think I'm just being discerning.

OK, some questions for you: Why don't you tell us your own personal version of Jesus. No, not the Islamic version, but your own individual thoughts. What Jesus version do you prefer? I suppose that the Arian one?

What would you call a Muslim who does not believe that Mohammad was a prophet? What is the technical term for such a person?

Re:

shafique wrote:we have seen in another thread that I can back up claims of no contradictions so it is free of internal contradictions. It also claims to contain a complete and final set of religious values. It fulfils all the criteria of a Divine scripture and is unique in not having any evidence of it being changed since it was revealed.

You are one very confident man to make these statements! However I don't think you have cleared up all the Quranic contradictions that have been pointed out to you, I think you have simply formulated replies that seem satisfactory to you. I think there is no evidence that the Quran wasn't changed and edited while it's own mistakes prove that some parts might have been altered to fix some of the contradictions as early Islam perhaps took form.

freza wrote:Shafique

Re: More/Less books in the Bible of different Christian groups....so what? What is the issue here? They differ in the number of books, we discussed this already - some writings are questionable either in origin, authorship, message, some groups think that even if the authorship is uncertain the "inspiration" is not.

I agree with you - you are saying it comes down to one's opinion which books/scholars to believe in. We agree there is not one definitive collection of books called the Bible - it depends on which books you include or exclude.

No issue with this - just wanted clarification on the 'integrity' of the Bible. Thanks to this thread we discover (at least I do) that we need to clarify which collection of books we are referring when speaking about the Christian Bible. Contrast that with the Quran.

freza wrote:I don't consider myself intolerant of Christian groups, despite the label you have so easily put on me. I think I'm just being discerning.

'discerning' / 'intolerant' - hey why quible over words.

freza wrote:OK, some questions for you: Why don't you tell us your own personal version of Jesus. No, not the Islamic version, but your own individual thoughts. What Jesus version do you prefer? I suppose that the Arian one?

Ok - my vision of Jesus is as per the Bible. A son of a Virgin, brought up as a Jew, a scholarly man who preached to the poor and railed against the corrupt authorities. He fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish Messiah metaphorically - he did not take up arms as they expected, nor did Elijah physically descend from heaven. He taught from with the Mosaic law and merely brought the Jews back to the true teachings - an Eye for Eye was in the Mosaic law, but so was forgiveness.

As Jesus himself said, he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it. He did not bring a new law and advocated all his disciples to only preach to the House of Israel - to whom Jesus himself said he was sent.

Jesus was metaphorically the Son of God, as he was also metaphorically the Son of Man. The prayer he taught us starts with 'Our Father'.

He clearly states in the Gospel of John that 'The Father is greater than I'.

Therefore, yes I do agree with Bishop Arius that Jesus is not one with God the father but was created by him.

I believe we should pray like he did (prostrating himself before God) and should pray to whom he prayed (God).

I also believe him when he says in the Bible that there are many things that had to be revealed in the future and that a 'Comforter' would come with a message for mankind for all to follow.

Above all, I believe him to be a truthful, humble and sincere servant of God.

freza wrote:What would you call a Muslim who does not believe that Mohammad was a prophet? What is the technical term for such a person?

Sure, they are an unbeliever, a kafir. Non Jews are called Gentiles. Non-Christians are called...?

freza wrote:You are one very confident man to make these statements! However I don't think you have cleared up all the Quranic contradictions that have been pointed out to you, I think you have simply formulated replies that seem satisfactory to you.

The thread is still open - and yes all the answers are satisfactory to me.

freza wrote:I think there is no evidence that the Quran wasn't changed and edited while it's own mistakes prove that some parts might have been altered to fix some of the contradictions as early Islam perhaps took form.

You can lead a horse to water....


Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I agree with you - you are saying it comes down to one's opinion which books/scholars to believe in. We agree there is not one definitive collection of books called the Bible - it depends on which books you include or exclude.

Oh wise one Shafique - why don't you tell those Bible scholars and archaeologists how to classify with writings and books that can not be verified - for lack of evidence - you know very small things like this. You surely must have the ONE and ONLY and Integral answer!

shafique wrote:No issue with this - just wanted clarification on the 'integrity' of the Bible. Thanks to this thread we discover (at least I do) that we need to clarify which collection of books we are referring when speaking about the Christian Bible. Contrast that with the Quran.

The Quran is based on Jewish and Christian traditions. So the Christian Bible is corrupt but the Quran is not. Oh wait..it's not admitted that the Quran is based on...ok, never mind then.

No Compulsion in Religion. Just severe criticism of other religions. right.

shafique wrote:'discerning' / 'intolerant' - hey why quible over words.

aaahhhhhh Master of Passive (and sometimes not so passive) Aggressiveness, you have some mad skills bro! (Is Nucleus paying attention to this? Or does he only pay attention to the really obvious ones?)

Re: Jesus version. I asked: your own individual thoughts.

shafique wrote:Sure, they are an unbeliever, a kafir.

Are Kafir people correct according to you?

freza wrote:Oh wise one Shafique - why don't you tell those Bible scholars and archaeologists how to classify with writings and books that can not be verified - for lack of evidence - you know very small things like this. You surely must have the ONE and ONLY and Integral answer!

Nope, I'm not the one who claims to have 'discerning' views about who is and is not Christian. I am happy to take the differing views of the Bible at face value - that the writings are ambiguous and need scholars to debate.

We agree that even the number of books is contentious!

freza wrote:No Compulsion in Religion. Just severe criticism of other religions. right.

I don't consider pointing out facts about the Bible being a criticism. I take the Bible at its word - that it is not literally the word of God. I, like you, choose which parts of the Bible to follow and which to ignore - we just disagree on the choices.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:'discerning' / 'intolerant' - hey why quible over words.

aaahhhhhh Master of Passive (and sometimes not so passive) Aggressiveness, you have some mad skills bro! (Is Nucleus paying attention to this? Or does he only pay attention to the really obvious ones?)

Ahh, young one the weak is force in you.

freza wrote:Re: Jesus version. I asked: your own individual thoughts.

Those were my individual thoughts - did you think I had the tea boy typing?

I have read all the Biblical quotes for myself in context and take Jesus' words at face value. I have also read what Paul has written and disagree with him when he changes Jesus' ministry.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:Sure, they are an unbeliever, a kafir.

Are Kafir people correct according to you?

Correct in what?

I believe some unbelievers will be going to heaven and are better people than me, I also believe that any who have conciously rejected any of the Prophets of God are wrong - so a Jew is wrong to have rejected Jesus and any non-Muslim is wrong to reject Muhammad, pbuh.

We both agree that God is the final judge on who gets salvation though.

Cheers,
Shafique

why do none jewish westerners get labeled "kafirs" by muslim clerics?

and why do jews get labelled monkeys and pigs?

ebonics wrote:why do none jewish westerners get labeled "kafirs" by muslim clerics?

To my knowledge non-Jewish westerners who are muslim are called 'Muslim'.


Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

ebonics wrote:why do none jewish westerners get labeled "kafirs" by muslim clerics?

To my knowledge non-Jewish westerners who are muslim are called 'Muslim'.


Cheers,
Shafique

playing smart again shafique


none jewish & none muslim westerners..

ebonics wrote:playing smart again shafique

You know what they say - in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king!

Cheers,
Shafique

You guys are more and well versed then i am. And i am very limited in knowledge.

brothers and sisters, there is a guy who is posting things on this section of the forum named Apple Pie.......

articles such as

Jesus is God says Koran...
http://www.dubaiforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=26725

Jesus was crucified until death says Koran...
http://www.dubaiforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=26732

Jesus is the Son says Koran...
http://www.dubaiforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=26734

..... would you please help and deal with this issue..... so i can also benefit and understand more..... thanks