Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Infallibility
1 : incapable of error : UNERRING <an infallible memory>
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN <an infallible remedy>
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals


Has there ever been a Human-being that was Infallible ?

My understanding of ISLAM and a Muslims declaration of Shadhadah is
a proclamation of Infallibility placed upon the person called Mohamad.

Is this a true statement and could you present evidence that Mohamad was Infallible ?

My understanding is that Catholics believe that the pontiff is also infallible, similarly the patriarch of the Orthodox Church is held to have infallible views in regards to religion.

Shia muslims believe their Imam's are also infallible.

First let me clarify that proclamation of faith or Shahada does not say Muhammad, pbuh, was infallible it merely states (in entirety):

"I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger"

Muslims hold the belief that the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be on him, was the perfect human being. He encapsulated how a human should behave in a vast range of circumstances - as a son, nephew, grandson, as an orphan, shepherd, trader, employee, husband; as an oppressed person, as a person in charge of oppressed people, as a father, as a revolutionary, as an emperor (head of an empire) and above all, as a Prophet.

In all his dealings with others he exemplified piety, generosity, humour, forgiveness, justice and sagacity.

You ask for evidence of his infallibility - I refer you to the numerous books written about him. If you want a book by a non-Muslim, I can recommend Karen Armstrong's biography of him - she is a Christian and a former nun and has written a number of books on religion, just check out Amazon.

However, note that infallibility in matters of religion stems from the fact that all the religious teachings were revealed to him by God, and as such
these are infallible. (i.e. definition 3 above)

In day to day life, there are instances where the Prophet did make mistakes in interpretations - there are at least two such instances recorded in history:

1. once the prophet was asked about how to treat some seedlings and he gave some advice, which was followed. The seedlings died and the agriculturalists amongst them advised that they should have been treated differently (I forget the details, but I think it was about where they should be planted). The Prophet was recorded as saying that he was a prophet and not an expert on agriculture and in this instance other advice should have also been presented to him so that he could have made an informed decision - in this case his opinion was based on his opinion and not revelation from God.

2. Ahead of the treaty of Hudaibiyya, the Prophet (pbuh) informed his companions that they would be performing the rites of pilgrimage that year. When the treaty was signed, the conditions of the treaty were that they muslims would not be allowed to perform the Haj that year, but would be allowed the following year. History records that on this occasion the companions came very close to questioning the instructions of the Prophet (when he instructed them to return without doing the pilgrimage). History records that he told them that God that year had accepted their pilgrimage without them actually physically performing it that year. Thus, scholars say that Prophet's revelation was fulfilled in spirit if not in practice.


(Note that some - if not many - muslims do believe that the Prophet was completely infallible, despite the examples above - scholars merely make the distinction between infallibility in terms of revelation and his words clarifying anything to do with religion. In that regard, he was infallible and the body of work of Islamic literature is testimony to this infallibility.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: ~snip~
"I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger"

Muslims hold the belief that the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be on him, was the perfect human being.
~snip~
However, note that infallibility in matters of religion stems from the fact that all the religious teachings were revealed to him by God, and as such these are infallible. (i.e. definition 3 above)
~snip~
Cheers,
Shafique

His Messenger
perfect human being
revealed to him by God

The most perplexing question I have regarding Muhammad is :
The cave of Hira, where he received his initial revelation in a vision whereby the transmitter of said knowledge was FIRE.
Throughout all of Islam, not one person has mentioned the possibility that this was a JINN.

I do not doubt nor disclaim all the good which Muhammad did for the people of Arab descent.
I do however view inconsistencies.

And inconsistencies do not allow for Infallibility.

ROM - I maintain that there are no inconsistencies in the teachings of Islam.

The first revelation in the cave of Hira does not mention that knowledge is fire.. perhaps you can clarify where this assertion comes from.

The majority of the Muslims of today are not Arabs - in fact they were in the minority very early on in the history of Islam. Islam is actually the fastest growing religion in America and the UK today - testimony to the fact that those who are looking for closer communion with God and looking for a Divinely revealed set of rules to live their lives, are turning to the most recent of the Divinely revealed religions - that of Islam.

They, like me, have not found the 'inconsistencies' you refer to. Certainly there are bad muslims out there and bad practices by muslims - but they are inspite of the teachings of Islam and not because of Islam.

I am more than willing to tackle each inconsitency that you may have, I just ask you present them one by one and let us explore whether the inconsistency is real or not.

Cheers,
Shafique

For clarity, the first revelation received in Hira was the initial verses of Ch 96:

"In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
Proclaim thou in the name of thy Lord Who created,
Created man from a clot of blood.
Proclaim! and thy Lord is the Most Bounteous;
Who taught by the pen,
Taught man what he knew not.
Nay! man, indeed, transgresses,
Because he thinks himself to be independent.
Surely, unto thy Lord is the return.
Has thou seen him who forbids"

And as to whether the revealer could have been a 'Jinn' rather than the arc-angel Gabriel - the Bible and the Quran both teach that on God knows the future and therefore if the revelations were prophetic and the prophecies were made in the name of God - then if they came true, then the revelations must be from God.

See Deuteronomy 18.18 onwards with the test that Christians and Jews must apply to any person who claims to be a prophet from God. Muhammed passes this test laid down in the Bible - that is one reason why many sincere Christians become Muslims, accepting the prophecies of the coming of Islam that are to be found in the Bible..

Therefore ROM, it is hardly surprising that no one postulated that the revelations came from 'Jinn' rather than from God. The notion just doesn't stand a cursory examination, let alone critical examination.

[I was taught as a boy to go to the sources to see what people actually believe, rather than accept what others say of people's beliefs. I've therefore read the holy books of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Bahaism. I've also read the book of Mormon and read teachings of Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucious etc - and read what adherents of each religion say their beliefs are.

You will only get a distorted view of Islam if you only read what opponents of Islam write about the religion and it's adherents. ]

Anyway, now you have the opportunity to discover the truth about Islam from a few of it's adherents - I trust you will accept the truth when it contradicts the predjudiced depictions of the religion that many of your countrymen currently hold about Arabs and Muslims.

BTW - can I ask whether you think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 ?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:ROM - I maintain that there are no inconsistencies in the teachings of Islam.

The first revelation in the cave of Hira does not mention that knowledge is fire.. perhaps you can clarify where this assertion comes from.

The majority of the Muslims of today are not Arabs - in fact they were in the minority very early on in the history of Islam. Islam is actually the fastest growing religion in America and the UK today - testimony to the fact that those who are looking for closer communion with God and looking for a Divinely revealed set of rules to live their lives, are turning to the most recent of the Divinely revealed religions - that of Islam.

They, like me, have not found the 'inconsistencies' you refer to. Certainly there are bad muslims out there and bad practices by muslims - but they are inspite of the teachings of Islam and not because of Islam.

I am more than willing to tackle each inconsitency that you may have, I just ask you present them one by one and let us explore whether the inconsistency is real or not.

Cheers,
Shafique

knowledge is fire..

I believe my implication was the being which issued forth said knowledge was contained within FIRE, not "knowledge is fire.."

The majority of the Muslims of today are not Arabs ...

Regarding inconsistancy, why is it said that upon reciting the shahadah the new convert is required to dress as an Arab, take upon them an Arab name rather than the one to which they were born with?

Believe me when I say, I do not regard Islam as anything less than a religion which has set upon it's members/followers a social lifestyle rather than the worship of Allah alone.

This is where I begin to find inconsistancies.
If it were a religion based solely upon true knowledge of spiritual matters I would find it agreeable but, enforcement of social mores should only be within the mind of the believer and not some Religious Police State.

present them one by one

WHY, if the Kabbah is a relic from the time of Adam & Abraham are no persons allowed entry or view of it unless one is a Muslim?

shafique wrote:For clarity, the first revelation received in Hira was the initial verses of Ch 96:

"In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
Proclaim thou in the name of thy Lord Who created,
Created man from a clot of blood.
Proclaim! and thy Lord is the Most Bounteous;
Who taught by the pen,
Taught man what he knew not.
Nay! man, indeed, transgresses,
Because he thinks himself to be independent.
Surely, unto thy Lord is the return.
Has thou seen him who forbids"

And as to whether the revealer could have been a 'Jinn' rather than the arc-angel Gabriel - the Bible and the Quran both teach that on God knows the future and therefore if the revelations were prophetic and the prophecies were made in the name of God - then if they came true, then the revelations must be from God.

See Deuteronomy 18.18 onwards with the test that Christians and Jews must apply to any person who claims to be a prophet from God. Muhammed passes this test laid down in the Bible - that is one reason why many sincere Christians become Muslims, accepting the prophecies of the coming of Islam that are to be found in the Bible..

Therefore ROM, it is hardly surprising that no one postulated that the revelations came from 'Jinn' rather than from God. The notion just doesn't stand a cursory examination, let alone critical examination.

[I was taught as a boy to go to the sources to see what people actually believe, rather than accept what others say of people's beliefs. I've therefore read the holy books of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Bahaism. I've also read the book of Mormon and read teachings of Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucious etc - and read what adherents of each religion say their beliefs are.

You will only get a distorted view of Islam if you only read what opponents of Islam write about the religion and it's adherents. ]

Anyway, now you have the opportunity to discover the truth about Islam from a few of it's adherents - I trust you will accept the truth when it contradicts the predjudiced depictions of the religion that many of your countrymen currently hold about Arabs and Muslims.

BTW - can I ask whether you think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 ?

Cheers,
Shafique

You will only get a distorted view of Islam if you only read what opponents of Islam write about the religion and it's adherents.

Perhaps this statement is correct since most of my animosity stems from what I am told by the members @ http://www.ummah.net/forum/
As well as my reading of the Quran.

I trust you will accept the truth

YES, I am all for Truth.
( as a starting point, this is where I find my counsel on spiritual matters ~ http://www.urantia.org/detail.html#Titles )

BTW - can I ask whether you think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 ?

NO, that myth has been perpetrated by those in power in the current Administration.
Many of my countrymen have been taken in by this claim because it came directly from the leadership. I firmly believe that this Administration either had a part in 9/11 or did nothing to prevent it so as to foster a reason for this current Global campaign. They needed a reason so forceful as to bring along the citizens of this nation behind their nefarious deeds.
In plain truth, I believe the Bush Administration desired to occupy Iraq simply so that it may be strategically placed in order to begin a take-over of Iran & Syria.

Ok, a few easily answered questions that will clear up some misunderstandings:

1. Muslims do not have to dress like arabs, most muslims do not. Converts do not have to wear arab dress. They are free to do so if they wish, as a sign of their conversion, but this has nothing to do with Islam. Non-muslim arabs dress like arabs (d'oh!). Also note that there is no one 'Arab' dress.

2. Converts don't have to change their names - some choose to do so, but again there is no requirement for them to do so.

3. I'm not aware of any reference to knowledge being in Fire.. can you clarify or refer to a specific reference.

4. Religion and social regulation:

Believe me when I say, I do not regard Islam as anything less than a religion which has set upon it's members/followers a social lifestyle rather than the worship of Allah alone.

This is where I begin to find inconsistancies.
If it were a religion based solely upon true knowledge of spiritual matters I would find it agreeable but, enforcement of social mores should only be within the mind of the believer and not some Religious Police State.

A religion is not complete unless it regulates social interactions as well.

By your definition, the ten commandments would fail your test as most of the commandments call for the regulation of social mores.

Am I missing something here? What is it about the social teachings of Islam that offends your sensibilities?

5. Kaaba - being a relic, why only muslims?

Firstly let me clarify that the Kaaba is a building. In a corner there is a black stone (perhaps a meteorite) which was part of the original building which the Quran says was the first house of worship in the world. It was re-built by Abraham.

It is not a museum, but is called the "house of God" and is the holiest place on earth for Muslims. It is reserved for Muslims alone - and this dates back to when Muhammad destroyed the idols there and banished the idolworshippers from using the Kaaba - effectively returning the Kaaba to its original purpose - as a symbol of the worship on God alone.

Therefore, it makes complete sense to me to keep this place sacred and have it's only purpose that of worship and devotion to God. No muslim wants it turned into a tourist attraction or an archaeological curiosity -it is what it is, a place of worship.

I, personally, find no inconsistency here at all.

Non-muslims are generally welcome in all other mosques around the world, but Mecca is extra-special to Muslims. Men and women are not segregated in the precincts of the Holy Mosque/Kaaba - this is because that those that are there are intent on the worship of God. Non-muslims would not have the same outlook..

That said, I repeat, I don't think this is a valid 'inconsistency' - to hold a sacred site as sacred is not inconsistent with my view of a religion.

Cheers,
Shafique

Thanks for clarifying the bit about 9/11 and Iraq - at least we agree on that!

I've not read or participated on the Ummah forum you mention - but will go and have a look (my wife will despair that i will spend more time on the web now! )

Perhaps I will have to enlighten some of the posters there about what their religion actually teaches! (It won't be the first time...)

Take care - I'm enjoying our discussion.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Thanks for clarifying the bit about 9/11 and Iraq - at least we agree on that!

I've not read or participated on the Ummah forum you mention - but will go and have a look (my wife will despair that i will spend more time on the web now! )

Perhaps I will have to enlighten some of the posters there about what their religion actually teaches! (It won't be the first time...)

Take care - I'm enjoying our discussion.

Cheers,
Shafique

I certainly hope that MY perceptions are wrong, based upon what is revealed at that site.
I joined the site (many times) since the events of 9/11 in order to understand Islam.
I believe you may discover why I am resistant when you review the FACE of Islam presented to the Public.
You might find it much more revealing IF/WHEN you enter their PRIVATE/MUSLIMS ONLY section where they speak more freely than they do in public.

Perhaps I will have to enlighten some of the posters there about what their religion actually teaches! (It won't be the first time...)

Look up Abu Mubarak ! He is the main instigator of false teaching and is also ADMIN/MODERATOR for the site.

Good Luck in the enlightening dept. as I have been banned so many times for doing just that I have lost count of the times and names i used to reregister.

ROM,

I've just had a quick skim of the Urantia site - there is a wealth of material there!

This is the first time I have heard of this point of view. From what I have read it has echoes of the teachings of the founder of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad.. but I haven't read enough of the book you have linked to.

I am being lazy, I know, but could you enlighten me a little on who the author is and perhaps give me a bit of background to the following extract :


"1. THE FIRST BESTOWAL

It was a solemn occasion on Salvington almost one billion years ago when the assembled directors and chiefs of the universe of Nebadon heard Michael announce that his elder brother, Immanuel, would presently assume authority in Nebadon while he (Michael) would be absent on an unexplained mission. No other announcement was made about this transaction except that the farewell broadcast to the Constellation Fathers, among other instructions, said: "And for this period I place you under the care and keeping of Immanuel while I go to do the bidding of my Paradise Father."

After sending this farewell broadcast, Michael appeared on the dispatching field of Salvington, just as on many previous occasions when preparing for departure to Uversa or Paradise except that he came alone. He concluded his statement of departure with these words: "I leave you but for a short season. Many of you, I know, would go with me, but whither I go you cannot come. That which I am about to do, you cannot do. I go to do the will of the Paradise Deities, and when I have finished my mission and have acquired this experience, I will return to my place among you." And having thus spoken, Michael of Nebadon vanished from the sight of all those assembled and did not reappear for twenty years of standard time. In all Salvington, only the Divine Minister and Immanuel knew what was taking place, and the Union of Days shared his secret only with the chief executive of the universe, Gabriel, the Bright and Morning Star."


Many thanks (I think, on reflection, this could be a new thread.. but let's keep it here for now)

Cheers,
shafique

shafique wrote:Ok, a few easily answered questions that will clear up some misunderstandings:

1. Muslims do not have to dress like arabs, most muslims do not. Converts do not have to wear arab dress. They are free to do so if they wish, as a sign of their conversion, but this has nothing to do with Islam. Non-muslim arabs dress like arabs (d'oh!). Also note that there is no one 'Arab' dress.

2. Converts don't have to change their names - some choose to do so, but again there is no requirement for them to do so.
# 1 & 2 ~ This might be true but, I have been told by Muslims that those who do not adhere to this principle are not following true Islam.
3. I'm not aware of any reference to knowledge being in Fire.. can you clarify or refer to a specific reference.
I am only refering to the BEING which confronted Muhammad, not the knowledge presented to him.
4. Religion and social regulation:

Believe me when I say, I do not regard Islam as anything less than a religion which has set upon it's members/followers a social lifestyle rather than the worship of Allah alone.

This is where I begin to find inconsistancies.
If it were a religion based solely upon true knowledge of spiritual matters I would find it agreeable but, enforcement of social mores should only be within the mind of the believer and not some Religious Police State.

A religion is not complete unless it regulates social interactions as well.

By your definition, the ten commandments would fail your test as most of the commandments call for the regulation of social mores.

Am I missing something here? What is it about the social teachings of Islam that offends your sensibilities?
It is NOT the teaching but, the enforcement of those teaching upon others, even non-muslims which I find offensive.
I believe the 'commandments' are to be understood and followed within the mind of each individual, not by LAW. Doing the later takes away Freewill, which is a gift to Mankind from God.
5. Kaaba - being a relic, why only muslims?

Firstly let me clarify that the Kaaba is a building. In a corner there is a black stone (perhaps a meteorite) which was part of the original building which the Quran says was the first house of worship in the world. It was re-built by Abraham.

It is not a museum, but is called the "house of God" and is the holiest place on earth for Muslims. It is reserved for Muslims alone - and this dates back to when Muhammad destroyed the idols there and banished the idolworshippers from using the Kaaba - effectively returning the Kaaba to its original purpose - as a symbol of the worship on God alone.

Therefore, it makes complete sense to me to keep this place sacred and have it's only purpose that of worship and devotion to God. No muslim wants it turned into a tourist attraction or an archaeological curiosity -it is what it is, a place of worship.

I, personally, find no inconsistency here at all.
WHY is it perceived that MY intentions are NOT for the express purpose of Worship simply due to my not being a Muslim?
Non-muslims are generally welcome in all other mosques around the world, but Mecca is extra-special to Muslims. Men and women are not segregated in the precincts of the Holy Mosque/Kaaba - this is because that those that are there are intent on the worship of God. Non-muslims would not have the same outlook..
The Patriarch Abraham does NOT belong to Muslims alone.
That said, I repeat, I don't think this is a valid 'inconsistency' - to hold a sacred site as sacred is not inconsistent with my view of a religion.

Cheers,
Shafique

Cheers, Richard Owl Mirror

shafique wrote:ROM,

I've just had a quick skim of the Urantia site - there is a wealth of material there!
~snip~

Many thanks (I think, on reflection, this could be a new thread.. but let's keep it here for now)

Cheers,
shafique

In short, it is a NEW Revelation (sorry to those who believe Muhammad was the Last Prophet! )
You are correct that it does need much more space to reflect upon, including who authored it.
Perhaps another time would be best.

A very interesting thread! Great discussion gentlemen.

Interesting indeed.

Shaf, I hope you don't mind but I wanted to ask you about the Kaaba, the Holy building in Mecca which holds a piece of meteor. If the worship of idols is prohibited, could this not be constituted as an idol? After all it is an inanimate object! Or is it just one part of the entire pilgrimage?

This is one thing that has always confused me, and I'd like your thoughts.

Chocoholic wrote:Interesting indeed.

Shaf, I hope you don't mind but I wanted to ask you about the Kaaba, the Holy building in Mecca which holds a piece of meteor. If the worship of idols is prohibited, could this not be constituted as an idol? After all it is an inanimate object! Or is it just one part of the entire pilgrimage?

This is one thing that has always confused me, and I'd like your thoughts.

We do not pray to the Kabaa, but towards it...

We do not pray to the rock...

So no idolatry there...

Choco,

Liban's explanation is spot on - there is no reverence of the rock and no one believes that there is anything intrinsically 'special' about the rock or even the place - only the fact that it was the first house built for the worship of God and the enormous significance of that.

For example, I have had the opportunity of visiting Mecca and Medina (for the lesser pilgrimage - Umrah - and not the Haj yet), let me tell you what my experience was.

When I got to Mecca it was with an enormous sense of expectation and there was a great lump in my throat. The sense of history and the palpable sense that I was entering into a very spiritual place was almost overbearing. Think of the butterflies you have ahead of an examination or an interview, then double it.. that is how I felt. To be honest, I also felt a little aprehension that there might be an anti-climax - what if there was just a monument there built of stone that is covered with a black cloth.. would I be disapointed?

Suffice to say that I wasn't disapointed.. the place concentrates the mind and all my time was spent in the rememberance of God and the saying of prayers. I mean, all the time, walking, eating, going to sleep etc - all the time I was in the City of Mecca. I still remember all the items I bought and what I ate there..

Now, and this is the point of this post, throughout all of this the object of my concentration was God. I wasn't praying to any rock, house or ornament, nor was I praying to anyone else for intercession with God - I was praying to God directly.

Idolatory is abhorent in Islam (in Arabic it is called Shirk - associating partners with Allah, and can be both explicit - praying to an idol - or implicit, eg in the worship of money..).

Hope that sheds some light on this - but I repeat, Liban's answer hits the nail on the head!

Cheers,
Shafique

hi everybody ,,, i just admire this kind of discussion,,, this is wha i call freedom of expression or freedom of speach ,, without placing any kind of insult on anybody ,, the only purpose is knowledge,,, cheers Shafique and Richard ,,, and everybody .

peace

ROM, Shaf,

Thank you for the great discussion that makes me go to the online dictionary to understand alot of your intellectual vocab

I really enjoy it.

Shaf,
May i dare to disagree with you concerning the 2 mistakes about Prophet Mummed PBUH.
First, what you mentioned are not what to be considered mistakes, but rather... a behavior not to be done by a Perfect human and might be misunderstanding from people around him. But even with these flaws, he still the perfect

Also there is this situation where the blind man came to ask him something and he was busy with other people... and in the quran God gave some words "3abasa wa tawala"
and there is another instance i can't remember, but they are not like mistakes but God was teaching him to be perfect so such minor things shouldn't be done by him.


I also recall in one of the Ghazawat (concurs) when he got an opinion and one of the (Sahaba) (friends/Followers) asked him wether it is something from God or is it his opinion, and he replied that it is his opinion, so the guy proposed another fighting tactics and they won with it.

Anyway, Thanks for the great discussion.
Wished to be part, but my info and vocab can't cope with you guys

Gazakom allah khairan.

Peace

Concerning the black stone from Choco,

I know Choco doesn't like my opinion usually, but here it is

Just an addition to what is already shared, There was this record that Omar (please correct me if i'm wrong) was seen and heard talking to the stone telling it, that he belives that it doesn't make good or bad, and that he wouldn't kiss it or touch it except because he saw the prophet doing so.

And most propably the prophet was doing so because it is belived to be a stone from the heaven. It is also existed even before islam i belive.

(i don't want to give wrong info, so if i'm wrong please correct me and i'll edit/delete the post.

Cheers

Yshimy,

I agree completely with your points - and the incident with the blind person was one I thought about including, but chose not to, in my previous post.

The point is that the Prophet was the perfect man. He was human. He showed what the pinnacle of being a human being can be.

However, the thread is about 'infallibility' - the inability of making any mistakes (for some of the definitions).

The Prophet did make some minor mistakes - the incident of the blind person is recorded for us.

Let me clarify this incident for those who are not familiar with this. The Prophet was sitting in the company of an important person ( a Chief, I think ) and was discussing religion. A blind man then walked in on them and the Prophet, pbuh, furrowed his brow to show some annoyance with the disturbance. That was it, he did not show this annoyance in his speech to the blind person and by all accounts it was a fleeting annoyance that disappeared.

However, the Quran records that God took the Prophet to task for this show of annoyance that the blind person was not even aware of. It shows the higher standards that the Prophet was being held to.

In that instance, he made a mistake. It was, however, such a minor mistake - but it exemplifies how perfect he was in every other aspect of his life, because this was the biggest mistake he made.

This shows, to me at least, that perfection in human beings cannot reach to the point where no mistakes can be made. It makes one humble enough to realise that we all will sin and that we all need to pray for forgiveness and look for self reform and improvement.

Sometimes the concept of a perfect man and infallibility in ALL things gets mixed up. The Prophet was infallible in all things related to religion - the Quran tells us that the Prophet does not speak of himself, but of what is revealed to him. Therefore all of his pronouncements on religous matters are infallible (and I have honestly not found any that rebel against reason).

In Richard's post at the start of the thread, the third definition of infallibility is what applies to the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.


As for the black stone, I have also read about the same incident about Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, about kissing the stone. All the early muslims were very careful about idolatory creeping back into religion. The black stone, according to accounts I have read, does pre-date organised religion.. it was part of the first house that was built on the site - the first place of worship. I remember reading that the whole structure was built of these stones originally (by Adam?) and that the one black stone in the corner is what remains from the original building.

Wasalaam,
Shafique

Liban, Shaf, Yshimy,

Thanks for your explanations, very interesting.

Liban wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:Interesting indeed.

Shaf, I hope you don't mind but I wanted to ask you about the Kaaba, the Holy building in Mecca which holds a piece of meteor. If the worship of idols is prohibited, could this not be constituted as an idol? After all it is an inanimate object! Or is it just one part of the entire pilgrimage?

This is one thing that has always confused me, and I'd like your thoughts.

We do not pray to the Kabaa, but towards it...

We do not pray to the rock...

So no idolatry there...

Kaaba ~ From Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabaa
Black Stone ~ From Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone

Significance of the Black Stone
There are various opinions as to the status and meaning of the Black Stone.

Many Muslims regard the Stone as 'just a stone'. When Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph, came to kiss the stone, he said, in front of all assembled: "No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither harm anyone nor benefit anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Messenger kissing you, I would not have kissed you." Many Muslims follow Umar: they pay their respects to the Black Stone in a spirit of trust in Muhammad, not with any belief in the Black Stone itself.

Some say that the stone is best considered as a 'marker', useful in keeping count of the ritual circumambulations one has performed (tawaf).

Other Muslims are more willing to believe that the Stone itself has some supernatural powers. They believe that this stone fell from the sky during the time of Adam and Eve, and that it has the power to cleanse worshippers of their sins by absorbing them into itself. They say that the Black Stone was once a pure and dazzling white; it has turned black because of the sins it has absorbed over the years.

Still others believe that the stone can only erase the believer's minor sins. On the Day of Judgement, the Stone will testify before God (Allah) in favor of those who kissed it.

These last could perhaps be regarded as folk beliefs, not necessarily shared by all Muslims. It is unclear how widely they are held.

The Stone was an object of veneration in pre-Islamic days. Early chroniclers say that the Kaaba was rebuilt during Muhammad's youth, and that there was some contention among the Quraysh, Mecca's ruling clan, as to who should have the honor of raising the Black Stone to its place in the new structure. Muhammad is said to have suggested that the Stone be placed on a cloak and that the various clan heads jointly lift the cloak and put the Stone into place. Secular historians see this tale as a later glorification of Muhammad, but agree that it accurately represents the pre-Islamic status of the Black Stone.

_____________

Regardless of what the stone is, or where it came from, I still do not understand how ISLAM can maintain that it is theirs alone since ADAM & EVE & Abraham do not belong solely to ISLAM.
Therefore, any person who desires to pray to God at this site should have access.

BTW, "Secular historians point to the history of stone worship, and especially meteorite worship, in pre-Islamic Arabia, and say that it is likely that the Stone is a meteorite."

I could say much more on this topic as well as others of a similar nature but, I will reserve those thought's for a future date.

not to jack this thread or anything but for all of you who quote Wikipedia for information i would like to take everything on there with a grain of salt. its an open source source of information where any one can go in and add info.

MaaaD wrote:not to jack this thread or anything but for all of you who quote Wikipedia for information i would like to take everything on there with a grain of salt. its an open source source of information where any one can go in and add info.

While that is true, it is monitored and revised IF/when anything is posted that does not contain facts.

So, as an easily accessible information I find it reasonable to use.

Perhaps you could provide an alternative resource to corroborate
or show that information in my resource is NOT truthful ?

http://www.understanding-islam.com/ is a good source.

Richard Owl Mirror wrote:Has there ever been a Human-being that was Infallible?

My understanding of ISLAM and a Muslims declaration of Shadhadah is
a proclamation of Infallibility placed upon the person called Mohamad.

Is this a true statement and could you present evidence that Mohamad was Infallible ?

In Islam all prophets are considered infallible. Infallibility is related to delivering the message of God. Read the article ' Relating to the Infallibility of the Prophet (pbuh)…' for a detailed answer.

Anyone relying on Wikipedia for information ends up quite misinformed. Wikipedia is open to modification.

Nucleus wrote:

Richard Owl Mirror wrote:Has there ever been a Human-being that was Infallible?

My understanding of ISLAM and a Muslims declaration of Shadhadah is
a proclamation of Infallibility placed upon the person called Mohamad.

Is this a true statement and could you present evidence that Mohamad was Infallible ?

In Islam all prophets are considered infallible. Infallibility is related to delivering the message of God. Read the article ' Relating to the Infallibility of the Prophet (pbuh)…' for a detailed answer.

Being protected in delivering the revelation of God;

Being protected in saying any thing, no matter if he is in the state of anger or just in the state of giving an opinion;

Being protected from committing any sort of sin, even the minor ones.

What I understand from Quran is that the infallibility of the prophets is only at the first level and not the other levels.
Relating to the Infallibility of the Prophet (pbuh)…

Am I reading this correctly? That which is contained within the Quran is Infallible but, any and all references made in the Sunnah/Hadith are not covered under this infallibility test unless it completely jibes with the Quran ?

There is also Hadith from the prophet that says he is but a human being, will get angry some times and might say things, or in other Hadith (the story of the farmers) the prophet said something to the effect that I only gave you my opinion and I am only a human and you know your work better.

However there are some ahadith that contradict the above.

I truly do not intend to denigrate the accomplishments of Mohammad,
as I have found many valid reasons for the rational found in the Quran.
However, I need to say that I do find many items of the Sunnah to be wrong-headed and out of touch with the realities of the modern age.

For instance Re: Istinja’ (Cleansing the Private Parts after answering the Call of Nature)

http://www.inter-islam.org/Actions/Tagara6.html

ROM,

I'm a little perplexed why you think it is anachronistic to cleanse oneself after going to the toilet.. the link you provided goes into a lot of detail (more than I have seen in one place, so it was interesting!)

All it says is that one should be clean and ensure cleanliness.. it is a concept that the upper classes in the West have used for at least a century - bidets are common in the houses of the better off people in the West, and is almost a universal concept in the East. Japan, for example, cleansing oneself is a cultural norm - and they have quite sophisticated toilets with built in jets of water to clean!

The interesting point is that Islam taught this level of cleanliness 1500 years ago and only recently have the west caught on to the benefits of cleanliness.

So, far from being not relevant today - I would argue that the levels of cleanliness required in Islam is as relevant today as it was 1500 years ago. Otherwise one is arguing that it is permissable and desirable to go around with soiled undergarments... ewwhh!

(Note that the link you provided says that the use of toilet paper is allowed.. so I'm not sure what you objection is? )



Take care..

Shafique