To anyone Islamic, or of any other religion...

Originally posted by Valhall
Am I considered kafir because I reject the Islamic religion for myself? Or am I excluded from being considered kafir because I believe in the one true God via my Christian beliefs?

This point is confusing to me.

I always tell people who are interested in learning the Holy Qur'an ....to assume for one's self......that they are NOT a kafir. The Qur'an has called some "muslims" kaffirs as well. Thus, the term "kafir" is with G-d and G-d alone, since Hu alone knows our heart and intentions. According to the Holy Qur'an , a Muslim can marry a Christian, Sabian, Jew or Zoroastrian .....with no problems at all. Thus, it would not make sense that our very family unit is composed of "kafir". Christians, Sabians , Jews and Zoroastrians are the select religions that are named as "People of the Book", those who acknowledge the " Book of Life" and the same prophetic family of Revelations.

---River
Peace

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by mithras
As a Christian you must appreciate your view of Jews as misinterpreting something in their texts. Then, apply the same thinking to Muslims who believe the same of you misinterpreting your own text. So if you are offended by Muhammad remember how Jews are offended by Christ.

You say Christians think Jews are misinterpreting their texts.
You have shown that (some?) Muslims think Chirstians are misinterpreting their texts.

Well, in the sense that the Christians see Jews as not recognising written prophecies about the Messiah as relating to the Jesus of 2000 years ago (is that agreeable?). In a related way:- Some Muslims(*) see the Christians interpreting the Bible in a way that involves a Holy Ghost coming into them; whereas some Muslims believe the words Comforter & Spirit in the Gospels actually relate to Muhammad, Gabriel and the Qur'an.

(*)If I say "some Muslims," I'm really trying to say, "my view, shared with other Muslims" about things related to Christianity. Many Muslims don't need to consider Christianity because they live in places with no Christians, hence only some would need to have a view on this other than for interest in additional Holy Texts.

Anyway I've tried to keep that as inoffensive as possible. We don't have to discuss that idea if you prefer; was only brought up because it was the only way for me to answer the thread topic, due to common ground only being the Bible.

I am sure you will say Christians think Mulsims do not believe in the One God for they do not believe in the Trinity.
And I am sure someone says Jews think Christians and Muslims both do not follow their God for this reason or that reason.

Add a "some" before Christians in first sentence and I think I agree. I know many Christians and Jews say we all worship the same God. Certainly Muslims should believe the "older" religions relate to the same God just different interpretations.

This is not what I was taught, and I see the Truth of what I was taught in the teachings of the Qur'an.

[2:62] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who believes in GOD, and believes in the Last Day, and leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

How can this be if Jews do not believe as Christians who do not believe as Muslims who do as Jews who do not believe as Muslims who do not believe as Christians who do not believe as Jews who do not... (repeat until your breath is gone) ...?

There's two things to consider here:-
1) The main thing is: In Islam you don't really have to have a label to get in Heaven. If a Jew or Christian believes in God the same way as a Muslim, that may be enough. But following Islam will please Him. Muslims aren't guaranteed Paradise - in fact seems the only religion that guarantees Hell!

2) (Perhaps) There were Christians at that time (of revelation) who had a more Islamic view of God, not really seeing Jesus as a true Son, but a Creation.

This brings me to my concern (from a Muslim) about the Trinity. How can we say if that will be viewed as polytheism by Allah? This is why I try to ask Christians (shall I say Trinitarians?) how can they be sure the first commandment is not being broken.

If I am wrong please forgive my ignorance, but does not the Qur'an say Jews, Christians and Muslims are all people of the Book?

Yes, we're seen as that by Islam. But keep in mind what I said about the Trinity which may be "shirk." Also, this is only seen as half the ticket to Heaven, the other is following an Islamic (at best) or at least good way of life.

How can this be if the Torah is not the Bible which is not the Qur'an which is not the Torah, which is not the Qur'an, which is not the Bible, which is not the Torah, which is not the... (repeat until your breath is gone) ...?

The Torah and Injil (Jesus' Gospel) are seen by us as either just (vague) remnants in the modern Bible or completely lost. The Qur'an is the same basic message as those lost messages (Muslim view).

See this is the problem, someone, maybe you, said no need to mention the Bible or Christians in explaining Islam. But it is all so connected because all the Prophets and Books are mentioned in Qur'an. I don't want to sound rude, when I say the Torah and Injil are not what you have in the Bible (or only remnants), but there's little choice if we're discussing them.

My belief is that Bible and the Torah, which is included in my bible, are God's answer to two basic questions. Where did I come from? Why am I here? The simplest answers are: From God, to love God.

The answers lead to more questions: How did you do that? How do I do that?

Those answers lead to more questions which lead to more answers which lead to more questions which lead to... (repeat until you are out of breath)

This is much like what the Qur'an says. Though it give somewhat more detail than your answer.

But, is it not enough to believe that Allah can arbitrarily change things in the universe? Rather like we can daydream making up a world exactly how we want. Why ask how when it won't affect salvation? In fact asking how and drawing wrong conclusions could be a sin.

The Torah is what the Jews understand of the Truth of God.
The Bible is what the Christians understand of the Truth of God.
The Qur'an is what the Muslim understand of the Truth of God.

Are any of these things a complete understanding? Of course not, for how can any man completely understand that which is God.

But if Jews do not believe how I believe how do I know the Torah is the Truth? Simply put, when you read what is written with an open mind in search of understanding you will see the Truth if it is there.

One cannot look at the Torah and say "This is not how I understand it, so it must be like this or like that."

Of course, corruptions occur. Thus it is with anything which is translated. But, I have already talked about how to recognize corruption, through humility.

Simply...

There is only one Truth, this is logical yes?

Islam gives all you need to know about Allah, adding anything else is fruitless and maybe even arrogant.

I decide on which not based on feeling but reasoning. Islam does not ask you to just believe, it gives you proof. It cannot prove to you, but only you can disprove a claim. This you do by studying all evidence (Qur'an, Bible, rumoured "missing links to apes," historical texts), weighing their reliabilites, considering all theories (and motives for interpretations), and reaching a most likely conclusion. Finding errors and contradictions is part of that. This is the process of scientific research - they call that "proof."

It is because you interpret the Christian understanding of the Truth to fit your understanding of the Truth that I asked you to try to understand with an open mind.

Indeed, an open mind is not saying "you are wrong" it is asking "Are you right?"

This is true, we have evidence in the Qur'an, we look at it. Then we compare with the Bible (also evidence, but as not reliable, in my opinion, because it is translated for one thing). We find that the Bible can be interpreted our way. Similiarly I believe, to be open-minded, you should forget anything Nicean and post-Nicean - everything Paul said, because that is interpretation. You could say "Muhammad wasn't a Prophet and interpreted the Bible," okay but first read and understand Islam and the (weaker) evidence in the ahadith, before judging? Maybe you will find one interpretation better.

If you can understand my view here or not, please let me know.

So why didn't Jesus use the same name "God"for all three?

Why does man not use the same name "Hand" for all three?
Because the palm is not the fingers which is not the thumb which is not the palm which is not the thumb which is not the fingers which is not the palm which is not the... (repeat until you are out of breath) ...?

Yes but then if you say the palm is not the fingers, you are seemingly saying God is made up of three separate parts. For me, a theory must be logical and fit the evidence, to be believed.

Mark 10:18 Matt 19:17 Luke 18:19 all agree (strong evidence) that:-

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

This interferes with the Nicean concept that God is the combination of all three, here Jesus is saying that only God is good. If Jesus were part of God (as with your analogy) then surely he wouldn't say this?

There is no conflict. The Son was made man and lived his life as a man should. How should a man live his life? Loving God, and his fellow man. Living a life of humility. Even though The Son is God his answer was that of a man (which He was). An answer of humility. Jesus did not say "I am Good" because judgement is for God and not man (which He was).

Jesus is God. Jesus was man. Man is not God.

See I have a problem with logic there, that I don't have in Islam. Okay maybe you could get logic into that, but then I think that is breaking the first commandment.

I'm not sure if you understand my view or I understand yours. I'll think about it more and find a better way of explaining.

Where did I come from?
Why am I here?

From god.
To Love God.

How did you do that?
How do I do that?

In essence, Jesus was the answer to man's question, "How do I do that?" God replied, "Let me show you."

This is enough to accept?

Mithras

Originally posted by mithras

This brings me to my concern (from a Muslim) about the Trinity. How can we say if that will be viewed as polytheism by Allah? This is why I try to ask Christians (shall I say Trinitarians?) how can they be sure the first commandment is not being broken.

You are still not understanding the concept of the Trinity. The vast majority of Christians believe in the Trinity and the vast majority of Christians believe in only one God. The Trinity is an aspect of God and it is God.

You have to look beyond the physical when defining Jesus as part of the Trinity.

My belief is that the mortal Christ does not matter. It was what was in Christ (God and The Holy Spirit) that matters. They all melded together to become One.

As for your comment - "is that enough?", I believe that to be true also. If a man can love God and understand how and why, then everything else will fall into place.

[edit on 3-7-2004 by Leveller]

I really don't understand why you insist on viewing the word "trinity" as some indicator that Christians are polytheistic. This is simply not the case.

Christ was a man with a portion of the divine God-spirit within him, and he was the only begotten Son of God. (I think this may be the part that bothers you most, right? My concept of God is that creating a son to carry out such a merciful mission is not beneath Him, but of such mercy and grace I cannot conceive of it.) The Holy Spirit is a portion of the divine God-spirit sent to comfort and guide us until the return of Christ.

It is that simple. God, the Creator and Father, is the one true God. Christ is our mediator and saviour - providing us a spiritual conduit to the Father. The Holy Spirit is our spiritual conscience.

It is that simple.

Originally posted by Leveller
As for gnostic Islam not sounding like proper Islam?

I don't know too much about it, sounds like a waste of time to me; as I've explained before.

There seems to be an on/off relationship with the mainstream. It has been applauded and recognised by some and classed as heretical by others. But just after Muhammed's time until about the 12th century it was a thriving part of the religion; with many powerful and respected Imams promoting it's tenets.
This was the time when the Islamic Empire was at it's zenith. When it's science, invention and literature was the greatest in the World.

Yes, I can imagine, the Qur'an warns Muslims about doing that "making up" stuff without evidence, and I wholly agree with the Qur'an. When things are going good, brains have nothing else to do than make stuff up - so it's not surprising to see a rise of Sufism then. Maybe Sufism rose because the Empire did well, rather than any other reason.

Like I say, I have my own definition of a Muslim. If you choose to say Gnostic or Sufism is Islam, you may.

It seems that gnostisism is only the property of the Imams in power now though. Like the Catholic Church and it's repression of those who search for their own Truth, it is allowed only to those whom the rich and powerful see fit.

"Practically following such human beings who possess a lofty status and divine insight and knowledge, leads a human being to prosperity and salvation."
The strange apsect of the above is that it seems very close to mainstream Christianity in it's belief.

If that is the case then they will not hold that power too long. Generally, sunni imams don't go making extensions to Islam up - if some do - well that's too bad because doing that is what the Qur'an says not to do.

You're saying about this "strange aspect," I might have related to it too; but how does that get to your favorite idea of Islamic polytheism?

Is it a coincidence that once gnostisism was checked, Islamic society regressed? Who knows - I certainly believe that it has something to do with it? But it's definitely a part of the religion that I would advise you to look at.

Woah there - regressed? They went backwards, then? Society regressed or science? How did society regress? You see social regression in East, I see regression in West actually. Because a society is slower to "evolve," that proves it is not according to God? Dictatorships and fall of power and empire had no effect then? Muslims believe the Islamic society (way of leading life) is the perfect way, it won't "evolve."

I don't see what there is to look into, they base themselves on the Qur'an then decide to make up ideas by speculation? In that case, I've no interest.

I don't know what led you to believe Islam is based on polytheism, if that is the case, but we can't discuss it unless you explain your reasoning, evidence and theories, openly and fully. If I can't pick those apart I can do nothing but answer questions about my own religion, that is the Qur'an with my interpretation.

Originally posted by Leveller
You are still not understanding the concept of the Trinity. The vast majority of Christians believe in the Trinity and the vast majority of Christians believe in only one God. The Trinity is an aspect of God and it is God.

You have to look beyond the physical when defining Jesus as part of the Trinity.

But not beyond the logical. Do you understand it then? Explain it with logic such that it fits the Gospels and I'll consider it.

As a non-Christian my understanding of it is irrelevant; all I meant was it matters how Allah sees Christians defining Him.

As for your comment - "is that enough?", I believe that to be true also. If a man can love God and understand how and why, then everything else will fall into place.

This is okay. Personally, I prefer more evidence, otherwise I can pick Hinduism or something fun like scientology.

Yes regressed. It went from being the most advanced civilisation on the planet to the most backward. Denial is a blindness to reality.
Invention and literacy went out of the window. Tolerance of fellow man soon followed. Islamic societies have not evolved. They have devolved - you only have to take a look at Iran, Afghanistan or Iraq to see that this is so. Society and science regressed.

I certainly don't see the same regression in the West. It has it's faults sure, but religion certainly doesn't cause the hardship that it does elsewhere in the world. There may be crime and laxity but in general, man doesn't get killed or tortured for his belief in his god in the name of another man's god.
The freedom that is available in the West may be misused at times but rather freedom than being forced to worship.
May I also remind you that you are discussing religion and hopefully furthering your understanding and knowledge by using a Western invention!!!

As for your statement that I am promoting Islamic polytheism - you have misinterpreted my words. I stated that Islam came from polytheistic pagan roots. There is no denying that before Islam, the Arabs were polytheistic.

Originally posted by mithras
This is okay. Personally, I prefer more evidence, otherwise I can pick Hinduism or something fun like scientology.

On the one hand you state that you require evidence and on the other you state that there can be no evidence. Which are you choosing?

I've explained the Trinity to you in logical terms. I'll try again.

Water can be looked at as 3 physical forms - water, gas and solid. But it is still water. The Trinity can be looked at in it's seperate forms but it is still God.

Here is a link that might help you with the Bible references: www.biblehelp.org...



[edit on 3-7-2004 by Leveller]

Originally posted by Leveller
Yes regressed. It went from being the most advanced civilisation on the planet to the most backward. Denial is a blindness to reality.
Invention and literacy went out of the window. Tolerance of fellow man soon followed. Islamic societies have not evolved. They have devolved - you only have to take a look at Iran, Afghanistan or Iraq to see that this is so. Society and science regressed.

What are you talking about, it progressed because of Islam in the first place, then you claim it regressed because of Islam. Makes no sense. Who is blind there?

The corruption that formed because of that "imaginative" thinking is most probably what led to the breakup of the empire which turned into dictatorships propped up by the West. It might be hard for you to appreciate but Muslim countries do in fact do research, they have universities you know, only they're not able to support themselves as they don't get the vast funding for research that the West can afford.

I certainly don't see the same regression in the West. It has it's faults sure, but religion certainly doesn't cause the hardship that it does elsewhere in the world.

Laugh. Yes, who is blind now. You criticise the Muslim world for being backward but daren't do the same for your own plot. Everyone has a religion, secular religion is just believing the media and government as though they were gods. You could mention about Palestinians killing themselves because they see it as defending their land, but even in these "free" Western societies social suicide is very high (check Sweden, a very free society) partly because of the many ruined relationships that come with freedom. The same freedom of thought that brought up Darwinism so we had an excuse to drag Africans to use as slaves (they're just an advanced monkey eh) or tame the Native American savages. Yeah "freedom" of thought is "advancement," apparently.

There may be crime and laxity but in general, man doesn't get killed or tortured for his belief in his god in the name of another man's god.

Woah there. Who is getting tortured? Islam does not allow torture of anyone, weren't you pecking at someone for criticising Islam on the merit of Muslims? You're doing just that here. At least Islam can say it's down to human fault that Muslims torture. Your "free-thinking" society brought out some torture-methods to use officially on Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba. So that was incredibly foolish of you to bring up.

The freedom that is available in the West may be misused at times but rather freedom than being forced to worship.
May I also remind you that you are discussing religion and hopefully furthering your understanding and knowledge by using a Western invention!!!

Again your lack of understanding of Islam is pathetic, you cannot have much interest in learning it if you don't know that Islam accepts other religions. This is a really lame argument to boast about 20th century inventions (which you just sit there and use) comparing it to 1000-odd year-old technology when Islam was in a comparably advanced rank. Can I then say, "which used an Arabic invention (our modern number system) to get here."

As for your statement that I am promoting Islamic polytheism - you have misinterpreted my words. I stated that Islam came from polytheistic pagan roots. There is no denying that before Islam, the Arabs were polytheistic.

That's what I meant, promoting it in this discussing when it really has no place, as we've been through before.

Quite honestly, you don't go insulting other groups based on nothing but your spoon-fed interpretation of the Muslim countries and Islam then expect Muslims to take you seriously.


[edit on 3-7-2004 by mithras]

Originally posted by mithras

Laugh. Yes, who is blind now. You criticise the Muslim world for being backward but daren't do the same for your own plot. Everyone has a religion, secular religion is just believing the media and government as though they were gods. You could mention about Palestinians killing themselves because they see it as defending their land, but even in these "free" Western societies social suicide is very high (check Sweden, a very free society) partly because of the many ruined relationships that come with freedom. The same freedom of thought that brought up Darwinism so we had an excuse to drag Africans to use as slaves (they're just an advanced monkey eh) or tame the Native American savages. Yeah "freedom" of thought is "advancement," apparently.

Well, this is a very disappointing turn events in my quest to understand the thinking of Islamic faith. Though I hope you are not indicative of Muslims...I'll have to wait for another to step up and erase the travesty you have just committed.

At least I was here to witness it, right?

Originally posted by mithras
Well, in the sense that the Christians see Jews as not recognising written prophecies about the Messiah as relating to the Jesus of 2000 years ago (is that agreeable?). In a related way:- Some Muslims(*) see the Christians interpreting the Bible in a way that involves a Holy Ghost coming into them; whereas some Muslims believe the words Comforter & Spirit in the Gospels actually relate to Muhammad, Gabriel and the Qur'an.

(*)If I say "some Muslims," I'm really trying to say, "my view, shared with other Muslims" about things related to Christianity. Many Muslims don't need to consider Christianity because they live in places with no Christians, hence only some would need to have a view on this other than for interest in additional Holy Texts.

Anyway I've tried to keep that as inoffensive as possible. We don't have to discuss that idea if you prefer; was only brought up because it was the only way for me to answer the thread topic, due to common ground only being the Bible.

You were concise and I was not offended. I believe this to be the focus of the lesson I am trying to convey. I may yet be forced to return to this before I feel it is time.

Add a "some" before Christians in first sentence and I think I agree. I know many Christians and Jews say we all worship the same God. Certainly Muslims should believe the "older" religions relate to the same God just different interpretations.

Yes, yes. "Some" before Christians! I was not clear in my intent. Thank you for seeing with clarity my intent and correcting me.

While many Jews or Christians may know, I will not say "many" Christians or Jews understand the meaning of this knowledge. I have been taught the Truth of this, and I see the Truth I was taught in the Qur'an. Which are indeed the next two points, so I shall continue with those.

[2:62] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who believes in GOD, and believes in the Last Day, and leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

There's two things to consider here:-
1) The main thing is: In Islam you don't really have to have a label to get in Heaven. If a Jew or Christian believes in God the same way as a Muslim, that may be enough. But following Islam will please Him. Muslims aren't guaranteed Paradise - in fact seems the only religion that guarantees Hell!

Labels are created to aid in understanding. Man desires to understand. He is rational. (or at least has the potential to be rational)

Indeed words themselves were created to record understanding. They too are labels.

Labels are required to tell another what one understands.

So too is this true concerning God.

This brings me to my concern (from a Muslim) about the Trinity. How can we say if that will be viewed as polytheism by Allah? This is why I try to ask Christians (shall I say Trinitarians?) how can they be sure the first commandment is not being broken.

Christians is a fine enough label. Followers of the teachings of Christ.

You ask how I can be sure. This is the same as asking "How do you know Allah is the one true God?"

They are labels. To put a label on what I was taught as simply as I can:
"God is everything, and more."

Everything is the best label I can use to describe what God is. And it does not describe him adequately.

Yes, we're seen as that by Islam. But keep in mind what I said about the Trinity which may be "shirk."

I see your mind beginning to open.

Also, this is only seen as half the ticket to Heaven, the other is following an Islamic (at best) or at least good way of life.

Indeed I was taught the same, the 'understanding' of God is not all that is needed.

The Torah and Injil (Jesus' Gospel) are seen by us as either just (vague) remnants in the modern Bible or completely lost. The Qur'an is the same basic message as those lost messages (Muslim view).

So, I ask you, How can remnants be enough to be half a ticket to Heaven?

See this is the problem, someone, maybe you, said no need to mention the Bible or Christians in explaining Islam. But it is all so connected because all the Prophets and Books are mentioned in Qur'an. I don't want to sound rude, when I say the Torah and Injil are not what you have in the Bible (or only remnants), but there's little choice if we're discussing them.

I did say that. For it was as I was taught.

You do not need to mention Christians to explain Islam. You do not need to mention Muslims to explain Judaism. You do not need to mention Jews to explain Islam. You do not need to mention Muslims to explain Christianity.

It is not all so connected because all the Prophets and Books are mentioned in the Qur'an.

It is all so connected because they teach a different understanding of the same thing.

To explain Islam, you need to mention God and what He wants of his people.

To explain Christianity, you need to mention God and what He wants of his people.

To explain Judaism, you need to mention God and what He wants of his people.

This is much like what the Qur'an says. Though it give somewhat more detail than your answer.

Sometimes too many words (labels) are not good. Sometimes not enough words (labels) are not good. It is the understanding of the meaning of those words (labels) which is important.

My words (labels) and the words (labels) in the Qur'an describe the same understanding of the meaning.

But, is it not enough to believe that Allah can arbitrarily change things in the universe? Rather like we can daydream making up a world exactly how we want. Why ask how when it won't affect salvation? In fact asking how and drawing wrong conclusions could be a sin.

You ask if it is enough to believe that Allah can arbitrarily change things in the universe. I do not doubt that He can. But is this enough? This sounds like what is known as "Blind Faith".

Knowing God is, and what he wants of me is enough. But if "God is" and "He wants me to love him with all that I am" were all I knew, how could I teach this to my children? Children have an open mind that seeks understanding and will inevitably ask "Why is this so?"

For the sake of all the children in the world, and anyone else who wants to learn the way of God, I say no. "Blind Faith" is not enough. One needs to be able to explain why when asked why. In order to explain, one must understand.

Now, one may ask "How much do I need to understand?"
One needs to understand as much as it takes to explain why "God isand He wants me to love him with all that I am is enough."

This is what I was taught.

There is only one Truth, this is logical yes?

This is as I was taught.

Islam gives all you need to know about Allah, adding anything else is fruitless and maybe even arrogant.

I do not doubt these words.
Indeed, this is what I seek to understand.

However, it is also fruitless and maybe even arrogant to think only Islam gives all you need to know about the One True God.

I decide on which not based on feeling but reasoning. Islam does not ask you to just believe, it gives you proof. It cannot prove to you, but only you can disprove a claim. This you do by studying all evidence (Qur'an, Bible, rumoured "missing links to apes," historical texts), weighing their reliabilites, considering all theories (and motives for interpretations), and reaching a most likely conclusion. Finding errors and contradictions is part of that. This is the process of scientific research - they call that "proof."

I call that the understanding of how to answer a question. And indeed how to answer the question that follows that answer, and how to answer the question that follows that answer, and how to answer the question that follows that answer... (repeat until you run out of breath)

Similiarly I believe, to be open-minded, you should forget anything Nicean and post-Nicean - everything Paul said, because that is interpretation. You could say "Muhammad wasn't a Prophet and interpreted the Bible," okay but first read and understand Islam and the (weaker) evidence in the ahadith, before judging?

If you say I must put away what I know in order to order to understand what I read in the Qur'an, is it not also acceptable for me to ask the same of you if you desire understanding of the Bible?

In regards to judging, it is not my place to judge. Also I say it is not your place either, for there is Another that reserves judgement for Himself. In this regard, I am at a disadvantage. The Qur'an already contains the judgment you seek to understand concerning Christianity. I have nothing but my understanding, as it was taught to me, concerning Islam.

Maybe you will find one interpretation better.

Easier to teach to another. Perhaps. Better? It is not my place to make such judgement.

If you can understand my view here or not, please let me know.

The only thing I do not understand is how you can have an open mind and an opinion at the same time.

Yes but then if you say the palm is not the fingers, you are seemingly saying God is made up of three separate parts. For me, a theory must be logical and fit the evidence, to be believed.

If I put my hand in boiling water, is it not enough to say "I have burned my hand?"

These things are just labels to aid in understanding.

I ask you what was breathed into Adam, what was placed into Jesus?
I say they are but labels to understand the Truth. So too is the trinity.

See I have a problem with logic there, that I don't have in Islam. Okay maybe you could get logic into that, but then I think that is breaking the first commandment.

I'm not sure if you understand my view or I understand yours. I'll think about it more and find a better way of explaining.

Time out! Perhaps we are going about this the wrong way.

You wish to explain your understanding.

My understanding of your understanding of the Truth will not help me.
If you wish to help me show me the Truth. If I do not see it for the Truth, then help me understand the Truth. If through humility I see the Truth, I will explain to you why 'your' Truth and 'my' Truth are the same.

The Truth I seek: What does the Qur'an say concerning the Trinity? I know one passage. Are there more? Tell me of your Truth so that I may understand.

Where did I come from?
Why am I here?

From god.
To Love God.

How did you do that?
How do I do that?

In essence, Jesus was the answer to man's question, "How do I do that?" God replied, "Let me show you."

This is enough to accept?

"From God. To Love God." is enough to accept. But it is not enough to explain to another that "From God. To Love God." is enough to accept.


River,

I went to that web page in humility, to learn.

I got down past half the page, and had to stop. This is the paragraph I was on when I stopped.

The difference between Muslims and Christians is that Muslims use the original words that Jesus and all the prophets used. In speaking of John 16:7-13, most Christians will tell you that the "Comforter" Jesus will send is the Holy Ghost. But keep in mind that the Holy Ghost was around before Jesus. In the Aramaic we see that the translation is "Spirit." Jesus, peace be upon him, was talking about the one who would ONLY appear when He joined His Father in Heaven*. In other words, this Spirit of Truth (a man) was never around before. The man Jesus sent was Muhammad.

In order for this to be true, John 14 (John 14:16-17 in particular) must also be wrong. They do not mention this, which site would you send me now so that I can find "The real message of the life and teachings of Jesus," (also from that page) as it is written in the Christian Bible?

The Truth is not a puzzle in which you can slam square pegs into round holes. It is a house of cards. Remove a single card and watch the entire house fall.

Indeed, show me a web page that will explain each of these resulting changes to the Truth that is found in the Bible. Surely at least one Muslim must have interpretted the whole of the Bible to accomidate the removal of this one Truth.

This I say to you, Allah called Christians people of the Book. Would this not mean the Bible is "good enough" to teach a Christian that "God is. Love God." is enough?

.



[edit on 4-7-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by mithras

What are you talking about, it progressed because of Islam in the first place, then you claim it regressed because of Islam. Makes no sense. Who is blind there?

It progressed because of gnostic Islam. You are blind as I have stated this before. You argue about others religions, yet you don't even know your own.
As for your comparison with the West being more backward than the East?
I honestly don't think that you are worth discussing things with any more. You are trying to defend an indefensible postion. Blaiming the West for the plight of the East is just babyish. Like we said: the East was in front at one time - it had all the cards.

I actually bought the subject up of the East being advanced if you bothered noticing. Would you like to tell me the great leaps and bounds that Islamic countries have given the world in the last 500 years? Seriously. Just list the great advancements that it has made. List the achievements that it has given for the good of the whole of mankind in the last 500 years.

Stating that Western society is a failiure when you have such societies as Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia etc and stating that the problems there are only due to Western politics are a lie. It's a cowardly act of convenience to turn the blame away from the true culprit. I don't stereotype as you accuse. I believe that you are being an utter hypocrite with that statement.

I bow out of this thread. There is no point conversing with somebody who not only wears a blindfold but has plucked his own eyes out from underneath it.

[edit on 4-7-2004 by Leveller]

Originally posted by Leveller
It progressed because of gnostic Islam. You are blind as I have stated this before. You argue about others religions, yet you don't even know your own.

Islam's doctrine encourages science (any scholar will tell you it's in the Qur'an), not making-up theories up with no basis; so the rise was probably due to Islam's encouragement; the fall probably due to secularism (man himself saying whats best, superiority of the few) creeping in. As for not knowing my own religion, that's quite amusing to hear considering you thought God was described with human attributes in the Qur'an; I seem to recall me telling you about my religion then, and you resorting to what can only be described as comedy.

As for your comparison with the West being more backward than the East?

You have the idea that the East is technologically (I'll give you stagnant) and socially "backwards" while pretending the West is much better in both (sure in technology, not society). So you look at technology in the West and ignore society, then label the "cool" one as what decides whether it is advanced. If you were a homeless man in America you might think the cool one should be society, because he isn't getting much welfare from the government. We can look at assaults in US, gun crime, divorces, you been to New York? The society there is like it's in a race.

But this isn't what you stop at: You go on to assume Islam is the culprit whereas I don't see any Islamic states in the world. You cannot have a situation where two countries call themselves Islamic. An Islamic state needs the Ummah under one, elected, caliph. Them "Islamic" dictatorships are just dictatorships, abusing their power for their own greed. Is Saddam (initially put there by the West I might add) who puts icons of himself up, Isamic? No, that isn't Islam.

So I'm not saying the West is more backward than the East, but where they are better, they are also worse in other respects; but you pushed me to mention things about the West to show you that it works both ways.

I honestly don't think that you are worth discussing things with any more. You are trying to defend an indefensible postion. Blaiming the West for the plight of the East is just babyish. Like we said: the East was in front at one time - it had all the cards.

This is fine if you wish to back off like before. The position the East is in is not acceptable, I didn't say it was; don't pretend I did. I argue this has nothing to do with Islam. Blaming Islam for the decline of the empire is just unfounded.

I certainly don't accuse the West of causing all the plight of the East, but anyone can see the hand they've had in the Middle East, since earlier this century. The British colonies? You saying that had no effect on the development of the West. This is how the world has been, Egyptians using others as slaves, now we have Western companies using cheap labour in the East. Is this doing things for the world? Charity that goes to other countries comes from the people, you'll probably find the Christians and Muslims openly give, whereas the "non-religious" need something like a pop-concert to get them to give.

As you say we are in a stage where the West has the cards. Only maybe hit the 100-year mark, America only has a few thousand years to go to beat the Egyptians at duration. Nothing stays the same, China's becoming powerful; empires fall.

I actually bought the subject up of the East being advanced if you bothered noticing. Would you like to tell me the great leaps and bounds that Islamic countries have given the world in the last 500 years? Seriously. Just list the great advancements that it has made. List the achievements that it has given for the good of the whole of mankind in the last 500 years.

OK you agree the Islamic Empire was advanced once, I take you to mean. You are looking at the dictatorships you see now as though they are representative of Islam. Something the media must love to tell you.

This technology and science thing you bring up means very little. You should realise that most rich countries just feed off the poorer ones to make themselves stronger. We all know about Western companies using sweatshops and child labour in the East. You realise how much of the world's wealth rests in America? When in such a position it is easy to concentrate efforts on advancing technology (it's like a global slavery).

Stating that Western society is a failiure when you have such societies as Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia etc and stating that the problems there are only due to Western politics are a lie. It's a cowardly act of convenience to turn the blame away from the true culprit. I don't stereotype as you accuse. I believe that you are being an utter hypocrite with that statement.

As I said I'm not saying Eastern societies are perfect. But you see them as bad just because they live in relative poverty. How can you compare war-torn Afghanistan with anything, they've just come out of two wars! I didn't say just due to Western politics, but they have a hand in a lot of the pies right now. You can't look at Saud or Saddam and say that's Islam, they were both dictators making their own laws up, while leading a life of greed themselves; that isn't Islamic.

I bow out of this thread.

You took it off-topic anyway. For the best, bye.

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, this is a very disappointing turn events in my quest to understand the thinking of Islamic faith. Though I hope you are not indicative of Muslims...I'll have to wait for another to step up and erase the travesty you have just committed.

At least I was here to witness it, right?

This is no more disappointing to see than all the other times you've accused me of something when you've misunderstood, I hope that you are not indicative of Christians likewise. You think because a Muslim says one thing (fairly in reply) that appears not to suit you, another Muslim has to counter that in order for the doctrine to be accepted. You need to seriously consider yourself there.

Did you even read what Leveller said about Islam. He uses dictatorships' behaviours to define Islam, and picks out problems with the Eastern world which don't run things Islamicly. Is it not fair I then pick out problems with the West? Or does that hurt you to realise the West has faults just as much as the East?

So you ignore what Leveller said and pick on my reply, okay if you wish, no problems with me because I can hold my own; as I implied I'm not so surprised about that now - maybe you can U2U me another message to start my own thread about Islam when I was talking on-topic about Jesus here.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by mithras

Laugh. Yes, who is blind now. You criticise the Muslim world for being backward but daren't do the same for your own plot. Everyone has a religion, secular religion is just believing the media and government as though they were gods. You could mention about Palestinians killing themselves because they see it as defending their land, but even in these "free" Western societies social suicide is very high (check Sweden, a very free society) partly because of the many ruined relationships that come with freedom. The same freedom of thought that brought up Darwinism so we had an excuse to drag Africans to use as slaves (they're just an advanced monkey eh) or tame the Native American savages. Yeah "freedom" of thought is "advancement," apparently.

Well, this is a very disappointing turn events in my quest to understand the thinking of Islamic faith. Though I hope you are not indicative of Muslims...I'll have to wait for another to step up and erase the travesty you have just committed.

At least I was here to witness it, right?

I pray I say these words with humility, as I am to do with all things.

The way in which Mithras replied, does not match what I am taught to believe.

The way Vahall replied to Mithras, also does not match what I am taught to believe.

This is what I was taught to believe in context: Luke Chapter 6

Edit: For less context read Luke 6:37-49. For no context read: 6:37.



[edit on 4-7-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Hello Raphael_UO,

To recap, this is your response to the verse in Qur'an which suggest People of the Book go to Heaven:

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Labels are created to aid in understanding. Man desires to understand. He is rational. (or at least has the potential to be rational)

Indeed words themselves were created to record understanding. They too are labels.

Labels are required to tell another what one understands.

So too is this true concerning God.

This is very philosophical so I'm uncertain that I fully understand you. Muslims (the way I understand it) believe that Allah doesn't use one label to define who has a chance of going to Heaven, instead one label (true monotheism) and a whole set of actions. While today's Muslims believe in Muhammad's message; before Muhammad there were (we believe) Muslims who believed in, say, Moses' message. Them olden Muslims didn't need to believe in Muhammad or the Qur'an. Instead all that mattered was one label (belief in no god but God) and a way of life of submission to Him - same as now. I continue this theme:-

In reference to what Allah will think of "Trinitarians", you said:

Christians is a fine enough label. Followers of the teachings of Christ.

You ask how I can be sure. This is the same as asking "How do you know Allah is the one true God?"

They are labels. To put a label on what I was taught as simply as I can:
"God is everything, and more."

Everything is the best label I can use to describe what God is. And it does not describe him adequately.

Can we try to look at it from two perspectives? :-

Muslim doctrine:
MAN is essentially good, but can be tempted to do evil.
PEACE WITH ALLAH: One label (one god belief) + sin in life (actions) = salvation.
PEACE WITH MEN: Worldly life is improved by following a given fixed complete Islamic set of ethics (no drinking, no stealing etc.).

Christian doctrine:
MAN is inherently evil and needs cleansing of evil.
PEACE WITH GOD: One label (accept trinity) = salvation.
PEACE WITH MEN: Worldly life is improved by the Holy Spirit, which slowly improves sense of ethics. Initially vague ethics are given in commandments.

(I hope this is understood correct, please correct if wrong and I start again no problems)

Now,
Check your quote: you said "how can I be so sure. This is the same as... " ; bear with me, now:-
I meant how can I (me, as a Muslim) be sure about your (as a Christian) salvation because I don't know how Allah would view your own personal concept of the Trinity.

From Muslim view, your life's equation is:
PEACE WITH ALLAH: (trinity, maybe (*)) + (are your "actions" sinful according to Allah) = Heaven or Hell? Unsure

(*)The "actions" should work with Allah, as you say humility and ten commandments are part of Christianity so that's pretty nice. But the question for me is the first part of the sum, will Allah mind you calling Jesus a God.(Trinity). Maybe if you visualise a truly single entity, He will let you off about the smaller misunderstanding that He was sort of probing himself onto Earth as Jesus, maybe. Understand me there?

From Muslim view, my life's equation is:
PEACE WITH ALLAH: (one god belief, fine) + (are your actions sinful according to Allah) = Heaven or Hell? Unsure

So a Muslim is not sure of his own salvation or yours.
___________________________________________________

Of course you are sure of your own salvation, and you are sure of mine. This is just down to our different beliefs about how God sees us, correct?:-

From Christian view, my life's equation is:
PEACE WITH GOD: (no acceptance of Christ as God, failed) = Hell

and your life's equation is:
PEACE WITH GOD: (accept Christ as God, passed) = Heaven

It's our basic belief of God that is the root of the matter. It is what I mean about I need proof as to which is the correct belief, before I take a path.

Hope that better explained.

The Torah and Injil (Jesus' Gospel) are seen by us as either just (vague) remnants in the modern Bible or completely lost. The Qur'an is the same basic message as those lost messages (Muslim view).

So, I ask you, How can remnants be enough to be half a ticket to Heaven?

Because, some of the ideas of the Ten Commandments stood firm, the message of humility Jesus gave (and which Muhammad gave) stood firm. Much of the basic teachings of behaviour to fellow man stood through. But the grand belief is quite different, original sin etc.

See this is the problem, someone, maybe you, said no need to mention the Bible or Christians in explaining Islam. But it is all so connected because all the Prophets and Books are mentioned in Qur'an. I don't want to sound rude, when I say the Torah and Injil are not what you have in the Bible (or only remnants), but there's little choice if we're discussing them.

I did say that. For it was as I was taught.

You do not need to mention Christians to explain Islam. You do not need to mention Muslims to explain Judaism. You do not need to mention Jews to explain Islam. You do not need to mention Muslims to explain Christianity.

It is not all so connected because all the Prophets and Books are mentioned in the Qur'an.

It is all so connected because they teach a different understanding of the same thing.

To explain Islam, you need to mention God and what He wants of his people.

To explain Christianity, you need to mention God and what He wants of his people.

To explain Judaism, you need to mention God and what He wants of his people.

This, if I understand you, is indeed agreed.

I mean is you have to pick a belief about God first, to determine which is the True belief. There is no point in just saying "I choose Islam" for no reason. I believe you said you want to base your choice on: "which has the most humility." Okay, but you need to study the other religions first to decide. For me, that humility has a "inside feeling" role in deciding, but there is more than that. I want to see the texts from the Prophets themselves and not from Nicea - see my view?

This is much like what the Qur'an says. Though it give somewhat more detail than your answer.

Sometimes too many words (labels) are not good. Sometimes not enough words (labels) are not good. It is the understanding of the meaning of those words (labels) which is important.

My words (labels) and the words (labels) in the Qur'an describe the same understanding of the meaning.

The Qur'an is seen, by Muslims, as a gift from God. I mean the gift is detailed in that it says how to conduct your life on earth for peace with Him and other men. Even telling us how to fight is part of the gift, because fighting is inevitable, it happens. It has detail in terms of belief; it, for example, says there are Angels created from light, Jinn (another of his free-will creations) created from heat, it describes creation to some extent, things we slowly find out by science, and so on

But, is it not enough to believe that Allah can arbitrarily change things in the universe? Rather like we can daydream making up a world exactly how we want. Why ask how when it won't affect salvation? In fact asking how and drawing wrong conclusions could be a sin.

You ask if it is enough to believe that Allah can arbitrarily change things in the universe. I do not doubt that He can. But is this enough? This sounds like what is known as "Blind Faith".

Hmm, aren't you believing blindly about "original sin." How can you suggest your interpretation of the Bible is correct and mine is not?

As I see it (check the long posts I've had with KSoze): Everything is about blind faith. Belief in gravity as a force (some people think it's because matter is expanding), belief in evolution as creation. You have to research yourself and pick the right belief, the most likely, the one with least contradiction of logic.

Islam gives all you need to know about Allah, adding anything else is fruitless and maybe even arrogant.

I do not doubt these words.
Indeed, this is what I seek to understand.

However, it is also fruitless and maybe even arrogant to think only Islam gives all you need to know about the One True God.

I only put forward my belief in what the Qur'an is, which is what I'm asked. It's fruitless to think that before you accept Islam (I agree!), but if you've accepted Islam, you will accept that. If this may have sounded arrogant, sorry, but your beliefs in original sin might sound the same to me. The Qur'an is a gift of knowledge to us. As I have said, you have to tear all your beliefs away (about original sin) before you can try understand Islam. I've tried (still do), to do the same for Christianity in trying to understand it.

Similiarly I believe, to be open-minded, you should forget anything Nicean and post-Nicean - everything Paul said, because that is interpretation. You could say "Muhammad wasn't a Prophet and interpreted the Bible," okay but first read and understand Islam and the (weaker) evidence in the ahadith, before judging?

If you say I must put away what I know in order to order to understand what I read in the Qur'an, is it not also acceptable for me to ask the same of you if you desire understanding of the Bible?

Indeed! This is exactly what I'm saying. I've done this putting aside before and come to a decision, but as I understand you, you haven't done it with Islam. Of course I should look at Hinduism and Bhuddism properly, too.

Maybe you will find one interpretation better.

Easier to teach to another. Perhaps. Better? It is not my place to make such judgement.

If you can understand my view here or not, please let me know.

The only thing I do not understand is how you can have an open mind and an opinion at the same time.

Hmm, surely it is your place to make your own judgement?

I had an open mind in deciding a religion. It is closed to Islam for now. If (scientific) evidence that it is wrong appears, I will re-open my mind. Also I will re-open my mind for discussion if you wish to compare the religious doctrines for which is better for the world.


Next is the explanation of the Trinity, I agree we've got to tackle it another way because it's down to that basic belief thing (not humility).

The Truth I seek: What does the Qur'an say concerning the Trinity? I know one passage. Are there more? Tell me of your Truth so that I may understand.

It makes it very, very clear that Jesus is not God, and that there is no such thing as the Holy Spirit.

If you wish me to look for verses, or Sunnah, I will: but any good website ( islamonline.net ) will have those basics explained. This post is pretty long already and I do ramble, sorry. Thanks for your patient manner in explaining.


PS: my description of inherent evil should be inherent temptation (see Jakko's post)


[edit on 4-7-2004 by mithras]

Originally posted by mithras

Christian doctrine:
MAN is inherently evil and needs cleansing of evil.
PEACE WITH GOD: One label (accept trinity) = salvation.
PEACE WITH MEN: Worldly life is improved by the Holy Spirit, which slowly improves sense of ethics. Initially vague ethics are given in commandments.

Yes that's wrong indeed.
First of all, MAN is not inherently evil, but mans nature is to be temted to do evil. After doing evil MAN needs cleansing of SINS.
See how MAN needs no cleansing of EVIL...
MAN just needs DISCIPLINE, WISDOM and GODS GUIDANCE to stay away from evil.

PEACE WITH GOD is not through accepting the trinity.
Because of our sins we can not come near God, for He is sinless.
Jesus serves as a bridge between us and God, paying for our sins.
Only through Him we can come to God.

It's like when you get a present. You can either accept it, or leave it on the table unwrapped.

PEACE WITH MEN
Worldy life is not improved by the holy spirit...
The Holy Spirit can indeed make you aware of wrong decisions, evil, and it can be your inspiration, guide, weapon or even defense against evil persons or demons, but all goes according to Gods will.
The commandments given are not vague at all, they could not have been any clearer.

[edit on 4-7-2004 by Jakko]

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
I pray I say these words with humility, as I am to do with all things.

The way in which Mithras replied, does not match what I am taught to believe.

The way Vahall replied to Mithras, also does not match what I am taught to believe.

The way I've replied, is not in accordance with teaching of Islam, but I do that because I spend time discussing with reason, then someone has to destroy that reason with bigotry. This is simply rude isn't it and tempers go up.

As for whether you show humility in what you said. To me, your post is like a judgement that you are somehow above both of us or that you don't show emotion from time to time. Rather like a perfect example of man. Now that's just an opinion, but you criticised me (did you read why I said those things?) so I am allowed to say something back to you too? Perhaps you didn't mean to sound like that; then nor did I (and I presume Valhall since she is a Christian) want to sound like I (she) did.




[edit on 4-7-2004 by mithras]

I'm going to cut in this debate for a minute and add my much needed two rupees.

First things first, Valhall is actualy a She

Yes that's wrong indeed.
First of all, MAN is not inherently evil, but mans nature is to be temted to do evil. After doing evil MAN needs cleansing of SINS.
See how MAN needs no cleansing of EVIL...
MAN just needs DISCIPLINE, WISDOM and GODS GUIDANCE to stay away from evil.

Quite wrong my freind, for you see, there is no universal definition of evil. Good and Evil, Freedom and Liberty, all are shared through a common thought process and all remain simply and bluntly, relative. There is no transcendent measure.

To detract the doctrine of Islam, one has to simply undermine one of its parents, Christianity. Anyone with a good philosophical head on thier shoulders will agree, Christianity was not meant to be taken literaly, but symbolicly like most ancient mythos, the ancients believed in the moral and truth in these stories, they did not take them literaly.

Islam speaks of Jesus as a historic figure, history does not dictate this, does it?


Deep

Originally posted by Jakko
Yes that's wrong indeed.
First of all, MAN is not inherently evil, but mans nature is to be temted to do evil. After doing evil MAN needs cleansing of SINS.
See how MAN needs no cleansing of EVIL...
MAN just needs DISCIPLINE, WISDOM and GODS GUIDANCE to stay away from evil.

Bah that inherent thing is what I meant, wanted to write it short.

I still think that accepting the Trinity means the Spirit is within you and that you are saved if you always accept, isn't that what I said?

I did not say the worldly life is improved by the HS, but that the sense of ethics is. The worldly like improves as a result of your new found ethics. Obviously God wants life on Earth to be as good as possible?

How about:-
Christian doctrine:
MAN is inherently capable of evil and needs cleansing of being capable.
PEACE WITH GOD: One label (accept trinity) = salvation.
PEACE WITH MEN: Worldly life is improved by developing ethics caused by the Holy Spirit, which slowly improves sense of ethics. Initially vague ethics are given in commandments.

The commandments are vague compared to the Qur'an's, I mean.

M


[edit on 4-7-2004 by mithras]