Interfaith: a new dialogue between Muslims and Catholic

[men0wjv]

It is merciful to point to the right path but, this is not to say that because I am a Christian or a Jew I am on the wrong path. My actions will determine whether I am on the right path. For most people and, certainly for Christians, following the example and the preaching of Jesus Christ Is the right path.

? So Catholics believe that you are saved by your actions? Muslims believe it is only through God’s Grace, but he will not accept those who do not want him and so will be judged with Justice.

I looked up (5:54) and was confused.

Admittedly I did use an esoteric interpretation from ibn al Arabi, but it still holds true.
*You who believe, if any of you go back on your faith, God will soon replace you with people He loves and who love Him, people who are humble towards the believers, hard on the disbelievers, and who strive in God’s way without fearing anyone’s reproach. Such is God’s favour. He grants it to whoever He will. God has endless bounty and knowledge. * [5:54]
The people that replace them are first loved by God (as all creation) and then they love Him (and don’t turn their backs) and these peoples love for God is shown by their actions because they do not work by their own egos but rather for God’s sake; easy and humble towards the righteous (believer is different from Muslim!) and harsh on the enemies of faith (disberliever is different from non-Muslim, outwardly they may be Muslim!)

Psalm 5:7 does not contain your quote namely: “Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity” 5:7 is as follows: “But I through the abundance of your steadfast love/ will enter your house/ I will bow down toward your holy temple in awe of you. I don’t like the word ‘hate’ because I find it demeaning in relation to God, seeing it more as a human characteristic.

My mistake, it was Pslam 5:5. I got it from Summa Theologica in a discussion in which Aquinas is talking about ‘God’s Hate,’ interesting stuff and I don’t think a Muslim could disagree, especially with:
*Love and hatred are contraries if considered in respect of the same thing. But if taken in respect of contraries, they are not themselves contrary, but consequent to one another: for it amounts to the same that one love a certain thing, or that one hate its contrary. Thus love of one thing is the cause of one’s hating its contrary. *

As a religious person you should believe in the supernatural, I see you do not. Like you, atheists do not believe in the story of St Paul. That Origen and early Church Fathers accepted St Paul and the early ones had contact with him, has no meaning for you.

I do agree with the supernatural. If he had this vision in front of the early Christians then fine, but the only knowledge we have of it is his word and since he was at that time the enemy of the early Chistians, we might question its validity. No there were early Christians that rejected him, like the Ebonites. Also Chadwick (in his authorotative history of the church) highlights some sort of tension between Peter and Paul and with Paul and Jerusalem in general. I can’t remember the details or the extent, but it does ask the question why, which is of course what Chadwich asks.

If a person follows the teachings of Jesus, the person has not gone astray.

Of course… but what were they? We differ on this in detail, but not in principle.

God does not speak about the people of Mecca as if they were different from the people of Medina. They were the same people although their beliefs may have been a little different.

How do you know this? Also since belief is one of the main themes of the Qur’an then it is very important.

There is so much more I could write, but I do not have the time at the moment. Whatever happens or is said, God knows best

 

[men0wjv]

In addition to the above, a friend once quoted from a translation to justify a political movement for a Caliphate:
*"And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you (Muslims of the whole world collectively) do not do so , there will be Fitnah (wars, battles, polytheism) and oppression on the earth, and a great mischief and corruption (appearance of polytheism)." [8:73]

To which I responded:
The non-Muslims support one another. If you do not do the same, there will be persecution in the land and great corruption.
Checking the tafsirs out there (pitifully few in English) suggests this verse is to do with family law. The Prophet said: ‘No followers of two religions inherit from each other therefore, neither a Muslim inherits from a non-Muslim nor a non-Muslim from a Muslim. Then he recited 8:73’ [Hakim]. (btw we can iherit from each other, but not by default) The word translated here as supporter (waliyy) is a general word referring to inheritance and guardianship. In a nutshell, it means that, in family matters, the religious law of non Muslims themselves shall stand duly protected in an Islamic State, because other than this would cause ‘great corruption.’ The translation you had is very corrupt which is only good for burning as they have completely changed the meaning! I would not also trust anything from Muhsin Khan - if anything he is an medical doctor not a doctor of Arabic language - as he is known for poor translations!

It should be seen the deliberate mis-representation and lies of these people.*

 

[4Horsemen]

Hi 4Horesmen, I really don’t have any time, but just a couple of things. Why Jesus (as)? I don’t really know except for God Wills it, maybe it is so that every sincere person will recognise him (i.e. the Jews because he’s Jewish, the Christians because he’s Christ and the Muslims because he is the of the most important Prophets, well actually the higher station of Messengers. I find it offensive to say he was a minor Prophet (I guess as you do to say he was just a Prophet). All souls will taste death. It is our view that Muhammad (pbuh) will have the intercession of the Day of Judgement, which is the highest honour given to any man. Will write soon

Hi men0wjv,

I, too, haven’t a lot of time being in the midst of preparation for the great feast of Christmas. I’ll try to repond a.s.a.p. to the posts.

On another thread, I mentioned that the Christians are waiting for the return of Christ, the Jews are waiting for the Messiah, and the Muslims are waiting for the Mahdi or hidden Imam. So we should all wait together in peace and see who comes.

Since both Jesus and Muhammad are major Prophets, it seems God favored Jesus by not allowing Him to die (according to your beliefs) during His life on earth at the time. As you know, Catholics believe in the salvific death and Resurrection of Jesus, Our Lord. (Otherwise, why would we bother to worship Him as the Son of God?)

 

[4Horsemen]

Hi elwill,

Allah decided to create man as a free agent, but He knows (and how can He not know!) before creating every man how he is going to use his free will

 

[4Horsemen]

in islam , the man become sinner when he commit a sin , so if satan touch the baby and made him cry dosn’t mean that we have a sinner baby because of touch

So you’re saying that Satan touching a baby at birth is only imagery?

The Prophet said, “When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 506)

why only mary and her son ?
may be because of prayer of mother of mary accocrding to quran
‘And I seek Refuge with You (Allah) for her and her offspring from Satan, the outcast.’ (3.36)

Evidently Muhammad’s mother didn’t know the correct Koranic prayer, nor did any other woman other than Mary.

we believe that jesus (pbuh) will die either

The historical evidence for the crucifixion is not only in the Bible but in secular sources as well. These include Tacitus, in Book XV of his chronicle The Annals of Imperial Rome and Suetonius’ Life of Emperor Claudius; also, Pliny, the governor of the Province o Bithynia-Pontus, in book ten of his Epistles; and Josephus, the great Jewish historian, in his Jewish Antiquities.

 

[4Horsemen]

Oh yes, there were two more things
We say that Muhammad (pbuh) was illiterate, i.e. he could not read and write, but we say he was the most eloquent and by a miracle could speak any language - there are many ahadith where he spoke to non Arabs in their language
The Qur’an was compiled as a bound book (Mushaf) by the 3rd Caliph Uthman (from where did you get 100 years???). It was written down on bones and parchment during the Prophet’s (pbuh) life time of which some still remain. That said, the mushaf does not preserve the Qur’an, but the hearts of the believers (Qur’an means recital). So should one produce a copy of the Qur’an for publication, it would not be officially stamped until 10 hufadth (memorisers) had read through it and unanimously agreed.
Napolean tried an experiement where he changed one word to see what would happen, he was surprised to find that his publication was quickly rejected for the errors within it.

Remember, though, that the Bible was around a lot longer than the Qur’an. In fact, a lot of what is in the Qur’an is a mix of Biblical events with Muhammad’s revelations. The Old Testament was compiled before the time of Jesus, although it, too, was in oral form at first. I happened to go to the exhibit of “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible” when it was shown at the museum. Although much was in separate pieces and fragments, the book of Isaiah was intact and compared well with today’s text. The early Bibles were magnificent with their manuscript that looked like a font you’d find on a computer. The monks in early times (The Essenes, I think they were called) were scrupulous about copying each word correctly, and, of course, the first letter on each page was a work of art in itself.

Interesting about Napoleon. Can you cite a reference on that?

 

[men0wjv]

So you’re saying that Satan touching a baby at birth is only imagery?

My teacher said that the protection in the hadith is mentioned for all Prophets and for all those that know the prayer. Not imagery

 

[men0wjv]

Hi men0wjv,
I, too, haven’t a lot of time being in the midst of preparation for the great feast of Christmas. I’ll try to repond a.s.a.p. to the posts.
On another thread, I mentioned that the Christians are waiting for the return of Christ, the Jews are waiting for the Messiah, and the Muslims are waiting for the Mahdi or hidden Imam. So we should all wait together in peace and see who comes.
Since both Jesus and Muhammad are major Prophets, it seems God favored Jesus by not allowing Him to die (according to your beliefs) during His life on earth at the time. As you know, Catholics believe in the salvific death and Resurrection of Jesus, Our Lord. (Otherwise, why would we bother to worship Him as the Son of God?)

As you say, wait in peace
Actually we don’t believe he is dead, I perhaps wasn’t clear enough here, I should have used the more appropriate he has passed on
“God has defended the earth from consuming the bodies of Prophets”. [Abu Dawud]
“And the Prophet of God is alive and provided for.” [Bayhaqi]
“The Prophets are alive in their graves, praying to their Lord” [Bazzar]
“My life is a great good for you, you will relate about me and it will be related to you, and my death is a great good for you, your actions will be presented to me (in my grave) and if I see goodness I will praise God, and if see other than that I will ask forgiveness of him (for you).” [Ash Shifa’]
Actually there are loads of ahadith and it is the received wisdom and understanding of the verse: *‘And know that the Messenger of God is among you’ *[49:7]
We can have a loving relationship with him right now… in fact people have been known to die of love sickness.

We believe that all prophets are physically alive ‘in their graves’ but there are narrations that mention four prophets that have not yet passed away in this world. two in the ‘heavens’: Jesus and Enoch and on earth there are Khidr and Elias, peace be upon them all.

I do not have a reference for the Napoleon story at the moment, but I have been reading a lot more into him; a Maliki rite book was used as the basis for French Law which is what he put in place. Anyway, an interesting line of inquiry

I got the book. The words of CS Lewis spring to mind: ‘Its wrong from start to finish and you can’t get wronger than that!’ Robert Spencer also seems to be deliberately emotive. I think I’ll start a thread and critique each answer and offer a more ‘mainstream’ understanding. I’m thinking of writing a book, not to convince you Catholics but simply to be fair, I was thinking of employing the help of a Catholic ‘expert’ to also add the official teaching of the Church on that matter, it seems we (all people do this) float between extremes of laxity and zealotry; either we are all believers or all evil devils. Lets work to fulfill the sentiments of Vatican II

 

[4Horsemen]

My teacher said that the protection in the hadith is mentioned for all Prophets and for all those that know the prayer. Not imagery

But this is what Elwill quoted from the Qur’an:

The Prophet said, “When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 506)

So it seems to be that it is NOT true for all Prophets.

 

[men0wjv]

But this is what Elwill quoted from the Qur’an:

The Prophet said, “When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 506)

So it seems to be that it is NOT true for all Prophets.

But I’m referring to the 1.4 million ahadith that you haven’t mentioned Like Catholicism we have a tradition; do the words categorically mean that this can be absolutely the only exception? Also I don’t see how this contradicts what Elwill says or the Qur’anic ayat

 

[4Horsemen]

As you say, wait in peace
Actually we don’t believe he is dead, I perhaps wasn’t clear enough here, I should have used the more appropriate he has passed on
“God has defended the earth from consuming the bodies of Prophets”. [Abu Dawud]
“And the Prophet of God is alive and provided for.” [Bayhaqi]
“The Prophets are alive in their graves, praying to their Lord” [Bazzar]
“My life is a great good for you, you will relate about me and it will be related to you, and my death is a great good for you, your actions will be presented to me (in my grave) and if I see goodness I will praise God, and if see other than that I will ask forgiveness of him (for you).” [Ash Shifa’]
Actually there are loads of ahadith and it is the received wisdom and understanding of the verse: *‘And know that the Messenger of God is among you’ *[49:7]

Lots of research here! I have a question though. If the bodies of Prophets are not consumed, that must be some kind of spiritual meaning because we all know that our bodies return to dust. “Remember, man, thou art dust and to dust you shall return.” (That admonishment is spoken on Ash Wednesday, when Catholics receive ashes in the for of a cross on their foreheads).

Also, if the Prophets are “alive in their graves, praying to their Lord,” what about all the human beings who ever died? Are they dead in their graves supposing you mean their souls? And how can souls be dead? Souls are the living part of us that go to God at death for judgment.

We can have a loving relationship with him right now… in fact people have been known to die of love sickness.

I must have missed something. With whom do Muslims have a “loving relationship with” right now? Muhammad? Jesus? I think the ahadith were referring to the Prophets, but you used the singular “him.” I thought it was wrong to love in such a way that it is worship of anyone but Allah. I mean dying of LOVE is akin to idolatry.

We believe that all prophets are physically alive ‘in their graves’ but there are narrations that mention four prophets that have not yet passed away in this world. two in the ‘heavens’: Jesus and Enoch and on earth there are Khidr and Elias, peace be upon them all.

Christians believe that Elias (Elijah) went up to Heaven in a flying chariot (sounds fanciful to me though) and that he and Enoch will return at the end of the world to help the Christians fight the antichrist.

I do not have a reference for the Napoleon story at the moment, but I have been reading a lot more into him; a Maliki rite book was used as the basis for French Law which is what he put in place. Anyway, an interesting line of inquiry

I got the book. The words of CS Lewis spring to mind: ‘Its wrong from start to finish and you can’t get wronger than that!’ Robert Spencer also seems to be deliberately emotive. I think I’ll start a thread and critique each answer and offer a more ‘mainstream’ understanding. I’m thinking of writing a book, not to convince you Catholics but simply to be fair, I was thinking of employing the help of a Catholic ‘expert’ to also add the official teaching of the Church on that matter, it seems we (all people do this) float between extremes of laxity and zealotry; either we are all believers or all evil devils. Lets work to fulfill the sentiments of Vatican II

It seems the authors try to be fair about the differences in our faith understandings. Another thread about the book would be interesting. I agree with your last sentence. The Holy Father tries to emphasize peaceful relations with all religions.

 

[4Horsemen]

But I’m referring to the 1.4 million ahadith that you haven’t mentioned Like Catholicism we have a tradition; do the words categorically mean that this can be absolutely the only exception? Also I don’t see how this contradicts what Elwill says or the Qur’anic ayat

True, there is context. There is a saying that people should say what they mean and mean what they say. There shouldn’t be contradiction from one hadith to another. If Jesus is the ONLY Prophet who wasn’t touched by Satan (due to Mary’s singular prayer), then that’s what the verse (sura?) means. Right?

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

Interesting thought, I think a German Professor made a similar point using Syriac. However, since Islam was a state at its inception then the understanding of the Prophet (pbuh) was already authoritative** unlike say a persecuted community that had to reside disparately in secret for centuries before official teaching could be established. then it seems really far fetched.** Also in the Qur’an it states explicitly that its Arabic

The prof. made a claim one had to read the difficult verse in the koran with the understanding the verse may be better translated using the Syro-Aramaic language because some the words may have been (Syro-Aramaic) loan words. While the (lingual) connection between “Yehuda” and “jihad” is just a hypothetical, in reality many feel (at the present time) there is a divide amongst muslims on the interpretation of “jihad.”

There is a saying in the West, “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” Yes, it took time for the Chuch to grow, but that doesn’t take away from the Truth that’s contain within the Church.

Regarding the instant islamic state, I thought muslims believe that islam goes back to Adam, how can it be an instantaneous religion at it’s inception at the time of muhammed and yet go back to the time of Adam at the same time?

 

[Bwtby]

It is merciful to point to the right path but, this is not to say that because I am a Christian or a Jew I am on the wrong path. My actions will determine whether I am on the right path. For most people and, certainly for Christians, following the example and the preaching of Jesus Christ Is the right path.

Purgatory is a preparation, a purification stage before meeting your maker. Hell is for those who need to be punished. One thinks of Hitler. And no one ever said that sinners should not be punished. I looked up (5:54) and was confused. Allah does not want you to turn back on Islam. Allah will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers, fighting in the way of Allah…I fail to see how the preceding extract of 5:54 can point to a merciful God with respect to Jews and Christians seeing that Allah will be stern with them.*

But read down a little more.

To 5:69… Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Psalm 5:7 does not contain your quote namely: “Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity” 5:7 is as follows: “But I through the abundance of your steadfast love/ will enter your house/ I will bow down toward your holy temple in awe of you. I don’t like the word ‘hate’ because I find it demeaning in relation to God, seeing it more as a human characteristic.

But it does in The Douay-Rheims Bible.

Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity: Thou wilt destroy all that speak a lie. The bloody and the deceitful man the Lord will abhor. - Psalm 5:7

And although ‘hate’ seems to be more of a ‘human characteristic’, it is used throughout the Bible. And by the way, love also is a ‘human characteristic’ too.

If you are going to tell me that Jesus is not the Son of God, you must justify this opinion not just say, for example, that it is in the Quran. If a person follows the teachings of Jesus, the person has not gone astray.
*

But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” - 5:72

Jesus says in John 20:17, Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.

The evidence of the Trinity comes from John 10:30, does it not? When Jesus says, ‘I and the Father are one’. Yet in John 17 Jesus tells us we could be one in the Father as he himself is. “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world has not known thee, but I have known thee; and these know that thou hast sent me. I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

In The Book of Mark Jesus says, ‘But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.’ If Jesus is God, God is Omniscient. How would Jesus not know?

In Matthew 10 Jesus says ‘And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.’ In John 4:24 Jesus tells us God is spirit. Therefore Jesus is calling God in Matthew 10 The Holy Spirit, implying that one could speak against the man Jesus and be forgiven, but we speak against our God, we will not. In John 5 Jesus says ‘For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son.’ So Jesus judges us. God does not. Even you said it. This is why in Matthew Jesus says deny me and I will deny you. And who denies Jesus? Only the Jews, those Jews who still not believe Jesus was the Messiah. See how it makes perfect sense. Hmmmm sometimes I wonder we got it wrong, and Jesus is not God. It’s right in our own Book. Smh.

…In which… the Qur’an confirms that Jesus will Judge us.

In The Garden of Gethsemane Jesus prays to God, ‘his Father’, and ‘our Father’, to be pardoned from his death.

Mark 10:18 Jesus says ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.’

Mark 10:40… James and John say to Jesus ‘Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.’ Jesus replies ‘…to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.’ And clearly it was prepared for Jesus. And Jesus alone… says the Bible and the Qur’an. Jesus didn’t grant himself to the right hand of God, God did. It was prepared for Jesus, not James or John. Mark 16:19… So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

Sooooo…

 

[Bwtby]

John 8
[3] The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst
[4] they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery.
[5] Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?”
[6] This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.
[7] And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”
[8] And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.

If Jesus was God, why is he changing is laws?

For I am the LORD, I change not. - Malachi 3:6

 

[Bwtby]

And Jesus answered him, “It is written, `You shall worship the Lord your God,
and him only shall you serve.’” - Luke 4:8

Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. - Rev. 19:10

 

[men0wjv]

True, there is context. There is a saying that people should say what they mean and mean what they say. There shouldn’t be contradiction from one hadith to another. If Jesus is the ONLY Prophet who wasn’t touched by Satan (due to Mary’s singular prayer), then that’s what the verse (sura?) means. Right?

Sometimes there will be things that are part of our religion that require specialist knowledge to understand and may be beyond my scope, it doesn’t mean that its not true however.
Thankfully this is quite an easy one: The hadith is a commentary on 3:36, showing that all babies are touched by Satan, however because of Mary’s Mother offering the prayer her children (both Mary and Jesus) were protected. The reason (illa) behind their protection is then the prayer and this is why in the compilation in Muslim it also exhorts you to make that same prayer to protect your children.

 

[MaxRosen]

Hi men0wjv

I’m afraid that once again my day job is interfering with my online pontificating.

Re your post #274

You write:

I thought you wanted to find out about Islamic Law

I apologise if I misled. I have little interest in debating the minutiae of “Islamic Law”. I should have made that clear earlier. I let it slip by me.

My concern is much more pragmatic. I am interested in understanding how most Muslims, and most Muslim scholars, understand “Islamic Law”. Above all, I am interested in how “Islamic Law” is likely to be applied if, as seems likely to happen, Muslims ever succeed in instituting “Islamic Law” in a Western country.

My researches, which have been quite extensive and include interviewing six imams, lead me to conclude the following.

• Most Muslims understand “apostasy” to be the act of leaving Islam. All six of the imams gave me definitions for apostasy which is some variant of “leaving Islam”.
• Five of the six imams were unequivocal about the penalty for leaving Islam. It should be death. The sixth refused to commit himself and became very angry with me. In fact he threw me out. All six imams were careful to point out that penalties for leaving Islam would only apply in an Islamic state, not in a western democracy.
• The plain meaning of the texts of the relevant ahadith seem to support the generally understood interpretation of “apostasy” and the punishment to be meted out to apostates. I think most people reading the link I posted would agree with that.

I would therefore have to conclude that the views you have expressed here on the question of leaving Islam, while they may or may not be “correct” from an Islamic perspective, and while they may or may not prevail in the future, are at variance with prevailing opinion in the Muslim world among both “laity” and “scholars”.

In your post #296 you write:

A traditional Islamic State has ‘Islam’ as it foundational definition, its constitution if you will.

If the aim of Islam is to establish a state in which Islam forms the “constitution” then it is definitely not compatible with democracy as that word is understood in most Western countries. The secular state is an intrinsic aspect of Western democracy.

Note, a secular state is not an atheist state. A secular state is one that does not favour one religion over another. While many European countries do, for historical reasons, have an “established” church they are in practice mostly secular democracies.

I find this whole issue fascinating because within a few decades many parts of Europe will be Muslim majority. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. My guess is that there will be quite a bit of conflict between indigenous Europeans and Muslims. Of course, by then, I’ll be dead.

You write:

Whilst the modern mindset finds the concept of Truth with a capital T difficult to comprehend

Apart from a few whackjobs that infest certain university faculties, I don’t think the “modern mindset” finds the idea of an objective truth, with or without capital T, hard to comprehend at all.

Now a scientific mindset understands that:

–Truth may be hard to discern – nature does not yield her secrets easily

–Today’s certainty may become tomorrow’s discarded theory (But not every theory will be discarded.).

–The best we can do is plod onwards doing the best we can to uncover reality and, in the mean time, we have to learn to live with uncertainty and ambiguity.

A religious mindset, on the other hand, is all too ready to believe with absolute certainty that it knows the “Truth with a capital T”.

On the question of geckos I doubt there is a translation issue. It seems Muhammad really had a thing about geckos.

I, on the other hand, am rather fond of geckos and would never dream of killing one.

 

[men0wjv]

Lots of research here! I have a question though. If the bodies of Prophets are not consumed, that must be some kind of spiritual meaning because we all know that our bodies return to dust. “Remember, man, thou art dust and to dust you shall return.” (That admonishment is spoken on Ash Wednesday, when Catholics receive ashes in the for of a cross on their foreheads).

Doesn’t apply to Prophets

Also, if the Prophets are “alive in their graves, praying to their Lord,” what about all the human beings who ever died? Are they dead in their graves supposing you mean their souls? And how can souls be dead? Souls are the living part of us that go to God at death for judgment.

No people are dead, but their souls ‘live in their graves,’ but Prophets are alive both body and soul.

I must have missed something. With whom do Muslims have a “loving relationship with” right now? Muhammad? Jesus? I think the ahadith were referring to the Prophets, but you used the singular “him.” I thought it was wrong to love in such a way that it is worship of anyone but Allah. I mean dying of LOVE is akin to idolatry.

Muhammad (pbuh). How is loving the most striking disclosure of God idolatry?

It seems the authors try to be fair about the differences in our faith understandings. Another thread about the book would be interesting. I agree with your last sentence. The Holy Father tries to emphasize peaceful relations with all religions.

I do not believe the authors are trying to be fair at all! The only thing they missed was Jaws type music! Will start a thread when I get a min. Just to ask a simple question; the image they portray of Islam is a very dull one, so why on Earth would anyone be part of this religion? Let alone one of the Worlds most important civilizations? I have studied Islam seriously for 10 years and sat with some great Muslims and it does not tally with what they spout at all… not even close. I’m surprised you can’t pick that up? Its quite clearly got an agenda, rather than just an objective study.

 

[men0wjv]

My concern is much more pragmatic. I am interested in understanding how most Muslims, and most Muslim scholars, understand “Islamic Law”. Above all, I am interested in how “Islamic Law” is likely to be applied if, as seems likely to happen, Muslims ever succeed in instituting “Islamic Law” in a Western country.

People’s opinions are of no consequence in terms of what Islam is. The six imams may have never studied the details of the law courts - they just lead the prayers. You need to go and ask a Qadi, because they are the ones that apply the law (I refer to them, hence the answer). Its a bit like asking a GP about the finer points of hystology. Of course Muslims may vote for something else, but that is the nature of democracy and freedom to act on a whim rather than a particular code of conduct.
Like I said, a Western Country with some Shariah allowance such as family law would not in any way legitamise ridda laws, at all!

The aim of Islam is not to form an Islamic State, but rather one in which Muslims can practice their religion, hence the migration from Mecca to Ethipoia. Read the article I sent.

Post modernism!

No it is the translation, I asked my teacher and it is a big poisonous lizard for which his wife would keep a spear (provision for something like the dunny spider?). My teacher is looking into the modern definition of that lizard, but its not a gecko (he studied in Morocco)