Question for Muslims about God

[jimkhong]

Ubadah ibn As-Samit reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, say, “Verily, the first to be created by Allah was the pen. Allah told it to write, so it wrote what will exist until forever.”

Source: Sunan At-Tirmidhi 3319

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to At-Tirmidhi

Maybe this story may help us reflect on this?
Tony de Mello:

*The explorer returned to his people, who were eager to know about the Amazon. But how could he ever put into words the feelings that flooded his heart when he saw exotic flowers and heard the night-sounds of the forests; when he sensed the danger of wild beasts or paddled his canoe over treacherous rapids?

He said, “Go and find out for yourselves.” To guide them he drew a map of the river. They pounced upon the map. They framed it in their Town Hall. They made copies of it for themselves. And all who had a copy considered themselves experts on the river, for did they not know its every turn and bend, how broad it was, how deep, where the rapids were and where the falls ?
*

It is said that Buddha obdurately refused to be drawn into talking of God. He was obviously familiar with the dangers of drawing maps for armchair explorers.

The Explorer from Song of the Bird

 

[SalamKhan]

At a risk of oversimplification, the social forces that shape their birth led religions to exalt different things:

Judaism - the Law
Islam - the written word
Christianity - the idea and concept

I am not saying what is right/wrong or which is better/superior but merely stating what I see to be the facts of how we got here.

Let me know your thoughts on what I have presented and feel free to critique it. Does it make sense?

I think I understand, and I also think you made a very interesting point about Muhammad’s career as a merchant despite being illiterate.

But please allow me to speak further.

According to Christianity, what the Israelites received was the Revelation of God in its infancy, finally perfected in Jesus Christ. The Old Law was merely a shadow of what was to come, it served to distinguish the Israelites from the World, so that the coming Messiah may be recognised as being from those people. To the Jews of course, the Old Law was already perfect, and accordingly they regulated the Law to the point where Jesus criticised the Jewish leaders of his day for upholding the letter of the Law more than the Spirit.

I cannot say for certain why in Islam there is such reverence for writing. But a possible explanation for why is due to the belief that the Quran is the eternal Divine utterance, in written form, similar how Jesus is the eternal Word of God in the flesh according to Christianity; hence why the written Quran (or any written Revelation) must be without any textual deficiency. However, besides the ongoing practice of memorisation and of course other practical matters such as prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, etc. the only disconnect to this heavy reverence for writing (and I should have mentioned this earlier so I apologise for this) is tasawwuf, or Sufism; which historically speaking, gained Mainstream/Orthodox status after the advent of Imam al-Ghazali. Sufism focuses on the spiritual capacity of the heart and the rememberence of God. What’s remarkable about Sufism is that according to the Creed of Al-Iji of the Ash`ari school, knowledge can be attained through reflective thought or contemplation, without the need for a teacher.

 

[jimkhong]

I think I understand, and I also think you made a very interesting point about Muhammad’s career as a merchant despite being illiterate.

Sadly my Arabic did not go far beyond struggling with alif-ba-ta. However, I understand that the word used for illiterate (ummi) could also be translated as not understand (the scriptures). Also, while a hadith asserted that Mohammad was illiterate, there are other hadiths that talk about Mohammad writing letters etc. Also, it is said that Mohammad’s uncle who fostered him from an early age loved him as his own son and Mohammad’s cousins were all literate. There are many other arguments that others have brought up from the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah. One of the clearer ones here. Many more for those interested, just google.

Somehow, there seems to be selective reading here, where it fits the narrative. Honestly I do not think the story of Islam will suffer for Mohammad’s literacy but now the narrative have been drawn so clearly that it is difficult for some Muslims to acknowledge Mohammad’s literacy. So is it Islam’s Truth or Muslims’ Truth?

 

[jimkhong]

I cannot say for certain why in Islam there is such reverence for writing. But a possible explanation for why is due to the belief that the Quran is the eternal Divine utterance, in written form, similar how Jesus is the eternal Word of God in the flesh according to Christianity; hence why the written Quran (or any written Revelation) must be without any textual deficiency.

I agree with you on this point. Muslim narrative is that Mohammad was illiterate and therefore did not write the Quran. So, the one who wrote the Quran is God himself in his own hand (how does this reconcile with Islam’s doctrine that God is pure spirit and never made flesh?). And whatever God wrote cannot be changed, not even the language, and the comma, etc.

To me, it has interesting developments and implications on the differences between Muslims and Christians today. Just sharing part of a post I put up last year:

The Bible has a context because it is written by humans, albeit under the guidance of God. It was written by humans with a human background with human intentions (still within God’s plans of course) for human audience with human background happening within human history. The Bible can be placed within the human story because it is written in a human context, through which we interpret God’s plans.

Reading from an non-Muslim scholarship perspective (and even with the eyes of a person of faith) the Quran is obviously existing within a human context. More so when some of the stories are paralleled with those in the Bible, and if those stories in the Bible have a human historical context, then at least that part of the Quran must have a human context.

The problem is that for Muslims, the Quran has no context. Since God in his timelessness wrote it then obviously it must have happened outside of human history. If so, there cannot be any questioning of the intention behind the writing of the Quran as that would be questioning why God wrote the Quran. And man, in his insignificance cannot question or seek to understand the mind of God.

That is why while Christians have Bible study where we learn (for instance) the frame of mind when Paul wrote 1Cor and the events in Corith at that time as well as the sociopolitical background in both the Church as well as in Greece at that time, there cannot be any similar studies on the Quran. Quran studies is limited to the study of 7th century Arabic together with the philology. Any study of the life in 7th century Arabic is limited only to the need to explain the meaning of words.

“It is not permissible for one who holds faith in Allah and the Day of Judgment to speak on the Quran without learning classical Arabic.” - Mujahid ibn Jabr

Tafsir (interpretation) in Islam does not involve full hermeunetics and exegesis like Biblical studies do. Tafsir is very much a straight understanding what God means in the Quran and the words are taken in isolation from the human historical context at the time of writing - the only possible context is the broader context of the Quran and the better scholars would be able to read Quranic verses in conjunction with other verses and explain them together.

Interestingly, I was told that Muslim scholars in the Al-Azhar University Cairo often approach Jesuit Islamic scholars stationed there to help them perform some hermeneutical studies on specific passages in the Quran because they are not allowed to do it (presumably because it is counter to Islamic beliefs)

It is frustrating when discussing with non-scholars (and that includes most of those armed with Islamic studies certificates), is that they respond to a point I raise on one Quranic verse by just referring to another verse without dealing with the verse raised.

That is why it is difficult for someone like hasantas to understand what we mean by the context of a scripture and expect them to explain verses in a broader context, whether just the Quranic context or the historical context.

 

[SalamKhan]

Sadly my Arabic did not go far beyond struggling with alif-ba-ta. However, I understand that the word used for illiterate (ummi) could also be translated as not understand (the scriptures). Also, while a hadith asserted that Mohammad was illiterate, there are other hadiths that talk about Mohammad writing letters etc. Also, it is said that Mohammad’s uncle who fostered him from an early age loved him as his own son and Mohammad’s cousins were all literate. There are many other arguments that others have brought up from the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah. One of the clearer ones here. Many more for those interested, just google.

Somehow, there seems to be selective reading here, where it fits the narrative. Honestly I do not think the story of Islam will suffer for Mohammad’s literacy but now the narrative have been drawn so clearly that it is difficult for some Muslims to acknowledge Mohammad’s literacy. So is it Islam’s Truth or Muslims’ Truth?

This was actually once a theological controversy in Islamic history.

 

[jimkhong]

This was actually once a theological controversy in Islamic history.

Not being a Muslim I cannot see how theologically it can make a difference whether he was illiterate or not. Even if he was not it wouldn’t invalidate the message.

Unfortunately parts of the message becomes weak (or lost in the noise) that the noise surrounding how it was transmitted and/or the vehicle of revelation becomes important. After all the Quran is supposed to be Mohammad greatest miracle (actually it cannot be since by definition a miracle is something you did whereas the Quran was something that happened to Mohammad). The Quran is his main claim to his Prophethood and his Rasulhood. The problem is that there is no other human witnesses in that cave in Hira. Hence, the need to conflate the supernatural nature of the manner of transmission by emphasing his illiteracy. Muslims dug themselves into a hole here. They wouldn’t have need to do this if they had focused on the message instead of the manner of revelation.

(NB: His other possible way of claiming prophethood - the Night Journey has a similar weakness - no other human eyewitnesses. Not that I am saying the man was lying but Jesus’ claim to divinity is based on the resurrection and for that event there were over 500 eye witnesses who saw him after the resurrection).

 

[SalamKhan]

I agree with you on this point. Muslim narrative is that Mohammad was illiterate and therefore did not write the Quran. So, the one who wrote the Quran is God himself in his own hand (how does this reconcile with Islam’s doctrine that God is pure spirit and never made flesh?). And whatever God wrote cannot be changed, not even the language, and the comma, etc.

The belief is that the Quran is the eternal Divine utterance, but however has also been preserved (presumably in writing) on a heavenly tablet (Surah 85:21-22), finally revealed to Muhammad, to be written by his disciples on earthen vessels. The issue of God’s ‘hands’, ‘face’, etc. has also sparked alot of controversy in Islamic history; the Orthodox (Ash`ari) position is that ultimately, God alone knows what is meant by the verses which mention his ‘hands’, ‘face’, etc.

 

[MartinJordan]

Hey Martin, you know that is too sweeping a statement.

I’m only focusing on Jesus when I say this. Isn’t it Islamic teaching that Jesus was given the Bible according to the Quran?

If yes, then Islam to me is more interested in writings than prayer and teachings.

MJ

 

[jimkhong]

I’m only focusing on Jesus when I say this. Isn’t it Islamic teaching that Jesus was given the Bible according to the Quran?

If yes, then Islam to me is more interested in writings than prayer and teachings.

MJ

Not that I am crossing swords with you but a few points to keep in mind:

(1) Islam is not monolithic. There are many attitudes towards prayers and teaching among different Muslim sects.

(2) Muslims do have a high level of providing of instructions (I am interpreting that you intended teachings to mean providing instructions), the nature of which differs depending on social context and the level of literacy of the instructor/instructed, ranging from rote repetition of the Quran and the instructor’s interpretation (say, as in a remote Pakistani madrasah) all the way to a critical debate on the role of Islam in an open society (say, as in a pre-Trump American suburb mosque).

(3) Muslims do have an extensive range of prayers, perhaps more than even Catholics had until recently. Today, I see as many hands raised in prayer as I see the perfunctory crossing of oneself among players before an EPL football match. Whether you wish to argue about the prayers (& all other prayers by Muslims in all hours of the day) are really heartfelt or not (only mere ritualism) from your point of view, I think it is only fair to give their sincerity the benefit of the doubt as much as wouldn’t like my sincerity to be questioned when seen to cross myself.

I could be nitpicking here
(4) According to the Quran, Isa was given the Gospel (singular) not the Bible. But I don’t think this point detracts from your argument.

(5) I always take pain to distinguish Islamic teachings from Muslim teachings. Because, other than the belief in the Oneness of God, the five pillars and the centrality of the Quran (but not the interpretations) I am not sure what Islam teaches. Yes, there are the 6 principles of faith (iman) but there are just too many groups with differing views that it is difficult for my limited mental capacity to discern a consensus of what they mean other than broad ones subscribed to a majority of Muslims. Not only is there no single Magisterium, there is also no detailed Nicene Creed (other than the 3 points I mentioned above) against which a Muslim can be evaluated - basically if a person declares himself a Muslim, he is accepted as one until proven otherwise. Muslims are generally reluctant to excommunicate another Muslim even though the process (takfir) exists but only became in vogue recently - even then, most Muslims were reluctant to declare ObL as consigned to hell after 911.

So what does Islam teaches I am not sure. Enough uncertainty for me to avoid presenting any view as orthodox Islam as there will be someone who will pop up who avow an alternative view while still claiming to be an authentic Muslim. In Christianity I can still qualify myself to refer to Nicene Christianity. That is why I will only debate with Muslims but not Islam itself.

 

[SalamKhan]

(5) I always take pain to distinguish Islamic teachings from Muslim teachings. Because, other than the belief in the Oneness of God, the five pillars and the centrality of the Quran (but not the interpretations) I am not sure what Islam teaches. Yes, there are the 6 principles of faith (iman) but there are just too many groups with differing views that it is difficult for my limited mental capacity to discern a consensus of what they mean other than broad ones subscribed to a majority of Muslims. Not only is there no single Magisterium, there is also no detailed Nicene Creed (other than the 3 points I mentioned above) against which a Muslim can be evaluated - basically if a person declares himself a Muslim, he is accepted as one until proven otherwise. Muslims are generally reluctant to excommunicate another Muslim even though the process (takfir) exists but only became in vogue recently - even then, most Muslims were reluctant to declare ObL as consigned to hell after 911.

So what does Islam teaches I am not sure. Enough uncertainty for me to avoid presenting any view as orthodox Islam as there will be someone who will pop up who avow an alternative view while still claiming to be an authentic Muslim. In Christianity I can still qualify myself to refer to Nicene Christianity. That is why I will only debate with Muslims but not Islam itself.

May I suggest reading Islamic Creeds- A Selection by William Montgomery Watt.

Also Sunni Islamic scholars have made takfir of four entire groups, as far as I’m aware:

1. The Ismailis
2. The Nusayris/Alawis
3. The Druze
4. The Ahmadiyyah/Qadianis

 

[jimkhong]

May I suggest reading Islamic Creeds- A Selection by William Montgomery Watt.

Also Sunni Islamic scholars have made takfir of four entire groups, as far as I’m aware:

1. The Ismailis
2. The Nusayris/Alawis
3. The Druze
4. The Ahmadiyyah/Qadianis

I am glad you mentioned only scholars. Governments sometimes get very fatwa happy and ban a lot of groups but I find it political in nature. I like the Tunisian government which some time ago banned takfir fatwa precisely because of this.

Yes, in the whole history of Islam, only these four were consistently excommunicated by Sunnis but Shias & Ibadi are OK with them. And not all Sunni schools. They all have different rules. Salafist treat everyone not Salafist as takfir. Maybe it is only the Wahabists.

In the end, the question still comes up: What does Islam teaches? Yes, there is the six principles of the iman, but that is only there because they were mentioned in the Hadith. But other than God is Esa, there don’t seem to be consensus on what they mean (similar to the Nicene Creed). Mohammad in the Hadith only listed them down. Explanations are found and/or inferred from other hadiths.

 

[MartinJordan]

Not that I am crossing swords with you but a few points to keep in mind:

(1) Islam is not monolithic. There are many attitudes towards prayers and teaching among different Muslim sects.

(2) Muslims do have a high level of providing of instructions (I am interpreting that you intended teachings to mean providing instructions), the nature of which differs depending on social context and the level of literacy of the instructor/instructed, ranging from rote repetition of the Quran and the instructor’s interpretation (say, as in a remote Pakistani madrasah) all the way to a critical debate on the role of Islam in an open society (say, as in a pre-Trump American suburb mosque).

(3) Muslims do have an extensive range of prayers, perhaps more than even Catholics had until recently. Today, I see as many hands raised in prayer as I see the perfunctory crossing of oneself among players before an EPL football match. Whether you wish to argue about the prayers (& all other prayers by Muslims in all hours of the day) are really heartfelt or not (only mere ritualism) from your point of view, I think it is only fair to give their sincerity the benefit of the doubt as much as wouldn’t like my sincerity to be questioned when seen to cross myself.

I could be nitpicking here
(4) According to the Quran, Isa was given the Gospel (singular) not the Bible. But I don’t think this point detracts from your argument.

(5) I always take pain to distinguish Islamic teachings from Muslim teachings. Because, other than the belief in the Oneness of God, the five pillars and the centrality of the Quran (but not the interpretations) I am not sure what Islam teaches. Yes, there are the 6 principles of faith (iman) but there are just too many groups with differing views that it is difficult for my limited mental capacity to discern a consensus of what they mean other than broad ones subscribed to a majority of Muslims. Not only is there no single Magisterium, there is also no detailed Nicene Creed (other than the 3 points I mentioned above) against which a Muslim can be evaluated - basically if a person declares himself a Muslim, he is accepted as one until proven otherwise. Muslims are generally reluctant to excommunicate another Muslim even though the process (takfir) exists but only became in vogue recently - even then, most Muslims were reluctant to declare ObL as consigned to hell after 911.

So what does Islam teaches I am not sure. Enough uncertainty for me to avoid presenting any view as orthodox Islam as there will be someone who will pop up who avow an alternative view while still claiming to be an authentic Muslim. In Christianity I can still qualify myself to refer to Nicene Christianity. That is why I will only debate with Muslims but not Islam itself.

Tks for your clarifications.

It is quite confusing then how Muslims say Christianity is a monotheistic religion ( see latest news re Unesco support for temple mount for Palestinians) yet from the (pardon my crude way of putting it) other side of the mouth some Muslims say Christians have believe in (excess) in 3 Gods .

Isn’t the latter really more to what the Quran (Islam) claims about Christians? So which is it? Christians are monotheists or polytheists?

MJ

 

[jimkhong]

Isn’t the latter really more to what the Quran (Islam) claims about Christians? So which is it? Christians are monotheists or polytheists?

Christians are monotheists who pray to 3 Gods.

Most Muslims accept that Christians have only one God but incorrectly (or misled to) pray to three persons of the Trinity.

In my experience, only the few more extreme Muslims would claim that Christians are polytheists. I would not take the view of a few to represents the entire religion.

Out of interest, the following verse is often used by Christians to illustrate the Quran error in describing the Trinity as Allah, Jesus and Mary. Muslims of course deny the verse is a description of the Trinity.
Qur'an 5:116:

And behold! Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah’?” He will say: "Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

You decide.

The conclusion below is from an Islamic website on this topic. While one may disagree with its conclusion, it should give us pause to reflect on our role of division that led to the rise of Islam.

Finally, it is quite clear that the doctrine of Trinity evolved and took its final shape nearly 350 years of CE. But before that:

Christianity in the second and third centuries was in a remarkable state of flux. To be sure, at no point in its history has the religion constituted a monolith. But the diverse manifestations of its first three hundred years - whether in terms of social structures, religious practices, or ideologies - have never been replicated.

Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the realm of theology. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in only one God; others, however, claimed that there were two Gods; yet others subscribed to 30, or 365, or more. Some Christians accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as a revelation of the one true God, the sacred possession of all believers; others claimed that the scriptures had been inspired by an evil deity. Some Christians believed that God had created the world and was soon going to redeem it; others said that God neither had created the world nor had ever had any dealings with it. Some Christians believed that Christ was somehow both a man and God; others said that he was a man, but not God; others claimed that he was God but not a man; others insisted that he was a man who had been temporarily inhabited by God. Some Christians believed that Christ's death had brought about the salvation of the world; others claimed that his death had no bearing on salvation; yet others alleged that he had never even died.[8]

So, in conclusion, there is no point calling the modern day trinitarian Christianity as ‘true’ Christianity and all others as ‘false’ since the evolution of this doctrine itself is very late. The early Christianity had bizarre beliefs about their doctrine as well as their Scriptures. Moreover the Jesus(P) and early Church Fathers were utterly unaware of this doctrine and they never practiced it. Would then the modern day ‘true’ Christianity brand them as heretics?

islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/marytrin.html

 

[MartinJordan]

Most Muslims accept that Christians have only one God but incorrectly (or misled to) pray to three persons of the Trinity.

I haven’t heard any world renowned Mufti ever saying this. Can you give me a name of one?

In my experience, only the few more extreme Muslims would claim that Christians are polytheists. I would not take the view of a few to represents the entire religion.

Yes. Agreed.

Out of interest, the following verse is often used by Christians to illustrate the Quran error in describing the Trinity as Allah, Jesus and Mary. Muslims of course deny the verse is a description of the Trinity.

Any Grand Mufti example of this denial?

You decide.

The conclusion below is from an Islamic website on this topic. While one may disagree with its conclusion, it should give us pause to reflect on our role of division that led to the rise of Islam.

“It is worthwhile adding that even to this day, the Catholic Christians consider Mary(P) as the Mother of God and prayers are sent to her.”

That quote alone is clear where this author is taking this.

Now, what is needed a Mufti’s example.

MJ

 

[jimkhong]

Sorry MJ if it sounds like I am avoiding any reference

I haven’t heard any world renowned Mufti ever saying this. Can you give me a name of one?

Second point which you seem to accept is a collorary of the first

Any Grand Mufti example of this denial?

As mentioned these arguments are the purview of those who Muslim groups (normally) websites set up to ‘combat’ Christian ‘attacks’ on the Islamic faith. *. Most Grand Mufti wouldn’t bother to argue.

I find that there are two types of muftis: (i) state sanctioned and (ii) traditional independent muftis = scholars who provide a legal opinion of applicability of Islamic precepts & laws to specific situations.

The first normally prefer to address their own constituency they were appointed to control (sorry or was it ‘guide’, I get confused ). The second type normally do not deal with Christianity in doctrinal terms. Any dealings with Christians tend to be in their capacity as the local Muslim community leader dealing with the local Christian priest/pastor unless a communal riot flares up and then the dealings are on an ethnic-nationalistic nature - but almost never doctrinal.

What I am trying to say I guess is that most of the people you are arguing with (eg hasantas) tend to be outside the Muslim mainstream. Muslim mainstream don’t bother to argue doctrines with Christians.*

 

[MartinJordan]

Sorry MJ if it sounds like I am avoiding any reference

There is no real need for you to give me one. It is actually for Muslims to answer which I’m sure they won’t and probably can’t

Second point which you seem to accept is a collorary of the first

I lived among Muslims most of my life. And I accept it as they’ve never had objected anything when they knew I was Catholic… It is only the last 10 years there is sudden change in one of my closest friends who I’ve known since 1973 gave me a shock remonstration by questioning my belief in Jesus. I’ll add that he’s 30 years my senior who saved my family when I was 6 by giving us refuge and that too in a Muslim country.

So, I am very particular to get any Muslim view clarified by Muslims more than I expect from a fellow Catholic.

As mentioned these arguments are the purview of those who Muslim groups (normally) websites set up to 'combat Christian ‘attacks’ on the Islamic faith. *. Most Grand Mufti wouldn’t bother to argue.

I find that there are two types of muftis: (i) state sanctioned and (ii) traditional independent muftis = scholars who provide a legal opinion of applicability of Islamic precepts & laws to specific situations.

The first normally prefer to address their own constituency they were appointed to control (sorry or was it ‘guide’, I get confused ). The second type normally do not deal with Christianity in doctrinal terms. Any dealings with Christians tend to be in their capacity as the local Muslim community leader dealing with the local Christian priest/pastor unless a communal riot flares up and then the dealings are on an ethnic-nationalistic nature - but almost never doctrinal.

What I am trying to say I guess is that most of the people you are arguing with (eg hasantas) tend to be outside the Muslim mainstream. Muslim mainstream don’t bother to argue doctrines with Christians.*

Ok.

MJ