Tahreef in the quran

[abdulwahhab]

A Christian believes in the trinity. We are only Christians in the sense that we accept Isa as a prophet and the messiah. After that, the similarities between us and Christianity end. Christianity believes in a triune god (i.e. polytheism, regardless of how you cut it). Most of Christianity rejects the importance of deeds, whereas in Islam, both imaan (faith) and a'maal (actions) are necessary. Most of Christianity even rejects the laws of the Old Testament and since the New Testament we have today is lacking in any real laws, there is no law of God in the New Testament we have today.

Why are you listing the Hindu Upanishads as part of the revealed scriptures? The only books that we know for sure were revealed, excluding the Qur'an, are the Torah, the New Testament, the Psalms, and the scrolls of Abraham. Also, the ranking that you have listed is also something that is not agreed upon and is actually very controversial.

The source of Islamic law has always been Qur'an, then ahadeeth, then Ijma', then Qiyas. To change this order is to introduce a perversion in the law. Qiyas is almost always the last resort because it is highly dependent on the limited understanding of mankind. Also, you've placed the Qur'an below Ijma' and Qiyas - how on earth can you justify such injustice? The Qur'an is the literal word of Allah . To say that the opinion of majority or the analogies of a scholar supersede explicit instructions in the Qur'an is not part of Islam.

The Qur'an is always the first reference. If something cannot be completely derived from the Qur'an, the ahadeeth are brought into play. If there are still misunderstandings, then consensus of the ulama is followed. If there is no consensus on the particular issue being researched, then only does one rely on one's limited rationality to come up with an understanding.

And this is coming from a Hanafi, a member of one of the madhahib that has had a notoriety for relying upon Qiyas.

Also, the brother is right that if a person believes in tahreef of the Qur'an, such a person has left Islam. Even according to your mindboggling ranking, such a person would be considered a kaafir because there is Ijma' on the kufr of someone who believes in tahreef of the Qur'an. Allah himself says in the Qur'an that He will safeguard it so to believe that He did not safeguard it resulting in the changing of the Qur'an would be a slander upon Allah and outright kufr.

You also seem to have a grossly poor understanding of the ahadeeth. The Qur'an points to the ahadeeth, when it commands us to follow the Messenger , to obey him, to follow his example since he is the best of examples. To reject all the ahadeeth is also kufr by consensus. Without the ahadeeth, we don't have what the Qur'an points to. We don't have the Prophet living with us now. What was the point in sending a messenger if all his actions and words are irrelevant to our time? The Qur'an could have easily been sent directly as a compiled book, descending from the heavens, but it wasn't. The practical example of the Qur'an was Rasoolullah . What you're suggesting is that he was redundant!

[Rasta Rebecca]

A Christian believes in the trinity. We are only Christians in the sense that we accept Isa as a prophet and the messiah. After that, the similarities between us and Christianity end. Christianity believes in a triune god (i.e. polytheism, regardless of how you cut it).

Not everyone agrees Issa is the messiah, even though the Qur'an states he will return. Since the Qur'an states Issa was born of Maryam without Allah having begotten him, does not mean that he is not Allah's Son. As are we all.

Furthermore, the Qur'an states that "one cannot reach Paradise, except at the feet of the Mother". What Mother? You mean Islam ALSO has projections, emanations and conceptualizations of divine beings that are really Allah working in the world in a particular way and that Allah can work his presence here by both giving life to the world (Mother) and giving potential divinity to man and woman (Father)? Why not a Son, also, within each of us?

Most of Christianity rejects the importance of deeds, whereas in Islam, both imaan (faith) and a'maal (actions) are necessary. Most of Christianity even rejects the laws of the Old Testament and since the New Testament we have today is lacking in any real laws, there is no law of God in the New Testament we have today.

Now it is shown that you talk sideways, out of your ass. You do not understand what you are talking about. Are you really saying that Christians don't have Karmic Law and that "you reap what you sow"?

Why are you listing the Hindu Upanishads as part of the revealed scriptures? The only books that we know for sure were revealed, excluding the Qur'an, are the Torah, the New Testament, the Psalms, and the scrolls of Abraham. Also, the ranking that you have listed is also something that is not agreed upon and is actually very controversial.

Does the Qur'an restrict the list of Scriptures?

The source of Islamic law has always been Qur'an, then ahadeeth, then Ijma', then Qiyas. To change this order is to introduce a perversion in the law. Qiyas is almost always the last resort because it is highly dependent on the limited understanding of mankind. Also, you've placed the Qur'an below Ijma' and Qiyas - how on earth can you justify such injustice? The Qur'an is the literal word of Allah . To say that the opinion of majority or the analogies of a scholar supersede explicit instructions in the Qur'an is not part of Islam.

Does the Qur'an specify this order? I have no problem with Muslim jurors using the Qur'an as the firm foundation of their understanding when they must decide a matter within the broader community. However, I do have a problem if Muslims do not respect the opinion of non-Muslims, based on a different source of principle.

The Qur'an is always the first reference. If something cannot be completely derived from the Qur'an, the ahadeeth are brought into play. If there are still misunderstandings, then consensus of the ulama is followed. If there is no consensus on the particular issue being researched, then only does one rely on one's limited rationality to come up with an understanding.

The ulama include non-Muslims.

And this is coming from a Hanafi, a member of one of the madhahib that has had a notoriety for relying upon Qiyas.

Not very good at it yet are you? It comes with practice...it comes from understanding why one makes mistakes. For instance, you are drawing conclusions based on a real fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity. Questions you should ask Maryam within you:

• What misunderstanding do I have?
• From where did I get the misunderstanding and why was I convinced to hold this view?
• Who coerced me socially to hold this view?
• What else are they saying that may serve them and not the ulema, since they foster division of good people, which is against Allah?

Also, the brother is right that if a person believes in tahreef of the Qur'an, such a person has left Islam. Even according to your mindboggling ranking, such a person would be considered a kaafir because there is Ijma' on the kufr of someone who believes in tahreef of the Qur'an. Allah himself says in the Qur'an that He will safeguard it so to believe that He did not safeguard it resulting in the changing of the Qur'an would be a slander upon Allah and outright kufr.

Ok, so what? He shoudl not be treated differently just for being kaafir. He should be treated the same as everyone else, based on his or her personal actions and truthfulness of his or her words.

You also seem to have a grossly poor understanding of the ahadeeth. The Qur'an points to the ahadeeth, when it commands us to follow the Messenger , to obey him, to follow his example since he is the best of examples. To reject all the ahadeeth is also kufr by consensus. Without the ahadeeth, we don't have what the Qur'an points to. We don't have the Prophet living with us now. What was the point in sending a messenger if all his actions and words are irrelevant to our time? The Qur'an could have easily been sent directly as a compiled book, descending from the heavens, but it wasn't. The practical example of the Qur'an was Rasoolullah . What you're suggesting is that he was redundant!

Not at all, and there are certainly some hadith that still apply pretty directly. Muhammad was sent at a particular time in a particular cultural environment and laid down what was needed then. Certainly the situation has changed, now, and a larger understanding of how we ALL fit together is needed, that fits these times, and that incorporates what Muhammad said, which is that the Qur'an is the unaltered word of God. The Qur'an does state that the New Testament is the word of God, even though there may have been ommisions. Check out the Nag Hammadi Library! The Gospel of Thomas rocks! Are there not multiple different versions of the same [hadiths], sometimes?

I have no idea how you draw the conclusion that I think Muhammad was or is irrelevant and I would like an apology, please.

[abdulwahhab]

Not everyone agrees Issa is the messiah, even though the Qur'an states he will return. Since the Qur'an states Issa was born of Maryam without Allah having begotten him, does not mean that he is not Allah's Son. As are we all.

The Qur'an specifically calls him MASEEH - the messiah. To deny this is kufr since the Qur'an is explicit in this.

Furthermore, the Qur'an states that "one cannot reach Paradise, except at the feet of the Mother". What Mother? You mean Islam ALSO has projections, emanations and conceptualizations of divine beings that are really Allah working in the world in a particular way and that Allah can work his presence here by both giving life to the world (Mother) and giving potential divinity to man and woman (Father)? Why not a Son, also, within each of us?

You haven't even read the Qur'an, it seems. The Qur'an does not mention this. The ahadeeth do. And no, Islam has no "projections, emanations and conceptualizations of divine beings that are really Allah working in the world in a particular way and that Allah can work his presence here by both giving life to the world (Mother) and giving potential divinity to man and woman (Father)". To believe such a thing is kufr. The Druze believed that a man came around 1000 CE who embodied God and thus they were expelled from Islam. Islam is a strict monotheistic religion. God cannot be embodied in creation; to believe as such is kufr. Jews have a similar belief.

Now it is shown that you talk sideways, out of your ass. You do not understand what you are talking about. Are you really saying that Christians don't have Karmic Law and that "you reap what you sow"?

You seem to be quite a confused person. Karma is a Hindu belief, not Christian. Christians believe in salvation through the belief in Jesus Christ. Nothing else brings salvation. Ask any professing Christian and he or she will tell you no different that inevitably, if one believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God, that person is saved, no matter how many evils he has perpetrated. Ask any Christian that if there is a guarantee that Hitler believed in Christ when he died, regardless of his evil actions, will he be saved from hellfire. The answer will be a guarded "yes".

Does the Qur'an restrict the list of Scriptures?

To say that Book XYZ be also counted amongst the revealed scriptures opens Pandora's box and allows for any religion, no matter how far fetched, to try and gain legitimacy. The only legitimate revealed books that we know for sure are those mentioned in the Qur'an.

Does the Qur'an specify this order? I have no problem with Muslim jurors using the Qur'an as the firm foundation of their understanding when they must decide a matter within the broader community. However, I do have a problem if Muslims do not respect the opinion of non-Muslims, based on a different source of principle.

Then you can live with your lack of respect for Muslim jurors. Muslims believe that the previous revelations have been corrupted and thus are null and void - their only use to Muslims is purely of a historical nature. The people who follow those books (i.e. Christians and Jews) are permitted to live with their laws (not just live, but to even judge fellow Christians and Jews), even within Muslim societies, as was the case in the caliphates, but there is no compromise made on the front that Allah revealed the Qur'an, which speaks against the beliefs of those that received revelation before Muslims (i.e. Christians and Jews).

The ulama include non-Muslims.

You've lost the plot. Ulama does not include non-Muslims. Anyone who rejects the oneness of God and the finality and messengership of the last prophet, Prophet Muhammad is not a Muslim and thus ineligibile to be considered in the context of Islamic law. Why should ISLAMIC law be dependent on the opinion of non-Muslims?

Not very good at it yet are you? It comes with practice...it comes from understanding why one makes mistakes. For instance, you are drawing conclusions based on a real fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity. What misunderstanding do I have? From where did I get the misunderstanding and why was I convinced to hold this view? Who coerced me socially to hold this view? What else are they saying that may serve them and not the ulema?

You have no knowledge of even the basics of Islam so whatever opinions you come up with are baseless and unfounded.

Ok, so what? He shoudl not be treated differently just for being kaafir. He should be treated the same as everyone else, based on his or her personal actions and truthfulness of his or her words.

Kuffaar are treated differently because they are not Muslims. Muslims are brothers and sisters of one another. Muslims are not brothers and sisters of non-Muslims. The brotherhood between Muslims is stronger than even the brotherhood between blood relatives.

Furthermore, brother Jadeed brought up the point to warn the original poster of the danger of what he seems to be implying, not an accusation of kufr. If the original poster did not mince words in claiming that there is tahreef of the Qur'an, he would be considered a kaafir. But since there is no such certainty, no one has to right to call him a kaafir lest he himself be seen as one in the sight of God (and this principle is again from the ahadeeth, where whenever a Muslim accuses another of being a kaafir, then one of the two - the accuser or the accused - most certainly is a kaafir).

Not at all, and there are certainly some hadith that still apply pretty directly. Muhammad was sent at a particular time in a particular cultural environment and laid down what was needed then. Certainly the situation has changed, now, and a larger understanding of how we ALL fit together is needed, that fits these times, and that incorporates what Muhammad said, which is that the Qur'an is the unaltered word of God. Are there not multiple different versions of the same Surah, sometimes?

Again you show your lack of knowledge. There are no multiple versions of the same Surah. The term "version" is more applicable to the Christian Bible, which has some drastic differences. For Muslims, all the Qir'aat and the Ahruf are revelations. For Christians, the versions are not revelations but since Christians don't have the original Aramaic of their Bible anymore, they don't know any better. That is why even crucial things, such as the begotten-ness of Jesus is disputed between the versions, despite this being an integral part of Christian belief.

I have no idea how you draw the conclusion that I think Muhammad was or is irrelevant and I would like an apology, please.

You said the ahadeeth are irrelevant, so that leads to the logical conclusion that there is no necessity of a prophet as the Qur'an is the direct revelation of God anyway.

[Rasta Rebecca]

The Qur'an specifically calls him MASEEH - the messiah. To deny this is kufr since the Qur'an is explicit in this.

Really? Which Surah/verse? This means that when a fellow Muslim tells me that Issa is a prophet, just like Abrahim, Noah, Joseph and Moses before him, no different, that this is incorrect? So the Qur'an does indicate that Issa is more special than the other prophets?

You haven't even read the Qur'an, it seems. The Qur'an does not mention this. The ahadeeth do. And no, Islam has no "projections, emanations and conceptualizations of divine beings that are really Allah working in the world in a particular way and that Allah can work his presence here by both giving life to the world (Mother) and giving potential divinity to man and woman (Father)". To believe such a thing is kufr. The Druze believed that a man came around 1000 CE who embodied God and thus they were expelled from Islam. Islam is a strict monotheistic religion. God cannot be embodied in creation; to believe as such is kufr. Jews have a similar belief.

So, the ahadeeth state that you can only reach paradise at the feet of the Mother? Awesome! Mark one up for the ahadeeth.

So what is your interpretation of what is being said here? And why specifically is my interpretation kufr?

You seem to be quite a confused person. Karma is a Hindu belief, not Christian. Christians believe in salvation through the belief in Jesus Christ. Nothing else brings salvation. Ask any professing Christian and he or she will tell you no different that inevitably, if one believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God, that person is saved, no matter how many evils he has perpetrated. Ask any Christian that if there is a guarantee that Hitler believed in Christ when he died, regardless of his evil actions, will he be saved from hellfire. The answer will be a guarded "yes".

Are you saying the Bible does not say that one "reaps what they sow"?

To say that Book XYZ be also counted amongst the revealed scriptures opens Pandora's box and allows for any religion, no matter how far fetched, to try and gain legitimacy. The only legitimate revealed books that we know for sure are those mentioned in the Qur'an.

Does the Qur'an restrict the Scriptures it acknowledges or does it leave the list open?

Then you can live with your lack of respect for Muslim jurors. Muslims believe that the previous revelations have been corrupted and thus are null and void - their only use to Muslims is purely of a historical nature. The people who follow those books (i.e. Christians and Jews) are permitted to live with their laws (not just live, but to even judge fellow Christians and Jews), even within Muslim societies, as was the case in the caliphates, but there is no compromise made on the front that Allah revealed the Qur'an, which speaks against the beliefs of those that received revelation before Muslims (i.e. Christians and Jews).

So the Qur'an states that previous Scriptures are null and void? Or does it merely say that they are the Word of God but that they have been mistranslated in places and certain things have been ommited? The Nag Hammadi Library is authentic Scripture.

So the Qur'an may well state that previous Scriptures may be misunderstood. Is the same not true of the Qur'an, that it can be misinterpreted?

You've lost the plot. Ulama does not include non-Muslims. Anyone who rejects the oneness of God and the finality and messengership of the last prophet, Prophet Muhammad is not a Muslim and thus ineligibile to be considered in the context of Islamic law. Why should ISLAMIC law be dependent on the opinion of non-Muslims?

Ok, Ulama does not include non-muslims. Thank you for educating me on the correct use of the word.

This means that what I am saying, in a mixed society, is that knowledgeable people from those other religions should also have their opinions counted. The law of the state is not Islamic, only some of the participants in judicial proceedings may be Muslim and therefore Ulama, whereas the state is base on civil law and the consensus is shared among all knowledgeable participants.

Isn't this the objective of the April 6th revolution? You mean you and others have a different objective? I know what the خوة say about it since I am one of the خوات.

You have no knowledge of even the basics of Islam so whatever opinions you come up with are baseless and unfounded.

So you aren't even going to attempt to understand why you have misinformation about the Bible and Christians, especially when it is used as the foundation for such a harmful action? That is pathetic and kufr (hiding from the truth). It raises the suspicion that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the Qur'an. Only indoctrinated with a poor foundation.

Kuffaar are treated differently because they are not Muslims. Muslims are brothers and sisters of one another. Muslims are not brothers and sisters of non-Muslims. The brotherhood between Muslims is stronger than even the brotherhood between blood relatives.

Furthermore, brother Jadeed brought up the point to warn the original poster of the danger of what he seems to be implying, not an accusation of kufr. If the original poster did not mince words in claiming that there is tahreef of the Qur'an, he would be considered a kaafir. But since there is no such certainty, no one has to right to call him a kaafir lest he himself be seen as one in the sight of God (and this principle is again from the ahadeeth, where whenever a Muslim accuses another of being a kaafir, then one of the two - the accuser or the accused - most certainly is a kaafir).

It is so dogmatic within Islamic society as to who should be considered a true Muslim and who should be considered kufr. This is a warning sign that things have gotten political and away from Allah and Muhammad.

If there are 2 people, a Muslim and a non-Muslim, and the Muslim lies, cheats, takes and breaks his word, whereas the non-Muslim tells the truth, gives, is honest and keeps his word, I am the brother of the non-Muslim and the Muslim can go to hell where he belongs.

Therefore, non-Muslims can be brothers and sisters with Muslims. Just because a man claims he is Muslim does not guarantee that he is a good Muslim. A non-Muslim can be straight in his affairs and that person is more a brother than the other. The lesson is that there are good people and bad people all mixed up in every group. Requiring a good person must be a Muslim or they are NOT a good person is beyond ridiculous.

I'll go with the Christian Brotherhood before I will go with the Salafists.

So let us be clear.

• There is no tahreef in the Qur'an. I am down with that considering the way Muhammad and the Sahabah wrote down the revelations.
• There is possible tahreef in the ahadeeth.

Again you show your lack of knowledge. There are no multiple versions of the same Surah. The term "version" is more applicable to the Christian Bible, which has some drastic differences. For Muslims, all the Qir'aat and the Ahruf are revelations. For Christians, the versions are not revelations but since Christians don't have the original Aramaic of their Bible anymore, they don't know any better. That is why even crucial things, such as the begotten-ness of Jesus is disputed between the versions, despite this being an integral part of Christian belief.

I meant ahadeeth and I corrected it while you were responding.

Jesus is not begotten of Allah, yet he is a Prophet, the Messiah and a Son of Allah. How can Issa be both no begotten AND a Son? Because we are all the sons of Allah, only Issa realized it in his life. Does this make me kufr? In your expert opinion?

You said the ahadeeth are irrelevant, so that leads to the logical conclusion that there is no necessity of a prophet as the Qur'an is the direct revelation of God anyway.

I did not say the ahadeeth are irrelevant. I said that their principles ought to be used in jurisprudence. So let's not start stoning adulterers or chopping the hand off a thief, or we will end up with three bearded men killing a smart, peaceful 20-year old engineering student, walking with his fiance, for no other reason than that they felt they could judge him (cause they are good, pure Muslims) and that the penalty is death. Was this the sort of law and order Muhammad had in mind? Do you think these 3 men acted in accordance with Muhammad's Qur'an?

[abdulwahhab]

Really? Which Surah/verse? This means that when a fellow Muslim tells me that Issa is a prophet, just like Abrahim, Noah, Joseph and Moses before him, no different, that this is incorrect? So the Qur'an does indicate that Issa is more special than the other prophets?

Isa عليه السلام is the Messiah because he will return and he has the unique characteristic of becoming part of the Muslim ummah upon his return. He was also the one who pointed towards our Prophet صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم during his messengership. When he returns, he won't return as a messenger and will kill the anti-Christ (Dajjal), break the cross, and kill the swine. Those who followed the anti-Christ (Dajjal) will also be destroyed. He will then live out the remainder of life, pass away, and then be buried next to our Prophet صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم in Madinah Munawwarah.

So, the ahadeeth state that you can only reach paradise at the feet of the Mother? Awesome! Mark one up for the ahadeeth.

No, they don't say that. They say that paradise lies at the feet of the mother, as in being disobedient to her means furthering yourself from paradise and being obedient to her makes one closer to paradise. But love of God has to supersede even this. Parents have to be obeyed in all aspects except when they tell you to do something contrary to Islam, such as drink alcohol or eat pork.

So what is your interpretation of what is being said here? And why specifically is my interpretation kufr?

It is not an interpretation since the Qur'an and the ahadeeth are clear that there is nothing like Allah and to believe that something can embody or contain the Almighty is disbelief and kufr. The Qur'an specifically mentions the Trinity by saying that those who believe in Jesus as God have completely disbelieved in God.

Are you saying the Bible does not say that one "reaps what they sow"?

The Bible says a lot of things but the Christians follow the New Testament. Jewish law, for example, commands an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a limb for a limb, etc. There is no such thing as Christian law. Ask any Christian about whether the laws of the Old Testament are applicable to him or her and they will tell you that no, they are not. Why? It even has us Muslims puzzled since Jesus himself said that he never came to destroy the Law (i.e. Jewish law). Paul, on the other hand, does say that Jewish law is not important and that is why a lot of Muslims believe that it was Paul who is the most responsible for perverting Christ's message.

Does the Qur'an restrict the Scriptures it acknowledges or does it leave the list open?

It leaves the list open but it does not leave room for speculation.

So the Qur'an states that previous Scriptures are null and void? Or does it merely say that they are the Word of God but that they have been mistranslated in places and certain things have been ommited? The Nag Hammadi Library is authentic Scripture.

The Nag Hammadi library contains pieces that came at least a century after the departure of Isa عليه السلام. So, even if it is authentic, that does not create any link between what it contains and what Jesus said. Furthermore, the discovered gospel is not even considered canon. So, two major, glaring issues with the discovery of the manuscripts at Nag Hammadi: no proof that they were the writings of someone linked directly to Jesus عليه السلام (this is the case with all the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John were not written by the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John according to non-partisan historical evidence) and then they are still not considered canon.

The previous scriptures are null and void because the Qur'an and the ahadeeth came with a new law. The Jewish rabbis used to be the sole possessors of the written Torah and would hide and omit verses as it suited them. This is evidenced by the fact that once, an adulterer was to be punished and the Jews said that they could not find the verse pertaining to the punishment, which was stoning. Our Prophet صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم told the rabbi to stop concealing a part of the literature and he, an unlettered, unlearned person who could not read Arabic, let alone Hebrew, pointed to the verse pertaining to stoning the adulterer in the Old Testament. And then, with Christianity, the problem became that of preservation. There is no authentic manuscript or writing that could be linked to any of the apostles of Jesus عليه السلام. Couple that with the fact that there is a lot of contradiction in the recollection of events even between the four canonical gospels. For example, how did Judas die? You'll get different accounts from the different gospels, despite the fact that they are alleged to be from their namesake apostles.

So the Qur'an may well state that previous Scriptures may be misunderstood. Is the same not true of the Qur'an, that it can be misinterpreted?

Once again, no. The Qur'an and the ahadeeth show that the previous scriptures have been altered. Verses have been omitted, verses have been changed, verses have been added. Yes, the Qur'an can be and has been misinterpreted, especially by those who have a preconceived agenda. On the other hand, the Bible itself is not authentic so even if it is misinterpreted, someone's misinterpretation could take him even closer to the authentic Bible while someone's correct interpretation of the current Bible could take him away from the authentic Bible. For example, our prophet Muhammad صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم has been referred to as "the paraclete" in the New Testament and his name has even appeared in the Psalms in Hebrew. But, most Christians believe that "the paraclete" refers to the Holy Spirit/Ghost, whereas Islam tells us that the Holy Spirit/Ghost is actually the angel Gabriel/Jibril عليه السلام.

This means that what I am saying, in a mixed society, is that knowledgeable people from those other religions should also have their opinions counted. The law of the state is not Islamic, only some of the participants in judicial proceedings may be Muslim and therefore Ulama, whereas the state is base on civil law and the consensus is shared among all knowledgeable participants.

Yes, if the law of the land is not Islamic law, then of course. There isn't really any room to suggest that the law of one religion should be used to govern the majority. For example, those who call for Islamic law to run the governments in the West are out of their mind. The restriction of religious law in a Western democratic society should be to civil laws, such as marriages, divorces, etc. and should not extend to such a reach that it affects other communities. But, in an Islamic government, there is a big difference. The law of the land for Muslims becomes the full adherence to Islamic shari'ah. The law of the land for non-Muslims living under Islamic rule is that they also get to practice their own laws and even run their own courts. So, it sets up parallel systems of law within the Islamic state. The Jews and Christians who lived under Islamic law for centuries carried out their own laws. In many countries, Jews and Christians were and are still allowed to run their alcohol distilleries. For example, a country such as Pakistan has beer distilleries owned and operated and catered to the Christians who live there. Such a thing could never be found in Western democracies. For example, the Rastafarians believe in smoking marijuana but their beliefs are subject to US law, whereas there would not be such persecution within an Islamic context.

Isn't this the objective of the April 6th revolution? You mean you and others have a different objective? I know what the خوة say about it since I am one of the خوات.

Are you talking about the Egyptian uprising? That was not mentioned in this thread at all. Also, to use the resultant Muslim Brotherhood government as being representative of Islamic government is a fallacy. For example, there is no leeway, no flexibility in Islam for usury. It is completely forbidden to accept usury, to give usury, to profit from usury, etc. This means that Western style banking would be outlawed, but that is not one of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, usury/interest/gambling, etc. are such great sins that our Prophet صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم has said that the sin of the lowest form of usury is greater than the worst form of fornication. It is easy to see this because even though fornication may destroy families, usury destroys societies.

So you aren't even going to attempt to understand why you have misinformation about the Bible and Christians, especially when it is used as the foundation for such a harmful action? That is pathetic and kufr (hiding from the truth). It raises the suspicion that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the Qur'an. Only indoctrinated with a poor foundation.

I don't have misinformation about the Bible and Christians, since I deal with them on a regular basis and have spoken to them about it on a regular basis. Furthermore, as Muslims, we are more aware of the contents of the Bible than the average Christian since Islam is always on the defensive against the Christian onslaught around the world. There is no Islamic group that acts in a missionary manner by going to non-Muslim communities and their homes and telling them that they are wrong, whereas Christian missionaries have been doing this for centuries, especially exploiting poor and disenfranchised communities, from the Native Americans to the hungry and ill Africans.

It is so dogmatic within Islamic society as to who should be considered a true Muslim and who should be considered kufr. This is a warning sign that things have gotten political and away from Allah and Muhammad.

How would you know this? The Qur'an itself spells out that it is kufr to believe in particular things. The ahadeeth themselves spell out that it is kufr to believe in particular things. To believe that the Qur'an has changed is kufr since it guarantees its protection and even from an academic standpoint, one can see the impossibility of this claim of change, since there were over 100,000 people who had met our Prophet صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم and became Muslim and even more hundreds of thousands who became Muslims at the hands of those 100,000, with many memorizing the Qur'an word for word. No other text, let alone something as important as a religious text, can claim such level of cohesiveness and authenticity. There were thousands of people who had memorized the entire Qur'an by heart during the lifetime of the Prophet صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم.

If there are 2 people, a Muslim and a non-Muslim, and the Muslim lies, cheats, takes and breaks his word, whereas the non-Muslim tells the truth, gives, is honest and keeps his word, I am the brother of the non-Muslim and the Muslim can go to hell where he belongs.

Then you have no understanding of Islam. A Muslim who lies, cheats, etc. is greater than a belligerent non-Muslim who refuses to believe in Allah and his messenger صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم. The Muslim will be punished for his evil, but his punishment will be that of recompense and once he is cleansed of his sins by the Fire, he will eventually enter paradise. On the other hand, such an end does not exist for a belligerent disbeliever, regardless of how much good he has done.

Therefore, non-Muslims can be brothers and sisters with Muslims. Just because a man claims he is Muslim does not guarantee that he is a good Muslim. A non-Muslim can be straight in his affairs and that person is more a brother than the other. The lesson is that there are good people and bad people all mixed up in every group. Requiring a good person must be a Muslim or they are NOT a good person is beyond ridiculous.

That is your own unfounded opinion. Islam is clear on who we are to consider brothers. Even the most sinful of Muslims is my brother. The most pious but belligerent kaafir is not.

I'll go with the Christian Brotherhood before I will go with the Salafists.

Sorry, but your understanding of Islam is way beyond flawed if you believe that why I'm saying is a Salafi belief (I'm not even Salafi). What I have just stated is part of the foundational beliefs of Muslims. Anyone who believes in the six articles of faith completely is a Muslim, even if he commits evils. If someone does not believe in any of the six articles of faith, he is not a Muslim and is therefore not our brother.

So let us be clear.

• There is no tahreef in the Qur'an. I am down with that considering the way Muhammad and the Sahabah wrote down the revelations.
• There is possible tahreef in the ahadeeth.

The possibility of tahreef in the ahadeeth is negated by means of authentication. There is a reason Muslims have never accepted any hadeeth as part of our deen. There has been a rigourous process of authentication and classification of ahadeeth that still continues to this day.

Jesus is not begotten of Allah, yet he is a Prophet, the Messiah and a Son of Allah. How can Issa be both no begotten AND a Son? Because we are all the sons of Allah, only Issa realized it in his life. Does this make me kufr? In your expert opinion?

Where are you getting the idea that Isa عليه السلام is a "Son of Allah"? The Qur'an is clear when it refers to Allah : لم يلد ولم يولد - neither is He begotten, nor does He beget (Surah 112 shows the strictness of Islamic monotheism). Begetting is an animal act. And if you're saying that we are all "sons of Allah" in the same sense as Isa عليه السلام, then you are going against one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity, which gives the unique status of "begotten son" to Jesus عليه السلام while we are all the "non-begotten" sons. Why? Because the Old Testament refers to many people as "sons" of God so it would make Jesus عليه السلام the same as them and therefore not unique to Christianity and therefore, there would be no basis for the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) if the begotten Son isn't so special anymore. If you believe that Jesus عليه السلام was the son of God in the same sense as we are Sons of God, then that makes you a kaafir TO THE CHRISTIANS but not to Muslims. But, if someone believes that he was the only begotten son, then it does make whoever holds such belief a kaafir since the Qur'an is clear.

And there is no need for "expert opinion" since this is from the basic beliefs of Islam. A 10 year old Muslim knows what I've been saying here.

I did not say the ahadeeth are irrelevant. I said that their principles ought to be used in jurisprudence. So let's not start stoning adulterers or chopping the hand off a thief, or we will end up with three bearded men killing a smart, peaceful 20-year old engineering student, walking with his fiance, for no other reason than that they felt they could judge him (cause they are good, pure Muslims) and that the penalty is death. Was this the sort of law and order Muhammad had in mind? Do you think these 3 men acted in accordance with Muhammad's Qur'an?

This once again shows your lack of knowledge about Islam. The chopping off of hands of a thief is a punishment in the Qur'an. If you believe that the older books of revelation are valid, then you should also have no problem with stoning the adulterer, since the Torah is clear on this.

And of course not. There isn't room for vigilante justice in Islam. Those were uneducated Muslims since the Qur'an and the ahadeeth are clear on what crimes are to be punished with death. Walking alone with a fiancée (without her guardian) is certainly not permissible in Islam, but there is no defined punishment and certainly no punishment of death. There are only a few crimes that are punishable by death in Islam and none of them are involved in punishing those who walk around with unrelated women (a fiancé(e) is not considered a relationship since there is no binding contract). In fact, even the punishment for fornication is not death (note that fornication is not adultery; in adultery, the adulterer is a person who is already married but engages in illegal extra-marital relations).

[Younes]

Jesus is not begotten of Allah, yet he is a Prophet, the Messiah and a Son of Allah. How can Issa be both no begotten AND a Son? Because we are all the sons of Allah, only Issa realized it in his life. Does this make me kufr? In your expert opinion?

(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)" (5:18)


(9:30) And the Jews say: "Uzayr (Ezra) is the son of Allah,'' and the Christians say: "The Messiah is the son of Allah.'' That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. May Allah fight them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

[Rasta Rebecca]

Thank you for providing some Qur'anic quotes we can discuss.

(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)" (5:18)

It does not say that they are not sons of Allah, only that have broken the covenant and are punished for their sins.

(9:30) And the Jews say: "Uzayr (Ezra) is the son of Allah,'' and the Christians say: "The Messiah is the son of Allah.'' That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. May Allah fight them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

From Surah 9: Repentance:

9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
9:30 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

• believe not in Allah - unbelievers who claim to be believers but are not
• Jizya - the cutting off the body of the offending part
• saying of the mouth - without the faith in One God behind it.
• imitate what the unbelievers of old - by establishing other Gods as partners of the One True God.

It is not said that Issa is not the Son of Allah, nor does it say that believers in one Allah are not Sons of Allah. Does it?

[abdulwahhab]

It does not say that they are not sons of Allah, only that have broken the covenant and are punished for their sins.

The Qur'an clearly says that they are not the sons of men. If you say, "I am a doctor," and I respond, "You're nothing but a fireman!", does that mean you're still a doctor? The word used in Arabic, illa إلاّ, is a word of negation. It forms part of our testimony of faith: there is no god except Allah :taala - لا اله إلاّ الله. There is no leeway in interpretation.

[*]believe not in Allah - unbelievers who claim to be believers but are not

Where are you coming up with this stuff? This ayah referred to the non-believers who were waging wars against Muslims during the time of the Prophet . A person who claims to be a believer but is a non-believer is termed a munaafiq in Islam. They had their conspiracies that were thwarted but there was no outright war against them since no one except Allah and his messenger knew who they were - and the Prophet only told one of his companions, Hudhaifah ibn al-Yaman about who the hypocrites were.

[*]Jizya - the cutting off the body of the offending part

No, jizya is a tax that non-Muslims have to pay when living under Islamic law. It was much lower than the taxes the non-Muslims paid to their previous lords and kings. The tax was only applicable to healthy adult men (i.e. men who could work and can then pay the tax). Also, those non-Muslims who opted to serve in the Muslim army were exempted and would thenceforth pay no tax at all to the Muslims. On the other hand, all adult Muslims who were not considered poor had to pay a tax that went directly to the poor. Not paying this tax is a criminal act in Islam. In fact, one of the first great wars started because a few tribes decided not to pay the zakat (the obligatory charity tax), forcing the first rightly guided caliph, Abu Bakr to declare them as apostates and obligatory to fight against until they repented and would pay zakat.

[*]saying of the mouth - without the faith in One God behind it.[*]imitate what the unbelievers of old - by establishing other Gods as partners of the One True God.

Exactly, since their speech confirmed what the polytheists who came before them believed. When they call 'Uzair and Issa عليهما السلام "sons", they are doing the exact same thing that the polytheists before them did, where they deified a human or called him or her a son or relative of God.

It is not said that Issa is not the Son of Allah, nor does it say that believers in one Allah are not Sons of Allah. Does it?

Did you miss the Qur'anic verse I posted?

Here's the short surah in its entirey (112:1-4)
Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One, (1)
Allah , the Eternal Refuge. (2)
He neither begets nor is born, (3)
Nor is there to Him any equivalent." (4)

Christians believe in the special honour of Christ being a begotten son. It is this belief that greatly sets them apart from Islam and monotheism.

[Rasta Rebecca]

The Qur'an clearly says that they are not the sons of men. If you say, "I am a doctor," and I respond, "You're nothing but a fireman!", does that mean you're still a doctor? The word used in Arabic, illa إلاّ, is a word of negation. It forms part of our testimony of faith: there is no god except Allah :taala - لا اله إلاّ الله. There is no leeway in interpretation.

You are conflating two sentences:

• the believers, brother and sister, are the sons of Allah, although Allah did not beget them.
• there is no god except Allah

The sons are not separate from Allah. They are not Gods other than Allah.

Where are you coming up with this stuff? This ayah referred to the non-believers who were waging wars against Muslims during the time of the Prophet . A person who claims to be a believer but is a non-believer is termed a munaafiq in Islam. They had their conspiracies that were thwarted but there was no outright war against them since no one except Allah and his messenger knew who they were - and the Prophet only told one of his companions, Hudhaifah ibn al-Yaman about who the hypocrites were.

A munaafiq is a person who claims to be a Muslim, but is actually a disbeliever.
The Qur'an is talking about a Christian, Jew or other believer who says they are a believer but are not.

No, jizya is a tax that non-Muslims have to pay when living under Islamic law. It was much lower than the taxes the non-Muslims paid to their previous lords and kings. The tax was only applicable to healthy adult men (i.e. men who could work and can then pay the tax). Also, those non-Muslims who opted to serve in the Muslim army were exempted and would thenceforth pay no tax at all to the Muslims. On the other hand, all adult Muslims who were not considered poor had to pay a tax that went directly to the poor. Not paying this tax is a criminal act in Islam. In fact, one of the first great wars started because a few tribes decided not to pay the zakat (the obligatory charity tax), forcing the first rightly guided caliph, Abu Bakr to declare them as apostates and obligatory to fight against until they repented and would pay zakat.

This is the only mention of Jizya in the Qur'an and it must be contemplated to whom this particular Jizya is being paid too. It is a Jizya paid with willing submission. It references Mark 9:43, among other references in the NT.

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Exactly, since their speech confirmed what the polytheists who came before them believed. When they call 'Uzair and Issa عليهما السلام "sons", they are doing the exact same thing that the polytheists before them did, where they deified a human or called him or her a son or relative of God.

It is not that they are calling them sons, it is they do so thinking that they somehow exist without Allah - separate from Allah.

Did you miss the Qur'anic verse I posted?

Here's the short surah in its entirey (112:1-4)
Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One, (1)
Allah , the Eternal Refuge. (2)
He neither begets nor is born, (3)
Nor is there to Him any equivalent." (4)

Christians believe in the special honour of Christ being a begotten son. It is this belief that greatly sets them apart from Islam and monotheism.

Christians do not think that Christ is begotten. I prefer Surah 19:35

It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.

Begotten means Allah had sexual intercourse to conceive Issa. Christians are not apart from Islam and monotheism, if this is pointed out to them. Muslims are automatically Christian, due to Surah 19, and all a Christian has to do is say Muhammad was a prophet of Allah. Easy-peasy.

[abdulwahhab]

You are conflating two sentences:

• the believers, brother and sister, are the sons of Allah, although Allah did not beget them.
• there is no god except Allah

The sons are not separate from Allah. They are not Gods other than Allah.

Do you understand what the term "son" means? Islam is pretty clear on this issue, where we do not call God as "the father" nor do we call ourselves His "sons". The ayah that was quoted was quite direct on this issue. I am using the same word used in the two ayaat, which is إلاّ - illa, which means with exception or excluding. Whenever this happens in the Qur'an, the term taken exception to is the one being rejected.

And you have no idea about Islam if you think that the "sons are not separate from Allah" since you're now equating mankind, which is an imperfect creation, to Allah , the perfect creator. The two can never be equal or the same. It makes no logical sense, let alone religious sense and is a pantheistic concept that is not compatible with Islam. The sons are most definitely not god.

In Islam, there is, though, a belief in panentheism (not pantheism), whereby the mystics reach a state of being where they end up denying the existence of everything but God - that we do not exist and only God exists. But this is a high level concept that requires years to fully appreciate.

A munaafiq is a person who claims to be a Muslim, but is actually a disbeliever.
The Qur'an is talking about a Christian, Jew or other believer who says they are a believer but are not.

What? Christians and Jews already are disbelievers because they outright say that they don't believe our prophet . If they did, they would reject their scriptures and accept Islam as our Prophet told us that the books of old have been altered and changed. And every verse in the Qur'an has a context attached to it, relating to the time and circumstance of revelation. The verses in Surah at-Tawbah (the 9th surah that you're referencing) were revealed after the conquest of Makkah Mukarramah by the Muslims and the defeat of the non-Muslims. After this, when the Muslim armies set out to conquer the rest of Arabia, the Christians and Jews were given three choices: 1) convert to Islam; 2) remain in your faith but pay the jizya; 3) prepare for war. It is as simple as that.

This is the only mention of Jizya in the Qur'an and it must be contemplated to whom this particular Jizya is being paid too. It is a Jizya paid with willing submission. It references Mark 9:43, among other references in the NT.

How does it reference Mark at all? Why are you pulling things out of thin air? The jizya is a concept of Islamic law and refers to a tax. Nothing else. Even the root word for jizya (جزية), which is جزا, means compensation.

It is not that they are calling them sons, it is they do so thinking that they somehow exist without Allah - separate from Allah.

It is Islamic belief that we exist separate from Allah . He is unique and there is no comparison to Him. The Qur'an says, "ليس كمثله شيء" - There is nothing that compares to Him. This already creates a distinction between us, the creation, and Him, the masterful creator. We exist separate from Allah , just how we will enter Jannah or Jahannam separate from Allah . We are most definitely not avatars or incarnations or embodiments of the divine. Such a belief is heretical in Islam.

Christians do not think that Christ is begotten. I prefer Surah 19:35

Oh yes they do.

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/re...lybegottenson/

Even the rejected Mormons hold this belief:
http://jesus.christ.org/questions-an...-begotten-mean

In fact, every single modern day sect of Christianity, from the Catholics, to the Protestants, to the Calvinists, to the Quakers, to the Mennonites, to the various Orthodox churches - they all believe in Christ being the unique begotten son of God, who was somehow necessary to be the sacrificial lamb to cleanse the sins of mankind. Such a concept is completely alien to Islam and is the perfect example of injustice. So, not only is the belief in the son of God heretical in Islam, the idea that God would be so unjust as to burden one soul with the sins of all of humanity is itself innately heretical. Allah , the Most Just, says in the Qur'an, "ولا تكسب كل نفس إلا عليها ولا تزر وازرة وزر أخرى" - And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Our sins are our burdens and no one can carry them or adopt them or accept them for our sake.

Begotten means Allah had sexual intercourse to conceive Issa. Christians are not apart from Islam and monotheism, if this is pointed out to them. Muslims are automatically Christian, due to Surah 19, and all a Christian has to do is say Muhammad was a prophet of Allah. Easy-peasy.

Christians have gone out of their way to redefine the word "begotten" to mean anything but a sexual act. Christians ARE apart from Islam and monotheism, not just because they believe that God begot a son, but that this son is part of a triune Godhead, composed of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

The Qur'an says, "لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّ اللَّـهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ ۖ وَقَالَ الْمَسِيحُ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ اعْبُدُوا اللَّـهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ ۖ إِنَّهُ مَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّـهِ فَقَدْ حَرَّمَ اللَّـهُ عَلَيْهِ الْجَنَّةَ وَمَأْوَاهُ النَّارُ ۖ وَمَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ مِنْ أَنصَارٍ", which means: They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers. Allah also says in the Qur'an, "لقد كفر الذين قالوا إن الله ثالث ثلاثة", which means, "They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three."

The major distinguishing feature of Christianity from both Islam and Judaism is its belief in the Trinity. There were early sects that did not believe in the Trinity and those are the righteous Christians who existed before Islam and were the "Muslims" of their time. But, these sects, such as the Arians, were routed and either persecuted to extinction or were forced to give up their belief due to the Trinity becoming the official belief of the Christian Roman Empire under Constantine I. Constantine I was the first Christian emperor and under him, the main belief of Christianity was codified, called the Nicene Creed. Do you not know about this either? The Nicene Creed explicitly says, "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." This is completely against both your claims that Christians don't believe in Christ as the begotten son and your claim that the title of "begotten son" isn't unique, while it very much is.

Muslims are similar in primary belief to the Christians if we're talking about the first communities of Christians, which included the apostles and the other Christians who were persecuted for their beliefs - these Christians did not accept the divinity of Christ. The concept of Christ's divinity is mostly derived not from the four gospels, but from the letters of Paul, who was originally a Jewish hunter of Christians who claimed to have a vision of Christ on his way to Damascus, becoming a pious Christian (likely story that someone trying to destroy a religion would claim to receive visions from its founder and then destroy the religion from within!).

As I've already said, those early Christians were the "Muslims" of their time since they submitted to the will of God. The Christians of today don't and can't submit to the will of God since the "will" they have is not the will of God but the work of man. There are so many holes concerning the authenticity of the New Testament that it is mind boggling. In fact, applying the model of authentication that Muslims use for our ahadeeth to the Bible will result in majority of the book being rejected due to being unauthentic or lacking any credible chain of transmission! There is a small minority of those who reject the Trinity but hold to the Bible: these are called the Jehovah's Witnesses. But, they hold to a book that is now corrupt beyond repair. Allah never promised to safeguard the Bible. He reveals laws for certain nations that last a period of time, after which these laws are forgotten and/or altered at the hands of man. He has only promised to safeguard the Qur'an and He made sure of it during the time of the Prophet , when thousands of people had memorized every single letter of the Qur'an and by the time of the caliphates, there were tens of thousands of people who had memorized it. Nowadays, the number is in the tens of millions. Almost every Muslim knows someone who has memorized the Qur'an completely.