What Constitutes a Muslim?
-
You mean readings of the mediocre literature?
Clearly thats all thats been read before posting a lengthy diatribe about 'semetic literature' and 'Islam'...
Here is a good link for starters
http//www.free-minds.org/quran/
-
You mean readings of the mediocre literature?
Clearly thats all thats been read before posting a lengthy diatribe about 'semetic literature' and 'Islam'...
Here is a good link for starters
http//www.free-minds.org/quran/
I beg to disagree and one shouldn?t underestimate other?s knowledge. The sources you?ve referred me to are readily available with the tip of our fingers online these days. Here is a 50 page of my analysis, in Farsi language, for persian speakers, that is drawn from the experience of Muslims who spend years analysing this literature.
http//www.geocities.com/adil_afghan1/negahijmali
So perhaps some of us have been there and done their home work to draw such conclusions and define the Semitic theology as nothing but ?mediocre literature?.
Peace!
-
Adil,
I think what was meant by not doing your reading, is that you didn't read the previous posts on this topic. If you had you'd be contributing a little differently, I believe.
Read some of the back posts about 10-20 posts back. To get a feel for what we've been talking about. It's not what you think.
Godbless,
ProGod -
peace ADIL
In simple words, a Muslim is one who declares that ?there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah?
003.052 When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah? (arabic Anshar Allah)" Said the disciples "We are Allah's helpers (arabic Anshar Allah) We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.
Does Jesus's disciples / apostles / telmudim declares "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" ?
it is quite obvious that all the other Semitic prophets are considered at the lower end of the ladder but Muhammad is the last and best
002.136 Say ye "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord We make no difference between one and another of them And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."
?What constitutes a Muslim, Christian or Jew??
Can 'Nashara' or 'Hoodan' such as Simeon Kefa (Peter), prophet Isaiah, prophet Daniel considered to be a muslim?
As more things to ponder, let me tell u a factual story, at the western tip of Java island in Indonesia lives a seclusive community of 5000 people. They called themselves the "Sunda Wiwitan" community, they believes that
- This life on earth only temporary and there's an eternal life beyond death.
- We all came from "Hyang" and they call death as "Ngahyang" which means "returning to Hyang".
- The Creator of this world ("Hyang") are boundless and encompass all things. (041.054 It is He that doth encompass all things!)
- They share everything with everyone on their community. Thus no land decree and so forth, all land belongs to "Hyang" and are "on loan" status to humankind.
- They only have "judges", no political leader / parties, armies or king. They elect their judges by vote. Thus they managed to have "near zero crime" on their community. (very-very rare incident of stealing, raping, robbery, murder etc..)
- Their "prophet" are someone named "Semar" who according to their legends teach them about "how to live" and "Hyang".
- They circumcised their baby boys on the 8th day.
- Pigs are forbidden to eat.
- They have no books, only tradition / oral sayings of the elders passed down thru generations for approximately 3000 years.
You cannot learn the 'Sunda Wiwitan' community / culture / beliefs thru books because they had none, the only way to learn their culture is to 'live among them' and speak / interact with them.
Is it wise to call them "Non-Muslim" nor "Kafiruun"???
Do they need a 'conversion' to Islam??? (or any other 'religion' than their own)022.067 To every People have We appointed rites and ceremonies which they must follow let them not then dispute with thee on the matter, but do thou invite (them) to thy Lord for thou art assuredly on the Right Way.
-
Adil,
I think what was meant by not doing your reading, is that you didn't read the previous posts on this topic. If you had you'd be contributing a little differently, I believe.
Read some of the back posts about 10-20 posts back. To get a feel for what we've been talking about. It's not what you think.
Godbless,
ProGodPerhaps you're right. I am new to this forum and I?ll try and tune myself. But savage-carrot pasted a link which took me somewhere else! Glad to see intelligent individuals gather under one umbrella
Thank you
-
So perhaps some of us have been there and done their home work to draw such conclusions and define the Semitic theology as nothing but ?mediocre literature?.
Would you consider the quran to be a part of this "mediocre literature" as you call it? I'm curious since you are new and all that...
-
Does Jesus's disciples / apostles / telmudim declares "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" ?
The important point here is not whether that Jesus? disciples/ telmudim or the rest will agree that He was a messenger (leader) or not but the authenticity of the message itself. To date, no one can prove this with certainty. This is the crux of the matter. The rest is nothing but the exhaustion of our intellect by interpreting the psychic products of their (prophets) minds and we often bring it inline with our present day religiosity needs.
This is why I label the lot of them as ?Semitic dogma? because they have borrowed from one another with minor alternations. Whether the latter accepts the former and the former rejects the latter is a matter of degrees. We don?t have to see this in light of theological reasons. Simple logic would tell us that between the grandfather, father and son, one must accept the grandfather?s eyewitness account and not the son?s because the son wasn?t even born when the grandfather was around! Of course such analysis must be subject to different methodological perspectives.
002.136 Say ye "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord We make no difference between one and another of them And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."
I agree with the sum of your ayah but disagree with the whole. Here is why. As its common with most Quraanic verses, one ayah supercedes another and most of these conflicting ayahs came to humanity within a matter of 23 or so years. One of the earlier version (Makkai ayah) along such lines was more or less multi-religious ?La ikra fee dein? (there is no compulsion in religion) which was favored by the faithful ones at that time. But later on that was superceded when His followers increased to thousands. In essence, Islam is supposed to be the one and only religion for humanity and the rest as null and void. If it was otherwise then there would be no problem. Any saint person could?ve claimed and be considered as an instant prophet!
I hope I have'nt derailed other's discussion.
Peace to u
-
As its common with most Quraanic verses, one ayah supercedes another and most of these conflicting ayahs came to humanity within a matter of 23 or so years.
I believe I just found my answer.
-
Peace,
Adil, I think what was meant by not doing your reading, is that you didn't read the previous posts on this topic. ProGod
What I understood from the mquran words
In simpler words, somebody here didn't do his reading before ranting on this site
is that he was making a play with the words "his reading" referring to " reading quran" (the reading) and reading (verb)
but I can't know ?
-
In simple words, a Muslim is one who declares that ?there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah?. This automatically gives a social passport and acceptance to the individual by the rest of the Islamic mobs. It seems that this strategy (foot in the door) perfectly worked among the Bedouin. In away it reflects human submission to the will of one without rationalising or justifying their authority.
If we look deeply, we can easily see that such submissive slogans worked and played crucial rolls in mob psychology. For instance, it?s natural that most human have a need for religiosity in most societies. (If there ever was a God, as it is introduced in the Semitic literature, which appeared from the clouds, I am sure even an extreme atheist will submit to his/her rules.) But this is just a catch 22 used by the Semitic dogma. It needs such slogans to reinforce the submissive behaviour upon the individual and it has two purposes. First, it arouses our religiosity needs in us by introducing God as the ultimate truth and power. This is quite ok as all humans have a need to submit to a higher being. But the real catch is the acceptance and adherences to of the middleman or in this case the Semitic prophets (in away a foot in the door stragety is used!).
In the case of Islam, it is quite obvious that all the other Semitic prophets are considered at the lower end of the ladder but Muhammad is the last and best and that?s why it?s absolutely necessary for any one to declare his or her kalima in the first instance to be considered a Muslim (so he or she is Islamically shaped and framed by way of social pressure).
The rest of the Semitic dogma is often followed by a mix bag of goodies, bigotry, ambiguity and common knowledge that all knew many years prior to Islam, i.e how clouds appears, or driven by the wind, or that rain drops from the sky, or that everything is found in pairs, etc..This was all known to man ever since man stood and pondered about it. Even some animals can sense when it rains and thus take shelter under trees or in caves.
So at the end of the day the zillion dollar question still remains. ?What constitutes a Muslim, Christian or Jew?? Well, in this case, your guess is just as good as mine! You don?t have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out! All we need is a free and rational mind to discover the truth and thus God.
Peace
No disrespect, but that is the most pointless 5 paragraphs I've read on this site. You use a lot of words, but ultimately say nothing.
-
Have you heard of the Chinese whistle game?
You do mean whispers yes?
http//www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/preface_to_the_second_edition.htm
Read the above especially the topic 'Muir Rejects the Forgery of the Qur'an'.
-
In simple words, a Muslim is one who declares that ?there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah?. This automatically gives a social passport and acceptance to the individual by the rest of the Islamic mobs.
I believe that the question first raised was not about what social acceptance have been given to those accepting the liturgy of the islamic religion, but rather what actually defines a muslim.
Well well, just my picture of it anyway!So at the end of the day the zillion dollar question still remains. ?What constitutes a Muslim, Christian or Jew?? Well, in this case, your guess is just as good as mine! You don?t have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out! All we need is a free and rational mind to discover the truth and thus God.
Great post...I'm seriously thinking of putting the last two sentences on my wall. Who am I qouting?
-
Have you heard of the Chinese whistle game?
You do mean whispers yes?
http//www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/preface_to_the_second_edition.htm
Read the above especially the topic 'Muir Rejects the Forgery of the Qur'an'.
Indeed whisper! You sound like a smart carrot!
I shall read that source in my spare time but once again these scholars are doing nothing but exhausting their own intellect. I?ve read the ?Origin of the Koran? by Ibn Warraqa though http//www.secularislam.org/research/origins.htm
Human memory elapses with time and it would be impossible to conclude that certain hafiz memorized the entire chapter of the story of Joseph and passed it to the next person without any change. Memory tests have shown in controlled studies that memory elapses with time. You can do this test in the comfort of your own home by revealing a short story to one person and then that story is told to the next and so forth. At the end the last person would repeat it to everyone else. You will be surprised how much change in the transmission of information occurs within a short span of time. Speaking of the Quranic revelations, one can only accept the notion that a change in transmission of information didn?t occur due to some sort of miracle! Other than that the historical evidence and common senses tell us that the probability of these revelations coming to humanity as intact as it was revealed by Gabriel is insignificant.
-
Peace,
Other than that the historical evidence and common senses tell us that the probability of these revelations coming to humanity as intact as it was revealed by Gabriel is insignificant.
Yes, please do read that resource, other than that I believe you should start a seperate topic for the above mentioned quote, as it is also the basis for the rest of your understandings regarding the quran. I believe everyone can learn from such a discussion. Thanks.
-
To represent the phenomenon of Muhammad's revelations in these terms is, from the standpoint of scientific research, the gravest nonsense. The fit of epilepsy leaves the patient utterly without memory of what has taken place. In fact, the patient completely forgets that period of his life and can recollect nothing that has happened to him in the meantime because the processes of sensing and thinking come to a complete stop during the fit. Such are the symptoms of epilepsy as science has established them. This was not the case at all with the Prophet at the moment of revelation, for his cognitive faculties used to be strengthened-rather than weakened-and do so to a superlative degree hitherto unknown by the people who knew him most. Muhammad used to remember with utmost precision what he received by way of revelation and recited it to his companions without a flaw. Moreover, revelation was not always accompanied by paroxysms of the body. Much of it took place while the Prophet was perfectly conscious, during his usual wakefulness. We have advanced sufficient evidence for this in our discussion of the revelation of the surah "al Fath" upon return of the Muslims from Makkah to Yathrib after signing the Pact of Hudaybiyah.
Scientific investigation therefore reveals that the case of Muhammad was not one of epilepsy. For this reason very few orientalists have upheld this claim and these turn out to be the same authors who upheld the charge of forgery against the Qur'an. Obviously, in charging Muhammad with epilepsy, their motivation was not the establishment of historical fact but the derogation of the Prophet in the eyes of his Muslim followers. Perhaps, they thought, propagation of such views would cast some suspicion upon his revelation, for it was precisely the revelation that came as a result of the so-called epileptic fits. This, of course, makes them all the more blameworthy and, from the standpoint of science, positively in error.
Savage carrot, I know this topic belongs to a different thread but I briefly skipped through the article. Overall some good points are discussed. One of the points brought by the author is that of the Orientalists claims that asserts the prophet was suffering from some sort of epilepsy. But the author fails go give a reference as to who specifically makes such claims and in what context. His very quick to give Munir?s long quote to back his points but fails to use a short direct quote of other orientalists that makes such claims. The Author then concludes without any citation of scientific evidence that ?Scientific investigation therefore reveals that the case of Muhammad was not one of epilepsy?.
My question is (1) where is the orientalists claim that asserts that he was suffering from epilepsy and (2) where is the so called ?scientific investigation that reveals? this claim to be otherwise?
I am wondering if the author knows anything about the symptoms of schizophrenia or perhaps his confusing schizophrenia with epilepsy! 1 in 10 people suffer from the former. The two disorders are not the same. There is a good article that relatively covers this subject. It is also related to this topic in the following link
http//koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/irin/wahiusa.htmlIn any case, the author must refer the reader for the verification and citation of the scientific literature and must not act as the judge, the jury and the executioner.
wa'salam
-
Peace,
The article I gave to you was in specific reference to the topic 'Muir Rejects the Forgery of the Qur'an'. As that was the point of the discussion. Maybe you have some observations regarding that?!? The rest is open to debate and since not in the scope of this thread or the context of the discussion you started, should be taken elsewhere. Do you believe the prophet and the rest who received revelations were schizophrenic/hallucinating/trancing? Please start a seperate topic as there are specific rules put in just for this sort of thing. Thanks.
Btw, about that link, in the very first point the person talks about an 'Islamic religion' and that the claim of prophethood is unique in 'Islam'. Other religions have prophets as well and the quran invites us to believe in ALL prophets so this amongst many other points are strange to put it mildly, as if he never read the quran on his own. The point is also titled erroneously. The second point is full of hearsay which is quite revolting. Overall the article does not seem well written or unbiased, and I invite other users to read and verify for themselves.
I would strongly recommend anyone interested in sincerely learning about the quran to ONLY read the quran and to not take any other sources as a basis for adding on and embellishing what it says...
-
No disrespect, but that is the most pointless 5 paragraphs I've read on this site. You use a lot of words, but ultimately say nothing.
Thank you for your feed back!
You mistake; for me to give you 'feedback' (which is one word by the way, not two) it would imply you 'fed' me something and you did no such thing.
-
Have you heard of the Chinese whistle game?
You do mean whispers yes?
http//www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/preface_to_the_second_edition.htm
Read the above especially the topic 'Muir Rejects the Forgery of the Qur'an'.
Indeed whisper! You sound like a smart carrot!
I shall read that source in my spare time but once again these scholars are doing nothing but exhausting their own intellect. I?ve read the ?Origin of the Koran? by Ibn Warraqa though http//www.secularislam.org/research/origins.htm
Human memory elapses with time and it would be impossible to conclude that certain hafiz memorized the entire chapter of the story of Joseph and passed it to the next person without any change. Memory tests have shown in controlled studies that memory elapses with time. You can do this test in the comfort of your own home by revealing a short story to one person and then that story is told to the next and so forth. At the end the last person would repeat it to everyone else. You will be surprised how much change in the transmission of information occurs within a short span of time. Speaking of the Quranic revelations, one can only accept the notion that a change in transmission of information didn?t occur due to some sort of miracle! Other than that the historical evidence and common senses tell us that the probability of these revelations coming to humanity as intact as it was revealed by Gabriel is insignificant.
Do you reject any and all forms of history? You better, lest you want to sound like a raging hypocrite.
Human memory elapses with time and it would be impossible to conclude that certain hafiz memorized the entire chapter of the story of Joseph and passed it to the next person without any change.
Are you in the business of covering male cow feces? Seriously, I'm asking. Plenty of people can memorise portions of the Qu'ran explicitely - it isn't that difficult. Hell, my dad memorises many section of the Qu'ran. Seriously, you ought to think about what you type before you hit "submit" else I'm gonna have to request an igrorance threshold on the place. Please do read the link savage_carrot provided before parroting off answers from atheist.org because it's insulting to the works of Dr. Muir. Also, your knowledge of historical data gathering is extremely limited, hence you're pulling your chinese "whistle" (lol) excuse.
Savage carrot, I know this topic belongs to a different thread but I briefly skipped through the article. Overall some good points are discussed. One of the points brought by the author is that of the Orientalists claims that asserts the prophet was suffering from some sort of epilepsy. But the author fails go give a reference as to who specifically makes such claims and in what context. His very quick to give Munir?s long quote to back his points but fails to use a short direct quote of other orientalists that makes such claims. The Author then concludes without any citation of scientific evidence that ?Scientific investigation therefore reveals that the case of Muhammad was not one of epilepsy?.
My question is (1) where is the orientalists claim that asserts that he was suffering from epilepsy and (2) where is the so called ?scientific investigation that reveals? this claim to be otherwise?
I am wondering if the author knows anything about the symptoms of schizophrenia or perhaps his confusing schizophrenia with epilepsy! 1 in 10 people suffer from the former. The two disorders are not the same. There is a good article that relatively covers this subject. It is also related to this topic in the following link
http//koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/irin/wahiusa.htmlIn any case, the author must refer the reader for the verification and citation of the scientific literature and must not act as the judge, the jury and the executioner.
Perhaps next time you should read the entire article and try to understand what the point of the article is?