rabbinic interpretation and jewish law is neither "worship" nor "shirk"

[Abdullah]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Nice one, no doubt when you stone someone to death you tell them jokes, to inject a little humour?

telling someone "your religion has been distorted and is no longer valid according to our religion" in a relevant and contextual way, is not the same as stonig someone to death sis; so your comparsion is ridiculous to say the least

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

There is simply no end to your arrogance is there Abdullah. Now let me think, should we believe BananaBrain (who is a practicing Jew) on this matter or Abdullah (who can only quote Muslim scholars on every subject)???? Hmm, now there is a hard one.

Your statement would have been more appropriate if you said "should we believe Bananabrain or should we Beleive Allah and His messenger [saw]", for I merely reflected the view of Allah and His Messenger [saw]. I also showed that this is the view which the Scholars of ahle Sunnah [mainstream islam] derived from the Quran and Sunnah, and in addition I gave the Quranic and intellectual evidence regarding it too.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Very impressive contradiction. So everyone was Muslim with a capital M as muslims today but they didn't practice as muslims today, so were in fact not muslims as we are today. Yep that makes sense.

It is just another 'fault' in your understanding sis, and not a contradiction in my statement. ; May Allah give you the ability to understand.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Now why doesnt that sprise me?!

Hyde Park speakers corner is a really good experience!; I'll reccomend anyone to try it at least once before they die .

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I wonder why so many of your posts sounds so smug and arrogant then?

maybe it's because you have to resort to some kind of method to try and discredit the views which you so desperately hate , so you throw around such acusations although you know that arrogance has nothing to do with it?.

Were the Prophets arrogant when they basically said "only this path [which I preach] will bring you salvation and contradictory paths will lead you to ruin"?

As Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller clarified, it is the absolute consensus of the muslim community that no other religions other than Islam is valid [after the advent of the Prophet [saw], and that to regard other religions other than Islam as valid is kufr by consensus, so if you think that adhering to this belief is arrogance, then you have to say that the entire Muslim community is arrogant for holding a view that saves them from kufr.

below is a reminder of the contents of shaykh Nuh's article that was posted in an earlier thread [with another of his relevant comments]:

(1) matters about Islam that everyone knows, which even a child raised among Muslims would know, technically termed ma‘lum min al-din bi d-darura or “necessarily known as being of the religion”;

(2) matters that not everyone knows;

(3) and matters that are disagreed upon even by “those who know,” the ulema or scholars.

To deny anything of the first category above constitutes plain and open unbelief.

Shadhili Tariqa - Iman, Kufr, and Takfir

That Islam is the only remaining valid or acceptable religion is necessarily known as part of our religion, and to believe anything other than this is unbelief (kufr) that places a person outside of Islam

Traditional Islam certainly does not accept the suggestion that:

"it is true that many Muslims believe that the universality of guidance pertains only to pre-Koranic times, but others disagree; there is no ‘orthodox’ interpretation here that Muslims must accept" (Religious Diversity, 124).

Orthodoxy exists, it is unanimously agreed upon by the scholars of Muslims, and we have conveyed in Nawawi’s words above that to believe anything else is unbelief. As for "others disagree," it is true, but is something that has waited for fourteen centuries of Islamic scholarship down to the present century to be first promulgated in Cairo in the 1930s by the French convert to Islam Rene Gunon, and later by his student Frithjof Schuon and writers under him. Who else said it before? And if no one did, and everyone else considers it kufr, on what basis should it be accepted?"

and I'll include the all important footnote of shaykh Nuh regarding the above ruling:

“This ruling should not be mistaken as a manifesto to anathematize (takfir) others who outwardly profess Islam, which is the duty of the Islamic magistrate (qadi) alone, not the ordinary Muslim. Nor is it applicable without exception, but rather is subject to legal restrictions and conditions that have been detailed in the third following question, “Is someone who has an idea that is kufr or “unbelief” thereby an “unbeliever”?—to which Islamic law answers, surprisingly as it may seem to many Muslims of our times, “Not necessarily.”

Universal Validity of Religions

Salaam

[Abdullah]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I get it now. You cut and paste a scholars opinion and if I do not accept that then of course I am a total moron with learning difficulties.

It is not your "acceptance and disagreement" that I was reffernig to, but merely you comprehending the concept/view explained [wether you accept the view/argument or not].

One thing I have noticed sis is that, to keep up a discussion with you, is to just go round in circles with the same arguments, so as I have said enuogh on this thread for any tom dick and harry to know what the Islamic views are regardnig the questions posed, I'll leave it at that and make this my last post.

Salaam

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Abdullah

I'll leave it at that and make this my last post.

Alhamdolillah. Of course you will leave it at that, you cannot provide Quranic evidence for your views, so if I were you I would bow out too.

[Abdullah]

Please dont waste your time replying to me sis, for I dont read your posts anymore, just like I did'nt read your latest one and all the other parts of your last one that I answered a part of; for I want to protect myself from your 'criticism' for the reason that it is 'disrespectfull' at times, to say the least

Peace.

ps: My prayers will be with you though.

[Abdullah]

sis, you have been successfully included in my ignore list ; now I dont have to shut my eyes anymore

Salaam.

[bananabrain]

as far as the question about sinless prophets is concerned, i feel it is only fair to point out that many commentators tend to attempt to excuse apparently sinful behaviour by the prophets and patriarchs. sometimes it's convincing, as in "aaron was afraid that the would-be idolators would kill him whereas by playing for time and going along with it, he would keep them busy until moses came back down the mountain" and sometimes it comes across as a bit of a whitewash, as in "uriah the hittite was eunuch/impotent, so bathsheba wasn't really his wife, so king david wasn't really committing adultery". either way the issue is not actually the Text of the Torah or the Tanakh themselves, but the interpretation of those texts.

the problem for me comes when you start to treat human interpretation itself (as in the hadith or the sunnah) as perfect and thus the situation develops that human interpretation acquires the status of Divine Speech itself, thus, to my mind, causing shirk. we resolved this problem long ago by taking the position that "both position A and [contradictory] position B are the 'Words of the Living G!D', but the halakhah (law) follows position A." in other words, in the absence of perfect knowledge of how to apply the Divine Will, a decision must be made, let's understand that what we wish to do is precisely that, apply G!D's Wishes, but let's not kid ourselves that we understand absolutely everything about them. granting the status of Divine Law to interpretation, as opposed to the Text itself, is what causes problems within the system akin to those caused within catholicism by maintaining that the pope is infallible.

Originally Posted by abdullah

I'm not saying that you have to accept the Quranic evidence bananabrain, I'm just merely giving you the islamic views

it is notable all the authorities that you are citing at such exhaustive length are mediaeval, rather than contemporaries of muhammad, because, as is abundantly clear, the Qur'an itself is ambiguous on the subject and requires scholarly interpretation. what you are doing is choosing to view sacred history through rose-tinted spectacles. it is also notable that all these "islamic views" are, without exception, couched in terms of assertion. in other words, you can be as much of a quote goblin as you like, but "sez you" continues to be the order of the day. suffice it to say that we are not in agreement with this.

I think you will find that this is possibly the view of the consensus, for I have heard it from hanafi Scholars [who are not 'Wahhabi's'], and Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips is a Canadian convert to Islam, and not 'saudi' at all...

don't bother with splitting hairs. if this were the view of the consensus, there would be no point in any religious muslim engaging in interfaith dialogue at all or in any other activity that was not driven by the desire to gain converts. my experience of religious muslims (and i can't tell you precisely which school and scholars they follow, unfortunately) does not follow this. is this the view, for example, of sheikh tantawi of al-azhar? for he is much involved in interfaith dialogue. it seems, therefore, that your assertions are contradicted by my experience. the people who tend to agree with you tend to be the sort of people who, wahhabi or not, are the product of saudi-funded religious education. put it this way, they're the same guys who go on about the "ummah" and the "khilafah" but are nowhere to be found when someone asks why unemployment is so high in the KSA or why nobody's complaining about the sudanese government killing its own [muslim] citizens in darfur.

Well you wanted to 'have it out properly', and find out the Islamic views regarding Judaism didn't you?, so I gave you them, now how can you blame me for only answering your questions and responding to your posts?

i wanted a chance to respond to your continual slurs against my religion and culture and you have given me the case at length. i find them tendentious, ignorant and illogical and (fortunately) unrepresentative of islam as a whole. if i thought you were right, abdullah, i'd give up dialogue and start supporting the "islam-is-backward" peanut gallery.

regarding the smileys, just trying to put a bit of humour in the posts; smileys are there to be used aren't they? ; and isn't a moderator supposed to promote their usage rather than be negative about them

humour requires two to tango. there is nothing remotely amusing about your opinions and the smileys just make them come across as smug, patronising and frankly creepy. and there is no onus on me as a moderator to support their use.

the 'smug' smiley is just meant to be a 'smile' and a 'ha ha I've exposed a fault in your argument' kind of thing that's just meant in a jokey kind of way

well, in that case, if it makes you happy, . orright?

Isn't the word 'Jew' derived from/named after the word 'Judah', and does that not denote that 'Jews' originally reffered to the tribe of Judah?; The definition of the term 'Jew' later got expanded to mean anyone who was a decendent of Israel 'as' or anyone who converted to 'Judaism'...but the word itself was orginally adopted to mean the tribe of Judah; the name 'Judaism' was derived from and named after Judah too, as can be seen from the encyclopedia of Religion:

The Hebrew term Yehudi, translated as Judaeus in Latin and Jew in English, originally referred to a member of the tribe of Judah.

The word "Jew" (in Hebrew, "Yehudi") is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means "Judah-ism,"

the last sentence, which i have bolded, does not mean what you take it to mean or imply it in any way. although the etymology of the english word "jew" or the hebrew word "yehudi" is as stated, it has no religious connotations whatsoever. a cursory familiarity with jewish history will reveal that the biblical kingdom of solomon split after his death into the two kingdoms, the northern kingdom of "israel" and the southern kingdom of "judah", which was ruled by the davidic male line which was of course of the tribe of judah, but included also the tribe of benjamin and much of the priestly tribe of levi. the northern kingdom was destroyed by the assyrians in 722 BCE and the ten tribes of this kingdom were "lost". thus jews today are deemed to have come from one of these two-and-a-bit remaining tribes of the surviving kingdom of judah, which was what survived until the babylonian destruction of the kingdom in 586 BCE. the reconstituted kingdom which the greeks and romans encountered, from which the word "jew" came to mean one of the surviving members of judah, benjamin or kohen/levi, is the source of the roman and greek designation, because it was subsequent to the assyrian dispersion. none of this implies a religious reorientation of the remaining bene yisra'el - all you are doing is retrofitting the etymology and distorting the value attached to it in order to suit your very modern prejudice.

[quote]"the concept of religion didn't exist then????[quote]
there is no *word* for the concept of religion before the greek privatisation of thought and the platonic separation of matter and spirit. there is certainly no word for "religion" in the Torah. what is the word for "religion" in the Qur'an?

when 'religion' is what the Prophets, starting from the very first one; Adam [as] taught to the people?

you have to understand that for us, prophecy is quite specific. a prophet is someone who prophesies. we have no record of one of adam's prophecies and, if you're honest, you don't either. we don't even use the same word for it as you do and, generally, hebrew and arabic do tend to share sacred vocabulary. you're making an argument based on english semantics and applying it to concepts that in the original have very little relationship.

was it not a 'religion' [way of life that equalls submitting to the lord of the universe] that was preached by Prophets like Isaac [as], Yaqub [as], Moses [as]?

ok, you can say there is a "way" or a teaching, or a set of laws, that's fine, you can talk in terms of deen or torah or halakhah but the english word "religion" implies theology - and theology is a greek word which cannot properly be implied to the way that judaism works.

All the true followers of any Prophet, were Muslims with a capital M, just like the muslims of today, and the name of the religion brought by all Prophets was ISLAM, as was explained by Shaykh Bilal Philiphs and ther other aritcle. This happens to be the view of the mainstream Islamic Scholars and not just those of Saudi.

for this to be the case, you'd have to maintain that the system of "islam" implemented by muhammad was a *rediscovery* and contained nothing new whatsoever. and if that's the case, are you maintaining that adam collected jiziya? in that case, who were the dhimmi he collected it from? who did he give zakat to? did he go on hajj? you don't think you're idealising this just a tad? or does it explicitly assert this in the Qur'an?

taqiyyah????!!! ; I thought I was being so candid and straightforward that Muslimwoman thought there was a hint of 'hate' to my posts, and now you claim I am hiding my real thoughts and beliefs

to be precise: what i am saying is that whereas you maintain in earlier posts and on other threads the standard bromides about ahl-e-qitab, analysis of the your opinion on the application of this status reveals that you would not consider it to apply to anyone but a jew or christian who lived before the time of muhammad, or who lived afterwards and converted to islam, in other words a muslim. any jew or christian who, since the time of muhammad, does not become a muslim with a capital M, is therefore, according to you, kuffaar. that makes you a takfir and a bigot. to imply that "islam" is tolerant of the "ahl-e-qitab" is therefore disingenuous, because in reality, in your point of view, the "ahl-e-qitab" are muslims anyway. that makes you a practitioner of taqiyyah in my book, as this quote below reveals:

once a non-Muslim told me "dont you find a problem with telling me that I'm going to hell"? [I didn't exactly put it that way to him; I was more sensitive and 'relevently contextual' [as I've been on this thread] in my words], and i explained to him...that I'm merely saying it, for he wanted to know what our view is regarding what happens to people who reject Islam and die in a state of rejection, and that I wasn't telling him it in spite, or malice, and that I was saying it in an 'invitation to Islam/warning', sense, just as the Prophets said it to people, and just as were commanded to 'spread the message' as well.

clearly we're not the first people to point out the disingenuousness of your position. dress it up in all the mealy-mouthed equivocation you like, but the message remains, "beards out for the big takfiri gang-bang".

well I used to go to hyde Park speakers corner almost every week

hah. that explains a lot. you certainly wouldn't have lasted long in any dialogue group that i know of.

by the way, there's plenty of Christians there too that are shouting from the top of their heads that if you don't accept Jesus as lord, youre going to hell

and i say the same thing to them as i say to you: 'am yisra'el hai - i'll take my chances with G!D thank you very much, for G!D knows best.

so if you think that is being 'arrogant', 'dismissive' and whatever else, then maybe you shouldn't ask for the Islamic views regarding Judaism anymore and should refrain from starting such a topic

that may be how your friends got control of finsbury park mosque and bored everyone into leaving or cowed them into submission, but here you can expect robust rebuttals of opinions that are based upon man-made ignorance and bigotry, no matter how handy you may be with your CTRL-V key. i have learnt that copious cut-and-paste quotations are generally the mark of one who is insecure in his ability to explain his own opinions and prefers to hide behind those of others.

in the thread where I expressed concern for your iq, I was basically having to do the same thing, i.e, explain the same thing over and over again cause you just didn't seem to get it [not in the sense that you didn't agree with it, for it is your right to agree or disagree, but in the sense that you weren't even understanding the concept that was explained although the issue was no rocket science at all].

you will notice that although i have attempted to explain myself till i was blue in the face, you don't seem to have understood my explanations. i nonetheless resist the temptation to impugn your mental health, although your emotional maturity is probably another matter.

Your statement would have been more appropriate if you said "should we believe Bananabrain or should we Beleive Allah and His messenger [saw]"

oh, i wouldn't dream of contradicting the Qur'an. on the other hand, i'll put myself up against *your interpretation of what some mediaeval beard interpreted a verse of Qur'an as meaning*, particularly if i can drive a coach and horses through your argument.

I want to protect myself from your 'criticism' for the reason that it is 'disrespectful' at times, to say the least

*noise of head being stuck into sand and bottom hoisted in the air*

i think that probably concludes the useful content of this thread.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Muslimwoman]

I would say something but I can't, I am on the ignore list.




I shall go and stand on the naughty spot now for being childish.

[Abdullah]

Peace and blessings banabrain

Originally Posted by bananabrain

the problem for me comes when you start to treat human interpretation itself (as in the hadith or the sunnah) as perfect...

The 'human interpretations' regarding the Quran is from Allah too, for the prophet [saw] interpreted the Quran for us, and this interpretation was revealed by Allah in what is called the 'unrecited revelation', i.e, the revelation that is not included in the Quran itself as the verses of the Quran.

ijtihad [independent reasoning used in deriving interpretation of Quran and Sunnah] is required by those who are qualified in fiqh to derive the correct Prophetic interpretation, and in this respect, the Mujtahids [those who are qualified for ijtihad] are not infallibe and they could make mistakes, but there is a well established view in Islam that has been established decicively from the Quran and Sunnah, that the interpretation of the Quran will be protected as a neccessity, along with the verses of the Quran, and that the consensus of the Islamic Scholars could never be wrong [as there would be divine protection on consensus']

...and the view that past revelations from Allah [versions of Islam that was revealed to past Prophets, before the advent of the Prophet Muhammad saw] have been abrogated with the advent of the Prophet Muhammad [saw] and thus are no longer valid, is the view of the absolute consensus in Islam thus we can be sure that this view is not a view that is subject to error.

There is also a consensus of the islamic Scholars that the four school of thoughts, are all correct in their interpretation, thus we can be sure that it is them that have the correct interpreation of the Quran.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

it is notable all the authorities that you are citing at such exhaustive length are mediaeval, rather than contemporaries...

All the contemparary Islamic Scholars, including those who are noted to be 'moderates' by the west, such as Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, Scholars from the Muslim council of Britain and even Yusuf Islam, formerrly known as Cat stevens, will agree that 'Judiasm' and 'Christianity' are no longer valid to God Allmighty. You can also hear Yusuf Islam [the great western 'moderate' Scholar? of Islam] say that Islam is the religion with Allah since time began, in the following video:

YouTube - A is for Allah by Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens)

Originally Posted by bananabrain

is this the view, for example, of sheikh tantawi of al-azhar?

Yes it is...you can check it if you like.

Muslims just use the names 'Christianity' and 'Judaism' to refer to the versions of Islam revealed to the Prophets from the children of Israel [as], and Jesus [pbuh] when discussing/conversing with Christians and Jews, so as to not casue any confusion, but if you ask any of the religious Muslims that you know of wether the God given name of those religions is 'Judaism' and 'Christianity' then I'm sure inshAllah that they will basically say the same thnigs I have said on here.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

for he is much involved in interfaith dialogue. it seems, therefore, that your assertions are contradicted by my experience. the people who tend to agree with you tend to be the sort of people who, wahhabi or not, are the product of saudi-funded religious education. put it this way, they're the same guys who go on about the "ummah" and the "khilafah" but are nowhere to be found when someone asks why unemployment is so high in the KSA or why nobody's complaining about the sudanese government killing its own [muslim] citizens in darfur.

Infact I oppose the 'Khilafa advocates' and the Wahhabi doctrine; you can check this for yourself, that my views [all of them mentioned in these boards] accord to the mainstream Scholars of the ahlus Sunnah [those of the four madhabs and who consist of the overwhelming vast majority of Islamic Scholars; they include even the one's that are considered as 'moderates' in the west ]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i wanted a chance to respond to your continual slurs against my religion and culture...

You shouldn't be that sensetive regardnig a discussion/debate on religion [for this subject is obviously contradictory]; esspecially when you yourself ask to be aquainted with the Islamic views regarding an issue.

Some of my 'unminced words' that were used to put the Islamic views across, was in response to misunderstandings in the posts that I replied to [whcih in turn needed a more clear and straightforward answer so as to avoid a repeat of misunderstandings] and in response to your insisting that my views weren't infact the correct Islamic views, and in which case I had to put my views across more assertively and plainly in order to get the definitive Islamic views across

You raised this discussion and when I gave you the Islamic views regardnig your queries, you not only gave me the perspective from your religion, but you replied back that the views I gave you weren't the Islamic view, so naturally I asserted and gave you proof after proof that they were indeed the Islamic views; if you just gave me the Jewish [or your own] perspective on this matter and not argued that my views weren't actually the Islamic views, then I could have just discussed/debated the perspectives put forward by you [i thnik this is why you called me 'dismissive'; because I was just asserting the islamic views rather than adress your other 'evidences'...], but I hope you can understand that my first priority will be to prove my self right concerning the views of my own religion, when you insist time after time again [this is why, my assertions and evidences and explanations for my views had to continue too] that they are not the views of my own religion, or that they are some deviant minority view .

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i find them tendentious, ignorant and illogical and (fortunately) unrepresentative of islam as a whole.

Just about every Muslim in the world will tell you that Judaism is distorted [from the religion originally brought by Moses as] and that it is no longer valid; so please check it out wether this indeed is a mainstream view in Islam, before you claim that this is not a mainstream view; and as I said, you'd find that the name of Gods religion was Islam, since the time of Prophet Adam 'as', is a mainstream view as well [we could be talking about consensus here; it's upto you to check it out now before you claim it isn't]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

if i thought you were right, abdullah, i'd give up dialogue and start supporting the "islam-is-backward" peanut gallery.

Couldn't the followers of past revelations distort it's teachings and thus be astray? and couldn't Allah abrogate past revelations with the advent of New Messengers?; if you think any of these two views are possible, than you shouldn't think that Islam is 'backwards' regarding these views, but rather you should look at the possibility of these views benig true from an objective point of view.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

humour requires two to tango. there is nothing remotely amusing about your opinions and the smileys just make them come across as smug, patronising and frankly creepy. and there is no onus on me as a moderator to support their use.

For your comfort, I've cut down their use on this post; ain't I a charitable guy ; only joking.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

there is no *word* for the concept of religion before the greek privatisation of thought and the platonic separation of matter and spirit. there is certainly no word for "religion" in the Torah. what is the word for "religion" in the Qur'an?

The Quranic word for 'religion' is 'Deen' which means 'way of life'; according to Islam, the name of the code of life that God revealed to all Prophets, was Islam, and anyone who accepted their message and submitted to God was a Muslim; some abrogations and additions to God's code of life does not change it's name, nor does it change the name of those who submit to it, so although some changes in the rulings and practices occured with the advent of new Messengers [pbuta], the name of the religion remained 'Islam' for this remains the essence of the code of life revealed by Allah; i.e, total submission to His Will, and those who submit to it, remain just that, submitters to Allah, i.e, Muslims, so there is no need to change the names...

Do not Jews beleive that God allowed them some kind of food during one time, and later forbid it for them?; well this is an example of how changes could take place in God's religion, but do not the Jews consider their religion to be allways 'Judaism' and it's followers to be 'Jews', despite any changes that may take place? ... So I hope now you can understand of how the name of God's religion and it's adherants does not need to change with the changes in the code of life that takes place with the advent of New Messengers. [Muslimwoman, you found this concept a bit hard to understand, so please take note of this explanation ; feeling a bit charitable today ]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you have to understand that for us, prophecy is quite specific. a prophet is someone who prophesies. we have no record of one of adam's prophecies and, if you're honest, you don't either. we don't even use the same word for it as you do and, generally, hebrew and arabic do tend to share sacred vocabulary. you're making an argument based on english semantics and applying it to concepts that in the original have very little relationship.

it's not based on English semantics bro , it is based on the Quran and Sunnah; from the Quran and Sunnah we know that Adam [as] was the first Prophet for mankind...

Originally Posted by bananabrain

ok, you can say there is a "way" or a teaching, or a set of laws, that's fine, you can talk in terms of deen or torah or halakhah but the english word "religion" implies theology - and theology is a greek word which cannot properly be implied to the way that judaism works.

I merely meant it as the translation of the Word 'Deen' [way of life...]; language is evolving all the time, and english speaking Muslims have put new definitions and meanings to words of which the origins may be verry different from the defintion we use for them; it's all about the definition one uses ]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

to be precise: what i am saying is that whereas you maintain in earlier posts and on other threads the standard bromides about ahl-e-qitab, analysis of the your opinion on the application of this status reveals that you would not consider it to apply to anyone but a jew or christian who lived before the time of muhammad, or who lived afterwards and converted to islam, in other words a muslim. any jew or christian who, since the time of muhammad, does not become a muslim with a capital M, is therefore, according to you, kuffaar.

you have got it all worng ; it would help if you quote exactly what I said, and then explain of how you understood it; I'll then correct you regardnig it... .

In a nutshell; ahle kithab are people to who'm former revelations were revealed; so those would be the Jews and the Christians; if a member of the ahle kithab adopts a view that renders him a kaafir, then he still remains 'ahle kithab', and those of the ahle kithab that are rightly guided, i.e, those that did not reject Jesus [pbuh], nor attributed divinity to him, and those that converted to Islam [the version that was revealed to Muhammad saw] after the advent of the Prophet Muhammad [saw], are the ahle kithab and Muslims/beleivers at the same time.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

that makes you a takfir and a bigot.

This is a mainstream view; check it and see . Whats biggoted about acknowledging the astray path and it's people?; were the Prophets 'bigots' as well when they defined the two paths; the straight one and the astray one?.

'takfir' in this sense merely means, defining the demarcation lines between imaan [faith in the one and only true religion] and kufr [disbelief]; Allah has defined such demarcation lines, so have all the Prophets [dont the Jews consider the trinitarian Christians to be idolators and the Prophet Muhammad [saw] to be a false Prophet?, so this will make the Jews 'takfiri's' as well ; basically, if a person of any religion considers those of other religions to be in a 'false' religion..., they too are 'takfiri's' , so it's no good trying to pin this word only on us, in a negative sense ]

The negativity associated with this word, only applies in cases where some Muslims are quick to pronounce takfir on other Muslims [without verry clear and decicive evidence that that person indeed rejects something that is obligatory to faith], for the reason that the Prophet Muhammad [saw] basically said that if a Muslim calls another Muslim a kaafir, then one of the two is a kaafir, i.e, if the person called a kaafir is not a kaafir, then the caller will be the kaafir, thus to pronuonce takfir without the verry clear and decicive evidence indicates that a person is careless about falling into kufr himself, hence the negativity associated with this kind of takfir; it does not in any way apply to the mainstream views regarding who are the kaafirs, i.e, the consensus of the Muslim Ummah regard the Ahmeddiyyahs as kaafirs [for believing in a Prophet, after the prophet Muhammad saw], and such a 'takfir' has no negativity attached to it at all.

Listen to one of the most moderate Muslim Scholar; shaykh Hamza Yusuf, who even got invited to the whitehouse to advice bush after 911, explain two mainstream views of Islam regardnig this matter; one is that whoever rejects Islam is a kaafir with a big 'K' [this view is held by [approxiamately] at least half of the muslims of the world], and the other view reserves the 'Kaafir with the big 'K'' judgement for they consider the state of benig a 'kaafir' to be 'eternal' and thus, as they dont know wether a non-muslim will convert to a Muslim before his death or not, thus they reserve the kaafir with the big K judgement. But the Muslims are unanimous that if a person rejects Islam [the version of Islam bruoght by Muhammad [saw] and thereafter dies as a non-Muslim, that person will die as a kaafir and his abode will be the fire, to abide in there for all eternity :

YouTube - Sheikh Hamza Yusuf: Creed Of Imam Al Tahawi p5=

YouTube - Sheikh Hamza Yusuf: Creed Of Imam Al Tahawi p6

Peace

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by abdullah

The 'human interpretations' regarding the Quran is from Allah too, for the prophet [saw] interpreted the Quran for us, and this interpretation was revealed by Allah in what is called the 'unrecited revelation', i.e, the revelation that is not included in the Quran itself as the verses of the Quran.

interesting. how is this referred to? and how does one distinguish between this "unrecited revelation" and later interpretation? how are they categorised?

ijtihad [independent reasoning used in deriving interpretation of Quran and Sunnah] is required by those who are qualified in fiqh to derive the correct Prophetic interpretation, and in this respect, the Mujtahids [those who are qualified for ijtihad] are not infallible and they could make mistakes, but there is a well established view in Islam that has been established decisively from the Quran and Sunnah, that the interpretation of the Quran will be protected as a necessity, along with the verses of the Quran, and that the consensus of the Islamic Scholars could never be wrong [as there would be divine protection on consensus']

so, if i understand you correctly, by definition G!D arranges matters so that consensus occurs. presumably this means that where consensus does not occur, it must be down to someone "innovating" or "distorting", rather than genuine grounds for disagreement - in other words, there's always one right answer, according to G!D and, by definition, it is the answer that the consensus of scholars have come up with, because G!D wouldn't let the consensus make a mistake?

it all sounds rather convenient for the scholars' authority, i have to say. and don't the sunni say that the "gates of ijtihad are closed"? in this case, does the consensus of scholars still operate, or can scholars now disagree with each other and make mistakes? because i have to say that despite your desperate insistence that there is such a consensus, i see very little evidence of it other than everyone saying that it actually exists!

...and the view that past revelations from Allah [versions of Islam that was revealed to past Prophets, before the advent of the Prophet Muhammad saw] have been abrogated with the advent of the Prophet Muhammad [saw] and thus are no longer valid, is the view of the absolute consensus in Islam thus we can be sure that this view is not a view that is subject to error.

all i can say is that you may well believe this to be the case, but i know many muslims that take a different view and i know it is based upon scholarly advice.

In a nutshell; ahle kithab are people to who'm former revelations were revealed; so those would be the Jews and the Christians; if a member of the ahle kithab adopts a view that renders him a kaafir, then he still remains 'ahle kithab', and those of the ahle kithab that are rightly guided, i.e, those that did not reject Jesus [pbuh], nor attributed divinity to him, and those that converted to Islam [the version that was revealed to Muhammad saw] after the advent of the Prophet Muhammad [saw], are the ahle kithab and Muslims/beleivers at the same time.

but this amounts to exactly the same thing! muslim = good, non-muslim since muhammad = by definition kaafir. so what difference can it possibly make?

dont the Jews consider the trinitarian Christians to be idolators and the Prophet Muhammad [saw] to be a false Prophet?

the general consensus (although there are dissenters) is that christians, trinitarian or otherwise, are not idolators, based on the PoV of the meiri, C12th france, because idolatry is not about what you believe, but how you act. as for islam, it is certainly *not* idolatrous according to all opinions, but muhammad could not be considered a navi or prophet in jewish terms, because he forbade things that were permitted by Torah (e.g. wine) and permitted things that were forbidden by Torah (e.g. working on the sabbath) there would be nothing to stop him being a bona fide Divine *messenger* to other people; but G!D would never abrogate the Law that was Commmanded to the jewish people at sinai. a prophet is not the same thing as an emissary or messenger.

All the contemparary Islamic Scholars, including those who are noted to be 'moderates' by the west, such as Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, Scholars from the Muslim council of Britain and even Yusuf Islam, formerrly known as Cat stevens, will agree that 'Judiasm' and 'Christianity' are no longer valid to God Allmighty.

cat stevens you're giving me? i think you might be under a bit of a misapprehension if you think that i care whether someone has been described as a "moderate" or not. your including those two-faced mendacious weasels at the MCB in this grouping is an indication of how little you understand non-muslims. "moderate" is clearly a relative term - if i've got a choice between an "extremist" who wants to shoot my auntie and a "moderate" who thinks that i'm a lying infidel that's going to hell, frankly they can both sod off; i'm not interested in your condescension. i also note your lumping everyone together into "the west", as if such an entity actually exists. this is typical of the groupthink displayed by people like you. "the muslims" this, "the west" that. so keen on defining groups and shoehorning everyone into your narrow little definitions.

i shall check what you said about sheikh tantawi. i know he's not exactly the most cuddly guy in the world but if he holds these views then for him to be engaging in dialogue activities is the height of hypocrisy.

Muslims just use the names 'Christianity' and 'Judaism' to refer to the versions of Islam revealed to the Prophets from the children of Israel [as], and Jesus [pbuh] when discussing/conversing with Christians and Jews, so as to not cause any confusion

confusion my rosy behind - that is utterly two-faced. one thing for public consumption, "islam is all about peace" and in private "oh, but they're all a bunch of lying, text-distorting kuffaar". do you not even get that people would find your attitude problematic?

Infact I oppose the 'Khilafa advocates' and the Wahhabi doctrine; you can check this for yourself, that my views [all of them mentioned in these boards] accord to the mainstream Scholars of the ahlus Sunnah [those of the four madhabs and who consist of the overwhelming vast majority of Islamic Scholars; they include even the one's that are considered as 'moderates' in the west.

in terms of their practical difference to me, there really isn't one except that they will be honest that they want me and everyone else to convert or die, whereas you'll equivocate publicly about what you truly believe. on the other hand, i suppose i ought to congratulate you on your candour in this thread, although frankly i had to really drag it out of you.

You shouldn't be that sensitive regarding a discussion/debate on religion [for this subject is obviously contradictory]; esspecially when you yourself ask to be acquainted with the Islamic views regarding an issue.

i'm not "sensitive" about it. i am examining the substance and structure of your views and i am letting you know how they come across and how i feel about it. i have to say you're not exactly winning hearts and minds for islam right now, rather the opposite.

if you just gave me the Jewish [or your own] perspective on this matter and not argued that my views weren't actually the Islamic views, then I could have just discussed/debated the perspectives put forward by you

the thing is that we're not actually having a debate here, because your belief system apparently obliges you to believe that my belief system and way of life is something completely different to what i believe it to be, based not upon knowledge of my belief system but on dogmatic assertion of your own. my belief system does not impose value judgements other than the most generically universal (e.g. murder and stealing are bad) on others, but yours presumes, in the most arrogant and patronising fashion, to wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent mine in the most extreme and unpleasant way. i have always been aware that such points of view as yours exist, but i am interested in finding a way for our two religions to co-exist. unfortunately your point of view is 100% incompatible with mine, so the question is unfortunately about the nature and form the conflict between these points of view is likely to take. as i said above, i think we've come to the end of useful discussion and if, as you say, "Just about every Muslim in the world will tell you that Judaism is distorted [from the religion originally brought by Moses as] and that it is no longer valid;" then i foresee the much-bruited "clash of civilisations" as unavoidable.

Couldn't the followers of past revelations distort its teachings and thus be astray? and couldn't Allah abrogate past revelations with the advent of New Messengers?

only if these followers were such depraved and wicked people as you would suggest and only if G!D changed the Divine Will which, in the Torah, it was suggested would not in fact occur, hence the use of the frequent phrase "forever". now, since my culture is not filled with such depraved and wicked people, forever plotting to thwart the Divine Plan, but, rather, bases its entire existence upon doing G!D's Will and keeping the Law and the Commandments, to sanctify the Divine Name, your ideas are obviously mistaken. that, to me, suggests that somewhere along the line either someone in *your* camp changed something, or maybe that G!D didn't actually have as much of a hand in your revelation as you maintain. in other words, isn't it slightly more likely that the followers of so-called "subsequent revelations" tried to misrepresent the past to gain converts from the adherents of "previous" revelations? that's what the early christians did to us. i can't help what someone may have inserted into your tradition. i find it hard to believe that such an impressive edifice as islam could have arisen without Divine assistance, but i find it impossible to believe that G!D would wish the jewish people to disappear after what was Revealed to us - you yourself say that G!D "arranges matters" to preserve consensus, so is it entirely beyond belief that we have been preserved by G!D, despite everything that history and people like you have thrown at us - in fact, by contrast, is it likely that we have survived as we have if G!D, as you are so keen to point out, wants us to do things differently? how could such a wicked, disobedient group not be destroyed? think about that, why don't you.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Abdullah]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

interesting. how is this referred to? and how does one distinguish between this "unrecited revelation" and later interpretation? how are they categorised?

so, if i understand you correctly, by definition G!D arranges matters so that consensus occurs. presumably this means that where consensus does not occur, it must be down to someone "innovating" or "distorting", rather than genuine grounds for disagreement - in other words, there's always one right answer, according to G!D and, by definition, it is the answer that the consensus of scholars have come up with, because G!D wouldn't let the consensus make a mistake?

it all sounds rather convenient for the scholars' authority, i have to say. and don't the sunni say that the "gates of ijtihad are closed"? in this case, does the consensus of scholars still operate, or can scholars now disagree with each other and make mistakes? because i have to say that despite your desperate insistence that there is such a consensus, i see very little evidence of it other than everyone saying that it actually exists!

The answer to your above questions lies in the previous threads "discussing taqlid" and 'slavery in Islam"; these questions need a lot of indepth and contextual elaboration, so I hope you dont mind me just reffering you to previous threads rather than write it all out again

Originally Posted by bananabrain

all i can say is that you may well believe this to be the case, but i know many muslims that take a different view and i know it is based upon scholarly advice.

There are only [relatively] a verry few liberal modernists who dont know any better, that advocate the perrenialism view and claim that such a view is based on the Quran; if you read the excerpts from Shaykh Nuh's article posted in one of the abvoe posts, you will see that it is the absolute consensus of the muslim Ummah that no religion other than Islam is valid [with the advent of the Prophet saw] and that to beleive in the validation of perrenialism is kufr by consensus, i.e, all the Islamic Scholars, from the time of the Prophet [saw] to this time regard such a beleif to take one out of the folds of Islam because such a person refuses to submit to evidence such as the following:

The Prophet Muhammad [saw] said: "By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell" (al-Baghawi: Sharh al-sunna 1.104). This hadith was also reported by Muslim in his Sahih by `Abd al-Razzaq in his Musannaf, and others. It is a rigorously authenticated (sahih) evidence that clarifies the word of Allah in surat Al 'Imran

"Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted from him, and shall be of those who have truly failed in the next life" (Qur'an 3:85) and many other verses and hadiths. That Islam is the only remaining valid or acceptable religion is necessarily known as part of our religion

read shaykh Nuh's article in the following link; whcih also explains where the perrenialism view [amongst some modernists] stemmed from:

Universal Validity of Religions

Originally Posted by bananabrain

cat stevens you're giving me? i think you might be under a bit of a misapprehension if you think that i care whether someone has been described as a "moderate" or not. your including those two-faced mendacious weasels at the MCB in this grouping is an indication of how little you understand non-muslims. "moderate" is clearly a relative term - if i've got a choice between an "extremist" who wants to shoot my auntie and a "moderate" who thinks that i'm a lying infidel that's going to hell, frankly they can both sod off;

Well according to that definition of who isn't moderate, you'll have to say that all the people of the world that beleive that Islam is not a true religion from God, and who by implication believe that the muslims are "lying infidels that are going to hell", are not moderate; the same will apply to any people who think that there are people on earth who are adhering to a 'false' religion, i.e, if Christians or jews think that hindus, bhudists, Muslims, etc, are adhering to a 'man-made' [i.e, not a true religion from God] religion [with all it's implications], then they too will be not moderate, so that will make the overwhelming vast majority of the people of the world, not moderate!

Just imagine if a hindu or a Christian who worships Jesus [pbuh], asks a Muslim, "what is the view of your religion of wether our religion is a true religion from God or not", and the muslim answers, "well according to Islam, Christianity has been distorted [from the orignial teachings of Jesus pbuh], and islam regards worshipping idols or a man to be an unforgiveable sin [if a person dies with while not having repented from it]", and he responds, "well in that case, I dont regard you as a moderate"! ; this is basically your reaction to the muslim Ummah, for the reason that they dont beleive in perrenialism!

You can keep your own subjective definition of 'moderate' [that is based on your interests for people to accept your religion as true and undistorted], and we'll keep our definition of it

Originally Posted