Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 25, “The Criterion”
posted at 8:00 am on May 18, 2008 by Robert Spencer
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The name of this late Meccan sura is Al-Furqan (الفرقان), which is variously translated as the criterion, the canon, the standard. The word appears in v. 1, where it is identified as the Qur’an. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Qur’an is “called thus [al-furqan] because it has discriminated (faraqa) between truth and falsehood.”
Allah sent it to Muhammad, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn continues, “that he may be to all the worlds, [to] mankind and the jinn, but not the angels, a warner, a threatening of God’s chastisement.” Why not to the angels? Perhaps because the angels “resist not Allah in that which He commandeth them” (66:6), and thus have no need of Muhammad’s warning. But he has been sent to everyone on earth, as he himself explains in a hadith: “Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.”
The opening verse of this sura is also one of the apparent (and unacknowledged by Islamic commentators) exceptions to the rule that Allah is the lone speaker in the Qur’an — unless he is blessing himself for delivering the Qur’an to Muhammad. Following this there comes in verses 2-10 yet another passage chastising the unbelievers for rejecting Muhammad’s message. Allah has dominion over all things and has no son (v. 2), yet the unbelievers have taken along with him other gods that can create nothing and do not have his power over life and death (v. 3). From this it would appear that the unbelievers don’t reject Allah — they just worship other gods with him. This could be a reference to the Christian Trinity or to the pagan Arabs who worshipped Allah along with many other gods, or both.
The unbelievers charge Muhammad with lying (v. 4) and say that in his Qur’an he is merely repeating “tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening” (v. 5). These charges stung Muhammad, as they’re often rebutted in the Qur’an. In another place we learn that the man who was allegedly dictating to Muhammad was a foreigner: “We know indeed that they say, ‘It is a man that teaches him.’ The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear” (16:103). Then there is an unnamed figure who, according to a hadith, “was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara [sura 2] and Al-Imran [sura 3], and he used to write (the revelations) for the Prophet.” That is, he used to transcribe Muhammad’s Qur’anic recitations. Evidently this experience disabused him of the notion that they were divinely inspired, for “later on he returned to Christianity again and he used to say: ‘Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him.’”
Allah reacted with fury to one person who made these charges: the deity pointed out that the man was illegitimate (“base-born”) and promised to brand him on the nose (68:10-16). He also calls down divine woe upon “those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for miserable price!” (2:79). And when speaking of the People of the Book, Allah tells Muhammad: “There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, ‘That is from Allah,’ but it is not from Allah!” (3:78). These and other passages suggest that some people around Muhammad mocked his prophetic pretensions by representing their own writings, or folkloric or apocryphal material, as divine revelation, and selling them to him.
The unbelievers also complain that Muhammad is an ordinary man, and ask why an angel wasn’t sent down instead (v. 7). Muhammad, they scoff, doesn’t even have a garden (v. 8), although Allah tells him he could give him the Gardens of Paradise (v. 10). Then verses 11-34 warn of the dreadful Day of Judgment, when the unbelievers will lament, “Oh! would that I had taken a (straight) path with the Messenger!” (v. 27) and will realize the terrible mistake they made in taking the Qur’an to be “foolish nonsense” (v. 30). Meanwhile, as the fearsome Day unfolds, the believers will rest in the Garden (v. 24). In verses 35-42 Allah briefly recalls Moses and Noah, and notes that the people to whom they and other prophets were sent received them with scorn also, and were utterly destroyed (vv. 36, 39). Yet they continue to mock Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet, and will soon receive their penalty (vv. 40-41).
Verses 43-77 then detail some of Allah’s powers in governing the natural order of the earth — but the unbelievers are “like cattle” (v. 44) who are insensate amid all this evidence. Allah could have sent a prophet to every town (v. 51) — but of course we have already seen that he has sent Muhammad for all people (v. 1). Muhammad should “strive against” the unbelievers “with the utmost strenuousness” (v. 52) — in Arabic, “jihad against them a great jihad” (جَاهِدْهُمْ بِهِ جِهَادًا كَبِيرًا). According to the Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, this should be done “by means of the Qur’an” and “by the sword.”
Allah has created mankind from water (v. 54), but the idols are powerless (v. 55). Muhammad has been sent to give good news and a warning (v. 56) — “meaning,” says Ibn Kathir, “a bringer of good news to the believers, a warner to the disbelievers; bringing good news of Paradise to those who obey Allah, and bringing warnings of a dreadful punishment for those who go against the commandments of Allah.” Allah created everything in six days (v. 59), although it seems to take eight days in 41:9-12. The unbelievers refuse to do Muhammad’s bidding — they won’t prostrate themselves to Al-Rahman, the Merciful (v. 60). Ibn Kathir explains that this comes from the time of the Treaty of Hudaibiyya between Muhammad and the pagan Arabs of Mecca. When Muhammad ordered that the treaty begin with “In the Name of Allah, Ar-Rahman (the Most Gracious), Ar-Rahim (the Most Merciful),” they responded: “We do not know Ar-Rahman or Ar-Rahim. Write what you used to write: ‘Bismika Allahumma (in Your Name, O Allah).” This, along with v. 3, is another indication that Allah was one of the gods worshiped by the pagans before the advent of Islam. V. 60 is also one of the verses of prostration: the believer is to make a prostration whenever the verse is recited.
Those who “invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication” (v. 68) will escape punishment, but those who do these things will receive double penalty on the Day of Judgment (v. 69). Allah will turn the evil done by those who repent, believe and do good works into good (v. 70). But Allah is not made uneasy by the unbelievers’ refusal to accept Islam; however, because they have rejected him, punishment is inevitable (v. 77).
Next week: Sura 26, “The Poets.” Will Muhammad torment himself to death with grief that his foes do not become Muslims?
(Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Good Morning!
I read online somewhere (on a site with testimonials from ex-Muslims who converted to Christianity, sharing their reasons for conversion) that ALL Muslims will have to go to Hell, some for just a little while, others for longer, etc etc. One of the passages used to support this was 19:69-72 and I checked the Vault to see if you had addressed this…it kinda got skipped.
Here’s the comparison translations:
Oooo! I can’t believe I’m the FIRST to comment! I’m usually the last (sometimes by quite a bit!!) when I comment at all.
Thank you VERY very much Mr. Spencer.
Auralae on May 18, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Sorry, I forgot to say, “Meanwhile, as the fearsome Day unfolds, the believers will rest in the Garden (v. 24).” is what brought that to mind….–also, isn’t it “neat” that according to Mohammed, ALL angels obey Allah–wouldn’t want anyone even CONSIDERING that not all angels are good, would we?! TOTALLY neat that it’s 66:6!
Auralae on May 18, 2008 at 8:50 AM
The Qur’an condemns itself.
Those who lie cannot hide their lie forever.
And usually they are the ones who condemn themselves by screwing up and not being smart enough to cover their lies.
For example, Bush’s comment in the Israeli Knesset about negotiating with terrorists was not addressed to any specific person in name, but it was soon pisked up by Hussein and other Democrats who - by instantly replying to Bush’s “attack” - condemned themselves and affirmed the very point Bush was making about those who want to sit and chat with terrorists.
See what I’m saying?
Unfortunately, Islam has been around with its lies for a long time, with a lot of followers - who through the centuries - were brainwashed, so it is difficult to enlighten them but there are those among them who - with some reasoning - can see the light of Truth.
Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 9:16 AM
The nice thing about the Qu’ran is that if you ever forget what happens to people who don’t believe in Allah you can flip the book open to almost any page and find it.
The best advantage the Q book gave us is that it made Muslims determined it was best to keep all Muslims stupid so as to lessen criticism or questions about Islam.
BL@KBIRD on May 18, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Quran 32, As-Sajdah (The Adoration), 11:
The Biblical Hebrew word for an angel is “Mal’ach”, also meaning a messenger. Angels by defintion carry out their divine orders. They are not beings with inclinations who can choose between good and evil.
Shy Guy on May 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM
“The Qur’an condemns itself.”
It certainly does…I remember the first time I ever tried reading an English translation–I was mildly surprised at how often it “addresses” that Mary is not partnered with G*d, not to be worshipped…in effect, answering much later superstitions, not scripture at all.
Meanwhile it includes stories of the infant Jesus that were obviously taken from exactly the sort of “sources” that the Qur’an was “answering” by denying Mary’s “divinity”. It’s filled with superstitions!
Auralae on May 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Game, set, match!
abinitioadinfinitum on May 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM
“They are not beings with inclinations who can choose between good and evil.”
Show me where I ever said the did. I said that not all angels are good. One third aren’t.
Our scriptures warn that some angels are deceitful, and are indeed out to deceive us! The closest thing the Qur’an warns of in that manner would be the Djinn wouldn’t it?
All I was saying was that Mohammed chose not to pass on the teaching that Satan is himself an angel-just like Michael and Gabriel…instead he chose to obfuscate that particular teaching, making the being we know of as Satan, Lucifer etc etc a different type of being, one “made from fire”–a djinn. I don’t think that even the Qur’an teaches that they are somehow able to do anything outside of “Allah’s” will.
Auralae on May 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM
The fool behind the curtain is exposed again.
abinitioadinfinitum on May 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Ah. The never ending story that lingers today.
This can be interpreted one of two ways: Vladimir Lenin or O.J. Simpson.
If the lie gets repeated often; and the dissent gets crushed; all of a sudden - it is ‘truth’.
OR
Even if the glove didn’t fit, we all know what really happened.
Two questions for you, R.S.:
Isn’t it claimed that mohammed was illiterate, and his koran was such a ‘rube goldberg’ abomination of literature that the Arabic language actually had to re-formulated to fit mohammed’s ‘miracle’?
Also, were you and Iraq’s PM, Al-Maliki, separated at birth?
Just kidding.
Thanks again for a good lesson. Keep up the good work!
locomotivebreath1901 on May 18, 2008 at 10:33 AM
This isn’t going to help (stupid American solider tricks)
corona on May 18, 2008 at 10:59 AM
On this point, I was expounding what you had said, not arguing with you.
You and I do not share the same scriptures.
If I’m not mistaken, djins in Islamic mythology appear in human or animal forms.
Shy Guy on May 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM
These djinn’s CAN take form of humans and animals, albeit for a short time, since killing a djinn is impossible in it’s ghostly state, but when it takes living forms, it can be killed if that form is killed.
(I’m a huge LOST tv show fan, and there’s this “smokie” monster that hangs out, and we’ve come to the conclusion it has to be a djinn) So I took it upon myself to read up on these things in detail. :-)
JetBoy on May 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM
And from these and other readings, it’s rather clear that Allah shows all His love to the “believers”, but none of that love to be for the “unbelievers”. Which is contradictory to, say, Christianity that declares God loves all people…noting the difference between “non-believer” and those who know the Word and yet reject it.
From a couple weeks ago, we know there’s no “redemption” as it is, in Islam. And I saw where this has cause many Muslims to convert to Christianity.
JetBoy on May 18, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Robert, is there any consensus at all yet on who may have taught Muhammad about Christianity/monotheism? Or is it generally assumed that he simply picked it up from Nestorians and others in his travels? Is there any specific information on the monk Babira and his relationship with Muhammad?
Connie on May 18, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Robert Spencer:
Yes, but later on in the same hadith, Allah causes that man to die, and he is buried. But the next morning, the earth is removed and his body thrown out. Thinking it was Muhammad and his followers who unearthed him, the grave was dug as deep as they could make it, yet the next morning, they still found his body removed. Then,
I guess implying it was Allah after all?
It seems me all these backpeddling passges reflect internal debates over the authority of these Islamic scriptures. They are really confusing to me when taken at face value.
HeIsSailing on May 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM
I’m not clicking on it, but I assume it was about the soldier who used a Qur’an for target practice? You’re right. Not helpful at all.
Connie on May 18, 2008 at 12:11 PM
How is the Quran different in this respect from Christianity:
“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”
- Matthew XXV:41
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”
- Matthew XXV:46
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
- Mark XVI:15-16
Shy Guy on May 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs:
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls the word of God “quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword”. Many Christians interpret this as a reference to their own Scriptures. I personally don’t think that is what it means, but nevertheless many Christians use this passage to compare the Bible to a Sword.
Could the Islamic commentator also be comparing his own Scriptures to a Sword? When v52 says to “strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur’an)”, is a sword just gratuitously added to the commentary out of bloodlust, or could the commentator mean to use the power of the Quran as its own weapon against unbelievers?
HeIsSailing on May 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Jetboy:
I am unfamiliar with this. Is there some Christian tradition that draws a distinction between these two? I don’t think the Bible does.
HeIsSailing on May 18, 2008 at 12:44 PM
De Lubac HERE in this little article explains it well. And I can only speak as a Catholic, and some Protestants would have a different view, but the Bible makes it clear that in Matt. 25 (as Shy Guy on May 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM pointed out) that God’s love is not conditional.
But it does seem to have differences with the Qu’ran about what defines the “unbeliever”. OF course, no one gets damnation simply because they have not heard the Word.
JetBoy on May 18, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Robert, according to Islam, are non-Muslims who have not been “called” to Islam considered the equivalent of “unbelievers” who have rejected Islam?
Shy Guy on May 18, 2008 at 1:14 PM
“called” = “invited”
Shy Guy on May 18, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Of course then there was the Bush of a few days later.
Actually what I say is you’re not a religious person if you’re a murderer, but you’re right, I’ve got to do a better job of making it clear when I talk about Islam I talk about a peaceful religion, which I talk about a lot.
MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 1:19 PM
It therefore follows of necessity in Bush’s philosophy that religious persons can not be murderers, therefore the 9/11 hijackers were not murderers, unless they were really atheists masquerading as Muslims of course. Maybe that’s what Bush thinks.
MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 1:27 PM
OK, I read your link and I think I understand what you mean a little better. Basically what you believe is that there are many unbelievers who, for whatever reason, have never heard or understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ, yet will still attain salvation. God, in his omniscience is somehow able to know their moral character and innate faithfulness, and is able to judge them as if they had heard the Gospel. As crudely as I have stated that, I think that is what DeLubac is getting at - correct me if I am wrong? At any rate, I understand better the distinction you are drawing.
I have to admit I am a little surprised. I am not a Catholic (heck, I am not even a Christian), but I was not aware that was a Catholic teaching. I thought that was more of an Anglican/Episcopalean kind of view.
More to your point though, no, I have not seen anything in the Quran so far that draws that distinction. Are unbelievers in Islam those who willfully reject the ‘Truth’ of Allah and Islam - and are all non-Muslims lumped into that category?
HeIsSailing on May 18, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Auralae:
I don’t think so. See, for example, this from Ibn Kathir:
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 1:54 PM
locomotivebreath1901:
Yes, Muhammad is supposed to have been illiterate. Muslims claim that Muhammad was illiterate in order to throw into sharp relief what they consider to be the miraculous character of the Qur’an. This sublime book of poetry, they say, could not have been written by any ordinary man — and certainly not by one who was illiterate.
However, this claim has no actual Qur’anic support at all. Islamic commentators on the Qur’an and Hadith base their claims on the Arabic word ome, which they translate as “illiterate.” This is one meaning of the word. However, it has another meaning that has nothing to do with reading or writing. The Qur’an’s use of the word actually establishes that this meaning is the one it is using. Qur’an 62:2 says, “It is He that sent forth among the omeyeen [the plural of ome] an apostle of their own….”
This same word is repeated in many other places in the Qur’an, including 2:78, 3:20, 3:75, and 7:157-158. Almost all Muslim scholars interpret the word omeyeen in these passages as meaning “illiterate.” Yet if the word omeyeen refers to illiteracy, 62:2 would be saying that Allah sent forth to all illiterates one of their own. In fact, in classical Arabic, omeyeen never referred to illiterates or to illiteracy. It refers to non-Jewish people: the verse says that Allah has sent a gentile apostle to the gentiles. Omeyeen is an adjectival form of the Arabic noun for gentiles, and not all gentiles were illiterate during the time of Muhammad.
No one has ever told me I look like Maliki. In my younger, thinner days, I used to get Ringo Starr and Yasir Arafat a lot. Maliki is a new one.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:01 PM
corona:
I commented at some length on that story, about a U.S. soldier who used a Qur’an for target practice and the “apology ceremony” that U.S. officials staged afterward, here.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Shy Guy and whomever may be interested:
Re the jinns, don’t miss Tahir Shah’s delightful book The Caliph’s House, a magnificently funny and illuminating account of an English writer of Afghan descent and his family’s adventures in the first year of their decision to move to Morocco and make a new life there.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Connie,
No, but there is a lot of speculation. There are the Nestorian priest Waraqa, his wife’s uncle, and Salman the Persian, and this Christian scribe, and others.
Well, not necessarily in his travels: Waraqa was a Nestorian.
Bahira. He is supposed to have met the youthful Muhammad and Muhammad’s uncle when they made a trip to Syria, and he identified Muhammad as a prophet according to, supposedly, the signs specified in Christian tradition for the coming prophet.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:09 PM
HeIsSailing:
Yes, the idea is that this scribe was punished by Allah.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:09 PM
ShyGuy:
It is different because it teaches hatred and contempt for the unbelievers in this world, while the New Testament teaches love for one’s enemies and for all people. The contrast is between Qur’an 48:29 — “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another and ruthless to the unbelievers” and Matthew 5:44, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Allah briefly recalls Moses and Noah, and notes that the people to whom they and other prophets were sent received them with scorn also, and were utterly destroyed. Yet they continue to mock Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet, and will soon receive their penalty.
Then, by this logic, David Koresh is the next true prophet.
Tony737 on May 18, 2008 at 2:20 PM
ShyGuy:
The comparison between Qur’an 48:29 and Matthew 5:44 is not exact, because the New Testament nowhere characterizes those who do not believe in Christ as the enemies of those who do. Still, it is serviceable.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:20 PM
HeIsSailing:
The sword is not gratuitously added out of bloodlust, but it isn’t referring to the Qur’an either — it is distinct from the Qur’an, and refers to a literal sword, as is clear from numerous Islamic texts and authorities counseling warfare against unbelievers.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:22 PM
HeIsSailing:
How about this?
Matthew 5:44-48.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:25 PM
MB4:
In case you or anyone else is interested, some commentary on this can be found here.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Mr. Spencer….HeIsSailing asked:
As we were discussing whether those who simply have not heard the Word (as it applies to Christianity and Islam) and while I said, at least in my Catholocism and others, ignorance of the Word is no reason for damnation. But is that same ignorance of the Word the same in Islam? Whereas a people who have never heard, nor shunned, Islam…are they lumped into one “unbeliever” category? For it’s hard to not believe in something you haven’t even heard.
JetBoy on May 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM
ShyGuy:
No, not at all.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Oops…nevermind….Robert beat me to it
JetBoy on May 18, 2008 at 2:28 PM
HeIsSailing:
No, not really, although the fact that converts are termed “reverts” — with the idea being that everyone is originally Muslim until he is corrupted away from the faith — does carry with it for unbelievers a certain sense of responsibility for not being Muslim. That said, however, there is still a distinction between those who have never heard the word, and who must be invited to accept Islam, and those who have heard and rejected it, who must be warred against.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Well… that passage from Matthew does not really address my question. Either you misunderstood, or I did not state my question very well.
HeIsSailing on May 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM
JetBoy:
No, it is in no sense Catholic teaching that those who are ignorant of the word, or even those who reject it without understanding it fully, will be damned.
It’s a bit ambiguous, but it does seem that, yes, everyone is originally Muslim, and so those who are not at the end of their lives will bear the responsibility for that.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:32 PM
HeIsSailing:
The distinction you were asking for was between believers and unbelievers, no? The closest I could give you was that passage, which makes a distinction between the just and the unjust, because you’ll note that Matthew 25:321-46 has the divine judgment proceeding entirely on the basis of how people behaved, not on what they believed at all.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Ah - I understand. Thanks.
HeIsSailing on May 18, 2008 at 2:35 PM
HeIsSailing:
Oops. Sorry. That should of course be Matthew 25:31-46.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM
In my younger, thinner days, I used to get Ringo Starr and Yasir Arafat
Robert, I’ve seen you in person (still kicking myself in the butt for not saying hello) and I can tell you that you look NOTHING like Yasir Arafat! Them’s fightin’ words!
Tony737 on May 18, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Tony737:
Thanks. I always did prefer the Ringo thing. I confess, however, that many years ago on separate occasions I did go as both to costume parties — in both cases I didn’t have a costume and so just showed up and said I was dressed as Ringo, or Yasir (I did have a toy gun for the latter).
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Thanks. I’ll check it out.
MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Tony737:
By the way, where was this? That sleazy bar on the South Side? The meeting of the Five Families? Where?
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Thanks as always, Mr. Spencer.
SouthernGent on May 18, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Good reading, post and thread. Thanks.
RushBaby on May 18, 2008 at 4:56 PM
By the way, where was this?
On a Southwest airplane, you were deplaning and I was a member of the crew taking over the jet for the next flight. You walked by me and I almost said something but I wasn’t sure if it was you, that Sunday you confirmed it for me right here on your BTQ thread.
Tony737 on May 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Tony737:
Oh yes, I remember our discussing this now. Sorry I missed you. Next time I fly Southwest I’ll look for you!
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 5:41 PM
But, Tony737, didn’t I also see you at that meeting of the Five Families? Just before the guys in the helicopter started shooting through the window?
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM
… didn’t I also see you at that meeting of the Five Families?
Nah, they don’t let us Irish boys attend those meetings. :-)
Tony737 on May 18, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Considering the discussion about the status of “unbelievers” versus those who have simply not “heard the word”, this seems like as good a time as any to ask a question about the fundamental aspect of Islam that I don’t think I’ve ever seen addressed anywhere:
All religious faith requires some kind of blind acceptance. It wouldn’t be faith otherwise. But Muslims take it to an extreme that no other religion seems to do. All Muslims believe that the Koran is the last, literal, true word of God. All of them not only believe that, they take great pride in it.
But yet, all Muslims are also admonished to not try to interpret the text themselves. They are not allowed to do that. Since there is no central authority in Islam, all Muslims pretty much have to depend on the interpretations of others to tell them what the texts mean. Hence the Hadiths.
How many Hadiths are there? Hundreds? Thousands? Who decides which are “valid” and which are “invalid”? Who decides to believe those who have decided?
I’ve never read a coherent, or even a half assed explanation, of why, if the Koran is the last, literal, true word of God, why does that book not stand on it’s own.
They revere a book to such an extent that they will kill in it’s defense, but they can’t read it without someone else telling them what it means. And then they get to pick and choose what those people say it means.
The contradiction is glaring. Here are people who have nothing but contempt for other religious texts because they’ve been “corrupted” by the hand of man, and everything in Islam depends on men to decide what God’s word actually means.
None of them seem to have any problem with this.
Jaynie59 on May 18, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Jaynie49:
Tens of thousands.
There is a whole science of hadith evaluation, undertaken by religious scholars based on various criteria: the quality of the chain of transmission from Muhammad, the number of times a tradition is repeated by different authorities, etc.
The authentic hadith are generally agreed upon and are taught as such by the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. There is not a huge area of disagreement here.
Well, because it says it doesn’t. It instructs Muslims repeatedly to obey Muhammad (3:32; 3:132; 4:13; 4:59; 4:69; 5:92; 8:1; 8:20; 8:46; 9:71; 24:47; 24:51; 24:52; 24:54; 24:56; 33:33; 47:33; 49:14; 58:13; 64:12). Since Muhammad is dead, the only way Muslims can fulfill this command to obey him — made in the perfect, eternal book — is by imitating his actions and obeying his counsels. And these are found in the hadith.
Robert Spencer on May 18, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Robert:
This is one of those internal contradictions in the Qur’an that drive me a wee bit buggy: Muslims, including a few I’ve spoken with, claim that the Qur’an is Allah’s literal word. Yet, if true, there are several places, include verse one of this chapter, where he talks about himself in the third person like an NFL player at a press conference.
And now you’re saying that Islamic commentators just ignore these added voices? I keep picturing some salesman trying to sell a house and telling the prospective buyers that there’s no hole in the roof when they can clearly see several. What do these commentators say when someone points out these added voices?
irishspy on May 19, 2008 at 12:02 AM
I thought it was quite plain that you were correcting me, not expounding upon what I had said. I certainly don’t want to argue with you at all! I just want to participate in discussion.
I thought you were a believing Jew…and therefore we did have Scripture in common–though of course not the New Testament.
I’m heartily sorry if I’ve offered any offense (I’m getting an impression that I may have-hopefully this “oversensitivity” on part of my feminine intuition)
Auralae on May 19, 2008 at 2:12 AM
Mr. Spencer answered well, with Matthew 5, I would like to add more (or expound) ;-)
The Koran specificall says that Allah hates the unbeliever:
Interesting parallel concept in the New Testament:
Mr. Spencer already shared Matthew 5:44 I would like to add:
I need to add that any emphasis (bold type) is of course mine.
Romans 5 explains our ambassadorship pretty succinctly, sin came into the world through
Adam, while Salvation came into the world through Jesus the Messiah. (Yehoshua Ha Messiach-for the ungentiled version of His name).
The offer and means is there to ALL. G*d’s love for all His creation, including unbelievers isn’t new either. Ezekiel teaches us: ” Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?”
As a matter of fact, we’re supposed to warn them, and if we don’t, we’re held accountable for their blood.
Remember, He takes no pleasure in the death of that wicked man…and He has provided salvation for all. This is distinctly different from Islamic teaching.
Auralae on May 19, 2008 at 2:44 AM
OOPS!! (Aw maaaan!) Obviously I didn’t mean to quote JetBoy a second time, but meant to quote Shy Guy’s response to that quote… My post is long enough already but just in case anyone doesn’t remember:
And the answer is of course that Christ came into the world to save it, not to condemn it, and commanded His followers to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. There is a clear teaching that G*d loves unbelievers, while Allah blinds, deceives, curses and hates them.
I’d also like to link Romans 2 as it answers the topic of unbelievers vs disbelievers–those who have never heard–or “righteous gentiles” Basically, when gentiles do G*d’s will by instinct, if they are obedient to His law, even though they don’t have it–He’ll reward them accordingly…and when we who have His law transgress it–we’ll also receive His judgement. It’s a convicting passage to me…kinda like Phil. 2:12-13 “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.”
Oh! and–Shy Guy–did you notice from your first quote up there, that Hell was prepared for the Devil and his angels??–according to the Bible–while according to the Qur’an, it was prepared for unbelievers! How’s that for another difference?
Auralae on May 19, 2008 at 3:03 AM
irishspy:
They take them in stride. Here is Ibn Kathir on 25:1: “Here Allah praises Himself for the Noble Qur’an He has revealed to His noble Messenger.”
Robert Spencer on May 19, 2008 at 6:24 AM
And so you did. And so did I.
All I did was bring a Quranic reference to a bad angel and explain the Biblical Hebrew word for angel and its relevance.
I am.
As Judaism views Christianity’s assumptions about the Torah as being anywhere from ignorant to apostacy and as Christianity refers to the Torah as an old, in the sense of expired, testament, I do not care to claim that we share those scriptures. However, my main intent was indeed in reference to the NT.
I wasn’t offended at any time. I greatly appreciate these conversations.
I’m afraid, as often is the case when writing/emailing/commenting/blogging, that tones are misconstrued.
Let’s go on:
Any devout Muslim will tell you the same thing about Islam.
See Robert Spencer’s previous reply.
Distinction noted. Nevertheless, Mark XVI:15-16 is extremely similar to Islam’s paralell concept.
“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
- Mark IX:43-48
” And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
- Revelation XX:12-15
“He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”
- Revelation XXI:7-8
There are more but that should suffice.
Shy Guy on May 19, 2008 at 7:31 AM
A last but very important point: I am not comparing the overall emphasis of Christianity to that of Islam. Indeed, if I was to generalize, the former wants to smother you with love, the latter wants to smother you with hate.
I am just pointed out that the concepts of spiritual crime, judgement and punishment are not alien to Christianity.
Shy Guy on May 19, 2008 at 7:43 AM
Thank you Robert.
awake on May 19, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Robert:
In other words, Allah should be in the NFL. :)
irishspy on May 19, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Hmmm…The Angel of Death never would have ocurred to me as a “bad angel”….scary maybe! but not “bad”…but then perhaps the Qur’anic version is much different from the Biblical one??
I was referring much more to the deceitfulness of Satan and his angels.
Not to imply that they are not still held obedient to a sovereign G*d, as He Himself says, He put a lying spirit into some 400 prophets (1 Kings, II Chronicles), but that we are supposed to be extra sure that any “supernatural” word actually IS from G*d.
I’m glad to hear that you are believing, very sorry to hear that you don’t care to claim that we share what scriptures we do have in common.
When I even brush upon that concept, I can’t shake a deeply moving scene from a movie called “The Lost Battalion”, which is about Maj. Charles Wittlesey and his men during the Battle of the Argonne in WWI. They were surrounded by Germans, and even suffered friendly fire-it was horrendous, but the point is when one of his soldiers was mortally wounded he begged Whittlesey, who was Jewish, to read to him from his bible. Unfortunately, being kept in his breastpocket, it was soaked through with his blood and illegible…Whittlesey began quoting Pslams to him from memory and it comforted him as he passed. As I said, a deeply moving scene, and from my perspective, epitomizing of what I was refering to as “our common scriptures”.
Yippee!! *Whew*!
(me)
(you)
Ah! but what scripture could they use to support such an idea!?
They might try–out of jealousy to Christianity’s correct claim–but Allah has spoken too clearly on the subject, it’s he who has deceived the unbelievers, it’s he who would have made them Muslims if he had wanted to, it’s he who will fill hell with them, in place of his loyal Muslim followers. The teaching is not parallel, specifically because Allah hates the unbeliever, while G*d so loved them that before they ever turned to Him, he sent Yeshua to die for them.
(Which says that Matthew 5:32-43 doesn’t specifically call unbelievers enemies)–but it’s still an excellent answer to what makes Christianity different from Islam (or vice versa) because we’re commanded to bless and pray for our enemies–whatever the reason for their enmity.
Hmmm-I think I may have not been clear in what I was trying to say…I meant that while the concept of a fiery hell, occupied by unbelievers is similar (after all, they got the idea from us!-meaning, Christians) it is nonetheless different in that the whole purpose for hell Biblically was for the restraint of Satan and his angels, not for men. Scripturally, they’ll be entering hell not because G*d hates them, but because they hate G*d.
The specific purpose for hell in Islam is to finally inflict all of Allah’s burning hatred for the unbelievers and women for all eternity. They took a distinctly Chrstian concept, and perverted it.
LOL–I’m sure you’ll enjoy the irony of that comment, and that makes me smile. :-)
Auralae on May 21, 2008 at 5:57 AM