Messages

Thanks Sardar for your post. I believe my understanding on some of the points you mentioned can be found throughout this discussion,

Wasalam
Daniel

Thanks Br. Joseph for your reply. That is very helpful.

I still have a couple of questions in regards to Ishmael, as I am doing a teaching to a group of Christians about true Islam and want to make sure I am getting my facts right.

Are you saying : a) I understand that re your article that Arabs did not descend from Ishmael. However was Ishmael a prophet to the Arabs in bringing the Tauhid message to them, or did Ishmael have no contact whatsoever with the Arab world?

b) It is clear from your articles that you believe Abraham and Ishmael did not establish the Kaaba. If that is the case, what is the origin of the Kaaba?

Wasalam
Daniel

I am wondering the view of people here in regards to Ishmael and the Kaaba? Is there evidence that Ishmael reached Mecca and established the Kaaba?

Another question related to this.... There are views that for a certain amount of generations the Kaaba was a legitimate place for the honor of the God of Abraham.

Are these things tradition, or do they have basis?

Br. Joseph,

Yes.. this is very good!! However 2 questions:

- What is the basis for a 4 month period for repentance.
- From your knowledge, are there any verses in the Qur'an where this system was not followed in waging war? As the Muhammad is not perfect, I do not consider if this happened to not bring into doubt his overall character, as the Bible presents Prophets in bothe their good and bad.

It is good to know exceptions to this so to be able to respond with clarity.

Wasalam
Daniel

This is very high profile question. Basically The Noble Quran is the basis of discussions on this Forum.This very wide range question therefore I doubt you may get right answer. Please keep I'm mind only Quran is is the basic source.

I am sure the moderators on this forum, as people who have a Qur'an centric approach, have a very large library and have books that have been very influential upon their mindsets.    It would seem to me that people have different views on this forum on what it means to be Qur'an centric. There are numerous occurrences on this site where it says "According to modern scholarship..... " This reflects broad reading.

OK, so as for myself, it has helped reading Jewish, Christian and Islamic historians on the period prior and up to the Qur'an revelation. Sometimes these books have had fantastic content, yet terrible conclusions and application. As far as Jewish:
a) Hugh Schonfield is very good.... When reading the Qur'an this helps understand the tensions between the Prophet and the Jews with the historical separation between Jews, "Hawariyuun" / Nazarenes which are closely linked to Islam, and Christianity..
b) The Jesus Wars by Philip Jenkins and "When Jesus becomes God" gives a good background to a number of passages in the Qur'an, as well as the separation of the Middle East Church and their theology which would have existed in the 6th Century.
c) There are a number of books which explain the Tauhid community of faith around Mecca which are brilliant, but the authors treat these groups as cults because of being outside of orthodox Christianity.

Anyway for me the greater the historical framework of the 7th century, the greater the help it is to a Qur'an centric approach. If others would prefer not to share their most influential books for various reasons, thats no problems

Wasalam
Daniel

Hello Br Jospeh and Forum Members,

I would love to know, besides the study tools that you use, what are the books that have influenced you most that created the framework and understanding that is presented in the articles on this website, including non-Muslim books?

Daniel

OK, Thanks so much. You mentioned:

Not everyone who claims to be a 'Muslim' is a 'believer' and the latter implies a deeper spiritual recognition which not only encompasses belief in the final messenger and the Quran, but arguably also a true will to embody and implement its guidance."

Would it be true based on the above, just as common is the reverse.... Not all believers are Muslim? As the tenets of faith precede Muhammad, and this defines a believer.

Hello all,

I was surprised when on another link I received the following response.....
Salam Daniel, We don't find any term by "Pillars of faith" in the Quran and you are probably referring to a hadith. Thanks anyways!

I meant the articles of Faith for a Muslim; eg. Believe in the Holy Books, Believe in the Prophets etc. Last Days etc...

Maybe I have made an assumption all along. Is this an absolute for those with a Qur'an-centric approach, or is it true that these are post-Qur'an?

Wasalam
Daniel

I would, with respect , go by what Jesus preached and not what Paul came up with!

No offence !!

OK. Good words....That is a good goal to have.....

Thank you Br Joseph,

Related to this, I am not sure your view of the legitimacy of the "Constitution of Medina"? I know people will respond and say it is not in the Quran, but that is not my point. The first constitution for an "Islamic state" reads as a Human Rights document, and where a region being under Islamic Govt has a totally different meaning to today.

Probably the big difference with western countries today and Medina is that God is not allowed to be spoken of in the west in a public sense.

Wasalam
Daniel

peace Mubashir, all,

You raise an interesting/important question. I have not studied all the alleged "miracles" in The Quran, however I can tell you what I have studied, perhaps you will find it helpful.

Re: virgin birth of Isa
To my knowledge, it is actually scientifically possible and supported somewhat by Quran, see my comments here:

Re: Moses and parting of the sea
Again, that is actually scientifically possible. You can research it online but the main explanations given are: how a tsunami can cause a body of water to retreat and then advance rapidly, or, a phenomenon called "wind setdown".

There is a dangerous trend I see in Islam......the removal of the miraculous from their belief, replaced by only belief in what can be scientifically proven. All miracles are explained away......If this is the case, I would give 50 years before the world will be full of Islamic atheists. That is the logical next step. Islam by name, atheist by belief and practice. As the cycle turns a mass interest in New Age mysticism. .....

Daniel, so you suggest Paul was only delivering what the Ummah at that point decided through consultation.  Those who decided to do away with The Law then believed that they did all that under the influence of  Holy Spirit.

Was Paul's role always that of a spokes person for the joint declarations of the Ummah or did he introduce certain new interpretation of teachings of Jesus on his own initiative?

My point of the discussion is that after the departure of Jesus, many changes took place in the community including the introduction of the concept of trinity, and abandoning of Law which to this day, majority of Christians do not follow. They have their reasons in theology and now I understand why.

Thanks for your response...

"so you suggest Paul was only delivering what the Ummah at that point decided through consultation.  Those who decided to do away with The Law then believed that they did all that under the influence of  Holy Spirit."

- That is what the Injil says, I am just quoting it. The facts are, if Christians are wrong in not living under the Torah,  the "Hawariyuun", referred to in the Qur'an as muslims and obedient, made a mistake in their decision to not enforce the law.
- Re the trinity, you can refer to Br. Josephs article on that. The term "trinity" was never heard of until 100 years after Paul.

If Paul preached an inherently false message, the Bible is false. If the Bible is false, then the Qur'an falls over. All the Holy Books are interrelated, all with a function.

Salam Daniel

You wrote:

We don't find any term by "Pillars of faith" in the Quran and you are probably referring to a hadith.
Thanks anyways!

I meant the articles of Faith for a Muslim; Believe in the Holy Books, Prophets etc... That is not an absolute with a Qur'an-centric approach?

Wasalam

Thanks for your response Brother Daniel.

We do not have a definitive biography of Muhammad that proves existence of Waraqa. What is reported may or may not be true. We find such stories in secondary sources that Waraqa the Christian was the one who confirmed the Nabuwwat of Muhammad and Moses was the one who sent Muhammad back in the Mairaj story to bargain with Allah to reduce the number of prayers from 50 to 5 !!

Seems these were planted to prove that importance of Christian and Jewish sources to the ministry of Muhammad !!

I refrain from commenting on such stories as I have no way of confirming how true they are. If I find some support in the Quran referring to an incident reported in history, I may consider the possibly of it being true keeping my eyes wide open to read what is the underlying message there. Historical references in the Quran, as you know are there for us to learn some lessons.

As Paul had no interaction with any Muslim, I respectfully fail to see how the verse you quoted would apply to Muslims. I do concede, that an inference may be drawn from it, which I suspect you have done.

Thanks anyway.

Hmmmm. So the Qur'an-centric  approach means questions the existence of all that is not mentioned in the Qur'an? If that is what is meant by Qur'an-centric, I will constantly be questioning the existence of life around me. In that case, history becomes a meaningless load of waffle as someone who is Qur'an-centric. As to Waraqa "who confirmed the Nabuwwat of Muhammad and Moses", I have never come across such a thing.

"Seems these were planted to prove that importance of Christian and Jewish sources to the ministry of Muhammad"..... Firstly Waraqa was not a "Christian"....... that was the label for Rome based believers. And yes, I believe the heritage of Christian and Jewish sources were vitally important for Muhammad. In fact this is central to the Islamic faith, the pillars of faith are Hebrew! Muhammad valued this, and corrected the Christians when they departed from its origins.

"As Paul had no interaction with any Muslim, I respectfully fail to see how the verse you quoted would apply to Muslims." How are you using "Muslim" here, in a Quranic way, or in the modern sense? I would say Paul may just have been was a more devout "muslim" than any on this forum. (-:

Wasalam
Daniel

[Paul had no say in the decision]

Dear Br Daniel

You mention Paul introducing certain changes in Christianity to make it acceptable to new converts and to increase it's appeal.

Can we then not assume that he violated the commands of Jesus and rationalized his way into theology? Many people suggest that Christianity that exists today should be called Pauline Christianity and only based on selective application of what Jesus preached, taught and practiced.

We find a similar approach with Ahmedi Muslims who, through reinterpretation of Quranic verses and hadith reports justify the "reformation" of Islam through a Nabi after Muhammad named Mirza Ghulam Qadiani.

The problem is that it was not Paul who decided this. Paul had no say in the decision of God-fearers amongst the Roman empire not living under the Torah.  He was simply the one who communicated the decision of the entire "Ummah".... that is the decision of Jesus brother, hawariyuun, and jemaah in jerusalem as is clearly stated as follows:

"Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.  It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements..... " Acts 15

The Jews were jealous that they were no longer exclusively the "Ummah", and tried to kill Paul. The message of not living under the law did not originate with Paul. That is very clear....