Does Islam Require A Literal Reading Of The Qu'ran

[extempers]

[quote name='mortify' date='12 December 2009 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1260676076' post='2019499']
Seems like Ex acknowledges that he believes in things that are beyond his understanding, but that this is ok because they are "small pieces" of theology, so to speak. The point is God is ultimately incomprehensible, and if He were to reveal something about His inner being, it would necessarily remain beyond human grasp.

I think what might be worth discussing is that Sunnis believe the Quran is the literal speech of Allah, and that therefore the Quran is *uncreated* and *eternal.* Now this really isn't all that different from what we believe about Jesus, except that Jesus is a living Person and not a kitab.
[/quote]

Yes "small things" in quotes works for me. What we need in order to believe in God and understand Islam and its theology was revealed, given to the masses from the beginning, and not needed to be codified by a council 300 years later, and easily understood. The same cannot be said for Christianity at the most basic level.

As for the Qur'an, that's not really a significant argument.
When you pick a book/kitab this is not the "Qur'an" it is a mushaf. The Qur'an is the kalam/speech of God and it is eternal and uncreated like you said.
It's revelation cannot be compared to the birth, the state of nature of man of Jesus, what you believe as mortal death of Jesus and all the other fun theological points you can list.

I'm confused though, what's with this recent trend of "see, it's like Islam" arguments.
Just follow the real thing

God knows best.

Edited December 13, 2009 by extempers

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Pomak' date='11 December 2009 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1260514482' post='2018260']
Some verses were revealed for specific reasons. For example there are verse talking about how you should fight. Some are general, while other are responses to particular aggression by Pagans/Jews.

Some verses were written during the Meccan period, while others were done during the Medina period.

This is what we mean by context of revelation.
[/quote]


This is a great thread. Informative. Thank you to our Muslims for taking the time to respond to our questions.

[mortify]

[quote name='extempers' date='12 December 2009 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1260676559' post='2019505']
Yes "small things" in quotes works for me. What we need in order to believe in God and understand Islam and its theology was revealed, given to the masses from the beginning, and not needed to be codified by a council 300 years later, and easily understood. The same cannot be said for Christianity at the most basic level.[/quote]

First of all are there small things in theology? If you reject the aya that reveals istiwa, are you still Muslim? Anything God reveals is important. Secondly, if you attack something Christians believe because it's mysterious, you're theology can be attacked for the same reason.

[quote]As for the Qur'an, that's not really a significant argument.
When you pick a book/kitab this is not the "Qur'an" it is a mushaf. The Qur'an is the kalam/speech of God and it is eternal and uncreated like you said.[/quote]

It is a significant argument because Ashari aqeedah states that the Qur'an *is* the speech of Allah, and not merely some sort of manifestation of that speech. How this Divine speech exists with and is united to the created element, whether it be human speech or as a mushaf, is rather similar to how the Divinity exists in and is united to Christ's humanity.

[quote]It's revelation cannot be compared to the birth, the state of nature of man of Jesus, what you believe as mortal death of Jesus and all the other fun theological points you can list.[/quote]

It can be compared since the two parallel. For you the uncreated and eternal word became kitab, for us it became a human being.

[quote]I'm confused though, what's with this recent trend of "see, it's like Islam" arguments.
Just follow the real thing [/quote]

I think the point is Muslim polemic is a double edged sword.


Wa salaam

[extempers]

[quote]
First of all are there small things in theology? If you reject the aya that reveals istiwa, are you still Muslim? Anything God reveals is important. Secondly, if you attack something Christians believe because it's mysterious, you're theology can be attacked for the same reason.[/quote]

If you reject one letter from the Qur'an then you are in trouble, but does that mean every letter is at the same level of significance for aqeedah, fiqh, maqasid shari'ah or any major science? No. Aqeedah is a science and istiwa is not a major component.
The unseen is mysterious, the nature of God alone is hard for us to grasp, but the basic understanding of God is not.
Tawheed (Oneness of God) by it's nature is simple and always has been. Every Prophetic message of the past affirms this.
From the illiterate slave to the high class intellectual, the basic understanding of tawheed is the same.
To make additions to tawheed and then say it's the same does not work. It is not in the nature of God to make the foundation of faith impossible to understand.
Either God is One or God is three persons and also One.
I mean, let's be honest, I've talked to many Christians of various knowledge levels before and they've all had problems telling me about trinity. (Some sects have even made the case that trinity is not significant but a belief in a "triune God" is.)
And yet such a foundational basis of belief in Christianity is the trinity.
I can be completely ignorant of istiwa and still be a Muslim.
A grain of sand and the Himalaya mountain range, that's as much of a similarity as I can give.



[quote]It is a significant argument because Ashari aqeedah states that the Qur'an *is* the speech of Allah, and not merely some sort of manifestation of that speech. How this Divine speech exists with and is united to the created element, whether it be human speech or as a mushaf, is rather similar to how the Divinity exists in and is united to Christ's humanity. [/quote]

An interesting point. So are you saying that the kalaam of Allah (swt) in its perfection which was given to us to repeat and recite and learn from is similar to "part" of God that was in need and that involved itself in activities such as digestion, urination and defecation?
And that it changed states from fetus, birth, baby, puberty, adulthood and death and then processes that required that "part" going back into being with God is also similar to our recitation of the Qur'an?
No, the mushaf is not a unified creational element of the Qur'an. I think I'll post Imam Ahmed's defense of the uncreated nature of the Qur'an, maybe it will give us a better understanding?


[quote]It can be compared since the two parallel. For you the uncreated and eternal word became kitab, for us it became a human being. [/quote]

The eternal word never became the kitab so there is no parallel. That is the distinction that will insha'Allah be more clear with Imam Ahmed's arguments.

Edited December 13, 2009 by extempers

[mortify]

[quote name='extempers' date='13 December 2009 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1260682516' post='2019547']
If you reject one letter from the Qur'an then you are in trouble, but does that mean every letter is at the same level of significance for aqeedah, fiqh, maqasid shari'ah or any major science? No. Aqeedah is a science and istiwa is not a major component.
The unseen is mysterious, the nature of God alone is hard for us to grasp, but the basic understanding of God is not.
Tawheed by it's nature is simple and always has been. Every Prophetic message of the past affirms this.
From the illiterate slave to the high class intellectual, the basic understanding of tawheed is the same.
To make additions to tawheed and then say it's the same does not work. It is not in the nature of God to make the foundation of faith impossible to understand.[/quote]

The point is God has revealed something to you that you don't necessarily understand, i.e. that He has a thrown and that He has ascended it. You accept this despite not knowing the "how." Whether you want to call this "small" is insignificant because I can attack you for accepting something that is mysterious, just as you attack the Trinity.

Now if you understand what we mean by Trinity you know it's not contrary to Tawheed.

[quote]Either God is One or God is three persons and also One. [/quote]

If I say 1 coin has 2 faces I'm not saying 1=2 because *what* I'm numbering as 1 is distinct from *what* I'm numbering as 2. Now continue this thought to the Trinity. The trinity is not 1=3, the Trinity is 1 Divine *Nature* is fully possessed by 3 *Persons*, there is a distinction here. If you understand this much you already know a lot more than the average Muslim when it comes to Christianity.

[quote]I mean, let's be honest, I've talked to many Christians of various knowledge levels before and they've all had problems telling me about trinity. (Some sects have even made the case that trinity is not significant but a belief in a "triune God" is.)
And yet such a foundational basis of belief in Christianity is the trinity.[/quote]

It depends on what you talked about. The Trinity is very straightforward: Three Divine Persons fully possess the same Divine Nature. That's it! Now if you say, wait a minute! In the created order one nature is possessed by one person, how is it that three persons possess the same Divine nature? That's delving into the "how" which is ultimately beyond us.

[quote]I can be completely ignorant of istiwa and still be a Muslim.
A grain of sand and the Himalaya mountain range, that's as much of a similarity as I can give.
[/quote]

Istiwa is a piece of a larger picture, and let's not diminish it too far since we know such issues played a big part in early Islamic theological debates. I believe it was Imam Hanbal who was whipped for refusing to reject that Allah had a "hand" even though he didn't know what it exactly meant. Even the statement on Ashari aqeedah makes it a point to mention Allah's "footstool" and attributes.

[quote]An interesting point. So are you saying that the kalaam of Allah (swt) in its perfection which was given to us to repeat and recite and learn from is similar to "part" of God that was in need and that involved itself in activities such as digestion, urination and defecation?[/quote]

I'm saying what you attribute to the Qur'an is similar to what we attribute to Jesus.

Now I have to stress that there are not parts in God since God is immaterial and simple (i.e. without parts.) Person does not equal "parts." The Father is not 33.3% God, and the Son another third, and the Spirit the last third. All three Persons *fully* possess the *same* Divine Nature.

Lastly, God is not in need of anything but because God really did become man and was like us in all ways save sin, the *flesh* He adopted did require what any human flesh would require, and this includes sustenance.

[quote]And that it changed states from fetus, birth, baby, puberty, adulthood and death and then processes that required that "part" going back into being with God is also similar to our recitation of the Qur'an?
[/quote]

When you say "it changed states" what do you mean by "it"? If by "it" you mean God that's impossible since God can't change, but human flesh can on the other hand.

Again, we're not dealing with "parts," can't stress this enough. Just because the Son incarnated doesn't mean He separated from the Trinity, all Three Persons remained and continue to remain One in Being.
[quote]
No, the mushaf is not a unified creational element of the Qur'an. I think I'll post Imam Ahmed's defense of the uncreated nature of the Qur'an, maybe it will give us a better understanding?
[/quote]
The point is you believe the text from the beginning to the end of the Mushaf is the word of Allah but the word of Allah is uncreated and eternal. Now obviously you don't believe that the ink and paper or speech produced by the human mouth is uncreated and eternal. So there is this mysterious relationship between the two, and although it's not exactly what we call the hypostatic union (the union between Christ's humanity and divinity) it is none the less similar.

[quote]The eternal word never became the kitab so there is no parallel. That is the distinction that will insha'Allah be more clear with Imam Ahmed's arguments.
[/quote]

The Quran calls itself a book (kitab) in surah baqarah aya 2 (and in many other places.) When I say it became a kitab I mean in the sense that it was made manifest by human speech, i.e. Allah revealing it to Muhammad.

I think you realize there is a similarity but this disturbs you a great deal.

Edited December 13, 2009 by mortify

[extempers]

[quote]The point is God has revealed something to you that you don't necessarily understand, i.e. that He has a thrown and that He has ascended it. You accept this despite not knowing the "how." Whether you want to call this "small" is insignificant because I can attack you for accepting something that is mysterious, just as you attack the Trinity.[/quote]
You are using council of nicean terminology that swept up all the illogical fallacies of trinity by calling it "mysterious" and trying to apply it to a standardized understanding of God that has been maintained since the beginnings of Prophetic messages.
Continually I have mentioned one can be ignorant of istiwa (I wouldn't be surprised if this was a large percentage of Muslims) or one can say istiwa is metaphorical and yet still be a Muslim.
One cannot be a Christian and be ignorant of the trinity or say it's metaphorical.
It just doesn't work and I'd be surprised if any modern Christian scholar would continue to use such a weak line of argument.

“The likeness of those who take (false deities as) Awliya’ (protectors, helpers) other than Allaah is the likeness of a spider who builds (for itself) a house; but [b]verily, the frailest (weakest) of houses is the spider’s house if they but knew”[/b]
[al-‘Ankaboot 29:41]


[quote]If I say 1 coin has 2 faces I'm not saying 1=2 because *what* I'm numbering as 1 is distinct from *what* I'm numbering as 2. Now continue this thought to the Trinity. The trinity is not 1=3, the Trinity is 1 Divine *Nature* is fully possessed by 3 *Persons*, there is a distinction here. If you understand this much you already know a lot more than the average Muslim when it comes to Christianity.[/quote]

So you are claiming God is like a coin with 3 sides? And yet these 3 sides were at one point separated from the coin and then reunited? And one part of the coin turned mortal and was reliant on mortal needs like eating and releasing wastes from the body?
I understand many of the linguistic gymnastics Christians use to claim trinity and I somewhat applaud that the Catholics haven't given up on trying to explain it. But at a certain point, you will hit a brick wall and have to go back to the Nicean principle of mystery to explain the foundational basis of Christianity.
God is the Most Judge and the Most Wise. That is why Tawheed has always been so simple and all the Prophets' of the past have said God is One and not God is "1 divine nature is fully possessed by 3 persons".

[quote]
It depends on what you talked about. The Trinity is very straightforward: Three Divine Persons fully possess the same Divine Nature. That's it! Now if you say, wait a minute! In the created order one nature is possessed by one person, how is it that three persons possess the same Divine nature? That's delving into the "how" which is ultimately beyond us.[/quote]
The reasoning for God having 3 persons is to explain the hypostatic union of Jesus, original sin, the need for the crucifixtion, the purpose of the resurrection, the Nature of God and every fundamental tenet of Christianity.

You are basically saying don't ask kayf/how to understand concepts that you also don't ask kayf/how for.
We haven't even gotten to the question of "why", which demands more than kayf.

Compare to the Qur'an:
[b]And We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember, then is there any that will remember (or receive admonition)[/b]

This is repeated 4 different times in the Qur'an, SubhanAllah!


[quote]Istiwa is a piece of a larger picture, and let's not diminish it too far since we know such issues played a big part in early Islamic theological debates. I believe it was Imam Hanbal who was whipped for refusing to reject that Allah had a "hand" even though he didn't know what it exactly meant. Even the statement on Ashari aqeedah makes it a point to mention Allah's "footstool" and attributes. [/quote]
Absolutely not. Istiwa in this discussion is completely meaningless compared to issues of tawheed, shirk and the foundations of deen.
I do not follow the Ashari/Maturidi creed but I have teachers that do and I will continue to learn from them. We do not have different mosques, we do not pray differently or anything of significance to play into the idea of a "bigger picture".
Never in the history of Islam have these aqeedah differences led to a separation of the ummah.
Imam Ahmad was jailed for refusing to say the Qur'an is created when the rulers followed this weird philosophical school called the mua'tzilah.

The mua'tzilah depended on Greek philosophy as their basis of religion rather than the Qur'an and sunnah. One part of the ummah used Greek philosophical premises to counter this horrible school and succeeded. However, rather than throwing these premises away they added them to theological discussions on Islam which led to discussions on many issues and one of them being istiwa.

The entire theological debate on greek philosophy has to do with bodies and directions and Aristotalean thought.
Again, even in this minor debate, istiwa is only a small part.

But yes, you will find many books and scholars were adamant about their position regarding istiwa.
BUT you will also find many books and scholars being adamant on how one moves his/her finger in prayer.

With all due respect and love for my brother in humanity, you are only seeing this as a big picture because you are taking a magnifying glass to one small issue because this helps justify the Catholic understanding of the trinity.

And again, with all respect, I find this to be a very common trend with Christians because maybe they have realized, like St. Thomas Aquinas did, that the central message of Islam cannot be attacked and therefore they must rely on quoting hadiths without (historical, etc) context, attacking the character of Prophet Muhammad (s) while completely ignoring the realities of the Old Testament and other random tidbits like political discussions that keep us away from the message of The Oneness of God.


[quote]
I'm saying what you attribute to the Qur'an is similar to what we attribute to Jesus.[/quote]
And I'm saying there is no comparison because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept of the Qur'an and it's uncreated nature. You are also, I'm sure, aware of our shared adjectives and titles regarding Jesus (as) in the Qur'an that also bring this point to a close.

[quote]
Lastly, God is not in need of anything but because God really did become man and was like us in all ways save sin, the *flesh* He adopted did require what any human flesh would require, and this includes sustenance. [/quote]
It is ungodly to claim God chose to become mortal in order to show His love for humankind.
Rather it is God who is The Most Merciful and Most Forgiving and if a servant were to have sins filling up the size of the earth, as long as he/she turned to God with sincerity he/she will be forgiven.

Every chapter but one begins with in the Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The ENTIRELY Merciful.
To translate Ar-Rahman and Ar-Raheem is very difficult because it takes pages to explain, not one word. But even in this one word translation we understand how significant the Forgiving nature of God is!
And we have no issues of the sins of Addam (as) and Eve (let alone anyone else) for they asked for forgiveness and were forgiven.
This is the true nature of God.
All Praise, All Glory and All Greatness Belongs to God!



[quote]
The point is you believe the text from the beginning to the end of the Mushaf is the word of Allah but the word of Allah is uncreated and eternal. Now obviously you don't believe that the ink and paper or speech produced by the human mouth is uncreated and eternal. So there is this mysterious relationship between the two, and although it's not exactly what we call the hypostatic union (the union between Christ's humanity and divinity) it is none the less similar. [/quote]

A fundamental misunderstanding of the mushaf and the Qur'an, which I completely understand as this is an advanced subject.
I hope to find something for you and everyone soon that will help this be more clear


Again I ask forgiveness if I offended anyone
Invite (call) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. " (Qur'an 16:125)

God knows Best.

Edited December 14, 2009 by extempers

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

You cannot beleive Jesus was a Great and Holy Prophet unless you beleive he was telling the truth and wasnt a complete liar. In scripture Jesus said and hinted to his followers that he was God.


John 10:30 - Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." They are equal. The Jews even claimed Jesus made Himself equal to God.


Exodus 3:14 - God says "I AM who I AM" - John 8:58 - [b]Jesus says [/b]"Before Abraham was, [b]I AM[/b]" in reference to Himself.


Gospel of John 20:27-31 Here jesus affirms he indeed is God.

27 Then he saith to Thomas: "Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing." 28 Thomas answered, and said to him: "[b]My Lord, and my God[/b]." 29 Jesus saith to him: "[b]Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed[/b]: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed." 30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

Here the Old testament says jesus is God

Isaiah 7:14 - a virgin will bear a Son named Emmanuel which means "[b]God is with us[/b]" - Matt. 1:23 - this Son is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.
Isaiah 9:6 - the child to be born shall be called Wonderful Counselor, [b]Mighty God[/b], Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Edited December 14, 2009 by sacredheartandbloodofjesus

[extempers]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='13 December 2009 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1260754229' post='2019968']
You cannot beleive Jesus was a Great and Holy Prophet unless you beleive he was telling the truth and wasnt a complete liar. In scripture Jesus said and hinted to his followers that he was God.
[/quote]

Why would he hint at something that is so central to your faith?

It should be said over and over, clearly said as well as hinted at, just as the Qur'an says clear there is no begotten son and God is One.

Jesus (as) was not a liar, but those who changed his message are.
For more than 300 years there were major sects of Christianity that did not believe in the divinity of Jesus (as). They too did not believe Jesus (as) was a liar.

Edited December 14, 2009 by extempers