What Was Mohammed?

[mocnarf]

The Quran does not necessarily disagree with Christian teachings and Christ. It is only an interpretation of Muhammad's words that leads one to such an assumption. We, as Latter-day Saints, must make the assumption that the words of Muhammad were in line with the truth, and then prove otherwise. If a teaching is not in harmony with the gospel, it is not true. We have the gospel as a guide to truth, we should not behave as our detractors and assume the worst of other religions, we should assume the best and accept the lack of truth when it occurs. Mainstream Christianity, including Catholocism, comes from Christ's teachings, from our perspective mainstream Christianity currently teaches doctrines extremely contrary to the Gospel as we understand it, this does not mean that the Apostles and Christ were frauds, it means that somewhere the doctrines were altered or misunderstood.

Would you enumerate the teachings of the Quran that are in line (in harmony) with LDS teachings?

(I know of non, with the exception of polygamy in the early Mormon beliefs)

[X1X]

Hello my Beefy eyeball friend

I understand all this, and yes my stance is offensive to Muslim people.

OK, so long as you understand that.

I understand the value they hold with the Hadith. I understand the purpose of the Hadith. My stance does not change though, Muhammad did not authorize the use of Hadith,

Nor did he authorize salaat, the second pillar of Islam which is delineated in the hadith, not the Quran. Would you deny Muslims the authenticity of their second pillar? But how do you know he didnâ??t authorize the use of hadith? You still canâ??t get around the fact that without the ahadith, you know virtually nothing about Muhammad. This is not an insignificant predicament youâ??ve worked yourself into. The Quran is nothing close to a biography of Muhammad.

there is no reason to believe that they are necessary given the Quran.

Necessary given the Quran? It seems you do not appreciate the nature of the Quran. You seem to think the Quran itself would have authorized the ahadith. The Quran is a collection of hundreds of sayings by Muhammad. None of them had in mind a book of any kind. They were revelations that were recorded as Muhammad spoke as he went into his â??divine trace.â? Muhammad wasnâ??t conscious of the fact that future generations would be reading his revelations out of context (from shortest to longest), and I highly doubt he would have expected none of his companions to help teach the context from which these revelations were given. The need for an ahadith was a no-brainer.

The Quran is believed by Muslims to be the Word of God spoken through Muhammad. The Hadith are man's attempt at ordering and understanding the Quran through investigation of Muhammad's behavior verbally and otherwise.

It is much more than that. It is an attempt to place the Quran in its historical context. Without context youâ??re left with a mess. This is why the radicals always win the big debates. The few â??moderateâ? Muslims cannot make a case for a Quran-only Islam.

I understand that without the Hadith Islam would be a different religion, if it were entirely correct as it is, I would probably consider becoming a Muslim. I do not believe that Islam is correct though, and I believe the Hadith is a part of the reason for this.

I think the Quran is the reason. Keep in mind that the Hadith cannot be to blame when it comes to the Islamic principles that collide with western society. For instance, the Quran says it is OK to beat women. The Quran is Godâ??s word right? It applies throught all time and eternity and doesnâ??t need a hadith to interpret it. So how would you interpret that verse?

I believe much truth can be learned by studying the Quran

I often hear this but I have never seen a valid example presented. What truth does the Quran contain that cannot be found in Judeo-Christian tradition? The Quran does not teach equality among men. It does not teach that God loves all humanity. It teaches God only loves the Muslim. It teaches charity and kindness, but in context it refers only to Muslims in how they should act among other Muslims. It teaches the subjugation and humiliation of the dhimmi, who is a Christian or Jew living in an Islamic community. It teaches a clear dichotomy between Muslim and non-Muslims, the former being superior in every way. It teaches Muslims not to become friends with Jews and Christians. It even teaches that Muslims should fight against Jews and Christians. One cannot blame the hadith on these teachings.

Of course, one could always argue that these verses need to be put in their proper context in order to be understood properly, but then, if you reject the ahadith then you reject any hope of context. The Quran doesnâ??t provide historical context for itself. You're left with the hadith or nothing. I tend to think that early Muslims, even those who were relying on second hand information, are still more likely to understand the Quran better than 21st century laymen who have no context to draw upon.

but to find that truth one cannot rely on the Hadith to aid in understanding without considering alternative meanings that the Hadith may or may not deny.

It seems you still do not understand the significance of the Hadith in determining the meaning of Quranic verses. There are many Islamic principles Muslims should be proud of, that would otherwise not be understood if not for the ahadith.

[X1X]

Good evening koakaipo

Yes, many folks who crunch the numbers in a social scientific context like sociologists and folks who are historians do project this to happen at some point.

Project a theocracy to occur???

I"m talking about areas South of the equator where Christianity will not have secularist leanings, and the overwhelming majority of Christians will have the ability to overwhelm political secular nations and replace them with theocracies.

But no S. American country is anywhere close to a theocracy, and there is none on that path.

I"m not a paranoid person, or one who's big on conspiracy theories, so this projection only holds water with me because it's less about wild flights of fancy and more about numbers crunching and understanding the new manifestations that Christianity can and is already taking in different parts of the world.

Numbers crunching means little when youâ??re talking about numbers in a religion that doesnâ??t push for theocracy. The theological differences between Islam and Christianity make all the difference in the world. Even in areas where Christians represent more than 90% of the population, you donâ??t see any political movements towards a theocracy. Mexico and Brazil are prime examples.

In the next 50 to 100 years, it's projected that 4/5 to 5/6 of Christians will come from Africa, Asia, Latin America, or from migrant communities in the West. This shift matters because how folks from the "South" process Christianity is very different from the "North."

The difference is in birth rate. The Catholic Church has a grip on Christianity in the southern hemisphere just as it does it Italy. The countries you list have greater birth rates but it has nothing to do with Christianity. Christian families in Mexico tend to be larger than Christian families in Montana. It is culture, not religion that makes the difference. In any event, there are already countries completely saturated with Christians as it is, and yet we see no signs of a theocracy. Again, there is nothing in Christianity that would promote a theocracy. Christians of all stripes are simply waiting for Jesus to return, upon which he will be the one instituting a new world government.

What's more, some of the projected new hotspots for Christianity in the coming years are in the same spots that we find projected Muslim hotspots as well.

Again, there are differences and they are based in religion. Islam is different from Christianity. Christians are not pushing for a theocracy for the same reason Christians do not represent 80% of the worldâ??s religious terrorists. At the core of Islam is the doctrine of world domination and sharia implementation. This is why Muslims everywhere seek a theocratic Islamic government and they are more likely to engage in violence in the name of religion.

Another projected consequence is that as the "South's" influence on the face of Christianity becomes stronger, there will be a reflexive push towards secularism more than ever in the North, because Northern sensibilites will have a hard time with the South's supernatural and literal approach.

Who is making this projection? Do you have a book to recommend? I can understand projecting population figures, but this model goes too far. It not only predicts a hypothetical population shift, but it also predicts a shift in religious mentality. Christianity in the south would have to be completely turned on its head for this prediction to work. I see no evidence that this would or could happen.

Your take is Western though. Mine is too. Both of us read the Bible and process it in a way that is very different. That's just the reality. I don't think I"m saying anything too provocative by saying that Christianity will be filtered in a way that is foreign to our sensibilities on various fronts, and that includes how we justify or not justify the melding of church or state.

I understand people interpret the Bible differently, but thee is no evidence that the south will become its own denomination. Again, the Catholic Church has a firm grasp down there as it does elsewhere and they are teaching the same Christianity. So far you have given me no reason to believe that the Southern hemisphere will eventually follow a strange understanding of the Bible that would lead them to the establishment of various theocratic governments.

You know honestly, I would have to look more into American Muslim organizations and their statements.

Well for starters, look into CAIR. It is perhaps the most popular Muslim organization in America and it claims to be a benign civil rights group. Several of their employees have been convicted on terror related charges, however CAIR reps meet at the White House on occasion, and have had meetings with the President as well.

Omar Ahmad is a Co-Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He said, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Ibrahim Hooper, a CAIR spokesperson who frequently appears on talk shows like Hannity and Colmes, said, "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

The Muslim Student Association (MSA) is the largest Muslim organization in North America. At a meeting in Queensborough Community College in March 2003, a guest speaker named Faheed declared, "We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of shariah."

Ihsan Bagby Professor of Islamic Studies at University of Kentucky, (PhD from University of Michigan) said: â??Ultimately we can never be full citizens of this country, because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.â?

Imam Muzammil H. Siddiqi of the Islamic Society of North America, said: â??We must not forget that Allah's rules have to be established in all landsâ?

Zaid Shakir, former Muslim chaplain at Yale said: â??Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the secular system in the United States, for it is against the orders and ordainments of Allah; the orientation of the Qur'an pushes us in the exact opposite direction as the forces that are at work in the American political spectrum.â?

These are just a handful of comments by respected, influential and above all, Muslims educated in Islamic law. These have clear theocratic overtones. If you can produce just one example of a Christian leader making similar statements, Iâ??d be interested.

[Notquitewetyet]

These theocratic statements may sound spooky, but wait twenty years, and Muslims will be just another religion, like Jews, Catholics, Mormons, and Evangelicals, too busy sitting at home, eating junk food, and watching MTV to topple the nation. Same for Hispanics. America's culture is set up to slowly integrate immigrants fully into its culture. Catholics were once hated and terrifying before Kennedy got elected, but now they're just another group. I'm not trying to be offensive to any one, but that's just what the historical picture suggests. Hopefully, we'll accept more Middle Eastern food into our national cuisine. There's nothing better than doner.

[X1X]

I'm not trying to be offensive to any one, but that's just what the historical picture suggests

Only if we assume all things are equal, and in this case we would have to assume all religion is equal. That isn't the case at all, and the historical picture is bleak for those who think Muslim emigrants assimilate and adjust well to their host societies. Europe is already being called Eurabia because the flood of Muslim emigrants is overwhelming and the problem is their failure to assimilate to their host society. They instead expect their host society to adjust to them, which many do for fear of being labeled racist. This is especially true in England, Denmark, Sweden, and France, but we see the same thing in Canada and the US.

This phenomenon is unprecedented with Buddhists, Jews, Christians or Hindus. Nothing in these other religious dogmas divides the world into a two realms. In Islam the world is identified as either the House of Islam or the House of War. The House of Islam is a territory rules by muslims. Everything is the House of War where any Muslim with jihad on his mind can legally (in Islamic Law) attempt to make it Islamic by force.

Rarely are all things equal, and religion is no exception.

[koakaipo]

Hi- I can't spend too much time on this today, but let me give you what I can.

These ideas I'm throwing out aren't being made exclusively by numbers crunching. This is about numbers crunching AND looking at how different movements within Christinaity interplay with different environments like in the South.

Folks who are discussing the social and political implications of the charismatic movements making headway in Latin America include bigwigs like David Martin and Peter Berger and Lamin Sennah. A couple books that come to mind are "Tongues of Fire" and and David Stoll's "Is Latin America Turning Protestant?"

You mentioned a Catholic stronghold in Latin America. That's not the case. Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches are growing at a huge rate in S. America, and David Barret's numbers crunching are used primarily to show how Pentecostals will rival and perhaps even surpass the Catholic Church by the first half of this century.

Are these projections and are there dissenting voices on these various issues? Of course-but I find some of these bold assertions well supported by empirical evidence and argued capably by some of the most noted scholars in the fields of history and religion and sociology in regards to Latin America.

If anything comes to mind for me personally when looking at the history of Christianity, it's the belief that it's history is one of impressive yet sometimes unpredictable adaptions. I don't think this situation we are speaking of is any different.

[X1X]

There is no precedent for a Christian theocracy being created from within its own Christianity. In 2000 years there hasn't been one, so why leap to the weird conclusions that they are just around the corner? Sorry, but it just sounds too loopy for me.

If there really is empirical evidence that Christian theocracies are in the process of being created, well, name something specific. Again, it doesn't matter if Catholicism is losing its grip to Protestantism because that form of Christianity is no more likely to push for theocracy than Catholicism. Can you name a single Christian denomination anywhere whose ideology pushes for theocracy?

[Bee Eff]

Hello my Beefy eyeball friend

OK, so long as you understand that.

Nor did he authorize salaat, the second pillar of Islam which is delineated in the hadith, not the Quran. Would you deny Muslims the authenticity of their second pillar? But how do you know he didnâ??t authorize the use of hadith? You still canâ??t get around the fact that without the ahadith, you know virtually nothing about Muhammad. This is not an insignificant predicament youâ??ve worked yourself into. The Quran is nothing close to a biography of Muhammad.

Necessary given the Quran? It seems you do not appreciate the nature of the Quran. You seem to think the Quran itself would have authorized the ahadith. The Quran is a collection of hundreds of sayings by Muhammad. None of them had in mind a book of any kind. They were revelations that were recorded as Muhammad spoke as he went into his â??divine trace.â? Muhammad wasnâ??t conscious of the fact that future generations would be reading his revelations out of context (from shortest to longest), and I highly doubt he would have expected none of his companions to help teach the context from which these revelations were given. The need for an ahadith was a no-brainer.

It is much more than that. It is an attempt to place the Quran in its historical context. Without context youâ??re left with a mess. This is why the radicals always win the big debates. The few â??moderateâ? Muslims cannot make a case for a Quran-only Islam.

I think the Quran is the reason. Keep in mind that the Hadith cannot be to blame when it comes to the Islamic principles that collide with western society. For instance, the Quran says it is OK to beat women. The Quran is Godâ??s word right? It applies throught all time and eternity and doesnâ??t need a hadith to interpret it. So how would you interpret that verse?

I often hear this but I have never seen a valid example presented. What truth does the Quran contain that cannot be found in Judeo-Christian tradition? The Quran does not teach equality among men. It does not teach that God loves all humanity. It teaches God only loves the Muslim. It teaches charity and kindness, but in context it refers only to Muslims in how they should act among other Muslims. It teaches the subjugation and humiliation of the dhimmi, who is a Christian or Jew living in an Islamic community. It teaches a clear dichotomy between Muslim and non-Muslims, the former being superior in every way. It teaches Muslims not to become friends with Jews and Christians. It even teaches that Muslims should fight against Jews and Christians. One cannot blame the hadith on these teachings.

Of course, one could always argue that these verses need to be put in their proper context in order to be understood properly, but then, if you reject the ahadith then you reject any hope of context. The Quran doesnâ??t provide historical context for itself. You're left with the hadith or nothing. I tend to think that early Muslims, even those who were relying on second hand information, are still more likely to understand the Quran better than 21st century laymen who have no context to draw upon.

It seems you still do not understand the significance of the Hadith in determining the meaning of Quranic verses. There are many Islamic principles Muslims should be proud of, that would otherwise not be understood if not for the ahadith.

I think that one of two things has occurred. Either I have been unable to articulate properly my position, or you have misunderstood my statements. Most likely the former is the correct one I think.

In my comments I have been discussing Muhammad (initially) and the Quran, or God's revelation to him. I have not been discussing the Islamic faith, I have been stating my beliefs on the usage of the Quran. I have a great deal of respect for Islam and its teachings, however, I disagree with aspects of their traditions and interpretations. This does not insinuate that their traditions and interpretations are bad, or even that they are wrong in most aspects, only that I disagree with the method (i.e. use of the Hadith.) I fully understand the continuity issues and the purpose of the Hadith, I only believe that the Hadith is unnecessary, and may lead, in some cases, to interpretation other than what was intended by the revelation. I am not alone in this view, there are Islamic groups that support a "Quran alone" stance even though the position is not a majority by any means.

Also, there is this:

Quran - AD-DUKHAN (SMOKE)

044.058

YUSUFALI: Verily, We have made this (Qur'an) easy, in thy tongue, in order that they may give heed.

PICKTHAL: And We have made (this Scripture) easy in thy language only that they may heed.

SHAKIR: So have We made it easy in your tongue that they may be mindful.

My statement, "there is no reason to believe that they are necessary given the Quran." should have been, "there is no reason to believe that they (the Hadith) are necessary, given the Quran." By which I referenced the above verse. Meaning that the Hadith are unnecessary because the Quran was given in an "easy" manner to allow understanding and observance of the teachings.

I do not believe context is necessarily always important.

[koakaipo]

There is no precedent for a Christian theocracy being created from within its own Christianity. In 2000 years there hasn't been one, so why leap to the weird conclusions that they are just around the corner? Sorry, but it just sounds too loopy for me.

If there really is empirical evidence that Christian theocracies are in the process of being created, well, name something specific. Again, it doesn't matter if Catholicism is losing its grip to Protestantism because that form of Christianity is no more likely to push for theocracy than Catholicism. Can you name a single Christian denomination anywhere whose ideology pushes for theocracy?

X1X:

I think the fundamental problem here is we are coming from two very different places. You keep emphasizing that there are certain qualities endemic to Christianity that would stop any such efforts from happening. You are saying CAtholicism and Protestantism could be interchangeable in terms of the subject at hand even.

I on the other hand see Christianity as being more adaptable and flexible to the conditions at hand. And I am saying scholars from different disciplines are holding up different conditions that help make up the perfect storm for different projections I have already mentioned.

It may sound loopy and weird to you, and that's fine. But again, these aren't my thoughts. I give credence to them because of who has presented these ideas and how they presented them. I think we probably just come from very different places on a number of levels, based on our posts.

[X1X]

I think that one of two things has occurred. Either I have been unable to articulate properly my position, or you have misunderstood my statements. Most likely the former is the correct one I think.

Perhaps a little of both.

In my comments I have been discussing Muhammad (initially) and the Quran, or God's revelation to him. I have not been discussing the Islamic faith,

Now that is a distinction I doubt many would infer. But I guess that explains why I misunderstood you.

I have been stating my beliefs on the usage of the Quran. I have a great deal of respect for Islam and its teachings, however, I disagree with aspects of their traditions and interpretations. This does not insinuate that their traditions and interpretations are bad, or even that they are wrong in most aspects, only that I disagree with the method (i.e. use of the Hadith.)

Fair enough. I just wanted to know if you understood why the ahadith play such an important role for Muslims. The nature of the Quran was never such that it could be read by just anyone and be miraculously conveyed â??easily.â? Reading the Quran is often like walking in on a conversation between two strangers, having no idea what they are talking about. This explains the need and purpose for the ahadith. It wasnâ??t an attempt by early Muslims to mitigate the meaning of teachings the Quran; quite the opposite actually. They wanted to make sure the teachings were understood properly.

I fully understand the continuity issues and the purpose of the Hadith, I only believe that the Hadith is unnecessary, and may lead, in some cases, to interpretation other than what was intended by the revelation.

And I am just saying that one cannot understand what the revelation is without the ahadith. By what means and through what prism do you presume to understand them? This would be like Christians who expect to understand the Bible while ignoring every Bible commentary available to them. Imagine if people really thought the Bible pointed to mythical satyrs in the Old Testament, just because the KJV said so. We know this is a mistranslation, but donâ??t tell that to the KJV-only crowd.

Of course, from a theological perspective Bible commentaries hold no real authority as the ahadith do in Islam. However, without proper understanding of the Bible, the Bible itself is worthless to a person. Notice how whacky the â??KJV Onlyâ? Christians appear to us? Quran-only Muslims appear just as whacky to the vast majority of Muslims.

I am not alone in this view, there are Islamic groups that support a "Quran alone" stance even though the position is not a majority by any means.

Yes, you are correct about that. There are a few groups like that, and to say they represent a tiny minority is probably an understatement. My sense is that these are Muslims who are trying to make Quranic teachings attuned with modern expectations, and the first essential step is an enormous one: to find a way to get around the Sunnah. That is a tall order for Muslim reformers. It would be like a group of Mormons trying to expunge the Pearl of Great Price from Mormon canon just so they could view Joseph Smith as a prophet (Joseph Smith never made the Book of Abraham part of the canon) who wasnâ??t really racist (by modern standards). But to do this means Mormonism is imperfect and the leaders are fumbling over the issue of scripture. The former implication is acceptable (the ubiquitous â??Church is perfectâ? phrase means something different to apologists) but not in Islam. Similar implications are in store for Islam if Muslims argue the ahadith are not necessary. Islam is supposed to be a complete, perfect system, in the religious, social and political sense. The ahadith provide details nowhere expressed in the Quran - details that are necessary to maintain the Muslim way of life. Again, the prayer five times a day (second pillar) is based on the ahadith, not the Quran alone. To start pointing out errors in the Sunnah would be a slippery slope that most Muslims wouldnâ??t dare endeavor. It would be a tremendous (horrendous?) compromise and recognition that Islam is not what it had claimed to be for so many centuries, and that the Sunnah was not really Allahâ??s â??trodden pathâ? after all.

Moreover, the Quran-only approach would also limit the Quranâ??s universal application. These groups tend to move towards the view that many of the Quranâ??s statements applied only in a past context, and should not be understood as the general rule in our day. That means virtually half of the Quran (or more) would be inapplicable. Those relying on ahadith can explain why and how the totality of the Quran applies in our day, and that is far more appealing to the majority of Muslims. Again, the radicals are winning the minds of most for this reason.

My statement, "there is no reason to believe that they are necessary given the Quran." should have been, "there is no reason to believe that they (the Hadith) are necessary, given the Quran." By which I referenced the above verse. Meaning that the Hadith are unnecessary because the Quran was given in an "easy" manner to allow understanding and observance of the teachings.

I think you just demonstrated why the ahadith is actually necessary. Do you really believe Surah 44:58 refers to the future book known as the Quran, long before it ever existed? This is like saying the â??donâ??t add or take awayâ? Revelation verse refers to the Bible in its entirety. How does your interpretation of this verse account for the fact that the Quran isnâ??t easy to understand? Even by those who know Arabic, understanding of the Quran is never easy.

I do not believe context is necessarily always important.

Wow. Well, that was a surprise answer. But that explains a few things about why you reach certain conclusions.

So am I to understand that it is better for Muslims to know interpretations that suit their needs, instead of knowing what message the Quran intended to truly convey through its own historical context? In Islam, the Quran is a product of God, not of Muhammad, so the Quran itself offers very little information to judge what kind of person he was.

And you should know this is a double-edged sword too. For example, when the Quran provides an open-ended command for all Muslims to fight against all other faiths, including Christians and Jews (9:29), it would seem beneficial for moderate Muslims to know whether the ahadith provide a milder, less than literal meaning of the verse. But if they came at it with the idea that context means nothing and the Quran interprets itself, that leaves moderate Muslims completely unarmed in their fight against the radicals.

I think the reason the Quran-only approach is preferable to certain Muslims, as well as Islam admirers in the West, is because, as one Islamic scholar put it, the Quran, â??generally deals with the broad principles or essentials of religion, going into details in very rare cases.â? This means that generally speaking, one can pretty much create any kind of religion one wants to while using the open interpretation, â??it can mean whatever you think it meansâ? method. This is especially true for those who downplay the significance of context. The irony is that the radicals are the ones who are often accused of this.

If one wants to view the Quran to be in support charity, just cite a few verses that appear to refer to giving; overlooking the fact that the context of the Quran, Muslim scholarship and the ahadith all specify that these verses refer to Muslim charity towards other Muslims, and not towards those of other faiths (give to your â??brother,â? i.e. Muslims). For those with no knowledge about what â??brothersâ? means in the Quran, it would be fairly easy to assume it taught giving equally to all humankind. But this understanding, while flattering to a Western audience, is essentially erroneous.

Or if you want to make Islam and the Quran seem tolerant of other faiths, then just cite the famous â??no compulsion in religionâ? verse. Never mind the fact that Islamic scholarship in light of the ahadith, explains this verse to mean something entirely different from how it is generally understood by the â??Islam tolerates othersâ? group.

Or if you want the Quran to appear family oriented in an LDS manner, then youâ??d have to completely ignore or downplay the verse which sanctions wife-beating (4:34). Moderates should hope a hadith would point to a non-literal meaning, but unfortunately none of them do.

Speaking of which, I am curious what you would do with this verse:

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme."(Surah 4:34, Dawood)

Do you interpret it without the aide of an ahadith, and if so, how would you interpret it using the Quran only?

I realize that Paul said some unflattering things about women as well â?? though hardly comparable to the above - but Christians understand Paul, not God, to be the author of his epistles. They were written to a specific group of people in a specific period of time. The same doesnâ??t hold true for the Quran, whose verses apply to all human kind throughout all time and eternity.

â??The stories of these founding figures [which they told to the Muslim community after Muhammad's death] enhanced the Quran and helped to fill in the gaps by explaining the circumstances of a particular revelation or the meaning of a difficult word. It is quite clear that the Qur'an is a book of limited scope. The teachings of the book can, at times, be difficult to implement. What then is the criterion by which one arrives at a proper interpretation leading to an appropriate application in understanding the Qur'an?â? (Maulauna Muhamad Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.58)

The Quran is really considered unique as a sacred text, in that no translation of it is adequate enough to convey its message perfectly. This is why Muslims everywhere are encouraged to learn Arabic so they can understand its original meaning. They also believe that by emulating Muhammadâ??s behavior, they come to a closer understanding of the Quran. Muslims do not think anyone could just pick up the Quran and see eye to eye on what it says. For instance, you have your understanding of the text and obviously it is a minority view. Isnâ??t it better to have a billion people with an official interpretation to work from, instead of leaving it up to everyone to interpret it themselves, resulting in a billion Muslims with a billion different understandings? This is why Islam is as united as it is; at least, when compared to other faiths.

I guess what it al boils down to is this. Iâ??d rather trust 13 centuries of Islamic tradition, even if some of it was oral tradition. Keep in mind that it included some who personally knew Muhammad, to explicate the fundamentals of the Quran according to the sayings and actions of Muhammad that were passed down. Sure, they cannot be 100% correct, but I think it is safe to say they are reliable enough to give us some idea about what kind of man Muhammad was and what these Surahs meant originally. If not, then weâ??re left with nothing to support our opinions of the man or interpretations of the text.

If I reject Muslim authority, then what alternative do I have? The idea of a modern layman, divorced from the historic context by 14 centuries, picking up the Quran and interpreting the text with no guide or sense of direction, is just a recipe for an anachronistic disaster. This is why the Quran-only Muslims are losing the battle. I mean why else abandon the Sunnah and ahadith unless theyâ??re trying to get rid of interpretations they donâ??t like? Muslims, who are proud of the â??perfectâ? system that is Islam, want no part of that agenda.

Anyway, I appreciate the conversation and see no reason to argue anything. We have different views and that is OK by me. I am just fascinated when non-Muslims opine that Muhammad must have been a real prophet (so far seven people on this poll!). I am especially fascinated with those who express opinions about a historic person while rejecting the available history. And to be honest, I donâ??t like it when people insist he was a prophet or some kind of inspired man. I donâ??t like it mainly because 1) it simply isnâ??t true based on the evidence, and 2) it seems to be an automatic stereotype about the man most people know little or nothing about.

Virtually everything we know about Muhammad comes from the ahadith and official biographies, yet those who would hold and express a hagiographic view of him often downplay or reject these sources. I guess that makes sense though, since they really would have to reject these in order to paint the man as someone to admire and look up to.

[X1X]

I think the fundamental problem here is we are coming from two very different places. You keep emphasizing that there are certain qualities endemic to Christianity that would stop any such efforts from happening. You are saying CAtholicism and Protestantism could be interchangeable in terms of the subject at hand even. I on the other hand see Christianity as being more adaptable and flexible to the conditions at hand.

But I am just saying that my position is supported by 2000 years of Christian history, whereas yours is supported by some theorists who cannot really point to anything in history to support their claims. There is no room for a theocracy in any form of Christianity known today - at least not in any denomination capable of taking over an entire country. The Christian Church has decidedly moved towards secularism since the renaissance, and there is no reason to suppose some mysterious Protestant sect would rise from the South and implement a theocracy in some S. American country. Catholicism still holds majorities in all S. American countries, and those who are not Catholic can hardly be described as religiously political fanatics. I find your assertions fascinating, but on the whole, too weird to entertain.