Quran

[MiserereNobis]

32 minutes ago, theplains said:

Including @Niblo too.

I found this website. https://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/chapter_1.html

It gives a clear explanation of how Muslims understand the term 'son of God', which is in
a literal way (source: https://quran.com/)

Sura 10:68:

They say, “Allah has offspring.” Glory be to Him! He is the Self-Sufficient. To Him 
belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. You have no proof of 
this! Do you say about Allah what you do not know?

Sura 6:101:

˹He is˺ the Originator of the heavens and earth. How could He have children when He has 
no mate? He created all things and has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of everything.

In regards to your comment about lust.  I don't believe lust is involved when human families 
sire children.  If you do, you may want to consider the teaching of the celestial Sireship in
Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual.

 

Just FYI, Niblo is Muslim.

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

Including @Niblo too.

I found this website. https://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/chapter_1.html

It gives a clear explanation of how Muslims understand the term 'son of God', which is in
a literal way (source: https://quran.com/)

Sura 10:68:

They say, “Allah has offspring.” Glory be to Him! He is the Self-Sufficient. To Him 
belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. You have no proof of 
this! Do you say about Allah what you do not know?

Sura 6:101:

˹He is˺ the Originator of the heavens and earth. How could He have children when He has 
no mate? He created all things and has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of everything.

In regards to your comment about lust.  I don't believe lust is involved when human families 
sire children.  If you do, you may want to consider the teaching of the celestial Sireship in
Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual.

 

Literal or natural son =/= natural conception, it was undisputedly miraculous and without coitis and whatever undignified emotions is required for coitis. Christian rebirth into sons of God, we are told transforms the body into a literal and natural descendant of Abraham, as well as God, in a way that is "literal", it is effectively legal to say under Israeli/heaven's laws. Converting unfit Gentiles into a Priest without previous decent the law required.

When the Quran says, "Allah... (Far exalted is He) above having sons" (4:171). I am told why is because, "The begetting of a son is a physical act depending on the needs of man's animal nature... It is derogatory (to Allah) to attribute such an act to him" (the note on page 855 of Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation and commentary on The Holy Quran)

We then should agree, it was a mystical thing. What could we have been saying to earn this reply? In the mid-second century, that might be exactly how Roman Christians were understanding the story and telling others about it like unto Roman myths, "But least some should charge us with the very things we have been laying to the charge of the poets who say that Jupiter went unto women through lust, let us try to explain the words, "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son". (Justin Martyr, Apology 1:33) Resulting in the Nicene Creed going through lengths to explain the conception was by the Holy Ghost and Mary remained a virgin.

The Quran speaks about how Christians gave them conflicting information, "the sects differ among themselves" (19:37), whatever they said lead them to rejecting the title of "Son". When the earliest Biblical reference to a son of God makes clear David was Solomon's father and it wasn't a carnal process for Solomon to become a Son of God (2 Sam 7:14).

Edited February 28, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Niblo]

On 2/26/2023 at 9:17 PM, Pyreaux said:

Thank you for coming over. I am no expert in Islam, just a few observations, as I fixate on how to plug into what I know and studied. There is this dispute over the definition of a "son", in commentaries I read explains a narrow definition of son as the product of lust, which is why Allah is above animal lust that is required to sire children. Jesus is an undisputed product of Allah and indeed has no human father, similar to Adam, yet the Bible authors consider Adam by virtue of being created by God, without a father, Adam is loosely called a son "of God" (Luke 3:38), I also believe when the Bible says King Melchizedek has "no father", is loosely called a "son of God" (Hebrews 7), I believe he did have parents, it was just the royal covenant that made any king into a "son" in an adopted sense (2 Sam 7:14; Psa 2:7). Christians by becoming royal priests become adopted as God's "sons" (John 1:12), just like Jesus. Jesus was an angel/messenger given the title of "son" (Hebrews 1). It might be that the Quran is responding to Romans who were telling people, like the Muslims, that Jesus was made by Jupiter who went unto Mary and conceived a son as Justin Martyr tells, and they needed to remember Mary was a virgin.

Thank you. Drafting a reply.

Blessings.

[Hamilton Porter]

On 2/26/2023 at 12:15 PM, Niblo said:

‘And when thy Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their progeny and made them bear witness concerning themselves, “Am I not your Lord?” they said, “Yea, we bear witness” – lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Truly of this we were heedless,”’ (Sūrah, al-Aʿrāf:172).

Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘This verse is in many ways the cornerstone of Islamic sacred history and anthropology and establishes that the fundamental relationship between God and all human beings is premised upon the simple, unmediated recognition of His Lordship at the moment of their pretemporal creation.

 ‘The event recounted in this verse is widely referred to as a pretemporal covenant (mīthāq) or pact (ʿahd) – although these terms do not appear in the verse itself – made by God with all of humanity prior to their earthly existence.

‘It is connected by commentators with a pretemporal covenant between God and the prophets (3:81; 33:7) and considered by some to be subsequent to it.  The Quran mentions covenants or pacts between God and the believers generally (5:1, 7; 6:152; 13:20, 25; 16:91, 95; 57:8) as well as covenants with Abraham (2:124–25), the Israelites (2:40, 63, 83–84, 93; 4:154; 5:70), the Christians (5:14), and the People of the Book collectively (3:187). But the making of the covenant described in the present verse is unmediated and universal – contracted directly between God and all humanity – and can thus be interpreted as the basis of all later and specific covenants mediated by the prophets.

'This verse is also connected with the Quranic notion of the fiṭrah, the primordial nature (30:30) with which all human beings were originally endowed, indicating that the innate recognition of God’s Oneness constitutes the essence of being human (see 30:30c).

 ‘Even though human beings do not remember the pretemporal covenant, their testimony to God’s Lordship is understood to have left an indelible imprint upon their souls and to have established moral responsibility for them. 

 ‘When these souls are engendered in earthly bodies and reach the age of moral understanding and accountability, the innate knowledge is reawakened in those who believe by their encounter with prophetic teachings, scriptures, and Divine laws, which serve as a reminder and renewal of their initial covenant with God.  Therefore, if a child dies before reaching the age of moral and religious responsibility, he or she is considered to have died according to the first covenant (mīthāq) and the original fiṭrah, and so in a state of moral purity.

 ‘Some commentators have argued that it is precisely this human inability to remember the event described in this verse that points to its symbolic nature and thus reject the idea that a pretemporal covenant, of which most human beings are not conscious and that they cannot recall, could be the basis of a responsibility that is binding upon them. When this verse is read in the wider Quranic context and juxtaposed with Quranic prophetic history, however, this pretemporal recognition of God’s Lordship can be understood as creating an innate disposition in human beings toward recognizing and worshipping God during earthly life and toward accepting the prophets and the messages they bring as “reminders” of what human beings already know inwardly, but have merely forgotten.’ (‘The Study Qur’an’; my emphasis).

You will note that each of us enjoyed a ‘fundamental relationship’ with Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) at the moment of our ‘pretemporal creation’.  Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) in by no means unique in this regard.

 

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says this, concerning Yeshua’s conception:

 ‘People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about Allāh except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of Allāh, His word (‘wakalimatuhu’), directed to Mary, a spirit (‘warūḥun’) from Him.  So believe in Allāh and His messengers and do not speak of three – stop (this), that is better for you – Allāh is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.’ (Al-Nisa: 171).

The word ‘wakalimatuhu’ is derived from the root ‘kāf lām mīm’; and refers – not to the Logos (the Second Person of the Trinity, as understood by Trinitarians) – but to speech; to a spoken word – to any spoken word.

The word ‘warūḥun’ is derived from the root ‘rā wāw ḥā’; and comes from the form ‘rūḥ’; meaning ‘soul’; ‘spirit’; and ‘inspiration’.  When applied to Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) it refers to his spirit soul.  We all possess  such a soul.

Shaykh Nasr writes:

‘Jesus is a sign unto mankind in that he serves as a proof of God’s Power as Creator (IK), since his birth shows that God is capable of bringing a child into being without a father, just as He was capable of bringing Adam into being without a mother or a father. Through his miraculous conception and birth and his speaking as an infant (vv. 30–33), Jesus is also a sign or proof of his own prophethood and of his mother’s innocence . Cf. 23:50, where Mary and Jesus together are said to constitute a sign. Jesus is also a mercy from God to Mary and to those who believe in him and are guided by him’ (‘The Study Qur’an’).

 

Consider this:

‘The angel said, ‘Mary, Allāh gives you news of a word (‘bikalimatin’) from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be held in honour in this world and the next, who will be one of those brought near to Allāh.  He will speak to people in his infancy and in his adulthood.  He will be one of the righteous.’ (Al‘Imran: 45-46).

‘Bikalimatin’ is derived from the same root (‘kāf lām mīm’) as ‘wakalimatuhu’ and, as you might expect, also refers to a spoken word. 

Al‘Imran continues: 

‘She said, ‘My Lord, how can I have a son when no man has touched me?’ (The angel) said, ‘This is how Allāh creates what He will: when He has ordained something, He says only, "Be" (‘kun’), and it is.’ (Verse 47).

Yeshua is indeed a word from Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla); and that word is ‘Be’; the command that brought Yeshua – and everything else – into being.

Hi Niblo,

Do you consider Latter-day Saints "people of the book"? We do read the Torah and the Gospels, and some of us are reading the Quran.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

Hi Niblo,

Do you consider Latter-day Saints "people of the book"? We do read the Torah and the Gospels, and some of us are reading the Quran.

[Niblo]

On 2/26/2023 at 9:17 PM, Pyreaux said:

It might be that the Quran is responding to Romans who were telling people, like the Muslims, that Jesus was made by Jupiter who went unto Mary and conceived a son as Justin Martyr tells, and they needed to remember Mary was a virgin.

Greetings.  Sorry for the delayed reply.

You are, of course, referring to Justin Martyr’s First Apology; dated between 155-157 C.E.; some four hundred fifty-fifty years before the coming of Islam.  

 Concerning the Christians of the Near East:

The largest of the Arab Christian tribes were the ‘Banu Ghassan’ (Ghassanids), who formed a buffer between Christian Byzantine and the pagan Arabs.

The Ghassanids were a mixture of Chalcedonians and Miaphysites.  What they had in common, of course, was a belief in Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām)’s divinity, and that he was born of a virgin.

In addition to the Ghassanids, there were Christians in Syrian; in Mesopotamia; in Abyssinia; and, of course, in Yemen. As far as I’m aware (and I stand to be corrected) these Christians also believed in the virgin birth.

Reza Aslan writes:

‘As a proselytizing faith, Christianity was not content to remain at the borders of the Arab lands. Thanks to a concerted effort to spread the gospel throughout the peninsula, a number of Arab tribes had converted en masse to Christianity.

‘The Ghassanids actively supported missionary efforts in Arabia, while at the same time the Byzantine emperors sent their bishops deep into the deserts to bring the rest of the pagan Arabs into their fold.’ (‘No God But God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam’).

None of the Church Councils – and no Church Father that I am aware of – taught that Yeshua was sired by Jupiter.  Impossible to believe, therefore, that Christian missionaries to the Arabs would have preached this notion.

Concerning the Jews of Arabia:

Karen Armstrong writes:

‘The Jewish presence in the Arabian Peninsula can, in theory, be traced to the Babylonian Exile a thousand years earlier, though subsequent migrations may have taken place in 70 C.E., after Rome’s sacking of the Temple in Jerusalem, and again in 132 C.E., after the messianic uprising of Simon Bar Kochba.’ (‘Islam: A Short History’).

Reza Aslan reminds us that:

‘For the most part, the Jews were a thriving and highly influential diaspora whose culture and traditions had been thoroughly integrated into the social and religious milieu of pre-Islamic Arabia. Whether Arab converts or immigrants from Palestine, the Jews participated in every level of Arab society.’ (‘No God But God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam’).

In sūrah ‘Al-Nisa’ we read that certain Jews: ‘…uttered a terrible slander against Mary…’ (ʾĀyah:156).

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) does not identify these folk; nor the  period in which they lived.  However, there are clues to their identity in the writings of Origen, and in the ‘Talmud Bavli’ (‘Babylonian Talmud’). 

You will know that Celsus, a polemic writer against Christians, produced his ‘Logos Alēthēs’ (‘The True Word’) between the years 175 and 180 CE; and that around 240 CE, a copy was given to Origen of Alexandria, one of the most influential scholars in the early Church. 

The original text of ‘Logos Alēthēs’ has been lost, but scholars have been  able to reconstruct much of it, thanks to Origen’s many citations.

Origen writes:

‘He (Celsus) also introduces an imaginary character (a Jew) who addresses childish remarks to Jesus and says nothing worthy of a philosopher’s grey hairs…..After this he represents the Jew as having a conversation with Jesus himself and refuting him on many charges, as he thinks: first, because he (Jesus) fabricated the story of his birth from a virgin; and he reproaches him because he came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who earned her living by spinning.  He (Celsus) says that she was driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, as she was convicted of adultery.’ (‘Contra Celsus – Book 1; Chapter 28’; my emphasis).

In Chapter 32 of his work, Origen writes; my emphasis:

‘Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where the mother of Jesus is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, "as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera”’.

Henry Chadwick, in his translation of the ‘Contra Celsus’, writes:

‘The title Jesus ben Panthera is not uncommon in the Talmud…….  Eusebius, commenting on Hos. v. 14 (‘Return, Israel, to the Lord your God.  Your sins have been your downfall!’) says: ‘The text may be quoted against those of the circumcision who slanderously and abusively assert that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was born of Panthera Epiphanius’

When preparing his book ‘Jesus in the Talmud, Peter Schäfer – a noted scholar in the field of ancient Judaism and early Christianity, and one-time Ronald O. Perelman Professor of Judaic Studies at Princeton University – drew on fourteen Talmud manuscripts (both censored and uncensored); along with two printed versions; the  Soncino (1484-1519) and the Vilna (1880-1886).

For our purposes, the uncensored tracts are of particular relevance.  The oldest used by Schäfer are the Firenze II-I-7-9; an Ashkenazi manuscript of 1177 CE; and the Herzog 1; a Yemeni manuscript of c1565 CE.

He writes:

‘The (Babylonian) Talmud seems to be convinced that (Yeshua’s) true father was Pandera, his mother’s lover, and that he was a b*****d in the full sense of the word.’ (‘Jesus in the Talmud’).

Could this be the ‘terrible slander against Mary’ that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) refers to?  The Qur’an mentions no other.

 

Blessings.

[Niblo]

On 3/4/2023 at 10:09 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

Hi Niblo,

Do you consider Latter-day Saints "people of the book"? We do read the Torah and the Gospels, and some of us are reading the Quran.

Hi Hamilton,

As you know, Latter-day-Saints, consider themselves to be Christian; and since they follow teachings based on the Bible, they could be considered ‘Ahl-ul Kitab’, in the same way as other Christians.  However, their use of other writings – and the importance they place on these writings – makes their status unclear.

 Blessings.

[Hamilton Porter]

14 hours ago, Niblo said:

As you know, Latter-day-Saints, consider themselves to be Christian; and since they follow teachings based on the Bible, they could be considered ‘Ahl-ul Kitab’, in the same way as other Christians.  However, their use of other writings – and the importance they place on these writings – makes their status unclear.

 Blessings.

Thanks for replying. Just a point of clarification--is what you're saying the fact thay Latter-day Saints assign more importance to their own unique scriptures than the Bible, this complicates whether we're ahl kitab?

[Hamilton Porter]

On 2/26/2023 at 10:31 PM, Tacenda said:

Hamilton, your avatar is celebrating 30 years in March at the U of U, for Sandlot, the cast all grown up will be speaking after a showing of the movie. Thought of getting tickets. 

That's awesome! I wish I were in Utah.

[theplains]

On 2/28/2023 at 2:11 PM, Pyreaux said:

The Quran speaks about how Christians gave them conflicting information, "the sects differ among themselves" (19:37), whatever they said lead them to rejecting the title of "Son". When the earliest Biblical reference to a son of God makes clear David was Solomon's father and it wasn't a carnal process for Solomon to become a Son of God (2 Sam 7:14).

The Quran has many misunderstandings of the Bible.  See Qur’An-Bible Comparison by Ami Ben-Chanan.

[Hamilton Porter]

1 minute ago, theplains said:

The Quran has many misunderstandings of the Bible.  See Qur’An-Bible Comparison by Ami Ben-Chanan.

The Bible is more violent than the Quran, from what I've read thus far (I'm about 2/3 through the Quran).

[Hamilton Porter]

Controversial take: there's more Christian theology in the Quran than in the Bible. The God of the Bible is anthropomorphic, material, and exists within a material cosmos.

Quranic God is immaterial (for the most part), Calvinistic, and not partners with humans on anything, all consistent with classical theism.

 

[Islander]

On 2/18/2023 at 9:05 PM, Pyreaux said:

I don't have an hour right now. I find it interesting how classically Muslims resist the pre-incarnation of Christ and don't see when Allah "sent a Word" to Mary and she conceived that the "Word" in Christian and some Jewish terms identify the Word as a divine entity, the Quran isn't simply saying Allah spoke it and it was done. 

But that is not how they "think" when it comes to that. Their conception of God is completely different from ours as Christians. For Muslims God has no sons, He is not a father and He does not love in the same way. He is the creator and we are the creatures and that is it.  In general, the raise of Islam has more to do with shifting geopolitics than religion itself. Once their dominance was established, they needed a religion and a prophet, just like the powers that preceded them. They built a sanctuary right across the church of the Holy Sepulcher and the inscriptions in the arcade read are all anti-Christian declarations:

 S In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignity and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has Power over all things. Muhammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.

SE Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation. The blessing of God be on him and peace be on him, and may God have mercy. O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion

E nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not ‘Three’ – Cease! (it is)

NE better for you! – God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a

N servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him. Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus

NW son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies, and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!

Trying to harmonize Islamic theology with Christianity is just an exercise in futility and denote a limited understanding of what (rank and file) Muslims actually believe. 

[Hamilton Porter]

5 minutes ago, Islander said:

In general, the raise of Islam has more to do with shifting geopolitics than religion itself.

That's incredibly reductive and bigoted.

[ttribe]

"exmossuck"

Way to keep it classy.

[Islander]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

That's incredibly reductive and bigoted.

I just quoted you what is written in the octagon arcade in the sanctuary! All those statements are a rejection of Christianity!!! That is absolutely factual. It may not fit your PC sensibilities but that is your problem. Did you read my post of just shot your woke diatribe from the hip?

In the 7th C all the Arabic armies spilled out of the peninsula and drove the sword all the way to Budapest. There's not ONE extant document anywhere that talks about Muslims or Islam. What we do know is that once they conquered Jerusalem, 'Abd al-Malik built the shrine atop the temple Mount, above and across the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. And that is a clear symbolic gesture of dominance over the conquered and that is a political statement. Just as much as the US moving its embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem in recent years. Rather than building a temple to their "god" and their alleged prophet, ALL the inscriptions in the arcade in the shrine are just anti-Christian declarations. Sorry it triggered your woke sensibilities but facts do not care about feelings.

Islam denies the divinity of Christ, the Sonship of Christ, the Godhead, the death and resurrection and the very essence of who Christ is. Whatever else one tries to "harmonize" is a futile and vain intellectual exercise. 

Cheers.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Islander

[Hamilton Porter]

37 minutes ago, Islander said:

I just quoted you what is written in the octagon arcade in the sanctuary! All those statements are a rejection of Christianity!!! That is absolutely factual. It may not fit your PC sensibilities but that is your problem. Did you read my post of just shot your woke diatribe from the hip?

In the 7th C all the Arabic armies spilled out of the peninsula and drove the sword all the way to Budapest. There's not ONE extant document anywhere that talks about Muslims or Islam. What we do know is that once they conquered Jerusalem, 'Abd al-Malik built the shrine atop the temple Mount, above and across the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. And that is a clear symbolic gesture of dominance over the conquered and that is a political statement. Just as much as the US moving its embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem in recent years. Rather than building a temple to their "god" and their alleged prophet, ALL the inscriptions in the arcade in the shrine are just anti-Christian declarations. Sorry it triggered your woke sensibilities but facts do not care about feelings.

Islam denies the divinity of Christ, the Sonship of Christ, the Godhead, the death and resurrection and the very essence of who Christ is. Whatever else one tries to "harmonize" is a futile and vain intellectual exercise. 

Cheers.

🤣🤣 Going off some inscription instead of reading their holy book. I don't care if it contains invectives against Christians. Christians put 3 out of every 4 Jews into the gas chambers. The same can't be said of Muslims. Muslims fostered the coexistence of all three groups in Iberia and accepted Jews for their skills with open arms into the Ottoman Empire when they were expelled from Spain.

Elders Gong and Bednar said to read the Quran to understand Muslims better. If you're LDS, you whiffed on that assignment. And the Quran contains a lot about Muslims and Jews.

Stop watching cable TV or talk radio or some Tiktok videos.

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

But that is not how they "think" when it comes to that. Their conception of God is completely different from ours as Christians. For Muslims God has no sons, He is not a father.... Trying to harmonize Islamic theology with Christianity is just an exercise in futility and denote a limited understanding of what (rank and file) Muslims actually believe. 

I know, I just hold little stock in Muslim opinion and preservation of the Quran, and to me that means Muhammad could have been a prophet, but when he died they all became apostate and only wrote down the Quran over a hundred years later in the middle of a war with Christians, and there is evidence the Quran has been tampered with. They simply burned the other copies so they could claim their copy is the one Muhammad wrote when we know it's not (Kahle, The Cairo Geniza 211). Just like the Jews did to the Hebrew Bible (Kahle, The Cairo Geniza 70-71). The Catholic tampering of the Bible doesn't mean I must reject the Bible, just you merely cannot assume everything is as it seems and I can't use "tampering" as a copout for every issue, I have to try to address these matters as interpretational issues wherever possible.

Allah has no children of any type? In the "Satanic Verses" we got Al-'Uzza, al-Lat and Manah, the three daughters of Allah (53:19-20). No children, yet three daughter intercessor goddesses. This was in there for two centuries before they inserted 21-22, I think the whole interpolation of the tongue by Satan is a mere excuse that they tampered with the text to fit with their modern ideology, and Muhammad may not have been as strictly monotheistic as modern Muslims claim.

[Islander]

47 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

🤣🤣 Going off some inscription instead of reading their holy book. I don't care if it contains invectives against Christians. Christians put 3 out of every 4 Jews into the gas chambers. The same can't be said of Muslims. Muslims fostered the coexistence of all three groups in Iberia and accepted Jews for their skills with open arms into the Ottoman Empire when they were expelled from Spain.

Elders Gong and Bednar said to read the Quran to understand Muslims better. If you're LDS, you whiffed on that assignment. And the Quran contains a lot about Muslims and Jews.

Stop watching cable TV or talk radio or some Tiktok videos.

I will be gentle with you because you know nothing about me. You should measure your words better. A wise man said: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." 

I lived in Syria 3 years in the late 80's and I speak fluent Arabic. I have read the Qur'an, the Hadith, the  Tafsir ibn Kathir and the Seerah for many years and own several copies and "versions" of them. I have a certificate in ME Studies for the simple reason that it is important to be well informed when you try to engage your neighbors. However, regardless of what the brethren say, you will not know much about Islam by just reading the Qur'an. It is just like the BoM. LDS doctrine is not contained in the BoM. You have to go to the D&C and other texts to fully grasp LDS doctrine and theology. 

If you knew anything about Islamic history, which it is obvious that you don't, you would have grasped what I tried to explain to you. The only reason to try and understand Muslims is to point them to Christ and the one true God as the ONLY means of salvation. And to show them how their own history and texts have been "crafted" and manipulated for political reasons, you really have to KNOW Islamic history and theology, which I do. The statements I made are 100% factual and are thoroughly documented within the Islamic texts or just simply asking any Muslim. The facts are stubborn and inconvenient but undeniable. To say that inscriptions inside the third holiest site in Islam, where millions of Muslims visit and worship every year, are not representative of what they believe is simply beyond irrational and squarely standing in the realm of stupidity, to put it mildly. The fact that said reality makes a mockery of your tidy conciliatory narrative about Islam is irrelevant. 

Most "moderate" Muslims in the West have learned to live in the West. They are the "backsliding" and "liberal" Muslims that have embraced the West for primarily economic reasons. They fled the ME because of the true Muslims; call them radical, orthodox, traditional, you name it. But that is the true Islam and not the sanitized version the political class has sold on primetime news.

But I digress. And I suspect that you already made up your mid and refuse to be confused by the facts.

[Hamilton Porter]

17 minutes ago, Islander said:

If you knew anything about Islamic history, which it is obvious that you don't, you would have grasped what I tried to explain to you. The only reason to try and understand Muslims is to point them to Christ and the one true God as the ONLY means of salvation. And to show them how their own history and texts have been "crafted" and manipulated for political reasons, you really have to KNOW Islamic history and theology, which I do. The statements I made are 100% factual and are thoroughly documented within the Islamic texts or just simply asking any Muslim. The facts are stubborn and inconvenient but undeniable. To say that inscriptions inside the third holiest site in Islam, where millions of Muslims visit and worship every year, are not representative of what they believe is simply beyond irrational and squarely standing in the realm of stupidity, to put it mildly. The fact that said reality makes a mockery of your tidy conciliatory narrative about Islam is irrelevant. 

You explained nothing. You're one of those "iSlam Isn't a rELIGion it'S an iDeologY" people. Christians have done far worse throughout history.

[theplains]

On 3/6/2023 at 1:43 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

The Bible is more violent than the Quran, from what I've read thus far (I'm about 2/3 through the Quran).

One could argue that the Book of Mormon is more violent than even the Bible when you look at all the
millions killed in the great Jaredite battle (which I don't believe ever happened).  This would possibly
make it the the only war in history where it went down to the last man, woman, and child standing - in
this case, one man standing.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/further-study-chart/138-the-two-final-battles/

As for the Quran, I suggest reading The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom. It deals with the
status of non-Muslim populations (the dhimmis) after the conquest of their lands by Muslims. The oppression
continues in our day.

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

As for the Quran, I suggest reading The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom. It deals with the
status of non-Muslim populations (the dhimmis) after the conquest of their lands by Muslims. The oppression
continues in our day.

Oh boohoo, dhimnitude. Christians put 3 out of every 4 Jews into gas chambers. Ask any Jewish person who treated them worse historically.

2 hours ago, theplains said:

One could argue that the Book of Mormon is more violent than even the Bible when you look at all the
millions killed in the great Jaredite battle (which I don't believe ever happened).  This would possibly
make it the the only war in history where it went down to the last man, woman, and child standing - in
this case, one man standing

The Book of Mormon doesn't have anything where God TELLS you to kill every man, woman, child, and leave the olive trees alone. It's not a genocidal handbook like the Book of Joshua. Quran doesn't either, in the first 2/3 of the book anyway.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Hamilton Porter
Ask not as

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 3/7/2023 at 1:57 PM, Islander said:

And to show them how their own history and texts have been "crafted" and manipulated for political reasons,

Enough about the Bible, this thread is about Islam. 

[Niblo]

On 3/6/2023 at 1:34 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

Thanks for replying. Just a point of clarification--is what you're saying the fact thay Latter-day Saints assign more importance to their own unique scriptures than the Bible, this complicates whether we're ahl kitab?

Greeting, and apologies for the delayed reply.

On the 6^th March, I asked Egypt’s ‘Dar Al-Ifta’ for a fatwā on this matter.  I receive an acknowledgment – and a reference number – but have yet to receive an answer.

As you know, a fatwa is a clarification of Islamic law, given by a qualified Islamic jurist (a Mufti) – based on evidence taken from the Qur’an and ʼaḥādīth – in response to a question on issues of personal or general concern.  In šāʾ Allāh, I will let you know their answer.  

Two words are used in the Qur’an to describe what translators call a ‘Prophet’ or ‘Messenger’.  These words are: Nabī (‘Prophet’) and Rasūl (‘Messenger’).

A Nabī is a man sent by Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) to provide guidance, or give warning, to those who are already under the Law; whereas a Rasūl is charged with delivering the Law in the first place – in the form of scripture (he is also required to provide guidance and give warning, of course). 

All Rasūl are considered to be Nabī; but not all Nabī were Rasūl. 

Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was a Rasūl. 

According to Islam, there were no Rasūl after Muhammad, and therefore no valid scripture; that, of course, includes the ‘unique scriptures’ of your own community.

For the Muslims, therefore, much depends on how Latter-day Saints interpret the Bible.  In short, is this interpretation – and consequent theology – grounds for declaring that Latter-day Saints truly are ‘Christians’?

If it is, then they are ‘People of the Book’.  If it isn’t, then they are not.    

Continued:

[Niblo]

You have written:

‘The Book of Mormon doesn't have anything where God TELLS you to kill every man, woman, child, and leave the olive trees alone. It's not a genocidal handbook like the Book of Joshua. Quran doesn't either, in the first 2/3 of the book anyway.’

Muslims are obliged to protect themselves, and all who seek their protection. They must protect the defenceless; women; children; and the old from privation, suffering and moral peril. According to the Shari’a, fighting in a ‘just war’ is a duty (as it is in all other forms of state governance, whether religious or secular).   

‘Let those of you who are willing to trade the life of this world for the life to come, fight in Allāh’s way. To anyone who fights in Allāh’s way, whether killed or victorious, We shall give a great reward. Why should you not fight in Allah’s cause and for those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out: “Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors! By Your grace, give us a protector and give us a helper!”?’ (Al-Nisa’: Verses 74-75).

The Qur’an advocates opposition to aggression and oppression.   However, war is allowed ONLY as an act of self-defence, and NEVER as an act of aggression:

‘Those who have been attacked are permitted to take up arms because they have been wronged – Allāh has the power to help them – those who have been driven unjustly from their homes only for saying: “Our Lord is Allāh.” If Allāh did not repel some people by means of others, many monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, where Allāh’s name is much invoked, would have been destroyed. Allāh is sure to help those who help His cause – Allāh is strong and mighty….’ (‘Al-Hajj: Verses 39-40’); and again: ‘Fight in Allāh’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits: Allāh does not love those who overstep the limits. Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, kill them – this is what such disbelievers deserve - but if they stop, then Allāh is most forgiving and merciful. Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to Allāh. If they cease hostilities, there can be no (further) hostility, except towards aggressors.’ (‘Al-Baqara: 190-193’).

Two lines in these verses require clarification.

‘………………but do not overstep the limits. The scholars agree that the Arabic command ‘la ta tadu’ prohibits the starting of hostilities; fighting non-combatants; and making a disproportionate response to aggression.

‘Kill them wherever you encounter them’. The Muslims were concerned as to whether it was permitted to retaliate when attacked within the sacred precincts in Mecca (when on pilgrimage). In this line, they are given permission to fight back wherever they encounter their attackers, in the precinct or outside it.

Whenever possible, war is to be avoided; even when preparations have been made:

‘Prepare whatever forces you (believers) can muster, including warhorses, to frighten off Allāh’s enemies and yours, and warn others unknown to you but known to Allāh. Whatever you give in Allāh’s cause will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged. But if they incline towards peace, you (Prophet) must also incline towards it, and put your trust in Allāh: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowing.’ (‘Al-Anfal: 60-61’).

 Continued: