Quran

[Stargazer]

On 5/9/2023 at 4:11 PM, theplains said:

A heavenly wife is not required to have children.

I assert that she is required to have children -- she is not permitted to remain childless. Sorry, couldn't resist -- English is such an imprecise language.

Going back to what you were actually saying, you've made a bold assertion, that a heavenly wife is not necessary to the process of having heavenly children -- or spirits. I understand that you are all in on the sola scriptura thing, so perhaps you can find something in scripture to back up this assertion? Something that doesn't require serious interpolation? Or private interpretation? You may want to cite Paul in Hebrews 12:9

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

No "Mother of spirits" is mentioned here, but Paul mentions "fathers of our flesh" without mentioning the mothers, which cannot mean we didn't have "mothers of our flesh." And consider that in the long list of begets in Old Testament, fathers are named, but no mothers are mentioned, even namelessly. Thus making clear that the scriptures generally don't mention mothers very often, unless for some reason they are of particular importance. Again, absence of evidence, etc.

On 5/9/2023 at 4:11 PM, theplains said:

LDS teachings also says that we become the children
of Christ. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2017/04/becoming-children-of-christ?lang=eng

So? Adoption is not generation.

On 5/9/2023 at 4:11 PM, theplains said:

How does God create Adam?  From the dust of the earth.  No heavenly wife is involved.  How does God
create Eve? From a rib of Adam.  No heavenly wife is involved. 

"No heavenly wife is involved"? Again, you are asserting without evidence.

And you're conflating eternal and mortal. The dust of the earth represents the mortal body, which is made from the elements found on the earth -- but that's Genesis 2, whereas Genesis 1 doesn't mention dust, which strongly suggests a pre-mortal creation that is finally fulfilled in the physical form in chapter 2. Two separate creations: 1) the spiritual; 2) the physical. Not to torpedo my own argument, however, I do note that the progression of the stages of creation of the earth as described in Genesis 1 is suspiciously similar to the scientific consensus of how the solar system and the earth evolved from the primordial cloud. 

You can insist upon a literal reading of Genesis if you want; I shan't try to convince you that much of the creation as described in Genesis is allegory. But if it is all literal, then Genesis 2 seriously contradicts Genesis 1, since chapter 1 describes a six-day creation, but chapter 2 says it was all done in one day. And Adam and Eve were created twice, not once.

Authors have used allegory throughout history in all forms of art to illustrate or convey complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible or striking to its viewers, readers, or listeners. God is the author of Genesis, and Moses was his amanuensis. You might want to ask yourself: is God's actual creation process comprehensible to us? And if not, wouldn't it be reasonable for Him to explain the process to Moses allegorically? 

And if God explained the process allegorically, would it make the Creation any less miraculous?

On 5/9/2023 at 4:11 PM, theplains said:

How does he create me?  Through a miraculous conception and then he sustains my growth in the womb and beyond. I don't believe I was an eternal / uncreated spirit (Abraham 3:18) before becoming a spirit child of heavenly
parents.

"[A] miraculous conception"? Of course it's miraculous. Miracles are God's stock in trade, are they not? Does God explain His methods in detail? Do you know how he created you? Of course not, because God hasn't explained the process. You are ignorant of the process, and who is involved in the process. And how long it might have taken.

No doubt you've read that revelation given to Jeremiah, in which God says "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

I suppose that it's reasonable to assume that God waits until a sperm and ovum are united before whipping up a brand-shiny new spirit to toss into the new embryo, and before this no such spirit existed. But that's an assumption that the Bible does not support. The plain language of Jeremiah 1:5 appears to directly contradict it. It says that God whipped up Jeremiah's spirit before the moment of conception. How much before conception? It doesn't say. 

The point I am trying to make is that, per sola scriptura, you cannot possibly know whether your spirit is one nanosecond older than your body, or 13 billion years older. But it does say that it is older, even if it doesn't say by how much.

And before you say it, it is special pleading to advance that idea that, out of every mortal ever born in the earth, only Jeremiah pre-existed. What about all the rest of the prophets? What about all of us? 

But you are entitled to your belief. Even if it is not supported by scripture.

On 5/9/2023 at 4:11 PM, theplains said:

The plurality of God here could be seen in the sense of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; which is revealed in
scripture. 

The Nicene Creed is unscriptural. But it is obvious that the Creed was necessary in order to get around the inconvenient fact that three beings were manifested in Jesus's baptism. While Jesus was still damp from the Jordan, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove rested upon him, and the Father's voice proclaimed Jesus's sonship. It was completely unacceptable for strict monotheists to swallow that camel whole. So it had to be chopped into three pieces and then sewed back together (three-in-one, get it?).

This is how you explain the "us" in Genesis, I suppose. But isn't it borderline deceptive for God to appear to talk to Himself in Genesis, and then later explain Himself away by claiming that He's a plural? 

On 5/9/2023 at 4:11 PM, theplains said:

There is no scriptural support for any of Heavenly Father's wives being involved in the creation of the world or in Adam and Eve.

Neither is there any scriptural support for them not to be involved. It simply isn't mentioned, one way or the other. You may disagree, of course, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And God clearly does not tell us everything.

Wait a minute... are you saying that Heavenly Father's wives exist, but were just not involved in the creation process? Well, OK, that's an interesting admission. (Don't worry, I'm just joshing with you! I know that's not what you meant! 🙂 )

My problem with how the scriptures are understood by the post-Apostolic Christian churches is that their understanding prefers their own interpretations of the scriptures. And they love to leave things out that they find uncomfortable.

Back to Genesis 1:26-27...

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Asserting that the plural pronouns just means an allegorical plurality of God goes against the idea that the scriptures are to be taken literally, by the way. And I do find it interesting that verse 26 has God proposing to make man in his (plural) image, but that verse 27 has Him actually doing it in his (singular) image. 

What does God look like? In these two verses, he says He looks like you and me. And not only that, He says His own image is both male and female. That's the literal, and maybe it's saying that God is both male and female combined in one. But if that's the case, how can we be in His image, because we don't have a combined sex.  So perhaps the allegorical works better, then? This might imply a Mother-in-heaven.

God did make creatures with combined sexes, by the way. The earth is full of hermaphroditic animals. Earthworms, for example. If God has both sexes, then earthworms are more in His image than we are.

On 5/9/2023 at 4:11 PM, theplains said:

Being created in the image of God does not involve body parts -

So you assert. Prove it, please. 

After Moses had brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, at one point we are told that God and Moses have a conversation, described in Exodus 33:

11. And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend...

20. And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

22 & 23. And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand awhile I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Irrespective of the appearance of contradiction (Moses speaks face to face with God, but then God says he can't because it would kill him), we learn from these verses that God has a face, a hand, and back parts. If He has these, why not a head, eyes, nose, mouth, arms, shoulders, chest, and legs? Et cetera. 

Is God lying when He says we are created in His likeness and in His image? That's absurd, since God cannot lie. It is therefore clear that we have the appearance or likeness of God.

The New Testament confirms this, where it says in 1 John 3:2

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Since we will be resurrected and assume a perfect, immortal form, if this verse be telling the truth, we shall be like Him because He looks like us.

As a further confirmation of who God looks like we have this in John 14:

8, 9 - Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Who does Jesus look like? The Father. The Father created us in His image. So who do we look like? How much plainer can it be said?

On 5/9/2023 at 4:11 PM, theplains said:

for many animals have two arms, two legs,
and a head - and they were not created in his image.

You're trying to say that God can't have body parts because animals do have body parts? If so, you are asserting a non sequitur -- which is an argument whose conclusion is not supported by its premises. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Stargazer
Added color to scripture quotes

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

God's speaking to his divine council. It's not heavenly mother or the Trinity.

Are you saying that heavenly mother is denied participation on the divine council? Misogyny! 

When I examine the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as it is organized at this moment, I note that there is a Council on the Disposition of the Tithes. If I were to say that the President of the Church was speaking to this council, and then claim that he wasn't speaking to, say, the Presiding Bishop, would this be accurate? No, because the Presiding Bishop is a member of that council. Can you enumerate to me the members of God's divine council? Can you reliably assert that Heavenly Mother is not on that council? No, because you don't know who the members of the council are. Neither do I, but it would surprise me if she weren't on it. But if you and I were to have an argument over this, I can assure you that we would, in effect, be arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[theplains]

On 5/9/2023 at 8:34 PM, Stargazer said:

Back to Genesis 1:26-27...

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Asserting that the plural pronouns just means an allegorical plurality of God goes against the idea that the scriptures are to be taken literally, by the way. And I do find it interesting that verse 26 has God proposing to make man in his (plural) image, but that verse 27 has Him actually doing it in his (singular) image. 

What does God look like? In these two verses, he says He looks like you and me.

I don't have a frame of reference to fully answer some of the questions you posed. Can you clarify some
details.

When it says "Let us make man in our image", do you believe Heavenly Mother is in the us since women
would supposedly be made in her image?

What exactly do you mean by being made in the image of God?

[Hamilton Porter]

Can we keep this discussion on the Quran?

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, theplains said:

I don't have a frame of reference to fully answer some of the questions you posed. Can you clarify some
details.

Sure.

23 hours ago, theplains said:

When it says "Let us make man in our image", do you believe Heavenly Mother is in the us since women
would supposedly be made in her image?

It seems reasonable. But rather than a positive statement, I would be more inclined to say "I believe Heavenly Mother might be in the us." Scripture is silent on this topic. Even LDS revealed scripture doesn't address it. I see it as a harmless speculation, and I won't insist upon it.

23 hours ago, theplains said:

What exactly do you mean by being made in the image of God?

Exactly? 

The Hebrew is צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים. Since I speak Hebrew about as well as I speak High Elvish (i.e. not much), I have to rely upon Google Translate, which gives this as "God photographed". 

In the Wikipedia article about about the phrase "Image of God", it give this:

"The exact meaning of the phrase has been debated for millennia. Following Jewish tradition, scholars such as Saadia Gaon and Philo argued that being made in the image of God does not mean that God possesses human-like features, but rather the reverse: that the statement is figurative language for God bestowing special honor unto humankind, which he did not confer unto the rest of creation."

And then the article goes on to discuss the various philosophical/theological lines of thought about how to understand this simple phrase "image of God". 

As for me, as a first approximation I tend to like Google Translate's "God photographed." Which I take to mean that if God were to stand next to me, and you took a photograph of us, the photo would show us to be very similar in appearance to each other. For example, heads, arms, hands, trunk, legs, and feet. That is, however, mere appearance. You could carve out a statue and it would also merely look like Him.

But take this beyond mere appearance. When we reflect upon God's insistence upon calling us His children, and directing us to address Him as Father, the "image of God" seems to go beyond mere outward appearance and on to being of a similar nature. Again I rely upon 1 John 3:2

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

To me "we shall be like him" implies a stronger resemblance than the mere physical. We read in Revelation 21:7

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

It thus appears that it is possible for God for raise us up to a status near unto His own. And if this be so, then we by implication possess some Godlike qualities beyond the physical, qualities that God may choose to expand to well beyond what we can imagine now -- if we but do our best to be as Christlike as we can, and let Christ take our burden upon Himself. 

C. S. Lewis seems to have understood this.

“Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on; you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently He starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make any sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of - throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were being made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself.” -- From Mere Christianity

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship..." From The Weight of Glory

 

[Niblo]

On 5/1/2023 at 5:20 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

If you've read the Bible, you'd know that Abel's offering was accepted, Cain's wasn't. The Qur'an doesn't mention mention their names. I see that one version of the Qur'an actually fills in their names. 

I don't know why this is so controversial. As I mentioned in mentioned in a story under the other topic, I met a Turkish woman who said that after she started attending church with her husband, she understood the Qur'an better.

Greetings,

I have read the Bible.

You have stated that around half the Qur’an cannot be understood without reference to the Bible; and (I assume) have offered the story of Adam’s two sons as an example.

One small point:

You write that one ‘version’ of the Qur’an mentions the names of Adam’s sons.  You are, of course, referring to a translation.  I know of only three English translations that contain – in parentheses – the names of these sons.  The translations are those of Asad; Hilali and Khan; and Sarwar.

Allow me to explain that parentheses are not found in the Qur'an itself.  In every case they are used by translators to clarify a text' or to express a personal opinion.

Here are the relevant ʾāyāt:

‘(Prophet), and recite to them in truth the story of Adam’s two sons: each of them offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted from one and not the other.  One said, ‘I will kill you,’ but the other said, ‘Allāh only accepts the sacrifice of those who are mindful of Him.  If you raise your hand to kill me, I will not raise mine to kill you. I fear Allāh, the Lord of all worlds, and I would rather you were burdened with my sins as well as yours and became an inhabitant of the Fire: such is the evildoers’ reward.’  But his soul prompted him to kill his brother: he killed him and became one of the losers.  Allāh sent a raven to scratch up the ground and show him how to cover his brother’s corpse and he said, ‘Woe is me! Could I not have been like this raven and covered up my brother’s body?’  He became remorseful.  On account of (his deed), We decreed to the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person – unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land – it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind.’ (‘Al-Ma’ida: 27-32).

Sayyid 'Ibrāhīm Ḥusayn Quṭb writes:

‘This story gives us a clear example of the nature of evil and totally unjustified aggression. It also gives us an example showing the nature of goodness and a peaceful attitude towards everyone. The two examples are set in clear contrast.

‘All that we can say about this story is that it took place during humanity’s childhood stage. It was the first cold-blooded murder. The perpetrator did not know that dead people should be buried.

‘The sūrah, however, greatly enhances the ghastliness of this act of aggression by showing the peaceful, good-natured attitude of the other brother: (‘Allāh only accepts the sacrifice of those who are mindful of Him’).

‘This is a simple statement which puts matters in their proper perspective. It indicates that the person saying this is a believer who understands the reason for the acceptance of sacrifices offered to God. Also implied in this statement is a gentle advice to the aggressor to fear God, because this is the way through which he could gain acceptance. It is all done very gently so that his brother might remain responsive and unirritated. Adopting a completely peaceful attitude, the good believer of the two brothers tries further to pacify his brother and quieten him: ‘If you raise your hand to kill me, I will not raise mine to kill you. I fear Allāh, the Lord of all worlds.’).

‘What we have here is a case of a peaceful man making clear that his attitude is based on fearing God and implementing His commandments. This attitude fills us with enthusiastic support for the victim of aggression, as we admire his calmness, reassurance and the fact that he fears God alone. His gentle words should have been sufficient to quench his brother’s rage and reduce his anger. A good response would have been sufficient to re-stablish the feelings of brotherhood and the reassurance of faith.

‘After all this admonition and persuasion, in a perfectly peaceful and gentle approach, the evil soul prevailed and the crime was committed. His evil soul was able to override every hindrance and made him less resistant to the thought of killing. Thus, he killed his own brother, only to be doomed: (‘But his soul prompted him to kill his brother: he killed him and became one of the losers.’).

‘The ghastly crime of killing one person is considered so grave and so sordid that it is equated with the crime of killing all mankind. On the other hand, efforts to prevent killing and to spare the life of one person are considered a great action, equal to saving all mankind. The law given to the Children of Israel included this principle which equates the life of any human being with every life. The right to live is applicable to all. Hence, killing one person is an aggression against the right to live in which all people stand equal. Similarly, preventing murder and sparing the life of one person, either through defending the would-be victim or inflicting the death penalty on the killer in order to prevent the murder of another, is to save the basic right of life applicable to all.’  (‘In the Shade of the Qur’an; Volume 4’)

Shaykh Nasr, Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘Whosoever saves the life of one is understood variously as referring to those who, as the kin of the murder victim, forgo retaliation and agree to accept compensation or simply forgive the perpetrator, or to those who save people from fatal peril, such as fire or drowning. 

‘Some broaden the idea of saving a life to include more indirect or spiritual modes of saving, such as by lifting a person out of poverty or providing guidance if one is spiritually or morally astray.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary.’).

 As you can see, it is perfectly possible to understand this story’s message, without reference to the Bible.

Blessings.

[Niblo]

On 5/2/2023 at 2:31 PM, theplains said:

Hi Niblo,  no need to apologize for the delay.

Isaac is regarded as the only son of Abraham that God would establish the covenant with. God had
promised Abraham a son but he grew impatient and thought he could speed up the process by mating
with Hagar.  The promised son would come through Sarah. Abraham sought to lift up Ishmael, his first
born, but God overruled him.  God still blessed Ishmael and his descendants but the covenant would be
with Isaac and his seed.

Genesis 17:17-21

Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him
that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?  And Abraham said unto
God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!  And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed;
and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant,
and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will
make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him
a great nation.  But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set
time in the next year.

Hi.

Many thanks.

You write (my emphasis):

‘Isaac is regarded as the only son of Abraham that God would establish the covenant with.’

As you know, in a literal sense, a covenant means a binding agreement, a legal contract. It is a seal between two or more parties. 

In a biblical sense, the word ‘covenant’ derives from the same root word meaning “to cut.” In the culture of the Bible, covenant carried weight, and was often cut, or sealed, in blood.

I refer you to Genesis 17:

'I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.’ (Verse 7; my emphasis).

You will note that this covenant is made, not only with Abraham, but also with his descendants.  In what way could Ishmael – the very first of Abraham’s descendants – be excluded?

Abraham is commanded to circumcise his foreskin as a sign of this Covenant; and told that all his male children (when they are eight days old) shall also be circumcised.  In this way the Beloved’s Covenant shall be: …‘marked on (their) bodies as a Covenant in perpetuity.’  (Verses 11 and 13).

Abraham is told: ‘The uncircumcised male, whose foreskin has not been circumcised, such a man shall be cut off from his people: he has violated my Covenant.’ (Verse 14).

This cannot apply to Ishmael, who – at the age of thirteen – was circumcised on that very same day; along with his father. (Verse 23).

In what way, therefore, could Isaac be the ‘the only son of Abraham that God would establish the covenant with’?

I have already mentioned that Ishmael’s mother (an Egyptian princess) was reduced to the status of a slave – by the redactors of the Taurât – as a ‘necessary consequence of the theory on which the Hebrew myth is based, the notion being that Ishma‘el was of inferior origin.’ (‘Encyclopaedia Biblica; page 1933’; again, my emphasis).

You will be familiar the ʾAggāḏā – the exegesis that appears in the classical rabbinic literature of Judaism, particularly in the Talmud and Midrash.

According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, the ʾAggāḏā teaches that:

‘Abraham tried to train Ishmael in the right way (Gen. R. 148:13), but failed, his excessive love for him causing him to “spare the rod and spoil the child” (Ex. R. 1:1). Abraham closed his eyes to Ishmael’s evil ways and was reluctant to send him away (Gen. R. 53:12). Sarah, on the other hand, fully recognized the true character of Ishmael, for he dishonored women, worshiped idols, and attempted to kill Isaac (Gen. R. 53:11; Tosef. Sot. 6:6). He also mocked those who rejoiced at the birth of Isaac (Gen. R. 53:11).’ (‘Second Edition, Volume 10’).

Is there no end to the lies that some folk will tell, in order to elevate Isaac, at the expense of Ishmael?

Islam does not play this game.

Since every prophet (including, of course, Ishmael and Isaac) was sent with the same essential message – lā ilāha illa’Llāh (‘there is no god but Allāh’) – the Qur’an commands Muslims to ‘make no distinction between any of them,’ (Al-Baqara: 136; my emphasis).

Both Ishmael and Isaac were blessed with the greatest station that a human being can attain: prophethood.

The stories presented by the Qur’an, concerning these two, are coherent.  The Beloved’s promises to Abraham are fulfilled by their prophethood.

Blessings.

 

[Stargazer]

On 5/11/2023 at 4:57 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Can we keep this discussion on the Quran?

No problem. Sorry for the derail.

[theplains]

On 5/12/2023 at 12:01 PM, Stargazer said:

When we reflect upon God's insistence upon calling us His children, and directing us to address Him as Father, the "image of God" seems to go beyond mere outward appearance and on to being of a similar nature.

Based on that, one could say that the spirit children of heavenly parents are in their image so they
are gods prior to coming to earth.

[theplains]

On 5/15/2023 at 12:14 PM, Niblo said:

Is there no end to the lies that some folk will tell, in order to elevate Isaac, at the expense of Ishmael?

The stories presented by the Qur’an, concerning these two, are coherent.

The Bible does not denigrate Ishmael.  It just shows that while Ishmael would be blessed (and history
shows this), but the covenant would be with Abraham through Isaac.  That is why Isaac's history is tied
to the land of Israel and Ishmael's history is not.

[Hamilton Porter]

On 5/15/2023 at 12:11 PM, Niblo said:

Greetings,

I have read the Bible.

You have stated that around half the Qur’an cannot be understood without reference to the Bible; and (I assume) have offered the story of Adam’s two sons as an example.

One small point:

You write that one ‘version’ of the Qur’an mentions the names of Adam’s sons.  You are, of course, referring to a translation.  I know of only three English translations that contain – in parentheses – the names of these sons.  The translations are those of Asad; Hilali and Khan; and Sarwar.

Allow me to explain that parentheses are not found in the Qur'an itself.  In every case they are used by translators to clarify a text' or to express a personal opinion.

Here are the relevant ʾāyāt:

‘(Prophet), and recite to them in truth the story of Adam’s two sons: each of them offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted from one and not the other.  One said, ‘I will kill you,’ but the other said, ‘Allāh only accepts the sacrifice of those who are mindful of Him.  If you raise your hand to kill me, I will not raise mine to kill you. I fear Allāh, the Lord of all worlds, and I would rather you were burdened with my sins as well as yours and became an inhabitant of the Fire: such is the evildoers’ reward.’  But his soul prompted him to kill his brother: he killed him and became one of the losers.  Allāh sent a raven to scratch up the ground and show him how to cover his brother’s corpse and he said, ‘Woe is me! Could I not have been like this raven and covered up my brother’s body?’  He became remorseful.  On account of (his deed), We decreed to the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person – unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land – it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind.’ (‘Al-Ma’ida: 27-32).

Sayyid 'Ibrāhīm Ḥusayn Quṭb writes:

‘This story gives us a clear example of the nature of evil and totally unjustified aggression. It also gives us an example showing the nature of goodness and a peaceful attitude towards everyone. The two examples are set in clear contrast.

‘All that we can say about this story is that it took place during humanity’s childhood stage. It was the first cold-blooded murder. The perpetrator did not know that dead people should be buried.

‘The sūrah, however, greatly enhances the ghastliness of this act of aggression by showing the peaceful, good-natured attitude of the other brother: (‘Allāh only accepts the sacrifice of those who are mindful of Him’).

‘This is a simple statement which puts matters in their proper perspective. It indicates that the person saying this is a believer who understands the reason for the acceptance of sacrifices offered to God. Also implied in this statement is a gentle advice to the aggressor to fear God, because this is the way through which he could gain acceptance. It is all done very gently so that his brother might remain responsive and unirritated. Adopting a completely peaceful attitude, the good believer of the two brothers tries further to pacify his brother and quieten him: ‘If you raise your hand to kill me, I will not raise mine to kill you. I fear Allāh, the Lord of all worlds.’).

‘What we have here is a case of a peaceful man making clear that his attitude is based on fearing God and implementing His commandments. This attitude fills us with enthusiastic support for the victim of aggression, as we admire his calmness, reassurance and the fact that he fears God alone. His gentle words should have been sufficient to quench his brother’s rage and reduce his anger. A good response would have been sufficient to re-stablish the feelings of brotherhood and the reassurance of faith.

‘After all this admonition and persuasion, in a perfectly peaceful and gentle approach, the evil soul prevailed and the crime was committed. His evil soul was able to override every hindrance and made him less resistant to the thought of killing. Thus, he killed his own brother, only to be doomed: (‘But his soul prompted him to kill his brother: he killed him and became one of the losers.’).

‘The ghastly crime of killing one person is considered so grave and so sordid that it is equated with the crime of killing all mankind. On the other hand, efforts to prevent killing and to spare the life of one person are considered a great action, equal to saving all mankind. The law given to the Children of Israel included this principle which equates the life of any human being with every life. The right to live is applicable to all. Hence, killing one person is an aggression against the right to live in which all people stand equal. Similarly, preventing murder and sparing the life of one person, either through defending the would-be victim or inflicting the death penalty on the killer in order to prevent the murder of another, is to save the basic right of life applicable to all.’  (‘In the Shade of the Qur’an; Volume 4’)

Shaykh Nasr, Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘Whosoever saves the life of one is understood variously as referring to those who, as the kin of the murder victim, forgo retaliation and agree to accept compensation or simply forgive the perpetrator, or to those who save people from fatal peril, such as fire or drowning. 

‘Some broaden the idea of saving a life to include more indirect or spiritual modes of saving, such as by lifting a person out of poverty or providing guidance if one is spiritually or morally astray.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary.’).

 As you can see, it is perfectly possible to understand this story’s message, without reference to the Bible.

Blessings.

You can get the most important message without the Bible, I'm sure. But do you think the passage is referencing the Cain and Abel story? Seyyed Hossein Nasr thinks so.

[Stargazer]

On 5/19/2023 at 5:43 PM, theplains said:

Based on that, one could say that the spirit children of heavenly parents are in their image so they
are gods prior to coming to earth.

Sort of. But not quite.

The best expression of the principle, to me, at least, is how C.S. Lewis described it: “It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship..."

There's a passage in Revelation which this illustrates. In Chapter 19, a being, apparently very impressive, speaks to John:

9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

John apparently mistakes this being as divine, for he attempts to worship him, but is corrected by the being:

10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

And I've quoted these scriptures before:

1 John 3:2 --> "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

Romans 8:16-17 --> "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

What do we call an heir to a dukedom, when the heirship is fulfilled? A duke. Same with the heir to a kingdom: a king. 

So, it appears, from all the scriptural evidence, that we humans are, despite our fallen state, possible gods and goddesses. In other words, we are candidates under evaluation to become like unto our Father. There are further suggestions of this throughout both Testaments. 

Otherwise, why do we even exist? What does God want with us? It can't be that he has a yen to be worshipped, or that he enjoys torturing us by disease, death, and hell if we fail to worship him. If he wanted worshippers, and those alone, he could have created us to be constantly in awe of him, with no other will than to praise him night and day. But he gave us free will. For what purpose? The scriptures tell us, if we can believe them.

[Niblo]

On 5/23/2023 at 6:11 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

You can get the most important message without the Bible, I'm sure. But do you think the passage is referencing the Cain and Abel story? Seyyed Hossein Nasr thinks so.

Of course he does.  I have yet to meet – or to read the works of – any Muslim scholar who would disagree.

However, I am at one with Sayyid 'Ibrāhīm Ḥusayn Quṭb, who writes:

‘The Qur’ān does not specify the time or place of the story it relates. Nor does it mention the names of its main characters. Although reports mention the names of Cain and Abel as the two sons involved in the story, and although these reports mention some details about the conflict between them over two of their sisters, we prefer to confine our comments to the story as it is related in the Qur’ān, without adding any details.

‘All reports mentioning details have an element of doubt, in the sense that they are given by people who follow earlier religions. The story is mentioned in the ‘Old Testament’ with details of names, place and time, as given in these reports.

‘The single ĥadīth which refers to the story and has been verified as authentic does not give any details. It is a ĥadīth in which `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd quotes the Prophet as saying: “For every soul that is killed unjustly, a share of responsibility is borne by the first son of Adam, who was the first to commit murder.”

‘All that we can say about this story is that it took place during humanity’s childhood stage. It was the first cold-blooded murder. The perpetrator did not know that dead people should be buried.

‘Leaving the story in the general terms in which it is given in the Qur’ān ensures that the purpose of relating it is fulfilled and its lessons are understood. Providing more details does not add anything to these basic purposes. Hence, our preference to discuss it as it is given.’ (‘In the Shade of the Qur’an; Volume 4’).

Blessings.

 

[Niblo]

On 5/19/2023 at 5:47 PM, theplains said:

The Bible does not denigrate Ishmael.  It just shows that while Ishmael would be blessed (and history
shows this), but the covenant would be with Abraham through Isaac.  That is why Isaac's history is tied
to the land of Israel and Ishmael's history is not.

Abdus Sattar Ghauri writes:

‘It has been pointed out that the Jews added deleted, altered, and interpolated freely in the text of the Bible for ‘theological’ or ‘religious’ purposes. They saw no harm in it. It may also be borne in mind that it was the ‘religious’ necessity of the Israelites to present the offspring of Isaac as a chosen and superior people. It is, therefore, easy to understand that when some ‘pious’ rabbi would have seen the words ‘thy son, thine only son’ for the first time, he must have inserted the word ‘Isaac’ as an explanation under his ‘wishful preconception’. Finding it useful for their purpose, the later scribes would have included it in the text.’ (‘The Only Son Offered for Sacrifice: Isaac or Ishmael?).

In short, the redactors of Genesis were content to lie about the status of Isaac, at the expense of Ishmael and his mother.  They saw no harm in placing this lie on the lips of the Beloved; the One who does not lie.

Shame on them; and shame on those who – to this very day – defend that lie.

Blessings.

[theplains]

On 5/26/2023 at 4:08 PM, Stargazer said:

So, it appears, from all the scriptural evidence, that we humans are, despite our fallen state, possible gods and goddesses.

If you are a god already, why do you need to become a god?

[theplains]

On 5/29/2023 at 3:18 AM, Niblo said:

Shame on them; and shame on those who – to this very day – defend that lie.

Both Muhammad and the Quran praise the Bible and advise Muslims to read it.  We can
trust what the Bible says about Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac.

• “Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light” (Surah 5:44a; 2:87).

• “And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which 
was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is 
guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a 
guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil)” (Surah 5:46).

• “It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went 
before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a 
guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)” 
(Surah 3:3).

• “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been 
reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be 
in no wise of those in doubt. And be not thou of those who deny the revelations of Allah, 
for then wert thou of the losers” (Surah 10:94-95; 16:43).

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by theplains

[Niblo]

On 6/1/2023 at 3:55 PM, theplains said:

Both Muhammad and the Quran praise the Bible and advise Muslims to read it.  We can
trust what the Bible says about Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac.

Really?

The general opinion of Muslim scholars is that where the Qur'an and the Bible agree, then that is fine; where the Qur'an and the Bible differ, then the Qur'an takes precedence; and where there is neither agreement nor disagreement, then Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) knows best!

The Qur’an confirms what is true in the Bible.  Most assuredly, it does not praise what is false:

 ‘So can you (believers) hope that such people will believe you, when some of them used to hear the words of Allāh and then deliberately twist them, even when they understood them?......  Allāh is well aware of what they conceal and what they reveal?  Some of them are uneducated, and know the Scripture only through wishful thinking. They rely on guesswork.  So woe to those who write something down with their own hands and then claim, ‘This is from Allāh,’ in order to make some small gain. Woe to them for what their hands have written! Woe to them for all that they have earned!’ (Al-Baqara:75-79; my emphases). 

In their account of the story of Abraham – and knowing that Isaac could never have been an ‘only son’ – the producers of the Jewish Study Bible have replaced one lie with another; substituting ‘only’ with ‘favored’.

In the Hebrew Bible, the word yāḥîḏ (יָחִיד), has a number of meanings (see Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon; and the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon). 

Yāḥîḏ occurs twelve times in twelve verses.  In addition to Genesis 22:2; 22:12; and 22:16, (where, of course, it means ‘only’) we have:

Judges 11:34:

‘And Jephthah came to Mizpah unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.’

Proverbs 4:3:

‘For I was a son unto my father, tender and an only one in the sight of my mother.’

Jeremiah 6:26:

‘O daughter of my people, gird thee with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes; Make thee mourning, as for an only son, most bitter lamentation; for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us.’

Amos 8:10:

‘And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning for an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day.’ 

And Zechariah 12:10:

‘And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.’

Yāḥîḏ can mean afflicted, or wretched, as in Psalm 25:16: ‘Turn Thee unto me, and be gracious unto me; for I am solitary and afflicted.’

Yāḥîḏ can also mean lonely (or solitary), as in Psalm 68:7: ‘God maketh the solitary to dwell in a house; He bringeth out the prisoners into prosperity; the rebellious dwell but in a parched land.’

Finally, yāḥîḏ has a poetic meaning, referring to one’s very life itself.

In Psalm 22:21:

‘Deliver my soul from the sword; mine only one from the power of the dog.’

And in Psalm 35:17:

‘Lord, how long wilt Thou look on? Rescue my soul from their destructions, mine only one from the lions.’

All quotes are from the ‘Tanakh (Tanach) Jewish Bible (1917) Jewish Publication Society Translation’).

Nowhere does yāḥîḏ mean ‘favoured’.

Allow me to remind you of what Emil G Hirsh and Joseph Jacobs have to say:

‘Ancient Jewish tradition attributed the authorship of the Pentateuch (with the exception of the last eight verses describing Moses' death) to Moses himself.  But the many inconsistencies and seeming contradictions contained in it attracted the attention of the Rabbis, who exercised their ingenuity in reconciling them.’ (‘Jewish Encyclopaedia’; my emphasis).

According to the Jewish Study Bible:

‘Jews have been engaged in reading and interpreting the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, since its inception. Even before the biblical canon was complete, some of its early writings were becoming authoritative, and were cited, alluded to, and reworked in later writings, which themselves would become part of the Bible.’ (My emphasis).

For ‘exercised their ingenuity in reconciling (them)’ and ‘reworked (in later writings)’ read ‘corrupted’.

In what way is such corruption deserving of our trust?

‘So woe to those who write something down with their own hands and then claim, ‘This is from Allāh,’ in order to make some small gain.’

Blessings.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Niblo

[theplains]

On 6/4/2023 at 8:30 AM, Niblo said:

The Qur’an confirms what is true in the Bible.  Most assuredly, it does not praise what is false

Let's allow the Quran and Bible to speak for themselves instead of making claims of corruption
or abrogation.

The thread mostly focused on whether Abraham attempted to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael.  We
know God's covenant was with Isaac and his descendants.  Historical events and the Jews living
in their promised land shows this.

This is why the Muslim nations did all they can to prevent the formation of the Jewish state and
continue to want to destroy it today. They did not want to see any biblical prophecies being fulfilled
because it would show the Quran is not accurate in all its teachings.

[Niblo]

6 hours ago, theplains said:

......

You write that the:

‘Muslim nations ….(…) …did not want to see any biblical prophecies being fulfilled because it would show the Quran is not accurate in all its teachings.’

 The Qur’an confirms that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) – through His chosen prophet, Moses(Radi Allahu ‘anhu)  – delivered His people from slavery in Egypt in order to make them inheritors of the Promised Land:

 ‘Moses said to his people, ‘My people, remember Allāh’s blessing on you: how He raised prophets among you and appointed kings for you and gave you what he had not given to any other people.  My people, go into the holy land which Allāh has ordained for you – do not turn back or you will be the losers.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 20-21).

Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

 ‘That God gave the Israelites that which He gave unto no other in all the worlds is similar to other statements of the unique Divine favor the Israelites enjoyed.

 ‘Some commentators explicitly connect the Holy Land (al-arḍ al-muqaddasah) ordained for the Israelites with Abraham, indicating that he was shown this land and given it as an inheritance for his progeny – which from an Islamic point of view would also include his Arab Muslim descendants through Ishmael. It is interesting that the Quran describes this land as blessed in a universal way, and as the “Holy Land”—a term used widely today in Judeo-Christian contexts for this land, but one that is used only very rarely in the Bible itself.’ (‘The Study Qur’an’).

 In what way is the Qur’an not accurate in this particular teaching?

 Blessings.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Niblo

[rodheadlee]

On 3/12/2023 at 3:47 PM, CV75 said:

Only mentioning this because I've come cross it a few times in the past few days, on this board and elsewhere:

Jive vs. Jibe vs. Gibe: What’s the Difference? (mentalfloss.com)

Jibe Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

jibe 1 of 3 verb (1)

intransitive verb

: to be in accord : AGREE —usually used with with

a story that doesn't jibe with the facts

Always tack, jibing is dangerous. Of course it's a necessary tactic and should be practiced. 

[theplains]

On 6/7/2023 at 3:14 PM, Niblo said:

In what way is the Qur’an not accurate in this particular teaching?

My mistake.  The Quran is not incorrect in all its teachings.

See "Quran-Bible Comparison" by Ami Ben-Chanan on Amazon.

[Niblo]

On 6/12/2023 at 3:55 PM, theplains said:

My mistake.  The Quran is not incorrect in all its teachings.

See "Quran-Bible Comparison" by Ami Ben-Chanan on Amazon.

Thank you.  ʾIn shāʾ Allāh, I'll come back on this.

Blessings.

[theplains]

On 6/20/2023 at 6:46 AM, Niblo said:

Thank you.  ʾIn shāʾ Allāh, I'll come back on this.

Blessings.

There's a lot of comparative work done in it.  It's quite long and I haven't even finished
reading it myself.

[Niblo]

On 6/22/2023 at 2:58 PM, theplains said:

There's a lot of comparative work done in it.  It's quite long and I haven't even finished
reading it myself.

Thank you for your reference to Ami Ben-Chanan’s book.  I have read only his Preface and Introduction.

 He writes:

 ‘Muslim scholars loudly proclaim that the Qur'an is the only Holy Book sent by God………………’ (‘Preface’).

 Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) names four works of Scripture – apart from the Qur’an itself: The ‘Sahifah’ (‘Scrolls’), given to Abraham (ʿalayhi as-salām); the Taurāt, given to Moses (ʿalayhi as-salām); the Zabur (Psalms), given to David (ʿalayhi as-salām); and the ʾInjīl, given to Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām). 

 No Muslim scholar, therefore, would claim that the Qur’an is the ‘only Holy Book sent by God.’

 Note:

 The Exalted says: ‘We sent Yeshua, son of Mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the Torah that had been sent before him: We gave him the Gospel (ʾInjīl) with guidance, light, and confirmation of the Torah already revealed - a guide and lesson for those who take heed of Allāh.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 46).
The Arabic word ‘ʾInjīl’ is translated ‘Gospel’ by those writing in English.  In the Qur’an, however, the word is always in the singular, and is never used to describe the four Gospels of the New Testament; works that were written decades after the lifetime of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām), by anonymous authors who never met him.  These narratives cannot possibly be the ‘ʾInjīl’ mentioned in the Qur’an.

In spite of the fact that Christians and Jews have corrupted their Scriptures, these works still retain essential truths, common to Islam: 

That the Beloved has revealed His existence, and His will, through various prophets.

That there is only One God, our Creator and Lord; who can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things; who is absolutely perfect; who is actually infinite in every perfection; who is absolutely simple; who is the True God, possessing an infinite power of cognition; who is absolute Veracity; who is absolutely faithful; who is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others; who is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness; who is absolute Benignity; who is absolutely immutable; who is eternal and everywhere present in created space; whose knowledge is infinite.

That the Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence; that God is almighty; is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth; is infinitely just and infinitely merciful.

That everything that exists (apart from Beloved, of course) was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by Him; that He was moved by His Goodness to create the world; and this this was done for His glorification; that He has created a good world; a world that has a beginning in time; that He created all things, and holds all these things in existence.

That through His providence He protects and guides all that He has created; that He created the first man (and woman); that every human being possesses an individual soul; and that the Beloved has conferred on humankind a supernatural Destiny.

That sanctifying grace makes one holy; that such grace can be increased by good works; and may be lost by grievous sin.

That by their good works, those who believe in Him really do acquire a claim to supernatural reward from their Lord; that the bliss of heaven lasts for all eternity; and that the souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell.

That those who transgress against the Beloved’s commandments, and commit sin, can be granted forgiveness through His mercy.

 That all the dead will rise again on the last day; and that they will be judged.

 Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) tells us:

 ‘We have assigned a law and a path to each of you.  If Allāh had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to Allāh and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 48). 

 There is no obligation for a Jew or a Christian to convert to Islam.  The truth of this statement is – I believe – best seen in the context of marriage. 

 According to Islamic law, a Muslim male may marry a Jew or Christian.  His wife has an absolute right, not only to retain her Faith but to practise it.  She has no obligation to convert; and may not be coerced into doing so.      

 This is what the Beloved has to say about Jews and Christians:

‘Those who believe and do good deeds are the best of creation.  Their reward with their Lord is everlasting Gardens graced with flowing streams, where they will stay forever.  Allāh is well pleased with them and they with Him.  All this is for those who stand in awe of their Lord.’ (Al-Bayyina 7 -8; my emphasis).

Take especial note of these ʾāyāt.  It has been my privilege to know – and to love – many Christians who were shining examples of Christian love and good practice.  These ʾāyāt assure me that they shall have their reward in Heaven.  These ʾāyāt assure me that every Christian, and every Jew, who carries the Exalted in their hearts, and who strives to do good, will have their reward.  This is a solemn promise, and the Exalted does not renege on His promises. 

 Continued:

Edited June 25, 2023 by Niblo

[Niblo]

Ben-Chanan also writes:

‘Muslim scholars loudly proclaim that ………. Islam is the "last religion," the purpose of which is to spread its tenets around the globe and to build a world-wide Caliphate.’ (‘Preface’).

Dr. Mohammad Hashim Kamali, a noted Islamic scholar, and former Professor of Law at the International Islamic University of Malaysia writes:

‘Neither the Qur’an nor the legal corpus developed from it prescribe a political system or model, be it caliphate, sultanate or emirate. In their Qur’anic renditions, politics and government, or management of community affairs – as the Qur’an would phrase it – are guided by a set of objective principles, such as justice, common good, basic rights and obligations, accountability, consultation, trustworthiness and respect for human dignity.

‘Looking at the overall picture of Islamic principles, government in Islam may be further characterised as essentially civilian (madaniyyah), which is, however, neither theocratic nor totally secular but has characteristics of its own. It is a limited and a constitutional form of government whose powers are constrained by reference to the injunctions and guidelines of the Qur’an and Sunnah.

‘An Islamic government is also rooted in the notions of trust (amanah) and vicegerency (khilafah) of humankind as God’s trustees and custodians of the earth (khilafah in this sense differs from caliphate as a political structure, which is a product of historical developments), and its principal assignments are stewardship, building a just social order and securing the people’s welfare (maslahah). The state represents the community to which it is accountable. The Islamic system of rule may also be described as a qualified democracy which is elected by the people and must conduct its affairs through consultation and representation.’ (‘Sharia Law – Questions and Answers’).

In answer to the question: ‘Does Shariah law require the leadership of a caliph, imam or ayatollah?’ Dr Kamahli writes:

‘No. There is no such a requirement to have a leadership under any of these designations. This is because the Qur’an and hadith make no explicit reference to a state, government or a particular system of leadership as such, although the Qur’an does make references to ‘those in charge of the community affairs (’uli al-amr)’. (Ibid).

Ben-Chanan asks:

‘Does the Qur'an mention a Holy War against those who do not believe in Allah as God and in Mohammed as God's Prophet?’ (‘Introduction’)

In my post of the 12^th March, I write:

'Holy war’ renders ‘al-harb al-muqaddasa’; a phrase that does not exist in the classical Arabic of the Qur’anic text; nor in the ʼaḥādīth; nor the works of the Muslim theologians.’

I suspect that Ben-Chanan is referring to sūrah Al-Tawba: 29:

‘Fight those of the People of the Book who do not (truly) believe in Allāh and the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allāh and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submit.’

This is the so-called ‘Jizya Verse’.  I discussed this particular ʾāyah on the 12^th March.

Allow me to repeat that no Islamic country imposes the jizya these days.  It is no longer applicable, due to Islamic and international law.  In these countries, all people – regardless of their religion or status (citizen or visitor) – fall under the category of mu’ahids (contractually protected persons). 

The Qur’an makes it clear that people are free to choose whatever religion they wish (or to have no religion at all):

The Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is addressed as follows:

‘Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you compel people to believe?’ (Yunus: 99)

His task is clearly demarcated:

‘Say: “Now the Truth has come to you from your Lord: let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so.”’ (Al-Kahf: 29).

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says:

‘There is no compulsion in religion (lā ikrāha fī’l-dīn): true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in Allāh has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. Allāh is all hearing and all knowing.’ (Al-Baqara: 256).

Muhammad Abdel Haleem, King Fahd Professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, writes:

‘This verse begins with the phrase lā ikrāha fī’l-dīn (there is no compulsion in religion).  It is introduced by ‘lā’, the particle of absolute negation in Arabic, which negates absolutely the notion of compulsion in religion.  Religion in the Qur’an is based on choice, and true choice is based on knowledge and making matters clear for people to choose.  The rest of the ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ verse gives reasons justifying and explaining this.’ (‘Exploring the Qur'an: Context and Impact’; my emphasis).

Khaled M. Abou El Fadl – Omar and Azmeralda Alfi Distinguished Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law – reminds us that:

‘………. there is no church in Islam, and that no person, or set of persons, embodies God’s Divine authority. The picture conveyed and repeated is one of egalitarianism and the accessibility of God’s truth to all. Muslims strive to discover the Divine Will but no one has the authority to lay an exclusive claim to it.

‘(…) Because accountability is individual and no one may carry the burden of another, the net result is a diversity of consciences, beliefs, and actions.’ (‘Speaking in God's Name’; my emphasis).

If Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) had wanted to compel all people to believe, then He would have done so. Instead, He has willed that they come to believe in Him by their own free choice.  It is clear, therefore, that we are free either to accept Him, or to deny Him.

Blessings.