Ibrahim stoned the Devil?

[Beckyy25]

I am skeptical of the entire contents of the Hadith and Sunnah, the parts considered good and bad alike. As I have already stated: There are some cultural practices found in the hadith and sunnah that do not contradict the Qur'an and are fine. Although not contradicting, they are not obligatory. So it is a matter of choice if they lend more detail than the Qur'an speaks of. It can be considered as a specific example of application. But how am I to know if these texts speak truth with regard to the prophet's actions and sayings? I do not, because I did not know the prophet personally. Anything historial is questionable in my views, since historical documents are authored by man.

The major/important beliefs are the belief in One God (Strict Monotheism) and the performing of good deeds and refraining from evil in this life to achieve salvation. The Qur'an talks about this numerous times.

'If the Sunnah or Hadith does not contradict the Qur'an' is the critera I use. But following details found outside the Qur'an, not mentioned in the Qur'an itself, is still a matter of choice in following a specific example of application. From my point of view, the Qur'an is to be accepted in its entirety by Muslims. The Hadith/Sunnah are possible examples of how to apply the Qur'an's teachings. The Hadith/Sunnah are authored by historical man, not God. Thus they are not infallible and should not be considered as such.

OK, that was very clear for me now, thank you for the detailed answer.

I have one more question: How can you be sure that the Qur'an (in it's current form) is 100% Allah's word as revealed 1400 years ago to Muhammad?

 

[humblemuslim]

OK, that was very clear for me now, thank you for the detailed answer.

I have one more question: How can you be sure that the Qur'an (in it's current form) is 100% Allah's word as revealed 1400 years ago to Muhammad?

The authenticity of the Qur'an is largely a matter of faith. There is evidence for the claim, but just like any other religious belief it is not difficult for the opposing side to cast doubt on the view. Although such doubt does not prove the opposing view, it does leave the issue on middle ground (Meaning neither proof nor disproof is achieved). The same question can be asked about any religious Scripture really.

If you are interested in seeing the evidence, I am sure I can find some articles on the subject online.

 

[ApplePie7]

I have one more question: How can you be sure that the Qur'an (in it's current form) is 100% Allah's word as revealed 1400 years ago to Muhammad?

This is impossible since there are no extant 1400 year old Korans in the entire world.

There are only mere fragments of suras dated to over a century after the supposed life and times of islam's prophet.

Thus, the 1400 year old Koran is pure myth and an islamic strawman argument to begin with.

Further, the Koran never once states that it was divinely inspired....thus, we should not expect it to be...

 

[Beckyy25]

The authenticity of the Qur'an is largely a matter of faith. There is evidence for the claim, but just like any other religious belief it is not difficult for the opposing side to cast doubt on the view. Although such doubt does not prove the opposing view, it does leave the issue on middle ground (Meaning neither proof nor disproof is achieved). The same question can be asked about any religious Scripture really.

If you are interested in seeing the evidence, I am sure I can find some articles on the subject online.

Thank you, but discussing the evidence for the authenticity of the Qur'an will lead us to far away from the OP.

I just wanted to know your personal opinion.

 

[Beckyy25]

This is impossible since there are no extant 1400 year old Korans in the entire world.

There are only mere fragments of suras dated to over a century after the supposed life and times of islam's prophet.

Thus, the 1400 year old Koran is pure myth and an islamic strawman argument to begin with.

Further, the Koran never once states that it was divinely inspired....thus, we should not expect it to be...

Thank you ApplePie for the info. Maybe we'll have here one day a thread discussing this issue. Personally, at the moment, I know too little about that, unfortunately.

I only asked to know humblemuslim's personal opinion about this issue.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

The authenticity of the Qur'an is largely a matter of faith.

Quick note... Humble, when Christians say that authenticity of the Gospels is not largely a matter of faith, but research of verifiable data, (biblical archaeology, geology, traditions and teachings of the early church, etc) do you take that as being arrogant? Because, if you are subconsciously comparing Christian claim to your own, I can see why you can evaluate such claim as not humble...

 

[humblemuslim]

Quick note... Humble, when Christians say that authenticity of the Gospels is not largely a matter of faith, but research of verifiable data, (biblical archaeology, geology, traditions and teachings of the early church, etc) do you take that as being arrogant? Because, if you are subconsciously comparing Christian claim to your own, I can see why you can evaluate such claim as not humble...

That is exactly my point of view. Now you better understand where I am coming from.

 

[peaceful soul]

Quick note... Humble, when Christians say that authenticity of the Gospels is not largely a matter of faith, but research of verifiable data, (biblical archaeology, geology, traditions and teachings of the early church, etc) do you take that as being arrogant? Because, if you are subconsciously comparing Christian claim to your own, I can see why you can evaluate such claim as not humble...

That is exactly my point of view. Now you better understand where I am coming from.

Humblemuslim, could you restate your POV in short form? I am trying to make the connection between what Bushmaster said and your reply to him.

 

[humblemuslim]

Humblemuslim, could you restate your POV in short form? I am trying to make the connection between what Bushmaster said and your reply to him.

Bushmaster and I got into several heated arguments recently, several of which I continued to label his responses arrogant.

Bushmaster is just commenting on the views I have expressed here of my own religion and noting that he understands why I would see his and other Christian's comments/arguments regarding their religious views not being based on faith as being not humble.

Several surrounding threads have the heated arguments, which is where you will find the context for what he is talking about (The thread I start on the proof for Christianity was in response to those heated arguments and my point of view that for Christians to tell me their religion is not based on faith, but verifiable facts, is arrogant and should be refrained from, at least when discussing their beliefs with people from other religions). If you are still confused about this let me know.

 

[peaceful soul]

Bushmaster and I got into several heated arguments recently, several of which I continued to label his responses arrogant.

Bushmaster is just commenting on the views I have expressed here of my own religion and noting that he understands why I would see his and other Christian's comments/arguments regarding their religious views not being based on faith as being not humble.

Several surrounding threads have the heated arguments, which is where you will find the context for what he is talking about (The thread I start on the proof for Christianity was in response to those heated arguments and my point of view that for Christians to tell me their religion is not based on faith, but verifiable facts, is arrogant and should be refrained from, at least when discussing their beliefs with people from other religions). If you are still confused about this let me know.

OK, humblemuslim, you must realize that your POV requires certain statements of fact as well and can be seen as arrogant. For example, you claim that all religions are a matter of faith. If one has facts, the less faith that requires. Specific facts remove the need for faith in those specific areas. If Jesus lived, then we need no faith in that. If Jesus was God, then we need less faith in believing that He also performed miracles and atoned for your sins. If one reads portions of the Bible and see certain truths from it come true, there is less faith needed to believe the other truths contained and that those truths result from honest testimonies of those who wrote them. The historical basis does lessen the need to see Christianity as being based entirely or largely by faith in a book. True Christians are given more than a book to come to the realization that Christ is real and did what He is reported as doing. He promised us the Holy Spirit to live within us and teach us in all truth. To us that is a self realization as well as a realization of the collective church. These external testimonies are witnessed at times to multitudes of people at once and not just always personal. The Bible tells us to test the spirits to see if they are from Christ. We have external identification to help us to know if Jesus is who He said. Unlike in Islam and other religions, in the end, our religion is not based upon whether a book is perfect; for, it is based upon whether the person of Christ is perfect. The words just reflect the Person--not the other way around. We need no Bible to know Jesus and to follow Jesus. It is possible, but naturally the book helps us to remember and to contemplate Christ and the prophets.

Faith as defined in Christianity is acting upon a belief of the person of Christ which is sustained by confidence in that what we see emanating from Christ and his teachings are true; therefore we continue to believe and act upon what we know as being true. There is the energy imparted to us via the Comforter (Holy Spirit) as Jesus promised us that lets us know that we are indeed following Christ. In Islam, you don't have a personal god speaking to you. Your belief is more mechanical. It heavily relies upon the text of the Qu'ran being flawless. More importantly, it depends 100% upon one man (Mohammad) receiving a revelation, which he claimed didn't come directly from Allah. Not only do you not have a personal relationship with God, you also need to place faith that Mohammad actually did receive a revelation from God. There was no way for early Muslims to test his revelation and confirm it for themselves. There is no Holy Spirit and no direct communication from God to test against. There are no testimonies of multiple prophets/apostles to examine so that you could try to determine if there is a validation to what Mohammad said. In the Bible, God spoke directly to people and appeared to believers individually as well as in groups. We can see evidence of God directly. Take for example God appearing to Israel at Mt Sinai and at Pentecost. There is no arrogance needed in to establish what we believe. It is not as if we are making the assertions. It is the testimonies of the apostles/disciples that made the claims. We are just testifying ourselves to them based upon our experiences. That is something that you need to understand.

 

[humblemuslim]

OK, humblemuslim, you must realize that your POV requires certain statements of fact as well and can be seen as arrogant. For example, you claim that all religions are a matter of faith. If one has facts, the less faith that requires. Specific facts remove the need for faith in those specific areas. If Jesus lived, then we need no faith in that. If Jesus was God, then we need less faith in believing that He also performed miracles and atoned for your sins.

These two examples are leaps apart when it comes to provability. Using historical documents one could prove Jesus more than likely existed, but not for certain. The only way for us to know the existence of a historical figure for certain is to have seen that person. Do I personally know for a fact if George Washington was a real man? Not for certain, although the uncertainty I do have is discarded by placing faith in the history suggesting his existence. So faith is placed out of lack of concern (What difference would it make if I believed in George Washington or not. The USA is here, my lack of belief in one of the founders would not change this fact). Other faith is specifically placed on religious beliefs (Disbelieving in the existence of a founder of a religion degrades the creditability of a religion for the person exhibiting the disbelief). For me, history is weak evidence for a claim. Humans of the past were just as capable of lying as today's humans are. For us to state a historical text as being fact for an event or person's existence would be unwise (Unless one is accepting it solely on faith), since the text we are reading could very well be untrue. Time does not make a lie truth. Not to mention it is possible modern day people can misinterpret a historical source. The texts they find are not always clean books, all in one piece. What if we have a page from someone's fairy tale collection? There is too much uncertainty about historical evidence to be using it as evidence for a claim. Even when several historical documents agree with each other, the evidence grows in strength, but still has a weakness. A majority is not always right. Am I telling you to disregard all historical evidence for a claim? Absolutely not. But I would suggest such evidence be supporting evidence and not the sole means of evidence. When I see arguments solely comprised of historical evidence, that claim is not firmly being supported without faith.

Proving Jesus was God is impossible without faith. Any support that may be given can be viewed to the contrary. I have seen the arguments, they are not as convincing as Christians believe them to be.

If one reads portions of the Bible and see certain truths from it come true, there is less faith needed to believe the other truths contained and that those truths result from honest testimonies of those who wrote them.

I feel the same way about the Qur'an. But that does not lend legitimacy to my religion in your eyes no more than your claim lends legitimacy to your religion in my eyes. We both have ways of explaining why the other religion is experiencing such.

Unlike in Islam and other religions, in the end, our religion is not based upon whether a book is perfect; for, it is based upon whether the person of Christ is perfect. The words just reflect the Person--not the other way around. We need no Bible to know Jesus and to follow Jesus. It is possible, but naturally the book helps us to remember and to contemplate Christ and the prophets.

Just because one of our beliefs is that the Qur'an is guarded from corruption does not mean our religion bases itself on the perfection of the Qur'an. This belief is one of many, and not the most important by far. The most important belief in Islam is the belief in the Oneness and Perfection of God.

In Islam, you don't have a personal god speaking to you. Your belief is more mechanical. It heavily relies upon the text of the Qu'ran being flawless. More importantly, it depends 100% upon one man (Mohammad) receiving a revelation, which he claimed didn't come directly from Allah. Not only do you not have a personal relationship with God, you also need to place faith that Mohammad actually did receive a revelation from God.

Speaking to us in what sense? My relationship with God, as I see it and have heard from Christian's testimony, is just as personal as Christians. This topic is difficult to talk about because every person has their own perception. Even among people of the same religion the testimonies vary wildly as to their personal experiences with religion. There are people who convert in both directions and claim they have achieved a more personal and fulfilling relationship with God. Who is to say they both can't be right. I do not believe God tends to the needs of only one religion.

Mechanical in what sense? This terminology is overused when describing Islam. Not to mention this is a generalization that typically is mentioned with the assumption that the other person committing themselves to a certain religion feels the same way as you do. If they did they would not be part of that religion.

it depends 100% upon one man (Mohammad) receiving a revelation

With this sort of mentality, the very first prophet to humanity should have been rejected without a second thought. Calling upon the detail that one man revealed the entire Scripture is not a negative claim. The number of authors has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the text.

There was no way for early Muslims to test his revelation and confirm it for themselves. There is no Holy Spirit and no direct communication from God to test against. There are no testimonies of multiple prophets/apostles to examine so that you could try to determine if there is a validation to what Mohammad said.

So when the first Scripture came down from God, how did humanity test it?

In the Bible, God spoke directly to people and appeared to believers individually as well as in groups. We can see evidence of God directly.

These claims are a matter of interpretation. Many of the verses I have seen brought forth to sake this claim also support the idea of angels talking to humanity directly as messengers from God, while God makes no appearance. The Bible does say no one has seen God the Father. And I am well aware of the argument regarding this verse given by Christians. It also says if you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father. From my interpretation, this means if you see the messenger and listen to what they say it is as if you are talking with God directly. And I realize no Christian will agree with this interpretation, I am not here to argue it. Just state it.

Take for example God appearing to Israel at Mt Sinai and at Pentecost. There is no arrogance needed in to establish what we believe. It is not as if we are making the assertions. It is the testimonies of the apostles/disciples that made the claims. We are just testifying ourselves to them based upon our experiences. That is something that you need to understand.

Well, actually you assert that the apostles/disciples are telling the truth, which is perfectly fine as long as you realize you do so on faith that their words are truthful. The same assertion I must make regarding the prophet that delivered the Qur'an to us.

You also assert that your interpretations of their words is correct. Yet another claim that can be easily be disagreed upon.

You act as if the religious experiences of all other religions do not compare to Christianity. Yet, to make such a claim you would have had to be a serious believer in all other faiths.

Christianity does not have a monopoly on God. And neither does Islam. Or any religion. It is my belief that God is there for all of us. Even the ones who do not believe in Him. We both believe in a Merciful God that, even though we do not deserve it, forgives us as we transgress against His Laws.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Christianity does not have a monopoly on God. And neither does Islam. Or any religion. It is my belief that God is there for all of us.

You have a good point, and maybe you had some experiences as to why you are lead to believe this statement. But it has to be clarified in my opinion. Christianity does NOT teach God is only for Christians nor God can not operate outside the limits of the Christian Church. We can not fathom putting limits to our God.

"For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth [struggleth], but of God that showeth mercy" (Romans 9:15-16).

We Christians can only preach Christ's Gospel. We can not snatch anyone from their way and bring them to Salvation. Only God does that.

So if anyone's attitude might have caused you to think that Christians are arrogant and they established a monopoly on God, then that is wrong.