naim@eecs.nwu.edu (Naim Abdullah) (03/01/90)
Basalat Ali Raja writes: >There is something I do not understand here, and call for further >clarification. It relates to the status of the people of the >book. > >You state that there is no allowed catagory in Islam for one who >accepts Allah but not Mohammed [saws]. However, the Quran is full >of references to the People of the Book. These are distinguised >from the Kuffar in many cases. As an example, I refer you to the >reference in the Quran about the Christians, Jews and Sabeans. >These are the people who, if they do right works and believe in >Allah, will enter heaven. Repeatedly, the Quran tells us that the gravest sin is "shirk" (associating others with God). Believing that Jesus was the son of God or believing in the trinity is clearly "shirk". So Christians and others following such beliefs are definitely not on the right path (as defined by Islam). In my opinion, the "Christians, Jews and Sabeans" (CJS) referred to in the ayah mentioned by Basalat MUST be those who are following the original teachings of Jesus or the original teachings of Moses. It must not include the CJS who commit shirk. It is this latter group of CJS who are exhorted repeatedly in the Quran to embrace Islam. The former group is already a "muslim" (for example Abraham (pbuh) is referred to in the Quran as a "muslim" even though Abraham was much before Mohammed [saws]). All Christians and Jews have a special status in that Muslim men are allowed to marry female Christians and Jews. Now an interesting question: Does "People of the Book" (Ahl-Kitab) only refer to Christians and Jews or can it be construed to refer to any religion that has a "holy book" (for example: sikhism or hinduism) ? As far as I know, the prophet only used the term for Christians and Jews but I have heard people use the term in the broader sense outlined above (mainly to justify marriage to a Hindu or a Sikh woman :-) ). Naim
elassaad@csl.ncsu.edu (Shauki Elassaad) (03/02/90)
In article <4549@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: #Basalat Ali Raja writes: ##There is something I do not understand here, and call for further ##clarification. It relates to the status of the people of the ##book. ## ##You state that there is no allowed catagory in Islam for one who ##accepts Allah but not Mohammed [saws]. However, the Quran is full ##of references to the People of the Book. These are distinguised ##from the Kuffar in many cases. As an example, I refer you to the ##reference in the Quran about the Christians, Jews and Sabeans. ##These are the people who, if they do right works and believe in ##Allah, will enter heaven. # #Repeatedly, the Quran tells us that the gravest sin is "shirk" (associating #others with God). Believing that Jesus was the son of God or believing in #the trinity is clearly "shirk". So Christians and others following such #beliefs are definitely not on the right path (as defined by Islam). # #In my opinion, the "Christians, Jews and Sabeans" (CJS) referred to in the #ayah mentioned by Basalat MUST be those who are following the original #teachings of Jesus or the original teachings of Moses. It must not include #the CJS who commit shirk. It is this latter group of CJS who are exhorted #repeatedly in the Quran to embrace Islam. The former group is already #a "muslim" (for example Abraham (pbuh) is referred to in the Quran as #a "muslim" even though Abraham was much before Mohammed [saws]). # #All Christians and Jews have a special status in that Muslim #men are allowed to marry female Christians and Jews. # #Now an interesting question: Does "People of the Book" (Ahl-Kitab) only refer #to Christians and Jews or can it be construed to refer to any religion #that has a "holy book" (for example: sikhism or hinduism) ? As far as I #know, the prophet only used the term for Christians and Jews but I have heard #people use the term in the broader sense outlined above (mainly to justify #marriage to a Hindu or a Sikh woman :-) ). # # Naim Assalam Alaikum: I would like to comment on one point by Br. Naim in the above message. If any one claim that the term "People of the Book" comprises other people than the Christians and Jews, then he has to point to an evidence from either Qura'n or Sunna to support his claim. As far as I know, there is none. Hence, there is no Islamic support to the idea of a Muslim (male) marrying non-Muslims (females) other than Christians or Jews. Shauki
paul@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (03/03/90)
>know, the prophet only used the term for Christians and Jews but I have heard >people use the term in the broader sense outlined above (mainly to justify >marriage to a Hindu or a Sikh woman :-) ). > > Naim Naim, in one of his footnotes Yusuf Ali seems to indicate that Hindus are indeed people of a revealed religion hence includes them in this definition. I'm not certain that I agree..
ankgoel@watmsg.waterloo.edu (anil k goel) (03/03/90)
In article <4549@accuvax.nwu.edu> naim@eecs.nwu.edu (Naim Abdullah) writes: > >All Christians and Jews have a special status in that Muslim >men are allowed to marry female Christians and Jews. What about Muslim females marrying Christian or Jewish males? Is that allowed too? If not, how can the claim be made that men and women are treated at par. -anil
kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) (03/06/90)
Naim Abdullah writes: > > Believing that Jesus was the son of God or believing in the trinity is >clearly "shirk". [...] > >In my opinion, the "Christians, Jews and Sabeans" (CJS) referred to in the >ayah mentioned by Basalat MUST be those who are following the original >teachings of Jesus or the original teachings of Moses. Most Trinitarians I know consider the doctrine `a mystery', and are actually quite monotheistic about Christianity in practice. Anyway, while it may be `clear' to you that believing in the Trinity is `shirk', I do not see the issue as quite that cut & dried. The doctrine pretty clearly states that there is only one God, it just attempts to describe what he is like (internal structure, sort of). I will certainly grant that it is confusing, and indeed the idea that some people carry in their heads probably does come out polytheistic; before I can actually accept that a claim against it has any validity, I'd have to be convinced that the idea being argued against is not itself considered wrong by the doctrine. [ Note that I am not arguing for the Trinity, since I'm not sure it makes any sense myself (I am one of those very monotheistic Trinitarians I mentioned above 8-) ; I am just picky about counterarguments. ] I am also curious about is what allowances are made for ignorance and human error. You claim that Christians/Jews do not follow the original teachings of Jesus/Moses; but does it make any difference if they think that they are, having studied the issue to the best of their ability? Does it matter if they have never heard of the Quran? What about those Christians/Jews who died before the Quran was written? kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "It's not what you know, it's what you think you know." -- Steve Martin
sadeghi@oxy.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) (03/06/90)
In article <22880@mimsy.umd.edu>,kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) writes: #Naim Abdullah writes: #> #> Believing that Jesus was the son of God or believing in the trinity is #>clearly "shirk". [...] #> #>In my opinion, the "Christians, Jews and Sabeans" (CJS) referred to in the #>ayah mentioned by Basalat MUST be those who are following the original #>teachings of Jesus or the original teachings of Moses. # #Most Trinitarians I know consider the doctrine `a mystery', and are actually #quite monotheistic about Christianity in practice. # #Anyway, while it may be `clear' to you that believing in the Trinity is #`shirk', I do not see the issue as quite that cut & dried. The doctrine #pretty clearly states that there is only one God, it just attempts to #describe what he is like (internal structure, sort of). I will certainly #grant that it is confusing, and indeed the idea that some people carry in #their heads probably does come out polytheistic; before I can actually #accept that a claim against it has any validity, I'd have to be convinced #that the idea being argued against is not itself considered wrong by #the doctrine. # #[ Note that I am not arguing for the Trinity, since I'm not sure it makes # any sense myself (I am one of those very monotheistic Trinitarians I # mentioned above 8-) ; I am just picky about counterarguments. ] # # #I am also curious about is what allowances are made for ignorance and human #error. You claim that Christians/Jews do not follow the original teachings #of Jesus/Moses; but does it make any difference if they think that they are, #having studied the issue to the best of their ability? Does it matter if #they have never heard of the Quran? What about those Christians/Jews who #died before the Quran was written? The position of the Quran with respect to the doctrine of Trinity (one God in three forms) is very clear. It is a sin and a balsphemy against God. However, as you say, there are Christians--like yourself-- who don't believe in Trinity. An example is the Church of Christian Science (the people who publish the _Christian Science Monitor_). There are others too. About the people of the Book, The Quran says (translation): "if they would but truly observe the Torah and the Gospel and all that has been bestowed upon them by their Sustainer, they will indeed partake of all the blessings of heaven and earth. Some of them do pursue a right course; but as for most of them- vile indeed is what they do!" There's no reason to believe that this verse and other similar verses refer only to the Period before the Prophet. Behnam Sadeghi
regier%cogsci.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Terry Regier) (03/06/90)
In article <4663@accuvax.nwu.edu> paul@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >>the prophet only used the term for Christians and Jews but I have heard >>people use the term in the broader sense outlined above (mainly to justify >>marriage to a Hindu or a Sikh woman :-) ). >> Naim >Naim, in one of his footnotes Yusuf Ali seems to indicate that Hindus >are indeed people of a revealed religion hence includes them in this >definition. I'm not certain that I agree.. I've heard that the term ahl al-kitaab was used in reference to "Jews, Christians, and Sabians". Anybody know just what/who a Sabian is? I'd also heard that Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc sometimes managed to get labeled ahl al-kitaab through this Sabian designation. The whole thing sounds pretty strange, as if Sabian = "miscellaneous". Anybody have light to shed on this? Terry Regier regier@cogsci.berkeley.edu Computer Science, UC Berkeley
bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) (03/06/90)
In article <4770@accuvax.nwu.edu> sadeghi@oxy.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes: > The position of the Quran with respect to the doctrine of > Trinity (one God in three forms) is very clear. It is a > sin and a balsphemy against God. I would be very interested in seeing Qur'anic verses that make this very clear (I am not saying they don't exist --- I have no idea. But I would be very intersted in seeing the references). Unfortunately, there was no Bible translated into Arabic for about 100 years after Muhammad. And I understand that he learned much of what he knew about Christianity from John of Alexandria, a Christian heretic who taught that Christians worship three gods: the Father, the Son, and the mary. -- Dave Bakken Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu 721 Gould-Simpson Bldg UUCP: uunet!arizona!bakken Dept of Computer Science; U of Arizona Phone: +1 602 621 8372 (w) Tucson, AZ 85721 USA FAX: +1 602 621 4246 [See 4:171 and 5:73 for reference to the trinity in the Quran --Naim]
mls@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (mike.siemon) (03/06/90)
In article <4768@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu writes: > Naim Abdullah quotes someone as saying: > > Believing that Jesus was the son of God or believing in the trinity is > >clearly "shirk". [...] Darren then comments: > Most Trinitarians I know consider the doctrine `a mystery', and are actually > quite monotheistic about Christianity in practice. The difficulty is best illustrated by making a direct confrontation between a central Muslim and a central Christian assertion. A Muslim will say: "Allah begets not, and is not begotten." while a (Nicene) Christian will say "I believe in ... the Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father" Darren is correct that most Christians regard this as a "mystery" (i.e., meaningless :-)) Yet we say it. And intend that *something* is explained thereby. For whatever it is worth (not much, I know) I describe myself as a Muslim Christian (actually, a Taoist Muslim Anglican, but let's not be *too* bizarre!) and I firmly hold to *both* of the positions stated above. Alhamdullilah, rab'ul alamin. maliki yaum id'din. -- Michael L. Siemon "O stand, stand at the window, m.siemon@ATT.COM As the tears scald and start; ...!att!sfsup!mls You shall love your crooked neighbor standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."
gwydion@Dyved.csc.ti.com (Basalat Ali Raja) (03/07/90)
In article <4775@accuvax.nwu.edu> Dave Bakken <bakken@cs.arizona.edu> writes: >I would be very interested in seeing Qur'anic verses that make this >very clear (I am not saying they don't exist --- I have no idea. But >I would be very intersted in seeing the references). Chapter 112: The Unity 1) Say: He, Allah, is One. 2) Allah is He on Whom all depend. 3) He begets not, nor is He begotten. 4) And none is like Him. In this, you will find a categorical and uncompromising rejection of the Trinity. Also, the verses that Naim refered us to: [4:171] O followers of the Book! do not exceeed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God, far be it from His glory that He should have a son; whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His; and Allah is sufficient for a Protector. [5:72] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and Your Lord. Surely, whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust. [5:73] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbeleive. [5:74] Will they not turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [5:75] The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away. [5:76] Say: Do you serve beside Allah that which does not control for you any harm, or any profit? And Allah - He is the Hearing, the Knowing. [5:77] Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path. [5:78] Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Da'oud and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit. [5:79] They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did. >Unfortunately, there was no Bible translated into Arabic for about 100 >years after Muhammad. It would not have helped much if there had been a Bible in Arabic at the time of the Prophet - he could neither read nor write. This is one of the proofs of the Divine nature of the Quran; it cannot be said that he copied the Scriptures of other peoples. >And I understand that he learned much of what >he knew about Christianity from John of Alexandria, a Christian heretic >who taught that Christians worship three gods: the Father, the Son, and >the mary. I believe that one of the controversies of the Catholic church is a discussion about whether Mary is divine or not? It would thus seem that there are Christians who beleive Mary to be a god. I have run across very few Christians who believe that Jesus was not divine. Anyways, what Mohammed (saws) knew or did not know about Christianity is not all that important, aside from what he learnt from the Quran. Aside from the disingenious "It seems to me" and "My understanding is", I will now address the issue that you have raised above. Assume that all of the information that Mohammed had about the life of Jesus was transmitted to him through purely secular sources. In such a case, he would be accusable of duplicity and plagarism. It seems that a plagarist would do his best to insure that his story fitted what he already knew. However, there a lot of discrepancies between what the Quran says about the life of Jesus and what the Bible says about the life of Jesus. For example, consider the following. Jesus spoke out against people who accused his mother of harlotry when he was in his cradle, a new born babe. Also his miracle of breathing life into a bird of clay is mentioned. [3:46] And he shall speak to the people when in the cradle and when of old age, and (he shall be) one of the good ones. [3:47] She said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to me, and man has not touched me? He said: Even so, Allah creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter. He only says to it, Be, and it is. [3:48] And He will teach him the Book of wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel. [3:49] And (make him) an apostle to the children of Israel. That I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I determine for you out of dust like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird with Allah's permission and I heal the blind and the leprous, and bring the dead to life with Allah's permission and I inform you of what you should eat and what you should store in your houses; most surely there is a sign in this for you, if you are believers. [3:50] And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat, and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden you, and I have come to you with a sign from you Lord, therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me. [3:51] Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path. As you can see, the story is somewhat similar to the one told in the Bible, but it is not the same at all. There are obvious significant differences. Were these discrepanices the figment of the imagination of a creative storyteller? But we already know that Mohammed wanted credibility in the eyes of Christians. Why would he dispute already established facts? Or were they stories that have now been lost out of the folklore in Christinity surrounding Jesus? If a person accepts Divine revelation, then there is an easier way to explain these discrepancies - they have been lost out of Christian Scripture, and were lost at the time of Mohammed (saws). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [3:64] Say: O followers of the Book! come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: bear witness that we are Muslims.