Violent verses from Allah

[ClimbingTheLadder]

No it's not problematic at all. It is rather charming term of respect for fellow members of the Abrahamic faiths. Personally I am all for looking for the things we have in common with these other faiths.

I fully agree with you.

I will add though that the common understanding or construct of the concept of "the Abrahamic religions" is not entirely accurate Islamically speaking.
God does not reveal institutionalized religions and the word commonly referred to as "religion" in translations of the Qur'an does not equate to the english word, more correctly it translates to "doctrine" (metaphysics, philosophy, morals and ethics basically).

The terms "Islam" and "Muslim" have a lot of meanings and applications in the Islamic understanding. Everything in the universe is in one sense of the meaning, "Muslim", as everything finite is absorbed into the infinite, everything is contained within the Unity of God.
I can't remember the specific ayat but the Qur'an mentions how the entire universe is in prostration to God, and furthermore the stars are in prostration to mankind (so there is a parallel there, in a way, this is mentioned various places including the opening of Surah Yusuf).

To be a Muslim, in it's most definitive meaning, is to seek union with the divine.

Regarding "People of the Book", well even according to the Qur'an, it cannot logically only be Judaism and Christianity (both of which were not founded by their patriarchal Prophets, Moses and Jesus, anyway).
The Qur'an states that there is not a town on earth in which a Prophet hasn't been sent, nor a language that God hasn't revealed itself, so this rules out exclusivity with the Middle East alone, as well as languages like Sanskrit, Hebrew or Arabic being sole 'languages of God'.

 

[Cooky]

Firstly, the Qur'an (not "koran") is not the "standard for sharia law" (and it's not called "Sharia Law" either, it's "Sharia"). Sharia is Torah. Torah is Sharia. Sharia and Torah are Dharma. et al.
Sharia is 'way of life', not a legal system of any kind.

As for Sola Scriptura, as far as the Bible is concerned I definitely agree. However the closest you will get to such a thing in Islam would be "Quranism" (Quran-alone), which is of a completely different disposition to the Protestant sola scriptura. Also unlike with what happened to Protestants who still believe most Catholic doctrines, the Quranists challenge all Islam in it's entirety and base their view of things through a different praxis.
e.g. Protestants in the majority still believe in the Trinity, even though it's entirely absent from the New Testament and Jesus' own teachings according to those texts affirm that he believed in the Jewish Shema.

One of the primary concerns that significantly differentiates them is that the Qur'an itself is literally the word of God (God speaking directly) rather than merely 'inspired' writings by people about events in history (aka, the Bible).
Along with this 'word of God' view which is integral to the Qur'an, the text of the Qur'an heavily emphasizes the intellect and the obtaining of knowledge. The concept of salvation in the Qur'an and in Islam as a whole (except for Salafism) is one based in not "belief-alone" but of what we do. Islam is very serious about the consequence of our actions, the Qur'an does often make specific distinctions between a true believer, a hypocrite and a disbeliever, it does not equate stating that you believe something as being sincerity, as the Qur'an is very aware that people are insincere and use religion as a crutch for egotistical and material gain.
In fact there's a whole Surah (#63, al-Munafiqun) named after this.

On belief itself, as the Qur'an says in ayats 2-4 in Surah 29:

Do men think that they will be left alone on saying "We believe" and not be tried?
And certainly We tried those before them, so Allah will certainly know those who are true and He will certainly know the liars.
Or do they who work evil think that they will escape Us? Evil is it that they judge!



And I will add regarding Sharia, that Ijtihad (reasoning) was the predominant form of jurisprudence in early Islam (and in fact it stayed strong through the first 500 or so years). The trends you may observe in the present climate in the mainstream Islamic world is not indicative of Islam historically (of which has always been incredibly diverse from the offset).

I don't know why your tone needs to come off as trying to lord over me so much. Is this supposed to put me in my submissive place?

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

I don't know your tone is coming off as trying to lord over me.

Why so?

 

[Cooky]

Why so?

Yeah...

Your posts come off as total Islamic apologetics, without actually addressing my points. I've dealt with fundamentalist Protestants in the past who hold the same attitude. It's what it is... Preaching, without listening.

Are you open to dialogue at all? Or are you simply going to put me in my place?

 

[Cooky]

Because without dialogue, and simply hopping upon one's podium to give speeches is where circular arguments begin.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

Your posts come off as total Islamic apologetics, without actually addressing my points. I've dealt with fundamentalist Protestants in the past who hold the same attitude. It's what it is... Preaching, without listening.

I don't know how simply correcting you on your misunderstandings and strawmanning is 'apologetics' but whatever.
As far as points, I do not recall you making any points about anything. If you had any points to make, they would have been interesting to hear.
I'm opposed quite strongly to proselytizing, so I don't know what you're getting at. Your post seems more like an example of psychological projection, rather than any kind of engagement with the subject.

Protestant fundis are the worst though, I have to agree with you there, I have to deal with them quite regularly. You couldn't find more accurate of a polar opposite to me than them.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

Because without dialogue

What is your dialogue? I've been thorough exploring ideas, you haven't even lifted a finger here.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah...

Your posts come off as total Islamic apologetics, without actually addressing my points. I've dealt with fundamentalist Protestants in the past who hold the same attitude. It's what it is... Preaching, without listening.

Are you open to dialogue at all? Or are you simply going to put me in my place?

Really, Landon? If you think that, you must not have dealt with many Protestant fundies, which are rife on this forum. I know you have some prejudices against Islam from reading your posts. You also are not even very knowledgeable about your own stated religion, Catholicism. You didn't even know who Abraham was.

 

[sun rise]

What is your dialogue? I've been thorough exploring ideas, you haven't even lifted a finger here.

Personally I find your posts to be reflective of deep learning.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

Personally I find your posts to be reflective of deep learning.

Why thank you, bless you

 

[Cooky]

I don't know how simply correcting you on your misunderstandings and strawmanning is 'apologetics' but whatever.

Okay you said, "the Qur'an (not "koran") is not the "standard for sharia law" (and it's not called "Sharia Law" either, it's "Sharia"). Sharia is Torah. Torah is Sharia. Sharia and Torah are Dharma. et al.
Sharia is 'way of life', not a legal system of any kind."

...So what is Sharia law based on if it's not the Koran? Solely the hadith...

...And even if sharia law were based solely on the hadith, which it's not, how would that be different from fundamentalism proper?

 

[Cooky]

...Does nobody see my point..? That scriptural fundamentalism, is the root cause of all spiritual coldness?

...Because it replaces the use of one's own conscience? One's personal connection to God?

...I'm not a bad person for thinking this. Am I..?

 

[Cooky]

What is your dialogue? I've been thorough exploring ideas, you haven't even lifted a finger here.

How dare you even suggest that?

 

[Cooky]

Really, Landon? If you think that, you must not have dealt with many Protestant fundies, which are rife on this forum. I know you have some prejudices against Islam from reading your posts. You also are not even very knowledgeable about your own stated religion, Catholicism. You didn't even know who Abraham was.

You have nothing to add aside from Ad Hominem fallacies irrelevant to the topic of the thread. I can think of no productive reason to waste my time with that.

Oh, and also, Abraham is a turd IMO.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You have nothing to add aside from Ad Hominem fallacies irrelevant to the topic of the thread. I can think of no productive reason to waste my time with that.

Oh, and also, Abraham is a turd IMO.

Calm down.

 

[sun rise]

...Does nobody see my point..? That scriptural fundamentalism, is the root cause of all spiritual coldness?

...Because it replaces the use of one's own conscience? One's personal connection to God?

...I'm not a bad person for thinking this. Am I..?

I would not state it as sharply as "all". Personally I'd state it as "often" with this example.

Suppose a true Biblical fundamentalist reads the two greatest commandments and takes them utterly to heart along with the statement about the "letter killeth". Such a person might focus on becoming a loving person in any way he or she could.

Of course, that's not the way it is in many cases, but it could be for a few. Most I would agree are spiritually cold.

And the first greatest commandment might cause such a rare person to work on developing a stronger personal connection to God.

Finally, you're not a bad person in my mind. The written word is a terrible way to try to communicate because we don't have a real connection to the people we're exchanging words with. We can't read intent except as we slowly learn about someone over time.

 

[sun rise]

You have nothing to add aside from Ad Hominem fallacies irrelevant to the topic of the thread. I can think of no productive reason to waste my time with that.

Oh, and also, Abraham is a turd IMO.

But I don't find posts like this productive.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

...So what is Sharia law based on if it's not the Koran? Solely the hadith...

Again, it's "Quran" and "Sharia" (not "Koran" and "Sharia Law" which means "Law Law").

Only ideally is Sharia based upon such a thing but if you know even the slightest thing about Islam, you'd know that the normative formalization of Sharia is based on the rulings of scholars (for Sunnis it's the four Madhhabs and for Shi'ites it's mainly Usuli Jafari Fiqh).
Sharia as a school of thought never originated from Prophet Muhammad (saw), it originated 400 years after his death.


Nonetheless, Sharia itself is not in any way a system nor governance, it is only the way a person lives and acts, it is mainly concerned with outward observance.
e.g. This covers everything from the times you pray to how you wash your hands to what food you eat, etc.
The type of OCD taken with such a thing, is another matter. Sharia itself however is a living guideline but nothing solid and firm (unlike scripture).

how would that be different from fundamentalism proper?

I don't see any logic in your question, sorry but it seems a very confused question. I'm not even sure what you're trying to even ask there.

That scriptural fundamentalism, is the root cause of all spiritual coldness?

By fundamentalism you mean fanaticism, sure I'd agree with that. This originates not from people who understand the texts they claim to follow but rather the opposite - those who project their egos onto texts trying to make them support their wild heretical ideas.

 

[Cooky]

Calm down.

Stop getting personal with me then.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Stop getting personal with me then.

I've never referenced anything you haven't posted publicly on the forums.