|4 years ago :: May 14, 2012 - 11:10AM #101|
Waalaikum salaam wrhmtllh, br. Ibn.
It may seem so to a lot of people, in the past as well as in the present time. Jesus was referring to the Light of our Person (SELF). In this Light ends the identity of male and female, the separation of light and darkness, the distinction of right and wrong or good and evil. Jesus's spirit and mind was created first for an offspring in the jinnic kingdom (Israel), thus male and female aspect is adressed as mother, father. In the earthly kingdom of Adams, male and female is adressed as husband and wife. In the Al-Quran this is implied in the first few lines of Az-Zumar 39 : 6 ALLAHswt created you (Muhammadsaw) from a single person; then made from him his wife. ............... This is quite a tricky verse to explain. I'll just simplify to just the following: A single person in the verse refers to a single divine Light of ALLAHswt. The "you (Muhammadsaw" that ALLAHswt is adressing is the soul of Muhammadsaw. "made from him his wife" refers from the same single light Muhammadsaw's guardian light was made. And this light, in the language of the days, was that impersonated as Gabriel i.e. guardian angel/archaengel. It is not the angel proper angel which is desscribed in Muhammadsaw's Ascension (Mi'raj). Angel proper is when the soul of Muhammadsaw (the husband)is in re-union with the 'light" of Gabriel (the spouse). From the point of view of the spirit/mind of bani-Adam (offsprings of Adam) the Light of a single person is adressed as husband-wife. From that of bani-Israel (offspring of the Jinn kind), it is father-mother. And the Light of a single Person is not the Islamic/Al-Quranic That One God indicated as ALLAHswt. If you grasp this description/explanation, you may, perhaps, have an idea where the concept of Personal God or God, the Father comes from. In the Gospel of the Nazarene thre are also narratives that give good indication what is meant by the phrase Father-Mother. However Az-Zumar 39 : 6 takes it deeper into creation.
|4 years ago :: May 14, 2012 - 9:07PM #102|
Both Az-Zumar 39 : 6 mention of a single person, and, GoN 94 : 2 mention of Father-Mother points out to the Light of our single SELF. Conceptually, spiritually, it is no different from much of those described in various school of pre-Abrahamic Hinduism, Buddhism and countless forms of paganism. The difference is only in the large variation of modes of expression. It would take some critical look to detect signs of ambiguity/deviations. This is what I am doing to the Hebrew four-letter-word of the Torah, made mysterious, only to be pronounced/invoked 10 times a year by a few select of the millions of Jews. Apparently, there are many names/expression that have been generated by this secretive four-letter-word such as The LORD our Father, The LORD Most High God, The LORD my Shepherd, The LORD God of David, The LORD my Rock, The Angel of the LORD, .....etc. If you can feel the wordds in each of those expression, between them is signals that they come from many different spots in the whole of spiritual consciousness spectrum. Which raise a question, did really Moses say or suggest all these things in the Torah he was alleged to have it written himself.
|4 years ago :: May 15, 2012 - 10:54AM #103|
Salaam, br. Ibn,
I just realised that you have been using M. Assad's English Translation of the Al-Quran. In his translation, M. Assad had put Hebrew meanings into ther Arabic root word NFS used in the two verses - 3: 185 and 21 : 35. In the Al-Quran Arabic, soul = ruh, spirit/mind/heart = NFS. In Hebrew it is quite the opposite, although the words, ruach and nephesh may sound the same.
The opening phrase in both 3 : 185 and 21 : 35 transliterates to Kullu nafsin ...... which translates to Every spirit/mind/heart ........ The root word ruh is absent.
This is one critical point I want to highlight which was one of the reason why I don't use much of M. Assad's translation. There were too much of Hebrew mindset he put into his works, that, from the perspective of my sanskrit spirits, does injustice to the Quranic big picture. This is in no way to suggest that M. Assad was less of a Muslim than the rest of us. The spiritual works command aspect is still the same common denominator.
So what is implied in those verses is that irrespective of a single, two, three ....multiple death, it is the spirit/mind feels/tastes the suffering effect of a divine punishment and not the soul because of its ignorance. The soul only experienced the effect at the end of it's First Existence, immediately after which the veil of ignorance was removed and given the knowledge of its real self.
The inheritable nature of our spirit/mind is not well understood by many. There are many verses in the al-Quran reminding us He could replace our person to another one. In this context the subject of reference is the spirit/mind aspect. The idea behind the Abraham-Isaac sacrifice story could be just about demonstarting this verse. Somehow Abraham could have noticed certain weird behaviour of teenaged Isaac, which he was not comfortable with. He wished that ALLAHswt could change whatever the inherited spirit/mind that was with Isaac. He prayed and God/ALLAHswt answered it thru a dream instructing Abraham to put Isaac to death, since only thru death, a soul would get inherit another spirit/mind and hopefully a better one. Seeing how obedient Abraham was, ALLAHswt changed His Order of the Day. Instead, a domesticated cattle was prescribed as a substitution. Perhaps when Abraham visited, grown up and married, Ismael in Makkah he could have told this principle of sacrifices and thus we have this tradition of animal sacrifices especially during the festive that marked the end of the Hajj ritual. Many of those who make the sacrifices either for their own selves or members of their families do so upon the realisation some bad spirits/mind have been inherited. They offer the animal of sacrifices as a prayer to ALLAHswt so that the astral energy of those bad spirit/mind principles are chanelled thru the animal blood and buried in the ground - neutralised.
Having this explained, does it really matter whether Isaac or Ismael was placed on the altar for sacrifice? I am glad that it wasn't Ismael. Now, you should know it better.
Why cattle ? If you are asking, then, read Az-Zumar 39 :6
The basic metapysical principle is prescribed for slaughtering of cattles for meat. The Halal/Kosher method is one way to ensure proper and safe discharge of any bad astral/current from the spirit/mind of the animal to which any wild/strayed dead person's spirit/mind priciple could take a temporary residence by accident or forced by the evils of man.
|4 years ago :: May 20, 2012 - 10:45AM #104|
wa alaikum salam wr wb :D
there are verses that seem to suggest the previous religions [christianity, Judaism] are still valid but when put into context, such verses merely affirm the validity of those religions in their own times
there are however absolutely decisive verses that shows how only the Quranic guidance is valid now and that all of mankind are obliged to follow it; hence the consensus on it
here are just some of them;
in the following verse we can see how Muhammad [saw] came with new guidance for the people of the book
007.157: Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful.
The above verse is self explanatory, but i'll post up the exegesis on it anyway :
those who follow the Messenger, the uninstructed Prophet, Muhammad (s) whom they will find inscribed in their Torah and Gospel, in name and description, enjoining them to decency and forbidding them indecency, making lawful for them the good things, which were forbidden [to them] by their Law, and making unlawful for them the vile things, such as carrion and the like, and relieving them of their burden, their onus, and the shackles, the hardships, that they used to bear, such as [the requirement] to kill oneself as a repentance and the severing of that part that had come into contact with any impurity. Then those who believe in him, from among them, and honour, revere, him, and help him, and follow the light that has been revealed with him, namely, the Qur’ān, they are the ones who will prosper’.
here is one that cleary catogorises Jews as desbelievers [kaafirs; rejectors of the true faith] for not accepting Muhammad [saw] as the Messenger of Allah [swt]
2-89: And when there came to them a Book from Allah, which confirms what was with them,__ while earlier, they used to seek help against those who disbelieved, __ yet when there came to them that which they did recognize, they denied it. So the curse of Allah is upon the disbelievers
and here's one where Allah describes the good people of the book as those who follow their scriptures, and the Quran
003.199 And lo! of the People of the Scripture there are some who believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto you and that which was revealed unto them, humbling themselves before Allah. They purchase not a trifling gain at the price of the revelations of Allah. Verily their reward is with their Lord. Lo! Allah is swift to take account.
and there are many more verses, but i think, if you weigh the exegetical expertise of litterally all Islamic scholars, then the following should be enough to hammer home the one and only valid view regarding this issue
the Qur'an says, "We do not differentiate between any of His messengers" (Qur'an 2:285), showing that previous religions were the same in beliefs, and though differing in provisions of works, and now abrogated by the final religion, were valid in their own times.
As for today, only Islam is valid or acceptable now that Allah has sent it to all men, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has said, "By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell" (al-Baghawi: Sharh al-sunna 1.104).
This hadith is a rigorously authenticated (sahih) evidence that clarifies the word of Allah in surat Al 'Imran "Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted from him, and shall be of those who have truly failed in the next life" (Qur'an 3:85)
and many other verses and hadiths. That Islam is the only remaining valid or acceptable religion is necessarily known as part of our religion ...........
Traditional Islam certainly does not accept the suggestion that "it is true that many Muslims believe that the universality of guidance pertains only to pre-Qur'anic times, but others disagree; there is no 'orthodox' interpretation here that Muslims must accept" (Religious Diversity, 124).
Orthodoxy exists, it is unanimously agreed upon by the scholars of Muslims, and we have conveyed in Nawawi's words above that to believe anything else is unbelief. As for "others disagree," it is true, but is something that has waited for fourteen centuries of Islamic scholarship down to the present century to be first promulgated in Cairo in the 1930s by the French convert to Islam Rene Gunon, and later by his student Frithjof Schuon and writers under him. Who else said it before? And if no one did, and everyone else considers it kufr, on what basis should it be accepted?
ps: here's some of them 'seemingly' perrenial verses in context
2:62 Verily! Those who believed and the Jews and Christians, and Sabians - whoever believed in Allâh and the Last Day and performed righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve .
5:69 Surely, those who believed and the Jews and Sabians and Christians - whosoever believed in Allâh and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
The common interpretation of these verses is that they refer to righteous followers of Prophets before the coming of Prophet Muhammad pbuh.
This can be understood through the following points.
1. The Historical Context
The historical background will allow us to better understand the groups described in these verses. Imaam Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d. 1372CE) describes the historical context in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim as follows:
[The saying of the Exalted,"verily! Those who believe and the Jews and the Christians, and the Sabians, whosoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day and does righteous deeds shall have their reward with their Lord":as-Suddi said,
'the verse was revealed with regards to companions of Salmaan al-Faarisee about whom he informed the Prophet (SAW) that 'they prayed, fasted, believed in you and bore witness that you had been sent as a Prophet.' So when Salmaan had finished extolling them the Prophet (SAW) said, "O Salmaan they are from the People of the Fire." This weighed down heavily on Salmaan and then Allaah revealed this verse. So the Imaan of the Jews referred to those Jews who held fast to the Tawrah and the sunnah of Moses until Jesus was sent. When Jesus (AS) came then whosoever held fast to the Tawrah and the sunnah of Moses (and did not follow Jesus) was destroyed. The Imaan of the Christians referred to those who held fast to the Injeel and the laws of Jesus - these people were the believers who accepted him. This held true until Muhammad (SAW) came, so whosoever did not follow Muhammad (SAW) and did not leave what he had been following was destroyed.'
This does not negate what Alee bin Abee Talha reports from ibn Abbaas that after this verse was revealed Allaah revealed the verse, "whosoever desires a religion other than Islaam then it shall not be accepted from him and in the Hereafter he shall be of the losers." (3: 85) Here ibn Abbaas is informing that the only thing accepted from someone will be that which is in conformity to the Sharee`ah of Muhammad (SAW) after he had been sent. As for those who came before him, then whosoever followed the Messenger of his time then he was upon guidance and the victorious way. So the Jews referred to are the followers of Moses who used to judge by the Tawrah in their time.](Tafseer ibn Katheer' 1/182)
Salman Al-Faarisee was a Persian Zoroastrian who left his home in search of God's true religion. He became a Christian in Syria and encountered many righteous Christian scholars who foretold of the coming of a Prophet in Arabia. Later, Salman came to Madinah and accepted Islam at the hands of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. Naturally, he enquired about the status of those devout followers of previous Prophets whom he had encountered in his journey. Verses 2:62 and verses 5:69 clarify and explain the status of such people. They are not speaking about Christians and Jews who lived after the coming of the prophet Muhammad pbuh but did not accept him as a messenger, for one must accept the message of the Prophet sent to them in order to be guided. Contemporary Muslim writer, Dr. Jamal Badawi summarizes this explanation concisely:
This verse must be understood in the light of other verses in the Qur'an dealing with the same topic. It is clear in the Qur'an that rejecting beliefs in any prophet is tantamount to rejecting belief in all of them. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to Muslims is the last, final and universal messenger to all humankind. As such rejecting belief in him and in the divine revelations or word of God given to him is tantamount to rejecting all of the prophets. Therefore, this verse may be referring to those who followed their prophet prior to the mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). In fact, these people who followed the unadulterated message of their prophet are in effect "fellow Muslims", literally those who sought peace through submission to God. (SOURCE)
In light of this explanation, it becomes quite clear that verses 2:62 and 5:69 are not at all stating that Christians and Jews who reject the message of Prophet Muhammad pbuh enter paradise, as the critic claims. The verse is referring to the original followers of previous Prophets before the coming of Prophet Muhammad pbuh. In other words, those who faithfully followed the teachings of the prophet sent to them will be rewarded.
and some of Muhammad [saw] letters to christians kings, basically saying accept Islam or be condemned, shows that people really have no other choice other than this latest version of Gods religion
|4 years ago :: May 20, 2012 - 11:15AM #105|
Salaam dear Abdullah,
There is no scholarly consensus, nor has there ever been, on the matter of whether or not "righteous" Christians and Jews enter paradise. The key verses that have been interpreted differently by reputed scholars for some fourteen centuries are 2:62 and 3:113-115. The consensus claim is a myth. In the following I have provided just a short sampling of reputed Islamic scholars in a chronologically reverse order who have held on to the view that these verses and others, both explicitly as well as within the whole Qur'ánic context, state in active present tense that "among" the People of the Book there are righteous people (who are obviously not al-muminún in the strict sense, but neither are they al-mushrikún nor al-kafirún) for whom God in His unlimited graciousness and justice promises no fear in the afterlife:
Seyyed Hossain Nasr, Farid Esack (you should especially study his book Qur’án, Liberation and Pluralism: An Islamic Perspective of Interreligious Solidarity Against Oppression, 1997), Mahmoud M. Ayoub (you should especially study his book The Qur’an and its Interpreters, Vol 1, Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1984), Mohammed Arkoun, Fazlur Rahman, Sayyid Mahmud Taleqani (a renowned Iranian mullah), Muhammad Rashid Rida (needs no introduction), Muhammad Abduh (needs no introduction), Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111, needs no introduction), Ibn al-Arabi (1076-1148, needs no introduction) and Ali Ibn Abu Talib (ca. 600-661, certainly needs no introduction). For instance this study by Mohammad Hassan Khalil demonstrates conclusively how the above scholars and others represented the pluralist view rather than the exclusivist view which you call "orthodox". The key argument of many of these scholars is that, in addition to the explicit meaning of these verses, the other more damning Qur'ánic verses on al-kafirún and al-mushrikún refer to an active hostility towards the al-muminún, and not simply passive peaceful non-acknowledgement of the Qur'án while remaining very respectful, even helpful, towards the al-muminún and maintaining genuinely friendly terms with them.
If you want more scholars, you will quickly discover through the links and books I've referenced how the exclusivist interpretation of the destiny of righteous ahl-al-kitab has never been supported by the consensus of fiqh scholars (ijmá). Also this link unequivocally establishes (by a scholar of Islam who is a non-Muslim) how both interpretations have been supported by scholars throughout Islamic history without any clear consensus.
"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."