Popes comments about Islam.

T-1111111111111

Schuhart wrote:

I don’t know if this closes the gap, but how would you feel if the Pope was quoted as saying the Quran is a disaster?

6. Al-An'âm : Livestock (Verses 21-24)

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ كَذَّبَ بِآيَاتِهِ إِنَّهُ لاَ يُفْلِحُ الظَّالِمُونَ
Who doth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie against Allah and denieth His revelations? Lo! the wrong doers will not be successful
6:21

وَيَوْمَ نَحْشُرُهُمْ جَمِيعًا ثُمَّ نَقُولُ لِلَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُواْ أَيْنَ شُرَكَآؤُكُمُ الَّذِينَ كُنتُمْ تَزْعُمُونَ
And on the Day We gather them together We shall say unto those who ascribed partners (unto Allah): Where are (now) those partners of your make believe?
6:22

ثُمَّ لَمْ تَكُن فِتْنَتُهُمْ إِلاَّ أَن قَالُواْ وَاللّهِ رَبِّنَا مَا كُنَّا مُشْرِكِينَ
Then will they have no contention save that they will say: By Allah, our Lord, we never were idolaters.
6:23

انظُرْ كَيْفَ كَذَبُواْ عَلَى أَنفُسِهِمْ وَضَلَّ عَنْهُم مَّا كَانُواْ يَفْتَرُونَ
See how they lie against themselves, and (how) the thing which they devised hath failed them!
6:24

Rev Hellfire

I'll have to be honest here T-1... and I'm sure I'm not the only one, but when I see a screen full of quotes be they from the quoran or bible I turn off and skip past them.

Certainly when communicating with a fellow Muslim it makes sense (not much imho) to do that sort of thing, but to those that aren't muslim like myself, it is just alienates the very audiences you are attempting to reach.
Perhaps if you gave your interpretation of the passage or piece of doctrine and maybe a link to the passage you would find it a more effective way to communicate.

T-1111111111111

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'll have to be honest here T-1... and I'm sure I'm not the only one, but when I see a screen full of quotes be they from the quoran or bible I turn off and skip past them.

Certainly when communicating with a fellow Muslim it makes sense (not much imho) to do that sort of thing, but to those that aren't muslim like myself, it is just alienates the very audiences you are attempting to reach.
Perhaps if you gave your interpretation of the passage or piece of doctrine and maybe a link to the passage you would find it a more effective way to communicate.

No offense Rev but then ur monitor must be less that 11 inch? Just kiddin'

Now seriously, it is a difficult and very responsible act to try to give the explanation of the Qur'an - it's very risky. None of us wants to say God said this and that, and then it turns out that He didn't say any of that. That would be a huge lie. So sometimes it's easier to just quote (the translation of) the Qur'an, a few verses or so.

Look, here's a pefect example of that. Read only this (translation of the) verse:

Who doth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie against Allah and denieth His revelations?

In opinion the pope did both of the two. He invented a lie against Almighty God (by quoting/agreeing/supporting) "evil etc." and secondly, the pope (obviously) denies the Qur'an as the final Revelation (or else he most definitely would be following it).

So, the pope as it stands most probably is classified as a liar against Almighty and an evildoer by not accepting Muhammed saws as Lord's final messenger and by not accepting the Qur'an as the final revelation.

I hope this was clear as the cloudless blue sky (which unfortunately we don't get to see much in Ireland).

the_new_mr

Wibbs wrote:

There do seem to be many examples where Mohammed has people executed or killed by his order for purely disagreeing with him.

I repeat what I said earlier.

Wibbs wrote:

He was at prayer when he arrived.

Maybe but there is no way that they were in prayer when Abu Sufyan came to talk to them.

Wibbs wrote:

Only after he had said that he accepted the One God and Mohamed as his messenger. Now given that The Prophet had captured his daughter previously Abu wasn't in the best position, so he played it well(if that is indeed what he did)

Few bad errors here.

First of which is that the Prophet was married to Abu Sufyan's daughter... she wasn't captured. Also, this is not the time when Abu Sufyan embraced Islam. He did it later when the Prophet was about to enter Mecca. At this later time, he said that he believed that there is no god but God Himself but that he still had doubts that Mohamed (peace be upon him) was his messenger. These doubts were later removed.

This whole situation is quite nicely dealt in one of the episodes by Amr Khaled from last Ramadan entitled "On the path of the beloved" giving the biography of the Prophet's life. Excellent source really. Here's a link to a translated version of the transcript of said episode. The other episodes are there too. It's a fair bit of reading but pretty comprehensive.
http://www.amrkhaled.net/articles/articles1158.html

Wibbs wrote:

Peace comes easier when one is at the head of a bigger army. The Meccans would have had little choice militarily. When they were in aposition of strength they had no problem fighting him.

Exactly! The Prophet was in a position to carry out easy revenge but he chose not to.

Wibbs wrote:

Like who?

'Akrima Ibn-Abu-Jahl, Safwan Ibn-Omaya, Sohayl Ibn-Amr, Hind Bint- Otba. They all later embraced Islam.

Wibbs wrote:

Very little is in fairness. You're comparing apples and oranges really. They're not the best examples of "western" media.

I see what you mean there. However, even CNN, RTE (which is quite badly biased actually) and BBC are full of little things here and there which Al-Jazeera is mostly free of.

Wibbs wrote:

I should be writing this stuff for christmas crackers and fortune cookies.:D

Bit of extra cash on the side then maye?

Schuhart wrote:

I understand that you personally believe that the concept of no compulsion in religion means that persons born into Islam or who convert to Islam must have the right to convert to other faiths or none. My point was more to suggest that mainstream Islamic doctrine is that no Muslim can change religion. In stating this I’m mindful that I’m probably in danger of straying off the charter, but I honestly don’t see how else to answer your post.

It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of a great number of respectable scholars. Another misunderstanding and one that is changing now. There are examples of apostates who left Islam during the time of the Prophet.

On this point, my cousin highlighted something very important to me there the other day that a lot of Muslims have completely missed. Surat Al-Baqara (where verse number 256 was mentioned by the Pope in his speech) is a Medinan sura. That means that it was revealed in Medina after the Islamic state was set up and after the Prophet had a large amount of status and power. A bad error on the case of the Pope there.

Schuhart wrote:

At the same time, in other discussions I think we’ve seen (quite reasonably) that its unlikely that Islam would see many Christians being saved, it just doesn’t absolutely rule out the possibility that a few might be.

You don't know this.

Schuhart wrote:

I’ve probably read enough of the Quran and about Islam generally at this stage to be deemed to have consciously rejected the faith, so my damnation is assured – subject only to judgement being a prerogative of god.

You don't know that either. No doubt, the knowledge you have is more than your average dude you meet at the supermarket. Still, only God knows for sure. That's not to say I know for sure one way or the other. I just don't know, you don't know. Your obvious ignorance about a few things here (no offense intended) shows that you still don't know it well. Whether or not you know it well enough to have been classified as rejected it is only for God to know and I wouldn't dream of saying or thinking anything else.

At the same time, as far as I'm concerned, you're putting yourself in a better position if you do embrace Islam. Also, I want to say something very important. Just being a Muslim is no guarentee that you won't go to hell.

Schuhart wrote:

I know we’re starting to circle, but the original point still stands. If the Pope sees a 14th century quote as useful to expressing the faith – which I take it he feels is a god-given duty – then what right have you or anyone else to complain?

Well, as you put it, the same right that gives the Pope the right to slander the Prophet gives any Muslim the right to say otherwise.

Schuhart wrote:

As is clear from his speech, he’s not actually suggesting Islam is evil at all.

By quoting what he did without actively disagreeing with the 14th century emperor, he did indirectly. That's pretty obvious I think. Slander the Prophet of Islam and you slander Islam especially when a non-Muslim believes Islam is the Prophet's own invention.

Schuhart wrote:

He is suggesting Islam’s conception of god is not based on reason.

Another problem I had with that speech.

Schuhart wrote:

I don’t know if this closes the gap, but how would you feel if the Pope was quoted as saying the Quran is a disaster?

Well, he can think that. But is it smart to say it out loud? At this time? In current circumstances? He could say something like "I don't accept the Quran as the word of God". Job done. No need to call it a disaster. If he really wants to though, he can go ahead.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

an evildoer by not accepting Muhammed saws as Lord's final messenger and by not accepting the Qur'an as the final revelation.

I believe this classifies someone as a disbeliever, not as an evildoer. And God knows best.

T-1111111111111

the_new_mr wrote:

I believe this classifies someone as a disbeliever, not as an evildoer. And God knows best.

But that's even worse I suppose?

Schuhart

It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of a great number of respectable scholars.

I think you do have good and clear picture of what religious freedom means, and even a clear justification of why Islam should be seen as supporting that idea.

However, the impression I get is this is still a minority view within the faith. I have read some material by scholars expressing that minority view, as they understand it undermines the whole faith as seeming to promote insincere practice. Hopefully those views will become more prevalent in future.

Just being a Muslim is no guarentee that you won't go to hell.

This is actually the point the Pope is trying to make when he contrasts the Islamic and Christian conception of god, and describes the Islamic view as irrational.

What he’s saying, as far as I can understand, is that the Christian tradition is that God wants people to know what he wants from them. Hence, by reason it should be possible to work out ‘if I follow this faith, and do these things, I’m doing what God intends’.

He contrasts this with the Islamic view, and that idea that God has the final call. Hence, I might arrive after a lifetime of unbelief and be admitted to paradise because of some perverse decision that this was what I was meant to do. Someone else, who had followed Islam to the letter, might be turned away because, for whatever reason, God thinks they still didn’t quite do what was required. This is what I think he’s saying when he includes that statement that you would have to engage in idolatry – for the sake of argument – if that’s what God wanted.

Bear in mind, I’m not saying this is what I think – I’m just setting out what I think the Pope is saying. That said, I find the view he expressing interesting and I'm intrigued to see where he'll take this.

Well, he can think that. But is it smart to say it out loud? At this time? In current circumstances? He could say something like "I don't accept the Quran as the word of God". Job done. No need to call it a disaster. If he really wants to though, he can go ahead.

That’s exactly what I’d say.

the_new_mr

T-1111111111111 wrote:

But that's even worse I suppose?

Don't know. Only God does.

Schuhart wrote:

I think you do have good and clear picture of what religious freedom means, and even a clear justification of why Islam should be seen as supporting that idea.

Well, one part of these justifications is that there are examples of people who did become apostates of Islam at the time of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) and were not killed.

Also, a verse from the Quran which states:
An-Nisa:137
"Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe, and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of the truth - God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them in any way."

It is the opinion of the scholars who share the opinion that apostates are not to be killed that this verse clearly shows how someone can believe and then not believe and then believe again and not believe again and how the repsonsibility lies with them on the the Day of Judgement. And only God knows for sure.

Schuhart wrote:

This is actually the point the Pope is trying to make when he contrasts the Islamic and Christian conception of god, and describes the Islamic view as irrational.

As I said already, this is another problem I had with the Pope's speech. A cynic might say that the Pope took Muslim focus away from this point by quoting the 14th century emperor.

Anyway, the idea that God in Islam is irrational is a ridiculous idea. How can He be irrational when He describes Himself as the Most Just? The Pope quoted Ibn Hazm. Ibn Hazm may have been a good scholar with a lot of knowledge but who is to say that his opinion on this is correct? This kind of thought received much criticism from many Islamic philosophers.
As a Muslim, I can accept or reject anybody's opinion except that of God and a Messenger of God since they are directly guided by God.

Schuhart wrote:

What he’s saying, as far as I can understand, is that the Christian tradition is that God wants people to know what he wants from them. Hence, by reason it should be possible to work out ‘if I follow this faith, and do these things, I’m doing what God intends’.

I know that you said that you don't necessarily agree with what what you think the Pope was saying but I just wanted to point out something here.

God lays out clear guidance in the Quran for those who wish to follow a righteous life and one that God is happy with. There's no question of that. Some verses:

Al-Baqara:38
"[For although] We did say, "Down with you all from this [state]," there shall, none the less, most certainly come unto you guidance from Me: and those who follow My guidance need have no fear, and neither shall they grieve;"

Al-Baqara:112
"Yea, indeed: everyone who surrenders his whole being unto God, and is a doer of good withal, shall have his reward with his Sustainer; and all such need have no fear, and neither shall they grieve."

Al-Baqara:262
"they who spend their possessions for the sake of God and do not thereafter mar their spending by stressing their own benevolence and hurting [the feelings of the needy] shall have their reward with 'their Sustainer, and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve."

Al-Baqara:277
"Verily, those who have attained to faith and do good works, and are constant in prayer, and dispense charity - they shall have their reward with their Sustainer, and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve."

And there are other verses.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that God could never lie to someone like that. At the same time, everyone's judgement is with God. There can be thoughts, intentions, intensity of intentions, circumstances, environment, sub-conscious and so on and so on. God will take all these things into account as He is the Most Just of Judgers.

Schuhart

As always, you'll understand as far as I'm concerned the Islamic conception of God and the view the Pope is now outlining are both simply obstacles to confronting the reality of our own existence. I'd question the Pope's claim that reason is a Catholic core value and debate and scrutiny is welcome. I'd even wonder how he'd square it with his approach to Liberation Theology when he was the Cardinal responsible for Catholic doctrine.

That said, some interest was taken in his recent meeting with Hans Kung, a liberal priest stripped of his status as a Catholic theologian by John Paul II. A Church that embraced reason without fear could do a lot for itself and for the world.

the_new_mr wrote:

Anyway, the point I'm making is that God could never lie to someone like that. At the same time, everyone's judgement is with God.

To be fair to him, I don't think he's suggesting that Islam regards God as irrational. He's more saying the idea that everyone's judgement is with God suggests that we cannot understand God through reason. God might have perfectly good reasons for denying paradise to someone who seemed to be a good Muslim, or admitting someone who practiced idolatry. What's on his mind is the extent to which Islam sees people as being able to see those reasons.

If I recall my Catholic upbringing correctly, a Catholic who has sincerely repented of his sins and received the sacrament of absolution is guaranteed salvation. Simple as that, with no second guessing by God because Catholics believe this is the divine 'process'.

I would take it he contrasts that with the idea that, even if you've done what you think is the right thing, there still has to be that element of doubt 'what if God says that's not enough'. The absence of reason is not so much on God's side, as in our ability to know that reason.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

He's more saying the idea that everyone's judgement is with God suggests that we cannot understand God through reason.

Yeah, I know he's saying that but I would ask "Who else does the judgement belong to?" When people take it upon themselves to say who they think is going to heaven or hell, aren't they basically playing God? I mean, who are they to say so?

When a person looks at their ownselves, there is more information at hand obviously. If person A gives money to charity, person B who watches them do it has no way of knowing if person A did it to show off (which doesn't count of course) or if they did it purely for God's sake and for the deed itself. Person A can know this information though and they may even, after originally intending for it to be for God's sake, feel pride and showing off enter into their heart which they must fight against in order to try and make this act of worship pure.

I think that there is a misunderstanding here on the Islamic concept of judgement. If a Muslim believes in all that Islam requires of them and performs their prayers, pays money to charity, does other various good deeds etc and stays on this path then they should feel comfortable to an extent as the verses I outlined in the post above show. I say "to an extent" because a person should never say to themselves: "Right, I think I'm grand and I'm definitely going to heaven now". You should always strive to do more and more.

But maybe someone who didn't pray all their prayers on time (this is just an example... maybe I'm using a bad example here) will be rewarded more than because their family didn't give them a good religious upbringing or they had a difficult environment. That doesn't mean it counts as an excuse as far as the person is concerned. They should always be striving to be the best they can be. The idea of judgement is with God alone means that their intention, circumstances and so forth are all known to God (more than to the person themselves) and He will measure it all up exactly.

Then comes the idea of a non-Muslim. Only God can judge them for sure. Only He knows what was in their hearts, what was in their minds, what was told to them etc. Just like there is dawa (inviting) to Islam, there is also anti-dawa or negative-dawa which has an effect on people. Again, only God can know their judgement. But, from an Islamic perspective, I guess you could say that you're improving your situation greatly by becoming Muslim because you are at least consciously proclaiming to God that you believe that there is no god but God and that Mohamed (peace be upon him) is His messenger.

Schuhart wrote:

God might have perfectly good reasons for denying paradise to someone who seemed to be a good Muslim, or admitting someone who practiced idolatry.

would say that, God willing, the person who lived as a good Muslim with their intention as doing so to please God and not perform bad deeds etc should be fine but that it's still God's judgement and nobody should say with what they believe is 100% certainty. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said "Indeed, actions are measured by intentions and each will be rewarded with what he intended".

And the idolator's judgement is too complicated to even be considered by anyone else other than God. At the same time, we know in Islam that the greatest sin in Islam (which may not be forgiven) is associating partners in worship with God but that still doesn't give someone the right to think they know who is going to heaven and who is not.

Schuhart wrote:

What's on his mind is the extent to which Islam sees people as being able to see those reasons.

Well, not being funny or anything but I don't think we can know what's on his mind exactly. If it is something he's wondering about, he'd probably be wise not to "think out loud" as it where. Especially when he says things which cause a great deal of offense and things which are incorrect in terms of the Islamic perspective of God. Also, I can't know for sure but it seems like he'd already made up his mind on the rationality of Islam's relationship with God.

Schuhart wrote:

If I recall my Catholic upbringing correctly, a Catholic who has sincerely repented of his sins and received the sacrament of absolution is guaranteed salvation. Simple as that, with no second guessing by God because Catholics believe this is the divine 'process'.

I heard this plenty at school... and also in movies

This is slightly different from the Islamic view. The Islamic view is that people can repent (sincerely) for their sins at any time as God is known as the Most-Forgiving. Also, faith alone may not be enough. Deeds are important.

Az-Zumar:53
"Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah. for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

Of course, they can't sin with the intention to say "It's okay, I'll sin and repent later". God knows what's in their hearts.

Also, the idea that God has to "second guess" as you put it is slightly offending to a Muslim.

Schuhart wrote:

I would take it he contrasts that with the idea that, even if you've done what you think is the right thing, there still has to be that element of doubt 'what if God says that's not enough'.

Well, if someone wants to repent a severe sin then they should ask forgiveness from their Lord. They should constantly strive for that forgiveness. They may feel that they have been forgiven (as I've seen with some people) or they may feel that they have to contstantly ask for forgiveness in case He has not yet forgiven them. It all comes back to intentions really.

The element of doubt that you talk about is what can make someone worship God better. At the same time, the verses that I stated in my previous post relating to what is the correct path to follow as well as the ones that talk about forgiveness are enough for someone to know God's nature to the extent required.

We can also know Allah through His most beautiful names and some of these are:
The Forgiver
The Just
The Most Compassionate
The Merciful
The All Aware
The Wise
The Loving One
The Granter and Accepter of repentance
The Pardoner

Also found this beautiful verse.

An-Nisa:122
"Yet those who attain to faith and do righteous deeds We shall bring into gardens through which running waters flow, therein to abide beyond the count of time: this is, in truth, God's promise - and whose word could be truer than God's?"

Schuhart wrote:

The absence of reason is not so much on God's side, as in our ability to know that reason.

I see what you're saying here but if we know that there is no absence of reason on God's side then why worry? We can never completely know and fully understand God and His concept as He is, after all, God. However, we can know Him enough to know that He is The Just. That is enough for me and I would imagine enough for anyone.

Al-Baqara:277
"Verily, those who have attained to faith and do good works, and are constant in prayer, and dispense charity - they shall have their reward with their Sustainer, and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve."

Schuhart

When people take it upon themselves to say who they think is going to heaven or hell, aren't they basically playing God? I mean, who are they to say so?

Bear in mind, for me the wonder is how anyone can think that following the practices of any religion amounts to a hill of beans in the cosmic scheme of things. It reminds me of a story in the Catholic writer Hilaire Belloc’s book The Path to Rome.

Once, before we humans became the good and self-respecting people we are, the Padre Eterno was sitting in heaven with St Michael beside him, and He watched the abyss from His great throne, and saw shining in the void one far point of light amid some seventeen million others, and He said:

'What is that?'

And St Michael answered:

'That is the Earth,' for he felt some pride in it.

'The Earth?' said the Padre Eterno, a little puzzled . . . 'The Earth?...?... I do not remember very exactly . . .'

'Why,' answered St Michael, with as much reverence as his annoyance could command, 'surely you must recollect the Earth and all the pother there was in heaven when it was first suggested to create it, and all about Lucifer--'

'Ah!' said the Padre Eterno, thinking twice, 'yes. It is attached to Sirius, and--'

'No, no,' said St Michael, quite visibly put out. 'It is the Earth. The Earth which has that changing moon and the thing called the sea.'

'Of course, of course,' answered the Padre Eterno quickly, 'I said Sirius by a slip of the tongue. Dear me! So that is the Earth! Well, well! It is years ago now ... Michael, what are those little things swarming up and down all over it?'

'Those,' said St Michael, 'are Men.'

'Men?' said the Padre Eterno, 'Men ... I know the word as well as any one, but somehow the connexion escapes me. Men ...' and He mused. St Michael, with perfect self-restraint, said a few things a trifle staccato, defining Man, his dual destiny, his hope of heaven, and all the great business in which he himself had fought hard. But from a fine military tradition, he said nothing of his actions, nor even of his shrine in Normandy, of which he is naturally extremely proud: and well he may be. What a hill!

'I really beg your pardon,' said the Padre Eterno, when he saw the importance attached to these little creatures. 'I am sure they are worthy of the very fullest attention, and' (he added, for he was sorry to have offended) 'how sensible they seem, Michael! There they go, buying and selling, and sailing, driving, and wiving, and riding, and dancing, and singing, and the rest of it; indeed, they are most practical, business-like, and satisfactory little beings. But I notice one odd thing. Here and there are some not doing as the rest, or attending to their business, but throwing themselves into all manner of attitudes, making the most extraordinary sounds, and clothing themselves in the quaintest of garments. What is the meaning of that?'

'Sire!' cried St Michael, in a voice that shook the architraves of heaven, 'they are worshipping You!'

'Oh! they are worshipping me! Well, that is the most sensible thing I have heard of them yet, and I altogether commend them. Continuez,' said the Padre Eterno, 'continuez!'

And since then all has been well with the world; at least where Us continuent.

At the same time, we know in Islam that the greatest sin in Islam (which may not be forgiven) is associating partners in worship with God but that still doesn't give someone the right to think they know who is going to heaven and who is not.

Again, I don’t want to simple repeat the same thing over and over, but you understand the consequence of this, as night follows day, is that that someone cannot rationally work out what God’s plan is for them. I know you can say that following the Quran probably doesn’t hurt someone’s chances of gaining entry to Paradise. But you cannot state for certain that, in an individual case, divine judgement will reward that step.

Mick86

Wibbs wrote:

Whether one agrees with much of his philosophy or not(I don't) we won't see the like of John Paul II for a while I'd say. Huge figure of the 20th century.

How unfortunate you should bring up the name of a pope who was shot by a Muslim.

HelterSkelter

Mick86 wrote:

How unfortunate you should bring up the name of a pope who was shot by a Muslim.

Your point being...???

Hobbes

Mick86 1 weeks holiday.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

But you cannot state for certain that, in an individual case, divine judgement will reward that step.

Once again, I refer you to the verses from my previous posts.

Schuhart

Which brings us back to where we are in an eternal circle.

To summarise, the Pope seems to mean reason in the sense that he can state with confidence what he needs to do to be saved. To the extent that Islam specifically reserves judgement to the deity, it is saying that reason cannot know the divine will.

That’s not to say he’s right or you are wrong. As far as I’m concerned you are both wrong, as even if there is a deity its easier to swallow a buffalo than to believe the Earth is more than a galactic water feature and we are more than pond life.

But, within the confines of debate between mainstream religions, the Pope has identified a valid contrast of importance to him.

babyvaio

Schuhart wrote:

To summarise, the Pope seems to mean reason in the sense that he can state with confidence what he needs to do to be saved. To the extent that Islam specifically reserves judgement to the deity, it is saying that reason cannot know the divine will.

The Will of Allah is something we humans do not know, however we have a clear guidance in the Qur'an - which is Allah's Word - how people will be judged. For instance, there is a big difference between those who first of all believe in Allah, His Angels, His Messengers (from Adam, Noah, ..., Abraham, Moses, Isa/Jesus and Muhammed, peace be upon them all), His Revelations, the Day of Judgement and the Divine Will. Besides that believers should do good and avoid evil. On the other side there are people who do not believe, however for the good they do in this life - they will be rewarded in this life, but will have nothing in the afterlife. Their deeds will be like dust. The reason for this is that they never accepted their Creator, His Angels, etc.

The only religion accepted by Allah is Islam. So if one ends up this life as a non-believer, it is not too difficult to assume what is their final end, however we people do not know if somebody really died as a non-believer. That is one of the major reason why we do not judge who goes where, but we always can point to the verses of the Qur'an where Almighty Himself says what will happen to these kinda people.

Now this is what makes a difference. And BTW there are so many verses in the Qur'an explaining this so there is no need to post them.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

To summarise, the Pope seems to mean reason in the sense that he can state with confidence what he needs to do to be saved. To the extent that Islam specifically reserves judgement to the deity, it is saying that reason cannot know the divine will.

Well, from how I see it, it seems to me that Pope is saying that he can know exactly how God will judge whereas the Islamic viewpoint is that although we can make a good enough judgement based upon our knowledge, we can't know God's judgement since His knowledge far exceeds ours.

If someone was to follow the verses outlined in the Quran sincerely, the Islamic view is that that person should be okay. I only say "should" instead of "will" because only God knows their intention.

In my humble opinion, the Pope seems to be limiting the reason of God to that of the reason of man which is limited by his/her brain and knowledge. As I said in a previous post, we can know God through the names with which He describes Himself and can thereby know His nature. God is certainly not so difficult to understand in Islam as the Pope says.

Schuhart

babyvaio wrote:

The Will of Allah is something we humans do not know,

That’s a clear enough statement. However, then you say

babyvaio wrote:

however we have a clear guidance in the Qur'an - which is Allah's Word - how people will be judged.

and

babyvaio wrote:

The only religion accepted by Allah is Islam.

it suggests you actually are asserting that you know the mind of the deity to the extent of being able to say you know both the only valid religion and how people will be judged by the deity. That doesn’t add up.

the_new_mr wrote:

although we can make a good enough judgement based upon our knowledge, we can't know God's judgement since His knowledge far exceeds ours.

But the fact of being able to describe your judgement as ‘good enough’ means you are saying, for all practical purposes, you understand the mind of the deity.

the_new_mr wrote:

If someone was to follow the verses outlined in the Quran sincerely, the Islamic view is that that person should be okay. I only say "should" instead of "will" because only God knows their intention.

The same point applies here. You are saying any sincere believer knows the divine will.

the_new_mr wrote:

In my humble opinion, the Pope seems to be limiting the reason of God to that of the reason of man which is limited by his/her brain and knowledge.

I take it his response would be that God's reason might be higher in general, but his intention for us should be within our capability to grasp. In the same way, a doctor's child might not know how to practice medicine but would know how to be a good pupil.

the_new_mr

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear before.

We cannot know God's judgement. There's no question about that. To Him returns the judgement of all. Any human being can doubt their ownselves but no human should doubt God.

However, we can know what He wants us to do and what He wants from us and for us. We can know this by looking at the Quran and reading the verses there. In the Quran, God describes Himself as the Most Just. So, how could He judge us without first telling us what we should do to be in good shape on the day of judgement? You said:

Schuhart wrote:

I take it his response would be that God's reason might be higher in general, but his intention for us should be within our capability to grasp.

This is no different to the view of God in Islam. Does it make sense that God wouldn't tell us what He wants from us and then judge us? It doesn't make any sense at all. If the pope is saying that the idea of God in Islam doesn't go with reason then I believe that the pope is misinformed on this point and should probably do some reading.

As a Muslim, I would never dream of saying that I know what God thinks or how He will judge someone. The main part of this is I guess fear of over-stepping my boundries and saying or doing something that I have no right to. So, I can know what He wants from us and then try my best to do my best.

And what about for a non-Muslim? Well, we've talked about this before. Essentially, any situation like that is way too complicated because there are just so many factors. To God belongs all judgement.

Schuhart

Does it make sense that God wouldn't tell us what He wants from us and then judge us? It doesn't make any sense at all.

To God belongs all judgement.

I think the confusion still exists between these two points. As I see it, the situation has to be one of two things.

Option 1: If you sincerely follow Islam, God has no choice and must admit you to paradise

Option 2: If you sincerely follow Islam, God still has a choice and can refuse to admit you to paradise

If its option 1, then indeed the Pope is simply misunderstanding Islam. However, then the idea – reflected in some of the posts on this thread – that God’s will is unknowable becomes irrelevant. We can know God’s will enough to work out for ourselves what is necessary to be saved, and he is obliged to keep his end of the bargain.

If its option 2, then the notion that we can never presume to know God’s will is preserved. But the consequence of this is that no-one – even devout believers – are assured of salvation. If we start saying things like ‘but you’d know well enough’, then we are effectively going back to option 1, because we are saying a sincere practice of Islam means God must admit the believer to paradise.

Unfortunately, I’m still not clear on whether you are saying the situation is option 1 or option 2 as you seem to be saying both.

babyvaio

Schuhart wrote:

I think the confusion still exists between these two points. As I see it, the situation has to be one of two things.

Option 1: If you sincerely follow Islam, God has no choice and must admit you to paradise

Option 2: If you sincerely follow Islam, God still has a choice and can refuse to admit you to paradise

If its option 1, then indeed the Pope is simply misunderstanding Islam. However, then the idea – reflected in some of the posts on this thread – that God’s will is unknowable becomes irrelevant. We can know God’s will enough to work out for ourselves what is necessary to be saved, and he is obliged to keep his end of the bargain.

If its option 2, then the notion that we can never presume to know God’s will is preserved. But the consequence of this is that no-one – even devout believers – are assured of salvation. If we start saying things like ‘but you’d know well enough’, then we are effectively going back to option 1, because we are saying a sincere practice of Islam means God must admit the believer to paradise.

Unfortunately, I’m still not clear on whether you are saying the situation is option 1 or option 2 as you seem to be saying both.

Allah (swt) knows best. In my opinion it is Option 2, however I would never use the phrasing you used. There are other things that are important here. Allah (swt) did make a promise and He never breaks His Promise. The reality is that no one will enter Paradise directly because of their good deeds, but only by Allah's Mercy, not even the Final Prophet Muhammed (saws) will enter Paradise but by Allah's Mercy only. In the end, it's Allah's Mercy that will result in people going to Paradise and Allah's Wrath that will result in people going to Hell. Another important thing is that whosoever has the correct belief, but their bad deeds prevail and if Allah (swt) do not forgive them on the Judgement Day - they might end up in Hell, however it is pointed out that after they serve the punishment, Allah (swt) will be merciful to them and grant them Paradise. On the other side, the non-believers will remain in Hell for as long as Allah (swt) Wills so. This time is usually interpreted as a very long period of time or eternity. Allah (swt) knows best.
So you could say that those who believe and do good works will be given Allah's Mercy, however no one but Allah can say who that is.


Surah/Chapter 002 - Al-Baqarah. Verse 25.

And give glad tidings (O Muhammad) unto THOSE WHO BELIEVE AND DO GOOD WORKS; that theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow; as often as they are regaled with food of the fruit thereof, they say: This is what was given us aforetime; and it is given to them in resemblance. There for them are pure companions; there for ever they abide.

Schuhart

babyvaio wrote:

So you could say that those who believe and do good works will be given Allah's Mercy, however no one but Allah can say who that is.

That's a very clear explanation.

It does seem to confirm what the Pope is saying - that Islam does not allow someone to say 'if I sincerely believe this, and do these good works, I am certainly saved'.

babyvaio

Schuhart wrote:

That's a very clear explanation.

It does seem to confirm what the Pope is saying - that Islam does not allow someone to say 'if I sincerely believe this, and do these good works, I am certainly saved'.

No Muslim should ever say then I certainly am saved, I would dare to think that that would be an open hypocrisy or at least a deep ignorance.

maitri

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1874786,00.html

I think author (ex-nun) and historian, Karen Armstrong, has many good points in this article about the Pope’s speech and the Islamophobia of the West. She has written several books, both about Islam and other religions.

Schuhart

I think a symptom of the Pope’s real problem is that so few are willing attempting to defend him, even on general grounds of freedom of expression.

The Guardian article looks to be misdirected and unfair in its treatment of what the Pope said. To take one point, the writer says

Pope Benedict XVI quoted, without qualification and with apparent approval

In fact the Pope qualified his quote of the Emperor Manuel II by saying firstly of the overall source

It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.

and in relation to the quote itself

he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded,

Hence, the Pope qualifies the source by pointing out it presents the Emporer’s arguments more than the response to them, and suggests the bluntness of the remarks are astoundingly brusque. In the rush to find a reason to criticise the Pope, the writer seems willing to ignore what he actually said and write as if his speech was what she wished he’d said.

The rest of the article is partial quotation. As pointed out in previous discussion, a Christian could find offense in quotes from the Quran if they wanted and I don’t doubt that an extremist cleric could be found who has written about Christianity in similar terms to Peter the Venerable’s views of Islam – with the possible contrast that Peter the Venerable was writing in the 12th Century.

the_new_mr

Sorry for long absence from this thread.

In response to your first question Schuhart, I think it is a complicated mix between 1 and 2... but for all intents and purposes, closer to 1.

A verse showing that this may be the case:

An-Nisa:122
"Yet those who attain to faith and do righteous deeds We shall bring into gardens through which running waters flow, therein to abide beyond the count of time: this is, in truth, God's promise - and whose word could be truer than God's?

I think that any Muslim feels uncomfortable saying something like "God has no choice but to..." which is why we say that the final judgement belongs to God. Still, the verse above seems to show that there is a very real promise there.

maitri wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...874786,00.html

I think author (ex-nun) and historian, Karen Armstrong, has many good points in this article about the Pope’s speech and the Islamophobia of the West. She has written several books, both about Islam and other religions.

Excellent article. I'm very familiar with Karem Armstrong. She is a great author and a non-Muslim who has a very good understanding of Islam.

Schuhart wrote:

I think a symptom of the Pope’s real problem is that so few are willing attempting to defend him, even on general grounds of freedom of expression.

Can't see the freedom of expression thing being used again after the Jyllands-Posten-Gate. From what I read on the net, the general opinion amongst Muslims and non-Muslims alike is that freedom of expression is not a good excuse for ungrounded slander.

Schuhart wrote:

Hence, the Pope qualifies the source by pointing out it presents the Emporer’s arguments more than the response to them, and suggests the bluntness of the remarks are astoundingly brusque.

Well, of course it represents the Emperor's arguments more than the response to them because indeed the Persian dude's reply was not mentioned. In relation to the "brusqeness" of the quote in question, the pope is only saying that the Emperor's quote is blunt (meaning of brusque) and not necessarily in disagreement with the pope's view (as far as the context of his transcripted speech goes anyway).

dictionary.com wrote:

brusque  /brʌsk; especially Brit. brʊsk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bruhsk; especially Brit. broosk] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
abrupt in manner; blunt; rough: A brusque welcome greeted his unexpected return.

This is aside of course from the already mentioned blunder on the pope's side that Surat Al-Baqara was revealed in Mecca when in fact it was revealed in Medina. This kind of information has unfortunately gone widely unnoticed. Also, in all the commotion concerning the slander against the Prophet (peace be upon him) and Islam, the whole argument of reason in Islam versus same in Christianity (one of the main topics of this very thread) has been overlooked which is a shame.

Schuhart wrote:

As pointed out in previous discussion, a Christian could find offense in quotes from the Quran if they wanted and I don’t doubt that an extremist cleric could be found who has written about Christianity in similar terms to Peter the Venerable’s views of Islam – with the possible contrast that Peter the Venerable was writing in the 12th Century.

I believe that the only part of the Quran that a Christian would find offence to (correct me if I'm wrong any Christian reading this) is that God says in the Quran that Jesus (peace be upon him) is not the son of God. This is freedom of religion and a difference in creed.

You probably could find a Muslim book by an extermist (and there are no "clerics" in Islam strictly speaking) somewhere like Venerable's but they would not be the opinion of a main Muslim figure and this is a huge difference to the pope, the leader of the roman catholic church, saying it.

Anyway, as I've already said, the pope has since apologised (to an extent) for the problems caused so let's leave it at that and try to produce a positive atmosphere for peace instead.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Still, the verse above seems to show that there is a very real promise there.

I know we're moving on from this topic, but just to say I found babyvaio's post understandable on this point (or as understandable as a non-believer will ever get). Are you dissatisfied with that explanation?

the_new_mr wrote:

the whole argument of reason in Islam versus same in Christianity (one of the main topics of this very thread) has been overlooked which is a shame.

I agree, that is where the focus of the discussion should have been.

the_new_mr wrote:

let's leave it at that and try to produce a positive atmosphere for peace instead.

I agree we don't seem to be able to cross a gap here. I look at the points you've made, and get that feeling that we're going around in circles without either of us coming any closer to an understanding of what the other is saying.

For example, I cannot see how someone who has actually read the Pope's full speech could still think his use of the quote was intended as a slur. I don't know what causes this gap between our perceptions of the same page of text. We probably won't be able to work it out here. Maybe whatever causes the gap will occur to one of us at some stage in the future - if so let me know!

blackthorn

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf's response to the Pope's speech

Schuhart

blackthorn wrote:

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf's response to the Pope's speech

Very interesting - a coherent, reasoned and at the same time passionate reflection. I particularly liked the call to truth, and the insistance that difficult questions be acknowledged frankly and not avoided. That's the kind of context that allows real dialogue and enquiry.

the_new_mr

Masha Allah! (it is as God wills it) Thanks very much for that blackthorn! Brilliant video there! I really like Hamza Yusuf. He's got a lot of knowledge. Must watch more of him there.

I too liked his frankness. I agree that this is the kind of talk that gets progress.

Schuhart wrote:

I know we're moving on from this topic, but just to say I found babyvaio's post understandable on this point (or as understandable as a non-believer will ever get). Are you dissatisfied with that explanation?

I think babyvaio's post was just fine actually. Maybe I don't like to say it's either option 1 or option 2. Maybe it's option 3

Option 3: If you sincerely follow Islam, God will admit you to paradise because He promised He would. He doesn't have to if He doesn't want to but He does want to and that's why He promised. (Insha Allah, I hope that this is okay and that I'm not saying anything incorrect).