Good Morning Phatmass

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Peace said:

Fundamentally, we are Catholic by the grace of God, and nobody comes into the Church without the faith that God gives us

[Machine_Washable]

16 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

What about the Quran speaks to you? I've only read a little bit of the Quran. I found it to be kind of a slog to be honest. Maybe I missed the inspiring part. I find the Q2:23 challenge to be ridiculous as I've read many things that surpass the beauty of the Quran. Then you might say "that's entirely subjective" to which I would agree with you. That's the problem.

And then of course I might get the "but that's not in the original Arabic!" I did study Arabic in college, so I know a very little. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a beautiful sounding language, but the calligraphy is nice.

A great deal. The moral instructions in it. The depth of meaning to even seemingly simple passages. Particular relationships I have with particular parts of it. Times in my life I've reached out by reciting passages of it and had my prayers answered. It's not a simple question to answer. But that would be a summary.

The Qur'an is beautiful when recited. Scholars have differed over what the challenge you reference is. Some say it is the depth of the Qur'an. Some to the quality of the language. I don't know what the majority position is.

 

16 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I say it's like the protestants for a number of reasons. One, your faith stems from the miracle of the sacred text. "I believe in Christ (or Islam) because the Bible is the word of God (or the Quran is the word of God)" If that is not what you're saying feel free to correct me. It just seems very simplistic to me. There needs to be something more. That response is not very satisfying.

Maybe I worded that poorly. I believe the Prophet Muhammad (saw) to be the greatest man who ever lived because I believe Islam to be true. That's also why I believe the Qur'an to be the word of Allah (swt).

This is because of personal experiences (like the peace I feel in the masjid or what I believe to me miraculous or providential responses to prayers). Things like the way Islam has structured my life and brought out the best in many people I know. I also like reading tafsir of the Qur'an and understanding the depth of even seemingly very simple things like the way suras open with bismillah al-rahman al-rahim.

I mentioned above that I mostly fall in the Athari camp and generally we take a pretty dim view of attempts to prove religion rationally.

16 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Why do you believe the Quran is the word of God?

Well I referenced some of it above. So I'll stick with that and can discuss it more if you'd like.

16 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I'm not sure what question you're referring to.

Me neither. My formatting before confused even me. I guess we can just move on!

16 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I thank you for being honest and not practicing taqiyya

It's funny you use that term. Non Muslims accuse all Muslims of practicing taqiyya. Sunni Muslims accuse Shia of practicing taqiyya. I've always found this funny.

16 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

The problem is, you speak as if slavery is not still rampant throughout the Islamic world. It's not JUST the Islamic world (North Korea and China being notorious in that regard) and there is human trafficking in the West, but when there is no prohibition of slavery in Islamic jurisprudence there's a big problem today, not centuries ago.

I'm not here to judge past cultures for having slavery. Slavery was the norm for the vast majority of human history, as was/is poverty in many parts of the world. But we have the revelation that in Christ, the Logos, the God-man, that there is no "Greek nor Jew, slave nor free."

Jonathan Brown wrote a good book on this subject titled Slavery and Islam. It's probably too long to hold your interest since you're not Muslim and the book is really for Muslims who want to understand this issue. But he has some talks on youtube that basically cover the main points of the book. You might find them interesting once your fast is over.

Regarding slavery that still exists in the modern world. There is no legal slavery in the Islamic world. Obviously slavery still exists there. And countries like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States commonly treat domestic workers in a horrific way that could often be described as slavery. This is not in accordance with the sharia. In the sharia, a slave is a status that can be conferred on someone captured in warfare. It is not tricking a woman from the Philippines to come be your nanny and then locking her in a closet. I'm not saying that slavery in the sharia is something that would be approved of by modern secular liberalism. It is slavery.

When a Muslim wants to repent they usually have to accompany it with some action. If I break an oath then I must either feed ten people who are hungry, cloth ten people, free a slave, or, if I cannot do any of these things, fast for three days. I mention this because if slavery was an ideal state to be in then it wouldn't make much sense for Prophet Muhammad (saw) to have told the companions to free slaves when they want to repent of their sins or get blessings from Allah (swt).

So I am not going to tell you that slavery in the sharia is not really slavery. it is. You are owned and your rights are seriously curtailed. However, it is also not what we see in places like Saudi Arabia today. Slaves have rights under the sharia. They can take their master to a judge if those rights are not respected. Slaves could rise very high in Islamic Societies. Most of the ruling class in the Ottoman Empire were slaves. A Muslim slaves has the same spiritual standing as a free Muslim.

16 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Yes did it take some Christian societies centuries to grasp that concept? Yes, it is still a work in progress in many ways because we are still sinners in need of redemption both as individuals and as societies. HOWEVER, there is the basis of equal dignity of all men before God within Christian revelation. Does Islam have that? Where is that in their sacred texts? Do you think that's part of why slavery is STILL a problem in the Islamic world?

As I said before there is no legal slavery in the Islamic World. The slavery that exists in places like Saudi Arabia is de facto slavery. North America also has de facto slavery. We see this in domestic work but primarily in the sex and agricultural industries. Is slavery still a problem in the Christian world because the Bible allowed slavery?

I don't think there's a way to really answer that question. I'm sure it plays a role. And I'm sure some rich Saudi's feeling entitled to steal their maid's passport and treat her like an animal is informed by Saudi history. But I think mostly this just reflects human nature. When you give people power they will oppress. And places like the Gulf States have a lot of obscenely rich people coming into contact with very poor people in states that are often quite corrupt and have a lot of dysfunction due to being propped up  out of nowhere with oil money.

16 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Nor do Christians or Jews. Of course Christians believe that Christ was not merely a prophet.

The point I was trying to make is that Jesus is so obviously superior to Muhammad in many ways. I think it's safe to say you do not believe that Jesus was who Christians claim to be, OK. But you believe he was a holy man right? And he didn't engage in conquest/slaughter, have sex slaves, take multiple wives, take any wives for that matter, kill anyone . . . I just see him as so obviously superior to Muhammad even in the Muslim conception.

I cannot disparage one prophet or compare them. I believe Isa (saw) was a messenger of Allah (swt) and it is not for me to compare and contrast their missions or lives. Maybe if we stick to discussing what you don't like about Prophet Muhammad (saw) that would get to your questions?

16 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Yes, the satanic verses. How did the greatest prophet of all time get tricked into mistaking satan's messages for divine revelation. Seems suss.

It is very important for me to state that ibn Taymiyyah is in the minority in believing that this event occurred. The chain of transmission for it is weak. However I remember thinking ibn Taymiyyah's argument was good (it has been a long time since I have looked into this). So if you want a more complete answer let me know and I will refresh my memory.

But to answer your question there is nothing in the story that is problematic per se. And we only know of it because Muslim scholars preserved it and passed it down. It was later scholars who viewed it as problematic. The Prophet Muhammad (saw) could err and be corrected by Allah (swt). If the story is true, then that is what happened.

16 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Again I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Sorry.

You said the Qur'an says Mary is in the trinity.

16 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I doubt he was only in it for the money. There was also the power, the women, the glory, and the way he went about obtaining those things is precisely how one might expect a person to do so. Kicking ass and taking names.

I think that a lot of non-Muslims have an idea that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) received revelation and then quickly became triumphant. The conquest of Mecca occurred two years before his death. For most of his time acting as a Messenger of Allah he was either being persecuted in Mecca or scrapping by in Medina. Wealth and power didn't state coming in until later. If he wanted wealth and power then why not just accommodate with the Quarish? The Prophet Muhammad was an orphan growing up but he belonged to a powerful sub tribe in Mecca. His uncles were very influential. He had high esteem and could expect worldly success after his marriage to Khadija. Accommodating with polytheism continuing to rise is Mecca would be a much more likely path to these things.

16 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Get testy all you want. You're keeping it straight with me. I can appreciate that. I do hate to see well-meaning people defend the honor of perhaps the most obvious false prophet of all time, but alas I cannot change people's convictions. I would not expect an orthodox Jew to say good things about Christ so I'm glad you can understand where I'm coming from.

Ok, and I appreciate you being very direct with me. I am enjoying this conversation.

16 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Why do I say what?  I assume the bit about Muslim apologists? I spent a lot of last summer digging into Muslim apologists. None of them were impressive, they all seem sneaky and tend to benefit of the ignorance of their audience ESPECIALLY when talking about Christianity. I am fasting from youtube for Lent, but if you stick around I can find and post some video evidence.

Qadhi's view maybe shouldn't be that big of an issue, but the faith of many Muslims is based on the miraculous preservation of the Quran. You don't see it as suspect or suspicious that he tried to scrub the video from the internet after it was released? Or that he goes after content creators for copyright violations of his content even though it is within the realm of fair use? It seems like he can acknowledge some problems of the traditional understanding of Quranic preservation, but doesn't trust the faithful to be able to handle the truth.

And Muhammad Hijab embodies almost everything I loathe about Islam. Its brutal authoritarianism, it's appeal to the base desires of men. He's just a big and loud bully with a short fuse who mistakes threat of physical force or cheap rhetorical stunts as evidence for Islam's superiority. The fact that he's one of the most popular Muslim apologists should be a source of shame.

I don't see Yasir Qadhi's behavior as suspect.  He has stated that he was advised to take the video down by his sheikh to avoid causing confusion and I think that's why he did that. Yasir Qadhi is a huge name in the Muslim world. Him phrasing what he said as badly as he did was bad and it allowed non-Muslims who want to discredit Islam to confuse Muslims who don't understand these issues. I have seen some of the videos that have been put out and I think they are very dishonest in characterizing what he was saying.

Mostly I think this is due to Muhammad Hijab being irresponsible and trying to show off his knowledge. Yasir Qadhi did not want to answer his question because he knew it could cause confusion but Hijab kept pressing it. In the interview Qadhi was very clear that he was referring to the Qira'at in a Mus'haf (basically a printed copy of the Qur'an). Not the preservation of the Qur'an. Hijab asked about a Mus'haf. Not the Qur'an itself.  This is a very technical question that I am not able to answer because I am not well read in it. At all. Qadhi understood that what Hijab was getting at was what a lay Muslim would think of as a Qur'an. But Hijab specifically said Mus'haf. Which is why Qadhi said that the question was difficult to answer and not one to be discussed at that moment.

This gets into a very technical area that is way beyong my knowledge but the Qira'at represent different ways to pronounce certain words in Arabic. The most common example is the word malik in al Fatihah that reflect different dialects of Arabic at the time. Scholars have argued whether Prophet Muhammad (saw) revealed these different recitations or whether the sahaba who spoke different dialects asked him about these different recitations and he allowed them.

I know very little about why the earlier opinion (that Prophet Muhammad allowed different recitations) was replaced by what has become the "standard narrative" (That Prophet Muhammad (saw) revealed these different recitations). If I had to guess I would say it probably came from the debates between the Hanbalis led by Imam Ahmad and the Mutazilites. But to me it mostly represents a debate that isn't really relevant to believers today. I do not know if Yasir Qadhi is correct that the standard narrative has holes in it or not. I am much more interested in fiqh and aqidah. A lot of more senior scholars have said that he is not an expert in this area (which is true, his area of expertise is aqidah) ad criticized him for speaking about it. But that doesn't mean he is wrong. I truly don't know.

The answer about who is right or wrong is irrelevant to any Muslim who isn't a scholar. I am more interested in these theoretical discussions than a lot of Muslims and even I cannot follow them or have any informed opinion about which view is correct. Qadhi's view makes more sense to me but that doesn't mean it's right. But because this is such an obscure issue most Muslims don't even know it exists. And that is precisely why Qadhi's words, out of context, could cause such confusion.

If Qadhi is using copyright law in a dishonest way then that is wrong. But I think his actions come from a sincere desire to not confuse ordinary Muslims and not allow people who hate Islam to use his name to push ideas he does not actually endorse.

I would like to saw more about Muslims apologists but I'm to take a break and post that later today. Until then if you would like me to say more about anything or answer anything please let me know.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Machine_Washable said:

A great deal. The moral instructions in it. The depth of meaning to even seemingly simple passages. Particular relationships I have with particular parts of it. Times in my life I've reached out by reciting passages of it and had my prayers answered. It's not a simple question to answer. But that would be a summary.

The Qur'an is beautiful when recited. Scholars have differed over what the challenge you reference is. Some say it is the depth of the Qur'an. Some to the quality of the language. I don't know what the majority position is.

 

Maybe I worded that poorly. I believe the Prophet Muhammad (saw) to be the greatest man who ever lived because I believe Islam to be true. That's also why I believe the Qur'an to be the word of Allah (swt).

This is because of personal experiences (like the peace I feel in the masjid or what I believe to me miraculous or providential responses to prayers). Things like the way Islam has structured my life and brought out the best in many people I know. I also like reading tafsir of the Qur'an and understanding the depth of even seemingly very simple things like the way suras open with bismillah al-rahman al-rahim.

I mentioned above that I mostly fall in the Athari camp and generally we take a pretty dim view of attempts to prove religion rationally.

Well I referenced some of it above. So I'll stick with that and can discuss it more if you'd like.

Me neither. My formatting before confused even me. I guess we can just move on!

It's funny you use that term. Non Muslims accuse all Muslims of practicing taqiyya. Sunni Muslims accuse Shia of practicing taqiyya. I've always found this funny.

Jonathan Brown wrote a good book on this subject titled Slavery and Islam. It's probably too long to hold your interest since you're not Muslim and the book is really for Muslims who want to understand this issue. But he has some talks on youtube that basically cover the main points of the book. You might find them interesting once your fast is over.

Regarding slavery that still exists in the modern world. There is no legal slavery in the Islamic world. Obviously slavery still exists there. And countries like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States commonly treat domestic workers in a horrific way that could often be described as slavery. This is not in accordance with the sharia. In the sharia, a slave is a status that can be conferred on someone captured in warfare. It is not tricking a woman from the Philippines to come be your nanny and then locking her in a closet. I'm not saying that slavery in the sharia is something that would be approved of by modern secular liberalism. It is slavery.

When a Muslim wants to repent they usually have to accompany it with some action. If I break an oath then I must either feed ten people who are hungry, cloth ten people, free a slave, or, if I cannot do any of these things, fast for three days. I mention this because if slavery was an ideal state to be in then it wouldn't make much sense for Prophet Muhammad (saw) to have told the companions to free slaves when they want to repent of their sins or get blessings from Allah (swt).

So I am not going to tell you that slavery in the sharia is not really slavery. it is. You are owned and your rights are seriously curtailed. However, it is also not what we see in places like Saudi Arabia today. Slaves have rights under the sharia. They can take their master to a judge if those rights are not respected. Slaves could rise very high in Islamic Societies. Most of the ruling class in the Ottoman Empire were slaves. A Muslim slaves has the same spiritual standing as a free Muslim.

As I said before there is no legal slavery in the Islamic World. The slavery that exists in places like Saudi Arabia is de facto slavery. North America also has de facto slavery. We see this in domestic work but primarily in the sex and agricultural industries. Is slavery still a problem in the Christian world because the Bible allowed slavery?

I don't think there's a way to really answer that question. I'm sure it plays a role. And I'm sure some rich Saudi's feeling entitled to steal their maid's passport and treat her like an animal is informed by Saudi history. But I think mostly this just reflects human nature. When you give people power they will oppress. And places like the Gulf States have a lot of obscenely rich people coming into contact with very poor people in states that are often quite corrupt and have a lot of dysfunction due to being propped up  out of nowhere with oil money.

I cannot disparage one prophet or compare them. I believe Isa (saw) was a messenger of Allah (swt) and it is not for me to compare and contrast their missions or lives. Maybe if we stick to discussing what you don't like about Prophet Muhammad (saw) that would get to your questions?

It is very important for me to state that ibn Taymiyyah is in the minority in believing that this event occurred. The chain of transmission for it is weak. However I remember thinking ibn Taymiyyah's argument was good (it has been a long time since I have looked into this). So if you want a more complete answer let me know and I will refresh my memory.

But to answer your question there is nothing in the story that is problematic per se. And we only know of it because Muslim scholars preserved it and passed it down. It was later scholars who viewed it as problematic. The Prophet Muhammad (saw) could err and be corrected by Allah (swt). If the story is true, then that is what happened.

You said the Qur'an says Mary is in the trinity.

I think that a lot of non-Muslims have an idea that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) received revelation and then quickly became triumphant. The conquest of Mecca occurred two years before his death. For most of his time acting as a Messenger of Allah he was either being persecuted in Mecca or scrapping by in Medina. Wealth and power didn't state coming in until later. If he wanted wealth and power then why not just accommodate with the Quarish? The Prophet Muhammad was an orphan growing up but he belonged to a powerful sub tribe in Mecca. His uncles were very influential. He had high esteem and could expect worldly success after his marriage to Khadija. Accommodating with polytheism continuing to rise is Mecca would be a much more likely path to these things.

Ok, and I appreciate you being very direct with me. I am enjoying this conversation.

I don't see Yasir Qadhi's behavior as suspect.  He has stated that he was advised to take the video down by his sheikh to avoid causing confusion and I think that's why he did that. Yasir Qadhi is a huge name in the Muslim world. Him phrasing what he said as badly as he did was bad and it allowed non-Muslims who want to discredit Islam to confuse Muslims who don't understand these issues. I have seen some of the videos that have been put out and I think they are very dishonest in characterizing what he was saying.

Mostly I think this is due to Muhammad Hijab being irresponsible and trying to show off his knowledge. Yasir Qadhi did not want to answer his question because he knew it could cause confusion but Hijab kept pressing it. In the interview Qadhi was very clear that he was referring to the Qira'at in a Mus'haf (basically a printed copy of the Qur'an). Not the preservation of the Qur'an. Hijab asked about a Mus'haf. Not the Qur'an itself.  This is a very technical question that I am not able to answer because I am not well read in it. At all. Qadhi understood that what Hijab was getting at was what a lay Muslim would think of as a Qur'an. But Hijab specifically said Mus'haf. Which is why Qadhi said that the question was difficult to answer and not one to be discussed at that moment.

This gets into a very technical area that is way beyong my knowledge but the Qira'at represent different ways to pronounce certain words in Arabic. The most common example is the word malik in al Fatihah that reflect different dialects of Arabic at the time. Scholars have argued whether Prophet Muhammad (saw) revealed these different recitations or whether the sahaba who spoke different dialects asked him about these different recitations and he allowed them.

I know very little about why the earlier opinion (that Prophet Muhammad allowed different recitations) was replaced by what has become the "standard narrative" (That Prophet Muhammad (saw) revealed these different recitations). If I had to guess I would say it probably came from the debates between the Hanbalis led by Imam Ahmad and the Mutazilites. But to me it mostly represents a debate that isn't really relevant to believers today. I do not know if Yasir Qadhi is correct that the standard narrative has holes in it or not. I am much more interested in fiqh and aqidah. A lot of more senior scholars have said that he is not an expert in this area (which is true, his area of expertise is aqidah) ad criticized him for speaking about it. But that doesn't mean he is wrong. I truly don't know.

The answer about who is right or wrong is irrelevant to any Muslim who isn't a scholar. I am more interested in these theoretical discussions than a lot of Muslims and even I cannot follow them or have any informed opinion about which view is correct. Qadhi's view makes more sense to me but that doesn't mean it's right. But because this is such an obscure issue most Muslims don't even know it exists. And that is precisely why Qadhi's words, out of context, could cause such confusion.

If Qadhi is using copyright law in a dishonest way then that is wrong. But I think his actions come from a sincere desire to not confuse ordinary Muslims and not allow people who hate Islam to use his name to push ideas he does not actually endorse.

I would like to saw more about Muslims apologists but I'm to take a break and post that later today. Until then if you would like me to say more about anything or answer anything please let me know.

Come on man you guys still have slavery?!

Now having 4 wives on the other hand. I could be down with that.

[Machine_Washable]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Come on man you guys still have slavery?!

Now having 4 wives on the other hand. I could be down with that.

No. Slavery is not legal in any Muslim country and no scholar who is respectable would not say that should be reintroduced. 
 

you can marry up to four wives in Islam although this is generally discouraged. This was introduced in times of war as a way of caring for widows and other women left without protectors. 

[Ice_nine]

12 hours ago, Peace said:

Come on man you guys still have slavery?!

Now having 4 wives on the other hand. I could be down with that.

you sure you can even handle just one?

[Peace]

1 minute ago, Ice_nine said:

you sure you can even handle just one?

I can handle you.

[Ice_nine]

24 minutes ago, Peace said:

I can handle you.

I ain't your wife. If you ever get one you gonna find out what a handful one can be.

 

If you think 4 sounds nice . . . well be careful what you wish for.

[Peace]

7 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

I ain't your wife. If you ever get one you gonna find out what a handful one can be.

If you think 4 sounds nice . . . well be careful what you wish for.

Nah handling women becomes easier the more you have, because they start competing with each other for your attention. My father was a pimp.

[Ice_nine]

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

Nah handling women becomes easier the more you have, because they start competing with each other for your attention. My father was a pimp.

Does stupid run in the family then?

[Peace]

19 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

Does stupid run in the family then?

Absolutely. I'm having a convo with you aren't I?

[Machine_Washable]

@Ice_nine To return to your comments about Muslim apologists. I think there are a few things at play.

• The interaction between Muslims and Christians is pretty limited. Most Christian groups who interact with Muslims are very liberal groups that don't necessary represent what actually religious Christians believe.
• Most of the great scholars of Islam do not live in the West and do not publish or speak in western languages. Most of the people you would see on tv or the internet are not scholars but da'is. People who make money by preaching. Many of these people are sincere but the knowledge they are exposed to is limited. Some of them are not sincere and they are basically entertainers.
• Continuing in the vein above, the najdi dawah has a lot of money and puts out a lot of the content available to ordinary Muslims. And a lot of the Muslim content available to non-Muslims as well. This is not a school that teaches their people much about other Sunni schools of thought. Much less knowledge and thought outside of Islam.
• The political climate. A lot of times even good scholars will dance around controversial subjects because they do not want to be labeled extremists by various national security apparatuses. This is something that trickles down. I am also very hesitant to discuss such subjects because of this concern. I think this is a bad thing. When the only voices that can speak freely are "Progressive Muslims" who are just intellectually dishonest and want to portray Islam as a "woke" religion it's easy for young Muslims to think that the only "authentic" voices are those are extremists. But I'll leave it at that so as to not get off subject.

I don't watch Muslim apologists but having watched many da'is on tv and social media I believe I know what you mean. As for Muhammad Hijab, when he is discussing stuff he actually knows about I think he can be very perceptive and interesting. But he is still unbalanced from immaturity. I hope he will grow up and stabilize. I don't know any particular incident of him being a bully because the only content of his I have watched is a few interviews with Muslim thinkers. But if he has then I hope he will mature and remember he has a following with a lot of younger Muslims.