In Catholic theology, one of the attributes of God is that he is considered beyond time and therefore he and his words are regarded as unchanging and unchangeable. Therefore, his word is the eternal truth. Naturally, this means that once stated in the Bible, then it became immutable. Now, I’m not going to say that a single word or a minor phrase might not be debateable, but that overall the content of a particular statement remains solid through time. However, my understanding is that Mohammud would dictate what were suppose to be Allah’s statements concerning the truths of your faith that then became the Holy Koran? Please explain to me then your understanding of how an eternal statement in the Koran could be abrogated shortly thereafter by the Prophet with a new clarification from Allah, not once but many times? I find this very frustrating in trying to read portions of the Koran. Please forgive me for I come out of a system of learning that is logic centered and may not fully grasp someone else’s mindset. Warning, I do love mind games since I come out of the Arts.
first this is not for debate but abrogation in bible ,if you wanna it i can give proofs from bible ,now let us come to qur`an
Abrogation? “The words of the Lord are perfect in truth and justice; there is NONE who can change His words.” [Sura 6:115] Also see 6:34 and 10:65. But then Allah (Muhammad?) sees the need to exchange some of them for “better ones” [Sura 2:106, 16:101]. And it is not for ignorant people to question Allah because of such practices!
Actually, if someone were to own a very valuable piece of land and someone were to ask him to sell it to them, even implying that he might be able to force him to sell it. He might say: “I have made up my mind not to sell!. No one can force me to change my mind!”
Now if another person were to attempt to do the same thing, he might answer him: “I shall not sell! No one can make me sell unless I myself choose to do so.” Is this a contradiction? In one place he said that “No one” can make him sell, however in another he said that “he himself” can do so. Is this a contradiction?
Secondly, the issue of abrogation is not reflective of an indecisiveness of God, rather, it is a matter of mercy to mankind. As mentioned in the hadeeth of the prophet’s wife Aisha (pbut), had God started out with the command to not drink, not kill, not commit adultery, not steal, not lie, not eat pork, pray five times, fast the month of Ramadan, perform pilgrimage, etc. then not too many people would have accepted His command and most of them would have been destined for the fire. However, out of His mercy He presented them with these regulations gradually.
The marines have a lofty goal they have set for themselves; to build strong men of discipline and strength. They do this by gradually increasing the pressure of training they apply to their men with each passing day until they are able to perform tasks they would have considered impossible at the start. Had the recruits been required to pass all of their tests on the first day then the vast majority of them would fail. This is exactly how we raise our children and teach them; out of mercy we do so gradually, building them up slowly until they are able to handle the difficult tasks. We do not start by overloading our children with the most difficult obligations and tasks and then reduce them as they grow older and become adults, if their backs have not been broken first, till in the end we require nothing of them at all.
This is indeed the goal of Islam; to generate a nation of men and women who discipline themselves continuously throughout the day and year to worship God, improve themselves, improve their communities, and have faith in God to assist them in their efforts. Indeed, God tells us in the Qur’an to look at the signs He has left for us in the earth and which guide us to recognize these basic facts. If someone wants to increase their knowledge, strengthen their bodies, lose weight, attain a raise or promotion, or achieve any other useful goal then they need to
work for it,
increase one’s efforts gradually so as to build up tolerance and willpower,
have patience to continue and never give up,
never let their efforts end or else their achievements will stagnate and recede.
Now, if the actual concept of abrogation is the issue that is troubling this author then one needs to know how he shall resolve all the issues of abrogation in the Bible. For example, in the Bible we read:
Psalm 19:7-8: “The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD [are] right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD [is] pure, enlightening the eyes.” and Deuteronomy 5:29: “O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!” or Isaiah 24:5: “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.” And Genesis 17:13-23: “He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. … And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.” and 1 Chronicles 16:16-17: “[Even of the covenant] which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, [and] to Israel [for] an everlasting covenant,”
Jesus (pbuh) did himself confirm the continuation of this law of Moses(pbuh) till the end of time. In Matthew 5:17-19 we read:
“Think not that I (Jesus) am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
This is confirmed in Luke 16:17:
“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” …etc.
All of this was later abrogated by Paul with Galatians 3:13 “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” and Hebrews 8:13 “In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.” and Romans 3:28 “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” And Romans 3:1 “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?” etc.
Note: All of the words of Paul (who never met Jesus in the flesh) are refuted by James (who did meet him) in favor of the words of Jesus (pbuh) as seen in James 2:14-26
To actually list all of the issues of law in the OT which were abrogated in the NT would literally take many pages just to list. Jews consider circumcision, the Sabbath, refraining from non-Kosher food, etc. all capital issues in their religion. Forsaking a single one would be equivalent to corruption and heresy. Jesus (pbuh) himself confirmed the continuation of their law and practices. So did James. Jesus observed them steadfastly during his life on earth. After he was raised up, Paul claimed to be receiving visions from Jesus (pbuh), claimed to have converted from persecuting the followers of Jesus to joining them (i.e. Galatians 1:13), and then removed all of the law and commandments (i.e. Romans 1:3), in spite of the fact that which Jesus (pbuh) described anyone who would dare to do so as being called “the least in the kingdom of heaven.” In spite of this most people today follow the words of Paul and not those of Jesus (pbuh). Was Paul mistaken? Is abrogation wrong?
Dr. Arnold Meyer says: “If by Christianity we understand faith in Christ as the heavenly Son of God, who did not belong to earthly humanity, but who lived in the divine likeness and glory, who came down from heaven to earth, who entered humanity and took upon himself a human form through a virgin, that he might make propitiation for men’s sins by his own blood upon the cross, who was then awakened from death and raised to the right hand of God, as the Lord of his own people, who believe in him, who hears their prayers, guards and leads them, who will come again with the clouds of heaven to judge the world, who will cast down all the foes of God, and will bring his own people with him unto the home of heavenly light so that they may become like His glorified body - if this is Christianity, then such Christianity was founded by St. Paul and not by our Lord”
Dr. Arnold Meyer, Professor of Theology, Zurich University, Jesus or Paul, p. 122
Grolier’s encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading “Christianity”: “After Jesus was crucified, his followers, strengthened by the conviction that he had risen from the dead and that they were filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, formed the first Christian community in Jerusalem. By the middle of the 1st century, missionaries were spreading the new religion among the peoples of Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Greece, and Italy. Chief among these was Saint Paul, who laid the foundations of Christian theology and played a key role in the transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect to a world religion. The original Christians, being Jews, observed the dietary and ritualistic laws of the Torah and required non-Jewish converts to do the same. Paul and others favored eliminating obligation, thus making Christianity more attractive to Gentiles.”
Abrogation according to Islam follows the general guideline of “the only person who can abrogate a text is the original speaker himself or one who is higher in authority.” This is the attitude of the Qur’an in this regard. Thus:
- Only the Qur’an can abrogate the Qur’an. In other words, since no one is higher in authority than God Himself, therefore, He is the only one who can abrogate His words.
- The Qur’an and Sunnah can abrogate the Sunnah. In other words, the only one who would be allowed to abrogate the words of the prophet of God is either the prophet of God or else the only one higher in authority than him, namely, Allah Himself.
When contrasting this with the Bible we find the exact opposite system. According to this system, the explicit words of Jesus (pbuh) during his lifetime can be abrogated by those lesser in authority than he, such as Paul. The issue of Paul’s cancellation of Jesus’ confirmation of the law of Moses is only one example of this system. Many others can be found in the Bible.
From my reading of Islamic philosopher-theologians, or outlines of their ideas, they regard God’s Being as One and unchanging and unchangeable, just as Christian and Jewish thinkers did. They also consider Allah’s will to be immutable and unchanging, which introduced a notion called ‘kalam’ which tried to understand how the universe and human beings are controlled entirely by God’s providence but are still accountable for their actions towards God.
I see there is a useful discussion going on between you and brother Ahmad Hassan. I don’t want to disturb that.
I would like to ask a little question on the above quote.
You mean to say that the Word of God cannot have a material or major change, but little or minor changes are admissable in the Word of God. Could you please explain this with a quotation from NTBible for benefit of us all?
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing and All-Wise; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.
Once again you have no understanding of the NT.
If you first acknowledge the fact that Islam is not a religion so much as an ideology, then it becomes easier to accept the fact that Allah doesn’t actually exist. And since Allah doesn’t exist, it doesn’t matter whether Mohammedans consider “him” to be immutable or not.
In our case, these Arabs are trying to convince us that they’ve got a legitimate religion, when in reality Islam is little more than the sword that brings together a backwards ragtag of degenerate Arabs so that they can conquer the Christians and Jews who are actually productive.
The pathetic thing is that 1300 years later, these Arabs still buy their own con–not only that, but they expect us to play along! LOL
I have to disagree with you. As much as I do not like some of the tenents of Islam and would like to brush it away as simply an idology such as communism, it is a religion. It professes a belief in God, hence it is a religion.
As for it the parts of it that you call an ‘idology’ it is very similar to Judeism. In the OT are the laws of the Jewish people as well as the foundation of their morality. This is no different then Islam being a system of laws and a governmental system.
While the tenenets of Judesim and Isalm are different, each contain a set of laws and a system of government.]
It is Christianity that separates church and state.
The Christian Church is in fact a religious entity with a secular purpose, and in its ideal environment performs both roles. [And not to be nit-picky, but it was the 30 Years War and the Treaty of Westphalia that separated church and state–not Christianity.]
What sets Judaism and Christianity apart from all other religions and ideologies is their purpose and understanding of God and especially his relation to humanity (moreso in the latter). Whereas Judaism establishes God’s morality and looks for justification, and whereas Christianity answers the unanswered questions of Judaism, Islam is a perversion of true religion. It is primarily an ideology and only secondarily can be considered a religion.
The purpose of Islam is not the salvation of souls, the setting right of man with God, but the destruction of those who oppose it. It is not merely enough to be justified in God, it is only enough that one be Muslim. The only sin which merits the overthrow of the Christian world is that it not be Muslim. All other deviations from “moral law” are excusable or treatable within the Islamic ideology. Islam is an ideology of intolerance and forced submission, as in the meaning of the very word itself.
Simply “professing” belief in God is not sufficient to be a truly legitimate religion. Nazism professes a belief in God (or rather, gods). Liberalism professes a belief in God, that we are God, that man is an end unto himself. However, nobody (with the exception of Ann Coulter) confuses Nazism or liberalism as religions, per se. They are universally recognized for their stated purposes and primary functions, which are political. Therefore, we refer to Nazism as a right-wing ideology and not as a pagan religion that just so happens to have political undercurrents.
Islam, similarly, must be exposed for what it is as well: a right-wing fundamentalism that also just happens to possess a religious element to it, but which is not its primary function or goal.
In a way Islam also does that.
It was my understanding muslims want to live under sharia law?
Jesus came at a time when there was no Jewish state. He told people to give to the state what belonged to the state and to God that which belongs to God. Nowhere did Jesus state or command that Church and state must be one.
It is actually both a religion and a political ideology which makes it very dangerous.
You are right that Islam is both a religion and political ideology. It is also a legal system. It tries to control everything with a system that fit the 600’s not the 2100’s. Islam does not allow for any true changes either.
In NO WAY does Islam do that. If the version of “Islam” you practice separates religious devotion from secular affairs, then congratulations on your new interpretation of “Islam”–but that is not the religion of Muhammad, nor is it the religion of 1300 years of Islamic scholarship and theology! You’re a heretic, an apostate, a backslider, but not a Muslim.
[SIGN]Welcome to the world of the infidels![/SIGN]
As long as you have no guarantee of salvation through Islam, why don’t you just become a Catholic and accept Jesus? We’d be happy to have you! :dancing:
Yes, of course. I should clarify. Within Christian understanding, both the State and the Church are institutions that derive their power from the Divine. [ROMANS 13:1-5] While an ideal society would follow and enforce the moral directives of the Church it is not necessary that the secular and religious authorities be one and the same. In fact, that is less preferred because it inhibits the ability of the religious leadership to pastor the Church, and it distracts the civil leadership from solving social ills.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see sections 2234-2246):
Any State that does not accept the origin and destiny of man in God must necessarily derive their assumptions of power from some other ideology. Ideologies, as opposed to Revealed truth, “since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arogate to themsevlves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.”
“The Church because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person." (emphasis mine)
“It is a part of the Church’s mission ‘to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances.’”
I say that it is ideal for the Church to be the moral lodestar of the State, because only the Church professes the inspired truths of God and Man that protect human rights, and dignity, and molds a society most susceptible to Man’s salvation. When an ideology replaces the Church, you see varying degrees of totalitarianism, whether implicit or explicit, as states the Catechism. This is true within the American experiment, where Liberalism is the codified ideology of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. American Liberalism (in the historical, legal sense) is a rather benign ideology, but it still has the propensity to abuse human rights and to tolerate illicit, destructive behavior, as history demonstrates and as we now see.
We are in agreement on this topic about Christianity.
Under purse Judeism, the state and the religion are the same thing.
Under Islam only Msulims, following Shari’ah, have the right to rule anywhere on earth. It is a religion, a social structure, a polticial or governmental structure and laws. Nothing else is needed or acceptable.
I quote two verses from Quran 4:59-60
[4:59] Verily, Allah commands you to give over the trusts to those entitled to them, and that, when you judge between men, you judge with justice. And surely, excellent is that with which Allah admonishes you. Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.
[4:60] O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority among you. And if you differ in anything refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you are believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is best and most commendable in the end. Unquote
You could see for yourself that it is essential for a Muslim to be a law abiding citizen of the state where he lives in, only then he could be a true Muslim.
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.