The Religion Discussion

[AdamB]

Also, the scholars will know the scholars. Think about it.

2) Since you are not a scholar, it therefore suggest, from your earlier discourse, that you cannot recognize a scholar, am I right to say this? I am only going off what you told me so far.
There are scholars who stray from the straight path. My point is that they will not be known by the true scholars upon the Quran and Sunnah. There is a grouping called Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah, the People of the Sunnah and the Community.
For example, there is a Permanent Committee for Academic Research and the Issuing of Islamic Rulings in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_ ... _Committee

3) Are there any stipulated requirements (passing an examination of some sort) that one must have in order to prove that he/she is a scholar and if so where and how does one go about acquiring these requirements?[/quote]




@AdamB Could you please answer my questions Sir.[/quote]
Who is a Scholar?

The words ‘aalim (scholar), faqeeh and mujtahid all carry the same meaning: they refer to one who strive to reach the shar‘i ruling and who has the ability to derive shar‘i rulings from the evidence.

This means that he has to acquire the tools (pre-requisites) of ijtihaad. No one can be described in these terms (‘aalim, mujtahid or faqeeh) except one who meets the pre-requisites of ijtihaad.

The scholars paid attention to these pre-requisites so that the door is not open to just anyone, old or young, to say about the religion of Allah that of which he has no knowledge.

But we will content ourselves with just two reports from which we will demonstrate what these pre-requisites are.

-1-

The first report was narrated from al-Shawkaani (may Allah have mercy on him) and what he said may be summed up in five points, listing five pre-requisites:

(i)

He should have knowledge of the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

This does not necessarily mean that he should have memorised the Sunnah; rather it is sufficient for him to be able to find reports in their places and be familiar with the contents of the books of Sunnah, foremost among which are the well-known compilations of the Sunnah (Saheeh al-Bukhaari, Saheeh Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawood, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Nasaa’i and Sunan Ibn Maajah), and so on.

He should also know what is saheeh (sound) and what is da‘eef (weak) in the texts of the Sunnah.

(ii)

He should have knowledge of the issues of consensus (ijmaa‘)

(iii)

He should be well versed in the Arabic language.

It is not stipulated that he should have learned it by heart; rather he should be able to understand the meanings and structure of the language.

(iv)

He should have knowledge of usool al-fiqh (basic principles of Islamic jurisprudence), including analogy (qiyaas), because usool al-fiqh is the foundation for deriving rulings.

(v)

He should have knowledge of what abrogates and what is abrogated (al-naasikh wa’l-mansookh).

See: Irshaad al-Fuhool, 2/297-303

-2-

The second report was narrated from Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him):

He mentioned the pre-requisites of the mujtahid without differing greatly from what al-Shawkaani (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned, but he put it more clearly and said:

Ijtihaad is subject to several conditions, including the following:

(i) He (the mujtahid) should have knowledge of the shar‘i evidence that he needs for the purpose of ijtihaad, such as verses of the Qur’aan and hadeeths that speak of rulings.

(ii) He should have knowledge of the matters pertaining to the soundness or weakness of hadeeths, such as the isnaad, the men in the isnaad and so on.

(iii) He should be aware of what abrogates and what is abrogated (al-naasikh wa’l-mansookh) and issues on which there is consensus (ijmaa‘), so that he will not issue a ruling on the basis of something that has been abrogated or that is contrary to scholarly consensus.

(iv) He should have knowledge of various matters affecting the ruling, such as reports of specific meanings, reports that set limits, and so on, so that he will not issue a ruling that is contrary to that.

(v) He should have knowledge of the Arabic language and usool al-fiqh that has to do with verbal evidence, such as what is general and what is specific, what is absolute and what is restricted, what is mentioned in brief and what is mentioned in detail, and so on, so that his rulings will be in accordance with what is indicated by that evidence.

(vi) He should have the ability to derive rulings from the evidence.

End quote from al-Usool fi ‘Ilm al-Usool, p. 85, 86; Sharh (commentary thereon), p. 584-590.

It should be pointed out that referring to the Sunnah now is much easier than it was before, because of the books that have been written on the Sunnah.

The one who fulfils these conditions is a scholar (‘aalim) who can derive shar‘i rulings from the evidence. Anyone who does not fit this description cannot be described as a ‘aalim, faqeeh or mujtahid.

It should also be noted that these words (‘aalim, mujtahid and faqeeh) are technical terms, as it were; according to the scholars they have specific meanings and pre-requisites. So it is not permissible to use them readily about anyone who speaks about Islamic rulings or teaches Islamic material in schools and universities, or who works in the field of da‘wah (calling people to Allah). A man may be a daa‘iyah, calling people to Allah, and putting a great deal of effort into that, without having reached the level of being a scholar (‘aalim).

We ask Allah, may He be exalted, to teach us that which will benefit us and increase us in knowledge.

And Allah knows best.

[d spike]

Dspike,
It is clear in my religion that faith increases and decreases. So as far as Islam is concerned, it is NOT an errant belief.

Of course, faith can increase or decrease! Where did I say otherwise??? My post was about WHY this happens. You REALLY have to learn to read.

Some tend to leave off what is or will be of no benefit to our hereafter. Does it matter what increases faith? If it is increased, then thank GOD!

It isn't so much what matters, as much as what some folk errantly believe about faith. I was attempting to clarify a concept. Such an example of an errant belief is displayed below in this post of yours.

Are you saying that faith does not increase with good deeds or with application aka obedience to GOD?

No. That is just a childish fantasy, concocted to explain in very simple terms to simple people something that might be beyond their understanding - like telling a child that horses pull the sun across the sky.
Faith can be affirmed or strengthened by experiences, but it isn't a piggy-bank God adds to in order to reward you.

[d spike]

If it is dangerous to change what God has created or formed, then why is AdamB not still a baby? A moot point, perhaps... but I digress. It is clear to those who are in receipt of the gift of faith that the Boss, in ordaining things to be, created life to be dynamic. Everything living, grows. Dynamism is one of the hallmarks of life. So too, do relationships. Our relationship with God changes, and is never static.

Scripture provides a base for religion, resource material for the understanding of the concepts that form regarding the relationship between man and the divine. It is the signpost, NOT the road. Some like AdamB, cling to the signpost, refusing to let it go for fear of losing sight of it, and are thus unable to actually walk the road. This is the trap that fundamentalists set for themselves.

Like the man who buried his money to keep it safe instead of investing it... they gain nothing from the life provided for them.

[AdamB]

If it is dangerous to change what God has created or formed, then why is AdamB not still a baby? This analogy is so idiotic! Isn't the changing, growing of a baby into an adult part of the Creation of GOD?A moot point, perhaps... but I digress. It is clear to those who are in receipt of the gift of faith that the Boss, in ordaining things to be, created life to be dynamic. Everything living, grows. Dynamism is one of the hallmarks of life. So too, do relationships. Our relationship with God changes, and is never static.
Please provide evidence of the permissibility for calling GOD THE BOSS and the permissible ways that the "relationship" is allowed to change? Oh sorry, dspike does not give evidence, possibly does not know of them since he has digressed far from the signpost!
Scripture provides a base for religion, resource material for the understanding of the concepts that form regarding the relationship between man and the divine. It is the signpost, NOT the road. Some like AdamB, cling to the signpost, refusing to let it go for fear of losing sight of it, and are thus unable to actually walk the road. This is the trap that fundamentalists set for themselves.
Again, this is your OPINION!

fundamentalism (ˌfʌndəˈmɛntəˌlɪzəm)
— n
1. Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true

2. Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law

3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs

funda'mentalist
— n , — adj

fundamental'istic
— adj
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

Based on this definition, I am PROUD TO BE A FUNDAMENTALIST.

This is possibly a mirror reflection (from Dspike), an analogy of the debate between Believers and Atheists.
Like the man who buried his money to keep it safe instead of investing it... they gain nothing from the life provided for them.Another PARABLE! Is this from the Bible?

Once again, Mr Dspike is expressing HIS opinion, otherwise show PROOF to the contrary.

You are so misguided that you can't see. You are saying that you have let go of the "signpost", the scripture, the revelation given to Jesus.

Islam was perfected and the Qur'aan revealed, the prophet Muhammad sent to mankind TO BRING THEM BACK TO THE PATH OF ALMIGHTY GOD. We hold on to the scripture and the prophets, and don't disbelieve like you. AND WE ARE WALKING THE ROAD JUST FINE, THANK YOU!!

A lesson for you, prophet Noah was the first of the Messengers (given an actual book / scripture). GOD says in the Quran that the people rejected Noah and the point of evidence DISBELIEVED IN THE MESSENGERS (plural), QURAN 26:105.

They disbelieved in all of the Messengers by disbelieving in one (Noah). So those who disbelieve in ANY messenger, disbelieves in ALL, and is DISBELIEVER!!

That is why, if the message of prophet Muhammad comes to a Christian or Jew, and they disbelieve in him, then they are a DISBELIEVER WITH ALLAH (GOD ALMIGHTY).

THAT'S OUR MESSAGE, THE CHOICE IS YOURS. YOU WRITE ALL THE POETRY AND STRAY AS FAR FROM THE TRUE MESSAGE OF JESUS, BEATING YOURSELF ON THE CHEST, INSULTING PERSONS AS YOU EXPLORE THE FRONTIER OF PHILOSOPHY.

Cheers!

[AdamB]

Still can't figure why people are being upset with each other,to each his own.

not people. only AdamB.

ONCE AGAIN, REAL VALUE!!!

[AdamB]

god is a loony egomaniacseriously wtf

DO YOU HAVE PROOF OF THIS??
PLEASE!!!
he created us with the sole purpose of worshiping him, setting down VERY specific rules on how to do it........we supposed to believe he loves us soooooo much, but will cast us into eternal damnation if we misbehave....parents can forgive murderers of their children but our loving god will cast us into hell for disrespecting him via the free will he supposedly granted us?
please

[MG Man]

er.................um..................uh.....................
where is your proof that god spoke to an illiterate desert man and dictated stuff to him?
PLEASE!!!

[RBphoto]

Um, Adam.. I was not refering to you specifically. I am an engineer and I consider school leaving certificate quater my education level... which is the education level of a few Imams I have met. That was also ment for mega and blue.


That said.... MG, take it down a notch this instant....


I have read the koran cover to cover and I agree with Adam on the point you are trying to dispute......





that Mohammed was indeed Illiterate.

[MG Man]

funny how AdamB highlighted the first line of my quote, but made no comment on the rest of it...

[Kasey]

Still can't figure why people are being upset with each other,to each his own.

not people. only AdamB.

ONCE AGAIN, REAL VALUE!!!

Anytime!!!!!

[maj. tom]

Are we really arguing the existence of god, or the interaction of god and us, the earth, and the universe on the whole?

Because yes he obviously could exist as a magnificent wizard who doesn't have to follow the laws of physics, but that still does not answer creation. He could have just stumbled upon it and lay claims. And what about time? Does that encompass god, or is he outside it?

And as for the interaction between us and god, there has not been any recorded, just made up stuff that can be explained by human psychology. And you all can argue all you want that the evidence is in holy books, they are just made up like all other holy books you don't hear about from past extinct civilizations. Why didn't god, who supposedly knows everything, and knows/knew that one day man would become self-aware and ask these things, why didn't he just leave scientific proof that he exists? Why didn't he tell the people that he sent the messages to in the bible and the koran, etc about gravity and its constant acceleration on earth forever for all time for us to be discovered in 2000 years? Or a physical impossibility like fossilizing a copy of Windows 8 in 1's and 0's for us to find, and state it in a holy book, where and when to find it. Or how about a special area on earth where things fall up instead of with g? And say, "well this is to show I exist, even though I may not be around when you discover it or show you further signs."

But nothing! And then why are you so concerned about all the sins and fires of hell and the afterlife rewards that humans made up?! There's no evidence to say that those things exist outside of the said holy books again! Why aren't you sure about your life and understand that you have control over a lot of how you live and the actions you take and the consequences they have in the real world? But let's say those books are real and passed on from god's mouth. Do you really need those books to tell you how to live as a good person and develop proper moral values and social skills? You needed a book to tell you not to kill other people? Does god punish people for not doing what he says in those books? So then what does he have with punishing innocent people in natural disasters and war, an innocent bystander, a missing gene, whales and leatherback turtles...
Doesn't make sense of course. So then god logic and human logic are two different things! So how are you interpreting those holy books, with god logic or human logic? But you are human.

And the afterlife? You're dead. There's nothing after. In the history of life on Earth, there has never been anything after! No one, nothing, has ever came back and said that "you better be good because that fire hurts after you die." But yet common sense, logic and mathematics can explain all of those things. And you all are still seeking a god? Another something that can be explained by studying human behaviour.

Do you think god will suddenly appear tomorrow if an asteroid is heading our way and going to set about a mass-extinction-level-event? What about the 5 other recorded mass extinction events that has occurred since life started on earth? Didn't god show up to save his creation? oh..ummm.....didn't those holy books mention that? He must have forgotten. 2 billion years is a long, very long time.

[AdamB]

funny how AdamB highlighted the first line of my quote, but made no comment on the rest of it...

The slave doesn't agree or doesn't see the wisdom in what the Master does....so, the Master doesn't exist??

Firstly, an analogy:

Quran 2:30 And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth." They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You." He (Allah) said: "I know that which you do not know."

Secondly, a lesson from a great hadith:

It is narrated on the authority of Amirul Mu'minin, Abu Hafs 'Umar bin al-Khattab, radiyallahu 'anhu, who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, say:
"Actions are (judged) by motives (niyyah), so each man will have what he intended. Thus, he whose migration (hijrah) was to Allah and His Messenger, his migration is to Allah and His Messenger; but he whose migration was for some worldly thing he might gain, or for a wife he might marry, his migration is to that for which he migrated."
[Al-Bukhari & Muslim]

Notice in the above hadith, that Allah and His Messenger, those actual words were repeated because it is something significant, of benefit. As for "some worldly thing he might gain or for a wife he might marry", those words were not repeated but rather "to that for which he migrated."

The point is things that are of no benefit or insignificant are just brushed aside or ignored. That's why I didn't mention the rest of your post MGMan. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.

[maj. tom]

AdamB please do not respond to what I wrote. Your responses have become nothing more than regular spam on this thread that lack any logic and you just churn out part of the koran, over and over it's the same thing without answering most questions that do not require faith to make sense. It's like you just can't think on your own.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

fundamentalism (ˌfʌndəˈmɛntəˌlɪzəm)
— n
1. Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true

2. Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law

what proof does either fundamentalist have that their book is right and the other is wrong?

is it based on faith and gut feeling alone?

[AdamB]

Are we really arguing the existence of god, or the interaction of god and us, the earth, and the universe on the whole?

I wonder why we are discussing the subject of this thread? Isn't this what this thread is all about?

This is RELIGION DISCUSSION, those who want not to discuss such should not do so. (This is as diplomatic as I can get.)

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Are we really arguing the existence of god, or the interaction of god and us, the earth, and the universe on the whole?

I wonder why we are discussing the subject of this thread? Isn't this what this thread is all about?

This is RELIGION DISCUSSION, those who want not to discuss such should not do so. (This is as diplomatic as I can get.)

re-read his question

[AdamB]

fundamentalism (ˌfʌndəˈmɛntəˌlɪzəm)
— n
1. Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true

2. Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law

what proof does either fundamentalist have that their book is right and the other is wrong?

is it based on faith and gut feeling alone?

You have been asking this for a while, so I'll start the ball rolling.

Muslims can prove our belief system and laws / rulings (our entire way of life) are firmly established from our book and our prophet, the Qur'aan and authentic Hadith (narrations of our prophet).

When you examine the concepts and laws of our christian brothers, you realize that the basis from which these are derived are really far-fetched, requiring "FAITH ONLY" ie they MUST believe in it.

For example, and I don't want to go into the "storm in the teacup" issues, let's look at explanation/s provided by christians for their concept of GOD, THE TRINITY. You all have witness such, so you can comment on it. Does the explanation make sense and evidence quoted hold water? You be the judge. Would you adhere to it if your life depended on it?

Also, as recently admitted, their theology digresses from proof / evidence and delves into philosophy. At least, that's what the learned Dspike says. Some muslim scholars of the past have gone that path only to return to where they started, having wasted many years of their lives. To this day, some clueless followers still cling to it, sadly.

A synopsis: If GOD miraculously shows up one day and makes Himself known to you ATHEISTS AND THOSE UNSURE so that you had absolutely no doubt, and He says that you each have witnessed both sides of Islam and Christianity explained on Trinituner for years. Only one is His true revealed religion.

So now you each have to choose one, whoever chooses the right one then those persons will be rewarded with Paradise (with gardens beneath which rivers flow and rivers of honey, milk and non-intoxicating wine) to dwell therein forever. But whoever chooses the wrong one will be punished in the Fire of Hell and they will not be absent from it forever.

WHICH ONE WILL YOU CHOOSE? (THE ACID TEST!)

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

fundamentalism (ˌfʌndəˈmɛntəˌlɪzəm)
— n
1. Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true

2. Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law

what proof does either fundamentalist have that their book is right and the other is wrong?

is it based on faith and gut feeling alone?

You have been asking this for a while, so I'll start the ball rolling.

Muslims can prove our belief system and laws / rulings (our entire way of life) are firmly established from our book and our prophet, the Qur'aan and authentic Hadith (narrations of our prophet).

When you examine the concepts and laws of our christian brothers, you realize that the basis from which these are derived are really far-fetched, requiring "FAITH ONLY" ie they MUST believe in it.

For example, and I don't want to go into the "storm in the teacup" issues, let's look at explanation/s provided by christians for their concept of GOD, THE TRINITY. You all have witness such, so you can comment on it. Does the explanation make sense and evidence quoted hold water? You be the judge.

Also, as recently admitted, their theology digresses from proof / evidence and delves into philosophy. At least, that's what the learned Dspike says. Some muslim scholars of the past have gone that path only to return to where they started, having wasted many years of their lives. To this day, some clueless followers still cling to it, sadly.

all you did there was put claims forward against Christians but offered no support to your own beliefs.

Claiming or even proving someone else wrong does not make you right!

[d spike]

If it is dangerous to change what God has created or formed, then why is AdamB not still a baby? This analogy is so idiotic! Isn't the changing, growing of a baby into an adult part of the Creation of GOD?

This is precisely my point. You clearly are not reading that which you attempt to respond to.

It is clear to those who are in receipt of the gift of faith that the Boss, in ordaining things to be, created life to be dynamic. Everything living, grows. Dynamism is one of the hallmarks of life.

You expressed the Muslim belief that Christianity is not the religion that existed almost 2000 years ago, based on the premise that change occurred. I am trying to show that change is part of our existence. Also, I was going to further this point by explaining that what is perceived as "change" is simply the development or maturing of a way of thinking.

Please provide evidence of the permissibility for calling GOD THE BOSS

You mean to say he isn't The Boss? So then who is?

Scripture provides a base for religion, resource material for the understanding of the concepts that form regarding the relationship between man and the divine. It is the signpost, NOT the road. Some like AdamB, cling to the signpost, refusing to let it go for fear of losing sight of it, and are thus unable to actually walk the road. This is the trap that fundamentalists set for themselves.
Again, this is your OPINION!

Of course this is my opinion... whose else should I have? It is not my fault that you are such a sheep that you cannot think for yourself.
My opinion happens to be formed on my experiences and studies. You don't find it odd that only you seem to have a problem with what I write? With the exception of where I have had to explain Christian doctrine, can you point out anything else I have said that others have disagreed with, whether they are Christian or not, believers or not?

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
Based on this definition, I am PROUD TO BE A FUNDAMENTALIST.

I'm truly happy for you. Unfortunately, that is a very sanitized, and not the precise meaning of the word as is used in theological discussion.

Fundamentalism is a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, a belief in scriptural inerrancy, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. It is also called literalism, as a fundamentalist regards scripture as free of errors or contradictions and emphasizes its literal interpretation - usually without reference to modern scholarship.

Like the man who buried his money to keep it safe instead of investing it... they gain nothing from the life provided for them.

Another PARABLE! Is this from the Bible?

I believe it is from my post which you were quoting...

OnceDspike again, Mr is expressing HIS opinion, otherwise show PROOF to the contrary.

Of course I am expressing my opinion!!!!!That is what one does in a discussion! Did you grow up under a stone?

You are so misguided that you can't see. You are saying that you have let go of the "signpost", the scripture, the revelation given to Jesus.

The analogy is lost on you. The point of it is that one does not lose sight of that which gives guidance, the important thing being the path itself, not the map... but you cannot see the forest for the trees...

A lesson for you, prophet Noah was the first of the Messengers (given an actual book / scripture). GOD says in the Quran that the people rejected Noah and the point of evidence DISBELIEVED IN THE MESSENGERS (plural), QURAN 26:105.

The Koran is a history text?
Noah in the Koran was a character copied from Jewish scripture, who in turn was copied from a Babylonian folk tale, the earliest version of which is written in Sumerian cuneiform and dates to the 17th century BC. There isn't any mention in either the Jewish scripture or the Sumerian script of Noah getting a book... but then, some anti-Muslim fellow could have gone back in pre-Koranic time and erased that part before it got to the publishers...

[nareshseep]

One must pay homage to the vampire of vampires .. the GREAT VAMPIRO!

Glasses high ... Salut!



There is no right or wrong... unless we can go back in time... no one can say for certain what happened. You may have your belief ...... that's your belief... not mines or anyone else... the same reason we see bickering in this thread is the same reason there are so many religious wars. I wonder when will someone collate these teaching from all the great books to form a MEGA religion.. mankind is not ready for that... cause there will be arguments... and there will be more wars. They will say its the NWO, its the antichrist and it must be destroyed. What do religion, government and corporations have in common? ->POWER. Let me bring it close to home, Why did our ancestors came up with stories about douen, lagahoo, papa bois? The elders came up with these stories to keep the citizens in check. Why do we have laws? To keep the citizens in check. Do you see a trend? So the great prophet may be the only GOD ... but that's only to YOU... The herd mentality is great ... humans always tend to want to be part of something ... but brave is the soul who decides not to go with the herd. As highlighted by a poster we all need something to hold on to when darkness passes and there is no shame in that. So instead of highlighting the fallacies of any particular religion... try and choose what of your religion can benefit the human race.

Choose your GOD but don't choose your GOD for others.

[d spike]

Muslims can prove our belief system and laws / rulings (our entire way of life) are firmly established from our book and our prophet, the Qur'aan and authentic Hadith (narrations of our prophet).

When you examine the concepts and laws of our christian brothers, you realize that the basis from which these are derived are really far-fetched, requiring "FAITH ONLY" ie they MUST believe in it.

For example, and I don't want to go into the "storm in the teacup" issues, let's look at explanation/s provided by christians for their concept of GOD, THE TRINITY. You all have witness such, so you can comment on it. Does the explanation make sense and evidence quoted hold water? You be the judge. Would you adhere to it if your life depended on it?

Also, as recently admitted, their theology digresses from proof / evidence and delves into philosophy. At least, that's what the learned Dspike says.

This is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. I deliberately stayed away from biblical scriptural quotes as I was explaining to a NON-CHRISTIAN a Christian belief.
I have said it before, and I will say it again (and no doubt you will still ignore it):
It makes NO sense to quote a religion's scripture to support a queried belief of that religion, when debating the point with someone who doesn't follow one's religion!!!!!

Why should I quote Christian scripture to support a Christian belief? You don't even accept Christian scripture as being truly Christian...


And where did I say this?

as recently admitted, their theology digresses from proof / evidence and delves into philosophy.

...and is THAT what you call "proof"? Your beliefs can be proven because they are based on your scripture?????
That has to be the most inane use of the word "proof"! Take a look at Duane's napkin - you clearly haven't read it yet.

If this is your idea of "proof", then which Christian beliefs you think are not based on Christian scripture?

[Kasey]

^^ I have come to the belief that AdamB cannot think for himself. Of course his retort to this point would be that Allah knows best.... or Allah doesnt need thinkg for..........or some other crap involving the Quraan of muslim-based doctrine.

Are we really arguing the existence of god, or the interaction of god and us, the earth, and the universe on the whole?

I wonder why we are discussing the subject of this thread? Isn't this what this thread is all about?

This is RELIGION DISCUSSION, those who want not to discuss such should not do so. (This is as diplomatic as I can get.)

This is another example of not reading and understanding.

AdamB, some of us are discussing why religion doesnt have to exist for proper world order. Are you that dense to not see the relevance of it?

[Bizzare]

AdamB, this may be my last comment directed to you cuz you clearly have no care to reason logically. It's pretty dumb to be as arrogant as you are when it comes to religion. I'm sure you haven't even reached age 50. You were not around when the Quran was written. AdamB, YOU WERE NOT AROUND WHEN THE QURAN WAS WRITTEN!!! You do not possess any kind of divine connection with the outside world, and lastly EVERYTHING YOU KNOW WAS PASSED ON TO YOU BY ANOTHER MAN. AdamB, do you realize how ignorant it is to base your life on something passed on to you by another man?? Whatever connection you have experienced with a "spiritual being", many individuals of other faiths claim to have experienced the same. Are they lying? Are they being tricked by demons or whatever Islam refers to the evil forces as? Or are their experiences simply illusions (for lack of a better word) as a result of their strong beliefs.... just as yours?

No one, and I mean NO ONE in this world is sure about that other side of life. Even if they have brainwashed themselves as you did, what they think to be true doesn't make it the truth. You can block off science and every other religion that can amount to or even surpass Islam in it's quantity of proof, but that still doesn't make Islam the truth.

I'm glad that you have a belief to find comfort in when life gets rough, because I've seen religion help those in despair, but the arrogance that comes along with it is sad. You with your limited knowledge swearing by a book handed down by man even though your ability to prove its content will forever be null, simply cuz your God - Allah prefers to remain physically hidden and watch humanity war over religious beliefs

[maj. tom]

"Such reports persist and proliferate because they sell. And they sell, I think, because there are so many of us who want so badly to be jolted out of our humdrum lives, to rekindle that sense of wonder we remember from childhood, and also, for a few of the stories, to be able, really and truly, to believe--in Someone older, smarter, and wiser who is looking out for us. Faith is clearly not enough for many people. They crave hard evidence, scientific proof. They long for the scientific seal of approval, but are unwilling to put up with the rigorous standards of evidence that impart credibility to that seal."
-Carl Sagan.


"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
-Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985.)


"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides."
-Carl Sagan, 1996 in his article In the Valley of the Shadow Parade Magazine Also, Billions and Billions p. 215.


"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy."
-Carl Sagan.

[De Dragon]

Well one of thse who say God speaks to them could ask him if Carl Sagan right or not, because if God was interested in winning converts like some of you, he'd manifest himself a lot more clearly

[d spike]

If GOD miraculously shows up one day and makes Himself known to you ATHEISTS AND THOSE UNSURE so that you had absolutely no doubt, and He says that you each have witnessed both sides of Islam and Christianity explained on Trinituner for years. Only one is His true revealed religion.

So now you each have to choose one, whoever chooses the right one then those persons will be rewarded with Paradise (with gardens beneath which rivers flow and rivers of honey, milk and non-intoxicating wine) to dwell therein forever. But whoever chooses the wrong one will be punished in the Fire of Hell and they will not be absent from it forever.

WHICH ONE WILL YOU CHOOSE?

This sounds very nice, but it makes absolutely no sense at all.
If God shows up, and makes himself known to men, then we would have no need to believe in him - faith is belief in things that CANNOT be proven. With this in mind, we would have no need for an organized religion to teach us about a God we wish to believe in. (Do you need to go to school to learn to believe in the existence of your grandmother?)

In conclusion, if God turns up, is he really going to ask us to choose which religion we wish to follow? A believer believes that God wants us to choose to believe in him, not a religion.

[RBphoto]

What about living life as a consumate atheist? Any communist here with experience of living in a truly secular state? (China/ Russian expats?)

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

So instead of highlighting the fallacies of any particular religion... try and choose what of your religion can benefit the human race.

should the rest be discarded though? Can you pick and choose what parts of a religion you want to adhere to and which parts you don't want to follow? If you could do that then you would be discarding and ignoring some of the words of God.

Choose your GOD but don't choose your GOD for others.

then God is no more than a security blanket or comforter, the size and scope of which resides only in the head of the beholder?

If there is a choice of which God to follow then that means there is NOT one God and there is NOT only one way to worship him and that would effectively make the entire concept of monotheistic God and religion null and void.

To pick and choose is to follow in your own way and not in God's way.

Similarly you cannot subscribe to science only how and when you want to. You can't decide to ignore gravity one day or have a section of people who decide gravity doesnt exist. Which is why you cannot claim modern medicine works when you take anti-biotics, yet you choose to ignore evolution because it makes you uncomfortable.

Which is why it seems the discussion is now about which way is the right way.
So we ask for evidence

[MG Man]

this ched is truly pointless now.......only good for random entertainment

[dregz]

Also, the scholars will know the scholars. Think about it.

2) Since you are not a scholar, it therefore suggest, from your earlier discourse, that you cannot recognize a scholar, am I right to say this? I am only going off what you told me so far.
There are scholars who stray from the straight path. My point is that they will not be known by the true scholars upon the Quran and Sunnah. There is a grouping called Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah, the People of the Sunnah and the Community.
For example, there is a Permanent Committee for Academic Research and the Issuing of Islamic Rulings in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_ ... _Committee


In this answer you quoted some random stuff (exapmle:There is a grouping called Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah, the People of the Sunnah and the Community.) you have not answered the question asked, so i will ask the question again, Can YOU recognize a scholar?

In addition, if I follow the link i see that the Permanent Committee for Academic Research and the Issuing of Islamic Rulings in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is made up of sunni muslim scholars, does it mean that you take you follow these sunni scholars?


3) Are there any stipulated requirements (passing an examination of some sort) that one must have in order to prove that he/she is a scholar and if so where and how does one go about acquiring these requirements?

@AdamB Could you please answer my questions Sir.[/quote]
Who is a Scholar?

The words ‘aalim (scholar), faqeeh and mujtahid all carry the same meaning: they refer to one who strive to reach the shar‘i ruling and who has the ability to derive shar‘i rulings from the evidence.

This means that he has to acquire the tools (pre-requisites) of ijtihaad. No one can be described in these terms (‘aalim, mujtahid or faqeeh) except one who meets the pre-requisites of ijtihaad.

The scholars paid attention to these pre-requisites so that the door is not open to just anyone, old or young, to say about the religion of Allah that of which he has no knowledge.

But we will content ourselves with just two reports from which we will demonstrate what these pre-requisites are.

-1-

The first report was narrated from al-Shawkaani (may Allah have mercy on him) and what he said may be summed up in five points, listing five pre-requisites:

(i)

He should have knowledge of the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

This does not necessarily mean that he should have memorised the Sunnah; rather it is sufficient for him to be able to find reports in their places and be familiar with the contents of the books of Sunnah, foremost among which are the well-known compilations of the Sunnah (Saheeh al-Bukhaari, Saheeh Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawood, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Nasaa’i and Sunan Ibn Maajah), and so on.

He should also know what is saheeh (sound) and what is da‘eef (weak) in the texts of the Sunnah.

(ii)

He should have knowledge of the issues of consensus (ijmaa‘)

(iii)

He should be well versed in the Arabic language.

It is not stipulated that he should have learned it by heart; rather he should be able to understand the meanings and structure of the language.

(iv)

He should have knowledge of usool al-fiqh (basic principles of Islamic jurisprudence), including analogy (qiyaas), because usool al-fiqh is the foundation for deriving rulings.

(v)

He should have knowledge of what abrogates and what is abrogated (al-naasikh wa’l-mansookh).

See: Irshaad al-Fuhool, 2/297-303

-2-

The second report was narrated from Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him):

He mentioned the pre-requisites of the mujtahid without differing greatly from what al-Shawkaani (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned, but he put it more clearly and said:

Ijtihaad is subject to several conditions, including the following:

(i) He (the mujtahid) should have knowledge of the shar‘i evidence that he needs for the purpose of ijtihaad, such as verses of the Qur’aan and hadeeths that speak of rulings.

(ii) He should have knowledge of the matters pertaining to the soundness or weakness of hadeeths, such as the isnaad, the men in the isnaad and so on.

(iii) He should be aware of what abrogates and what is abrogated (al-naasikh wa’l-mansookh) and issues on which there is consensus (ijmaa‘), so that he will not issue a ruling on the basis of something that has been abrogated or that is contrary to scholarly consensus.

(iv) He should have knowledge of various matters affecting the ruling, such as reports of specific meanings, reports that set limits, and so on, so that he will not issue a ruling that is contrary to that.

(v) He should have knowledge of the Arabic language and usool al-fiqh that has to do with verbal evidence, such as what is general and what is specific, what is absolute and what is restricted, what is mentioned in brief and what is mentioned in detail, and so on, so that his rulings will be in accordance with what is indicated by that evidence.

(vi) He should have the ability to derive rulings from the evidence.

End quote from al-Usool fi ‘Ilm al-Usool, p. 85, 86; Sharh (commentary thereon), p. 584-590.

It should be pointed out that referring to the Sunnah now is much easier than it was before, because of the books that have been written on the Sunnah.

The one who fulfils these conditions is a scholar (‘aalim) who can derive shar‘i rulings from the evidence. Anyone who does not fit this description cannot be described as a ‘aalim, faqeeh or mujtahid.

It should also be noted that these words (‘aalim, mujtahid and faqeeh) are technical terms, as it were; according to the scholars they have specific meanings and pre-requisites. So it is not permissible to use them readily about anyone who speaks about Islamic rulings or teaches Islamic material in schools and universities, or who works in the field of da‘wah (calling people to Allah). A man may be a daa‘iyah, calling people to Allah, and putting a great deal of effort into that, without having reached the level of being a scholar (‘aalim).

We ask Allah, may He be exalted, to teach us that which will benefit us and increase us in knowledge.

And Allah knows best. [/quote]


After your answer I still do not know if there is some form of quality control (examination) for the above mentioned requirements. As such I am kindly asking that you answer the question.

I thank you for your time Sir.