Evidence for God from Science

Judah wrote:Lizard Man, do you understand the doctrine of abrogator and the abrogated in the Qur'an (al Nasikh wal Mansoukh) ?

Not in the way you want me to.
http://www.islamworld.net/UUQ/chapter_5.html

“AL-NASIKH WA AL-MANSUKH

The revelations from Allah as found in the Qur'an touch on
a variety of subjects, among them beliefs, history, tales of the
prophets, day of judgement, Paradise and Hell, and many
others. Particularly important are the ahkam (legal rulings),
because they prescribe the manner of legal relationships
between people, as Allah wishes them to be observed.

While the basic message of Islam remains always the same,
the legal rulings have varied throughout the ages, and many
prophets before Muhammad brought particular codes of law
(sharga) for their respective communities.

The Arabic words 'nasikh' and 'mansukh' are both derived
from the same root word 'nasakha' which carries meanings
such as 'to abolish, to replace, to withdraw, to abrogate'.

The word nasikh (an active participle) means 'the abro-
gating', while mansukh (passive) means 'the abrogated'. In
technical language these terms refer to certain parts of the
Qur'anic revelation, which have been 'abrogated' by others.
Naturally the abrogated passage is the one called 'mansukh'
while the abrogating one is called 'nasikh'.

The Qur'an on Naskh

The principle of naskh (abrogation) is referred to in the
Qur'an itself and is not a later historical development:

'None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause it to
be forgotten, but We substitute something better or
similar: knowest thou that God has power over all
things?' (2: 106). (28)

How it came about

When the message of Islam was presented to the Arabs as
something new, and different from their way of life, it was

28 Some however say that this refers to the revelations before the Quran,
which have now been substituted by the Quran itself. See Mawdudi. The
Meaning of the qur'an, Lahore, 1967, Vol. I, p.102. note 109.

introduced in stages. The Qur'an brought important changes
gradually, to allow the people to adjust to the new prescrip-
tions.

Example:

There are three verses in the Qur'an concerning the drinking
of wine. Wine drinking was very widespread in pre-Islamic
times and, although a social evil, highly esteemed. The three
verses which finally led to the prohibition of intoxicating
substances were revealed in stages (4: 43, 2: 219; 5: 93-4).

Why it is important

Knowledge of al-nasikh wa al-mansukh is important
because it concerns the correct and exact application of the
laws of Allah. It is specifically concemed with legal revelations:

- It is one of the important pre-conditions for explanation
(tafsir) of the Qur'an.
- It is one of the important pre-conditions for under-
standing and application of the Islamic law (hukm,
sharia).
- It sheds light on the historical development of the Islamic
legal code.
- It helps to understand the immediate meaning of the ayat
concerned.

Tafsir (explanation of the Qur'an) or legal ruling is not
acceptable from a person who does not have such knowledge.

How do we know it?

As in the field of asbab al-nuzul, the information about
al-nasikh wa al-mansukh cannot be accepted upon mere
personal opinion, guesswork or hearsay, but must be based on
reliable reports, according to the ulum al-hadith, and should
go back to the Prophet and his Companions.

The report must also clearly state which part of the revelation
is nasikh and which is mansukh.

Some scholars say that there are three ways of knowing
about al-nasikh wa al-mansukh:

1 Report from the Prophet or Companions.
2 Ijma' (consensus of the umma upon what is nasikh and
what mansukh).
3 Knowledge about which part of the Qur'an preceded
another part in the history of revelation. (29)

Example:

Narrated Mujahid (regarding the verse):
Those of you who die and leave wives behind, they (their
wives) shall await (as regards their marriage) for four
months and ten days (2: 234).

The widow, according to this verse, was to spend this
period of waiting with her husband's family, so Allah
revealed: Those of you who die and leave wives (i.e.
widows) should bequeath for their wives, a year's main-
tenance and residence without turning them out, but if
they leave (their residence) there is no blame on you for
what they do with themselves, provided it is honourable
(i.e. Iawful marriage) (2: 240).

So Allah entitled the widow to be bequeathed extra
maintenance for seven months and 20 nights and that is
the completion of one year. If she wished, she could stay
(in her husband's home) according to the will, and she
could leave it if she wished, as Allah says: Without
turning them out, but if they leave (the residence) there
is no blame on you.

So the idea (i.e. four months and ten days) is obligatory
for her.

'Ata' said: Ibn 'Abbas said: This verse i.e. the statement
of Allah ... without turning one out ... cancelled the
obligation of staying for the waiting period in her late
husband's house, and she can complete this period
wherever she likes.

29 Qattan, op.cit., p. 199

'Ata' said: If she wished, she could complete her 'idda by
staying in her late husband's residence according to the
will or leave it according to Allah's statement:

'There is no blame on you for what they do with them-
selves.'

'Ata' added: Later the regulations of inheritance came
and abrogated the order of the dwelling of the widow (in
her dead husband's house) so she could complete the
'idda wherever she likes. And it was no longer necessary
to provide her with a residence.

Ibn Abbas said: This verse abrogated her (i.e. the
widow's) dwelling in her dead husband's house and she
could complete the 'idda (i.e. four months and ten days)
(wherever she liked, as Allah's statement says: ...
'without turning them out ...' (30)

This report explains clearly which part of the revelation is
nasikh and which is mansukh. Mujahid was one of the well-
known tab'iun and Ibn 'Abbas was a Companion of the
Prophet.

What is Abrogated?

According to some scholars the Qur'an abrogates only the
Qur'an. They base their view on suras 2: 106 and 16: 101.
According to them the Qur'an does not abrogate the sunna
nor does the sunna abrogate the Qur'an. This is, in particular,
the view held by Shafi'i. (31)

Others are of the opinion that the Qur'an may abrogate the
Qur'an as well as the sunna. They base their view on Sura 53:
34.

There is also the view that there are four classes of naskh:

1 Qur'an abrogates Qur'an.

30 Bukhari, VI, No. 54.
31 For details see Kitab al-risala, Cairo, n.d., pp.30-73; English
translation by M. Khadduri, op.cit., pp. 12345; for a brief summary
of Ash-Shafi'i's views see also Seeman, K., Ash-Shafi'is Risala,
Lahore, 1961, pp.53-85.

2 Qur'an abrogates sunna.
3 Sunna abrogates Qur'an.
4 Sunna abrogates sunna. (32)

In this discussion, we shall only consider the abrogation in
the Qur'an, and leave aside the abrogation in the sunna.

Three Kinds of Naskh in the Qur'an (33)

The scholars have divided abrogation into three kinds:

1 Abrogation of the recited (verse) together with the legal
ruling.
2 Abrogation of the legal ruling without the recited (verse).
3 Abrogation of the recited (verse) without the legal ruling.

Examples:

For abrogation of the recited (verse) together with its legal
ruling:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had
been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings
make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and
substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's apostle (may
peace be upon him) died and it was before that time
(found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the
Muslims). (34)

For abrogation of a legal ruling without the recited (verse):

'O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to
whom thou has paid their dowers; and those whom thy
right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom
God has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal
uncles and aunts and daughters of thy maternal uncles
and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and
any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the

32 Qattan, op.cit, pp. 201-2.
33 Ibn Salama, al-nasikh wa al-mansukh, Cairo, 1966, p.5.
34 Muslim, II, No. 3421.

Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her; - this only for
thee and not for the believers (at large);We know what
we have appointed for them as to their wives and the
captives whom their right hands possess; - in order that
there should be no difficulty for thee and God is oft-
forgiving, most merciful' (33: 50).

'It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after
this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though
their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand
should possess (as handmaidens); and God doth watch
over all things' (33: 52).

This is one of the few very clear examples of naskh, though
only concerning the Prophet specifically, since for Muslims in
general the number of wives has been restricted to four. (Sura
4:3).

For abrogation of the recited (verse) without the legal ruling:

'Abdullah bin 'Abbas reported that sUmar bin Khattab
sat on the pulpit of Allah's messenger (may peace be
upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may
peace be upon him) with truth and he sent down the
book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in
what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in
our memory and understood it. Allah's messenger (may
peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning
to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and
after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning. I
am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may
forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of
stoning in the book of Allah, and thus go astray by
abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a
duty laid down in Allah's book for married men and
women who commit adultery when proof is established,
or if there is pregnancy or a confession. (35)

The punishment of stoning for adultery by married people

35 Muslim, III, No. 4194; Bukhari, VIII, No. 816.

has been retained in the sunna, while it is not included in the
Qur'an .

The Abrogated Verses

There are, according to Ibn Salama, (36) a well-known
author on the subject:

- 43 suras with neither nasikh or mansukh.
- 6 suras with nasikh but no mansukh.
- 40 suras with mansukh but no nasikh.
- 25 suras with both nasikh and mansukh.

According to Suyuti's Itqan there are 21 instances in the
Qur'an, where a revelation has been abrogated by another.

He also indicates that there is a difference of opinion about
some of these: e.g. 4: 8, 24: 58, etc. (37)

Some scholars have attempted to reduce the number of
abrogations in the Qur'an even further, by explaining the
relationships between the verses in some special ways, e.g. by
pointing out that no legal abrogation is involved, or that for
certain reasons the naskh is not genuine

Shah Waliullah (d. 1759) the great Muslim scholar from
India only retained the following 5 out of Suyuti's 21 cases as
genuine:

Mansukh 2: 180 nasikh 4: 11, 12
Mansukh 2:240 nasikh 2: 234.
Mansukh 8:65 nasikh 8: 62.
Mansukh 30:50 nasikh 33: 52.
Mansukh 58: 12 nasikh 58: 13.

Example:

A case listed by Suyuti, which has no direct legal implication is
the following:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: When the verse: 'If there are 20
amongst you, patient and persevering, they will over-

36 Op cit., see pp.6-8 for the names of these suras.
37 Itqan, II, pp.20-3; Kamal, op.cit., pp.101-9 also gives Suyuti's
complete list.

come two hundred', was revealed, it became hard on the
Muslims, when it became compulsory that one Muslim
ought not to flee before 10 (non-Muslims) so Allah
lightened the order by revealing: 'but now Allah has
lightened your (task) for He knows that there is weakness
in you. But (even so) if there are 100 amongst you who
are patient and persevering, they will overcome 200
(non-Muslims)' (8: 66).

So when Allah reduced the number of enemies that
Muslims should withstand, their patience and persever-
ence against the enemy decreased as much as their task
was lightened for them. (38)

Still others hold that there are no genuine (sahih) reports
available on this issue, going back to the Prophet, while those
going back to the Companions contradict each other. (39)

Therefore to them the issue of nasikh wa al mansukh is per-
haps not of great importance. However, it is clear from the
Qur'an itself, (e.g. in the case of inheritance, 2: 180; 4: 7-9,
etc.) that abrogation occurred occasionally. Hence it is wrong
to completely ignore the subject.

Abrogation and Specification

There is of course a difference between abrogation and
specification. By the latter is meant that one revelation

38 Bukhari, VI, No.176.
39 Ali, M.M.: The Religion of Islam, Lahore, 1936, p.32. It may be pointed
out that Ali's treatment of the subject is not very thorough. Of the three
examp1es he cites in support of his opinion ('in most cases, where a report

is traceable to one Companion who held a certain verse to have been
abrogated, there is another report traceable to another Companion, through
the fact that the verse was not abrogated' - p. 33) two are definitely not
in his favour, while the third can be easily explained. His first case
concerns Sura 2:180 (inheritance). It has certainly been superseded by
other
verses, e.g. 4:7-9 and that is probably all that is meant, when saying it
is mansukhz Ali's second case, '2:184, is considered by Ibn 'Umar as having

been abrogated while Ibn 'Abbas says it was not' . See below, where I have
quoted this very hadith from Ibn 'Abbas (Bukhari, VI, No.32) where Ibn
'Abbas himself explains why he does not hold it as abrogated. The third
case is, like the first one, definitely not in support of Ali: '2: 240 was
abrogated according to Ibn Zubair, while Mujahid says it was not'. This is
wrong, see Sahih Bukhari, VI, Nos. 53 and 54, where both Ibn Zubair and
Mujahid hold the verse to be abrogated. Furthermore both Ibn Zubair ard
Mujahid are tabi'un, and not Companions (sahaba).

explains in more detail or according to specific circumstances
how another revelation should be understood.

Example:

Sura 2:183 says 'O you who believe, fasting is prescribed to
you ...'

Narrated 'Ata' that he heard Ibn'Abbas reciting the
Divine verse 'for those who can do it is a ransom, the
feeding of one that is indigent' (2:184).

Ibn 'Abbas said 'This verse is not abrogated but it is
meant for old men and old women who have no strength
to fast, so they should feed one poor person for each day
of fasting (instead of fasting). (40)

It is quite clear that the second verse (2:184) does not
abrogate the rule of fasting from the first verse (2:183) but
explains that in a specific case, that of feeble old people, there
is a way of making up for the loss of fast.

In the same way the verses concerning intoxicating drinks
can be understood as specifications rather than abrogations
(see4:43;2:219;5:93-4).

Summary

The Qur'an, in 2:106, refers to the concept of naskh.
However, there is a difference of opinion about the extent to
which al-nasikh wa-al mansukh does in fact occur in the text of
the Qur'an. The information concerning al-nasikh wa-al
mansukh must be treated with great caution as, for all reports
concerning the text of the Qur'an, two independent witnesses
are required. Many of the examples which the scholars have
drawn upon to illustrate this question (and I have quoted
them for the same purpose) are based on one witness only.
'A'isha alone reported that 10 or 5 sucklings had been part of
the Qur'anic recitation, and only 'Umar reported that the
'verse of stoning' had been included in the Qur'anic text.
These legal rulings are not included in the Qur'an precisely
because they were not considered reliable, being based on

40 Bukhari, VI, No. 32.

one witness only. Similarly, other examples about naskh,
based on the words of Ibn 'Abbas or Mujahid aione, are to be
judged by the same measure.

However, as mentioned there remain a small number of
verses which, as far as can be ascertained from the internal
evidence of the Qur'an, have been superseded by other verses
in the Qur'an.”

Judah wrote:With regards to Surahs 3:21, 2:19, and 5:32 that you have quoted to show where actions of terrorism are condemned in the Qur'an, each of these verses are abrogated by Surah 9:5, the verse of the Sword.

~ Surah 9:5 "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).....”

Try and understand what this Surah refers to — it was revealed at the time when Muhammad was in the middle of a war.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau9.html

I'll quote the entire paragraph from section #1 of Surah 9 for you, so that you understand what this really means:
“A Declaration of immunity from Allah and his Rasool is hereby made to those of the mushrikeen (unbelievers) with whom you have made a treaty: “You have four months to go around in the land unmolested; but you should know that you cannot frustrate Allah, and that Allah will humiliate the unbelievers.” This is a public proclamation from Allah and his Rasool to the people on the day of the great Haji that Allah and his Rasool do hereby resolve obligations with mushrikeen. Therefore, if you repent, it will be better for you but if you turn away, then you should know that you cannot frustrate Allah. O Prophet, proclaim a painful punishment for those who are unbelievers, except those mushrikeen who honored their treaties with you in every detail and aided not against you. So fulfill your treaties with them to the end of their term; for Allah loves the righteous. When the forbidden months are over, then fight the mushrikeen wherever you find them, seize them, besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent, establish Salah (prayer) and pay Zakah (obligatory charity), then let them go their way. Surly, Allah is forgiving, merciful. If anyone from the mushrikeen asks you for asylum, grant it to them so that he may hear the word of Allah, and then escort them to his place of safety: this should be done because these people do not want to know the truth.”

This applied to unbelievers who actively opposed Muhammad and violently fought against him, not civilians. The revelation even delivered the enemy a warning four months in advanced. These are laws of combat applied to certain situations, obviously not terrorism.

Judah wrote:For more information on those peaceful verses that are abrogated by others which support the verse of the Sword, check out this paper by Abdullah Al Araby.

I'd strongly suggest going through the Qur'an, instead of simply settling with these snippets of text that were quoted out of context, nullifying the original meaning.

Gman wrote:Again how has the U.S. waged war against Allah and his messenger? If anything the U.S. has been promoting the muslim cause by letting mosques be built in the country.."

Gman wrote:Give a warning? What exactly did the U.S. do so bad in the eye's of Islam? Did we kill their prophet's? Did the U.S. make war on Islam?? Why is Islam violating it's own commandments then?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not quoting the Qur'an to justify terrorism, but to condemn it. The United States did nothing to deserve what happened on 9/11. Islam isn't violating its own commandments, certain Muslims are.

Gman wrote:This verse says to fight for the cause of Allah, but when you fight don't go too far... How does this prevent a terrorist from attacking you?

You just answered your own question.

Gman wrote:

On account of that incident, we ordained for the children of Israel that whoever kills a person, except as punishment for murder of mischief on the land, it will be written in his book of deeds as if hehad killed all the human beings and whoever will save a lifeshall be regarded as if he gave life to all human beings. Yet, even though our Rasools came to them one after the otherwith clear revelations, it was not long before, many of them committed excesses in the land.

Not too sure about this one... It is not very direct at all. The verse after that (Surah 5:33) seems to contradict what you have said... It states..

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;[Surah 5:33]

How does that contradict the previous passage?

Gman wrote:If this was so important to the muslim culture why was it omitted from the Quran? Is should have been fused into it from the beginning... It seems more like a band-aid to me... Sorry...

Because the Koran is the direct word of God sent to Muhammad through the angel Gabrial. The above speach, however, was by Muhammad himself.

Gman wrote:Take care, may God bless you..

Thanks! You too!

lizard wrote:I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not quoting the Qur'an to justify terrorism, but to condemn it. The United States did nothing to deserve what happened on 9/11. Islam isn't violating its own commandments, certain Muslims are.

Maybe I don't... In reading the Quran, however, I'm finding more verses that justify terrorism than condemns it... So far you have only quoted three questionable verses from the Quran and a cliff note by Muhammad.

lizard wrote:You just answered your own question.

I don't think so... This verse seems to be saying "when you attack your opponent, be nice and don't take away their coke machine."

lizard wrote:How does that contradict the previous passage?

In many ways... One verse seems to have a respect for life [sura 5:32], the other one doesn't seem to at all and then goes into graphic body mutilation if you oppose Allah [sura 5:33]. That would be more of a scare tactic than a love tactic to get one to follow you...

lizard wrote:Because the Koran is the direct word of God sent to Muhammad through the angel Gabrial. The above speach, however, was by Muhammad himself.

It seems though that what the Quran and what Muhammad quoted are in deep contrast with one another..

(Edit)
Muhammad says "Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."

But the Quran says to beat them if they disobey you? How is that treating them well?

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.[surah 4:34]

lizard wrote:Thanks! Very Happy You too!

You too Lizard... You seem like a nice person to me. Thank you.. It's not your fault.. It's ok..

Lizard Man, thank you for the courtesy by which you offer your response. You have gone into considerable detail and quoted a great deal of text to present your understanding of al-Nasikh wa al-Mansoukh.

As you will realize, I am not a Muslim. To be guided in my understanding of how passages from the Qur'an are to be interpreted I depend on the writings of scholars with authentic Islamic qualifications and considered credible by their peers. While being able to inform folks of what these scholars say, I stop well short of considering myself adequately equipped to debate the intricacies of Islamic doctrine. This is for educated Muslims to do between themselves.

One such scholar I refer to is Dr Mark Gabriel who was raised in Egypt to be a devout Muslim and was able to recite the entire Qur'an at an early age. Dr Gabriel earned bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees in Islamic History and Culture from the prestigious Islamic Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, graduating second in his class of six thousand students for his bachelor's degree. He was one of the youngest lecturers ever hired at Al-Azhar University. When he started lecturing and was working to finish his doctorate, the university sent him as a travelling lecturer to countries around the Middle East to lecture in Islamic history. He also served as the imam at a mosque in the Cairo suburbs. This is clearly someone whose information can be trusted for accuracy and scholarly credibility.

The information I quoted in my previous post came from a paper by Abdullah Al Araby. This is the author's pen name but he was born in the Middle East and lived a considerable part of his life in the Islamic world. He is knowledgeable in both Islamic and Christian theology, a university graduate with extensive theological training. Although he does not wish to be more specific with identifiable details for security reasons, his information that I have quoted is consistent with and verified by the writings of Dr Mark Gabriel - and with many others.

These are just two of a large number of scholars whose writings provide us with credible information about Islam.

Because we have a tendency to respect information from experts in their field, it seems logical to us to accept that a Muslim has a more authoritative knowledge of Islam than a non-Muslim and so is more believable. However, with Islam there is the issue of al-taqiyya, the "holy hypocrisy" that allows Islamic clerics to skew information in such a way that disguises the real truth if that is necessary to further their cause. This successfully confuses many folk, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and is corrected only by those Islamic experts who are now apostates and are prepared to speak out honestly about it. Their doing so is notable for the consistency among them in what they say, and further more, for the way in which it matches objective evidence from many sources.

Lizard Man, you have shown appreciation of board policy by saying previously that you are not here to argue against the authenticity of our Christian views. You seem to have come here primarily as a defender of your religion, supposedly to correct our "mistaken" views by presenting a nicer side to Islam. You express a version that is far more gentle and peaceful than that followed by the rest of the Muslim brotherhood who will call you an apostate for your views. If you can convince those more militant Muslim brothers that they are wrong, and have them renounce their errors, then perhaps one day Islam and other faiths will be able to live alongside each other in peace.

Meanwhile, I would like to align our conversation more closely to the board purpose which is "to provide a defense and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people and seekers" rather than to give sway to any lengthy apologia for another faith. While you are here, I would like to encourage you to discover the truth claims held by Christians, especially given that there are differences in understandings between Muslims and Christians concerning Jesus and Scripture, as I personally believe that would be far more profitable for us all.

This is correct... Mustafa A. Gariel PHD wrote a book called "Islam and Terrorism" that shows the muslim's view of salvation and why jihad (or holy war) can take center stage in a battle. Mustafa or now Mark, a former muslim, graduated from Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt and was a prominent teacher of the Quran until one day he converted to Christianity.

More about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_A._Gabriel

Mark defined the muslim believers into three differnet categories. Secular, traditional and fundamental. It appears that some view the Quran's jihad teachings as spiritual warfare, where as others view them as physical warfare. It does seem however that the fundamentalist muslims are the real one's practicing the true faith, (at least from what Mark says)... If so, they are the only real one's we should be aware of.

Anyways, here is a quote from his book called "Islam and Terrorism" from page 39.

Do all muslims really believe that they need to attack the West?

This is a very good question. At this point, Westerners may be wondering if their Muslim neighbors are a part of a plot to overthrow their government. To answer this question, we must recognize that there are different kinds of Muslims, just as there are different kinds of Christians.

The secular Muslims
This is a good description of Muslims all over the world. They believe in the nice parts of Islam, but they reject the call to jihad. They take on the cultural trappings of the message, but they are not living it out completely. These Muslims may be very dedicated to their system of thought, even though it does not represent true Islam. The majority of Muslims around the world-both in the East and in the West-fall into this category.

The traditional Muslims
There are two types of traditional Muslims. The first type includes people who study Islam, know it and practice it, but they have a stumbling block with the concept of jihad. Some consider jihad to be a spiritual battle, like the Muslim Sufism movement.

The second type includes people who know that jihad is fighting non-Muslims, but they do not take action because 1) they do not have the ability to do it by themselves, 2) they are concerned about what would happen to their lives, family and children if they join a fundamentalist group, or 3) they want to live a nice life on earth instead of dying.

The fundamentalist Muslims
These are the ones who perpetrate terrorism. They sometimes have the long beards and head coverings. Their goal is to practice Islam as Muhammad did. Though we call them radicals, they are practicing true Islam.

It seems that everyone agrees that Pope Benedict did the right thing, even if the truth hurts and will inevitably spread violence.

On the same note, I would like to add--for all those who are skeptic of Bush and his administration (I am more likely pro-bush), the fact that this happened and happens all over in the muslim countries, it just goes to show that Bush is in fact fighting for a cause.

Many here have agreed that speaking out is good even if it causes violence, and violence shouldn't be tolerated. That is why I feel that Bush is doing the right thing even if there is profit to gain, and ofcourse, lives to be lost. Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of war, only when it is for a good cause, which is to make peace. Firstly, however, I don't think that people or nations should fight to begin with for whatever reason or purpose. Simply, humans are here to live, not die.

Judah wrote:Lizard Man, thank you for the courtesy by which you offer your response. You have gone into considerable detail and quoted a great deal of text to present your understanding of al-Nasikh wa al-Mansoukh.

Thanks! This means that I accomplished what I set out to do in the first place - to establish an understanding between a Muslim and Christians.

We don't always have to agree, but what's important is that we can debate each other without throwing around insults or spreading anger.

God be with you all.

Roy.

Lizard Man wrote: We don't always have to agree, but what's important is that we can debate each other without throwing around insults or spreading anger.

God be with you all.

Roy.

Lizard Man, I absolutely agree with you that, despite out differences, it is important we do not throw around insults or spread anger.
It is also important that those of us who are Christians remember the words of Jesus as I have copied them out below, and that Muslims understand that this is the essence of true Christianity and what we believe God wants of all of us. We are told to love one another, even those who are our enemies.
Roy, I know that Muslims do not see God as we do, as a loving heavenly Father, but just imagine how it might be for you if ever you could come to believe in Him this way.

Matthew 5:43-48 You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

God bless you too.

Lizard Man wrote:We don't always have to agree, but what's important is that we can debate each other without throwing around insults or spreading anger.

God be with you all.

Roy.

Roy, if I have offended you in any way please accept my sincere apologies… That is not how I (or Christianity for that matter) wish to be remembered.

Thank you and may God bless you,

G -

Don't sweat it Gman, you haven't crossed any limits and certainly seem like a nice guy.

Judah wrote: Roy, I know that Muslims do not see God as we do, as a loving heavenly Father, but just imagine how it might be for you if ever you could come to believe in Him this way.

Those passages aren't unfamilar to me, though. I'm actually a convert to Islam, and before then embraced I had Christianity, which in turn was preceeded by a long period of agnostism.

Muslims don't see God as a father, but as a creator. That is a minor difference. We also believe that God is loving and compassionate just as you do, and there are several passages of the Qur'an that make it known to the reader that no matter how many times one sins and repents, God forgives.

A glaring example of God's mercy is in the story of the original sin. Unlike in the Bible, when Adam sinned he repented truthfully and our Lord forgave him. Adam was honored for his deeds by becoming the first prophet.

Lizard Man wrote:Don't sweat it Gman, you haven't crossed any limits and certainly seem like a nice guy.

Thanks Roy...

Lizard wrote:Those passages aren't unfamilar to me, though. I'm actually a convert to Islam, and before then embraced I had Christianity, which in turn was preceeded by a long period of agnostism.

Not to pry, but can you tell us why you left Christianity?

Muslims don't see God as a father, but as a creator. That is a minor difference.

That is interesting because we see God as the creator as well. I believe there are 15 different names we attribute to God. Ones like Elohim: The Creator, Adonai: The Lord, El Roi: The God who sees, Jehovah-Rapha: The Lord who heals, El Shaddai: The All-Sufficient One, etc.. God has also male and female characteristics (Gen 1:27).

A glaring example of God's mercy is in the story of the original sin. Unlike in the Bible, when Adam sinned he repented truthfully and our Lord forgave him. Adam was honored for his deeds by becoming the first prophet.

So my understanding is that Islam doesn't believe in the original sin created by Adam or his repent full heart nullified God's wrath on humanity? If so, what do you think Christ's main mission was to do on earth?

Thanks again Roy,

Lizard Man wrote: Muslims don't see God as a father, but as a creator. That is a minor difference.

Far from being a minor difference, I see this as a major and critical difference. It is on this difference that Christianity is able to offer salvation for our sins, salvation by the grace of God.

If God is not a father then He did not have a son, and neither are we "children of God" in the full sense of what such a relationship means for us.

But we believe that Jesus is the begotten Son of God, holy as the Creator Father is holy, one with the Father, part of the triune Godhead.
Muslims do not accept the idea of the trinity and therefore see Christianity as a form of pantheism.

But without Jesus, the Son of God, whose sacrifice on the cross and resurrection from the dead bought us our redemption, then Christianity is nothing but a myth.
Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that the words he spoke that I have recorded on my signature banner below, is indeed the case.

Therefore this difference in the way of perceiving God is absolutely no minor difference but all the difference in the world.

Lizard wrote:Not to pry, but can you tell us why you left Christianity?

Because I'd rather have a direct relationship with God than with a prophet. Islam has changed my life in a way that Christianity never did.

Lizard Man wrote:

Lizard wrote:Not to pry, but can you tell us why you left Christianity?

Because I'd rather have a direct relationship with God than with a prophet. Islam has changed my life in a way that Christianity never did.

Lizard Man,

As you well know, Christ to Christians is God. As Judah pointed out in another thread and as

Colossians 1:15 wrote:
The Supremacy of Christ
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

In any case, this thread has taken a different turn than the original post. In keeping with the discussion guidelines and in fairness to the original poster (which also happens to be you Gman ), please stay on topic.

Byblos.

Byblos wrote:In any case, this thread has taken a different turn than the original post. In keeping with the discussion guidelines and in fairness to the original poster (which also happens to be you Gman ), please stay on topic.

Byblos.

Oh well just pick on me now then....

G -

Gman wrote:

Byblos wrote:In any case, this thread has taken a different turn than the original post. In keeping with the discussion guidelines and in fairness to the original poster (which also happens to be you Gman ), please stay on topic.

Byblos.

Oh well just pick on me now then....

G -

And here I thought I was defending your rights as a first poster.