Christian-Muslim Relations In the Middle-East

T

Thoma

New Member
Sorry but you cant tell me what topic I can raise and which I cant. You can only refuse to address the points I raise and evade. Especially that the two are related. And you dont tell me I "ought" to address anything. I'm not under any duress or obligation. If I dont accept to indulge your childish posts or I dont want to entertain your points or posts, your entire forum worth is the ignore button and I block you. Ha22ak kabset zer. Dont flatter yourself.

Your lord violated the Sabbath and was expressly accused of that. It's either the Jews got it wrong or he did.



Yes, your honor. The above is correct.



The above is partly correct, your honor.

But when or in the case Allah commands you to bow to a person, as was the case with the angels and Adam, that bowing is not called worship. God honoured Adam and demonstrated man's superiority to all creatures including the angels. Following the command of Allah and obeying Him becomes the "worship".



No. It does more mean that. For example, God does not break His promises. The most absolute principle in this case is "I am Allah and beside me there is no other". But you cant draw comparisons and say Allah does not honour His word. I brought the example of the obedience to Allah as the greatest form of worship because you kept using the word "violate" in reference to God and command to defend oneself even in the sacred months. That is fundamentally wrong because Allah cannot violate His own laws or words, since He is above every law and creation. The laws are for you and me to be under. It is impossible for Him to violate His laws since He makes, creates and disposes. I am actually proving the opposite of what you claim. He is the lawmaker and lawgiver. He can cancel a rule or suspend it based on our necessity. Cant He? Even when God says only fight in the sacred months for defense "when attacked in the holy months" and not for previous aggressions and similarly, when Allah asked the angels to bow to Adam, there is no violation of any law and no violation of Tawheed. We dont dictate to God. He dictates to us. Except if you want to become arrogant and rebellious like Iblis and retort and tell God you will not bow to Adam because you feel you are better than Adam and instead you think Adam should bow to you. Understood?
Charging your accusers with whatever it is you're being accused of, rather than (in place of) refuting (or conceding) the truth of the accusation made against you is a deflection, and is thus considered a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accusers are likewise guilty of an offense (or of that which they're accusing you of) has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation. I can and am free to point that out, and you are free to ignore it and continue with your deflection attempts all while be exposed in this regard. So far I am not obliging you to anything, however we can only hope we won't be seeing you bending the knee next to Iblis and the rest of the damned in prostration to Jesus this time around on Judgement Day (rather than doing it freely in truth and honest worship amongst the righteous and the rest of creation). I won't give way to your fallacy and distract others from the actual point at hand, but a quick and passing word from me should suffice to entice them honest readers to go and look it out for themselves and ascertain it with basic internet searches. With only a cursory look into the Gospel we find several instances where Jesus is being accused by the Pharisees of violating the Sabbath and in each and every instance the accusation was refuted by Jesus Himself on the spot silencing his accusers and leaving them searching for other things to hold Him accountable for under the law. Whenever Jesus was accused of violating the law, He shows it is His accusers' (mis)understanding of the law that is being violated rather than the law itself, and indeed so when Jesus is actually the Lord and original author of the law.

Now off again to the point at hand, and just to untangle the attempted twisting in your response; what you are basically saying is this: 'bowing in prostration to Allah and none other than Allah' -is- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah commands it, and it -isn't- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah doesn't command it. And in like manner, 'bowing in prostration to Allah and to someone else other than or with Allah' -is- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah commands it, and it -isn't- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah doesn't command it. Tawheed and shirk are therefore based solely on supposed Allah's will or command which in that case is unrestricted or unconditioned by anything (i.e. Allah's will does not follow reason not even the principle of non-contradiction), that is, what is this or that is absolutely arbitrary; Allah can just command you to practice what you now define absolutely as shirk and ultimate sin, and you would then consider it tawheed and ultimate virtue. In which case, tawheed or shirk in itself wouldn't have any meaning anymore, as one can be the other and vice versa.

From that logically follows what is essentially echoed in all my previous posts in this thread, namely that Allah has no basic and absolute principles and is not bound even by his own word and can act in ways contrary to reason, including self-contradiction.

Even a lawgiver who isn't being under or bound by his own laws that he creates or gives, suspends and disposes, is still necessarily bound or subject to the (law of) (his) lawgiving which can then be violated (by said lawgiver, such as by him failing the principle of non-contradiction), an act necessitating an appropriate consequence (such as at least said violator-lawgiver being exposed and ditched off as the false 'ultimate lawgiver' that he is) .. except that in Islam apparently such a violation ceases to be a violation in the first place and thus doesn't necessitate such a consequence, and this is by virtue of simply and solely 'said violation being commanded by him (Allah, or it could be Satan posing as Allah for all we know, this is when truth or reason is sacrificed)'.
 
Last edited:
  • Advertisement
  • Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Charging your accusers with whatever it is you're being accused of, rather than (in place of) refuting (or conceding) the truth of the accusation made against you is a deflection, and is thus considered a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accusers are likewise guilty of an offense (or of that which they're accusing you of) has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation. I can and am free to point that out, and you are free to ignore it and continue with your deflection attempts all while be exposed in this regard. So far I am not obliging you to anything, however we can only hope we won't be seeing you bending the knee next to Iblis and the rest of the damned in prostration to Jesus this time around on Judgement Day (rather than doing it freely in truth and honest worship amongst the righteous and the rest of creation). I won't give way to your fallacy and distract others from the actual point at hand, but a quick and passing word from me should suffice to entice them honest readers to go and look it out for themselves and ascertain it with basic internet searches. With only a cursory look into the Gospel we find several instances where Jesus is being accused by the Pharisees of violating the Sabbath and in each and every instance the accusation was refuted by Jesus Himself on the spot silencing his accusers and leaving them searching for other things to hold Him accountable for under the law. Whenever Jesus was accused of violating the law, He shows it is His accusers' (mis)understanding of the law that is being violated rather than the law itself, and indeed so when Jesus is actually the Lord and original author of the law.
    The purpose of citing the instances Jesus of the NT was accused of breaking the law is to demonstrate how similar you are in approach and in line of reasoning to the pharisees who were harassing Jesus.

    Now off again to the point at hand, and just to untangle the attempted twisting in your response; what you are basically saying is this: 'bowing in prostration to Allah and none other than Allah' -is- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah commands it, and it -isn't- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah doesn't command it. And in like manner, 'bowing in prostration to Allah and to someone else other than or with Allah' -is- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah commands it, and it -isn't- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah doesn't command it. Tawheed and shirk are therefore based solely on supposed Allah's will or command which in that case is unrestricted or unconditioned by anything (i.e. Allah's will does not follow reason not even the principle of non-contradiction), that is, what is this or that is absolutely arbitrary; Allah can just command you to practice what you now define absolutely as shirk and ultimate sin, and you would then consider it tawheed and ultimate virtue. In which case, tawheed or shirk in itself wouldn't have any meaning anymore, as one can be the other and vice versa.

    From that logically follows what is essentially echoed in all my previous posts in this thread, namely that Allah has no basic and absolute principles and is not bound even by his own word and can act in ways contrary to reason, including self-contradiction.

    Even a lawgiver who isn't being under or bound by his own laws that he creates or gives, suspends and disposes, is still necessarily bound or subject to the (law of) (his) lawgiving which can then be violated (by said lawgiver, such as by him failing the principle of non-contradiction), an act necessitating an appropriate consequence (such as at least said violator-lawgiver being exposed and ditched off as the false 'ultimate lawgiver' that he is) .. except that in Islam apparently such a violation ceases to be a violation in the first place and thus doesn't necessitate such a consequence, and this is by virtue of simply and solely 'said violation being commanded by him (Allah, or it could be Satan posing as Allah for all we know, this is when truth or reason is sacrificed)'.
    Your understanding of shirk and Tawheed are very deficient. And that is not surprising in the least coming from a trinitarian.

    When we speak of shirk, it has to do with recognizing and honouring beside (or alongside) or besides (other than) Allah as Lord and Creator. Shirk takes you away from God. If bowing or any act will render you farther away from God or would lead you to honor or recognize something else, whether an act itself or object other than only God, as your focus of worship, then you have committed shirk.

    When we speak of Tawheed, Allah is again the focus. The unalterable principle under which any act of worship must fall is centred on the recognition which Allah declared "I am God" or "I am your Lord". That entails total submission to the will of God. The reason we are called Muslims - we absolutely submit to the absolute will of Allah.

    When you bow down or perform any act of worship, that must be centred on obedience. If it is not centred on obedience to God, then you are performing an exercise in futility or satisfying your ego and desires. God is the focus and centre of all and any worship for that to be called Tawheed. Worship is submission and obedience to God. Not to yourself or to something else or to your desires.

    To break it down, if bowing down is being carried out just for the sake of it, then that is not Tawheed. The pillars of Tawheed are sincerity and obedience.

    If God supposedly says today that you must not bow down to Him, but to a Prophet, would you accuse Him of a violation or shirk? The essence of worship is obedience. If you want to worship God without obeying Him, then the worship is faulty. The reason why worshiping God alone is not enough if we are to disobey Him by committing acts that lead us to sin.

    Further, to say that God would be committing a violation today if He asks us to bow to something could be true only today. But in the past it cant he true because there was no revelation or command that had already prohibited bowing to anything or anyone but Allah. It can only be a violation when God commanded the angels to bow to Adam if there was a prior command prohibiting that. At a point, alcohol was not declared haram and the companions of the Prophet used to pray while under the influence of alcohol. Did they violate any law at that point? The answer is no until there is a law prohibiting that. Similarly, it could only be a violation of a law when God says you can defend yourself in the sacred months for aggression against you they have perpetrated within the sacred months, had there already been a prohibition that outlaws even self defense and even (for acts of aggression) within the sacred months themselves. If there was none such prohibition, then you cant put the cart before the horse and claim otherwise and say it is a violation, as you have been doing obstinately to impose your imaginations.

    As Muslims, we dont tell God what to do or not to do. He tells us and we obey and we have completely faith in His decrees. We dont also edit, modify or tailor scriptures to suit our beliefs. Instead our beliefs are tailored to suit what is found in the scripture.
     
    Top