Sure thing my friend, this is what you initially said:
From an Islamically mystical point of view, the Bible and Torah are corrupt
An Islamic point of view is naturally anchored in the Quran, please provide me with the basis of your argument so that we can advance.
تفسير القرطبي - القرطبي - ج ١٤ - الصفحة ١٨٩source.
Sorry my friend I had no idea you were Sufi. Forgive me for asking, is this the equivalent of jeovah's witnesses in Christianity? ie a small outshoot that no one considers valid. Please do NOT feel insulted by my question, I don't know anything about Sufism.Whoa, whoa, whoa- slow down a bit, sonny. By “Islamically mystical point of view,” I obviously mean a Sufi perspective of things, as that is how I classify my own self and views (and the Sufi masters that which I borrowed most of my learnings from).
The basis of my argument is mostly concerned with how the Quruan was revealed and compiled, as opposed to how it was in the cases of the Torah and Bible. Thus, this subject is more rooted in secular history than in the theological commands found in the holy book itself.
1. This is not at all what you wrote.تفسير القرطبي - القرطبي - ج ١٤ - الصفحة ١٨٩
وفي بعض الروايات: أن زيدا تورم ذلك منه حين أراد أن يقربها، فهذا قريب من ذلك. وجاء زيد إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: إن زينب تؤذيني بلسانها وتفعل وتفعل! وإني أريد أن أطلقها
All of what I wrote can be read, it's on the forum.1. This is not at all what you wrote.
2. This is only an 2il and 2al with no sanad and with no importance.
3. Try to be objective neutral and above all respectful.
Sorry my friend I had no idea you were Sufi. Forgive me for asking, is this the equivalent of jeovah's witnesses in Christianity? ie a small outshoot that no one considers valid. Please do NOT feel insulted by my question, I don't know anything about Sufism.
I am more interested in a Quranic based discussion, as such, we are not on common ground to proceed.
Historically, Sufis have often belonged to different ṭuruq or "orders" – congregations formed around a grand master referred to as a wali who traces a direct chain of successive teachers back to the Islamic prophet Muhammad. These orders meet for spiritual sessions (majalis) in meeting places known as zawiyas, khanqahs or tekke. They strive for ihsan (perfection of worship), as detailed in a hadith: "Ihsan is to worship Allah as if you see Him; if you can't see Him, surely He sees you." Sufis regard Muhammad as al-Insān al-Kāmil, the primary perfect man who exemplifies the morality of God,and see him as their leader and prime spiritual guide.
Thanks for clarifying Newleb. If I am not mistaken, people like ISIS do consider this approach heretical...No, Sufism is not a sect. It is an experience that explores the mystical and inner dimensions of Islam, and thus very much related to this subject.
Christianity (particularly Catholicism) lacks mysticism, which is why Western Europeans have always been looking to the East for spiritual comfort....
الرباعية is the lateral incisor, it's one tooth not 4.Thanks for clarifying Newleb. If I am not mistaken, people like ISIS do consider this approach heretical...
No comment on Christianity, wrong thread for that.
According to scholars like this one, the prophet was missing 4 frontal teeth, he lost them in the battle of uhud:
* تفسير الجامع لاحكام القرآن/ القرطبي (ت 671 هـ) مصنف و مدقق
ثبت في صحيح مسلم: أن النبيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم كُسِرت رَباعِيته يوم أُحُد، وشُجّ في رأسه
You can find it when you look at the tafsir for this verse:
لَيْسَ لَكَ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ شَيْءٌ أَوْ يَتُوبَ عَلَيْهِمْ أَوْ يُعَذِّبَهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ ظَالِمُونَ
Maybe this was part of the reason? الله أعلم
after a teacher in a predominantly immigrant suburb of paris shows caricatural pictures of mohammed to his classroom to debate freedom of expression, he gets decapitated by an 18 year old chechen islamist on friday 16th october
Il s'agit d'un jeune Russe tchétchène de 18 ans né à Moscou. Il était porteur d'un titre de séjour délivré du 4 mars dernier et bénéficiait du statut de réfugié.www.lefigaro.fr
This is a bait question by the resident evangelist, but I’ll take it anyway.
People who put their hand in the fire get hurt.
People who luckily lampoon the Prophet also get get hurt.
Is there a real difference between the two?
Thank you bro for admitting my leadership position over @Rafidi and @elAshtar.
So you are admitting that it is justified in Islam, but then you are fecklessly attempting to justify that answer using the 'playing with fire' analogy. And this attempt fails of course. The 'getting hurt playing with fire' characteristic doesn't in itself determine the in/validity of an act or of its counter-act. Any risky job can be framed as 'playing with fire' and involve getting hurt as a result, say such as that of cops defending society against theft and murder; does their task in principle having the characteristic of 'playing with fire and often getting hurt as a result' invalidate their task and justify opposing it and hurting (killing) cops? Thus, drawing a caricature of the prophet of Islam is a risky endeavor, but it being risky by itself doesn't justify opposing it much less murdering the cartoonist.