helian,

Quote:


Let me begin by making it quite clear, what you believe is irrelevant. Islam is not based on what a non-Muslim, who has absolutely no idea about the science of tafsir believes. That said, you're free to air your opnion and I'll try to address it as best I can, but keep in mind, you're certainly not an authority on anything related to Islam, as neither am I, but I shall do my best to bring the words of some who are recognised as such.

Firstly you need to understand that Islam is a religion of law (the Shari'ah) it is not a religion based on people's desires, whims and suppositions. For an Islamic law to be binding, it must meet two main requirements regarding evidence. It must come from one of the 4 recognised sources of Shari'ah law (they being the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Consensus of the companions of Muhammad (pbuh) and analogical deduction) and it must be clear in its meaning, there are other conditions that need to be met depending on the severity of the issue, but we can discount them for the moment.

In this case, you've asserted that a law or ruling should be adopted by Muslims, that the foreign relations of Muslims must recognise the state of Israel as a legitimate entity. Please note that I am merely humouring you, I don't for a second entertain the idea that you are qualified or capable of making such a ruling, but just for the sake of argument we'll examine what you've claimed. And you have produced as your evidence a verse from the Qur'an, thereby satisfying the first requirement, of having an evidence from one of the 4 acceptable sources. However, when it comes to the second requirement, your evidence fails miserably, as there's nothing explicit in that verse about Muslims recognising the entity of Israel. This evidence, as I've mentioned to you before is classed as "Khabr" which means news. It merely gives news of an event, it does not state anything else regarding the requirements of the Muslims in response to that event.

As an example, the Dajjal (false messiah) is mentioned in many Islamic texts, that he will come, that he will establish his authority in the earth etc. By your reasoning, we could conclude that welcoming the coming of the false messiah is prescribed for Muslims, as is recognising and accepting his establishment in the earth. In fact accepting everything he does (that's prophesised) would be mandatory according to your simplistic opinion, because if it's mentioned in an Islamic text, then it must be supported, it's been prophesised!

Or another example is the hadith in which the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) predicted that Muslims will divide into 73 sects: Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said: "The Jews have split into seventy-one sects, and my Ummah will divide into seventy-three."

This is khabr (news), it is not a command to do anything. In fact it's forbidden for Muslims to divide themselves. Anyone who'd claim this prophecy is a license to divide into sects would just be speaking nonsense.

Another example is the prophecy of Muhammad (pbuh) in which he stated: 'Among the signs of the Hour will be the disappearance of knowledge and the appearance of ignorance. Adultery will be prevalent and the drinking of wine will be common.'

Again do you understand from this that stamping out knowledge is good, welcoming the appearance of ignorance is good, making adultery and drinking of wine prevalent is good???

Another one: 'Islam will become worn out like clothes are, until there will be no-one who knows what fasting, prayer, charity and rituals are. The Qur'an will disappear in one night, and no ayah will be left on earth.'

Does this mean Muslims believe that nobody should know how to perform fasting, charity or prayer? Or that we should make the Qur'an disappear from the earth? In one night if we can?? After all it's prophesised. I have no doubt it'll come to pass, but I'm not going to be welcoming it or calling to it, because that's not what Islam demands of me. Likewise Islam does not demand of me to accept the state of Israel.

If you're truly interested in understanding how Islamic evidences work, then I can suggest a nice basic book in English called Studies in Usul ul-Fiqh, which details the way an Islamic ruling (fatwa) is deduced from the 4 sources of Islamic Shari'ah I mentioned above.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Quote:


You claimed out of your own arrogance that the Qur'an demands Muslims to be Zionists, when we've been slaughtered, oppressed, expelled from our homes by the Zionists for over 60 years now, kinda like if you went to the Jews during WWII and said "The Torah actually tells you to support Nazism". I'm sorry, but if you want to now call for humbleness, you should take the first step.

Quote:


This is the whole point. As with the text you brought, there's no clear meaning inherent in the text that states what the believers should think towards the event one way or the other, it's simply news. Although with some of the texts I posted, they are described as things that are obviously not prevalent nor common, and that their becoming common and prevalent would indicate the day of judgement is near, which tends to suggest they might by actions disapproved of. The verse you brought does not have any indications whatsoever like this though.

Even if we look at the text:

Quote:


It doesn't even say where or when they will be brought together. It just states they'll be brought together as a mixed crowd, not that a time and place would make supporting the occupation and invasion of Palestine by the Zionists a legitimate action in Islam anyway.

Just to give an example of a prophecy that gives a clear and definite meaning, also about conquest of a land is the prophecy of Muhammad (pbuh): "You will conquer Constantinople. Its commander is the best and its army (that will conquer it) is the best."

Now since in this text, the commander of the army and the army are described in complimentary terms, we can understand from it that the action is a good action. Islamic rulings require clear use of certain classes of words in order to elevate a described action to one which is liked or compulsory. Likewise certain classes of words that imply condemnation must exist in a text for an action to be considered disliked or forbidden. It can't just be assumed because an action/event is mentioned in a text that it's liked or disliked. This applies for all rulings in Islam.

Quote:


I don't really understand exactly what you mean by 'personally'? Are there personal and non-personal prophecies? Are you supposing some are carried out by God himself, and others he just delegates to part time angels or something, who aren't all that reliable?

Quote:


Why do you not apply the same inferrances to the texts I produced for you? If we are to accept your reasoning, then it should equally apply to all prophecies. Why do you only consider it futile to resist the  prophecy you wish to advocate? Doesn't seem like very sound reasoning if you ask me.

Quote:


And of the Serbs and of the Americans and of the Mongols in 1258... True. That still doesn't say anything about his command to us, and how we must react to such events.

Your reasoning is equivalent to saying "God is the source of cyclones, so when there's a cyclone, don't try to avoid it, just accept it as God's will, to do otherwise is futile and in fact borders on the sacriligious".

All events in our lives are tests. God tests us on what he's commanded us to do in response to them, not whether we just adopt a deterministic outlook and just consider everything the will of God and unable to be acted against.

Quote:


Well obviously that's how I perceived it.

Quote:


Actually there's more Jews in the USA. Like to try again? One could also say they were 'brought together' in Europe in WWII, and thereore supporting concentration camps is adhering to this prophecy. Unlike in Christianity, in Islam you can't just grab a prophecy, apply it to whatever you will and make a new cult out of it. Islam is a very legalistic (some say too legalistic) system which requires very stringent evidence for making any claim in the religion.

Quote:


But even if it is, that's where the prophecy ends. "We will gather than together..." Finished, there's no further instructions, in which case no action or position can be legislated. You're trying to it Islam into the framework of Christianity, where they grab the most vaguest prophecy and twist and apply it to all sorts of different things. Just sit up till 4:00 am one morning and watch some of those US preachers, you'll find all manner of prophecies being expounded upon. You won't find the same thing amongst Muslims, because we require a clear evidence. Simple.

Quote:


If you can show me a case in which I, or other Muslims, derive a ruling based on a statement that doesn't contain a clear and conclusive course of action, then I'll concede this.

Quote:


I thought it was quite obvious that I was not seriously suggesting such folly.

Quote:


Firstly, there's no mention of Satan or a demon in any of those texts I produced. Again, you're just using your own mind to add context and events to the text that just don't exist. Islamically we cannot accept this as amounting to valid evidence.

I've told you a few times now, Islam is an evidence based religion. You need to have evidences from the Islamic texts with clear and apparent meanings to even suppose something.

Quote:


You could say that, but do you have an evidence for it?
When we talk about adhering to the commands of the deity, then we must have an evidence from the texts he has revealed to us to justify what we are doing/believing. We can't theorise willy nilly.

“Each one of them(wicked people) We seized for his crime: of them, against some We sent a violent tornado (with showers of stones); some were caught by a (mighty) Blast; some We caused the earth to swallow up; and some We drowned (in the waters): It was not Allah Who injured (or oppressed) them:" They injured (and oppressed) their own souls.”  (Qu'ran 29:40)

Quote:


But that's not what he's commanded us regarding those who come into our lands, turn us out and slay us.

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter" (Qur'an 2:190)

Quote:


That's right, we don't know, because the verse doesn't have a clear meaning, hence the reason I don't see your logic in the topic of this thread.

Just a note though, the word translated as 'land' is Ardh which means earth, although it can mean a piece of land as well, it generally doesn't refer to a small nation, but to the planet as a whole, or vast tracts of land, or possibly soil.

Quote:


I have checked one of the most famous tafsirs of this verse, by Ibn Kathir (May God be pleased with him) and he did not mention it meaning the promised land.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Muslimscholar.html

For a Jew or a Muslim, religious or secular, thinking of Jerusalem means to feel reason and sentiment mingled together. So, as a Muslim scholar and a man of religion, it is today worthwhile for me to try to determine whether, from an Islamic point of view, there is some well-grounded theological reason that makes recognizing Jerusalem both as an Islamic holy place and as the capital of the State of Israel impossible.

The idea of Islam as a factor that prevents Arabs from recognizing any sovereign right of Jews over the Land of Israel or Jerusalem is quite recent and can by no means be found in Islamic classical sources. Both Qur'an and Torah indicate quite clearly that the link between the Jews and the Land of Israel does not depend on any kind of colonization project but directly on the will of God Almighty. In particular, both Jewish and Islamic Scriptures state specifically that God through His chosen servant Moses decided to free the offspring of Jacob from slavery in Egypt and to make them the inheritors of the Promised Land.

The Qur'an cites the exact words with which Moses ordered the Israelites to conquer the Land:

"And (remember) when Moses said to his people: ‘O my people, call in remembrance the favour of God unto you, when he produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave to you what He had not given to any other among the people. O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin'". (Qur'an, Sura 5:22-23, "The Table")

The Holy Qur'an also quite openly refers to the reinstatement of the Children of Israel in the Land before the Last Judgment, where it says "And thereafter We said to the Children of Israel: ‘Dwell securely in the Promised Land.' And when the last warning will come to pass, We will gather you together in a mingled crowd." (Qur'an, Sura 17:104, "The Night Journey")

As concerns Jerusalem, the most common argument against Islamic acceptance of Israeli sovereignty over the Holy City is that, since it is a holy place for Muslims, its being ruled by non-Muslims would be a betrayal of Islam.

The designation of Jerusalem as an Islamic holy place depends on al-Mi'raj, the Ascension of the Prophet Muhammad to heaven, which began from the Foundation Stone on the Temple Mount. But while remembering this, we must admit that there is no real link between al-Mi'raj and sovereign rights over Jerusalem, since when al-Mi'raj took place the city was not under Islamic but under alternate Byzantine or Sassanid administration.

Moreover, the Qur'an expressly recognizes that Jerusalem plays the same role for Jews that Mecca has for Muslims. We read: "They would not follow thy direction of prayer (qibla), nor art thou to follow their direction of prayer; nor indeed will they follow each other's direction of prayer...." (Qur'an, Sura 2:145, "The Cow") All Qur'anic commentators explain that "thy qibla" is obviously the Kaba of Mecca, while "their qibla" refers to the Temple Mount Area in Jerusalem. Some Muslim exegetes also quote the Book of Daniel as proof of this (Daniel 6:10).

Thus, as no one wishes to deny Muslims complete sovereignty over Mecca, from an Islamic point of view there is no sound theological reason to deny the Jews the same right over Jerusalem.

As to Jewish-Muslim relationships, if we reflect on the level of inter-religious dialogue in past centuries, we must frankly admit that in this respect we have been moving backwards. From a theological point of view, dialogue between Jews and Muslims is easier than, say, dialogue between Jews and Chrisitians. Indeed, dialogue between Jews and Muslims was much more extensive in the past. Ibn Gabirol (Avicembro), Maimonides, Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) were not isolated intellectuals but part of an ongoing intercommunication and shared well of knowledge.

One can blame the current separation on the political situation, but that does not free intellectuals and men of religion of their responsibility. Today, looking toward the future, we must again create the same kind of intellectual atmosphere, until it is common for Islamic theologians to read Buber and Levinas, and for Jewish scholars to study the works of Sha'rawi and Ashmawi. We can understand the common features in the development of Kabbalah and Tasawwuf, or study the mutual influence of Jewish Halakhah and Islamic Sharia.

Jewish intellectuals, for their part, must be ready to understand that a new attitude is emerging among some Islamic thinkers. Many of us are now ready to admit that hostility for Israel has been a great mistake, perhaps the worst mistake Muslims have made in the last 50 years.

For those Muslim leaders who live in democratic countries, this declaration is not so dangerous. Even in the more oppressed countries, there is a certain part of the educated population that does not blindly accept the local view. It is very important for us to verify that we are not alone in this activity; we must know that there is someone else who appreciates and shares our goals.

The times are ready for Jews and Muslims to recognize each other once again as a branch of the tree of monotheism, as brothers descended from the same father - Abraham, the forerunner of faith in the Living God. The more we discover our common roots, the more we can hope.

Yeah, you can't trust a Wog University.  What would they know, ey, Abu?

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 8:58pm:

How do Muslims determine who has authority to pronounce on matters of faith? With Catholicism it is the Pope who is the final authority on these matters. Within the orthodox traditions this authority is vested in the Patriarch or a council of bishops. What person or body determines the right of a Muslim (cleric or otherwise) to determine how the holy texts are to be interpreted?