Theology bites

@Theologybites Нравится 0
Это ваш канал? Подтвердите владение для дополнительных возможностей

A channel on theology and science- an academic look. Exploring the cultures, traditions and ideas of them in depth. Interesting books, articles and documentaries will be posted. Subscribe!
Гео и язык канала
не указан, Английский
Категория
Образование


Гео канала
не указан
Язык канала
Английский
Категория
Образование
Добавлен в индекс
07.07.2017 10:09
реклама
Реклама на каналах сети IMMIGRATOR!
Отличная отдача при адекватной стоимости!
Telegram Analytics
Подписывайся, чтобы быть в курсе новостей TGStat.
TGStat Bot
Бот для получения статистики каналов не выходя из Telegram
94
подписчиков
~0
охват 1 публикации
N/A
дневной охват
N/A
постов в день
N/A
ERR %
0.03
индекс цитирования
Репосты и упоминания канала
1 упоминаний канала
0 упоминаний публикаций
3 репостов
Intellectual Hikmah
@randomanonch1
@randomanonch1
Каналы, которые цитирует @Theologybites
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
☆ Naseeha Channel ☆
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Intellectual Hikmah
Philosophical Musings
Последние публикации
Удалённые
С упоминаниями
Репосты
Theology bites 17 Jul, 07:27
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
⬜⬛


|| The Goal of the Shari'āh is Justice, Not Equality ||


In speaking of justice, many well-intended Muslims are unconsciously secularised. For their discourse about justice (Ar. ‘adl, qist) is so often scarred by failing to grasp its Qur'ānic essence: ‘To put a thing in its rightful place.’¹ Which is to say, justice is to give things their proper due – at the due time, the due place, and in due measure.

This requires possessing knowledge about the value and measure of things, as Islām assigns to them, so as to give them their due. ‘Hence,’ Ibn al-Qayyim wrote, ‘knowledge and justice are the root of every good, while injustice and ignorance are the root of every evil.’²

The Qur'ānic insistence on justice can be found in many verses, like: ‘God commands you to render back things held in trust to their rightful owners, and if you judge between people, that you judge justly.’ [Q.4:58] And also: ‘O you who believe! Be upright for justice, witnesses to God, even if it be against yourselves, or parents, or relatives; and weather it be against rich or poor.’ [Q.4:135]

But talking more from a marketable take on Islām than a textual, well-studied one, they mistakenly equate justice ( ‘adl) with equality ( musawa). This though isn’t really Islām’s story. No doubt, there are areas of overlap between the two. But the Qur'ān is couched in the language of justice, not equality. To describe Islām as ‘egalitarian’, or to claim it advocates equality isn’t just reductionist, the concepts are also not very meaningful. While some verses of the Qur'ān do have an egalitarian temper to them, many others insist on difference, distinction and divine disparity.

While speaking about the disbelievers who harm and transgress against their own souls because of their disbelief, the Qur'ān asks: ‘Is he who is a believer like he who transgresses? They are not equal.’ [Q.32:18] We also read: ‘Not equal are the people of the Fire and the people of the Garden. It is the people of the Garden that are the [true] winners.’ [Q.59:20] Then there are verses which speak to gender roles, functions and natures: ‘And the male is not like the female.’ [Q.3:36]

And as Islām legally obligated men to financially maintain family and household, while women do not have any such duty, there’s this verse: ‘God thus commands you concerning [the division of inheritance for] your children: to the male a share equal to that of two females.’ [Q.4:11]

All this is to say that the Qur'ān speaks of justice, not the nebulous social construct of equality. It’s when we veer away from using the vocabulary of the Qur'ān, using instead ill-informed substitutes, that distortions or deviations creep in to corrupt the Qur'ānic message. Of all the modern voices guilty of conflating justice with equality, feminism takes first prize.

To conclude: highlighting the core nature of the Shari'āh, Imām Ibn al-Qayyim says that justice is its essential feature. He wrote: ‘Indeed, [God] transcendent is He, has clarified in the paths He legislates that its purpose is: to establish justice among His servants and equity between people. Thus any path by which justice and equity are drawn out is part of the religion, and can never be in opposition to it.’³

Elsewhere he says: ‘The Shari'āh is based on and built on wisdom and [achieving] public welfare, in this life and in the next. It is justice in its entirety, mercy in its entirety, welfare in its entirety, and wisdom in its entirety. Any issue which departs from justice to injustice, or mercy to its opposite, or public welfare to corruption, or wisdom to folly can’t be part of the shari‘ah, even if it is claimed to be so due to some interpretation.’

Footnotes:

1. Al-Raghīb Mufradāt Alfāz al-Qur'ān (Beirut: Dar al-Qalam, 2002), 537.
2. Madārij al-Salikīn (Riyadh: Dar Taybah, 2008), 4:556.
3. Al-Tūrūq al-Hukmiyyah (Makkah: Dar ‘Alam al-Fawa’id, 2007), 31.
4. I‘lam al-Muwaqqīn (Riyadh: Dar Ibn al-Jawzi, 2002), 4:337.


------
Tags: #Shariah #Law #Secularism
Читать полностью
Theology bites 17 May, 07:56
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
⬜⬛


|| What Everyone Needs To Know About Shari'āh ||


Watch Andrew F. March, a specialist on Islām and Political Science at University of Massachusetts, and also a visiting scholar with the Middle East Initiative in the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, explain everything you always wanted to know about Shari'āh but were afraid to ask.

Source: Creeping Sharia? What You Need to Know.,Emir-Stein Center, YouTube

Tap the link Preview below


Read the previous post here

--------------------------------------
Tags: #Shariah #Law
Читать полностью
Theology bites 13 May, 19:44
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
⬜⬛


|| What Everyone Needs To Know About Shari'āh ||


▪️ Does Islāmic law permit or encourage terrorism or suicide bombing?

▫️Under no circumstances is suicide, let alone suicidal terrorism and bombing, permitted in Islāmic law. The Qur'ānic prohibition against killing (al-An’ām, 6:151) and suicide ( “And kill yourselves not [la taqtulu anfusakum], for God is merciful to you” – al-Nisa’, 4:29) is supported by various sayings of the Prophet ﷺ. Elsewhere the Qur'ān addresses the believers to “throw not yourselves into the mouth of danger,” (al-Baqarah, 2:195) be it out of despair, ignorance or adventurism. These prohibitions subsume all forms of violence and self-destruction, including suicide bombing.

The exquisite and illuminating juristic edict against terrorism perpetrated on civilians written by the eminent Sunni jurist, philologist, philosopher and theologian based in Oxford University Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti titled 'Defending the Transgressed by Censuring the Reckless against the Killing of Civilians' has clearly stated that Suicide bombings are unislāmic. So have many other Scholars in numerous books, talks, articles etc. Acknowledging this fact, Juan Carlos Antunez and Dr. Ioannis Tellidis of the Department of International Studies, Kyung Hee University writes:

"Many Muslim scholars have attributed Islam's association with terrorism to ignorance among Muslims (al-Atharee, in Silber and Bhatt 2007, 13), misunderstanding (DeLong Bas 2004, 278-279) and sometimes insincere research and even deliberate misleading (al-Jazaa'iree, in Spechard 2011, 9-2) by different Western interests and agendas. They have made statements that affirm terrorism is in violation of Sharia law and aids the enemies of Islam (Silber and Bhatt 2007; Salafipublications 2003). Numerous fatwas (an Islamic scholar's authoritative legal opinion) condemning suicide bombing as haram (legal term for what is forbidden or inviolable under Islamic Law) have been published by Islamic scholars worldwide. According to them, terrorism must be condemned without any excuses or pretexts: "They [terrorists] can't claim that their suicide bombings are martyrdom operations and that they become heroes of the Muslim Umma. No, they become heroes of hellfire, and they are leading towards hellfire." (Casciani 2010)."

Source: Antunez, J. C. & Tellidis, I. (2014). The power of words: the deficient terminology surrounding Islam-related terrorism. in Harmonie Toros & Ioannis Tellidis (eds), Terrorism, Peace and Conflict Studies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 123


Read the previous post here

--------------------------------------
Tags: #Shariah #Law
Читать полностью
Theology bites 1 May, 20:51
Репост из: ☆ Naseeha Channel ☆
??

|| The Hijāb ||

The word "hijāb" appears seven times in the Qur'ān. In 7:46, the hijāb is a "barrier" that divides Paradise from the Fire. In 19:16-17, Mary "secludes" herself from her family to devote herself to God in solitude. In 33:53, a "screen" protects the Prophet's wives from onlookers. In 41:5, a "barrier" prevents the disbelievers from heartfelt belief. In 42:51, a "veil" prevents Allāh from being seen by those He reveals to. In 17:45, a "partition" prevents the disbelievers from comprehending the Qur'ān. In 38:32, a "curtain" prevents Solomon from seeking his prescribed prayers.

The Qur'ān never refers to the Muslim headdress as a Hijāb. In our traditional literature, the garment is instead referred to as a khimar, a jilbab, or a kisa'. So this begs the question: what is a hijāb in Islāmic terminology?


Read more by tapping the Instant View below


If you have read the article, please vote by tappingbutton



Article
Читать полностью
Theology bites 21 Apr, 16:47
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
⬜⬛


|| What Everyone Needs To Know About Shari'āh ||


▪️ Do Muslims want to impose Shari'āh law in the West?

▫️Muslim communities in the West have practiced parts of the Shari'āh pertaining to worship matters, matrimonial law and victuals, and have also often expressed the wish to practice more of the Shari'āh in personal law matters, but there is no public demand on their part or that of the majority Muslim countries for Shari'āh to be imposed in the West. Following the advent of Islāmic revivalism, Muslims in the West have become more widely observant of Islāmic principles in personal lifestyle matters, food, clothing etc., but in the public sphere they have, on the whole, followed the laws and customs of their country of domicile. This is also in keeping with the Islāmic position which requires them to observe those laws and customs as law-abiding citizens, provided they do not contradict Islāmic religious injunctions.


Read the previous post here

--------------------------------------
Tags: #Shariah #Law
Читать полностью
Theology bites 12 Feb, 20:31
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
⬜⬛


|| Which Jesus do you believe in? ||

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT


Reading the four gospels with a careful eye to detail will reveal to the discerning reader four blatantly different pictures of the "Lord" that, without disingenuous convoluted harmonising tactics of the fundamentalist, underscores the message of Islām that the Christians had hijacked the real Jesus and made him into their own image. Let us sample an example of how Jesus' image was contrived in the canonical gospels below by ancient, nameless, Christian propagandists.

Did Jesus heal 'many' or 'all' of them? You decide!

"That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was." (Mark 1:32-34)

In the Markan version of the incident above, which happens to be the oldest, the sick and the ailing were all brought to Jesus and though many (verse 34) were miraculously healed by Jesus' touch, not every person was lucky enough to be given that gift. This fact is revealed by Mark's use of "all" and "many". According to Mark, although all the sick were brought to Jesus, only 'many' of them were healed.

Using Mark as a source, Matthew revamps the story and creates a greater Jesus in his version of the same event.

"When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick." (Matthew 8:16)

The Markan Jesus healed "many" of all the sick that were brought to him and though the average reader may find that amazing, it didn't sit too well with Matthew as he was writing his own gospel, while cribbing Mark as a source. The Matthean Jesus has him heal literally every sick person that was presented to him. Matthew's Jesus is clearly a more developed person with greater power. Noting this point, Professor in the Religion department at Carleton University, Dr. Zeba Crook in a debate with Richard Carrier says:

“Here is a summary story in which Mark is summarising all the great things that Jesus has been doing. And Mark tells us that they brought him all who were sick and he healed many. That's pretty subtle but still, Matthew has a problem with it and he switches the quantities. Very simple, but it clearly has the same effect. Matthew's Jesus is bigger, better and stronger than Mark's Jesus” [1]

Which Jesus is your Jesus?



Notes:

Atheism TV. (2014, May 10). Jesus of Nazareth: Man or myth? A discussion with Zeba Crook and Richard Carrier. [Video File]. Retrieved from here



----------------------------------------------
Tags: #Christianity #Jesus
Читать полностью
Theology bites 18 Jan, 20:32
Theology bites 11 Nov 2018, 17:39
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
⬜⬛


|| Popular Atheism is not a Philosophy but a Therap
y §d|


“Materialism is a conviction based not upon evidence or logic but upon what Carl Sagan (speaking of another kind of faith) called ‘a deep-seated need to believe.’ Considered purely as a rational philosophy, it has little to recommend it; but as an emotional sedative, what Czeslaw Milosz liked to call the opiate of unbelief, it offers a refuge from so many elaborate perplexities, so many arduous spiritual exertions, so many trying intellectual and moral problems, so many exhausting expressions of hope or fear, charity or remorse. In this sense, it should be classified as one of those religious consolations whose purpose is not to engage the mind or will with the mysteries of being but merely to provide a palliative for existential grievances and private disappointments. Popular atheism is not a philosophy but a therapy. Perhaps, then, it should not be condemned for its philosophical deficiencies, or even treated as an intellectual posture of any kind, but recognized as a form of simple devotion, all the more endearing for its mixture of tender awkwardness and charming pomposity. Even the stridency, bigotry, childishness, and ignorance with which the current atheist vogue typically expresses itself should perhaps be excused as no more than an effervescence of primitive fervor on the part of those who, finding themselves poised upon a precipice overlooking the abyss of ultimate absurdity, have made a madly valiant leap of faith. That said, any religion of consolation that evangelically strives to supplant other creeds, as popular atheism now does, has a certain burden of moral proof to bear: it must show that the opiates it offers are at least as powerful as those it would replace. To proclaim triumphantly that there is no God, no eternal gaze that beholds our cruelties and betrayals, no final beatitude for the soul after death, may seem bold and admirable to a comfortable bourgeois academic who rarely if ever has to descend into the misery of those whose lives are at best a state of constant anxiety or at worst the indelible memory of the death of a child. For a man sheltered from life’s harder edges, a gentle soporific may suffice to ease whatever fleeting moments of distress or resentment afflict him. For those genuinely acquainted with grief, however – despair, poverty, calamity, disease, oppression, or bereavement – but who have no ivory tower to which to retreat, no material advantages to distract them from their suffering, and no hope for anything better in this world, something far stronger may be needed. If there is no God, then the universe (astonishing accident that it is) is a brute event of boundless magnificence and abysmal anguish, which only illusion and myth may have the power to make tolerable. Only extraordinary callousness or fatuous sanctimony could make one insensible to this. Moreover, if there is no God, truth is not an ultimate good – there is no such things as an ultimate good – and the more merciful course might well be not to preach unbelief but to tell ‘noble lies’ and fabricate ‘pious frauds’ and conjure up ever more enchanting illusions for the solace of tor
ment.”


~ David Bentley Hart in The Experience of God


------------------------------
Tags: #Atheism
Читать полностью
Theology bites 16 Oct 2018, 18:18
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
​​⬜⬛


|| What was God's name?
YHWH? Yahweh? Jehovah
? |§d

By Ibn
Anwar


Christians claim that the so-called tetragrammaton YHWH (yod hey vav hey) is the proper and one true name of God in the Bible. The problems with that claim are many. One of the greatest of the difficulties that come with claiming that YHWH is God's proper name is that it is unpronounceable. As Hebrew was written with only consonants before the much later invention of vowels, there is no way to know the precise and exact way by which the four consonants are to be pronounced together without the aid of tradition through memorisation, i.e., the manner by which to read words through oral learning that is handed down from one generation to the next. Unfortunately, the tradition did not survive to the Middle Ages and as a result, Jews and Christians completely lost the knowledge on how to say the letters as a single item correctly. How can a name be a name if it cannot be pronounced? The name is, therefore, for all intents and purposes, lost to history. Commonly, two pronunciations are favourites among Christians: Jehovah and Yahweh. The former is particularly popular among Jehovah's Witnesses while the latter is commonly used by Protestants and Catholics. They are, however, completely man made and have no foundation in history. Although the Jehovah's Witnesses use 'Jehovah' as preferred pronunciation for the tetragrammaton, they, nevertheless, recognise that the correct pronunciation has long disappeared:

“But especially after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., the correct pronunciation gradually came to be los
t.”[1]

Christian author Donald Louis Giddens writes:

“JHWH - the Jewish scribes wrote Adonay or Lord every time they came to this sacred Name of God. No one knows how to pronounce it, nor do they know the vowels.
..”[2]

Affirming the above, Steven Ortlepp writes:

“The correct pronunciation of the name were lost from Jewish tradition some time during the Middle Ages; late in the period of the Second Temple the name had come to be regarded as unspeakably holy and therefore unsuitable for public reading, although it continued to be used privatel
y.”[3]

The Cambridge Bible Commentary says:

“There came a time when it was felt that the name was too sacred to pronounce, so another word, 'Adonai' (my Lord), was spoken instead and the original pronunciation of YHWH was los
t.”[4]

Since Christians and Jews can no longer utter the alleged name because they have completely lost its actual pronunciation, there is really little point in pushing for the four-letter word. If it is a name that God desires to be regarded by, then He would not have caused the entire population of Christians and Jews to experience mass amnesia that they totally forget how to say that name. The very fact that the name is no longer extant in human speech means that it is no longer relevant.


Notes:

[1] - n.d. (1964). The Watchtower, Volume 85. Pennsylvania: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. p. 422

[2] - Giddens, D. L. (2007). Jesus in Genesis: A Study Course. n.d.: G.E.M. Books. p. 203

[3] - Ortlepp, S. (2011). Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton: A Historico-Linguistic Approach. n.d.: Lulu. p. 16

[4] - Lace, O. J. (1972). Understanding the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 115


------------------------------------
Tags: #Christianity #God
Читать полностью
Theology bites 27 Sep 2018, 08:59
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
⬜⬛


|| The Creation of Prophet Adam in Evolutionary Term
s ||


Ahmet Hamdi Akseki (d. 1951) was a prominent Turkish scholar who once served as the President of Religious Affairs of Turkey during the early period of Republic of Turkey. He was of the opinion that the Theory of evolution and Islāmic position on Adamic creation do not contradict according to the classical Muslim theology. In this short YouTube clip, Ustādh Usman Ali focuses on Akseki’s position on Adamic creation via gradual evolutionary processes with some of his personal thoughts.


A discussion on Akseki’s position on Adamic creation can be found in the following paper:

Kaya, Veysel (April 2012). Can the Quran Support Darwin? An Evolutionist Approach by Two Turkish Scholars after the Foundation of the Turkish Republic. The Muslim World. 102 (2): 357–370.


Tap the Link preview below to watch the
Video

------------------------------------
#Evolution #Science #Theology
Читать полностью
Theology bites 18 Sep 2018, 11:08
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
​​⬜⬛

|| Is the Bible corrupted? When and where was it corrupted
? |§d

by Ibn
Anwar


There is little doubt in the informed Christian's mind that the Bible has indeed undergone many phases of corruption throughout 2000 years of Christian history. To deny that the Bible has been corrupted is no longer a tenable position and those that assert such a preposterous claim as "the Bible has not been corrupted" are regarded as delusional at best. The very fact that Bibles today are marred by rather revealing and helpful footnotes that explicitly mention and identify the places in which corruption, changes, deletions, alterations, editing etc. have occurred should assure Bible readers that the book that they hold in their hand is not the unperturbed and pristine "Word of God" that was revealed from heaven. The New Testament scholar W. R. Telford cautions students of the Bible regarding the veracity of the information that they encounter in their readings of the Bible:

“Our main sources have to be treated with caution, however. There are discrepancies between Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. The Acts and the Gospels present not history but theologically interpreted history or tradition...some data may have been modified, altered, embellished or invented by the church in the oral period when its traditions were being circulat
ed...” [1]

The next time a Christian missionary or apologist challenges you to identify the exact date of the Bible's corruption, simply retort by challenging him to open his Bible and turn to Mark 16. Ask him to read out the footnote for verses nine onwards. If that does not satisfy his challenge, then ask him to turn to 1 John 5:7 and make him read out the footnote in his Bible that he has in his hand for that particular verse (it should be somewhere along the lines of the attached image below). If that still does not satisfy him, then challenge him to read Mark 1:2 and its footnote. By this time, it should be clear to him that his question as to when the Bible was corrupted is completely moot and irrelevant. The Bible that he carries in his hand resoundingly informs him that the Bible has indeed been corrupted many times in many places.

See the attachment below as an e
xample


Notes:

1 Telford, W. R. (2014). The New Testament: A Beginner's Guide. London: Oneworld Publications. p. 42


------------------------------------
#Christianity #Bible
Читать полностью
Theology bites 9 Sep 2018, 15:24
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
​​⬜⬛

|| Jesus did not teach the Trinit
y |§d

by Ibn
Anwar


Essential to the doctrine of the Trinity is the divine sonship of Jesus as the Second Person of the Triune Godhead. What is indefatigably clear is that Jesus never once taught anyone that he was God or that he was deserving of divine worship and adulation. This in itself is a powerful confirmation that the Trinity was not part of the message and teachings of Jesus, for if he believed in the Trinity and desired that others believed in it, he would have had to clearly identify himself as the Second Person of the Trinity which he evidently never did. Highly celebrated Trinitarian scholar and theologian Professor Larry Hurtado says, in no uncertain terms, in a discussion with the Unitarian scholar Professor Anthony Buzzard that Jesus did not think he was the Second Person of the Trinity nor did he claim to be God:

“Jesus did not claim that he was God and did not imagine himself to be a second person of the Trinity and did not insist that he should be worshi
pped.” [1]

The late Archbishop of Canterbury, religious head of the worldwide Trinitarian Anglican communion, Dr. Michael Ramsey writes:

“Jesus did not claim deity for himself. He proclaimed the sovereignty of God, a sovereignty realized in and through his own mis
sion;” [2]

The very fact that Jesus never thought of himself as God or as the Second Person of the Triune Godhead, as Hurtado emphatically says, must mean that he never preached the Trinity. The Trinity says that there is One God that is a Being in whom there are three equal and eternal Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Such language, terminology and formulation is completely foreign to the recorded speech of Jesus. Jesus did not know or teach any such doctrine. He did not claim to be God and he did not imagine himself to be the Second Person of the Godhead, therefore, he did not teach the Trinity.



References:

[1] - [Restoration Fellowship](2016, October 29). Anthony Buzzard hosts Dr. Larry Hurtado: God, Jesus & the Trinity. [Video File]. Retrieved from YouTube

[2] - Ramsey, M. (1980). Jesus and the Living Past: The Hale Lectures 1978. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 39


------------------------------------
#Christianity #Trinity
Читать полностью
Theology bites 10 Aug 2018, 18:53
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
​​⬜⬛


|| Unpacking the unpackable Trinit
y ||


The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is One God that is three Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The One God is not only the Father. Neither is He only the Son. Nor is He only the Holy Ghost. God, in proper Trinitarian formulation as formally recognised by both western and eastern churches, is the conglomeration of all three Persons, therefore, God is together the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. To exclude any of the Persons in the triadic formulation is to dismantle what is deemed as God in orthodox Christian dogma.

In a nutshell, because God is all three of the said Persons, the Father himself is not that One God, nor is the Son by himself that One God, nor is the Holy Ghost himself that One God. And yet, they are not small fractions of that One God even though each is not that One God but rather together they make that One God. As the One God is a conference of three eternal Persons that have been eternally three from before time existed, each Person cannot possibly be said to be equal to the conference of the three that make the One God, therefore, the One God must be stronger than any of the particular Persons within that One God. But if that is the case, then those three Persons must necessarily be fractions of that One all-powerful God, but Trinitarians insist that that is not so. Rather, they insist that each Person has equal share and is fully God, but what is meant by fully God remains unasnwered and confounded by our little exercise in simply stating the doctrine and the basic implications that follow. The Trinity is a mystery is yet the best answer orthodoxy has to offer these many centuries past. It was inexplicably confusing one thousand years ago and it remains just as inexplicably confusing this very moment. No theologian has ever been able to grapple with the mystery of the Trinity.

And so theologians Roger Olsen and Christopher Hall complain that, “For many Christians the doctrine of the Trinity has seemed an esoteric belief--beyond comprehension and possibly merely speculative.” [1]

Let us have a look at the attached Christian Catholic fresco below. That's the Father holding the globe, the Son holding the cross and in between them, the Holy Spirit as the Dove. How many do you see? One or three? Where is the ONE God? We see only three. And so, the Qur'an rightly remarks, “Do NOT say THREE...!” (4:171)

© Ib
n Anwar

Reference:

[1] - Olsen, R. E. & Hall, C. A. (2002). The Trinity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 1



---------------------------------------
Tags: #Christianity #Trinity
Читать полностью
Theology bites 5 Aug 2018, 14:02
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
⬜⬛

|| "Religion": A Strawma
n ||

Religion is a strawman that secularism invented. The 'religious' (as thing(s) opposed to the secular) is a concept that wouldn't have been recognized by more ancient societies: there is no single word in ancient languages that accurately translates as “religion.”

In ancient times, people were simply referred to by their nations and the gods they worshipped, such as the Pheonecians worshippers of Hu-bal, or the Assyrians worshippers of Ashur, etc. The Arabs were worshippers of Lat, Uzza and Manat. The Arabs were sent a divine message that reminded them of an ancient monotheism from which they had lost their way, that of Abraham. The Lord God; El, Elohim, Eloi, Elah (also transliterated as Allāh), was whom they were commanded to serve, and shun all false deities. The construct of religion imputes on us a way of thinking about the world which demarcates our interaction with the God of Abraham on one side, and interaction with material world on other. This is a false dichotomy. Leave "religion", live life and do God.
Don't be religious, be godly.

If we were to focus on the Most High, we would engage in the most productive and inspiring conversations that'd explore who God is, what He wants, how, and what the mutual relationship means, rather than angst-inducing debate on dogma or pedantry on the details of ritualisms.

My intent is to highlight the way subservience to God ought to be perpetually informing, not something that turns on and off. God calls us to be Muslims to Him (constantly).
و
نحن له مسلمون


© Ustādh Mohammed Nizami


---------------------------------------
Tags: #Secularism
Читать полностью
Theology bites 30 Jul 2018, 08:33
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
⬜⬛


|| An advice on engaging with Western criticism of Islāmic ideal
s §d|


“Islāmic social institutions within the Islāmic world must be evaluated by young Muslims Islāmically and not on the basis of modern criticism against them because most of these modern criticisms are based on certain assumptions concerning human nature and the final end of human beings which are both false in reality and opposed explicitly to the teachings of Islām. The modernist attacks made against the traditional family structure, relation between the sexes, the rapport between various generations and the like in the Islāmic world must not be accepted passively and with a sense of inferiority by young Muslims as if they were established truths or scientifically established criteria of judgment. On the contrary, every few decades fashions and criteria of judgment that emanate from the West change, In fact, such criticisms must be viewed as issuing from a worldview which is totally alien to that of Islām, from a society which itself is in the process of rapid change and in danger of dissolu
tion.”

~ Seyyed Hossein Nasr in "A Young Muslim's Guide to the Modern World"


------------------------------
Tags: #Modernism
Читать полностью
Theology bites 14 Jul 2018, 11:32
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
⬜⬛

|| Islām is not a Religion of Peac
e ||


We often see from all groups of people, whether they be genuinely curious about Islām, people who hate Islām, and even Muslims themselves that they all have this question:
“If Islam is a religion of peace, then why are there extremists like
ISIS?”
How is it possible that a religion of peace could produce terrorists?

The answer is quite simple, but first we need to understand that the proposition 'Islām is religion of peace' is actually false. Islām is not a religion of peace nor a religion of war. In his dialogue with the late New Atheist icon, Christopher Hitchens, Tariq Ramadan, Professor of Contemporary Islāmic Studies at St. Anthony's college, University of Oxford rightly puts it, “Islam is a religion for human beings, and if you deal with human beings, you deal with violence…You must ask, ‘Is my religion helping us towards peace?'” Islam is as complex [as any other religion]…the problem is not the book, the problem is the reader. Peace is what you achieve after self-education.”[1]

Islām is a religion of peacemakers and a religion of warriors. Islām is about the reality of existence -- one where both good and evil co-exists -- where peace and war both need to be taught and practiced in balance. Does Islām lead to peace? Yes. And sometimes, it leads to war for making peace. But neither of these things are good when they are taken to extremes.

An absolute pacifist is just as immoral as a war monger. The former refuses to defend themselves and even other people from the latter, and the latter takes advantage of the former so that they can murder in the pursuit of power. The perfect practitioner of one affirms the other.

But Islām is neither. Islām is a warrior's religion meant for peaceful goals. It has a strict code of ethics, not only during times of peace, but also times of war.[2] Jihād is an ever present reality in the life of a Muslim, whether they be battling against their own egos or a physical foe willing to destroy them. And those struggles lead to a better world, both within and external to the believer.

So why are there extremists who claim Islām as their ideology? Because the most beautiful things attract even the lowliest of people; those who would do anything to have it for themselves.

Thankfully, we do not judge the value of gold based on the thieves who steal it.


References:
[1] - Tariq Ramadan & Christopher Hitchens: Is Islam a Religion of Peace?, Oxford University Press Blog
[2] - Hasan Shibly, War, Islam, and the Sanctity of Life: Non-Aggression in the Islamic Code of Combat, Yaqeen Institute


---------------------------------------
Tags: #Terrorism #Islam
Читать полностью
Theology bites 10 Jul 2018, 13:17
Theology bites 2 Jul 2018, 14:27
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
⬜⬛

|| On Hinduis
m |§d

▪️Sl
avery:
“But a Sudra, whether bought or unbought, he may compel to do servile work; for he was created by the Self-existent (Svayambhu) to be the slave of a Brahmana. A Sudra, though emancipated by his master, is not released from servitude; since that is innate in him, who can set him free fro
m it?”{1}

▪️Sex-slavery, coercion of captivated married women into sex-sl
avery:
“Chariots and horses, elephants, parasols, money, grain, cattle, women, all sorts of (marketable) goods and valueless metals belong to him who takes them (singly) conquering (the posses
sor).”{2}

▪️Dharma-yuddha (Holy-war) and establishment of Hindu-rashtra (Hindu-po
lity):
“With military weapons let us win the Earth, with them the battle, with cannon let us win the ease-loving army of our foes. War-like weapons destroy the ambitions of the foeman. Armed with the bow may we subdue all reg
ions.”{3}

▪️Kill blasph
emers:
“O mortals, brave and gallant, your marvelous energy is well-known, ``.``.``.`` destroy your revilers of faithful adora
bles.”{4}

▪️Misogyn
istic:
“A wife, a son, a slave, a pupil, and a (younger) brother of the full blood, who have committed faults, may be beaten with a rope or a split ba
mboo.”{5}

“Women are powerless, have no inheritance, and speak more humbly than even a bad
man.”{6}

“By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be indepen
dent.”{7}

“There is the well-known declaration of the scriptures that women are incompetent to enjoy freedom at any period of their
life.”{8}

▪️Exterminate inf
idels:
“O king, make progress in thy duty of administration, extend happiness to the virtuous. O terrible chastiser, burn down the irreligious foes. O splendid person, humiliate and consume utterly like dried up stubble, him, who encourages our
foe.”{9}

“O pioneer of land and air transport, powerful and munificent, terror to the enemies, ``.``.``.`` You have given formidable and fierce weapons to the speedy vehicle for the destruction of infi
dels.”{10}

▪️Torturing, chopping-off hands
, etc:
“If out of arrogance he spits (on a superior), the king shall cause both his lips to be cut off; if he urines (on him), the penis; if he breaks wind (against him), the anus. If he lays hold of the hair (of a superior), let the (king) unhesitatingly cut off his hands, likewise (if he takes him) by the feet, the beard, the neck, or the scr
otum.”{11}

“A once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin. If he mentions the names and castes (gati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his m
outh.”{12}

▪️Child-mar
riage:
“A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) so
oner.”{13}

Sounds like "militant Jihādīs" right? A Hindu would tell you, No, and that, these verses have been misquoted and cherry-picked. This Hindu, would also appeal to their commentary by legal exegetes. But ofcourse, a Muslim cannot to do the same when Hindus or other non-Muslims misquote from Islām! Isn't this hypocrisy?

It's time for Hindus and others to have a meaningful and healthy dialogue rather than misquoting, misrepresenting and cherry picking Islām.

Refer
ences:
{1} Manu Smriti, VIII. 412-413
{2} Manu Smriti, VII. 96.
{3} Yajurveda, XXIV. 39, p. 293
{4} Rigveda, II.34.10, p. 1031
{5} Manu Smriti, VIII.299.
{6} Krishna Yajurveda VI.5.8.1
{7} Manu Smriti, adhyaya V.147-148.
{8} Mahabharata XIII.45
{9} Yajurveda, XIII.12
{10} Rigveda, IV.38.1
{11} Manu Smriti VIII.282-3.
{12} Manu Smriti, VIII.270-1.
{13} Manu Smriti, IX.94.

-----------------------------
Tags: #Hinduism #Terrorism
Читать полностью
Theology bites 27 Jun 2018, 12:15
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
§c.

|| The Fables of the "Holy" Co
w ||


Most Hindus today are guided by a religious concern for cow protection. Therefore an average Indian, rooted in what appears to him as his traditional Hindu religious heritage, carries the load of the misconception that his ancestors, especially the Vedic Aryans, attached great importance to the cow on account of its inherent sacredness. The 'sacred' cow has come to be considered a symbol of community identity of the Hindus whose cultural tradition is often imagined as threatened by Muslims, who are thought of as beef eaters. The sanctity of the cow has, therefore, been announced with the flourish of trumpets and has been wrongly traced back to the Vedas, which are supposedly of divine origin and the fountainhead of all knowledge and wisdom. In other words, some sections of Indian society trace the concept of sacred cow to the very period when it was sacrificed and its flesh was eaten.

More Importantly, the cow has tended to become a political instrument in the hands of rulers over time. As such, many Muslims have been lynched and killed, or been a victim of these hindutva terrorists. A study shows that Muslims were the target of 52% of violence centred on bovine issues over nearly eight years (2010 to 2017) and comprised 84% of 25 Indians killed in 60 incidents. As many as 139 people were also injured in these attacks. More than half (52%) of these attacks were based on rumours.

Given the severity of the issue, it's important to examine the matter at hand. From what follows below, we see that Muslims have not done anything that would hurt the sentiments of a Hindu, and that it's only a political move bred by Hindutva terrorists.


Divine Dietary Prefe
rences:

The Rigveda frequently refers to the cooking of the flesh of the ox for offering to gods, especially Indra, the greatest of the the Vedic gods who was strong-armed, colossal, and a destroyer of enemy strongholds. At one place Indra states, ‘they cook for me fifteen plus twenty oxen’.1 At other places he is said to have eaten the flesh.....



Read more by Tapping the Instant View below:

---------------------------------
Tags: #Hinduism
Читать полностью
Theology bites 31 May 2018, 08:22
Репост из: Intellectual Hikmah
⬜⬛

|| Is the Hell Just?—A Response to Secular Liberals and Atheist
s ||

In today’s world the main objectors and doubters to the concept of hell and God’s justice are Secular Liberals. This is because of their belief in Liberalism, which ultimately leads and requires its devotees to doubt God’s justice as revealed in revelation in the first place. They like to call these doubts ‘rational’, and proudly croon that they are simply ‘rationalists’ against the ‘irrationalists’ of religion – but the reality is that they are the most irrational of all, yet they perceive it not. Doubting the justice of God, is unfortunately the inevitable conclusion of Liberalism’s assumptions about the world, and the reason many people who are influenced by its ideas begin to doubt and reject God, or any religion about God.

This is because, although Liberalism is defined as the political ideology, it is based upon a creed (Aqeedah) of Individualism. The creed posits that the natural state of the ‘individual human’ is sovereign over themselves, and therefore nothing can be higher than individuals, whether society, culture or religion/belief [read: God].


Read more by tapping the Instant View
below :


-----------------------------------------
#Theology #Liberalism #Atheism

.
Читать полностью