Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
melliodora

Wondering About Idolatory

Recommended Posts

Are you on any Mahabharata forums??? or rainbow serpent dreaming forums??? No you are not!! You are here on an Islamic forum speaking to muslims trying to learn from muslims(unless you think we are all stupid and your the supreme intellect here) and you seem to have a problem with Allah and im telling you that the Quran is the best gift for the human brain and it is best understood in its original language arabic. Dont tell me about other religious beliefs your just being a stubborn donkey, were talking about Islam here, why dont you study the language its simple. If you wish to study the translations ok then do that but its best understood in its original language

 

No (although I do know a few Hindus and have discussed their religion with them) but I've read parts of the Mahabharata in translation; no, I am not on any Pitjinjarra forums (although I have met a few Pitjinjarra people and have discussed their religion with them). This particular section of the forum is about dialogue - as the name suggests, it's supposed to be a two-way interaction, not simply me learning. I've already told you that I have read the Koran in translation.

 

They keep changing it over and over WHY because they do not know, i mean their trying to know but they dont and all their doing is making guesses alot of fancy talk for a subject that they do not know much on.

 

You really do not understand science. Nor do you read my posts. Science is about making hypotheses and testing them against the evidence. The idea that the world is spherical was a hypothesis. All the evidence fit the hypothesis (and the hypothesis was changed slightly when it was found that the earth is flattened at the poles and bulges at the equator), but we didn't actually see it until the astronauts went high enough to see that it was spherical. If there had been no space programme would you describe the hypothesis that the world is spherical as a "guess" and "fancy talk"? Hypotheses about the universe are formed in exactly the same way.

 

Thank youI was wondering when you was going to mention this, now if we are looking at the stars,and the galaxies past that means that we dont know what it looks like in its present state, we dont know what it has evolved into for all we know those stars and galaxies billions of miles away could be gone!! By the time their light reaches us that star or galaxy could be gone. So if all we are doing when looking into space is looking at a past then how can we say that our information on the BB is correct?? What about the light that was millions of years before the recordings that we have now they could have been different back then. Its almost like eating a burger that has already past through as a stool, we have some knowledge very little that its a burger it stinks and looks nothing like a burger, is it good to consume that stool??? Its the same when all we are doing is looking the past light of a star or galaxy that is not in its present state

 

Yes, when we see the sun we see it as it was 8 minutes ago. So what? It is extremely useful to be able to see stars at different times in the past - the further away they are the further in the past we are seeing them. It allows us to study various stages of stellar development without having to wait around for it to happen.

 

The age of the information doesn't make any difference to an event in the past. In fact it's good that we can 'see the past', because we can see how things have developed in the universe. We can detect the 'echoes' of things that happened immediately after the BB, study them and form a testable hypothesis about what conditions were like then. If a hypothesis about the BB says that certain particles should have been formed in certain numbers, we can look for them and detect them as they were about the time they were formed.

 

so space ends at the end of the universe but the universe is finite but expanding????

 

Yes

 

now if i have one million dollars then thats a finite amout of money however if money is constantly being added to that million it is nolonger finite, now if the universe is finite then were is the end of it?? where is the end of space point it out to me, where is your evidence to support your claim?? You just sit at your computer and google everything huh and believe that you have the correct information?? You dont study science at all you just have in your mind who you think is very intelligent and you follow watever they say. Because No scientist would say the dumb things that you say no scientist will tell you that space ends or that the universe has an end whithout proof!

 

The hypothesis of the BB, which best fits the current evidence, says that time-space was (and is) created with the expansion of the universe. It fits the facts. As I said, if someone wants to hypothesize that space is infinite, they will have to show that their hypothesis fits the facts better than the hypothesis that space is finite.

 

sounds like a description to me and how do you know for 100% fact that time did not exist before the BB??

 

When have I tried to describe what caused the BB? I have said repeatedly that we do not know what caused the BB. I said that time and space did not exist at the BB. I said that we do not (and probably logically cannot) know what happened before the BB. The notion of "100% fact" does not eist in science. hypotheses can (and must, to be valid) fit 100% of the current evidence.

 

THEY ARE JUST MADE UP we do not really know!! What is made up is to try and ease our minds about the creation of everything but man is still seaching because even those hypotheses dont sit well whith mankind so we keep searching

 

No, they are not 'just made up'. They are tested against the evidence. If they don't fit the evidence they are modified or rejected.

 

we are supernatural beings we have a soul, ask yourself while reading this what am I who is doing this reading and typing looking out of the eyes windows who is controling this body??

 

You'll need to define 'soul', but consciousness is not supernatural or evidence of the supernatural.

Edited by melliodora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Melliodora, forgive me but you are becoming non-sensical and self-contradicting now.

 

If science is about making hypothesis and testing it against the evidence, why are you rejecting the intelligent creator concept? Why would you "modify" the hypothesis of finite universe as more and more facts emerge based on the observation, while rejecting what for the sake of this argument we will call from your point of view to be the hypothesis of a creator.

 

It is striking me that you are speaking with a biased opinion because you are clearly rejecting it as an athiest even though all the current data does not disprove it in any way.

 

Why do you think you are not accepting this hypothesis even though empirical data and evidence have been in full constant support, and found that earth and life and human body and mind and civilization necessarily resulted out of an intelligent designer and guided creation and could not have been created out of evolution? Why don't you consider the hypothesis in evidence like you say "They are tested against the evidence. If they don't fit the evidence they are modified or rejected." and see if they need modification or rejection?

 

Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a very unsual sense of the word "owed", perhaps they did, but in that sense they also "owed' the Catholic church, Greek religion, Babylonian religion, some unknown homo erectus, a lemur that managed to survive and so on.

 

 

you can be silly if you wish but the fact remains that if you take away the Islamic faith and belief in Allah then science as we know it would not exist!! there will be no newton or einstine, period!

 

 

The names of scientists and the names given to theories are irrelevant. You could change the names of all the scientists in history, all the units of measurement and the names of all the theories and it would not make any difference to the science. Science (when done properly) is culture-free.

 

if what you say is true the cultured people would not have found science

 

Really? You are arguing that a god/s exist because a majority of humans believe in god/s? How very democratic of you. If a majority of humans did not believe in god/s would you accept their 'decision'? Do you base any other decisions on what a majority of humans think?

 

I as well as you base our decisions off of what other people say or do! All that we know we know from someone or something else. Now if majority of the humans did not believe in God and i was born amongst such type of people then most likely i would not believe in God. I would trust man far more than i would some God. However if one was to present to me a rational way of looking at God then i would become a believer,if i was to look at my own life and see that i can be a creator and create many wonderful things but i did not create myself, that alone would have me wondering.

 

And looking at the earth would have me wondering, wondering who i really am will have me pondering, the fact that i dream would have me wondering about what happens after death, like would it be like a dream, and many more deep pondering would lead me to God.

And yes i would base my decisions on what the majority of humans think ,why??? Because if the majority decide that there is no God then I would leave the majority alone,i would accept their right and my decision would be to leave them alone on that subject and live my life. Based off of what the majority wants.

 

But this is irrelevant. You asked what would make me believe in god/s and I said testable evidence. You said there was testable evidence but now you are saying that there doesn't need to be testable evidence. Sorry, but I think there does need to be testable evidence.

 

There is pleanty of testable evidence, man just look at how long God has been around, One God how long has that been around??? How many people believe in God, you even you mr atheist believed in God at one point in your life. Now looking at God as a subject and everything about God is good why would you leave something that is Good for you?? Your decision to become an atheist shows your lack of smart choices, you leave that which is good for what?? A better way of thinking??? When you got your beginning from the concept of belief in God. You have evidence of God you grew up believing in God but you decided to reject Him, now if you made that decision to reject God what chance does anyone stand in presenting any other evidence to you About God. When you have taken a position to reject God.

 

Your understanding of atheism is flawed. I don't put humans at the "top of the chart". I don't have a chart. I've said many times that I don't worship anything.

 

How you live your life is an expression of worship, plain and simple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No (although I do know a few Hindus and have discussed their religion with them) but I've read parts of the Mahabharata in translation; no, I am not on any Pitjinjarra forums (although I have met a few Pitjinjarra people and have discussed their religion with them). This particular section of the forum is about dialogue - as the name suggests, it's supposed to be a two-way interaction, not simply me learning. I've already told you that I have read the Koran in translation.

 

You ask believers in God a question and you now have to listen and try to learn. If its a two way interaction you started the first part by asking a question we are doing the second part of answering. Your asking believers in Allah and the Quran questions and then you reject them because your an atheist?? When people dialogue they are trying to get some knowledge, now what can an atheist give to a muslim???Nothing because for us all knowledge comes and begains with Allah then we go forth. What can a muslim give to an atheist?? The Quran and help in studying it and what ever we give is from Allah but if you the atheist dont believe in Allah why would you ask a question when the answer is comming from Allah?????? Which is very confusing you dont believe in God yet your on a forum where people are going to answer you based on what Allah says, now what type of 2 way dialogue do you really wish to have with a Muslim when were answering you with what Allah says?? If you reject Allah then your going to reject everything that we say

 

 

 

You really do not understand science. Nor do you read my posts. Science is about making hypotheses and testing them against the evidence. The idea that the world is spherical was a hypothesis. All the evidence fit the hypothesis (and the hypothesis was changed slightly when it was found that the earth is flattened at the poles and bulges at the equator), but we didn't actually see it until the astronauts went high enough to see that it was spherical. If there had been no space programme would you describe the hypothesis that the world is spherical as a "guess" and "fancy talk"?

 

go and look at the maps of the planets from muslim astrologist 1400or13or12 hundred years ago, they knew that the world was round back then I would efinitly go off of what the muslim scientist brought and it was because of then that space travel was possible!!

 

 

 

Yes, when we see the sun we see it as it was 8 minutes ago. So what? It is extremely useful to be able to see stars at different times in the past - the further away they are the further in the past we are seeing them. It allows us to study various stages of stellar development without having to wait around for it to happen.

 

the fact remains that it is information that is flawed, we donot know the present state, so how can we acuratly measure the universe when all we are doing is measuring the past and not the present. If you want to know the age of a tree dont you have to cut it in the present to know how old it is??

 

The age of the information doesn't make any difference to an event in the past. In fact it's good that we can 'see the past', because we can see how things have developed in the universe. We can detect the 'echoes' of things that happened immediately after the BB, study them and form a testable hypothesis about what conditions were like then. If a hypothesis about the BB says that certain particles should have been formed in certain numbers, we can look for them and detect them as they were about the time they were formed.

 

 

In my made up hypothesis i say that stars were formed at the BB and low and behold i look up and see stars this means that my hypothesis is right. Also there was gases right after the BB i test the universe and low and behold here is gases i am right!! right after the BB the earth was formed and dirt was on the earth and so was water, prove me wrong!!!

 

 

The hypothesis of the BB, which best fits the current evidence, says that time-space was (and is) created with the expansion of the universe. It fits the facts. As I said, if someone wants to hypothesize that space is infinite, they will have to show that their hypothesis fits the facts better than the hypothesis that space is finite.

 

very simple what is beyond space??? you dont know!! you dont know if its finite or infinite, so it is very silly to say that space is finite when you have not yet ventured out to the end of space??

 

 

When have I tried to describe what caused the BB?

 

 

uhhhh right when you said what happened right before the BB How do you know that or is that just a guess?

 

 

I have said repeatedly that we do not know what caused the BB. I said that time and space did not exist at the BB. I said that we do not (and probably logically cannot) know what happened before the BB.

 

if this is true then this applies as well as to right before the BB as well, but you have tried to tell me what caused the BB

 

 

The notion of "100% fact" does not eist in science. hypotheses can (and must, to be valid) fit 100% of the current evidence.

 

So theres a 50 50 chance that you are wrong

 

No, they are not 'just made up'. They are tested against the evidence. If they don't fit the evidence they are modified or rejected.

 

 

yes they are, they are made up, modified is another nice way of saying "here is a another guess we messed up on the last one" If it was tested aginst the evidence then there should be no changes

 

 

You'll need to define 'soul', but consciousness is not supernatural or evidence of the supernatural.

you used to be a believer in God you know about the soul no need to define it to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melliodora, forgive me but you are becoming non-sensical and self-contradicting now.

 

If science is about making hypothesis and testing it against the evidence, why are you rejecting the intelligent creator concept? Why would you "modify" the hypothesis of finite universe as more and more facts emerge based on the observation, while rejecting what for the sake of this argument we will call from your point of view to be the hypothesis of a creator.

 

I reject the "intelligent creator" concept because there is no scientific evidence for it.

 

It is striking me that you are speaking with a biased opinion because you are clearly rejecting it as an athiest even though all the current data does not disprove it in any way.

 

Current data does not support the idea of a supernatural being in any way. Further, current data does not require a supernatural being to explain it. The hypothesis that a supernatural being controls the universe just doesn't have any evidence supporting it. If there WAS evidence for it, I wouldn't be an atheist, obviously.

 

As I have said (repeatedly!) if you want to postulate that a a supernatural being caused the BB, go ahead. But if you claim that a supernatural being has had anything to do with the universe since the BB, you'll need some evidence. There is none.

 

Why do you think you are not accepting this hypothesis even though empirical data and evidence have been in full constant support, and found that earth and life and human body and mind and civilization necessarily resulted out of an intelligent designer and guided creation and could not have been created out of evolution?

 

For a start, evolution says nothing about the emergence of life on earth - it explains how life developed on earth. It fits the empirical data better than any other hypothesis, it has made predictions which have been proven correct, it can be proven experimentally. It's a pretty good hypothesis. On the other hand there is zero evidence for a supernatural being's involvement in life on earth.

 

Why don't you consider the hypothesis in evidence like you say "They are tested against the evidence. If they don't fit the evidence they are modified or rejected." and see if they need modification or rejection?

 

I have in fact tested the evidence (as much as a non-biologist, non-palaeontologist can - I've read the studies and the arguments). I have never seen any evidence whatsoever supporting the idea that a supernatural being created anything on earth. If you have some evidence, let's see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
go and look at the maps of the planets from muslim astrologist 1400or13or12 hundred years ago, they knew that the world was round back then I would efinitly go off of what the muslim scientist brought and it was because of then that space travel was possible!!

 

The ancient Greeks thought the world was spherical and even produced a surprisingly accurate estimate of its diameter. Does that make you worship Zeus? If not, why not?

 

the fact remains that it is information that is flawed, we donot know the present state, so how can we acuratly measure the universe when all we are doing is measuring the past and not the present. If you want to know the age of a tree dont you have to cut it in the present to know how old it is??

 

It's relatively simple to determine the age of the universe. Look up "age of the universe" on Wiki.

 

In my made up hypothesis i say that stars were formed at the BB and low and behold i look up and see stars this means that my hypothesis is right. Also there was gases right after the BB i test the universe and low and behold here is gases i am right!! right after the BB the earth was formed and dirt was on the earth and so was water, prove me wrong!!!

 

No, that isn't what happens at all. Look up "stars" on Wiki and you'll see the sorts of experiments and data involved. (By the way, stars were NOT formed at the BB - you'd better look up BB on Wiki as well).

 

very simple what is beyond space??? you dont know!! you dont know if its finite or infinite, so it is very silly to say that space is finite when you have not yet ventured out to the end of space??

 

The hypothesis that best fits the current evidence is that space is finite. If you have new evidence, contact an astrophysicist - they'll be delighted to learn it.

 

uhhhh right when you said what happened right before the BB How do you know that or is that just a guess?

if this is true then this applies as well as to right before the BB as well, but you have tried to tell me what caused the BB

 

I have NOT tried to tell you what caused the BB! I have said MANY TIMES that we do not and possibly cannot know what caused the BB.

 

So theres a 50 50 chance that you are wrong

 

How on earth do you work that out? What else do we have to go on except the current evidence?

 

yes they are, they are made up, modified is another nice way of saying "here is a another guess we messed up on the last one" If it was tested aginst the evidence then there should be no changes

 

I really wish you would read what I type. It is new evidence that changes hypotheses. The hypothesis that the earth is spherical had to be modified when there was evidence that it was flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator. The hypothesis "the earth is spherical" was not 'made up'. It was tested against the evidence and it was found that the hypothesis fitted the evidence. When new evidence was found the hypothesis was modified. However, until the space programme, no-one had actually SEEN that the earth is roughly spherical. Would you have claimed that the hypothesis that the earth is roughly spherical was just "made up" until the space programme? Of course not.

 

you used to be a believer in God you know about the soul no need to define it to you

 

No, I have never believed in god/s and (pending your definition) I don't agree that souls exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... It is therefore not allowed to bow down to an idol or a human being be he a king or a pope.

 

Just the building of Idols can cause eternal punishment in Hell. ...

 

I found this old topic because I was looking up references to Hinduism and Christianity - I was sure I had seen something somewhere.

 

Anyway in the topic "The Issue of Image and Drawing in Islam" I had quoted the following, but received no reply, and as I am an Orthodox Christian who kisses images of Christ, Mary, and the saints, this is somewhat close to me!!

 

Anyway, the Quran does indeed seem to mention statues (34:13. "They worked for him as he desired, (making) arches, images, ...") Here are some Tafsīr:

If angels do not enter such houses, then Solomon never had angels in his temple!

 

Also, I found the following:

Tafsīr al-Jalālayn:

[34:13] They fashioned for him whatever he wished: lofty shrines (mahārīb are high edifices which are ascended by stairs) and statues (tamāthīl is the plural of timthāl, which is any thing which you fashion as a likeness [of another]), in other words, brass, crystal or marble figures — the use of figures was not prohibited according to his Law

 

Yusuf Ali: C3806. ... Images would be like the images of oxen and Cherubim mentioned in II. Chronicles, 4:3 and 3:14;

 

Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs :

(They made for him what he willed: synagogues and statues) of angels, prophets and other righteous servants so that people look at them and follow their example of worshipping Allah,

 

Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

(They worked for him as he desired on Maharib, Tamathil,) Maharib refers to beautiful structures, the best and innermost part of a dwelling. Ibn Zayd said, "This means dwellings.'' With regard to "Tamathil,'' `Atiyah Al-`Awfi, Ad-Dahhak and As-Suddi said that Tamathil means pictures.

 

So two questions:

 

1) Is it idolatry to make an image of a person, especially of the prophets?

 

2) Is it idolatry to kiss them? remember that you Muslims kiss the Black Stone:

 

A hadith records that, when the second Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (580-644) came to kiss the Stone, he said in front of all assembled: "No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither harm anyone nor benefit anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Messenger [Muhammad] kissing you, I would not have kissed you" Most Muslims follow the example of Umar: they pay their respects to the Stone in a spirit of trust in Muhammad, not with any inherent belief in the Stone. This, however, does not indicate their disrespect to the Black Stone, but their belief that harm and benefit are in the hands of God, and nothing else.

 

Wikipedia, Black Stone - but I am sure I have read this elsewhere in Direct Islamic sources!

 

We also believe that "harm and benefit are in the hands of God, and nothing else"

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found this old topic because I was looking up references to Hinduism and Christianity - I was sure I had seen something somewhere.

 

Anyway in the topic "The Issue of Image and Drawing in Islam" I had quoted the following, but received no reply, and as I am an Orthodox Christian who kisses images of Christ, Mary, and the saints, this is somewhat close to me!!

So two questions:

 

1) Is it idolatry to make an image of a person, especially of the prophets?

 

2) Is it idolatry to kiss them? remember that you Muslims kiss the Black Stone:

We also believe that "harm and benefit are in the hands of God, and nothing else"

 

Richard

 

answer to number 1 is yes!

 

number 2

The black stone is not kissed in adoration of idolatry at all. It is part of a ritual not a idol worshiping ritual. The black stone is the cornerstone that has been put into that house by Abraham. In the Bible it speaks about the corner stone as well. Kissing the black stone is symbolic and takes away from idol worship, the Muslim knows that the black stone is not Allah, nor do we say it is Allah, nor do we make the stone out to be any deity whatsoever in connection with God or as God. The black stone is a representation of ourselves the human being, you ever hear of the saying "the kiss of death" well there is also the "kiss of life" as well. The whole ritual is about the human being coming back to his original human nature. There is absolutely no worship whatsoever in the kissing of the black stone and that the difference is; it is a ritual that is it, not an idol worship ritual that is the difference!

 

Erecting pictures of men, saints, Prophets, God, and kissing them is all forms of worship. Why would a grown man kiss a picture or a statue of another man, it is because he loves that man more than he loves himself and more than he loves God. And that type of love is only supposed to be for God and not any saints or Prophets or idols. And that is what makes that practice idol worship.

 

If you’re away from your church for a long period of time and you come back and you love god so much that you say thank you God for bringing me back home to worship you and you kiss the church on a wall, that is not idol worship, unless you’re calling the church God ..lol.... You acknowledged God and you only kissing a building that you worship God from but that building is not in your mind God or godlike. Just like if you kiss your son or daughter and say thank you God for giving me this beautiful child.

 

But if you kiss pics or carvings of men, prophets, saints, scholars, the question then comes up...why are you doing that? Because automatically you have placed that man between the love that should be for God and if you’re not placing that man before God then you wouldn’t be kissing the pic or the statue of that person. And if you were to say oh I’m only kissing it because I’m thankful for God sending them to us then you should show your thanks by thanking God incorporating them with God at all.

 

When people kiss the idols and pics and statues they only have a pic of that person that they are kissing, that’s it and they have a love for that person, that’s it. Picture it...you walk in a church and see a statue of Mary you go over and kiss the statue of Mary what is in your mind at the time? It is MARY, how wrong that is, here you are in a church a house that is supposed to be for GOD AND THE WORSHIP OF GOD ALONE and when you walk in your attention is diverted to a statue??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
answer to number 1 is yes!

 

Thanks for the detailed reply - I reply to your point #2 later.

 

However, in Post #82 above I mentioned that the Quran describes Solomon as desiring statues in his temple, with various Islamic commentaries supporting this.

 

Surely you don't believe that Solomon was guilty of idolatry/false worship/shirk, so why can he make images of creatures and people but I cannnot?

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the detailed reply - I reply to your point #2 later.

 

However, in Post #82 above I mentioned that the Quran describes Solomon as desiring statues in his temple, with various Islamic commentaries supporting this.

 

Surely you don't believe that Solomon was guilty of idolatry/false worship/shirk, so why can he make images of creatures and people but I cannnot?

 

Richard

 

 

 

Statues of what?? There s no where in the language where it points to Solomon or David as errcting statues of themselves or any scholars or Prophets. Also the word translated as statue means in its root (In arabic the root of the word is the strong meaning) moving on .....

meem tha lam ; to stand erect, to set a up a thing, to be like or to imitate a thing, apply a proverb, to apply a thing proverbially, to be nearly in a sound state, obey follow a command or order ,to resemble be of likeness or equivalent.

 

So in the verse you mentioned the word is watamāthīla and it carries differnt meaning of which i just showed you. Now Scholar Yusef Ali chose the word statue and the word statue also means an idea (allegory) or an event it also means,sculpted person or persons, an animal. No where in the arabic meaning do you get it meaning persons person or animals, the only meaning that is the same as the arabic as well as the english is ..an idea an allegory(this is english of statue) a proverb (this is the arabic meaning of the root of watamathila) These two are similar.

 

Now with that being said this verse is speaking about an allegorical meaning, an applied proverb. Now could he have had a pic of a goat or an animal,or a man , it is possible, But its even more possible that the statues was of teaching and not of idolotry and the FACT remains that none of them was used for IDOL worship in no way shape or form. These were things used to teach you higher meanings and understandings. I went to the hospital 1 time with my son and the Dr showed him some pics and asked him how he felt and showed him pics that looked like this :D :D :D :j: . and my son piced the crying one . That was no sign of idol worship,he learnt how to show how he felt with a pic....now you on the other hand say that you kiss pics and statues and that it is close to you. That is 100% different than what the Quran is speaking about, what you are doing is idol worship

 

 

 

The topic is about idolatry, now my response to you was yes thinking that you meant make an image of a person to worship. Because you said

I am an Orthodox Christian who kisses images of Christ, Mary, and the saints, this is somewhat close to me!!

 

As far as an image goes...common sense should kick in if images is idolotry in Islam then trust and believe that this site would not have :D :no: :sl: :D :sl: pictures or images such as these nor would your icon be an image as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what about a mental image?

 

People worship mental images all the time. Even the prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what about a mental image?

 

People worship mental images all the time. Even the prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

 

ron

 

 

if you worship Prophet Muhammad in your mind you are practising idol worship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you worship Prophet Muhammad in your mind you are practising idol worship

 

 

Exactly. But isn't it a natural trait for humans to 'worship' sometimes. Think about footballers or pop stars. Perhaps 'worship' is actually too strong a word however.

To idolise is not exactly 'to worship' and also I think, it's a rather juvenile form of behaviour.

 

Salaam,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found this old topic because I was looking up references to Hinduism and Christianity - I was sure I had seen something somewhere.

 

Anyway in the topic "The Issue of Image and Drawing in Islam" I had quoted the following, but received no reply, and as I am an Orthodox Christian who kisses images of Christ, Mary, and the saints, this is somewhat close to me!!

So two questions:

 

1) Is it idolatry to make an image of a person, especially of the prophets?

 

2) Is it idolatry to kiss them? remember that you Muslims kiss the Black Stone:

We also believe that "harm and benefit are in the hands of God, and nothing else"

 

Richard

i like to add a small note to what the brother explained,

 

yes, it may begins with the noble purpose of admiration and memorizing while mostly it will end up with "putting this creation of god in a partnership with god, shirk". that what Allah warned us against in the holy Quran, in the story of Noah's people. the people of Noah (pbuh) began making 5 statues for a 5 righteous people, for that noble purpose, and few generations later they worshiped them besides Allah. the intentions had been easily diverted in the presence of these idols and pictures.

 

that what might be happened, when the catholic had statues aiming to memorize Mary (pbuh), while it ended up to bow down to here and asking here forgiveness, what is worship more than this?

 

Some may obey the personalities (former or alive) and give their argues a priority in front of the god words.

 

may Allah guide all of the truth seekers to their goal.

pppp.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. But isn't it a natural trait for humans to 'worship' sometimes. Think about footballers or pop stars. Perhaps 'worship' is actually too strong a word however.

To idolise is not exactly 'to worship' and also I think, it's a rather juvenile form of behaviour.

 

Salaam,

 

ron

what is the natural here? 1,6 billion Moslems worshipping Allah, and admiring his prophet without idols or pictures or even imaginations for 1400 years. it worked somewhere.

 

shirk is a mixed worshipping others beside god, either by actions or intentions. and that's will be extra-ordinary diffecult to control in presence of statues and photos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. But isn't it a natural trait for humans to 'worship' sometimes. Think about footballers or pop stars. Perhaps 'worship' is actually too strong a word however.

To idolise is not exactly 'to worship' and also I think, it's a rather juvenile form of behaviour.

 

Salaam,

 

ron

 

To idolize is not just juvenile behaviour it can also be a worshiping, heres why

Worship is not prayer worship is how you live your life. How you live your life determines what you worship. If you say that you love Allah and worship Allah then your life would reflect that, if someone says that they love Allah and that they worship Allah and we see them using drugs and selling drugs then what they worship is drugs and their worship is drugs and drugs is their idol.

So the practice of making idols "pics or statues used to represent God" takes ones life away from worshiping God because it becomes a block in the way of God.

 

Sometimes a person would watch their favorite football team when its on tv or mtv music awards with their favorite singers and when its salat time, they would watch that last play or that favorite singer then gop make their salat. This is putting something infront of worshiping Allah this is idol worship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To idolize is not just juvenile behaviour it can also be a worshiping, heres why

Worship is not prayer worship is how you live your life. How you live your life determines what you worship. If you say that you love Allah and worship Allah then your life would reflect that, if someone says that they love Allah and that they worship Allah and we see them using drugs and selling drugs then what they worship is drugs and their worship is drugs and drugs is their idol.

So the practice of making idols "pics or statues used to represent God" takes ones life away from worshiping God because it becomes a block in the way of God.

 

Sometimes a person would watch their favorite football team when its on tv or mtv music awards with their favorite singers and when its salat time, they would watch that last play or that favorite singer then gop make their salat. This is putting something infront of worshiping Allah this is idol worship

 

 

Well this is interesting. I see it as 'Major worship' and 'Minor worship'. Major being the sole object of one's life (such as Allah) and 'Minor' being just those smaller things that take up our attention.

But how would you place one's family in all of this? Somewhere in between perhaps?

Everything, I believe is a matter of degree anyway.

 

Salaam,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well this is interesting. I see it as 'Major worship' and 'Minor worship'. Major being the sole object of one's life (such as Allah) and 'Minor' being just those smaller things that take up our attention.

But how would you place one's family in all of this? Somewhere in between perhaps?

Everything, I believe is a matter of degree anyway.

 

Salaam,

 

ron

 

 

Well in Islam your actions are of two types and not no inbetween, there is only good or bad, either what you are doing is good or what you are doing is bad. Even if its smaller things the smaller things can lead to major things, The Prophet gave a description of alchohol, when Allah says in it the sin is greater than the benefit. The Prophet said that even to take a little bit it is still a sin. So we have to put our worship in correct order. So even those smaller things can take your attention away from Allah and be it small or big it is still false worship which = bad.

 

If your life is an expression of worship to Allah then your family will see how you are and hopefully they will be the same way.

 

About degrees when discussion Islam there is no lesser evil and all that type of talk , its clear and simple, either what you are doing is bad or what you are doing is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your comments about the meaning of the Arabic word used in the Quran, however Islamic commentators - both modern and ancient - clearly indicate the use of images/statues by Solomon, and others.

 

 

1) Tafsīr al-Jalālayn:

[34:13] They fashioned for him whatever he wished: lofty shrines (mahārīb are high edifices which are ascended by stairs) and statues (tamāthīl is the plural of timthāl, which is any thing which you fashion as a likeness [of another]), in other words, brass, crystal or marble figures — the use of figures was not prohibited according to his Law

 

Solomon used figures which you would condemn.

 

2) Yusuf Ali: C3806. ... Images would be like the images of oxen and Cherubim mentioned in II. Chronicles, 4:3 and 3:14;

 

3) Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs :

(They made for him what he willed: synagogues and statues) of angels, prophets and other righteous servants so that people look at them and follow their example of worshipping Allah,

 

Statues of people useful for worshipping Allaah, and did not detract from his sole worship.

 

4) Tafsīr al-Jalālayn:

[2:248] And their prophet said to them, after they had demanded a sign of his kingship: ‘The sign of his kingship is that there will come to you the Ark, a chest containing the images of the prophets, which God sent down to Adam

 

If God himself constructed images of the prophets and sent them to Adam - surely it is his will that we have images?

 

You see where I am coming from? The traditional Islamic interpretation seems to clearly imply images/statues of people.

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well in Islam your actions are of two types and not no inbetween, there is only good or bad, either what you are doing is good or what you are doing is bad. Even if its smaller things the smaller things can lead to major things, The Prophet gave a description of alchohol, when Allah says in it the sin is greater than the benefit. The Prophet said that even to take a little bit it is still a sin. So we have to put our worship in correct order. So even those smaller things can take your attention away from Allah and be it small or big it is still false worship which = bad.

 

If your life is an expression of worship to Allah then your family will see how you are and hopefully they will be the same way.

 

About degrees when discussion Islam there is no lesser evil and all that type of talk , its clear and simple, either what you are doing is bad or what you are doing is wrong.

 

 

Thanks for this.

 

But surely you put your family higher up the scale of things (and I think there is a scale of things) than people you don't know?

And doesn't it all depend on how near to perfection you are?

 

Regarding alcohol, some medicines contain small amounts of alcohol. What then?

 

Regards,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From topic "Muslims Attending Church Service":

 

Irregaurdless what are the images doing in a church??

Because we follow Solomon, see Islamic quotes above in this post:

Thank you for your comments about the meaning of the Arabic word used in the Quran, however Islamic commentators - both modern and ancient - clearly indicate the use of images/statues by Solomon, and others.

 

-----------------------------------------------

Why are they being kissed, idol worship is not always openly addmitted its the behaviour of a people sometimes that show that what their doing is idolotry. Jesus had to show this to his people and Moses had to show this to his people.
[2:34] And, mention, when We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate yourselves to Adam’, a prostration that is a bow of salutation

Tafsīr al-Jalālayn

"a prostration that is a bow of salutation": so similarly for us, a kiss that is not worship but salutation.

 

Richard

:sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
{you tube clip of someone prostrating before a patriarch}

 

As I quoted from Tafsīr al-Jalālayn "[2:34] And, mention, when We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate yourselves to Adam’, a prostration that is a bow of salutation"

 

Perhaps it could be useful to point out one little thing. If I were to meet the Patriarch of Constantinople in person I too would prostrate before him.

 

However, please note that he has no power or authority over me whatsoever.

 

I belong to the Patriarchate of Moscow, and so we are separate - like different family members, equal brothers or sisters. We respect each other, but none has any authority over the other. Also, because the Patriarch of Constantinople is arguing with the Patriarch of Moscow at the moment, the Patriarch of Constantinople really has no authority over me. I could tell him to go away, although it would be disrespectful of me to do so. By the way, those in the Patriarchate of Constantinople have similar views of the Patriarch of Moscow - the Orthodox Church is like one big happy family: we argue like hell in the face of heaven!!

 

Regarding my own Patriarch, the patriarch of Moscow: for outward church organisation he does have authority over me, whether directly or through my local bishop or through the local priests. We also consider this authority to be in accordance with God - that is, the authority is divine - but fundamentally they are human beings no different from me. The authority is considered to be divine for the general running of the church, but actually they are only men and God is in no way bound to do as they wish.

 

So in effect, we honour those in authority over us as the Bible tell us to, but when we perceive that they are astray we can ignore them. For example, I read the advice given to someone seeking to enter a monastery: did he find it to be good for his soul, or not. He - a layman - had to judge for himself if the monks there were good or just acting at being good. It would have been wrong to assume that just because they were monks or priests that they had some God-given authority over him.

 

Similarly, in the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic church, when the priest says "This is my body", Catholics believe that the bread changes then and there due to the words of the priest: such is the power the priest has via the Pope of Rome. However, in Orthodoxy, when the priest says, "This is my body" - the bread remains bread. It is only when the priest prays with the people (although the prayer is said secretly) to God to ask him to change the bread that we believe that it changes - if God so wills. We do not take our priests as lords beside Allaah - but there are always those who take things to extremes.

 

Again, when confessing sins to a priest, it has been said that just because the priest reads the prayers to be forgiven does not necessarily mean that God forgives - as God alone knows the heart of the person. To be forgiven belongs to Allaah alone, and it is he who loves mankind, and even helps us from inside our deepest hearts to open up to him, so gentle is he.

 

We do not worship any human being, but just show a "prostration that is a bow of salutation", of reverence and of love.

 

Richard

PS. While posting a video of supposed idolatry, why have not any Muslims tried to tell me why it is wrong that I have images of the prophets but right for Solomon to have them, as according to traditional Islamic views of Solomon's temple?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, as the priest 'offers' incense to an icon/image, so to he 'offers' incense to the people.

 

If a Muslim were to enter a church at the right time, the priest would look at him and 'offer' incense to him. Hardly idolatry! We are not going to worship Muslims, now are we?! Just wishing God's presence upon all.

 

Richard

:sl:

Edited by EasternQibla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From topic "Muslims Attending Church Service":

Because we follow Solomon,

 

Ok if you follow solomon name some of the laws that soloman gave to his people

 

 

 

"a prostration that is a bow of salutation": so similarly for us, a kiss that is not worship but salutation.

 

Show me where God allowed for man to prostrate to man, the angels done the prostration because they showed respect to the new mind that God Taught, now you show me where in the Bible God tells man to bow to man

 

 

By the way, as the priest 'offers' incense to an icon/image, so to he 'offers' incense to the people.

 

If a Muslim were to enter a church at the right time, the priest would look at him and 'offer' incense to him. Hardly idolatry! We are not going to worship Muslims, now are we?! Just wishing God's presence upon all.

 

Richard

:sl:

 

 

the priest got down on his hands and knees in this video a prostration that is due to God In a house of God and not a man in the house of God. This is wrong anyway you look at it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×