Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sand

Teaching On Divorce

Recommended Posts

Peace to you all,

 

The teachings of Jesus and Muhammd differ concerning divorce and remarriage. Four times in the Synoptic Gospels, and once in Paul's letter, Jesus is quoted as prohibiting divorce and remarriage. Even liberal scholars regard this teaching as authentic (Sanders, EP. The Historical Figure of Christ. Pg 198-201.)

 

My questions to you all is as follows:

 

1) Other than claiming Jesus' teaching against divorce and remarriage were fabricated, are there any other explanations why Muhammad/Allah would reverse the teaching?

 

2) Jesus' argument against divorce and remarriage was that God originally created one man and one woman, and when they become one, their bond is unsepparable. The teaching on divorce given to Moses, was a license given to the Jews because of their weakness. Jesus came to restore what God originally intended. My question to you all is, how do you take the force of his argument?

 

 

And peace,

Sand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Peace to you all,

 

The teachings of Jesus and Muhammd differ concerning divorce and remarriage. Four times in the Synoptic Gospels, and once in Paul's letter, Jesus is quoted as prohibiting divorce and remarriage. Even liberal scholars regard this teaching as authentic (Sanders, EP. The Historical Figure of Christ. Pg 198-201.)

 

1- generally, do you respect the works of the libral scolars regard the bible?

 

2- i like to know the teachings of Jesus pbuh, about polygamy and Monastic life for male and female.

 

3- i like to know the opinion of the main sects of christianity how do they see Divorce, if ou have an idea?

as i know the protestants don't see divorce as forbiden, and the coptic orthodox, here in Egypt, give their pope the exception to decide to allow a specific divorce case.

 

4- i like to know your opinion, as well, about divorce from practical point of view. (assuming religion have no teachings on that), as humanbeing who love and hate, don't you see the life between two persons may reach the limit that either to separate them or one of them may physically/speritually hurt the other/himself?

 

1) Other than claiming Jesus' teaching against divorce and remarriage were fabricated, are there any other explanations why Muhammad/Allah would reverse the teaching?

 

5- i can't understand this, do both are tight down together, i mean the panning is about [devorce and remarrige], or only [devorce], since some one may divorce and not remarriage, plz clear that to me?

 

Allah didn't reverse the teachings, since he, almighty, allowed divorce all the time, we believe that logic and practical teaching and continued that way. only some sects of christian who changed the teaching (or understand it like that) in the NT, while practically they can't apply it. the same about the one god, just one without partner, all the time, in the OT and the Moslem continued the same belief in harmony with all the prophet's teachings and logic, while, only, the christians attributed a born (not made) son to the god and added also the holy spirit to be a part of god.

 

2) Jesus' argument against divorce and remarriage was that God originally created one man and one woman, and when they become one, their bond is unsepparable. The teaching on divorce given to Moses, was a license given to the Jews because of their weakness. Jesus came to restore what God originally intended. My question to you all is, how do you take the force of his argument?

 

6- yes Allah created one man and one woman and they aren't one... but one family and god allowed divorce. i can't see your point, if Allah meant by creating one man and one woman to tell us divorce is not allowed, what would be the case if it's allowed, how many men and women he, almighty should have been created????? 2+2!!

 

peace to the truth seekers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

In Islam, according to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the most detestable thing which is lawful in God's sight is divorce.

 

From an Islamic point of view, it is not a given that the story in the Synoptic Gospels is authentic. This will always be the main issue.

 

Well I don't think that divorce is only a weakness of the Jews. I think it is a universal weakness and it isn't necessarily the result of adultery. Some people just cannot live together as husband and wife.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might add that according to the Jewish interpretation of the verse in Genesis becoming one flesh means having a child since the fetus is formed by both the male and the female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

In Islam, according to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the most detestable thing which is lawful in God's sight is divorce.

 

 

alsalamo alykom, brother Younes

 

iallow me to add this, and the most honored covenent is Islam is the marriage contract, Allah tells in Surah 4, al-nesa'a, the women

 

وَكَيْفَ تَأْخُذُونَهُ وَقَدْ أَفْضَى بَعْضُكُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ وَأَخَذْنَ مِنكُم مِّيثَاقًاغَلِيظًا {21}

 

004.021Y: And how could ye take it (dowery and gifts) when ye have gone in unto each other, and they have Taken from you a solemn covenant?

 

divorce in Islam is highly controlled and regulated and save both partners' rights, especialy the woman.

 

i believe, appling the Islamic regulations regard divoce, did caused divorce rates, in Islamic countries, to be the lowest in the world. i can attribute this to the inner peace and contentment for both partners, they both believe they will have an emergency save and just exit in case of emergency troubles.

 

i like to make the analogy of the fighter aircraft with the emrgency jetsinable seat, the pilot will feel more relax, stable and have more concentration since he feels he have a save exit in case of any emergency.

 

Allah knows best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an Islamic point of view, it is not a given that the story in the Synoptic Gospels is authentic. This will always be the main issue.

 

Peace Younes,

 

I mention this particular point because it is largely regarded as an authentic teaching of Jesus Christ, even by liberal scholars. It is recorded at least four times in the NT, stemming from at least two independent sources. The difficulty of the teaching, and the fact that some tried to find loop holes, added to the weight of it's authenticity.

 

As an outside observer taking a look at the claims of Muhammad, I'm struck by the disconnect between what he taught, and what was before him. The main recourse by Muslims has been that the scriptures were corrupted, but even things scholarly consensus agrees is authentic, Muslims disbelieve in. I suppose the point will never be made because the Islamic belief on the corruption of scripture is ultimately theological, and necessary. If it were otherwise the issue would be with Islamic revelation, which is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace to you all,

 

The teachings of Jesus and Muhammd differ concerning divorce and remarriage. Four times in the Synoptic Gospels, and once in Paul's letter, Jesus is quoted as prohibiting divorce and remarriage. Even liberal scholars regard this teaching as authentic (Sanders, EP. The Historical Figure of Christ. Pg 198-201.)

 

My questions to you all is as follows:

 

1) Other than claiming Jesus' teaching against divorce and remarriage were fabricated, are there any other explanations why Muhammad/Allah would reverse the teaching?

 

2) Jesus' argument against divorce and remarriage was that God originally created one man and one woman, and when they become one, their bond is unsepparable. The teaching on divorce given to Moses, was a license given to the Jews because of their weakness. Jesus came to restore what God originally intended. My question to you all is, how do you take the force of his argument?

 

 

And peace,

Sand

 

Sand, as a fellow Christian I have to ask this. Jesus taught that divorce was not permitted. How then can you listen to any person that has gone through divorce if you are a Christian? How many pastors/bishops/priests have been divorced? How many people that rail against ANYone different have been divorced numerous times?

 

If you want to hold to the belief as you basically pointed out in your original post, you have to forsake those that get divorces, according to some Biblical scholars I've talked to. And yet, that means that you can't follow the teachings of Christ, can you? That's the dilemma I have in this case. So while divorce is a horrible thing, there are causes for divorce. If there weren't, there'd still be no protection for a woman who was being beaten and abused constantly for instance.

 

Which as God is a loving God is not something he'd condone, would He? So I do agree with the Muslim standpoint more than that which you espouse in this instance for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sand, as a fellow Christian I have to ask this. Jesus taught that divorce was not permitted. How then can you listen to any person that has gone through divorce if you are a Christian? How many pastors/bishops/priests have been divorced? How many people that rail against ANYone different have been divorced numerous times?

 

If you want to hold to the belief as you basically pointed out in your original post, you have to forsake those that get divorces, according to some Biblical scholars I've talked to. And yet, that means that you can't follow the teachings of Christ, can you? That's the dilemma I have in this case. So while divorce is a horrible thing, there are causes for divorce. If there weren't, there'd still be no protection for a woman who was being beaten and abused constantly for instance.

 

Which as God is a loving God is not something he'd condone, would He? So I do agree with the Muslim standpoint more than that which you espouse in this instance for sure.

 

Peace in Christ Nightingale,

 

I am not one to judge or ostracize those who have divorced or been remarried. My point is that as it stands, Jesus taught against divorce and remarriage. This teaching is certainly against the grain, and I'm not surprised that some Christians have found difficulty with it. The Protestants and their derivatives have all but ignored this teaching, and really only the Western and several Eastern Apostolic Churches continue to follow it, as they always have done. My question runs along the lines of Muhammad claiming to be the seal of the Judeo-Christian Prophets. Jesus was restoring what God had established prior to the fall of mankind, his teaching was absolute on the matter. If Muhammad succeeded him, why did he abrogate the teaching against divorce and remarriage, and do it so subtley?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace in Christ Nightingale,

 

I am not one to judge or ostracize those who have divorced or been remarried. My point is that as it stands, Jesus taught against divorce and remarriage. This teaching is certainly against the grain, and I'm not surprised that some Christians have found difficulty with it. The Protestants and their derivatives have all but ignored this teaching, and really only the Western and several Eastern Apostolic Churches continue to follow it, as they always have done. My question runs along the lines of Muhammad claiming to be the seal of the Judeo-Christian Prophets. Jesus was restoring what God had established prior to the fall of mankind, his teaching was absolute on the matter. If Muhammad succeeded him, why did he abrogate the teaching against divorce and remarriage, and do it so subtley?

 

I might say it is because to leave someone to suffer in a horrible relationship devoid of love and equality went against His plan. Look at how Paul interpreted things regarding marriage and how easy it was to corrupt it to that standard even today. There are Christian families I know that because Paul says in the Bible that wives must submit to their husbands, they believe that means men think they can do anything to their wives. I've actually been told this by other Baptists and even Methodist people.

 

Does that sound like something God would tolerate? From my reading of the Qur'an so far and other information I've read as well as knowledge of history...the Qur'an actually gave more equality than what Paul told early Christians to give. I am just saying that is one way I look at it. You can disagree with my interpretation. But I'd prefer the Muslim stance on this than something that gives absolutely no protections to one of God's creations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might say it is because to leave someone to suffer in a horrible relationship devoid of love and equality went against His plan. Look at how Paul interpreted things regarding marriage and how easy it was to corrupt it to that standard even today. There are Christian families I know that because Paul says in the Bible that wives must submit to their husbands, they believe that means men think they can do anything to their wives. I've actually been told this by other Baptists and even Methodist people.

 

The Christian notion of marriage is a mutual self sacrifice. The husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church, and we know that love is infinite, and selfless. That a husband would believe they are free to do as they please, to the detriment of their wife and family, is certainly very far from the Christian standard. If a husband were to be abusive, a wife has a right to separate herself from the situation, but int he eyes of God, once a man and woman are married, that marriage is indefinite. The bond that occurs between the two souls is not broken but a mere legal declaration. Spiritually, divorced persons remain married, and so remarriage is really adultery.

Does that sound like something God would tolerate? From my reading of the Qur'an so far and other information I've read as well as knowledge of history...the Qur'an actually gave more equality than what Paul told early Christians to give. I am just saying that is one way I look at it. You can disagree with my interpretation. But I'd prefer the Muslim stance on this than something that gives absolutely no protections to one of God's creations.

 

Nightingale, this may be a personal question, but have you or someone close to you been divorced and/or remarried?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Younes,

 

I mention this particular point because it is largely regarded as an authentic teaching of Jesus Christ, even by liberal scholars. It is recorded at least four times in the NT, stemming from at least two independent sources. The difficulty of the teaching, and the fact that some tried to find loop holes, added to the weight of it's authenticity.

 

As an outside observer taking a look at the claims of Muhammad, I'm struck by the disconnect between what he taught, and what was before him. The main recourse by Muslims has been that the scriptures were corrupted, but even things scholarly consensus agrees is authentic, Muslims disbelieve in. I suppose the point will never be made because the Islamic belief on the corruption of scripture is ultimately theological, and necessary. If it were otherwise the issue would be with Islamic revelation, which is impossible.

 

I don't think there is a consensus on what Jesus (pbuh) taught. Among Christians scholars probably, yes. However, if we have a look at secular or non-Christian scholars, that's a different matter altogether. A lot of scholars see Jesus (pbuh) as a Jewish rabbi who operated in an entirely Jewish context and thus in accordance with the Torah of Moses (pbuh).

 

Muslims know that the Bible has been corrupted due to the information God has given us. However, if we look at this thing from a non-theological point of view, the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) cannot be said to have been transmitted in an authentic manner. For example, modern scholarship states that the Gospels are anonymous works. In Islamic terms, that automically disqualifies their authencity. Furthermore, in Islam we have direct link to the past. Present scholars have a chain of transmission that goes all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), i.e. a chain of tranmssision where somebody was taught by somebody who was taught by somebody....all the way back to the Companions, disciples if you will, of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself. Christians lack this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Christian notion of marriage is a mutual self sacrifice. The husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church, and we know that love is infinite, and selfless. That a husband would believe they are free to do as they please, to the detriment of their wife and family, is certainly very far from the Christian standard. If a husband were to be abusive, a wife has a right to separate herself from the situation, but int he eyes of God, once a man and woman are married, that marriage is indefinite. The bond that occurs between the two souls is not broken but a mere legal declaration. Spiritually, divorced persons remain married, and so remarriage is really adultery.

 

 

Nightingale, this may be a personal question, but have you or someone close to you been divorced and/or remarried?

 

To answer your last question...no, none of my immediate family or close friends have ever been divorced and I have never been married. But there is the problem...my mother believes as you do that divorce is wrong under all circumstances, so she has put up with abuse and other sins of my father. Not only that, but she has let her children suffer under that same abuse and even worse.

 

So I do have a bit of a vested interest. But to my mother, divorce is a worse sin than abuse, assault, adultery and lots of other things. And that is simply wrong! And I can't believe that God would actually tolerate it going on like it does, if you want to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to quote a hadith,

 

"Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said to him, "Mu'adh, Allah has created nothing on the face of the earth dearer to Him than emancipation, and Allah has created nothing on the face of the earth more hateful to Him than divorce."

 

Transmitted by Daraqutni.

Tirmidhi 969"

 

 

Even though it is allowed under certain circumstances, divorce is strongly discouraged. If someone really abuses this freedom to give divorce in Islam, then Allah will judge this in the Judgement Day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a consensus on what Jesus (pbuh) taught. Among Christians scholars probably, yes. However, if we have a look at secular or non-Christian scholars, that's a different matter altogether. A lot of scholars see Jesus (pbuh) as a Jewish rabbi who operated in an entirely Jewish context and thus in accordance with the Torah of Moses (pbuh).

 

EP Sanders is a notable secular scholar, I referenced his book _The Historical Figure of Christ_ when I said most secular scholars regard Jesus' teaching against divorce and remarriage as authentic.

 

Muslims know that the Bible has been corrupted due to the information God has given us. However, if we look at this thing from a non-theological point of view, the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) cannot be said to have been transmitted in an authentic manner. For example, modern scholarship states that the Gospels are anonymous works. In Islamic terms, that automically disqualifies their authencity. Furthermore, in Islam we have direct link to the past. Present scholars have a chain of transmission that goes all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), i.e. a chain of tranmssision where somebody was taught by somebody who was taught by somebody....all the way back to the Companions, disciples if you will, of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself. Christians lack this.

 

Muslims have to be weary in utilizing secular scholarship, because the "Jesus" of secular scholarship is very different from the Islamic Isa. They reject the virgin birth, something both Muslims and Christians believe, but affirm the execution of Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate as beyond dispute.

 

Regarding the authenticity of the Gospels, it's a complex topic. The Gospels record supernatural event which no secular scholar is willing to accept. To do otherwise, would be to admit that the Bible is witness testimony for the supernatural, which is simply beyond the world view of these scholars. So naturally, many of the events surrounding Jesus' life are rejected ipso facto as myth making. Consequently, an eye witness could not have authored such events, because miraculous events can't happen (This is called circular reasoning.)

 

Interestingly enough though, these same scholars admit that the gospels were written within living memory of Jesus Christ, and furthermore, admit that many of the sayings of Jesus can be attribtued directly to him. A cognitive dissonance is at play because the world view of these scholars conflicts with the evidence of the data they are analyzing.

 

Now one thing that can be said definitively, is that none of these scholars turn to the Quran as a source to learn about the life of Jesus. The Quran contains stories that circulated as legends, appearing centuries after Christ. This is why I as Christian, find it terribly ironic that Muslims will deny what is regarded as historically authentic, but promote what is undoubtedly legend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that secular scholarship considers Jesus (pbuh) to have been crucified and that their version is not the Islamic version.

 

I would venture a guess that the mistrust in the authencity of the Gospels in the case of secular scholars is a bit more complex than simply claiming that it comes down to circular reasoning.

 

One thing you should take note of is that you have not addressed the lack of a chain of transmission, the unbroken link to the past. Which denomation do you belong to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would venture a guess that the mistrust in the authencity of the Gospels in the case of secular scholars is a bit more complex than simply claiming that it comes down to circular reasoning.

 

One thing you should take note of is that you have not addressed the lack of a chain of transmission, the unbroken link to the past. Which denomation do you belong to?

 

Younes, quite simply I disagree with your point about a lack of chain. The gospels are books that were written down, copied, and proliferated. The same authors have always been attached to the same books, and there has never been any controversy about this. It actually was not that typical for an author of a book to write his name in the book he was writing, a secular example of this is Lucian's _The Life of Demonax._ The earliest record we have on the authors are from the first century Christian Papias. He specifically mentioned he took information only from Apostles and Disciples who were well known. He recorded Mark taking information from Peter in Rome, although his gospel was not arranged chronologically, since it served more as a teaching tool. Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Aramaic, and then translated it to Greek.

 

There is no doubt about who wrote those Gospels and who their sources were, but they will never be accepted for the simple fact of what they contain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt about who wrote those Gospels and who their sources were, but they will never be accepted for the simple fact of what they contain.

 

You say that you disagree over my point about a lack of chain. Point me to an individual who is in a long line of teachers going back to Jesus (pbuh).

 

Merely saying that "Mark wrote it" or "Matthew wrote it" does not mean that there is no doubt about who wrote the Gospels.

 

Mentioning that Papias took from Apostles is not sufficient either. Who transmitted Papias' words?

 

Merely saying that X wrote it and there was no controversy is not sufficient proof for textual authentication. It is not that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that you disagree over my point about a lack of chain. Point me to an individual who is in a long line of teachers going back to Jesus (pbuh).

 

Merely saying that "Mark wrote it" or "Matthew wrote it" does not mean that there is no doubt about who wrote the Gospels.

 

Mentioning that Papias took from Apostles is not sufficient either. Who transmitted Papias' words?

 

Merely saying that X wrote it and there was no controversy is not sufficient proof for textual authentication. It is not that simple.

 

Historically there never was a controversy over Gospel authorship, the same names were attached to same Gospels since the beginning. The controversy appears in our modern era, for obvious reasons. What it boils down to is that the Old and New Testaments significantly differ from the Quran. Either the former scriptures were corrupted, or the Quran is in error. I personally would not hold to anything the Quran claims is "correcting" the former scriptures, because the Quran contains stories that are indisputably legendary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically there never was a controversy over Gospel authorship, the same names were attached to same Gospels since the beginning. The controversy appears in our modern era, for obvious reasons. What it boils down to is that the Old and New Testaments significantly differ from the Quran. Either the former scriptures were corrupted, or the Quran is in error. I personally would not hold to anything the Quran claims is "correcting" the former scriptures, because the Quran contains stories that are indisputably legendary.

 

I agree that it boils down to the fact that the Qur'an and the Bible differ. Morever, I would like like to add that the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament also differer significantly. However, this does not mean that the lack of a chain of transmission has to be tolerated on the grounds that the same names were attached to the Gospels since beggining. This alone does not validate the transmission system of the Bible.

 

May I invite you to read the following post?

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/734272-who-is-a-believer/?do=findComment&comment=1229733

 

You could also read the following threads, too:

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/735929-christian-and-jewish-scriptures/page__pid__1239168__mode__threaded

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/737688-the-holy-eucharist/

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/734248-jesus-resurrection-Islam/page__pid__1232146__mode__threaded

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/727679-who-wrote-the-holy-quran/page__st__20?do=findComment&comment=1229900

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


×