The Noble Qur'an, Hadith, and other matters.

[Diego_008]

6 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Alright.  Your point?  I'm an Agnostic.  I don't believe.  I don't disbelieve.  I do think that swallowing a belief, like God, with no evidence at all -- is silly.  A belief without evidence, can be disdained without evidence.  

There is plenty of evidence. There is not a 100% proof, but evidence there certainly is. The Argument from Design is just one. The Ontological Argument is another. The Argument from Probability is yet another. I assume you know them. If not, do so indicate. I shall be happy to enlighten you.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Diego_008

[Diego_008]

Sorry. This was a repeat of the previous post.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Diego_008

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 minutes ago, Diego_008 said:

There is plenty of evidence. There is not a 100% proof, but evidence, therr certainly is. The Argument from Design is just one. The Ontological Argument is another. The Argument from Probability is yet another. I assume you know them. If not, do so indicate. I shall be happy to enlighten you.

 

 

The argument from design?  I see that you're also a Creationist.  I don't know the Ontology argument by that name.  Probability?  This is where the puddle looks around at the ground, and marvels that the ground fits it perfectly.  

[Diego_008]

11 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

The argument from design?  I see that you're also a Creationist.  I don't know the Ontology argument by that name.  Probability?  This is where the puddle looks around at the ground, and marvels that the ground fits it perfectly.  

To assume that the Argument from Design makes ME a Creationist simply makes YOU look unintelligent. Try again, please. 

 

No, that is NOT what the Argument from Probability does. Apparently you have never taken a Philosophy class.

 

Look up "Ontological Argument" on Wikipedia, or any other source of your choice. Anselm of Canterbury made it popular. I do not have time to go into it now, as I am making supper.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Diego_008 said:

To assume that the Argument from Design makes ME a Creationist simply makes YOU look unintelligent. Try again, please. 

 

No, that is NOT what the Argument from Probability does. Apparently you have never taken a Philosophy class.

 

Look up "Ontological Argument" on Wikipedia, or any other source of your choice. Anselm of Canterbury made it popular. I do not have time to go into it now, as I am making supper.

 

Never mind.  I was looking for conversation.  Not whatever this is.  

[Diego_008]

22 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Never mind.  I was looking for conversation.  Not whatever this is.  

I am more than happy to "conversate" (to use a colloquialism) with you. I am NOT happy to be insulted, however.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Diego_008

[RevTom]

7 hours ago, Diego_008 said:

I DO know about the Valley of Hinnom, later called Gehenna. Jews to this day do not believe in Hell as such. I also know about Sheol, which is known in LXX Greek as Hades.

 

But that is not the point. The NT does speak of Hell, and at least part of it IS eternal. I am not sure how any Christian can get around that.

Greetings, my friends: The point I wish to make involves a rather lengthy discourse, taen from the Bible verses that refer to the fate of those who persist in wickedness. Yes, the NT does speak of Hell, and in fact, the OT speaks of a punishment for those who do not repent of wickedness, and continue their wicked ways. The questions arise from the punishment meted to those who do wrong and are bent on doing so: The context in Isaiah 66 refers to a time when, God says, “all flesh shall come to worship before Me” (Isaiah 66:23). It is a time when the wicked will be no more. What will have happened to them? In Isaiah 66:24 we read that people “will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind” (NIV). Note that in 66:24, God says people will go out and look upon the dead bodies..." They are not living souls writhing in eternal flame, but their bodies have been consumed and the worms are eating their remains. What does Jesus mean in Mark 9:48 when He quotes Isaiah in saying, “the fire is not quenched”? Within the context we can understand. He means simply that the fire will burn until the bodies of the wicked are consumed. This expression, used several times in Scripture, refers to fire that consumes entirely (Ezekiel 20:47). An unquenched fire is one that has not been extinguished. Rather, it burns itself out when it consumes everything and has no more combustible material to keep it going. As we discussed earlier, the wicked will be destroyed. They will not live for eternity in another place or state of everlasting anguish. They will reap their destruction in the lake of fire at the end of the age. They will be consumed virtually instantaneously by the heat of the fire and will never live again. Those who willfully choose to reject His way of life, characterized by obedience to His law of love (Romans 13:10), will die, not suffer forever. They will be consumed by fire and forgotten. Revelation 20:9 "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." They will not be tortured for all eternity. Remember that eternal life is something that God must grant, and He will grant it to only those who repent and follow Him—not those who persist in rebellion against Him. They will be forgotten for all time: They will be forgotten eternally.

Edited August 25, 2017 by RevTom
incomplete thought, typo

[Diego_008]

2 minutes ago, RevTom said:

Greetings, my friends: The point I wosh to make involves a rather lengthy discourse, taen from the Bible verses that refer to the fate of those who persist in wickedness. Yes, the NT does speak of Hell, and in fact, the OT speaks of a punishment for those who do not repent of wickedness, and continue their wicked ways. The questions arise from the punishment meted to those who do wrong and are bent on doing so: The context in Isaiah 66 refers to a time when, God says, “all flesh shall come to worship before Me” (Isaiah 66:23). It is a time when the wicked will be no more. What will have happened to them? In Isaiah 66:24 we read that people “will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind” (NIV). Note that in 66:24, God says people will go out and look upon the dead bodies..." They are not living souls writhing in eternal flame, but their bodies have been consumed and the worms are eating their remains. What does Jesus mean in Mark 9:48 when He quotes Isaiah in saying, “the fire is not quenched”? Within the context we can understand. He means simply that the fire will burn until the bodies of the wicked are consumed. This expression, used several times in Scripture, refers to fire that consumes entirely (Ezekiel 20:47). An unquenched fire is one that has not been extinguished. Rather, it burns itself out when it consumes everything and has no more combustible material to keep it going. As we discussed earlier, the wicked will be destroyed. They will not live for eternity in another place or state of everlasting anguish. They will reap their destruction in the lake of fire at the end of the age. They will be consumed virtually instantaneously by the heat of the fire and will never live again. Those who willfully choose to reject His way of life, characterized by obedience to His law of love (Romans 13:10), will die, not suffer forever. They will be consumed by fire and forgotten. Revelation 20:9 "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." They will not be tortured for all eternity. Remember that eternal life is something that God must grant, and He will grant it to only those who repent and follow Him—not those who persist in rebellion against Him. They will be forgotten for all time: They will be forgotten eternally.

Well, certainly most Jews, and the Jehovah's Witnesses, would agree. But Judaism, and ESPECIALLY Christianity, went through a Hellenising phase. THAT is really where the concept of the Eternal Soul developed. Judaism did not develop the idea deeply enough to come up with Hell, though some Jews DO believe in it (a minority). 

 

But Christianity DID Platonise, and Aristotelianise, sufficiently to get the idea. The NT itself talks about the lake of everlasting fire, as I recall. 

 

Unless you are willing to toss out the Hellenising influence on Christian thought, I don't think you can just drop Hell from consideration. Even Luther and Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia was not ready to throw out the Church Fathers.

[RevTom]

5 minutes ago, Diego_008 said:

Well, certainly most Jews, and the Jehovah's Witnesses, would agree. But Judaism, and ESPECIALLY Christianity, went through a Hellenising phase. THAT is really where the concept of the Eternal Soul developed. Judaism did not develop the idea deeply enough to come up with Hell, though some Jews DO believe in it (a minority). 

 

But Christianity DID Platonise, and Aristotelianise, sufficiently to get the idea. The NT itself talks about the lake of everlasting fire, as I recall. 

 

Unless you are willing to toss out the Hellenising influence on Christian thought, I don't think you can just drop Hell from consideration. Even Luther and Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia was not ready to throw out the Church Fathers.

I see you did not read the verses. If you wish to not read the verses and gain understanding from their context there is no basis for discussion. People have the freedom and right to believe as they wish upon reading the verses and their context, but it is quite clear: There is no everlasting punishment of hellfire and damnation - the punishment is until one is consumed, then obliterated from existence.

Edited August 25, 2017 by RevTom
typo

[Diego_008]

19 minutes ago, RevTom said:

I see you did not read the verses. If you wish to not read the verses and gain understanding from their context there is no basis for discussion. People have the freedom and right to believe as they wish upon reading the verses and their context, but it is quite clear: There is no everlasting punishment of hellfire and damnation - the punishment is until one is consumed, then obliterated from existence.

That is not a logical response. I DID read the verses. I have read the Bible many times, thank you very much. I am simply indicating that if you eliminate the Hellenising influence on Christian thought, you have essentially eliminated HALF of Christianity. To argue otherwise defies logic, and even coherant thought. 

 

Now, you ARE free not to believe in Hell, and to reject Hellenisation. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, though I do not agree with it. BUT, at LEAST recognise that ignoring the Church Fathers, and going to a RADICAL Sola Scriptura perspective, makes you go even further than Luther did, or for that matter, even Calvin. You can hold a Russellite view. But do know that that IS what it is. I happen to respect Russell (not Rutherford, but that is another matter), but I DO disagree with him.

[RevTom]

15 minutes ago, Diego_008 said:

That is not a logical response. I DID read the verses. I have read the Bible many times, thank you very much. I am simply indicating that if you eliminate the Hellenising influence on Christian thought, you have essentially eliminated HALF of Christianity. To argue otherwise defies logic, and even coherant thought. 

 

Now, you ARE free not to believe in Hell, and to reject Hellenisation. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, though I do not agree with it. BUT, at LEAST recognise that ignoring the Church Fathers, and going to a RADICAL Sola Scriptura perspective, makes you go even further than Luther did, or for that matter, even Calvin. You can hold a Russellite view. But do know that that IS what it is. I happen to respect Russell (not Rutherford, but that is another matter), but I DO disagree with him.

You are rather  myopic in believing YOU HAVE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION of the passages. The interpretations I offered are agreed upon by numerous studies and scholars.

Edited August 25, 2017 by RevTom
inflammatory passage and remarks I withdraw

[RevTom]

Believe as you will...I cited studies that concur and passages that support the statements.

[Diego_008]

18 minutes ago, RevTom said:

Believe as you will...I cited studies that concur and passages that support the statements.

Actually, you cited NOTHING. You simply state that "scholars and studies" support you. And there are plenty of scholars and studies that do not. That is why there are literally 38,000 Protestant Churches alone, not counting the Roman, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, and Lutheran Churches. And none of the last NAMED Churches, or their scholars, would agree with you. Altbough the simplest reading of those verses may indicate what you suggest, in order to get that, you have to totally ignore the Greek influence on the understanding of of the verses in question. Again, you are perfectly free to do this. But appealing to scholars, most likely modern day liberal ones, in and of itself means little. I prefer to trust the Fathers of the Church. You are free not to. But understand that the majority of the Church will, and does, disagree. Relying on "scholars", and not 2,000 years of Church history, AND Seven Ecumenical Councils, and even 1400 years of MUSLIM understanding (granted, not the Bible, but influenced by it), and Plato, and Aristotle, and and Augustine (who Platonised Christianity), and Thomas Aquinas (who Aristotelianised Christianity), and Luther,  and Calvin, and Archbishop Cranmer, and Richard Hooker, and John Jewell, and, and, and...

 

Shall I go on? I can, if you like. 

[Rev. Calli]

On 8/23/2017 at 9:30 PM, Diego_008 said:

I am reviewing the Noble Qur'an and Sahi al-Bukhari, as well as Riyad us Saliheen. And a biography of the Prophet Muhammad. I have read the Qur'an three times, in various translations, and have learned small parts of it in Arabic.

 

What are people's basic perspectives on the Qur'anic text? What about the other documents I mentioned? Thoughts?

Greetings to you my brother,

 

I have read some biographies of the Prophet Muhammed, as well as the Qur'an in English translation.  The others I have never read, and in fact must confess I don't think I have ever heard of either of them.  Of the Qur'an and the Prophet, I believe them to be inspired, but as with the Holy Scriptures of my faith, also heavily influenced by the culture in which they are written and addressed to.  

 

For me, they have never resonated in my soul quite like Holy Scriptures of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus the Christ.  But I also believe that they have helped millions find the connection to the God they seek.  It is a shame that these great faiths often have been corrupted and used to bring oppression and misery to the very people they were meant to bring joy and hope to.

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

[RevTom]

Actually, I did cite scripture and the studies around those scriptures, You are rather boorish, myopic, and conceited to think you have the valid interpretation when the scriptures prove otherwise. Do not be patronizing or condescending to me. You are not intellectually nor educationally equipped for it. 

https://christianuniversalist.org/resources/articles/salvation-conspiracy/
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/etpunish.html
http://brazenchurch.com/how-hell-invaded-church-doctrine/

Young’s Analytical concordance to the Bible, by Robert Young, LL.D.; Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Young’s Literal translation of the Holy Bible, by Robert Young, LL.D.;Baker House.
Greek English Concordance, by J.B. Smith; Herald Press.
The Emphasized Bible, by J.B. Rotherham;Kregel Publications.
Concordant Literal New Testament, by the Concordant Publishing Concern.

In the 1907 book, Lives of the Fathers: Sketches of Church History in Biography, written by Frederick D. Farrar, who was Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen of England, we read about Augustine:    The advocacy of hell came primarily on the scene with Augustine: In no other respect did Augustine differ more widely from Origen and the Alexandrians [Eastern Church] than in his intolerant spirit. Even Tertullian conceded to all the right of opinion.                                      [Augustine] was the first in the long line of Christian persecutors, and illustrates the character of the theology that swayed him in the wicked spirit that impelled him to advocate the right to persecute Christians who differ from those in power. The dark pages that bear the record of subsequent centuries are a damning witness to the cruel spirit that actuated Christians, and the cruel theology that impelled it. Augustine was the first and ablest asserter of the principle which led to Albigensian crusades, Spanish armadas, Netherland’s butcheries, St. Bartholomew massacres, the accursed infamies of the Inquisition, the vile espionage, the hideous bale fires of Seville and Smithfield, the racks, the gibbets, the thumbscrews, and the subterranean torture-chambers used by churchly torturers.[v]
Following on the heels of Augustine, the greatest influence on today’s hell theology via most modern Bible translations came from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Jerome translated this tainted version of the Scriptures from a very inferior Latin text in the late 4th century:

For over a thousand years (c. AD 400–1530), the Vulgate was the definitive edition of the most influential text in Western European society. Indeed, for most Western Christians, it was the only version of the Bible ever encountered. The Vulgate’s influence throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance into the Early Modern Period is even greater than that of the King James Version in English; for Christians during these times the phraseology and wording of the Vulgate permeated all areas of the culture.[vii]

What was the problem with Jerome’s Bible? It was heavily influenced by Latin hell-inventing theologians like Tertullian and Augustine.

When you realize that the hell doctrine was so late in being adopted by the Church (and hence, Scriptures), the poorly constructed walls of orthodoxy begin to crumble. It was several hundred years after Jesus and the apostles that men began formulating many of these new Church doctrines and creeds, many still a part of Evangelical Christian orthodoxy to this day.  Had our old English Bibles been translated directly out of the Greek instead of Latin, it’s very probable that the doctrine of eternal torment would never have found its way into our modern Bibles and theology at all. Many of these doctrines were strong-armed into the Church through major dissension and even bloodshed, with intolerant, oppressive Church leaders insisting that they were “led by the Spirit” on such matters.

Shall I go on?

[edcrain]

May I suggest everyone READS this forum area!

http://ulc.net/forum/topic/14791-forum-policies/

[RevTom]

5 minutes ago, edcrain said:

May I suggest everyone READS this forum area! http://ulc.net/forum/topic/14791-forum-policies/

It is to my chagrin that I have a tendency to respond in kind...I apologize to the group, admittedly a bit reluctantly to Diego_008. 

[Diego_008]

10 hours ago, RevTom said:

Actually, I did cite scripture and the studies around those scriptures, You are rather boorish, myopic, and conceited to think you have the valid interpretation when the scriptures prove otherwise. Do not be patronizing or condescending to me. You are not intellectually nor educationally equipped for it. 

https://christianuniversalist.org/resources/articles/salvation-conspiracy/
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/etpunish.html
http://brazenchurch.com/how-hell-invaded-church-doctrine/

Young’s Analytical concordance to the Bible, by Robert Young, LL.D.; Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Young’s Literal translation of the Holy Bible, by Robert Young, LL.D.;Baker House.
Greek English Concordance, by J.B. Smith; Herald Press.
The Emphasized Bible, by J.B. Rotherham;Kregel Publications.
Concordant Literal New Testament, by the Concordant Publishing Concern.

In the 1907 book, Lives of the Fathers: Sketches of Church History in Biography, written by Frederick D. Farrar, who was Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen of England, we read about Augustine:    The advocacy of hell came primarily on the scene with Augustine: In no other respect did Augustine differ more widely from Origen and the Alexandrians [Eastern Church] than in his intolerant spirit. Even Tertullian conceded to all the right of opinion.                                      [Augustine] was the first in the long line of Christian persecutors, and illustrates the character of the theology that swayed him in the wicked spirit that impelled him to advocate the right to persecute Christians who differ from those in power. The dark pages that bear the record of subsequent centuries are a damning witness to the cruel spirit that actuated Christians, and the cruel theology that impelled it. Augustine was the first and ablest asserter of the principle which led to Albigensian crusades, Spanish armadas, Netherland’s butcheries, St. Bartholomew massacres, the accursed infamies of the Inquisition, the vile espionage, the hideous bale fires of Seville and Smithfield, the racks, the gibbets, the thumbscrews, and the subterranean torture-chambers used by churchly torturers.[v]
Following on the heels of Augustine, the greatest influence on today’s hell theology via most modern Bible translations came from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Jerome translated this tainted version of the Scriptures from a very inferior Latin text in the late 4th century:

For over a thousand years (c. AD 400–1530), the Vulgate was the definitive edition of the most influential text in Western European society. Indeed, for most Western Christians, it was the only version of the Bible ever encountered. The Vulgate’s influence throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance into the Early Modern Period is even greater than that of the King James Version in English; for Christians during these times the phraseology and wording of the Vulgate permeated all areas of the culture.[vii]

What was the problem with Jerome’s Bible? It was heavily influenced by Latin hell-inventing theologians like Tertullian and Augustine.

When you realize that the hell doctrine was so late in being adopted by the Church (and hence, Scriptures), the poorly constructed walls of orthodoxy begin to crumble. It was several hundred years after Jesus and the apostles that men began formulating many of these new Church doctrines and creeds, many still a part of Evangelical Christian orthodoxy to this day.  Had our old English Bibles been translated directly out of the Greek instead of Latin, it’s very probable that the doctrine of eternal torment would never have found its way into our modern Bibles and theology at all. Many of these doctrines were strong-armed into the Church through major dissension and even bloodshed, with intolerant, oppressive Church leaders insisting that they were “led by the Spirit” on such matters.

Shall I go on?

You do not have to go on, as it would serve no purpose. You are free to believe what you wish. But you must recognise that you are rejecting the Church Fathers in so doing, AND every scholar I mentioned, plus many others. My education is likely equivalent or greater than your own, thank you.

 

And yes, it does not shock me that you quote C of E scholars. That Church, beginning in the 20th Century, lost any shred of orthodoxy, and orthopraxy, that it may have ever had. And arguing that the text Jerome used was inferior is simply an opinion, since you did not bother to back it up.

 

Again, you ARE free to reject Augustine. But you then must decide who else to reject, or keep, based on YOUR authority. The question then arises: Who died and left you in charge? Certainly Holy Mother Church did not!

 

And Eastern Orthodoxy did not read Augustine until the 19th Century, as he wrote in Latin and did not speak Greek. He was not translated to Greek until the nineteenth century. Even today many Orthodox question whether he should be classified as a father. Nevertheless, they do believe in hell, just as much as the West does.

 

My advice to you is to not insult my intelligence. I get rather upset with people who attempt to do that. I have three degrees, one of them an advanced degree. I am far more educationally prepared to deal with you than you give me credit for. Don't go there. I have probably read more Plato, more Aristotle, more Augustine, more Thomas Aquinas, more Richard Hooker, more Thomas Cranmer, more John Jewell, more Martin Luther, and even possibly more Calvin than you have. And I have read a considerable amount of the church fathers, various of them.

 

And then we can get into the Qur'an. And the Sunnah of the Prophet. Liberal Scholars such as the ones you have quoted mean very little to me. They have led the Church of England into complete disaster. And also of course, the liberal Lutheran denominations that followed them as well. The state of Mainline Protestantism is a complete mess. I personally want nothing to do with it.

 

Your logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority does not work with me. It serves no purpose to even go there. I have had far too much study of philosophy and logic to be fooled by it.

 

Please note that I am not attempting to insult you. If I really wanted to do that I could do it in four different languages. To do so would serve absolutely no purpose and would reduce me possibly to your level which I do not care to go to. But I absolutely shall not stand around and watch you insult my intelligence thank you very much.

 

Please know that if there is any irregularity in the paragraphing OR capitalization of things, or the spellings of things for that matter, it is due to the fact that I am doing this by speech to text. It makes things much faster when you can answer responses this way. I unfortunately do not have the time to sit here and type up my entire response, since said response is quite lengthy. I apologize for any confusion as regards the above matters. You will note, for example, my spellings tend to be very British, however my phone when doing speech to text automatically spells things in the American fashion. In order to explain that logic, all I shall say is that I was educated by quite a few British folk when I was growing up, hence the problem.

[Diego_008]

12 hours ago, RevTom said:

Believe as you will...I cited studies that concur and passages that support the statements.

Again, your citing of various studies simply indicates that you are appealing to an authority that doesn't necessarily have any. You are of course free to do that but you need to recognize that you are doing exactly that. The church fathers, including Augustine, definitely have a bit more Authority that is more trustworthy for that matter than the ones you have cited. And again it is perfectly okay for you to reject belief in hell. you are free to do this. But in so doing you have to reject the entire hellenization of Christianity. Again you are welcome to do this. There is no objection to this, as long as you understand this is what you are doing.

 

You have to completely throw out Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas in order to do what you are trying to do. You are certainly welcome to do so. But in so doing what you have done is created yet another Protestant denomination. Since there are already 38000 of those, I do not know why you would want to create another. But feel free. There is certainly no reason to prevent you from doing this. But you have to recognize that that is what you are doing.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Diego_008

[Diego_008]

11 hours ago, Rev. Calli said:

Greetings to you my brother,

 

I have read some biographies of the Prophet Muhammed, as well as the Qur'an in English translation.  The others I have never read, and in fact must confess I don't think I have ever heard of either of them.  Of the Qur'an and the Prophet, I believe them to be inspired, but as with the Holy Scriptures of my faith, also heavily influenced by the culture in which they are written and addressed to.  

 

For me, they have never resonated in my soul quite like Holy Scriptures of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus the Christ.  But I also believe that they have helped millions find the connection to the God they seek.  It is a shame that these great faiths often have been corrupted and used to bring oppression and misery to the very people they were meant to bring joy and hope to.

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

Hello. I am pleased that you have responded to my post. The books that I mentioned are simply books of the Sunnah of the prophet. Although they are not given the considerable Holiness that the Qur'an is given, they are regarded with considerable respect. You might consider reading them as you might enjoy them. Sahi al Bukhari is one of the principal collections. There are approximately 5 of those within Sunni Islam. However the one I mentioned is one of the primary ones that is everybody's go to if you will. The Sunnah of the Prophet basically amounts to what he said, what he did, what he agreed to, and various things that he essentially did throughout his life. Riyad us Saliheen is a general collection of the Sunnah from various sources all of the five, that basically gives you an overview of Islam after the Qur'an.

 

Of course, the Shia have their own collections of sooner, which are different than those of the Sunni. But, that starts getting into questions of Islamic Division, and I won't go there right now as it's quite a mess.

 

I basically agree with your statement. I think that the Quran is quite lovely, and the misinterpretations have resulted in all the disasters that Islam has faced. The same of course, can be said of the Bible. It's misinterpretation has resulted in quite a mess for Christianity. But, many religions have similar problems. Perhaps this is because religions are led ultimately by men. We hope they are Guided by God, we pray that they are Guided by God, and we really wish that they make the right decisions. But arrogance and unfortunately absolute Surety in what they believe result in, well, some disasters.

Please pardon the unusual paragraphing and capitalization of this post. I am doing this speech to text and therefore the results can be a little bit off. I look forward to hearing from you.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Diego_008