The full thread (should read it for context so you know what I am talking about): https://www.reddit.com/r/bad_religion/comments/4b7b19/there_are_people_worshipping_thor_right_now_just/d16xjf2

/u/Ibrey

The comment In that thread that I decided merited a bad_religion post: https://www.reddit.com/r/bad_religion/comments/4b7b19/there_are_people_worshipping_thor_right_now_just/d18s0iq

I am not sure that discounting an interpretation of the Qur'an on the grounds that it is hitherto unknown is itself fully in keeping with Islamic tradition, which holds that not everything the Qur'an has to teach is yet understood by human beings, and its full implications will be unfolded by God only at the end of time. However persuasive the authority of Muhammad and his companions may be, he is only a messenger, and the Qur'an is the whole message. Muhammad was, in fact, an illiterate messenger with no experience interpreting any written work, let alone one like the Qur'an; yet he was a great and important man. The Qur'an may be too subtle for any human being, but perhaps it is particularly to be expected that Muhammad himself should misunderstand it in certain respects, and again that his companions should defer to the opinion of their great prophet. .

But this makes it clear the poster does not understand the Islamic tradition.

Muhammad ﷺ, is infallible on issues pertaining to the Religion and this is accepted by both the Sunni and Shia. It is binding and there is no room for any conceivable debate.

The only dispute that can ever arise is "Is a statement/action attributed to him authentic?" and on which interpretation of his statement/action is correct, as well as what the context was.

The fact that he didn't have experience interpreting literature is worthless, becuase he receives divine knowledge and Prophets are infallible. To say "I know Muhammad said this abut the Qur'an, but he was wrong" or "I know Muhammad had this theology, but he was wrong" or "I know something about the Qur'an that Muhammad himself was unaware of or did not understand" are all statements in the realm of disbelief and heresy as far as any Muslim is concerned.

The Qur'an is clear, here is a small sample:

That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger - indeed, Allah is severe in penalty. [8:13]

O you who have believed, obey Allah and His Messenger and do not turn from him while you hear [his order]. [8:20]

It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error. [33:36]

The hadith also restate this doctrine.

The Prophet said: "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah; and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah."[Ibn Majah]

This is because god commanded obedience to him, thus God's command is broken if he is disobeyed. Also, as explained by the hadith below It is referring to religious matters (which is not just theology but Islamic Law).

Rafi' b. Khadij reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came to Medina and the people had been grafting the trees. He said: What are you doing? They said: We are grafting them, whereupon he said: It may perhaps be good for you if you do not do that, so they abandoned this practice (and the date-palms) began to yield less fruit. They made a mention of it (to the Holy Prophet), whereupon he said: I am a human being, so when I command you about a thing pertaining to religion, do accept it, and when I command you about a thing out of my personal opinion, keep it in mind that I am a human being. [Bukhari]

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Whoever innovates something in this matter of ours (i.e. Islam) that is not part of it, will have it rejected." [Ibn Majah]

Beware of newly invented matters [in the religion], for verily every bidah (innovation) is misguidance. [40 Hadith Nawawi] .

not everything the Qur'an has to teach is yet understood by human beings

Reference pls so I know precisely what you mean.

As far as believing Muslims are concerned, you cannot attain an understanding of Islam superior than or equal to Muhammad or his companions.

Next he argues:

I think one can question whether the Qur'an condemns orthodox Christian belief about the Trinity, very fully developed by Muhammad's time, in 5:72. In 5:116, of course, it condemns Christians for worshipping the two gods of Jesus and Mary alongside God; and here, the Qur'an seems to follow Christian usage in sometimes using "God" to refer to the Father alone, opening the possibility that 5:72 is condemning not the consubstantiality of Christ with the Father, but rather confusion by Christians of the divine persons, or Patripassianism: the belief that God the Father had suffered as Christ. This may seem to us like a less important belief to condemn than Chalcedonian Christology, but so does the idea that the third person of the Trinity is Mary.

The notion that condemnation of calling jesus the son of god, and condemnation of "third of three" is not the trinity is what is absurd.

The Qur'an condemns belief in Jesus's divinity, belief in him being the son of God and the trinity in the most explicit terms. So no, "I think one can question whether the Qur'an condemns orthodox Christian belief about the Trinity" does not hold even if only 1 of the aforementioned beliefs is condemned.

The passage mentioning Mary makes no mention of Trinity. It claims that Jesus never claimed divinity, nor did he or Mary claim that Mary was divine and that they should be worshiped. It is speaking generally about idolatry and polytheism.

And yes, while Christians don't believe this, in the Islamic perspective, Mary veneration is idolatrous, blasphemous and basically worship as far as Muslims are concerned.

From the Salve Regina:

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy, hail, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve: to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus, O merciful, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary! Amen.

Catchesim of the Roman Catholic Church:

Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God" (Theotokos)

Mary was declared Theotokos at The Council of Ephesus in 431CE. Well before Islam was founded. The concept of Theotokos and veneration of Mary however predates the council.

Interpreting the Qur'an through the lens of these Christian dogmas may seem strange

Yeah it is strange for Muslims to rely on using the Bible to help interpret the Qur'an when it is literally part of our belief that was the word of God but now it has been changed by men. It is "truth mixed with falsehood" and is not reliable source of Islamic theology or Law.

In 2:88 and 4:155, the Qur'an accuses the Jews of saying, "qulūbunā ghul'fun", "our hearts are encased". Traditional commentators read in that the Jews meant their hearts were cases full of knowledge and they didn't need any more, or gloss it as "our minds are closed." Yet a clearer meaning is available: ghulf is the plural form of aghlaf, which means "uncircumcised," as Arberry correctly translates it. Such a reading probably would have struck early readers as nonsensical, but only because they were not familiar with the metaphor of "uncircumcised hearts" from the Hebrew Torah and prophets. Jeremiah says that "all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart," (Jer 9:26), which explains why the Qur'an says not just that the Jews' hearts are uncircumcised, but that they themselves have said so. The Christians knew about it; Acts contains a speech by Stephen addressed to a "stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears," and Paul writes to the Romans, "a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart." Was "our hearts are sheathed" really the Jews' way of telling Muhammad that they wouldn't listen to him? Or did an exegete come up with a story to explain a confusing passage, which became accepted by traditional scholars and millions of Muslims as information that any reader knows?

Jeremiah reference is not positive, context of passage:

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh— 26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the wilderness in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.” (NIV)

God is going to Punish Israel for their uncircumcised hearts.

The Torah::

The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. Deuteronomy 30:6 (NIV)

Ie, To have an uncircumcised heart as 2:88 is translated by Arberry is a bad thing and is not in line with loving God.

The interpretation of it meaning not accepting Muhammad actually makes sense if you quote the rest of 2:88. It also makes sense since in Islam Muhammad is God's messenger, and thus those with circumcised hearts would be obeying and loving God's Messenger. In fact, it seems to jibe quite well with the meaning of circumcised hearts!

And they said, "Our hearts are wrapped." But, [in fact], Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so little is it that they believe.[2:88]

The rest of the verse ain't exegesis.

Also John Arberry's knowledge of Arabic does not excel a thousand years of native classical Arab scholars.

---

You are free to believe whatever you want, but don't give me this "fully in keeping with Islamic tradition" crap while espousing what Sunni and Shia Islam consider to be blatantly heretical.