Before Islam

[Nabooly]

:sl:

Ok ive been wondering about this for quite some time.

So we all know that there were religouns (from God) before Islam.

My question is, what will happen to the people who followed Christianity and Judaism, before Islam? Will they be judged based on their religoun? Like the Jews will be judged based on judaism, then when christianity came, and some people converted, they will be judged based on Christianity?

I know thats kinda confusing, bas i dunno how else to word the question.

Oh and i hope that this hasn't been posted before. I tries serching for "Before Islam" and it gave me every thread that has the word before or islam in it :mmokay:

Thanks ahead of time for all answers :sunny:

[- Qatada -]

:wasalamex


All the religions of the Prophets was Islam (submission to Allah.) That's why the different Prophets might have different social laws, but the main message was the same of monotheism - don't worship anyone except God, they told their people to do good and turn away from evil, they warned them of the Day of Judgment when we would all return to Allah and be judged on all that we did - then those who denied the message and became arrogant would be punished for their disbelief and evil, whereas those who believed in the meeting with their Lord and did good will be rewarded for that.


All the Prophets warned of this, there were 124,000 Prophets and around 300 Messengers. A Messenger usually comes with a newer law, whereas a Prophet might only continue with a law revealed to a previous Messenger.


None of the Prophets said that they follow another religion, and the titles given to other religions only came after peoples names, or tribe names. No Prophet ever named their religion after anyone, they all submitted themselves to Allah wholeheartedly and therefore were Muslims (someone who submits to Allah.)


The people who believed, obeyed and followed their Prophet will be rewarded in Paradise by Allah. After Allah's final servant and Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) received the message - everyone, from no matter what tribe or race has to accept him in order to be a Muslim and gain the pleasure of Allah and enter His paradise.


Here's some interesting links;

Prophets of Islam

http://islamtoday.com/show_quest_sec...&sub_cat_id=94



And Allah knows best.

[chosen]

so according to you jesus was a muslim....i find that very difficult , in fact impossible to believe..however you are free to believe whatever you choose..

[- Qatada -]

so according to you jesus was a muslim....i find that very difficult , in fact impossible to believe..however you are free to believe whatever you choose..

Yeh, especially since Jesus son of Mary called to the worship of God and never told people to worship him, he never called himself God either.

So since there were Prophets and Messengers before him who were humans, it wouldn't be surprising if he was an honorable human Messenger calling to the worship and obedience of God aswell. :)




Peace.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[chosen]

I have to respectfully disagree..based on not only my scripture, but jewish scripture which supports christian scripture...jesus was emmanual.."god with us"..and jesus did infact state that he and the father were one..and told his disciples that when they look upon him they look upon the father..I know I know..I yield to civility and choose to agree to disagree..have a good life..peace to you

[- Qatada -]

lol you too :) too much discussions on the trinity on the forum, no point messing this thread up too.



Peace.

[Nabooly]

:wasalamex


All the religions of the Prophets was Islam (submission to Allah.) That's why the different Prophets might have different social laws, but the main message was the same of monotheism - don't worship anyone except God, they told their people to do good and turn away from evil, they warned them of the Day of Judgment when we would all return to Allah and be judged on all that we did - then those who denied the message and became arrogant would be punished for their disbelief and evil, whereas those who believed in the meeting with their Lord and did good will be rewarded for that.


All the Prophets warned of this, there were 124,000 Prophets and around 300 Messengers. A Messenger usually comes with a newer law, whereas a Prophet might only continue with a law revealed to a previous Messenger.


None of the Prophets said that they follow another religion, and the titles given to other religions only came after peoples names, or tribe names. No Prophet ever named their religion after anyone, they all submitted themselves to Allah wholeheartedly and therefore were Muslims (someone who submits to Allah.)


The people who believed, obeyed and followed their Prophet will be rewarded in Paradise by Allah. After Allah's final servant and Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) received the message - everyone, from no matter what tribe or race has to accept him in order to be a Muslim and gain the pleasure of Allah and enter His paradise.


Here's some interesting links;

Prophets of Islam

http://islamtoday.com/show_quest_sec...&sub_cat_id=94



And Allah knows best.

Oh wow, i honestly had no idea. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

So basically what you saying is that there was never "Judaism" and "christianity" from God, it was always Islam?


Thanks for the links, reading them now :)

[NYCmuslim]

Oh wow, i honestly had no idea. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

So basically what you saying is that there was never "Judaism" and "christianity" from God, it was always Islam?


Thanks for the links, reading them now :)

Thats absolutely right. Remember, a muslim is just someone who attains peace with himself and others by submitting to the one and only God. This is how God wanted His creations: human beings, to be since the beginning of our existence.

[Grace Seeker]

The people who believed, obeyed and followed their Prophet will be rewarded in Paradise by Allah. After Allah's final servant and Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) received the message - everyone, from no matter what tribe or race has to accept him in order to be a Muslim and gain the pleasure of Allah and enter His paradise.

Why the change with Muhammad (pbuh)? While having new prophets might be of value for rearticulating the message, for renewed emphasis and reminder, and for spreading the message to more and more people, if one was still following the commands of the previous prophets, then wouldn't that be enough? Why would one have to recognize Muhammad now?


And if so many 100+ thousand prophets were needed in a few thousand years time, why only 1 prophet for all of the rest of time?

[chosen]

:sunny:I do understand your reasoning here...however why then were they not referred to as muslims and when and how did the term muslim originate..why is moses and abraham not refered to as muslims in any other religious writings..and why does the quran itself refer to christians and jews as people of the book..dont mind me..I am just rambling..thinking out loud and two finger typing at the same time...

[Amadeus85]

Still i haven't found one single proof of existence of islam before Muhammed's times.

[cihad]

islam means submssion, jesus ,moses and all the others submitted to the creator -see easy!

[aamirsaab]

Why the change with Muhammad (pbuh)? While having new prophets might be of value for rearticulating the message, for renewed emphasis and reminder, and for spreading the message to more and more people, if one was still following the commands of the previous prophets, then wouldn't that be enough? Why would one have to recognize Muhammad now?
And if so many 100+ thousand prophets were needed in a few thousand years time, why only 1 prophet for all of the rest of time?

Because, Muhammad [saw] was the final prophet. Sent by God to help mankind. Kind of like the last chance humanity will get - The final Prophet had the completely unaltered words of God (i.e the Quran) - of course the previous prophets had this, but their message was corrupted. So basically, God gave us one last chance. Amazingly, we still screwed it up.

:sunny:I do understand your reasoning here...however why then were they not referred to as muslims and when and how did the term muslim originate..

What the final Prophet taught was Islam. The term 'muslims' and 'Islam' were not around when christianity first kicked off.

why is moses and abraham not refered to as muslims in any other religious writings

Because at that time the word muslim or Islam as we know it today did not exist. It'd be like calling weird people kleeborps - but you won't know what a kleeborp is as kleeborps are from the future.

..and why does the quran itself refer to christians and jews as people of the book..dont mind me..I am just rambling..thinking out loud and two finger typing at the same time...

Because they are people of the book. The religious texts of both christians and jews came from the same source: God (muslims call Him Allah) However, since other humans came into contact with the religious texts, they were corrupted and changed (ever heard of the new testoment?) One of the core beliefs in Islam is that the Quran has remained unchanged since it's revelation all those years back (1400 or so)

Still i haven't found one single proof of existence of islam before Muhammed's times.

Prophet Isa (commonly known as Jesus), Prophet Musa (moses), Prophet Ibrahim (abraham), Prophet Nuh (noah) all preached the same thing: Peace and justice amongst all and submission to God.

[Amadeus85]

Prophet Isa (commonly known as Jesus), Prophet Musa (moses), Prophet Ibrahim (abraham), Prophet Nuh (noah) all preached the same thing: Peace and justice amongst all and submission to God.

So you say that in Arabia there was islam and were muslims before times of Muhammed?
And how is it possible that people before Muhammed times havent noticed islam? Pagans, Romans, Greeks, Philistines, Persians did notice Jews and judaism (see loads of historical textes, writings, merchant papers etc). Romans A.D did notice existence of christianity (books of Tacitus, Joseph Flavius) but somehow they didnt notice the other monotheistic faith which called to submission to one God.
For me it is so hard to understand.I think that proving to non muslims the existence of islam and muslims before Muhammad times is no easier than explaining the Trinity to muslims.

[aamirsaab]

So you say that in Arabia there was islam and were muslims before times of Muhammed?

THey were not called muslims and their religion was not called Islam. What they were initially practicing, however, were what we now call Islamic teachings (though when Islam came to the people there were more teachings added)

And how is it possible that people before Muhammed times havent noticed islam? Pagans, Romans, Greeks, Philistines, Persians did notice Jews and judaism (see loads of historical textes, writings, merchant papers etc). Romans A.D did notice existence of christianity (books of Tacitus, Joseph Flavius) but somehow they didnt notice the other monotheistic faith which called to submission to one God.

The message had been corrupted by then. Christianity came with Prophet Isa (Jesus) but after he died it became corrupted and split into the Trinity concept. Same thing happened with Judaism and is also happening with Islam (shi'a and sunnis for example)

[Amadeus85]

OK and how is it possible that Jews didnt notice the existence of the other monotheistic faith among (or near) them? Or you claim that ancient Jews were muslims? But if so, so why they observed jewish festivals like Hanuka or Shabat? How you can explain the ancient long tradition and history of the Jews.
If jewish rabbis could notice existence of Jesus' sect, so how is it possible that they didnt notice the existence of non-judaism monotheistic teachings among them during the thousand years of their tradition?
And if ancient Jews were muslims so who are Jews :) ?
Im sorry, but it still makes no sense to me.

[Keltoi]

Well, I understand the concept of all believers were "Muslims". It doesn't mean there were people running around calling themselves Muslims in ancient times or even during the Roman Empire. It simply means that all people who worshipped the God of Abraham were Muslim, even if they didn't call themselves that. Would Moses have called himself a Muslim? Of course not, as the word didn't exist.

Just explaining that I understand the concept.

[aamirsaab]

Aaron, see this post that I have quoted:

Well, I understand the concept of all believers were "Muslims". It doesn't mean there were people running around calling themselves Muslims in ancient times or even during the Roman Empire. It simply means that all people who worshipped the God of Abraham were Muslim, even if they didn't call themselves that. Would Moses have called himself a Muslim? Of course not, as the word didn't exist.

Just explaining that I understand the concept.

Got it in one go.

[Amadeus85]

It simply means that all people who worshipped the God of Abraham were Muslim, even if they didn't call themselves that. .

So ancient Jews were muslims? All or just some of Jews were muslims? And if this is true, so what is judaism, and when it appeared? If Jews were muslims so what were doing Jews in pre-islamic Arabia? :uuh: Does it mean that Jews and muslims (Jews?) were living together in pre-islamic Arabia and other parts of the world?
Im sorry but muslims' explanation in this topic is like this- "It's true, because we believe in it. And our belief is true."

[czgibson]

Greetings,

There is a common difficulty for non-Muslims trying to understand this concept. The confusion seems to be down to two similar but importantly different uses of the word 'Islam'.

There should be a distinction made between 'submission to god, in accordance with the teachings now known as Islam' and 'the religious institution of those teachings, which began with Muhammad (pbuh)'. To say that 'Islam' existed before Muhammad (pbuh) is potentially confusing (and even slightly disingenuous), since Islam as the institutionalised world religion that it is now could only exist because of him.

Peace

[Grace Seeker]

What the final Prophet taught was Islam. The term 'muslims' and 'Islam' were not around when christianity first kicked off.

Not to throw the whole discussion off topic, but please remember that line if you are ever tempted to disprove the Trinity by saying that the term 'trinity' isn't ever found in the Bible.

[جوري]

Did Jesus go around calling himself a christian? and Moses go around calling himself a Jew? Did Abraham father of all monotheism call himself a Jew? That is a sincere question!

cheers!

[Grace Seeker]

So you say that in Arabia there was islam and were muslims before times of Muhammed?
And how is it possible that people before Muhammed times havent noticed islam? Pagans, Romans, Greeks, Philistines, Persians did notice Jews and judaism (see loads of historical textes, writings, merchant papers etc). Romans A.D did notice existence of christianity (books of Tacitus, Joseph Flavius) but somehow they didnt notice the other monotheistic faith which called to submission to one God.
For me it is so hard to understand.I think that proving to non muslims the existence of islam and muslims before Muhammad times is no easier than explaining the Trinity to muslims.

Aaron, the argument is that they would have noticed Islam, but would not have called it that. The view is that whenever the teachings of Moses or Jesus or anyone other person that Islam recognizes as a prophet were followed, that they were in fact following Islam, though perhaps by another name. So, to the extent that the Sanhedrian want to get rid of Jesus, it was because the Sanhedrian by that time was no longer practicing the religion taught by Moses (I imagine you agree with me that they weren't) and were in opposition to that which Jesus was teaching (I imagine you agree with me that they opposed Jesus' teaching). Muslims term that teaching of Jesus to be Islam, while you and I term it to be the good news of the Kingdom of God. Muslims would (I think) agree with that latter statement and claim that that is what Islam, but that what you and I receive today no longer is that same message that Jesus taught. So, we call the message of the disciples Christianity, but Muslims (looking back) call the message of Jesus and any other their prophets Islam.

My argument with Islam is their view that the message it proclaims ever existed before Muhammad at all. I don't believe it did. Thus, I don't believe that it could have been proclaimed by any of those that they consider prophets before Muhammad.

Did Jesus go around calling himself a christian? and Moses go around calling himself a Jew? Did Abraham father of all monotheism call himself a Jew? That is a sincere question!

cheers!

No, Jesus did not call himself a Christian. But his disciples did call themselves first followers of "The Way" and then eventually adopted the term Christian.
No, Abraham did not call himself a Jew. He merely saw himself as a follower of God.
With regard to Moses, I don't know. He might have, but I think it more likely that he saw himself as a Hebrew, which for all intents and purposes at that time was saying the same thing.

Prophet Isa (commonly known as Jesus), Prophet Musa (moses), Prophet Ibrahim (abraham), Prophet Nuh (noah) all preached the same thing: Peace and justice amongst all and submission to God.

So, here is my big question on all of this. How, if the messages of Prophet Isa, Prophet Musa, Prophet Ibrahim, and Prophet Nuh have all been either lost or corrupted so that no one could find them to follow them today, how can we compare them to say that they were all the same?

It seems to me that this is a statement of faith (based on one's interpretation of the Qur'an and hadith) not fact (based on actual comparing of those beliefs and teachings).


If I produce a document that reports their teachings, you simply tell me that it is corrupted or in error. But you don't produce any evidence of their teachings, only that Muhammad says that Angel Jibreel says that God says that they all said the same thing as now Muhammad is saying.

[truemuslim]

What?? there was NO religion before islam. Adam (asw) was the FIRST person, and prophet on earth, meaning islam has been sisnce the beginning of time. Allah (saw) created adam as the first muslim EVER, and we all have to follow him by being a muslim. There was NO religion before islam. jazakkallah

[tigersabre]

Hi all,

What is happening here is that the arabic word "Islam" as a label for a religion is what is confusing many here. "Islam", contrary to popular belief, does not mean "peace" - it means "submission to God".

A Muslim is a "person who submits to God."

Does anyone argue that the Prophets of the past did not submit to the Will of God?

As mentioned above, the fundamentals of theology do not change - worship One God, there are Angels, He begets not nor is He begotten, there is a satan with minions trying to mislead mankind from this path, and so forth.

What can change are the day to day, here on earth type of laws - for example, the children of adam and eve had originally participated in incest initially, but once the need for this was no longer needed, it was legislated out as forbidden. Does yesterday's "Islam" have to be identical to "today's" Islam for it to have been Islam? Not at all.

Grace Seeker, why must people now accept Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)? The same reason that the people of the Moses had to accept Jesus - because he was sent to call the people back to the truth when they had gone astray.

And because man had proven incapable of preserving God's message and scriptures, God promised to protect the final message for all peoples for the rest of time, hence the memorization of the Scripture by the masses, literate and illiterate, as well as its having been written down, as well as the protection of its explanation and interpretation by the scholars of the past.

[tigersabre]

Aaron, the argument is that they would have noticed Islam, but would not have called it that. The view is that whenever the teachings of Moses or Jesus or anyone other person that Islam recognizes as a prophet were followed, that they were in fact following Islam, though perhaps by another name. So, to the extent that the Sanhedrian want to get rid of Jesus, it was because the Sanhedrian by that time was no longer practicing the religion taught by Moses (I imagine you agree with me that they weren't) and were in opposition to that which Jesus was teaching (I imagine you agree with me that they opposed Jesus' teaching). Muslims term that teaching of Jesus to be Islam, while you and I term it to be the good news of the Kingdom of God. Muslims would (I think) agree with that latter statement and claim that that is what Islam, but that what you and I receive today no longer is that same message that Jesus taught. So, we call the message of the disciples Christianity, but Muslims (looking back) call the message of Jesus and any other their prophets Islam.

My argument with Islam is their view that the message it proclaims ever existed before Muhammad at all. I don't believe it did. Thus, I don't believe that it could have been proclaimed by any of those that they consider prophets before Muhammad.



No, Jesus did not call himself a Christian. But his disciples did call themselves first followers of "The Way" and then eventually adopted the term Christian.
No, Abraham did not call himself a Jew. He merely saw himself as a follower of God.
With regard to Moses, I don't know. He might have, but I think it more likely that he saw himself as a Hebrew, which for all intents and purposes at that time was saying the same thing.





So, here is my big question on all of this. How, if the messages of Prophet Isa, Prophet Musa, Prophet Ibrahim, and Prophet Nuh have all been either lost or corrupted so that no one could find them to follow them today, how can we compare them to say that they were all the same?

It seems to me that this is a statement of faith (based on one's interpretation of the Qur'an and hadith) not fact (based on actual comparing of those beliefs and teachings).


If I produce a document that reports their teachings, you simply tell me that it is corrupted or in error. But you don't produce any evidence of their teachings, only that Muhammad says that Angel Jibreel says that God says that they all said the same thing as now Muhammad is saying.

Grace Seeker, what do you think of Dr. Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" book?

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker, why must people now accept Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)? The same reason that the people of the Moses had to accept Jesus - because he was sent to call the people back to the truth when they had gone astray.

From a Christian point of view, Jesus wasn't calling people back to the truth. Jesus never said that the teachings of Moses were wrong. (BTW, nor did Paul.) What he offered was a brand new covenant with God that did not require keeping a set of laws, but based on trust in God's grace and his righteousness versus our own.

Thus, Christians would hold that if Jews (or anyone for that matter) choose to and are able to actually keep the original covenant, that this is a perfectly acceptable. However, we doubt that anyone is actually capable of that, so suggest that one enters into this new covenant. And given as we don't believe the message with regard to either the old covenant or the new covenant to be corrupted (even if not perfectly preserved) so as to render it invalid, there is no need for another messenger. There is no other truth to call people back to, as you claim Muhammad has done. The problem that Jesus identified with people going astray is not that they lost the message, but simply that they failed to observe the message that they had. Muhammad bringing a new message doesn't help with this, as I observe that Muslims are no better at observing fully submitting to Allah than Jews were at fully submitting to Yahweh, for that matter than Christians are at fully submitting to God in Jesus Christ. But again, for Christians, the standard and means for salvation isn't our righteousness, but God's. And I'm sure that you will agree with me that God is indeed a holy God.

What is happening here is that the arabic word "Islam" as a label for a religion is what is confusing many here. "Islam", contrary to popular belief, does not mean "peace" - it means "submission to God".

A Muslim is a "person who submits to God."

So if, as I believe, the truth of what God wants us to do is not found in the teachings of the Qur'an and the hadiths of Muhammad, but in the teachings of Jesus and rest of the canonical scriptures of the Bible, then in using the arabic world "Islam" as a lable for those who are truly submitting to God, it would be more appropriate for me to speak of Christians as practicing Islam than to speak of Muslims by that term. It would surely confuse people, but given my beliefs those who best submit themselves to the will of God follow the Bible not the Qur'an.

Grace Seeker, what do you think of Dr. Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" book?

Sorry, I'm not familiar with it.

[aamirsaab]

So ancient Jews were muslims? All or just some of Jews were muslims? And if this is true, so what is judaism, and when it appeared?

Some of the Islamic teachings were practiced by the ancient jews and Christians.

If Jews were muslims so what were doing Jews in pre-islamic Arabia? :uuh: Does it mean that Jews and muslims (Jews?) were living together in pre-islamic Arabia and other parts of the world?

They were not muslims they were christians or Jews but some of what they practiced were what we now call Islamic teachings

Im sorry but muslims' explanation in this topic is like this- "It's true, because we believe in it. And our belief is true."

Well yes basically.

So, here is my big question on all of this. How, if the messages of Prophet Isa, Prophet Musa, Prophet Ibrahim, and Prophet Nuh have all been either lost or corrupted so that no one could find them to follow them today, how can we compare them to say that they were all the same?

Their main message, submitting to God, is all the same. The teachings and what is practiced (today) have been corrupted

It seems to me that this is a statement of faith (based on one's interpretation of the Qur'an and hadith) not fact (based on actual comparing of those beliefs and teachings).

If I produce a document that reports their teachings, you simply tell me that it is corrupted or in error. But you don't produce any evidence of their teachings, only that Muhammad says that Angel Jibreel says that God says that they all said the same thing as now Muhammad is saying.

Look at it this way: Allah sent many messengers all saying the same thing (that's why Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all very similar). However, because of corruption other messengers were sent i.e Abraham. Same thing happend cus people are stupid and so God sent muhammad [saw] to the people as a final chance for mankind.

[tigersabre]

From a Christian point of view, Jesus wasn't calling people back to the truth. Jesus never said that the teachings of Moses were wrong. (BTW, nor did Paul.) What he offered was a brand new covenant with God that did not require keeping a set of laws, but based on trust in God's grace and his righteousness versus our own.

Thus, Christians would hold that if Jews (or anyone for that matter) choose to and are able to actually keep the original covenant, that this is a perfectly acceptable. However, we doubt that anyone is actually capable of that, so suggest that one enters into this new covenant. And given as we don't believe the message with regard to either the old covenant or the new covenant to be corrupted (even if not perfectly preserved) so as to render it invalid, there is no need for another messenger. There is no other truth to call people back to, as you claim Muhammad has done. The problem that Jesus identified with people going astray is not that they lost the message, but simply that they failed to observe the message that they had. Muhammad bringing a new message doesn't help with this, as I observe that Muslims are no better at observing fully submitting to Allah than Jews were at fully submitting to Yahweh, for that matter than Christians are at fully submitting to God in Jesus Christ. But again, for Christians, the standard and means for salvation isn't our righteousness, but God's. And I'm sure that you will agree with me that God is indeed a holy God.




So if, as I believe, the truth of what God wants us to do is not found in the teachings of the Qur'an and the hadiths of Muhammad, but in the teachings of Jesus and rest of the canonical scriptures of the Bible, then in using the arabic world "Islam" as a lable for those who are truly submitting to God, it would be more appropriate for me to speak of Christians as practicing Islam than to speak of Muslims by that term. It would surely confuse people, but given my beliefs those who best submit themselves to the will of God follow the Bible not the Qur'an.



Sorry, I'm not familiar with it.

Well, before I respond, I should probably first get some clarification on your base theology, as I know there are different flavors of belief on the nature of Jesus (peace be upon him) within what is loosely termed as Christianity.

Given what you've said:

1. What is the purpose of being created?
2. What is the purpose of life?
3. What happens after death?
4. Where does Jesus fit into all this? Who is he?

[Grace Seeker]

Well, before I respond, I should probably first get some clarification on your base theology, as I know there are different flavors of belief on the nature of Jesus (peace be upon him) within what is loosely termed as Christianity.

Given what you've said:

1. What is the purpose of being created?
2. What is the purpose of life?
3. What happens after death?
4. Where does Jesus fit into all this? Who is he?

My base theology can be pretty well summarized by the historic ecumenical creeds of the Christian faith.

I believe that God is the maker of heaven and earth. I believe that God is spirit, being neither male nor female, but that God created us in his (sorry, for the anthropomorphizing, but I cannot bring myself to call God "it" which is the only other pronoun I have available to me in English)...but that God created us in his own image. And his desire was and is to live in perfect fellowship with us. I believe that this fellowship has been broken by sin which all of us are guilty of, for we all fall short of God's glory. I believe that in spite of our corporate and personal sinfulness God still desires to have us joined to him and sent us prophets to direct us back to walk in his ways. Yet, even with such guidance none of us is still perfect or holy as God is holy and he still desires that we have this type of righteousness in our lives. On our own power such righteousness is unattainable. So God has acted to confer his righteousness to us. Rather than merely wooing people to himself, God took the initiative to come to us, to show us and offer us a way back to himself. God came to live and dwell among us, even going so far as to manifest himself in the flesh and dwell among us. God did this in the person of Jesus who was not just a human being but God incarnate (in the flesh) among us. I believe that Jesus in his one person thus had two natures being both 100% human and 100% divine. (Yes, I know that 100 + 100 = 200, and with mere humans this would be impossible, but with God nothing is impossible.) I also believe that God being God and omnipresent was entirely manifest in the person of Jesus and yet was not absent from any other place in which may also always be found. I believe that Jesus, being human, was tempted as we are, but that he did not succumb to any temptation and lived a sinless life. I believe that he offered this sinless life as an atonement (payment) for the sins of all humanity. I believe that offering took place on the cross and that there God gave up his life for us humans. (I do not blame people who find this too difficult to believe, but I do believe it to be true.) I believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and by this resurrection shows to us the power that God has over not only life but also death. I believe that the sin I spoke of earlier that all humans have in their lives creates within us a type of spiritual death. I believe that only God is able to resurrect us to spiritual life from that death. I believe that those who trust God to do this will find that God is trustworthy and does do this, and that God does this by sharing his own Holy Spirit with us. (By the way, I do not believe this is a different God, and certainly not a creature created by God, it is just a sharing of God's self with us.) Thus, not in our own power, but in God's power, those who place their faith in God's work of salvation will find themselves united to God and able to experience full fellowship with him as he originally intended for us to have with him when he created humankind. Our lives being joined to God's we find new life in him that never ends. Thus, though I know that my earthly life will come to an end, I believe that my spiritual life having been resurrected from spiritual death will never die and that God will give life to me in it (in some type of spiritual body that is still a mystery to me) in order that I might spend eternity with him as he created me to do.



Now, that is a lot in one place. And I know that there are elements of these beliefs that you may not be able to accept, but you asked what I believed and rather than answering a set of questions that don't really seem to get at the core of those beliefs I offer this in their place.

[Grace Seeker]

Their main message, submitting to God, is all the same. The teachings and what is practiced (today) have been corrupted


Look at it this way: Allah sent many messengers all saying the same thing (that's why Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all very similar). However, because of corruption other messengers were sent i.e Abraham. Same thing happend cus people are stupid and so God sent muhammad [saw] to the people as a final chance for mankind.

I understand what you are saying, but you didn't really answer my question:
Given that you believe you have no record of the actual messages articulated by each of those preceeding messengers, and at best today only corrupted renderings of their original messages remain, how can you be sure enough of what their message was to with any degree of confidence claim that they all had the same message, that their messages were the same a Muhammad's or, for that matter, say anything accurately about their message at all?

[truemuslim]

"Grace Seeker" how would god be a human and a god when he is the one who created humans??? We muslims did not change the REAL book of god, yet the jews, christians and other religions did, if you try to change a owrd in the torah or bible nothing will happen, you can say whatever you like, but if you try to change the words in the Quraan, Allah will surely punish you.

[tigersabre]

Now, that is a lot in one place. And I know that there are elements of these beliefs that you may not be able to accept, but you asked what I believed and rather than answering a set of questions that don't really seem to get at the core of those beliefs I offer this in their place.

So if I were to answer my own questions, they would be:

1. The purpose of creation was to live in fellowship with God.
2. The purpose of life is...?
3. After death, those who accept Jesus will return to the fellowship and those who do not will...?
4. Jesus was God incarnate in the flesh.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood any of the points.

[aamirsaab]

I understand what you are saying, but you didn't really answer my question:
Given that you believe you have no record of the actual messages articulated by each of those preceeding messengers, and at best today only corrupted renderings of their original messages remain, how can you be sure enough of what their message was to with any degree of confidence claim that they all had the same message, that their messages were the same a Muhammad's or, for that matter, say anything accurately about their message at all?

There are quite a few similarities between Islam, Judaism and Christianity (from physical, such as clothing or even facial hair and mental attributes such as tranquility and mind-set). I can not take this as mere coincidence, rather for me it is clarification. Certain core beliefs are the same in all religions namely submission (though the actions are different) to God and keeping justice with the people.


p.s; I have no problem with people following their respective religion - in fact, as long as they are honest and sincere with their practices I will respect them more so than those of who follow the same path I do (who don't)

P.p.s; I understand and readily accept that religion is a form of control. I also believe that fundamentally humans require control else we'd all be committing harmful (physical and mental) acts not only to others but to ourselves.

[Umar001]

so according to you jesus was a muslim....i find that very difficult , in fact impossible to believe..however you are free to believe whatever you choose..

Why would it be hard to believe that Jesus submitted himself to Almighty God alone?

I mean, even if you accept that the Gospel accounts are accurate, then surely Jesus had a great amount of submission. The Bible teaches people to submit to God!

I have to respectfully disagree..based on not only my scripture, but jewish scripture which supports christian scripture...jesus was emmanual.."god with us"..and jesus did infact state that he and the father were one..and told his disciples that when they look upon him they look upon the father..I know I know..I yield to civility and choose to agree to disagree..have a good life..peace to you

But did not Jesus submit? How many times did he say, not my will?

Why the change with Muhammad (pbuh)? While having new prophets might be of value for rearticulating the message, for renewed emphasis and reminder, and for spreading the message to more and more people, if one was still following the commands of the previous prophets, then wouldn't that be enough? Why would one have to recognize Muhammad now?

Well you would have to ask whether the following prophets who are not sent to you is right, I mean, it is almost the same as me opening a present that is not for me. One would have to recognised Muhammad because to reject someone is like rejecting the One who sent him. I mean you've read, I'm sure, the sayings attributed to Jesus about who welcomes you welcomes me and who welcomes me welcomes the father, or something to that effect.

A Muslim does not only have to recognised Muhammad, by recognise I take it we mean accept, a Muslim would also have to recognise all the Prophets before, whilst realising that their message is not for now.

Still i haven't found one single proof of existence of islam before Muhammed's times.

And I'm still to find any proof of the existence of Jesus before the 4th Century. :heated:

That is almost how silly your point is. Looking for a word is not the same as looking for what the word is talking about. I can look for the word Jesus but wont find it in the New Testament, does not mean that the New Testament does not speak of Jesus, because it does, it just means that the language is different from English.

Similarly, not identically though, Islam was present, no one has said the word was present, but the meaning of the word, submission to the will of the One God and abstaining from worship of idols. That was definetly present before Muhammad's prophethood.

So you say that in Arabia there was islam and were muslims before times of Muhammed?
And how is it possible that people before Muhammed times havent noticed islam? Pagans, Romans, Greeks, Philistines, Persians did notice Jews and judaism (see loads of historical textes, writings, merchant papers etc). Romans A.D did notice existence of christianity (books of Tacitus, Joseph Flavius) but somehow they didnt notice the other monotheistic faith which called to submission to one God.

What did you mean other? Do you mean that Christianity and Judaism were/are monotheistic? Well if they were then it is possible that they were conforming to the meaning of the word Islam, which is submission to God alone.

And so there were people who worshiped one god alone the right way.

OK and how is it possible that Jews didnt notice the existence of the other monotheistic faith among (or near) them? Or you claim that ancient Jews were muslims? But if so, so why they observed jewish festivals like Hanuka or Shabat? How you can explain the ancient long tradition and history of the Jews.

Could it be because that is what they were ordered to do? That was part of their submission to God alone!

If jewish rabbis could notice existence of Jesus' sect, so how is it possible that they didnt notice the existence of non-judaism monotheistic teachings among them during the thousand years of their tradition?

Why do you think it would have to be non-judaism? What makes you think that they couldnt be ordered by Moses to do things which we have come to identify with Judaism?

Furthermore what makes you think that the sects might not have died out?

And if ancient Jews were muslims so who are Jews :) ?

Why would it have to be one or the other? Was Jesus a Jew? If he was a Jew how could he be a Christian? If he was not a Christian, which I guess is what most believe since most think Christian means 'Christ like', then why are you not Jew?

These are all labels, there was not a rule which said you have to call yourself Muslim.

Im sorry, but it still makes no sense to me.

If it doesn't make sense to you that Jesus submitted to God and that Moses submitted to God alone and that Abraham done the same then I guess I'll understand why you wouldn't grasp the issue of not focusing on a name but the meaning. It's ok :)

Well, I understand the concept of all believers were "Muslims". It doesn't mean there were people running around calling themselves Muslims in ancient times or even during the Roman Empire. It simply means that all people who worshipped the God of Abraham were Muslim, even if they didn't call themselves that. Would Moses have called himself a Muslim? Of course not, as the word didn't exist.

Just explaining that I understand the concept.

Yep, noone is saying you gotta believe it, but at least you understand it. :happy:

So ancient Jews were muslims? All or just some of Jews were muslims? And if this is true, so what is judaism, and when it appeared? If Jews were muslims so what were doing Jews in pre-islamic Arabia? :uuh: Does it mean that Jews and muslims (Jews?) were living together in pre-islamic Arabia and other parts of the world?
Im sorry but muslims' explanation in this topic is like this- "It's true, because we believe in it. And our belief is true."

Are all Christians Christ like? Maybe that'll explain it to you whether all Jews were Submitting to God.

For you to understand what Judaism is maybe you should look at the origin of the word.

Well Aaron, non Muslims like Keltoi and myself before Islam seem to understand the concept fine, Islam = submission to God alone.. Muslim = someone who does Islam, people before Muhammad submitted to God alone so technically fit the definition of a person who submitted to God alone, aka a Muslim, if you don't believe that there were people who submitted to God alone then I don't get what you believe Jesus and the Patriarchs done.

So ancient Jews were muslims? All or just some of Jews were muslims? And if this is true, so what is judaism, and when it appeared? If Jews were muslims so what were doing Jews in pre-islamic Arabia? :uuh: Does it mean that Jews and muslims (Jews?) were living together in pre-islamic Arabia and other parts of the world?
Im sorry but muslims' explanation in this topic is like this- "It's true, because we believe in it. And our belief is true."

Are all Christians Christ like? Maybe that'll explain it to you whether all Jews were Submitting to God.

For you to understand what Judaism is maybe you should look at the origin of the word.

Well Aaron, non Muslims like Keltoi and myself before Islam seem to understand the concept fine, Islam = submission to God alone.. Muslim = someone who does Islam, people before Muhammad submitted to God alone so technically fit the definition of a person who submitted to God alone, aka a Muslim, if you don't believe that there were people who submitted to God alone then I don't get what you believe Jesus and the Patriarchs done.

It seems that people, non muslim, understand this alright, and seems like the thread is flourishing.

Eesa

[truemuslim]

Well, before I respond, I should probably first get some clarification on your base theology, as I know there are different flavors of belief on the nature of Jesus (peace be upon him) within what is loosely termed as Christianity.

Given what you've said:

1. What is the purpose of being created?
2. What is the purpose of life?
3. What happens after death?
4. Where does Jesus fit into all this? Who is he?

I will answer your questions:

1. To see if the shaitan will really guide us to his path.
2. to submit to your true god
3. Allah may punish those who do bad IN THE GRAVE, then on judgement day, you may go to hell or heavan according to what you did in your life on earth.
4. Jesus (Isa) is a prophet whose soul was brought up by Allah when they tried to kill him. And on judgement day he WILL come back and slaughter Dajjal (anti- christ)

allahu akbar
2.

[tigersabre]

I will answer your questions:

1. To see if the shaitan will really guide us to his path.
2. to submit to your true god
3. Allah may punish those who do bad IN THE GRAVE, then on judgement day, you may go to hell or heavan according to what you did in your life on earth.
4. Jesus (Isa) is a prophet whose soul was brought up by Allah when they tried to kill him. And on judgement day he WILL come back and slaughter Dajjal (anti- christ)

allahu akbar
2.

Actually, I wasn't asking Muslims, and answer #1 is very grossly wrong :D The purpose for which you were created was to worship Allah subhaana wa ta'aala (see adh-dhaariyaat:56).

This life is a test of fulfilling that purpose :D

[truemuslim]

Actually, I wasn't asking Muslims, and answer #1 is very grossly wrong :D The purpose for which you were created was to worship Allah subhaana wa ta'aala (see adh-dhaariyaat:56).

This life is a test of fulfilling that purpose :D

yes but the shaitan said to allah (swt) that he can guide all of us to the bad path, and so allah made all of us, judgement day, and brought down the quran... i am not exactly sure about this yet. so dont be mad

[tigersabre]

yes but the shaitan said to allah (swt) that he can guide all of us to the bad path, and so allah made all of us, judgement day, and brought down the quran... i am not exactly sure about this yet. so dont be mad

You seem a bit confused :D Try the following site for more help:

http://www.ediscoverislam.com

[truemuslim]

thank you, may allah open the door to heaven to all. I don't know that much about how it all started, but the rest, i do.

[Grace Seeker]

So if I were to answer my own questions, they would be:

1. The purpose of creation was to live in fellowship with God.
2. The purpose of life is...?
3. After death, those who accept Jesus will return to the fellowship and those who do not will...?
4. Jesus was God incarnate in the flesh.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood any of the points.

OK, got some blanks to still fill in it seems, and one relatively small correction.

1. The purpose of creation was ... because it was in God's will to bring him glory.
2. The purpose of life is.... to live in fellowship with God both now and always, worshipping him in all we are and do.
3. After death... those who accept Jesus are guaranteed eternal fellowship with God and those who do not will find their fate in the hands of a God who is both demanding with regard to holiness, yet gracious in all his ways. We must simply recognize that such decisions are in the hands of God, who I believe will render them with justice, though (recalling Jesus' parable of the shepherd separating the sheep and the goats) perhaps not with equity.
4. Jesus was God incarnate in the flesh.

[Grace Seeker]

There are quite a few similarities between Islam, Judaism and Christianity (from physical, such as clothing or even facial hair and mental attributes such as tranquility and mind-set). I can not take this as mere coincidence, rather for me it is clarification. Certain core beliefs are the same in all religions namely submission (though the actions are different) to God and keeping justice with the people.


p.s; I have no problem with people following their respective religion - in fact, as long as they are honest and sincere with their practices I will respect them more so than those of who follow the same path I do (who don't)

P.p.s; I understand and readily accept that religion is a form of control. I also believe that fundamentally humans require control else we'd all be committing harmful (physical and mental) acts not only to others but to ourselves.

All fine points with which I choose not to take any exception. However you have yet to actually address my question:

How can you be sure enough of the message of the prophets prior to Muhammad to claim, with any degree of confidence, that they all had the same message?

This question is asked in light of the fact that you say their respective messages are lost or so corrupte that they cannot be retrieved from what remains. If the messages are lost, you cannot examine them to compare them either to Muhammad's present message or to each other. If you cannot examine them you cannot note either similarities or differences because you have nothing to base your opinions on except speculation.

a Muslim would also have to recognise all the Prophets before, whilst realising that their message is not for now.

Eesa,
If all the Prophets before had the same message that Muhammad brought and his message is for now, why would their message not be for now?

Oh, and as a side point, I think that the suggestion that Matthew 25:14 says that Jesus' message is only for the Jews misses the point. As the Jewish Messiah, he comes specifically to and among the Jews. But it is obvious from his interactions with this non-Jewish woman and many other non-Jews that Jesus did not feel himself limited to ministering to Jews only. Simply reading the geography of where Jesus was as these things are related in the Gospel accounts, Jesus did much of his ministry of teaching actually outside of Israel among both Jews and Gentiles. That is why this woman knew to seek him out. But even more telling is what he instructs his disciples at the close of Matthew's Gospel: "go and make disciples of all nations". Thus, while Jesus may have limited himself with regard to the scope of his personal ministry, he has no desire for his message to be so limited. Jesus' message is to be carried to all nations, all people.

[aamirsaab]

How can you be sure enough of the message of the prophets prior to Muhammad to claim, with any degree of confidence, that they all had the same message?

This question is asked in light of the fact that you say their respective messages are lost or so corrupte that they cannot be retrieved from what remains. If the messages are lost, you cannot examine them to compare them either to Muhammad's present message or to each other. If you cannot examine them you cannot note either similarities or differences because you have nothing to base your opinions on except speculation.

Not every teaching has been corrupted and similarly since Islam came after it also had a few new teachings that were not in the previous holy books such as pork and wine being forbidden. There are teachings that are still practiced in Christianity and the fact that they are also practiced in Islam indicates my point. Examples: prayer, fasting, charity - all play key roles in the three big religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) This is what I meant earlier about them not being coincidences.

Basically, there is enough teachings (such as the examples given above) to compare them to Islam but due to the fact that quite a bit has been changed and also that Islam had additional rulings (as a direct result of the corruption of the previous holy books) Christianity and Judaism cannot be called Islam.

How can you be sure enough of the message of the prophets prior to Muhammad to claim, with any degree of confidence, that they all had the same message?

It comes down to the fact that I cannot believe that all these things I have pointed out are merely coincidental. If you look at what all the Prophets did for the people they all had the same goal which explains why there are so many similarities between all religions come to think of it. It cannot be a matter of coincidence if every Prophet taught the same crucial points: prayer (or being thankful to God) and justice to the people (i.e treating your people and others respectfully). I cannot off the top of my head think of any Prophet that called for the extinction of any persons which leads me to believe that they were all saying the same thing. The main difference is that the teachings were practiced differently which was partly due to human corruption of the teachings and partly because different religions came at different times.

[Qurratul Ayn]

Peace

"THE RELIGION OF ISLAM

The first thing that one should know and clearly understand about Islam is what the word "Islam" itself means. The religion of Islam is not named after a person as in the case of Buddhism after Gotama Buddha, Confucianism after Confucius, and Marxism after Karl Marx. Nor was it named after a tribe like Judaism after the tribe of Judah and Hinduism after the Hindus. Islam is the true religion of "Allah" and as such, its name represents the central principle of Allah's "God's" religion; the total submission to the will of Allah "God". The Arabic word "Islam" means the submission or surrender of one's will to the only true god worthy of worship "Allah" and anyone who does so is termed a "Muslim", The word also implies "peace" which is the natural consequence of total submission to the will of Allah. Hence, it was not a new religion brought by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) I in Arabia in the seventh century, but only the true religion of Allah re-expressed in its final form.
Islam is the religion which was given to Adam, the first man and the first prophet of Allah, and it was the religion of all the prophets sent by Allah to mankind. The name of God's religion lslam was not decided upon by later generations of man. It was chosen by Allah Himself and clearly mentioned in His final revelation to man. In the final book of divine revelation, the Qur'aan, Allah states the following:

"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion". (Soorah Al-Maa'idah 5:3)

"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah (God) never will It be accepted of Him" (Soorah Aal'imraan 3:85)

"Abraham was not a Jew nor Christian; but an upright Muslim." (Soorah Aal'imraan 3:67)

Nowhere in the Bible will you find Allah saying to Prophet Moses' people or their descendants that their religion is Judaism, nor to the followers of Christ that their religion is Christianity. In fact, Christ was not even his name, nor was it Jesus! The name "Christ" comes from the Greek word Christos which means the annointed. That is, Christ is a Greek translation of the Hebrew title "Messiah". The name "Jesus" on the other hand, is a latinized version of the Hebrew name Esau.
For simplicity's sake, I will however continue to refer to Prophet Esau (PBUH) as Jesus. As for his religion, it was what he called his followers to. Like the prophets before him, he called the people to surrender their will to the will of Allah; (which is Islam) and he warned them to stay away from the false gods of human imagination.
According to the New Testament, he taught his followers to pray as follows: "Yours will be done on earth as it is in Heaven".

Source: http://www.islamworld.net/true.html

Peac to all

[Grace Seeker]

Not every teaching has been corrupted

Well, let me just start with this first part of your first point. I thought it was the teaching of Islam that only the message brought by prophet Muhammad remained uncorrupted. What other uncorrupted teachings are there? Where can I find copies so that I might read them?

[Grace Seeker]

The religion of Islam is not named after a person as in the case of Christianity which was named after Jesus Christ

Let me shock you with a bit of news that you may not be aware of: Christianity is NOT named after Jesus. Jesus' last name is not Christ.

Christianity receives its name because those who adhere to it are submitting themselves to be followers of the one who was sent to this world as God's anointed (i.e. "the Christ") for the purpose of reconciling the world to himself.

[YusufNoor]

All fine points with which I choose not to take any exception. However you have yet to actually address my question:

How can you be sure enough of the message of the prophets prior to Muhammad to claim, with any degree of confidence, that they all had the same message?

This question is asked in light of the fact that you say their respective messages are lost or so corrupte that they cannot be retrieved from what remains. If the messages are lost, you cannot examine them to compare them either to Muhammad's present message or to each other. If you cannot examine them you cannot note either similarities or differences because you have nothing to base your opinions on except speculation.

Eesa,
If all the Prophets before had the same message that Muhammad brought and his message is for now, why would their message not be for now?

Thus, while Jesus may have limited himself with regard to the scope of his personal ministry, he has no desire for his message to be so limited. Jesus' message is to be carried to all nations, all people.

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

the VAST MAJORITY of Prophets that we have knowlwdge of ALL descendants of Abraham, Alaihe Salaam, and are now generally[though not always correctly] called Jews. so if we want to determine what "their" message was, Jewish sources would be pretty reliable. here's a snippet from Rabbi Nosson Scherman in his "An Overview/ Ezra - Molder of a New Era" which serves as an introduction to The Book Ezra / A New Translation With A Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic And Rabbinic Sources with Translation and Commentary by Rabbi Yosef Rabinowitz:

The First Temple and the Jewish nation - both the Ten Tribes of Samaria and the Kingdom of Judah - had crumbled spiritually because of the sin of idolatry. ALL THE PROPHETS FROM MOSES ONWARD HAD WARNED ELOQUENTLY AND STRENUOUSLY ABOUT THE PITFALLS OF THIS CARDINAL SIN. Nevertheless, Israel succumbed, with the result that it was banished from it land and nearly destroyed as a people.
...why should there have been such an obsessive passion for [idolatry] that even the Prophets were ignored and murdered in the people's headlong passion to choose strange gods and pagan ceremonies over the ONE GOD and His Torah?
(emphasis mine)

so, the Prophets came to "RE-ESTABLISH THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW"; which is EXACTLY what Islam is!! AND this message is for ALL TIMES!! which by the way is :one single proof of existence of islam before Muhammed's times."

i hope this clears up alot of things, and i'm only happy to have helped! :giggling:

May Allah Subhannahu Wa Ta' Allah guide us all to the sratight path and grant us the understanding that we need and may He also grant us all Jannah! AMEEN!

:w:

[aamirsaab]

Well, let me just start with this first part of your first point. I thought it was the teaching of Islam that only the message brought by prophet Muhammad remained uncorrupted.

Indeed.

What other uncorrupted teachings are there? Where can I find copies so that I might read them?

What I was referring to are certain practices such as fasting and charity. Though they have not been corrupted, they are not practiced in the exact same way as in Islam.

Similarly the message from the previous prophets were all very similar (not exactly the same as the final message, but similar nonetheless). Now, had people in general at the time practiced the teachings as they were told there would have been no need for God to send another messenger. Unfortunately, mankind, at the time, saw fit to change the words of God thus corruption. So in essence, what certain Christians believe today and practice is not neccessarily what Prophet Isa/Jesus practiced.

The uncorrupted teachings are those that bare striking similarities between the 3 faiths (Judaism, Islam and Christianity and in some cases hinduism and sikhism) though they cannot be called the same since they were revealed later as upgrades or newer versions (which would explain the differences) due to corruption of the initial teachings.

Please note that corruption in this case means simply that it is not the exact way in which it was revealed to the people by the prophet whom was sent by God.

[Grace Seeker]

Unfortunately, mankind, at the time, saw fit to change the words of God thus corruption. So in essence, what certain Christians believe today and practice is not neccessarily what Prophet Isa/Jesus practiced.

So, since the message that you assert that Prophet Isa brought has been changed and corrupted and no longer available to us today, how can you know what it was?

[YusufNoor]

So, since the message that you assert that Prophet Isa brought has been changed and corrupted and no longer available to us today, how can you know what it was?

:sl:

there's a post above aamirsaab's! :blind:

oh and to answer your question, let me quote it:

the Prophets came to "RE-ESTABLISH THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW

Jesus, alaihe Salaam, being a Prophet would have done the same... :thumbs_up

:w:

[aamirsaab]

So, since the message that you assert that Prophet Isa brought has been changed and corrupted and no longer available to us today, how can you know what it was?

A lot of the prophet's messages and the stories about their prophethood are contained in the Quran. That's how I know.

[Grace Seeker]

A lot of the prophet's messages and the stories about their prophethood are contained in the Quran. That's how I know.

There you go. So your knowledge is not that type that comes from examination and comparison, it rest on, and only on, your belief that the Qur'an has faithfully passed on the truth with regard to these previous messengers. And you know that it is so, because it says so. But you actually have no personal knowledge of what the message of Isa or any other prophet was, because you have never read his message, only that which others have said that he said. Well, us Christians, too. Only our record of these messages and your claims with regard to these messages are not the same. And frankly, when it comes to that which took place before Muhammad, I trust those source that are older than Muhammad versus Muhammad to be more likely to have it right. So, if Isa taught Islam, submission of the type that he taught is to believe in him through their message, not that of Muhammad (pbuh).

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message... {John 17:20)

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

there's a post above aamirsaab's! :blind:

I saw it. I don't comment on every post. But thank-you for your answer to my question.

[aamirsaab]

....And frankly, when it comes to that which took place before Muhammad, I trust those source that are older than Muhammad versus Muhammad to be more likely to have it right. So, if Isa taught Islam, submission of the type that he taught is to believe in him through their message, not that of Muhammad (pbuh).

I don't have a problem with that. The way I see religion is that they are like upgrades (in terms of the teachings/practices) for the people thus we should take the ''latest'' version i.e. Islam. That being said, I have no problem with other people following whichever religion they feel inclined to. At the end of the day it's what makes sense to you and what path you wish to take.

[Keltoi]

I don't have a problem with that. The way I see religion is that they are like upgrades (in terms of the teachings/practices) for the people thus we should take the ''latest'' version i.e. Islam. That being said, I have no problem with other people following whichever religion they feel inclined to. At the end of the day it's what makes sense to you and what path you wish to take.

I don't mean to quibble with you, but I find that statement rather striking. You believe Islam is like an "upgrade" and should be accepted because it is the "latest" version? That hardly seems like a good criteria from which to judge the credibility of a religion.

[tigersabre]

Grace Seeker,

The answer is simple and is as follows:

1. We are convinced that God has made Muhammad His last Prophet and is sending him revelation.

2. From amongst that revelation God is sending Muhammad, He has sent him the message that this is a confirmation of the message that came before. Other prophets are mentioned.

If you mean to ask, are we looking at all the world religions, and seeing that Islam is the last religion like all the other abrahamic faiths, and then concluding that Islam comes with the message that's the same as the others, then that's not correct.

It is the opposite - we are first convinced by the revelation sent by God to Muhammad as being from God, and then we look at what that revelation has to say, which is why we say with confidence that we believe that the previous revelations are the same messages, but they have been changed over time.

However, if we did have this theory, that it's a continuation, and we worked it from the other angle, the fact that the first Abrahamic faith calls to worship of one God speaks volumes.

[NYCmuslim]

Peace

I think in the end, the answer to the question of "before Islam?" will not make sense to the non-muslims unless they are convinced that the revelations in the Quran are true. To them, thinking that Islam existed before Christianity and Judaism is a tough pill to swallow. We know that Abraham, Jesus, and the previous prophets preached the same message of submitting to God because it says so in the Quran. But since they dont take the Quran for truth, they want some other proof that these prophets did indeed preached this message. Unfortunately, due to the corruption of the previous scriptures, we can't use them as definitive proof. So in the end, this whole discussions circles back to the issue of what is right: Islam or the other religions. It is only until they see the nature of what Islam is really about and are convinced about the truth in the Quran, will the answer to the question of "before Islam" make sense. Given that, I see no further point in going on with this thread. I believe the topic starter was convinced with the immediate answers.

See you guys monday Insha-Allah.
:w:

[aamirsaab]

I don't mean to quibble with you, but I find that statement rather striking. You believe Islam is like an "upgrade" and should be accepted because it is the "latest" version? That hardly seems like a good criteria from which to judge the credibility of a religion.

It's an upgrade in the sense of the teachings and practices due to mankind corrupting the previous religions sent to them. It's also the reason for why there are so many rulings and teachings contained within it compared to previous religions.

[Qurratul Ayn]

Let me shock you with a bit of news that you may not be aware of: Christianity is NOT named after Jesus. Jesus' last name is not Christ.

Christianity receives its name because those who adhere to it are submitting themselves to be followers of the one who was sent to this world as God's anointed (i.e. "the Christ") for the purpose of reconciling the world to himself.

Peace

OK, OK.

Now I know and I will try to contact the people who created the website and will let them know their mistake as if you read the article, i retrieved from a website.

Peace to all

[Qurratul Ayn]

Peace

"THE MESSAGE OF ISLAM


Since the total submission of one's will to Allah represents the essence of worship, the basic message of Allah's divine religion, Islam is the worship of Allah alone and the avoidance of worship directed to any person, place or thing other than Allah.Since everything other than Allah, the Creator of all things, is Allah's creation; it may be said that Islam, in essence calls man away from the worship of creation and invites him to worship only its Creator. He is the only one deserving man's worship as it is only by His will that prayers are answered. If man prays to a tree and his prayers are answered, it was not the tree which answered his prayers but Allah who allowed the circumstances prayed for to take place. One might say, "That is obvious," however, to tree-worshippers it might not be. Similarly, prayers to Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna, to Saint Christopher, or Saint Jude or even to Muhammad, are not answered by them but are answered by Allah. Jesus did nottell his followers to worship him but to worship Allah. As the Qur'aan states:

"And behold Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary Did you say to men, Worship me and my mother as gods besides Allah He will say-"Glory to you I could never say what I had no right (to say')" (Soorah Al-Maa'idah- 5:116)

Nor did he worship himself when he worshipped but rather he worshipped Allah. This basic principle is enshrined in the opening chapter of the Qur'aan, known as Soorah Al-Faatihah, verse 4:

"You alone do we worship and from you alone do we seek help".

Elsewhere, in the final book of revelation, the Qur'aan, Allah also said:

"And your Lord says:"Call on Me and I will answer your(prayer)."(Soorsh Mu'min 40:60)

it is worth noting that the basic message of Islam is that Allah and His creation are distinctly different entities. Neither is Allah His creation or a part of it, nor is His creation Him or a part of Him.
This might seem obvious, but, man's worship of creation instead of the Creator is to a large degree based on ignorance of this concept. It is the belief that the essence of Allah is everywhere in His creation or that His divine being is or was present in some aspects of His creation, which has provided justification for the worship of creation though such worship maybecalled the worship of Allah through his creation. How ever, the message of Islam as brought by the prophets of Allah is to worship only Allah and to avoid the worship of his creation either directly or indirectly. In the Our'aan Allah clearlystates:

"For We assuredly sent amongst every people a prophet,(with the command) worship meand avoid false gods " (Soorsh Al-Nahl 16:36)

When the idol worshipper is questioned as to why he or she bows down to idols created by men, the invariable reply is that they are not actually worshipping the stone image, but Allah who is present within it. They claim that the stone idol is only a focal point for Allah's essence and is not in itself Allah! One who has accepted the concept of the presence of God's being within His creation in any way will be obliged to accept this argument of idolatry. Whereas, one who understands the basic message of Islam and its implications would never concede to idolatry no matter how it is rationalized. Those who have claimed divinity for themselves down through the ages have often based their claims on the mistaken belief that Allah is present in man. They merely had to assert that although Allah according to their false beliefs, is in all of us, He is more present in them than in the rest of us. Hence, they claim, we should submit our will to them and worship them as they are either God in person or God concentrated within the person.
Similarly, those who have asserted the godhood of others after their passing have found fertile ground among those who accept the false belief of God's presence in man. One who has grasped the basic message of Islam and its implications could never agree to worship another human being under any circumstances. God's religion in essence is a clear call to the worship of the Creator and the rejection of creation-worship in any form. This is the meaning of the motto of Islam:
"Laa Elaaha lllallaah" (There is no god but Allah)



Its repetition automatically brings one within the fold of Islam and sincere belief in it guarantees one Paradise.

Thus, the final Prophet of Islam is reported to have said, "Any one who says: There is no god but Allah and dies holding that (belief) will enter paradise".(Reported by Abu Dharr and collected by Al-Bukhaaree and Muslim).

It consists in the submission to Allah as one God, yielding to Him by obeying His commandments, and the denial of polytheism and polytheists."

Source: http://www.islamworld.net

Peace to all

[Qurratul Ayn]

Peace

"THE MESSAGE OF FALSE RELIGION


There are so many sects, cults, religions, philosophies, and movements in the world, all of which claim to be the right way or the only true path to Allah. How can one determine which one is correct or if, in fact, all are correct? The method by which the answer can be found is to clear away the superficial differences in the teachings of the various claimants to the ultimate truth, and identify the central object of worship to which they call, directly or indirectly. False religions all have in common one basic concept with regards to Allah. They either claim that all men are gods or that specific men were Allah or that nature is Allah or that Allah is a figment of man's imagination.
Thus, it may be stated that the basic message of false religion is that Allah may be worshipped in the form of His creation. False religion invites man to the worship of creation by calling the creation or some aspect of it God. For example, prophet Jesus invited his followers to worship Allah but those who claim to be his followers today call people to worship Jesus, claiming that he was Allah!
Buddha was a reformer who introduced a number of humanistic principles to the religion of India. He did not claim to be God nor did he suggest to his followers that he be an object of worship. Yet, today most Buddhists who are to be found outside of India have taken him to be God and prostrate to idols made in their perception of his likeness.
By using the principle of identifying the object of worship, false religion becomes very obvious and the contrived nature of their origin clear. As God said in the Our'aan:
That which you worship besides Him are only names you and your forefathers have invented for which Allah has sent down no authority: The command belongs only to Allah:

He has commanded that you only worship Him; that is the right religion, but most men do not understand ". (Soorah Yoosuf 12:40)

It may be argued that all religions teach good things so why should it matter which one we follow. The reply is that all false religions teach the greatest evil, the worship of creation. Creation-worship is the greatest sin that man can commit because it contradicts the very purpose of his creation. Man was created to worship Allah alone as Allah has explicitly stated in the Our'aan:

"I have only created Jlnns and men, that they may worship me"(Soorah Zaareeyaat 51:56)

Consequently, the worship of creation, which is the essence of idolatry, is the only unforgivable sin. One who dies in this state of idolatry has sealed his fate in the next life. This is not an opinion, but a revealed fact stated by Allah in his final revelation to man:

"Verily Allah will not forgive the joining of partners with Him, but He may forgive (sins) less than that for whom so ever He wishes"(Soorah An- Nisaa 4:48 and 116)"

Source: http://www.islamworld.net

Peace to all

[Qurratul Ayn]

Peace

"THE UNIVERSALITY OF ISLAM


Since the consequences of false religion are so grave, the true religion of Allah must be universally understandable and attainable, not confined to any people, place or time. There can not be conditions like baptism, belief in a man, as a saviour etc., for a believer to enter paradise. Within the central principle of Islam and in its definition, (the surrender of one's will to God) lies the roots of lslam's universality. Whenever man comes to the realization that Allah is one and distinct from His creation, and submits himself to Allah, he becomes a Muslim in body and spirit and is eligible for paradise. Thus, anyone at anytime in the most remote region of the world can become a Muslim, a follower of God's religion, Islam, by merely rejecting the worship of creation and by turning to Allah (God) alone-It should be noted however, that the recognition of and submission to Allah requires that one chooses between right and wrong and such a choice implies accountability. Man will be held responsible for his choices, and, as such, he should try his utmost to do good and avoid evil. The ultimate good being the worship of Allah alone and the ultimate evil being the worship of His creation along with or instead of Allah. This fact is expressed in the final revelation as follows:

"Verily those who believe, those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures), the Christians and the Sabians any who believe In Allah and the last day, and work righteousness *hall have their reward with their Lord;They will not be overcome by fear nor grief (Soorah Al-Baqarah 2:62).

If only they had stood by the law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There Is from among them a party on the right course; but many of them follow a course that Is evil.". (Soorah Al-.Maa'idah 5:66)

Source: http://www.islamworld.net


Peace to all

[Qurratul Ayn]

Peace

"RECOGNITION OF ALLAH


The question which arises here is, "How can all people be expected to believe in Allah given their varying- backgrounds, societies and cultures? For people to be responsible for worshipping Allah they all have to have access to knowledge of Allah. The final revelation teaches that all mankind have the recognition of Allah imprinted on their souls, a part of their very nature with which they are created.
In Soorah Al-A'raaf, Verses 172-173; Allah explained that when He created Adam, He caused all of Adam's descendants to come into existence and took a pledge from them saying, Am I not your Lord? To which they all replied, " Yes, we testify to It:'
Allah then explained why He had all of mankind bear witness that He is their creator and only true God worthy of worship. He said, "That was In case you (mankind) should say on the day of Resurrection, "Verily we were unaware of all this." That is to say, we had no idea that You Allah, were our God. No one told us that we were only supposed to worship You alone. Allah went on to explain That it was also In case you should say, "Certainly It was our ancestors who made partners (With Allah) and we are only their descendants; will You then destroy us for what those liars did?" Thus, every child is born with a natural belief in Allah and an inborn inclination to worship Him alone called in Arabic the "Fitrah".




If the child were left alone, he would worship Allah in his own way, but all children are affected by those things around them, seen or unseen.

The Prophet (PBUH) reported that Allah said, "I created my servants in the right religion but devils made them go astray". The Prophet (PBUH) also said, "Each child is born in a state of "Fitrah", then his parents make him a Jew, Christian or a Zoroastrian, the way an animal gives birth to a normal offspring. Have you noticed any that were born mutilated?" (Collected by Al-Bukhaaree and Muslim).

So, just as the child submits to the physical laws which Allah has put in nature, his soul also submits naturally to the fact that Allah is his Lord and Creator. But, his parents try to make him follow their own way and the child is not strong enough in the early stages of his life to resist or oppose the will of his parents. The religion which the child follows at this stage is one of custom and upbringing and Allah does not hold him to account or punish him for this religion.

Throughout people's lives from childhood until the time they die, signs are shown to them in all regions of the earth and in their own souls, until it becomes clear that there is only one true God (Allah). If the people are honest with themselves, reject their false gods and seek Allah, the way will be made easy for them but if they continually reject Allah's signs and continue to worship creation, the more difficult it will be for them to escape.

For example, in the South Eastern region of the Amazon jungle in Brazil, South America, a primitive tribe erected a new hut to house their main idol Skwatch, representing the supreme God of all creation. The homage to the God, and while he was in prostration to what he had been taught was his Creator and Sustainer, a mangy old flea-ridden dog walked into the hut, The young man looked up in time to see the dog lift its hind leg and pass urine on the idol. Outraged, the youth chased the dog out of the temple, but when his rage died down he realized that the idol could not be the Lordof the universe. Allah must be elsewhere. he now had a choice to act on his knowledge and seek Allah, or to dishonestly go along with the false beliefs of his tribe. As strange as it may seem, that was a sign from Allah for that young man. It contained within it divine guidance that what he was worshipping was false.

Prophets were sent, as was earlier mentioned, to every nation and tribe to support man's natural belief in Allah and man's inborn inclination to worship Him as well as to reinforce the divine truth in the daily signs revealed by Allah. Although, in most cases, much of the prophets' teachings became distorted, portions remained which point out right and wrong. For example, the ten commandments of the Torah, their confirmation in the Gospels and the existence of laws against murder, stealing and adultery in most societies. Consequently, every soul will be held to account for its belief in Allah and its acceptance of the religion of Islam; the total submission to the will of Allah."

Source: http://www.islamworld.net

Peace to all

P.S. I thought it would be much easier to read when in different posts

[Grace Seeker]

Peace

OK, OK.

Now I know and I will try to contact the people who created the website and will let them know their mistake as if you read the article, i retrieved from a website.

Peace to all

Well, I have read your article, and now you've finished cutting and pasting the whole of it into this thread for all others to read as well.

I still suggest that the writers of that article understand only the Islamic description of Jesus and his message and that is to not really understand Jesus, his work and ministry, nor Christianity at all.

I refer you to the post of another, well articulated, Muslim on this very site who agrees with you theologically, but actually does get what the difference is between the Islamic and Christian understanding of these issues:post #52 by MustafaMc in "Basics in Christianity" thread.

[Qingu]

Grace Seeker, how can you be confident that Abraham and Moses actually worshipped the Hebrew God Yahweh? There are no records of their statements or beliefs. The Hebrew Bible was only written down between 1000 and 400 B.C.

Many religions make the claim that the heroes and prophets of previous faiths actually belong to their faith. It's called "syncretism." Judaism did this by incorporating Babylonian myths into its own theology. Christianity did this when Paul claimed that Abraham was saved through Christian theology which obviously did not exist at the time Abraham lived. Islam does this by claiming all Jewish and Christian prophets were, in fact, Muslims. So, too, did various Gnostic sects of Christians.

For that matter, most modern cults do this too. Mormons claim that previous Christian prophets were actually aware of Mormonism and that their real message has been distorted. Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese death cult, also claims that all religious prophets from Moses to Buddha to Muhammad were actually followers of Aum Shinrikyo and their leader was the latest incarnation.

Really, any religion worth its salt is going to try to incorporate previous religions under its umbrella. You get more followers that way. :)

[aqsakhan]

jazakallah khair for such a vast knwledge

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker, how can you be confident that Abraham and Moses actually worshipped the Hebrew God Yahweh? There are no records of their statements or beliefs. The Hebrew Bible was only written down between 1000 and 400 B.C.

A better question, as long as your are practicing skepticism as one's religious point of view, might be how can anyone be confident that Abraham and Moses ever actually existed? Outside of the Bible there is scarce little evidence for them. Some archeaological finds stir up a degree of hope for some proof, but as yet nothing definitive has come to light. So, why not just assume that the whole story is a concoction by some later priests who created the whole thing out of their own collective imaginations? This is in essence your argument after all. And if one accepts the Graf-Wellhausen school of thought in its totality, then such a question seems most appropriate. However, there are those who have raised some valid questions with regard to parts of that school of thought which guided much of Old Testament scholarship for many years.

In the last 60 years, credible scholars such as W.F. Albright have broken with the tradition of Wellhausen and are insisting on the primacy of archaeology in the broad sense as a method of control before one jumps into documentary hypotheses. They have also insisted on the substantial historicity of the partriarchal tradition and the precedence of oral tradition over written literature. In particular, Albirght holds a modified JEPD theory, in which J and E were transmitted separately being written down not later than 750 BC and that Deuteronomy was written at the time of Josiah -- not as a pious fraud -- but as an attempt to recapture and express the Mosiac tradition, and finally that the Priestly Code is most certainly not pre-exilic.

On the other hand, R.K. Harrison goes even further suggesting that there is no reason to doubt that one person, in his mind Moses, could not have played a highly significant role in both receiving the revelation of divine nature and will to a young, nascent Israel and in the task of sifting and correlating earlier Semitic (and specifically Israelite) legalistic practices and behavioral practices. After all, from the very beginning, even by many of the most liberal holders to Wellhausen, Moses was credited with portions of the Pentateuch such as the judgment against Amalek (Exodus 17:14), the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:22-23:33, along with the Decalogue), the restoration of the Covenant (Exodus 34:10-27), and itinerary (Numbers 33:1ff), and large portions of Deuteronomy.

The concentration in one man of the ability to write historical narrative, to compose poetry, and to collate legal material is by no means as unique as earlier critical writers were wont to assume. As Kitchen has pointed out, an illustration of this kind of ability from ancient Egypt at a period some seven centuries prior to the time of Moses has been furnished in all probablity by Khety...a writer who lived in the time of the pharoah Amenemhat I (ca. 1991-1962 B.C.).

from Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 538 referring to the work of K.A. Kitchen, The New Bible Dictionary, p. 849

The uniform testimony of oriental literary practice demanded that matters that were considered important or were required to be recorded for posterity should be written or inscribed in permament form, and not left to the care of bards and campfire romancers.

In the view of the present writer, almost the entire body of the Pentateuchal material could have been easily extant in practically its present form by the late Joshua period.

The Pentateuch is a homogeneous composition in five volumes, and not an agglomeration of separate and perhaps only rather casually related works. It described, against an accredited historical background, the manner in which God revealed Himself to men and chose the Israelits for special service and witness in the world and in the course of human history. The role of Moses in the formulation of this literary corpus appears pre-eminent, and it is not without good reason that he should be accorded a place of high honor in the growth of the epic of Israelite nationhood, and be venerated by Jews and Christians alike as the great mediator of the ancient Law.

Harrison, p. 541

[czgibson]

Greetings,

False religions all have in common one basic concept with regards to Allah. They either claim that all men are gods or that specific men were Allah or that nature is Allah or that Allah is a figment of man's imagination.

Is the writer aware of Buddhism, which claims none of these things?

Peace

[Qingu]

A better question, as long as your are practicing skepticism as one's religious point of view, might be how can anyone be confident that Abraham and Moses ever actually existed?

How indeed. I'm not entirely confident myself—not anymore than I'm confident that Sargon of Akkad or Gilgamesh or Hercules or Rama existed (all religious/ancestral heroes with superpowers like Abraham and Moses, believed to literally exist by their constituent cults).

Outside of the Bible there is scarce little evidence for them. Some archeaological finds stir up a degree of hope for some proof, but as yet nothing definitive has come to light. So, why not just assume that the whole story is a concoction by some later priests who created the whole thing out of their own collective imaginations?

Occam's razor. That's not necessarily the simplest or most elegant explanation. Many cults are founded around a legendary ancestor, whom current cult members mythologize. One of the most recent examples is Stalinism, which deified Lenin as a godlike figure—despite the fact that few of Lenin's teachings had much to do with Stalinism. Or in other words, Stalinism co-opted the historical figure of Lenin, deified him, and used him for its own purposes.

Christians in America are seeking to do the same thing today with the founding fathers, claiming they were Christians and America is a "Christian nation" (despite the fact that many were deists who explicitly opposed clergy and the Bible).

So it's entirely possible that Abraham and Moses were real people who were later mythologized and twisted to fit into a later cult's ideology—this seems to happen all the time in history, even right before our eyes.

In the last 60 years, credible scholars such as W.F. Albright have broken with the tradition of Wellhausen....

Not sure what your point in bringing this up was. I agree that archaeology should have primacy over textual studies, though obvious they are highly dependent on each other.

On the other hand, R.K. Harrison goes even further suggesting that there is no reason to doubt that one person, in his mind Moses, could not have played a highly significant role in both receiving the revelation of divine nature and will to a young, nascent Israel and in the task of sifting and correlating earlier Semitic (and specifically Israelite) legalistic practices and behavioral practices.

Then R.K. Harrison is either ignorant or out of his mind. First of all, the suggestion we have no reason to doubt that a man 2,500 years ago heard divine instructions from a magical burning bush is absurd. We have just as much reason to doubt this story as we have for doubting that Arjuna's charioteer was the god Krishna or that Gilgamesh got into a fight with the goddess Ishtar.

Secondly, Moses' story is clearly based on a pre-existing mythological template. His birth story is identical to Sargon of Akkad's birth story: sent down a river in a reed basket and magically survived. Unless you seriously believe that both people were floated down a river in a reed basket and magically survived?

After all, from the very beginning, even by many of the most liberal holders to Wellhausen, Moses was credited with portions of the Pentateuch such as the judgment against Amalek (Exodus 17:14), the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:22-23:33, along with the Decalogue), the restoration of the Covenant (Exodus 34:10-27), and itinerary (Numbers 33:1ff), and large portions of Deuteronomy.

What? Most of these laws are again based on a pre-existing legal tradition, specifically the Code of Hammurabi. Much of the Exodus code is identical to Hammurabi's Code.

Moses wasn't the first one to claim his stone tablets were the written commands of divine powers. Why on earth do you find this claim more credible than Hammurabi's claim that the gods Anu and Ea-Enki gave him his laws?

My general point here, Grace, is that you're in no position (as a Christian) to attack Muslims for retroactively assigning their faith to historical figures. If you approached the question from a secular perspective, on the other hand....

[Grace Seeker]

Much of the Exodus code is identical to Hammurabi's Code.

Have you read them both? Hammurabi's Code is a wonder, even more so given the context of the historical situation in which it arose. But to say that much of the Exodus code is identical to Hammurabi's (which, despite some similarities I believe fall far short of the definition of "identical") is like saying that since the colors of two different countries flags are similar that one was therefore derived from the other. Might be true in some cases, but tell me did Britian get its colors from France or France from Britian?

Moses wasn't the first one to claim his stone tablets were the written commands of divine powers. Why on earth do you find this claim more credible than Hammurabi's claim that the gods Anu and Ea-Enki gave him his laws?

Well for one, I don't recognize that Anu and Ea-Enki ever actually existed, but I do the God of Moses. As one who believes in no divine being, I can see why you would doubt all equally.

My general point here, Grace, is that you're in no position (as a Christian) to attack Muslims for retroactively assigning their faith to historical figures. If you approached the question from a secular perspective, on the other hand....

I don't think I have attacked them. I don't even mind that they view all of their prophets before Muhammad as also being teachers of submission to God, which they call by the general name of Islam. But to say that they all taught this type of general Islam is not to make their teachings any more identical to Muhammad's Islam than your Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. But what I especially think is untenable is the Muslim idea that though we have records of what Moses and other historical figures did in fact teach that they wish to toss all of that record, and then put alternate words into Moses' mouth for which no record exists except in the "revelation" that came to Muhammad. Words which I don't find any evidence Moses would have ever said. And words, with respect to Jesus, which actually deny what I believe Jesus did in fact say and do.

[YusufNoor]

Have you read them both? Hammurabi's Code is a wonder, even more so given the context of the historical situation in which it arose. But to say that much of the Exodus code is identical to Hammurabi's (which, despite some similarities I believe fall far short of the definition of "identical") is like saying that since the colors of two different countries flags are similar that one was therefore derived from the other. Might be true in some cases, but tell me did Britian get its colors from France or France from Britian?


Well for one, I don't recognize that Anu and Ea-Enki ever actually existed, but I do the God of Moses. As one who believes in no divine being, I can see why you would doubt all equally.


I don't think I have attacked them. I don't even mind that they view all of their prophets before Muhammad as also being teachers of submission to God, which they call by the general name of Islam. But to say that they all taught this type of general Islam is not to make their teachings any more identical to Muhammad's Islam than your Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. But what I especially think is untenable is the Muslim idea that though we have records of what Moses and other historical figures did in fact teach that they wish to toss all of that record, and then put alternate words into Moses' mouth for which no record exists except in the "revelation" that came to Muhammad. Words which I don't find any evidence Moses would have ever said. And words, with respect to Jesus, which actually deny what I believe Jesus did in fact say and do.

:sl:

Peace be upon those that follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

do yourself a favor and order this book:

http://www.artscroll.com/Books/rnki.html

i'm almost finished with it and i'm AMAZED at how much "Islam" is in the book! it WAS on sale a couple of days ago, but i missed posting it. i bet you're hesistant, but seriously, the folks at Mesorah Publishing have really nailed it with this one. i'll post something on it,Insha' Allah, but first i need to deal with your comments "in another post", and i've been working on a "Ezra" post for snakelegs.

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

Peace be upon those that follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

do yourself a favor and order this book:

http://www.artscroll.com/Books/rnki.html

i'm almost finished with it and i'm AMAZED at how much "Islam" is in the book! it WAS on sale a couple of days ago, but i missed posting it. i bet you're hesistant, but seriously, the folks at Mesorah Publishing have really nailed it with this one. i'll post something on it,Insha' Allah, but first i need to deal with your comments "in another post", and i've been working on a "Ezra" post for snakelegs.

:w:

It looks excellent. I think I like the one on Joshua/Judges more. More likely to be leading studies on those books than on Kings. Now the question is, do I really need another reference book at all? Have to think about that, but thanks for the information.

[YusufNoor]

It looks excellent. I think I like the one on Joshua/Judges more. More likely to be leading studies on those books than on Kings. Now the question is, do I really need another reference book at all? Have to think about that, but thanks for the information.

:sl:

Grettings Gene,

haven' t read the Joshua/Judges or I&II Samuel since i became a Muslim; but after reading the Kings book, that may change soon. [they're doing Chanakah sales and a few days ago they were about 15 bucks each!] believe it or not, i appreciate them more now!

they have a Torah done the same style called the Stone Chumash, it's AWSOME!

you probably haven't read much by any of the scholars that they use, but they use ALOT! i find this style better that the 5 volume Torah i have that is all RASHI, although it's VERY interesting.

you will find viewpoints that you've not seen before, you WON'T agree with ALL of it [i sure don't], but i continue to be VERY IMPRESSED the the company. i have alot of their ARTSCROLL series as well, they are more in depth. you DO get alot of stuff from the Talmuds added as well. i LOVE the Midrash as most of it is new to me.

[thb, reading the Stone Chumash changed my life. for the first time i could really see how someone could spend every waking moment contemplating God's Word!]

:w:

[tigersabre]

I don't think I have attacked them. I don't even mind that they view all of their prophets before Muhammad as also being teachers of submission to God, which they call by the general name of Islam. But to say that they all taught this type of general Islam is not to make their teachings any more identical to Muhammad's Islam than your Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. But what I especially think is untenable is the Muslim idea that though we have records of what Moses and other historical figures did in fact teach that they wish to toss all of that record, and then put alternate words into Moses' mouth for which no record exists except in the "revelation" that came to Muhammad. Words which I don't find any evidence Moses would have ever said. And words, with respect to Jesus, which actually deny what I believe Jesus did in fact say and do.

Hey Grace Seeker,

In using the word "Islam", submission to God can mean submission to whatever law Allah legislates at any point in history. In some cases, certain laws were in effect that are no longer in effect, so in this sense, "Islam" has changed over time, from the time of Adam until Muhammad (peace be upon them both).

For example, we believe that Adam's children were allowed to marry and reproduce with one another as the situation dictated, but that is no longer the case. In other situations, we believe the law has remained fairly steady (forbidding interest or pork, requiring circumcision, legislating the stoning of the adulterer, and so forth).

What we do not believe has ever changed is the fundamental theology - that only Allah and Allah alone is to be worshipped, that no partners should be associated with Him (be it a golden calf, a Prophet, a saint [we have the same problem with some Muslims as do catholics with saint worship]), and the only purpose for which we were created was to fulfill that purpose.

It is completely understandable that as a Christian, you would not believe in our position because of the texts you are convinced by. Likewise, as a Muslim, it is completely understandable that we take the Qur'aan at its word and are more readily convinced by secular evidence which shows competing texts and theologies after the leaving of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) from this world.

[Qingu]

Have you read them both?

I have!

Hammurabi's Code is a wonder, even more so given the context of the historical situation in which it arose.

Why do you say that? I'm not much of a fan of Hammurabi's Code. Though I definitely like it more than the Bible's laws. :)

But to say that much of the Exodus code is identical to Hammurabi's (which, despite some similarities I believe fall far short of the definition of "identical")

Ah, I don't think I said it was all identical, I said much of the Exodus code is identical. Which is, I think, true. Obviously there's no parellel with the religious laws in Exodus, or the Levitical laws, or the Deuteronomical laws that command you to enslave people you go to war with and commit genocide against people in the holy land. But the civil code of Exodus is very similar to laws in the Code.

Well for one, I don't recognize that Anu and Ea-Enki ever actually existed,

What? Why on earth not????????? :)

I don't think I have attacked them.

Yeah, "attacked" was probably too strong on my part.

I don't even mind that they view all of their prophets before Muhammad as also being teachers of submission to God, which they call by the general name of Islam. But to say that they all taught this type of general Islam is not to make their teachings any more identical to Muhammad's Islam than your Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses.

I'll go futher than you and say the claim that any of these people practiced general Islamic style submission is nonsense. There is no evidence that they were even monotheists in the sense Muslims, Jews and Christians understand the word. Judaism didn't even become a monotheistic religion until much later than Moses—"you shall have no other gods before me," and the Bible contains references to other deities whom Yahweh defeats in battle (like Rahab in the psalms, and analogue of Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish.) Abraham's covenant with Yahweh doesn't even make sense in the context of monotheism. The covenant is essentially a sort of debt-consolidation for deities. The Hebrews agree to stop worshipping separate gods for rain, fertility, and war, and consolidate their worship to a single god, Yahweh. In exchange, Yahweh promises to take the Hebrews under his wing as his "chosen people." Again, it doesn't even make sense unless the ancient Hebrews actually recognized the existence of these other gods.

Monotheism, as we understand it today, is largely a product of Greek philosophy. Though earlier Amarna-style monotheism, with its worship of a single solar deity, may have influenced Moses. And we know that the followers of Yahweh did their best to erase all worship—and hence, the very existence—of these other gods through genocide (book of Joshua).

But what I especially think is untenable is the Muslim idea that though we have records of what Moses and other historical figures did in fact teach that they wish to toss all of that record, and then put alternate words into Moses' mouth for which no record exists except in the "revelation" that came to Muhammad. Words which I don't find any evidence Moses would have ever said. And words, with respect to Jesus, which actually deny what I believe Jesus did in fact say and do.

I disagree that we have records of what Moses and Abraham taught. We have legends at best, more probably we have myths.

I think the Jews did the same thing to Moses' teachings as the Muslims did 2000 years later. They just did it earlier and closer to when he actually existed.

Edit: and sorry if it seems like I'm harping on you (I noticed we're having 2 arguments in 2 threads!) It's just that ... well, it's hard to hold an intelligent debate on this forum, so I'll take it when I can get it! :)

[Grace Seeker]

Edit: and sorry if it seems like I'm harping on you (I noticed we're having 2 arguments in 2 threads!) It's just that ... well, it's hard to hold an intelligent debate on this forum, so I'll take it when I can get it! :)

Well, while you said some things with which I can't fully agree; you didn't say anything earth-shattering or glaringly off the wall either. So, I think I'll just thank you for the compliment, and let this thread rest a bit.

However....... as to Hammurabl (and I'm not looking any of this up, so if I mess up, just scratch these comments) I think that it was wonderful, because it is one of the first examples of rule by law rather than by force. Today it is something we too easily take for granted, but in its day it was truely a novel proposition.

However, the law of Moses went beyond the law of Hammurabi in adding ethics. For instance the biblical injunction that you could only take an eye for an eye and not a life for an eye was a vast improvement on the code of Hammurabi. Also, in making God the king, even the king comes under the rule of God and thus under the rule of law. When David committed adultery with Bathsheba, Nathan was able to stand up to the King because God was standing behind Nathan and the king knew he was guilty. I don't think you see these sort of ethics in the Code of Hammurabi.

[Qingu]

Well, while you said some things with which I can't fully agree; you didn't say anything earth-shattering or glaringly off the wall either. So, I think I'll just thank you for the compliment, and let this thread rest a bit.

However....... as to Hammurabl (and I'm not looking any of this up, so if I mess up, just scratch these comments) I think that it was wonderful, because it is one of the first examples of rule by law rather than by force. Today it is something we too easily take for granted, but in its day it was truely a novel proposition.

However, the law of Moses went beyond the law of Hammurabi in adding ethics. For instance the biblical injunction that you could only take an eye for an eye and not a life for an eye was a vast improvement on the code of Hammurabi. Also, in making God the king, even the king comes under the rule of God and thus under the rule of law. When David committed adultery with Bathsheba, Nathan was able to stand up to the King because God was standing behind Nathan and the king knew he was guilty. I don't think you see these sort of ethics in the Code of Hammurabi.

Good points. I'd also add that the Bible says that children should not be punished for the crimes of their parents. In the Code, if you kill someone's daughter through negligence, you'd have to give up your own daughter to be killed. (Ironically, the Biblical injunction doesn't seem to apply to Yahweh, who punishes all of humanity for the sin of our ancestor Adam!)

That said, I think the Bible is worse than the Code in many ways. For example, religious tolerance. It's not a crime to worship other gods in the Code, but in the Bible the punishment is death. Women are also afforded more rights in the Code. The Bible has that wonderful law where if you rape an unbetrothed virgin, the punishment is marraige to the rape victim (plus brideprice to her father). And the Bible is the only religious text I know of that actually commands you to commit genocide.

So while I'll agree that the Bible improves the civic code of Hammurabi, it's a moral step backwards as far as human rights go.

[Grace Seeker]

Good points. I'd also add that the Bible says that children should not be punished for the crimes of their parents. In the Code, if you kill someone's daughter through negligence, you'd have to give up your own daughter to be killed. (Ironically, the Biblical injunction doesn't seem to apply to Yahweh, who punishes all of humanity for the sin of our ancestor Adam!)

That said, I think the Bible is worse than the Code in many ways. For example, religious tolerance. It's not a crime to worship other gods in the Code, but in the Bible the punishment is death. Women are also afforded more rights in the Code. The Bible has that wonderful law where if you rape an unbetrothed virgin, the punishment is marraige to the rape victim (plus brideprice to her father). And the Bible is the only religious text I know of that actually commands you to commit genocide.

So while I'll agree that the Bible improves the civic code of Hammurabi, it's a moral step backwards as far as human rights go.

Well, I will sound like a heretic to some of my more conservative Christian brothers and orthodox Jewish friends, but a few of those points are ones that have long made me think that oft times what we have is a person writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but not perceiving that revelation so clearly. I think their understanding may have been clouded by personal experiences in their own culture that are then reflected in their writings regarding God.

Though, on the point of original sin, I have a take on it that isn't about punishment at all. You can read it on this other website Christian Forums, post #9 of thread, "Why did Jesus have to die?". I see it more as we suffer because of the long-term effects of poor choices that our ancestor Adam made with regard to obedience, just as our descendants are going to suffer because of poor choices that their ancestors (us) have made with regard to things like the environment. The things that one does in life can change the entire world in which one's descendants have to live.

[barney]

Before Mohammed brought monothism to the Arabs, they worshipped countless gods. Sun gods , the moon god, fertility gods, water gods, and a king god in a similar manner to Zeus.
The Idols of the gods were stored in the Kaaba, about 360 of them. Mohammed threw them out.