Things in Islam I am curious about...

[aadil77]

I have not heard this before and without wanting to insult Islam this does sound fanciful so could you give us some references as to where we might find this doctrine in the Qu'ran or elsewhere?

Ok I will do, but yep we believe prophets were extremely blessed on top of that some/all could perform unique miracles, basically they all had something which made them unique - you'd be able to tell there's something special about this person.

 

[LauraS]

aadil77- I got your private message thank you, I understand what you are saying, it is very good feeling when you have faith. Unfortunately I wrote a paragraph about my personal beleifs and then found I needed to post 50 messages before I could send a personal one. lol maybe I'll resend it when I reach 50.

 

[aadil77]

These are just a few qualities of prophet Muhammad may peace be upon him. All prophets will have possessed similar if not the same qualities

http://www.iqra.net/Hadith/sifat.php - long read so will not quote it

Here are a few hadith about the beauty of prophet Muhammad

Hassan (ra) says:
He had great qualities and attributes, others also held him in high esteem. His blessed face shone like the full moon. He was slightly taller than a man of middle height, but shorter than a tall person...His blessed hair was slightly twisted. If his hair became parted naturally in the middle he left it so, otherwise he did not habitually make an effort to part his hair in the middle...Rasulullah (saas) had a very luminous complexion (color), and a wide forehead. His eye brows were of dense and fine hair ...

"He was innocently bright and had a broad countenance. His manners were fine... He had black attractive eyes... His hair glossy and black, inclined to curl, he wore long. His voice was very commanding. His head was well formed and set on a slender neck. His expression was pensive and contemplative, serene and sublime. The stranger was fascinated from the distance, but no sooner he became intimate with him, than this fascination was changed into attachment and respect. His expression was very sweet and distinct. His speech was well set and free from the use of superfluous words, as if it were rosary of beads. His stature was neither too high nor too small. He was singularly bright and fresh. He was always surrounded by his Companions. Whenever he uttered something, the listeners would hear him with rapt attention and whenever he issued a commandment, they vied with each other in carrying it out. He was a master and a commander."76

 

[aadil77]

aadil77- I got your private message thank you, I understand what you are saying, it is very good feeling when you have faith. Unfortunately I wrote a paragraph about my personal beleifs and then found I needed to post 50 messages before I could send a personal one. lol maybe I'll resend it when I reach 50.

lol no prob just realised that as well

 

[Grace Seeker]

It is well known among us Muslims that Allaah revealed the Gospel (Injeel) to ‘Eesa (peace be upon him),

How does the Mulslim arrive at this knowledge?

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

How does the Mulslim arrive at this knowledge?

related verses :

And He (Allah) will teach him (Iesa (Jesus)) the Book and Al-Hikmah (i.e. the Sunnah, the faultless speech of the Prophets, wisdom, etc.), (and) the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel).

( سورة آل عمران , Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #48)

Verily, We have inspired you (O Muhammad SAW) as We inspired Nooh (Noah) and the Prophets after him; We (also) inspired Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Yaqoob (Jacob), and AlAsbat (the twelve sons of Yaqoob (Jacob)), Iesa (Jesus), Ayub (Job), Yoonus (Jonah), Haroon (Aaron), and Sulaiman (Solomon), and to Dawood (David) We gave the Zaboor (Psalms).

( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #163)



And indeed, We gave Moosa (Moses) the Book and followed him up with a succession of Messengers. And We gave Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), clear signs and supported him with Rooh-ul-Qudus (Jibrael (Gabriel) ). Is it that whenever there came to you a Messenger with what you yourselves desired not, you grew arrogant? Some, you disbelieved and some, you killed.

( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #87)


Say (O Muslims), "We believe in Allah and that which has been sent down to us and that which has been sent down to Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Yaqoob (Jacob), and to Al-Asbat (the twelve sons of Yaqoob (Jacob)), and that which has been given to Moosa (Moses) and Iesa (Jesus), and that which has been given to the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted (in Islam)."

( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #136)

 

[Grace Seeker]

So, you accept the authority of these verses as testifying to what God has (and has not) done. But the question remains unanswered, how does the Muslim arrive at his/her knowledge that these verses are in fact authoritative? Is there not a point which comes down to an act of faith? Faith that Muhammad really did receive the Qur'an from Allah and not some other source? I'm just expressing how it seems to me, that in the end, it all boils down to the Muslim saying that Muhammad told me this is so (or more properly, Muhammad told me that Allah said this was so), and I believe Muhammad. How does the Muslim know that Muhammad said was so, actual is so?

 

[syed_z]

So, you accept the authority of these verses as testifying to what God has (and has not) done. But the question remains unanswered, how does the Muslim arrive at his/her knowledge that these verses are in fact authoritative? Is there not a point which comes down to an act of faith? Faith that Muhammad really did receive the Qur'an from Allah and not some other source? I'm just expressing how it seems to me, that in the end, it all boils down to the Muslim saying that Muhammad told me this is so (or more properly, Muhammad told me that Allah said this was so), and I believe Muhammad. How does the Muslim know that Muhammad said was so, actual is so?

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/134293101-has-quran-changed.html


Quran remains unchanged despite the long period of 1400 years... there is no book on Planet earth which has been unchanged for such a long time.... also the Bible is not to be found in its original language but Quran can still be read in , ancient Arabic .... there is no way a book can remain uncorrupted for such a long time with out Divine Intervention.....


(15:09)... indeed it is We Who have revealed it and it is indeed We Who are its guardians.


The challenge is still there by God to all Mankind, to try tampering or changing if they can.... its been more than 14 centuries and still remains unchanged...

Please click the link i gave, there has been a Huge research project in Europe which was done by European Scholars , regarding Bible and Quran, bible came to have thousands of error, because its a fact that it went through several interpolations, even though we just like you believe that it is the Word of God but God did not promise to protect it.... while the Quran when revealed, God promised to protect it...

Ask yourself , how come a person who could not read or write be able to produce a Code of Life for all mankind, which is applicable till the end of the World ?

 

[syed_z]

So, you accept the authority of these verses as testifying to what God has (and has not) done. But the question remains unanswered, how does the Muslim arrive at his/her knowledge that these verses are in fact authoritative? Is there not a point which comes down to an act of faith? Faith that Muhammad really did receive the Qur'an from Allah and not some other source? I'm just expressing how it seems to me, that in the end, it all boils down to the Muslim saying that Muhammad told me this is so (or more properly, Muhammad told me that Allah said this was so), and I believe Muhammad. How does the Muslim know that Muhammad said was so, actual is so?

Also if you try using your reason as i said... that Quran does NOT tell to accept it blindly, rather appeals to the reader to use their reason, without any kind of prejudice, to understand whether this is the Book of Guidance from God or not ?

and so a few points which should be known about Quran.... Unlike the Bible which was sent only to the Children of Israel, Quran's Message was revealed to entire mankind while each of the earlier prophets were sent to their own communities.... Old Testament ONLY addresses to the Children of Israel....and even Jesus came to correct the distortions in the Old testament and came only to the Children of Israel.... "sent unto the lost sheep of House of Israel.. (Mathew XV, 24)... In contrast the Message of the Quran is Universal and is addressed to all of Mankind as a whole and is niether Time Bound nor confined to any particular cultural environment. It is this reason that Muhammad (saw) is known in the Quran as sent not but as a Mercy for All Mankind....

(21:07) God's grace towards all Mankind...

(33:40) ..Seal of All Prophets...


(7:158) Say (O Muhammad) ."O Mankind! Verily i am an Apostle of God to all of you....

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

... Faith that Muhammad really did receive the Qur'an from Allah and not some other source? ?

if from other sources mean Satan or previous books , then these have been discussed in the forum hundreds times. Satan can not teach anyone that : follow not the footsteps of Shaitan (Satan). Verily, he is to you an open enemy.

( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #168)

(Shaitan (Satan)) commands you only what is evil and Fahsha (sinful), and that you should say against Allah what you know not.

( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #169)

O you who believe! Enter perfectly in Islam (by obeying all the rules and regulations of the Islamic religion) and follow not the footsteps of Shaitan (Satan). Verily! He is to you a plain enemy.

( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #208)

Muhammed pbuh can not copy from other books because he did not know how to read or write. Every details of him we get from many sources including this fact that he never went to any school. Also , if he really managed to copy from other books ,how come there is no ' copyist mistakes ' in Quran that we find in other books ?

 

[Ramadhan]

So, you accept the authority of these verses as testifying to what God has (and has not) done. But the question remains unanswered, how does the Muslim arrive at his/her knowledge that these verses are in fact authoritative? Is there not a point which comes down to an act of faith? Faith that Muhammad really did receive the Qur'an from Allah and not some other source? I'm just expressing how it seems to me, that in the end, it all boils down to the Muslim saying that Muhammad told me this is so (or more properly, Muhammad told me that Allah said this was so), and I believe Muhammad. How does the Muslim know that Muhammad said was so, actual is so?

It is interesting that you are still doing this after all these years on board and after being involved in countless threads about evidence that the Qur'an is from Allah SWT, where it has been shown to you that there is no way that prophet Muhammad SAW fabricated the Qur'an and attributed it to God, except that indeed the Qur'an is directly from God.

If only you apply let's say, a fraction (maybe 0.00001%) of the level of your rigorous demands for evidence that The Qur'an is indeed from God and apply that to the bible, surely you would have left christianity long time ago, because simply as it has been shown numerous times in this board, the integrity and authenticity of the bible crumble upon itself when being put under magnifying glass.


Actually, thanks to this latest "question" from you, it makes me think to create a thread which plainly shows which holy scripture is from God (The Qur'an) and which holy scripture (the bible) has been edited by authors inspired by satan/devil. I will do it one of these days.

 

[aadil77]

I'm just expressing how it seems to me, that in the end, it all boils down to the Muslim saying that Muhammad told me this is so (or more properly, Muhammad told me that Allah said this was so), and I believe Muhammad. How does the Muslim know that Muhammad said was so, actual is so?

That comes down to your faith in belieiving what the prophet said and accepting their words as divine revelation, if hadith of the prophet Isa were given to you from verified authentic sources, would you not believe them?

 

[Grace Seeker]

I thank you each for your responses. They each confirm to me that it is on the basis of faith that you accept the Qur'an as being from God. Each item offered as "proof" involved some element of faith, an apriori assumption, in it that I do not happen to share with you. That the same can be said of my acceptance of the authority of the Bible is no doubt likewise true. This is one (among many) of the reasons we call our respective religions "faiths" -- there is an element of trust involved in our accepting of them.

 

[Grace Seeker]

With regard to the Qur'an, I was wondering whether the following might be expressive of Muslim attitudes towards it? If not, how does this why of thinking miss the point with regard to Islam and your view of the Qur'an?

Foundational to all good exposition is the conviction that where the Qur'an is faithfully taught, the voice of God is authentically heard. In a generation demanding a "now" word from God, as though that would be in some way separate from, or even superior to, the living and enduring Qur'an, the expositor believes that everything God has said he is still saying. The preacher's task is not to try to make the Qur'an relevant; it is relevant, precisely because it is the living Qur'an of the unchanging, present-tense God. Nor is the task to "do something with the Qur'an," so as to make it palatable to the contemporary scene. Rather, the task is to let the Qur'an do something with the preacher, so its truth is incarnated in the expositor's life, as well as words, which become the channel of its powerful message to the hearers.

 

[Woodrow]

With regard to the Qur'an, I was wondering whether the following might be expressive of Muslim attitudes towards it? If not, how does this why of thinking miss the point with regard to Islam and your view of the Qur'an?

Foundational to all good exposition is the conviction that where the Qur'an is faithfully taught, the voice of God is authentically heard. In a generation demanding a "now" word from God, as though that would be in some way separate from, or even superior to, the living and enduring Qur'an, the expositor believes that everything God has said he is still saying. The preacher's task is not to try to make the Qur'an relevant; it is relevant, precisely because it is the living Qur'an of the unchanging, present-tense God. Nor is the task to "do something with the Qur'an," so as to make it palatable to the contemporary scene. Rather, the task is to let the Qur'an do something with the preacher, so its truth is incarnated in the expositor's life, as well as words, which become the channel of its powerful message to the hearers.

Peace Gene,

Essentially I agree with that statement, but I feel it needs to be explained better. If I am reading correctly I am understanding it as such:

The Qur'an is complete and requires no change nor is any change permitted. The duty of the "preacher" is to guide people into living a life relevent to the Qur'an not try to make the Qur'an relevent to their lives.

 

[Hugo]

Essentially I agree with that statement, but I feel it needs to be explained better. If I am reading correctly I am understanding it as such: The Qur'an is complete and requires no change nor is any change permitted. The duty of the "preacher" is to guide people into living a life relevent to the Qur'an not try to make the Qur'an relevent to their lives.

Can you explain what this means, the Qu'ran one supposes cannot contain everything and so in what sense is it complete?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Peace Gene,

Essentially I agree with that statement, but I feel it needs to be explained better. If I am reading correctly I am understanding it as such:

The Qur'an is complete and requires no change nor is any change permitted. The duty of the "preacher" is to guide people into living a life relevent to the Qur'an not try to make the Qur'an relevent to their lives.

Thanks. I thought that you would agree with it, at least the ethos behind it, if not the exact terminology used to express that thought. One of the reasons I asked is the source of that comment. It was the lead paragraph of an article written in a conservative Christian magazine with regard to preaching and the Bible (I of course change the word "Bible" to "Qur'an" to get your take on it). So, given that both in this post from a Christian source wtih regard to the Bible and your own post the other day with regard to the Qur'an (the one that Hugo altered) we can see how Christian approachs to the Bible and Muslim approaches to the Qur'an are so similiar, why do we continue to argue with each other? Yes, I know that we would like to convince each other of the truth of our own respective positions. But, serious, I don't think that is going to happen on a internet forum. So, why can't we appreciate that the other's position with regard to their own sacred texts are very similar to our own an leave it at that? Why the constant barage of attacks asserting that people are hypocritics or don't respect their texts or otherwise have ignored or devalued them.

We have each arrived at what we accept as our sacred texts. We have gone about that process in different ways, but we nonetheless each of sacred texts with which we share these things in common:
They are sacred.
They are understood as revealed to us by God.
They are inspired literature, God using the medium of men to give us his word rather than writing it in the sky or speaking it in a loud voice from heaven.
They express who God is and what he expects from us his servants.
They are a guide to both worship and daily living.
In the we "authentically hear God".
They were received over a period of time, but are today set and codified.
They are today complete and require no change nor is any change permitted.

All of these points we share in common, and yet they also seem to be things that we have each arrived at as basic assumptions we bring to the text. That is we don't test the truth of the above statements, we believe them and accept them as being true without needing to be tested. Still, others who are not of our own persuasion will challenge those assumptions. So, in the light of that another assumption I have is that there is a right way in which to express those challenges and there is a wrong way to respond when those challenges are made.

What would the dispassionate (meaning not emotionally reactive, not meaning to be without love for the Qur'an) Muslim see as the preferred way to make these challenges to another's basic assumptions and how should one go about responding when those challenges are raised to their own sacred texts?

 

[Woodrow]

All of these points we share in common, and yet they also seem to be things that we have each arrived at as basic assumptions we bring to the text. That is we don't test the truth of the above statements, we believe them and accept them as being true without needing to be tested. Still, others who are not of our own persuasion will challenge those assumptions. So, in the light of that another assumption I have is that there is a right way in which to express those challenges and there is a wrong way to respond when those challenges are made.

What would the dispassionate (meaning not emotionally reactive, not meaning to be without love for the Qur'an) Muslim see as the preferred way to make these challenges to another's basic assumptions and how should one go about responding when those challenges are raised to their own sacred texts?

Peace Gene.

For brevity and clarity as what I am specificaaly replying to I only quoted your last to paragraphs.

Very interesting and valid conclusion to arrive at.

I can not give a cook-book method or any text book as to how a person should respond when their basic assumptions are challanged. I can only suggest that we learn to recognize the symptoms of when we are doing it wrong. The first thing we need to do is recognize when one of our basic assumptions is being challanged. The first symptom we will notice is it has an emotional impact on us. It does arouse emotions typically first disbelief that the person is going against what we see is obvious and this is usually followed by anger.

So my suggestion is to strive to learn first what basic assumptions will most likely be challenged. Try to understand why they might be challanged and seek more knowledge about why you believe them. Seek verifiable evidence to support the belief or find why you accept it out of faith.

It is often not noticed when we have succeeded in accurately and convincingly showing why we believe what we believe. But it is usually very visible when when fail,--- anger comes into control and tempers flair.

Those are my own opinions. I am certain that those who have attended an Islamic University and did well in Islamic and Qur'anic studies would have a better way of explaining what we should do in terms of Islam.

But I believe we would agree that we did something wrong if the only result was a fight.

 

[Sister Unknown]

Can you explain what this means, the Qu'ran one supposes cannot contain everything and so in what sense is it complete?

You forget that Muhamma, sall-Allahu alayhi wa salam ,is sent to explain teh Qur'aan (sahih hadeeths). Argue this: The Sunna is the Qur'aan and the Qur'aan is the Sunna. If something is not in the Qur'aan, t is in the Sunna.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Can you explain what this means, the Qu'ran one supposes cannot contain everything and so in what sense is it complete?

Woodrow usually does a fair job of explaining himself, but as he made the statement "The Qur'an is complete and requires no change nor is any change permitted" to which you made the above query while responding to a post I made with regard to the Qur'an, I think it is only fair to note that the origin of that which I posted was originally written with regard to the Bible by conservative Christians who would most definitely hold that the Bible was complete and required no change.

I don't think they met to imply that everything was contained in the Bible, only that the Bible did not lack anything which needed to be said with regard to God, faith, or salvation. They would also assert that it was complete in that after its compilation there would be no need of any further additions.

I would suppose that Muslims views with regard to the Qur'an would assume it to be complete (in much the same way that Christians do) in at least those two ways. Perhaps they might identify others as well. I'll let Muslims clarify that, but I just want to note that the language of viewing one's sacred text as complete is something shared by both Muslim and Christian with regard to the Qur'an and the Bible, respectively.