Why Muslim and not Mormon?

[renak]

Thanks for explaining the reason behind why its not liked. But I still don't agree with the fact that people should make up their own laws regarding religion.

Like, just because the priests had problems with property and inheritance, it shouldn't be a sin on the rest of the priests who may find it easy to support their children. Unless its something sinful which was ordained by God, or Jesus (peace be upon him) - then it shouldn't be a sin, and men shouldn't have the right to create laws, only God or his prophets.


This is why in islam, we don't follow the whims/desires of other men, but we stick to the authentic two sources for our guidance; the Qur'an (the word of God) and the Sunnah (ways of our beloved Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.)

Our laws can only be derived from them two sources, and no other law is acceptable except through them.


I hope you don't take offense to what i'm saying, its just that its too complicated to follow the ways of people who want to create new laws in religion. How does the person know who to follow? This is why, its important to stick to the main sources that were by God, and His messengers, and no-one else.

I don't take offense at all. I don't agree with the fact that people have made up laws concerning christianity. However, I'm having difficulty understanding how the hadiths are any different than man made rules.

 

[- Qatada -]

I don't take offense at all. I don't agree with the fact that people have made up laws concerning christianity. However, I'm having difficulty understanding how the hadiths are any different than man made rules.

You may want to check these links out to get a better understanding regarding the ahadith and their authenticity etc.

http://www.islamicboard.com/educatio...resources.html (Studying Islam - List of Resources)

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/


You also have to remember that I said that God and his prophets make the rules, not normal priests, imams etc. This is why I mentioned Jesus (as he is a prophet in islam.)


Peace.

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

I'm surprised to hear this kind of argument from a Christian.
I mean, where in the Old Testament can we find mention of the word Trinity? Heck, where can we find that word in the New Testament?

If God really is three-in-one, why didn't the Prophets of old mention this?
So I don't think you're the right person to be talking about a lack of harmony between the old and new Scriptures.

Muhammad (may God's peace and blessings be upon him) came to inform the people of the fact that the NT had been tampered with and that we should follow the message of all the prophets, which is monotheism.

Are you talking to renak?:?

 

[renak]

You may want to check these links out to get a better understanding regarding the ahadith and their authenticity etc.

http://www.islamicboard.com/educatio...resources.html (Studying Islam - List of Resources)

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/


You also have to remember that I said that God and his prophets make the rules, not normal priests, imams etc. This is why I mentioned Jesus (as he is a prophet in islam.)


Peace.

Weren't the hadiths written by people, not prophets?

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

yes but they were the Prophet's words. They were written down by his close companions. Scholars have a system to rule whether a hadith is authentic, weak or fabricated.

 

[renak]

yes but they were the Prophet's words. They were written down by his close companions. Scholars have a system to rule whether a hadith is authentic, weak or fabricated.

I didn't realize that they were written by people who actually knew Mohammad.

 

[HeiGou]

I dont understand why marriage is hated so much within christianity.

Marriage is the lesser of two evils, but it is sin that is hated. Most of it to do with sexuality.

Its like, all the pious people within the society (eg. priests, nuns, monks etc.) all can't get married, whereas all the less pious people can get married. Which means, only the less pious get offspring, which probably leads to their children not being that pious either.

Assuming that piety is passed down father to son. Priests in the Orthodox tradition have always married. It is only in the Catholic tradition that they have not.

This is one of the reasons why there are alot of reports of peadophile priests etc. And their actually turning to sin, because they can't do what their body is inclined to do. i.e. have a partner (in marriage), start a family, have children etc.

I doubt that. I expect it is more likely to be cause by the collapse of faith in the West and hence many priests deciding they are not going to suffer for a religion they are not really sure about any more.

Whereas islam believes that all people should marry because it protects people from adultery/fornication, it keeps a person chaste from other types of sins (e.g homosexuality, peaodophile acts etc.) And it is a good way of remaining chaste, passing down the message to ones children, starting a family etc.

And yet in Islam, because of polygamy, most men have traditionally delayed marriage until their mid-thirties. Women have been scarce resources and so they cost a lot. Which means that "other types of sins (e.g homosexuality, peaodophile acts etc.)" are not exactly unknown in Islam - in fact Western observers have always associated Islam with said acts, probably only partly from prejudice. There are studies which suggest that the majority of Muslim men until the last century had their first sexual experience without being in the presence of a woman.

Why did God create Adam and Eve in two genders, if its a sin to have sexual relations? Why didn't God just create all of mankind in one gender?

Well I assume that God created Eve as company for Adam. But without sex which came with the eating of the Forbidden Fruit. So the original nature of marriage was companionship and love in a less-than-physical sense. The Fall involved the discovery of sex and all the consequences that follow. I can see the sense in that - after all what is more important in a marriage?

 

[Mohsin]

Weren't the hadiths written by people, not prophets?

no i think you've misunderstood

They were sayings of the Prophet PBUH. Prophet Muhammed would say something, and a Sahaba, thats a companion of his, who heard this, would memorize his saying. It shows his eloquence that people used to memorize everything muhammed PBUh did, its said he rarely spoke, but when he spoke Muhammed PBUH only spoke useful words. So pious companions would memorize them.
after the prophets death, the companion would pass on the hadfith to someone else, a person also known for his honesty and piety, and so this person would learn the hadith. It was all recorded by memory, some hadith were written down, and finally Imam Bukhari came a few years later and wrote down all authentic reports going back to the Prophet PBUH. So they are words of the Prophet, except they were written down later on

 

[aakhirah]

... and finally Imam Bukhari came a few years later and wrote down all authentic reports going back to the Prophet PBUH...

I feel I must correct this. Firstly, Imaam al-Bukhaari was not the first muHaddith to compile Hadeeth. There were others before him. Secondly, he did not write down "all authentic reports"; he compiled a subset of these in his SaHeeH. Imaam Muslim also compiled a subset of these in his SaHeeH, many of which cannot be found in SaHeeh al-Bukhaari (and vice versa).



A.

 

[HeiGou]

Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
yes but they were the Prophet's words. They were written down by his close companions. Scholars have a system to rule whether a hadith is authentic, weak or fabricated.

I didn't realize that they were written by people who actually knew Mohammad.

The very earliest hadith collections were written by people who knew people who knew Muhammed. Or are said to have been written by such people. For instance the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih, (d. 110/719) is supposed to have been written by someone who studied under Abu Huraira (who is the man responsible for more aHadith than anyone except Aisha I think). However of his short list of 138 Hadith only 98 or so were accepted by Bukhari.

The state of the field in the Western scholarship is that ever since Ignaz Goldziher, Western academics tend to think many Hadith were faked. This is not a problem in itself because clearly a lot were - Bukhari rejected tens of thousands. But Western scholars go on to claim that many of the more accepted ones are faked and even that the better an isnad is, the more likely it is to be faked. At the extreme end is the so-called "Revisionist" school that claims that pretty much everything is an invention of the mid-to-late Umayad or even early Abbasid period. This is when the great aHadith collections were written: Sahih Bukhari, collected by al-Bukhari (d. 870), included 7275 hadiths, Sahih Muslim, collected by Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875), included 9200, Sunan Abi Da'ud, collected by Abu Da'ud (d. 888), Sunan al-Tirmidhi, collected by al-Tirmidhi (d. 892), Sunan al-Sughra, collected by al-Nasa'i (d. 915), and the Sunan Ibn Maja, collected by Ibn Maja (d. 886).

 

[renak]

no i think you've misunderstood

They were sayings of the Prophet PBUH. Prophet Muhammed would say something, and a Sahaba, thats a companion of his, who heard this, would memorize his saying. It shows his eloquence that people used to memorize everything muhammed PBUh did, its said he rarely spoke, but when he spoke Muhammed PBUH only spoke useful words. So pious companions would memorize them.
after the prophets death, the companion would pass on the hadfith to someone else, a person also known for his honesty and piety, and so this person would learn the hadith. It was all recorded by memory, some hadith were written down, and finally Imam Bukhari came a few years later and wrote down all authentic reports going back to the Prophet PBUH. So they are words of the Prophet, except they were written down later on

Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately, this makes me doubt the validity of the hadiths once again. Perhaps I need more faith and less reason, but the system in which they were compiled does not seem reliable (unless one has great faith in the honesty of many humans).

I'm thinking that the regulations created by Christian leaders seem as trustworthy as the hadiths. By saying this I do not wish to offend anyone. I'm just finding that the issues I have with Christianity also exist within Islam, which is quite discouraging.

If I have to have what I consider to be "unreasonable faith" in Christianity or Islam, I might as well forget about becoming a muslim. It would simply be easier and equally rewarding to be a Christian.

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Hey renak, I changed my signatur:sister:. *cough*... anyway, I assure you that we do not blindly take hadiths. There is a very strict system to determine an authentic hadith, and Bukhari's collection is the most authentic. However, theer are many authentic hadith in Muslim, tirmidhee, Abu Dawod etc (books of hadith). I'd also like to point out that Bukhari was born blind, but his mother kept praying for him and he regained his sight. He must have been very garetful for this as he did alot of good work with his sight. I can understand if you find this hard to believe, but I believe that thisis easy for Allah.
-Peace

 

[Khattab]

Both faiths disagree with the scripture that preceded them. Both were started by one man making dubious claims of visions. Neither one fits with the general message given in scripture before them. Neither one agrees with earlier scripture concerning Heaven and what happens to man. Both agree on marriage in Heaven when earlier scripture speaks plainly against it. Neither one agrees that Jesus is God in spite of Old Testament scripture saying Jesus would be called Almighty.

If I were to rate the Koran against the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon and the writing styles, I would have to rate the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon as sounding more biblical.

If you were to make an argument to an unbeliever in favor of Islam over Mormonism (not the exact correct term, but close enough) what would it be?

Show me why I should give Muhammad any more weight than Joseph Smith.

Thanks
Nimrod

Muslims dont have any problem with the scripture that came before the revelation of the Qu'ran. We believe in the Torah, Psalms and Gospel as these are all revelations by God. However over the ages these revelations have been changed by the hands of men, this is what we dont accept.

There was nothing "dubious" about Muhammad (SAW), he spoke nothing but the truth, a man to be admired and followed, and as we believe the last of the prophets.

His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement all argue his fundamental integrity To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.

- W Montgomery Oxford, 1953, p 52.


If you are sincere in learning about Muhammad (SAW) life, then I recommend the book Muhammad: His life based on the earliest sources by Martin Lings.

 

[renak]

Muslims dont have any problem with the scripture that came before the revelation of the Qu'ran. We believe in the Torah, Psalms and Gospel as these are all revelations by God. However over the ages these revelations have been changed by the hands of men, this is what we dont accept.

There was nothing "dubious" about Muhammad (SAW), he spoke nothing but the truth, a man to be admired and followed, and as we believe the last of the prophets.

His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement all argue his fundamental integrity To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.

- W Montgomery Oxford, 1953, p 52.


If you are sincere in learning about Muhammad (SAW) life, then I recommend the book Muhammad: His life based on the earliest sources by Martin Lings.

I'll look up the book, thanks for the suggestion. I don't have an issue with the Quran, or question Muhammad. I'm having difficulty in believing in the accuracy of the hadiths.

 

[Issa]

I don't think their prophet is still alive, is he?

,

I think this "living prophet" of theirs is like Elijah Muhamed of the Nation of Islam. Only a few follow him....

 

[renak]

,

I think this "living prophet" of theirs is like Elijah Muhamed of the Nation of Islam. Only a few follow him....

That's probably a good comparison. Latter Day Saints are well known, and influential in the US; however, I doubt that they have international appeal.

 

[Khattab]

I'll look up the book, thanks for the suggestion. I don't have an issue with the Quran, or question Muhammad. I'm having difficulty in believing in the accuracy of the hadiths.

Hi Renak, is it the hadiths as a whole you have a problem with or just certain ones?

The following links will inshallah be of benefit to you:

http://www.islamicboard.com/sects-divisions/1397-general-article-indispensibility-hadith.html

http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/cults/anti_muslim_hadithrejectors.html

Peace

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I've known a few Mormons, and I was interested in what they believed so I studied their faith a little. Fascinating and bizarre at the same time. They freely admitted that some of their beliefs were a little strange and hard to believe, which I found odd.

In a nutshell, Mormons are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints. They believe that God sent an American prophet, Joseph Smith, who wrote the Book of Mormon.

Everything else you've said is true, but I think Mormons would take issue with this point; they believe Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, not that he wrote it. Apparently he was given "the Plates of Nephi", which were writings in a previously unknown language written on goldish metal, which he then translated into English. Since the time when Joseph Smith translated these writings and showed them to a few of his companions, they have been seen by nobody. Oddly enough, long passages of his translation coincide almost exactly with passages from the King James Bible, even including the mistakes made by the translators of that Bible.

One other thing the Mormons are known for is the study of genealogy - they usually have extensive knowledge of their family history.

Peace

 

[HeiGou]

Everything else you've said is true, but I think Mormons would take issue with this point; they believe Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, not that he wrote it. Apparently he was given "the Plates of Nephi", which were writings in a previously unknown language written on goldish metal, which he then translated into English. Since the time when Joseph Smith translated these writings and showed them to a few of his companions, they have been seen by nobody. Oddly enough, long passages of his translation coincide almost exactly with passages from the King James Bible, even including the mistakes made by the translators of that Bible.

If I may quote that font of all religious knowledge, South Park, Joseph Smith gave his "translations" to a follower, whose wife was suspicious and so told him to hide them and tell Smith they had been destroyed and ask for another copy to see if he could "translate" the same way twice. Smith could not. Follower confessed all and remained a Mormon anyway.

Go figure.

 

[nimrod]

Muezzin, I can understand why a person might not understand why I made the statement about the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price sounding more biblical.

The reason I made that statement is in comparing one faith against another a person has to consider what claims a faith makes about its self.
One of the claims I have read on this message board is about the statement/claim that no one can write even one verse that compares to the writings in the Koran.
My statement could have been better stated as the Mormon scriptures more closely resemble the scripture in the Torah than anything in the Koran. Ergo the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price “sound” more biblical.

Sorry for any confusion.

Moss there are a number of different places in the Old Testament that prophecies’ about Jesus.
I have had a very busy last day or two, if I can get an earlier start tomorrow I will post some of the scripture for you.

Moss I understand your point about the bible we have today isn’t written exactly as the original scripture was.
A person must study all the scripture they can, that is what lead me to read the Koran. Once you have studied scripture very thoroughly you can make informed decisions about what scripture you accept as real and what you feel may have been corrupted.

One of the mistakes we see a person often making is that sooner or later a person grows to understand that the bible we have today isn’t written just exactly as the original scripture was. When they finally learn this they may just start blaming everything they disagree with on the scripture being corrupted.

A person has to have a very good reason for dismissing scripture, a person must guard against just simply making the claim that since some scripture maybe corrupt then I can just dismiss any scripture and claim that is the reason for doing so.

The bible has a general outline of what took place and an understandable progression from one step to the next. Everything when understood properly will fit as it should, if you read some supposed scripture that doesn’t agree with the basics of what all the rest of scripture teaches then you can dismiss it.
That is how I know Mormon teachings are not of God.

Renak you my find some reading on the “afterlife” described in the Koran and the LDS teachings interesting.
A simple Goggle will get you to the official LDS site.

Itsme01 I agree with your observations about the LDS. The particular sect your post refers to is an off shoot and not mainstream Mormon. But your statement about them claiming to have a living prophet is completely true for all Mormons.
Itsme01 one last point, to be Christian one must accept Jesus as Lord Almighty. Mormons don’t accept Jesus as that. The Mormon view of Jesus is very similar to Islam.

Fi_Sabililla I am not sure what you are referring to but marriage is highly valued Christianity. The idea of some not marrying in Christianity refers to Paul’s teachings.
If you will read the scripture you will learn that Paul states that concerning that particular teaching he is speaking for himself and NOT speaking on God’s behalf.

Abu Zakariy you have raised some very good points. They are deserving of a thread all by themselves.
I think I have seen several threads concerning your points already started on this forum.
Pick one of them that asks what you would like answered and p.m. me of post a link on this thread and I will do my best to address it. If there aren’t any threads already started concerning your exact points, then start one and let me know and I will respond.

Khattab I understand your points, I will try to do a better job of offering a reply sometime this week. Some of them I have answered in this post. Thanks.

Issa, Mormons follow their living prophet or they will be disowned and treated as dead, not just a few, but all.

Czbibson, I know a very nice Mormon that is well informed, educated, soft spoken and very thick skinned.

If requested (by most) I will invite him to this forum. You are right, the Mormon faith is an very interesting study.

Hei Gou your statements, as always, are well founded.


Thanks
Nimrod