Things in Islam I am curious about...

[Grace Seeker]

This understanding comes from the Qur'an, hadith and concensus of muslims. Indeed we would dissagre on this point if we were to compare our books as in the bible states they prophets did commit major sins while the Qur'an denies such. This is another point in which muslims and christians differ.

Can you give me any of the specific references?

:salamext:

We also know that the Prophets were the best examples for mankind, yet if these prophets did major sins - then how can we really say that they are an example for us? Rather it would be an excuse for the evildoers to say that they did this evil, so we can since we're not as pious as them.

We seek refuge in Allaah from evil and hypocrisy. ameen.

I truly understand this concern. There are those supposedly "Christians" who today seem to think that because Jesus cleanses them from all sin, that they can then go out and do whatever they want. Such beliefs run completely contrary to everything else that Bible teaches with respect to living the Christian life. The truth is they are looking for license, and will invent something that isn't there out of nearly anything.

 

[- Qatada -]

Thanks, i think the question you asked bro Sunnih is answered here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/75709-post2.html



Regards.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Thanks, i think the question you asked bro Sunnih is answered here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/75709-post2.html



Regards.

Thanks, but that is the passage which Sunnih pasted into his previous post. While it gives a reference to the Fataawa, the portion of the Fataawa quoted there does not give reference to the relevant passages in the Qur'an or Hadith. Can you help with that? Or maybe teach me how to find the longer rendering of the Fataawa if it would be there?

 

[Sunnih]

Can you give me any of the specific references?

As the article points out the infalibility is regarding the message and the religious matters. So:

And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us,
We assuredly would have taken him by the right hand
And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart69:44-46)

Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire.
It is no less than inspiration sent down to him: (53:3-4)

And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal. (59:7)

Now even just the last verse I presented is enough for such matter as we are asked unconditionally to accept what comes from the messenger and further more it has been coupled with keeping the duty to Allah. Just like in the other verse:

But no by thy Lord they can have no (real) Faith until they make thee judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions but accept them with the fullest conviction. (4:65)

I hope this helps.

 

[Grace Seeker]

As the article points out the infalibility is regarding the message and the religious matters. So:

And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us,
We assuredly would have taken him by the right hand
And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart69:44-46)

Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire.
It is no less than inspiration sent down to him: (53:3-4)

And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal. (59:7)

Now even just the last verse I presented is enough for such matter as we are asked unconditionally to accept what comes from the messenger and further more it has been coupled with keeping the duty to Allah. Just like in the other verse:

But no by thy Lord they can have no (real) Faith until they make thee judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions but accept them with the fullest conviction. (4:65)

I hope this helps.

It's about as clear as why Christians eat pork.

 

[Sunnih]

It's about as clear as why Christians eat pork.

I do not see that. The point is that if the messenger was fallible in religious matters we would not have been asked to follow everything he says just like the prophet himself stated as: In the matters of this world you know more than I do.

The point of Christians eating pork I disputed by bringing verses that in my oppinion contradicted the verses you used to allow it. In this case if you think it is the same position, bring those verses you think contradict what I brought!:thumbs_up

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

It's about as clear as why Christians eat pork.

Jesus (p) ate pork ? Is there any verse in Bible that says pork is no more prohibited ?

also , i heard that alcohol is prohibited in OT. But Chrisitans believe Jesus (p) turned water in to wine & that's his first miracle . I want to know Jesus (p) drank alcohol or encourged others to take it ????

 

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus (p) ate pork ?

No.

Is there any verse in Bible that says pork is no more prohibited ?

Yes. Sunnih and I discussed in another thread somewhere.

also , i heard that alcohol is prohibited in OT.

I don't think so.

But Chrisitans believe Jesus (p) turned water in to wine & that's his first miracle . I want to know Jesus (p) drank alcohol or encourged others to take it ????

Wine was a staple of life in the Israel Jesus was raised in. It was consumed at every passover meal. Jesus gave it to his disciple to drink at his Last Supper.

Originally posted by Sunnih
I do not see that. The point is that if the messenger was fallible in religious matters we would not have been asked to follow everything he says just like the prophet himself stated as: In the matters of this world you know more than I do.

The point of Christians eating pork I disputed by bringing verses that in my oppinion contradicted the verses you used to allow it. In this case if you think it is the same position, bring those verses you think contradict what I brought!

Sorry. My comment was meant in jest. As in, "clear as mud".

I had a sense that you understood, but didn't quite get my comments in explaining the Acts passages (where Christians are given permission to eat pork) because the means I used for interpreting them was not the same as what I used for interpreting the Revelation passages that you also had quesitons about.

Likewise, I understand what you are saying here about Muhammad. I just don't quite get it.

 

[Sunnih]

Sorry. My comment was meant in jest. As in, "clear as mud".

I had a sense that you understood, but didn't quite get my comments in explaining the Acts passages (where Christians are given permission to eat pork) because the means I used for interpreting them was not the same as what I used for interpreting the Revelation passages that you also had quesitons about.

Likewise, I understand what you are saying here about Muhammad. I just don't quite get it.

Sorry! I did not grasp the context in which you spoke. :thumbs_up

 

[Grace Seeker]

Is there any verse in Bible that says pork is no more prohibited ?

Interestingly enough, I had forgotten about this verse, but stumbled on it yesterday doing some other reading: "All food is clean." (Romans 14:20b).

Now, this is set within a larger context of not causing others to stumble in their faith, so he goes on to caution people that just because they are free to eat what ever they choose doesn't mean that it is always the right thing to do so. With freedom comes responsibility to exercise it with discreation.

 

[vpb]

Now, this is set within a larger context of not causing others to stumble in their faith, so he goes on to caution people that just because they are free to eat what ever they choose doesn't mean that it is always the right thing to do so. With freedom comes responsibility to exercise it with discreation.

Prohibited and recommended are different things.
Electricists don't say "you can put the finger on the power" and then to come to conlusions that "it's allowed but it's not recommended", bc the electrists say "do not put your finger on power, it's forbidden", bc it's dangerous, so if pork is bad for health, it should be forbidden, not "recommended not to eat".

 

[Sunnih]

Interestingly enough, I had forgotten about this verse, but stumbled on it yesterday doing some other reading: "All food is clean." (Romans 14:20b).

However this is indeed restricted by the verses that prohibit dead animals and so on as Peter wrote in his letters. As you did quote before

 

[Grace Seeker]

Prohibited and recommended are different things.
Electricists don't say "you can put the finger on the power" and then to come to conlusions that "it's allowed but it's not recommended", bc the electrists say "do not put your finger on power, it's forbidden", bc it's dangerous, so if pork is bad for health, it should be forbidden, not "recommended not to eat".

However this is indeed restricted by the verses that prohibit dead animals and so on as Peter wrote in his letters. As you did quote before

the verse you refer to doesn't say anything about dead animals. all meat is the meat of dead animals. I don't think either of us eats it if it is still alive.

The decision of the Acts 15 council was that they should abstain from things strangled and from the blood. Also, that decision is the one that would be classified as a recommendation. That abstaining from these things would be good. Go back and double check what I said, if I said that these things were prohibited then I mis-spoke.

(Although you could make a case for prohibition still, as also among the things they should abstain from were sexual immoratlity, and it is hard for me to imagine this being "allowed, but not recommended".)

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;

..... "All food is clean." (Romans 14:20b).


.... just because they are free to eat what ever they choose doesn't mean that it is always the right thing to do so.
.

what does it mean ? Christians must not eat too much pork ?


Jesus (p) told something like that i did not come to change the law ....So , how come , later dietary law / restriction on pork changed ?


ooopsss , sorry it's off topic here. U may answer it in how much Christian know about Bible thread

 

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/ peace ;





what does it mean ? Christians must not eat too much pork ?


Jesus (p) told something like that i did not come to change the law ....So , how come , later dietary law / restriction on pork changed ?


ooopsss , sorry it's off topic here. U may answer it in how much Christian know about Bible thread

What it means is from the context of not the writing as the context of the times. Many to whom Paul wrote were Gentile Christians who had been "saved" out of a pagan lifestyle. And while they were Christians, they still lived in predominately pagan communities. And in those communities, it was common practice for the local butcher to have a shrine to some pagan idol in the butcher shop. Sometimes the animals were actually offered as sacrifices to these pagan dieties before being put out for the market. A serious question arose should Christians eat such food?

Now, those Christians who were mature in their faith knew that the meat sacrificed to idols was nothing more than meat. That the idols were just pieces of wood or stone with no real power. That the gods they supposedly represented weren't real gods at all. That there was only one true God. And that they could eat this food without having to worry about it being tainted by some fake god.

But, there were also in their midst some who maybe the week before had been pagans worshipping this false idol gods, and who while now Christians still thought about how good it was to have come out of that idol worship and didn't want to be contaminated by it anymore. For them, to eat the meat that was offered in these shops would be like going back to the idol worship. So, mature Christians needed to be careful. Yes, they could eat the meat if they so deisred. But they should do it in such a way that it brought harm to any of their brothers or sisters in the faith. And if that meant avoiding such meat that had been offered to idols even though it was permissible to eat, then Paul was saying that the meat should be avoided anyway -- not because it was a sin to eat it, but because eating it might cause a less mature Christian to have problems.

Today, this same principle is applied by Christians who care for the faith walk of other Christians with regard to all sorts of things: the consumption of alcohol, the type of clothes one wears or the music one listens to or entertainment that one seeks. While generally these things have no intrinsic moral value to them one way or another, it is nonetheless true that some Christians might have a problem with them because of the background they have come out of. Thus other Christians need to be aware of this and not be the source of causing another Christian to stumble in their faith walk.


In a very specific example. let us suppose that you reverted and became Christian Woman. But, of course, you had grown up a Muslim and you spent your whole life never eating pork, and the thought of doing so had always been a sin for you. Now you became a Christian. You heard that it was supposedly OK. But still the idea just didn't sit right with you. Then one day we go out to dinner together; ham is on the menu and ham is one of my favorite meals. Even though it is permissible for me, and even though no one is going to force you to eat it, and even though it is permissible for you, too. Still the kind thing for me to do, and therefore the right thing for me to do is to not order the ham out of consideration for how you might feel about it still. If on the other hand it is no big deal to you, then I should feel free to order whatever I like, as should you.

 

[ummzayd]

the verse you refer to doesn't say anything about dead animals. all meat is the meat of dead animals. I don't think either of us eats it if it is still alive.

dead animals = carrion. ie there is a big difference between slaughtering an animal for food & coming across a dead animal in the woods & barbecuing it.

so do Christians believe it is 'allowed' to eat animals that eat other animals?

peace

 

[Grace Seeker]

dead animals = carrion. ie there is a big difference between slaughtering an animal for food & coming across a dead animal in the woods & barbecuing it.

Well, if you've never had a roadside BBQ of o'possum or raccoon you don't know what you're missing. (And fortunately neither do I. )

so do Christians believe it is 'allowed' to eat animals that eat other animals?

peace

Allowed? Yes. We eat fish all the time, and most of them survive by eating other fish. Some people also hunt for bear, which are omnivores. Though I don't know that all bear hunters eat their meat, some do. And around the world in various cultures there are Christians who eat seal, walrus, even babboon and all of them eat other animals.

This line occurs twice in the Bible: "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial." (1 Corinthians 6:12 & 10:23)

So, these things are "allowed" in that sense, it would not be a sin, though it isn't usually the custom.

 

[Woodrow]

Well, if you've never had a roadside BBQ of o'possum or raccoon you don't know what you're missing. (And fortunately neither do I. )



Allowed? Yes. We eat fish all the time, and most of them survive by eating other fish. Some people also hunt for bear, which are omnivores. Though I don't know that all bear hunters eat their meat, some do. And around the world in various cultures there are Christians who eat seal, walrus, even babboon and all of them eat other animals.

This line occurs twice in the Bible: "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial." (1 Corinthians 6:12 & 10:23)

So, these things are "allowed" in that sense, it would not be a sin, though it isn't usually the custom.

I have to get this off my mind first and then I promise I will bring it back on topic:

Well, if you've never had a roadside BBQ of o'possum or raccoon you don't know what you're missing. (And fortunately neither do I. )

How many Texans does it take to eat an armadillo?
"Three, one to eat, 2 to direct traffic"



Although, dietary restrictions seem to be a barriar between Muslims, Christians and Jews I would consider it to be very minimal as it is an area where there is no need to interfer with each others life style. I do not believe any knowledgable Christian would offer a Jew or Muslim a pork chop, unless they hated us. I think it is an area that we all try our best not to offend each other.

Now just to add as to what us Muslims consider to be halal to eat. All vegetables are a safe food to offer. The biggest caution is in the area of meats and dairy products. Many items contain meat products such as glycerine, stearic acid and gelatine. Those can render a seemingly safe food as being Haram. With dairy products it is usually the cheese that cause a problem, the question comes up to see what was used to make the cheese and if animal rennet or enzymes were used. Sadly that is the case for most commercial cheeses.

 

[Sunnih]

the verse you refer to doesn't say anything about dead animals. all meat is the meat of dead animals. I don't think either of us eats it if it is still alive.

The decision of the Acts 15 council was that they should abstain from things strangled and from the blood. Also, that decision is the one that would be classified as a recommendation. That abstaining from these things would be good. Go back and double check what I said, if I said that these things were prohibited then I mis-spoke.

(Although you could make a case for prohibition still, as also among the things they should abstain from were sexual immoratlity, and it is hard for me to imagine this being "allowed, but not recommended".)

When I say dead animals I do not mean us sloughtering them. I mean those that die by themselves and also strangled. As for going deeper into what the verse means we did try to go that route and we did not agree so I think it would be pointless to do that again. Whoever wants to see what we said can go to the thread about the verses of the bible allowing or prohibiting the consumation of pork's meat.

 

[Grace Seeker]

When I say dead animals I do not mean us sloughtering them. I mean those that die by themselves and also strangled. As for going deeper into what the verse means we did try to go that route and we did not agree so I think it would be pointless to do that again. Whoever wants to see what we said can go to the thread about the verses of the bible allowing or prohibiting the consumation of pork's meat.

OK. That's a new way of thinking to me -- of dead animals as equalling strangled animals. I've seen chickens killed that way, but it is about the only animal I can think of that might ever be strangled (we call it wringing their neck) and would not have thought that equal to carrion because that's the freshest way to get chicken. But if that is your workinig definition, I will try to remember for the future.