Muslims converting to Christianity

[Woodrow]

Technically, we Muslims never really know are we (still) Muslims or not (i.e. a Muslim can commit a hidden shirk without even knowing it!), we should say insha'Allah we are, but only Allahu ta'ala knows that. Insha'Allah all of us will die with the best of Imaan. Ameen.

Ameen, Ameen, Ameen

 

[ummzayd]

No, not brief; I've never been accused of giving to "brief" of an answer. But I did say "we" take the discussion, so I wil join you.

Ummzayd, you strike me as one who asks questions seeking to be informed, so I don't mind that you presently and may always disagree with me and with all of Christianity. But if you do, I just want you to disagree with the things we really believe and teach, rather than the things that people sometimes erroneously believe are true of about Christianity. So for those who are seeking the truth, I will spend all the time that it takes to share it as I see it, even though you may never agree with me as to what we see.

I suppose you can come up with some kind of explanation as to how Jesus pbuh is God and yet Jesus pbuh also prayed to God. I have been over the same ground with others and never yet had a satisfactory answer. If you want to pm me a link or something you're welcome but I don't want to get into any long complicated discussions, I think it's been discussed a lot already on this forum.

peace

 

[Grace Seeker]

No problem. The same ground does get covered repeatedly in this forum. I touched on the idea in posts #33 & #41 in this very thread.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

I've just watched an interesting documentary broadcast by the BBC about Muslims (resident in the UK) converting to Christianity .....

an interesting observation & a good article kay:


Muslim Converts vs. Muslim Apostates





I was thinking about the Muslim converts/reverts I know and thinking about the Muslims who became non-Muslims.


Almost 99% of all the converts to Islam always study the deen and try to be the best Muslim.


.......I haven’t seen any reverted Christians become great speakers though like how we have Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Imam Zaid Shakir, Dr. Abdul Hakim Jackson, Imam Suhaib Webb, Shaykh Bilal Philips, Shaykh Khalid Yasin, Dr. Ingrid Mattson, Dr. Umar Faruq Abdullah and so many others who are widely renowned in the entire world amongst Muslims.


Alhamdulillah ( praise be to God only)


more info:


http://www.mujahideenryder.net/2006/05/18/muslim-converts-vs-muslim-apostates

I wonder what people thought about this given that many widely available Islamic texts actively encourage violent acts to those who apostatise.

I read in many revert stories where Church members harrased new Muslims . An ex priest who married an ex nun came under bomb attack ...their kid died.


Sometimes parent call police when they find that children became Muslims etc etc.

I guess , no one puts blame on Bible for what misdeeds some or many Christians do....so why put blame on Quran ???


Verses we need for this life & hereafter


"Verily, you (O Muhammad) guide not whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills. And He knows best those who are the guided."

(28:56)​

 

[Grace Seeker]

I read in many revert stories where Church members harrased new Muslims . An ex priest who married an ex nun came under bomb attack ...their kid died.


Sometimes parent call police when they find that children became Muslims etc etc.

I guess , no one puts blame on Bible for what misdeeds some or many Christians do....so why put blame on Quran ???


Verses we need for this life & hereafter


"Verily, you (O Muhammad) guide not whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills. And He knows best those who are the guided."

(28:56)​

Easy. We don't put blame on the Bible, because the Bible doesn't tell us to do those things. And in general, I hope you find the Christian community saying that these types of actions are repugnant to God, and that those who commit them are taking action into their own hands that belongs to God alone to dispense either mercy or justice as he sees fit, not as we do.

Christians who commit such horrible deeds are acting outside or the standards of Christianity. Would that more Muslims were willing to say the same thing publicly about Muslims who commit such deeds?

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

Easy. We don't put blame on the Bible, because the Bible doesn't tell us to do those things.

ummm, i read in an article that apostates must be killed regarding Bible .

If this is not true , then is there any punishment prescribed in Bible who left the religion ??

 

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/peace;



ummm, i read in an article that apostates must be killed regarding Bible .

If this is not true , then is there any punishment prescribed in Bible who left the religion ??

Some might interpret a few portions of the Old Testament that way, but no Christians practice it (nor do any Jews I know). There is nothing in the New Testament regarding this. The worst a church can do is to shun a person, and this would be an unusual practice.

 

[ummzayd]

Easy. We don't put blame on the Bible, because the Bible doesn't tell us to do those things. And in general, I hope you find the Christian community saying that these types of actions are repugnant to God, and that those who commit them are taking action into their own hands that belongs to God alone to dispense either mercy or justice as he sees fit, not as we do.

Christians who commit such horrible deeds are acting outside or the standards of Christianity. Would that more Muslims were willing to say the same thing publicly about Muslims who commit such deeds?

I am always a bit bemused at the way Christians disown those parts of the OT which call for the death penalty and other punishments. Either they believe the OT is the word of God or not. There can be no doubt that the harsh punishments enshrined in the OT were carried out on many individuals according to the command of God. And yet these punishments are repugnant to God. Strange.

peace

 

[Grace Seeker]

I am always a bit bemused at the way Christians disown those parts of the OT which call for the death penalty and other punishments. Either they believe the OT is the word of God or not. There can be no doubt that the harsh punishments enshrined in the OT were carried out on many individuals according to the command of God. And yet these punishments are repugnant to God. Strange.

peace

We don't disown any part of the OT, but we do not think that we are under the same covenant, and thus the expectations as to how we are to live are not the same.

Muslims believe that Moses was a prophet and yet don't practice the covenant God made with people through him. If Christians should, shouldn't Muslims also?

 

[islamirama]

A learned Christian Scientist who had converted to Islam had once said that it is mostly the most knowledgeable among Christians who convert to Islam while it is the most ignorant Muslims with no knowledge of their own religion who convert to Christianity.

We don't disown any part of the OT, but we do not think that we are under the same covenant, and thus the expectations as to how we are to live are not the same.

Muslims believe that Moses was a prophet and yet don't practice the covenant God made with people through him. If Christians should, shouldn't Muslims also?

Moses came for the Israelite. And when Jesus a.s. came, he was also sent for the same nation. They had become rigid in their practices and Jesus a.s. was sent to them as a heart softener, but they rejected him. So in essence, Christianity isn't suppose to be a new religion but rather was part 2 message for the Israelites.

Muslims believe in the revelation of the following and to deny them is to be not Muslim:

1. Torah (1st testament)
2. Psalms
3. Bible (2nd testament)
4. Quran (3rd and final testament)

We believe in the first as revelations from Allah but for those nations only, where as the 4th is a message not for one nation but rather whole of mankind. And since 4th is the latest message, it nullifies previous ones and takes precedence in being followed. Why use old versions when the new and final release has been sent to you?

 

[NoName55]

We believe in the first as revelations from Allah but for those nations only, where as the 4th is a message not for one nation but rather whole of mankind. And since 4th is the latest message, it nullifies previous ones and takes precedence in being followed. Why use old versions when the new and final release has been sent to you?

So if in times of Hazrat Musa Alahi Salaam, a hindu wanted to stop worshipping animals and demons etc. to become a Muslim and follow Hazrat Musa Alahi Salam, he would have been told NO, Islam is only for Israel? Likewise with Hazrat Eesa alahi Salam?

WHY WAS THE MESSAGE not FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OF THAT TIME?

 

[Grace Seeker]

A learned Christian Scientist who had converted to Islam had once said that it is mostly the most knowledgeable among Christians who convert to Islam while it is the most ignorant Muslims with no knowledge of their own religion who convert to Christianity.

Well, I would not categorize a Christian Scientist, learned or othewise, as a Christian, but he might still be right about his observation.

Moses came for the Israelite. And when Jesus a.s. came, he was also sent for the same nation. They had become rigid in their practices and Jesus a.s. was sent to them as a heart softener, but they rejected him. So in essence, Christianity isn't suppose to be a new religion but rather was part 2 message for the Israelites.

This is a Muslim understand of what Christianity is to be, not a Christian understanding. Christians believe that Jesus inaugurated a new covenant with God that was not just for the Jews, but for all who would come to believe in him, the Gentile as well as the Jew.

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (Hebrews 9:15)

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. (Romans 1:16)

Muslims believe in the revelation of the following and to deny them is to be not Muslim:

1. Torah (1st testament)
2. Psalms
3. Bible (2nd testament)
4. Quran (3rd and final testament)

We believe in the first as revelations from Allah but for those nations only, where as the 4th is a message not for one nation but rather whole of mankind. And since 4th is the latest message, it nullifies previous ones and takes precedence in being followed. Why use old versions when the new and final release has been sent to you?

You list the Bible as #3. In reality, there is a Hebrew Bible that you call the Tanakah, it is more than just the Torah, but includes the Torah and the writings of the Psalms and Prophets as well. Then there is the Christians Bible that is composed of both the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament (the Christian scriptures of the Gospels, Acts, Paul's writings, other letters, and the book of Revelation). Catholics and Orthodox Christians consider 7 books known collectively as the Dueterocanon to also be part of the Old Testament that neither Jews nor protestant Christians accept. But in any contect the Bible is more than just the second testament. If all you mean is a second testament, then I think you just mean to list the New Testament for #3. You numbers 1,2, 3, plus the prophets of the Tanakah would be what is generally called the Bible by Christians.

On your comment, "why use old verision when the new and final release has been sent to you?" this is exactly what Paul was expressing here:

Romans 3
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

And that is why Christians don't keep all the commands of the Tanakah any more than a Muslim does. But believing that we already have the final version in Jesus Christ, we could very well accept the Qu'ran as a "new" revelation, for a new revelation is total unneeded and unmerited from a Christian way of understanding God's self-disclosure of himself.

 

[islamirama]

So if in times of Hazrat Musa Alahi Salaam, a hindu wanted to stop worshipping animals and demons etc. to become a Muslim and follow Hazrat Musa Alahi Salam, he would have been told NO, Islam is only for Israel? Likewise with Hazrat Eesa alahi Salam?

WHY WAS THE MESSAGE not FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OF THAT TIME?

What was meant by that statement was that Allah sent His Messengers for those nations as He sent them to different nations in the past. Musa a.s. was a Muslim (submitting to the will of Allah) as was Esa a.s. And no one was prohibited from following them, however they were sent specifically for a certain nation rather then all of mankind where has Mohammad (pbuh) was sent to all of mankind. If you have further confusions then please check with your local imaam for detailed explanation.

 

[Jayda]

So if in times of Hazrat Musa Alahi Salaam, a hindu wanted to stop worshipping animals and demons etc. to become a Muslim and follow Hazrat Musa Alahi Salam, he would have been told NO, Islam is only for Israel? Likewise with Hazrat Eesa alahi Salam?

WHY WAS THE MESSAGE not FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OF THAT TIME?

hola,

according to our beliefs God established a covenant with all of mankind after the great flood, which required men to live by seven laws (no idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual immorality, dietary restrictions & establish courts), this (according to our beliefs) was reiterated at the Council of Jerusalem which was a response to jews insisting the New Covenant meant gentiles basically had to follow the old.

we believe that the covenant established with the Jews was exclusive for the Jews because they were to become a nation of priests.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Grace Seeker]

hola,

according to our beliefs God established a covenant with all of mankind after the great flood, which required men to live by seven laws (no idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual immorality, dietary restrictions & establish courts), this (according to our beliefs) was reiterated at the Council of Jerusalem which was a response to jews insisting the New Covenant meant gentiles basically had to follow the old.

we believe that the covenant established with the Jews was exclusive for the Jews because they were to become a nation of priests.

que Dios te bendiga

Thanks for adding that Jayda. I did not know that little tidbit you provided about the 7 laws (I thought that was just a Jewish point of view). Good to have a Catholic around to fill-in some of the blanks in my protestant knowledge of things in our shared history.

 

[NoName55]

What was meant by that statement was that Allah sent His Messengers for those nations as He sent them to different nations in the past. Musa a.s. was a Muslim (submitting to the will of Allah) as was Esa a.s. And no one was prohibited from following them, however they were sent specifically for a certain nation rather then all of mankind where has Mohammad (pbuh) was sent to all of mankind. If you have further confusions then please check with your local imaam for detailed explanation.

So hindus and other pagans could follow Islam if they so wished but Israeli Prophets were only meant for their own Nation?

or was It the case that Kufaar in other nations were already on sirat al mustaqeem? or God only cared about Israel at the time?

one more and final time:

WHY WAS THE MESSAGE NOT FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OF THAT TIME?

and how do you know it was not?

If you have further confusions then please check with your local imaam for detailed explanation

I prefer it if you were to clear my confusion

You list the Bible as #3. In reality, there is a Hebrew Bible that you call the Tanakah, it is more than just the Torah, but includes the Torah and the writings of the Psalms and Prophets as well. Then there is the Christians Bible that is composed of both the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament (the Christian scriptures of the Gospels, Acts, Paul's writings, other letters, and the book of Revelation).

That should tell you something about the fellow(it is dang difficult to sort books just by looking at google results)!

 

[Jayda]

Thanks for adding that Jayda. I did not know that little tidbit you provided about the 7 laws (I thought that was just a Jewish point of view). Good to have a Catholic around to fill-in some of the blanks in my protestant knowledge of things in our shared history.

hola Grace Seeker,

i do not know whether protestants retain the apostolic traditions of 'catechisms' or 'ecumenical councils.' for us and the orthodox the first ecumenical council was the Council of Jerusalem in the first century, it is discussed in the book of Acts, the question was which 'law' the gentile converts needed to follow. Paul taught that gentiles need only follow the laws of the Noahide covenant, St. Peter taught that they needed to follow the Jewish covenant... as if becoming Christian made them Jewish.

the Council decided that, in continuing the traditional Jewish practice, gentiles needed only to practice the noahide covenant, this is why they did not need to be circumcised. this and other decisions were preserved in our first catechism, which is called the didache and was produced in the first century.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[NoName55]

Well, I would not categorize a Christian Scientist, learned or othewise, as a Christian, but he might still be right about his observation.

what if it is not the member of relgion "Christian Scientist" but a Christian who also happened to be a scientist (i.e a man of knowledge)

 

[Jayda]

what if it is not the member of relgion "Christian Scientist" but a Christian who also happened to be a scientist (i.e a man of knowledge)

then it would be credentialism


i'm a baroness, a countess, a scientist and a christian. there are poor, uneducated schizophrenics that are christians too... it is all the same in the eyes of God. with everything i learned in school about biological chemistry i could still burn in hell, while the poor beggar with a 5th grade education spends eternity serving God.

 

[NoName55]

then it would be credentialism


i'm a baroness, a countess, a scientist and a christian. there are poor, uneducated schizophrenics that are christians too... it is all the same in the eyes of God. with everything i learned in school about biological chemistry i could still burn in hell, while the poor beggar with a 5th grade education spends eternity serving God.

I am afraid in you zeal to impress people, you seem to have lost the plot and taken my post out of context.

I was trying to tell Br.Seeker that the other person was not talking about the new religion called Christian Science but may have actually been talking about a real life prof. who is a Scientist, was a Christian and is a Muslim now.

Please, I beg you not to reply to me anymore as you can see that I am busy with another person in the thread and want to devote my full attention to him or I will get confused. thanx in advance of any co-operation