Things in Islam I am curious about...

Well as you can see from the ahadiths above that you are wrong, further, you only mention the first pillar of Islam, whilst Islam is built upon five pillars!
I am wrong? I'm not even trying to make statments, except to clarify what I am hearing. It is quite possible that I have misconstrued some of the statements that have been made. So, what is it that I have heard/read and restated incorrectly?


No one is saved unless by God's mercy, and Allah swt has willed upon himself the law of grace and mercy!
Does Allah have standards that must be satisfied before he is willing to grant that mercy? Or he is able to grant his mercy as he sovereignly desires? (Not that I mean to imply that those are mutually exclusive statements.)
 
slamic theology recognises as many as 124,000 prophets.[2] The Qur'an identifies 25 prophets by name, starting with Adam and ending with Muhammad.[3] Five of them (sometimes known as Ulul Azmi or the Imams — literally: "leaders" — of the Rasuls) receive the highest reverence for their perseverance and unusually strong commitment to God in the face of great suffering, namely[citation needed]:
  1. Nuh (Noah)
  2. Ibrahim (Abraham)
  3. Musa (Moses)
  4. Isa (Jesus)
  5. Muhammad

Of the 25 mentioned by name in the Qur'an, are there any that are not also mentioned by name in the Bible?
 
I am wrong? I'm not even trying to make statments, except to clarify what I am hearing. It is quite possible that I have misconstrued some of the statements that have been made. So, what is it that I have heard/read and restated incorrectly?
Misconstrued? OK!

Does Allah have standards that must be satisfied before he is willing to grant that mercy? Or he is able to grant his mercy as he sovereignly desires? (Not that I mean to imply that those are mutually exclusive statements.)
I don't know what Allah's standards are, surely I can only go by what he taught us in his words:

if you read the Quran for instance you'll come across verses as these:

“He is God, other than whom there is no deity, Knower of the unseen and the witnessed. He is the Most-Merciful, the Dispenser of Mercy.” (Quran 59:22)




“Say, ‘Call upon God or call upon the Most-Merciful (ar-Rahman), whichever name you call – to Him belong the most Beautiful Names….’” (Quran 17:110)

These two Names are some of the most frequently used Names of God in the Quran: ar-Rahman is used fifty seven times, while al-Raheem is used twice as much (a hundred and fourteen).[1] One conveys a greater sense of loving-kindness, the Prophet said:

“Indeed, God is Kind, and loves kindness. He grants with kindness what He does not grant with harshness.” (Saheeh Muslim)

Both are also divine attributes signifying God’s relationship with creation.

“Praise be to God, the Lord of All the Worlds; the Most Merciful, the Dispenser of Mercy.” (Quran 1:2-3)

In a prayer which Muslims recite at least seventeen times a day, they start with saying:

“In the Name of God, the Most Merciful, the Dispenser of Mercy. Praise be to God, the Lord of All the Worlds; the Most Merciful, the Dispenser of Mercy.” (Quran 1:1-3)

These powerful words evoke a divine response:

“When the servant says: ‘Praise be to God, the Lord of All the Worlds,’ I (God) say: ‘My servant has praised Me.’ When he says: ‘the Most Merciful, the Dispenser of Mercy,’ I (God) say: ‘My servant has extolled Me.’” (Saheeh Muslim)

"My mercy encompasses all things, but I will specify it for the righteous who give Zakat" (7:156)



 
Of the 25 mentioned by name in the Qur'an, are there any that are not also mentioned by name in the Bible?

is zhu alqarnyen mentioned in the bible, how about Luqman, how about zhu al'khidr how about salih, dhul kifl?
 
He Maccabees? according to the article he did away with religious edicts so how can anyone view this the same as Islam?

I'm not trying to make this about Judas Maccabees, I just picked a Jew from before the time of Jesus, because there was the objection that since the Jews rejected Jesus they then had disqualified themselves from being good followers of Islam.

What was said is that all the prophets had the same message. If it is the same message, then I'm assuming it is the same religion. As has been discussed many times on these threads, Muslims believe that Abraham and Moses (and others) were not just prophets of Islam, but practicioners of Islam.

Then, does it not follow, genuine Judaism is the same as Islam? (We will leave Christianity out of the picture because neither Christians nor Muslims believe that Jesus came with a message of Christianity. For Muslims Jesus also would have brought a message of Islam, and that which Christians call Christianity is not a message by Jesus but about Jesus.)


Religion isn't a mere title as stated in my prior thread it is a life time commitment.. such commitment entails study and obedience to God should you choose to subscribe to the religion. YES Obedience.. you don't sit down and decide to do away with a commandment because you deem it dated...if it is a sin then, it is a sin now..

Do you mean this as an overriding principle, or only as a specific regarding certain sins such as homosexuality?

Would the inverse be true? If it was not a sin then, it is not a sin now?
 
is zhu alqarnyen mentioned in the bible, how about Luqman, how about zhu al'khidr how about salih, dhul kifl?

I don't recognize them. Of course, I didn't recognize the name "Isa" as being the same as "Jesus" the first time I read it, so they may be someone I know by a different tname. Do you know what their Ummah is/was?
 
I'm not trying to make this about Judas Maccabees, I just picked a Jew from before the time of Jesus, because there was the objection that since the Jews rejected Jesus they then had disqualified themselves from being good followers of Islam.

What was said is that all the prophets had the same message. If it is the same message, then I'm assuming it is the same religion. As has been discussed many times on these threads, Muslims believe that Abraham and Moses (and others) were not just prophets of Islam, but practicioners of Islam.

Then, does it not follow, genuine Judaism is the same as Islam? (We will leave Christianity out of the picture because neither Christians nor Muslims believe that Jesus came with a message of Christianity. For Muslims Jesus also would have brought a message of Islam, and that which Christians call Christianity is not a message by Jesus but about Jesus.)

Isn't part of 'natural Judaism' that they shall be sent messengers to whom they should be obedient and follow and who will lead them aright when they have gone astray,when their books are lost? I don't really understand what you are driving at. If they are correct in their stance, then why should Jesus have been sent to them? If you can answer that question, then you shall have your answer for Islam as well!


Do you mean this as an overriding principle, or only as a specific regarding certain sins such as homosexuality?
I think it is pretty self-explanatory!

Would the inverse be true? If it was not a sin then, it is not a sin now?
I don't know, I don't work with hypotheticals.

all the best
 
I don't recognize them. Of course, I didn't recognize the name "Isa" as being the same as "Jesus" the first time I read it, so they may be someone I know by a different tname. Do you know what their Ummah is/was?

I don't know of every ummah .. I need only concern myself with my ummah and learn from the mistakes of others perished for surely that is the only reason they are mentioned!

all the best
 
Isn't part of 'natural Judaism' that they shall be sent messengers to whom they should be obedient and follow and who will lead them aright when they have gone astray,when their books are lost? I don't really understand what you are driving at. If they are correct in their stance, then why should Jesus have been sent to them?
From a Muslim perspective I can't figure it out. If they all had the same religion, one doesn't need a series of new messengers with new messages. One just needs prophets to remind them of the original message that they aren't obeying.

From a Christian perspective, Jesus primary mission wasn't not that of being a messenger. So, the idea that someone would come to correct the missing or corrupted message of Jesus really seems to miss the point altogehter.

I don't know, I don't work with hypotheticals.

Well, among the non-hypotheticals, Jews were not only told not to eat pork, but they also were not to eat shellfish. Yet, Muslims are allowed to.

And Jews were allowed to drink wine, but Muslims are not.


So, if the message about specifics codified practices, it appears to have changed. If the message is about the larger, over-arching principles, love God and serve him only. It doesn't appear to have been lost, just not always well practiced.

If being saved then is connected to the first, then what it takes to be saved appears to change over time or from one Ummah to the next. I could understand that, but you said that is not the way God works. If being saved is with regard to the larger principles, then I have no problem with that either, but want to be sure that such is indeed the Islamic answer. And as yet that is not what I am hearing, at least not clearly. Rather, you've made it clear that it includes an all encompassing and rather detailed pictures that includes these specific codified practices, which when investigated appear to be different depending whether Jewish or Muslim, but that are you've asserted are immutable. Because of that I feel like I am receiving conflicting information.

--------------------------

Oh, and not sure what you meant by 'natural Judaism'. How is that different from Judaism?
 
Last edited:
I don't know of every ummah .. I need only concern myself with my ummah and learn from the mistakes of others perished for surely that is the only reason they are mentioned!

all the best

Fair enough. I was just curious.


I'm sorry if I'm driving you crazy with all of my questions. I haven't asked any in awhile. I didn't mean to open the floodgates on them. I thank-you for your patience to deal with them. It's getting late, I think I'll call it a night. Perhaps I'll be more clear headed for either better understanding or asking better, clearer questions tomorrow.
 
From a Muslim perspective I can't figure it out. If they all had the same religion, one doesn't need a series of new messengers with new messages. One just needs prophets to remind them of the original message that they aren't obeying.
If they were all the same religion but folks invented their own religion, let's say for arguments' sake christianity which is purely a pagan invention, then it wouldn't be just of God to let good folks be led astray straight into hell without giving them again the proper message and that is generally the reason messengers or prophets are sent.
From a Christian perspective, Jesus primary mission wasn't not that of being a messenger. So, the idea that someone would come to correct the missing or corrupted message of Jesus really seems to miss the point altogehter.
so Jesus didn't call himself these things?


[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]
"A Prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house" (Matthew 13:57),
"Nevertheless I must walk today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a Prophet persists out of Jerusalem". (Luke 13:33).



Either you are confused about him or he is confused about himself, and which is it?
[/FONT]
Well, among the non-hypotheticals, Jews were not only told not to eat pork, but they also were not to eat shellfish. Yet, Muslims are allowed to.

and surely you must have come across the verses in the Quran about that which Israel forbid upon itself that God didn't forbid.. and that which he made sacred and they abnegated for instance keeping the sabbath!
So, if the message about specifics codified practices, it appears to have changed. If the message is about the larger, over-arching principles, love God and serve him only. It doesn't appear to have been lost, just not always well practiced.
And I have already covered that your testimony by itself means nothing, and gave a perfect good example of graduating as an engineer and in lieu of working with your degree, simply gazing at it as it beautifies your wall. This is the point where I'll ask you not to go back in a circle simply because you don't like the response you were given.
If being saved then is connected to the first, then what it takes to be saved appears to change over time or from one Ummah to the next. I could understand that, but you said that is not the way God works. If being saved is with regard to the larger principles, then I have no problem with that either, but want to be sure that such is indeed the Islamic answer. And as yet that is not what I am hearing, at least not clearly. Rather, you've made it clear that it includes an all encompassing and rather detailed pictures that includes these specific codified practices, which when investigated appear to be different depending whether Jewish or Muslim, but that are you've asserted are immutable. Because of that I feel like I am receiving conflicting information.
Core principle has very little to do with life long practice where folks can and have gotten confused, I mean look at Christianity, from prophet and son of man to a triple headed god fiasco !
and Islam and Judaism though similar in many fronts we still consider Jews as kaffir just like christians are for sometimes similar and sometimes different reasons.

Again, Islam is the final message, and if the previous messengers brought us all the same message, it doesn't automatically denote that the followers are in keeping with it... Quran/furqan is the criterion for all the previous scriptures, it confirms some accounts and abrogates others. If one wishes to be in keeping with the message that God has for mankind then Islam will be their religion of choice!

all the best
 
Salaam/Peace

... I am talking about one who declares allegiance to Allah........who fasts during Ramadan.

Ramadan is a holy month for Muslims . One can't claim that s/he is a Muslim without believing in all Prophets pbut. Anyone can fast anytime but that won't be considered as the same as Muslims fast on Ramadan .


our mythical follower of Allah has testified only about his faith in Allah and not Allah's messenger as well, that he cannot be saved.

as already stated , believing in Allah means obeying His all commands uncluding accepting all Prophets . One can't claim that I obeyed God if s/he rejects His any Prophet .


If one never heard of Islam , then there is a hadith about them . They will urge God that we knew nothing of Islam . That's the reason we did not accept/ follow it. Then God will order them to jump in to fire. Those who follow the command will be saved. Those who disobey will be in fire forever . God will tell them you did not obey the command that u got directly from me. so how can u claim that u would have listented to my messenger ?

And God Knows Best.
 
Salaam/Peace

... I'm just asking Muslim Woman, given her previous statements, if she would see the Judaism that he believe (in one God, without partners) as the same as Islam.


let me explain again . whenever any Prophet came to any nation and they accepted him , followed him , they were Muslims in that sense that they submitted to God .

During the time of Adam pbuh , those who followed him were considered as Muslims . In the same way , during the time of Moses pbuh , those who followed him will be saved.



After the arrival of any Prophet those who intentionally / knowingly rejects him , they can't claim that they fully submitted to God .


Besides Muhammad, and those that were Jews, or previously mentioned in the Bible what other messengers to these other Ummah's is Islam able to name? And to what Ummah were they sent?


those have been discussed in the forum several times. You are not a newcomer. I am surprised that you are asking these questions. By this time , you are supposed to know all these answeres.

Are we giving u different answers each time and you are becoming confused ? Pl. mentioned the diffferent answers so that we can correct ourselves ( hopefully :) ) .


Anyway , short answer is all Prophets are not mentioned by name in Quran or hadith. There is a verse that says Allah does not punisn any nation without sending any Prophet . Names of 25 Prophets are mentioned in Quran . I posted the names earlier . If u want , I can browse again.
 
Last edited:
those have been discussed in the forum several times. You are not a newcomer. I am surprised that you are asking these questions. By this time , you are supposed to know all these answeres.
Well, I don't. I guess I failed Islam 101.

non-Newcomer or not, I don't remember the answer to these questions. Or to me, they don't seem like the same question, even if they do to you. Surley, you can understand that. In the asking questions of Christian thread you've personally asked what appears to me to have been the same question within days of each other. I had to learn that what I saw as repition you saw as clarification. Please, grant me the same latitude.


Are we giving u different answers each time and you are becoming confused ? Pl. mentioned the diffferent answers so that we can correct ourselves ( hopefully :) ) .
Yes. Sometimes there are different answers given.

For instance, look at the whole host of different answers to the very first question I asked in this thread about music. Now that didn't confuse me, it just awakened me to the realization that though Islam talks about being internally consistent and unified, and having no denominationalism, that though you may not call differences denominations, that there are differences just the same.

The answer to my question on "how one is saved" has received a number of different responses as well. Now, they are not opposites in the way the views with regard to music were, but I do see different foci from one individual's response to another. Of course, that happens when you ask Christians questions as well. Supreme, Glo, Eric, and I don't always agree. Even less so when you consider some others who have come and gone. Sometimes it is theological, but more often it is tone. And I'm picking up both in the answers I'm receiving.

Also, over time, I learn to think and process information differently. I read more, I interact more, I reflect more, and all of this causes me to ruminate on that which I have heard before. But, I am very aware that in my internal reflections that I may not be properly stating what Muslims have actually said or hold. In another thread someone has challenged me by misstating my position and attributing to me things I have never said and don't even believe. I'm under no delusion that I might not do this as well. So, I take the time to ask again, and confirm that the answer I think is the one that would be given by Islam by asking again to see if it is indeed the answer I receive.

With regard to how one understands salvation in Islam and the various roles of the prophets in their societies, I find that I am still learning.

Anyway , short answer is all Prophets are not mentioned by name in Quran or hadith. There is a verse that says Allah does not punisn any nation without sending any Prophet . Names of 25 Prophets are mentioned in Quran . I posted the names earlier . If u want , I can browse again.

No. Most of the prophets that I hear mentioned are those that I know from the Bible. And I am thinking that since Mohammad is receiving this revelation directly from God and this message is to be the last one for the whole world, that it is very strange that the names of the prophets would be so heavily influenced by those listed in the Bible and names that could have been known to Muhammad and not include those from other places as well. But Skye provided the names of a few that are not of the Biblical tradition. If you want to do some research, I would be curious as to where these other (non-biblical) named prophets are from.
 
so Jesus didn't call himself these things?


[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]
"A Prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house" (Matthew 13:57),
"Nevertheless I must walk today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a Prophet persists out of Jerusalem". (Luke 13:33).



Either you are confused about him or he is confused about himself, and which is it?
[/FONT]
I suggest there is yet another option, just because Jesus was a prophet does not mean this was his primary role.




and surely you must have come across the verses in the Quran about that which Israel forbid upon itself that God didn't forbid.. and that which he made sacred and they abnegated for instance keeping the sabbath!


When the commandment to not eat pork and not eat shellfish are in the very same passage of scripture, then I accept that they they were given and recieved together. If Islam holds that the command to not eat pork came from God but that the command to not eat shellfish came from Israel itself, well, that doesn't pass the smell test.

Either different Ummahs have had different rules or they haven't. If they did, then allow for those differences and make a case for why Allah would change the rules from one Ummah to the next.

But if sounds like you are arguing that they didn't have different rules. Then why do Muslims keep referring to that which was given in previous revelations? When I look where you point, I see different rules given for different groups of people. You say that this is because of the corruption of the old revelation. So, I repeat, why keep point us to it as proof for your position when it doesn't do that?

I guess that's not really a question about Islam and more about personal methodology, which really isn't on point. So, you don't have to answer it unless you want to.


Back to the question:
As best as I understand your response, the Islamic view is that all other Ummahs were, when they received their own revelation(s) from their prophet(s), bound by the same rules that Muslims are bound by today.

Do, other Muslims here concur with that?
 
I suggest there is yet another option, just because Jesus was a prophet does not mean this was his primary role.

Well if Jesus didn't suggest his other role and come out forth with worship me, then I can disregard any further speculations!




When the commandment to not eat pork and not eat shellfish are in the very same passage of scripture, then I accept that they they were given and recieved together. If Islam holds that the command to not eat pork came from God but that the command to not eat shellfish came from Israel itself, well, that doesn't pass the smell test.
That is if I am to accept your bizarre module of reverse laws, or whatever other unusual loophole you created for yourself. In fact, only the parts that agree with the Quran can be regarded as truthful, the OT is as corrupt as the 'NT'..



But if sounds like you are arguing that they didn't have different rules. Then why do Muslims keep referring to that which was given in previous revelations? When I look where you point, I see different rules given for different groups of people. You say that this is because of the corruption of the old revelation. So, I repeat, why keep point us to it as proof for your position when it doesn't do that?
This has been answered amply before and repeatedly, including in my very last statement!


all the best
 
When the commandment to not eat pork and not eat shellfish are in the very same passage of scripture, then I accept that they they were given and recieved together. If Islam holds that the command to not eat pork came from God but that the command to not eat shellfish came from Israel itself, well, that doesn't pass the smell test.

Ever wondered that the OT (along with the NT) might be corrupted?
If yes, then we might have something to discuss.
If you believe absolutely that the messages in the OT and NT were never changed/corrupted, then there is no point to further discussion on this issue.
 
Ever wondered that the OT (along with the NT) might be corrupted?
If yes, then we might have something to discuss.
If you believe absolutely that the messages in the OT and NT were never changed/corrupted, then there is no point to further discussion on this issue.

Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.

The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted.
25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, 26 “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you. 27 For I know how rebellious and stubborn you are. Behold, even today while I am yet alive with you, you have been rebellious against the Lord. How much more after my death! 28 Assemble to me all the elders of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears and call heaven and earth to witness against them. 29 For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly and turn aside from the way that I have commanded you. And in the days to come evil will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands.”

The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption.

"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

We clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the Bible into a lie!
 
Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.

The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted.
25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, 26 “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you. 27 For I know how rebellious and stubborn you are. Behold, even today while I am yet alive with you, you have been rebellious against the Lord. How much more after my death! 28 Assemble to me all the elders of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears and call heaven and earth to witness against them. 29 For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly and turn aside from the way that I have commanded you. And in the days to come evil will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands.”

This has nothing to do with corrupting the written law as the words plainly show. It is talking about people ACTING corruptly and its obvious one can do that with any scripture or any law.

The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption. "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

Here again its not speaking of corruption of the text but handling the law in a way that devalues or misinterprets it.

We clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the Bible into a lie!

This is just a biased reading of what the text actually says and it is strikingly illogical to use an argument that 'proves' corruption by citing the supposedly corrupted text unless of course the two bits you have cited are the only unadulterated ones.
 
If there were no corruption in the 'OT' then why would you need 'god' to descend and abrogate it, ergo saul no less?
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top