Things in Islam I am curious about...

[Grace Seeker]

OK. Thanks.

Moving on, this time not with a theological question or one of interpretation, but of how one applies one's faith to daily life. I know that Islam teaches that life is a test from Allah. Today I received a notification of one of the most difficult things that I have to deal with, helping a person to make sense of pain in their lives.

I have prayers for a teacher that is on my team. She found out 2 weeks ago that the child she is carring will not make it. They don't believe she will go to term but if she does the baby will die within minutes of being born. Right now it is hard for her as the baby is active and moving like crazy, so to know that life is growning but will end is hard for her. Her name is Angela B. Please keep her in your prayers.

How does Islam respond to such realities of life? How does Islam help the hurting individual to cope with the pain? And how does Islam deal with the anger that one might have toward Allah as a result of going through this?

 

[GreyKode]

The disciples met different ends in different places, so there isn't one single answer that can be given. But it is reported that most met with death for their proclamation that Jesus was Lord, crucified and risen from the grave, and worthy of worship. www.ccel.org provides a short synopsis (Fate of the Apostles) of what tradition reports concerning their individual deaths.


As to the second part of your question, "what were they forced to believe?" I'm not understanding it. I didn't say that they were forced to believe anything. I am saying that tradition reports that the disciples were killed for proclaiming a belief that Islam reports they did not in fact have. So, then:
1) Given that they were killed, for what was it, according to Islam, that they were actually killed?
2) Why is it reported that they were killed for a teaching something that, according to Islam, they didn't actually teach?
3) Given that it was the accusation that they were teaching Jesus as Lord, and not the teaching of God as one, that resulted in their deaths, if (as Islam asserts) they didn't believe that Jesus was Lord and only were seeking to teach that God was one, why didn't they just deny the false teaching and confess the genuine teaching and thereby spare their lives?

I went through a quick read of the link, I can't say this with 100% confidence, but I think that they were basically killed because their message was in opposition to the prevalent pagan religion. Another reason would be that they were killed because their new message was threatening the grip of the rulers who controlled the people theough their pagan religions etc. In short this does not prove that they were killed for having a beleif contrary to Islam.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I can't say this with 100% confidence, but I think that they were basically killed because their message was in opposition to the prevalent pagan religion. Another reason would be that they were killed because their new message was threatening the grip of the rulers who controlled the people theough their pagan religions etc.

Is this personal supposition or something taught within the larger context of Islam?

 

[GreyKode]

Is this personal supposition or something taught within the larger context of Islam?

This is my personal judgement from what I have read in the link you gave me, although it hardly gives any details.

 

[Grace Seeker]

This is my personal judgement from what I have read in the link you gave me, although it hardly gives any details.

Oh, that was from a site presenting traditional Christian views. Is there nothing from an Islamic point of view on the deaths of the disciples?

 

[Hiroshi]

It does not say any such thing. You are presuming "Book" to mean "the Bible". It is usually translated as "the scripture" and even if it does refer to previous scripture, that does not automatically translate to "a specific collection of 66 (or is it the higher number in the Catholic Bible?) writings compiled at Nicea". If you'd actually read those articles I linked you to then you would understand about this, as well as every future rebuttal you're likely to make. Just read them. If they're too long, read the site's FAQ.

So this "Book" isn't the lost Torah or the lost Injeel and neither is it it the "corrupted" Bible? Maybe then it was the celebrated Gospel of Barnabas?

I thank you for your articles. I did have a look at them with interest. I would like to discuss this further but it looks like it would be best to drop the subject. Peace to you, Yahya Sulaiman.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

How does Islam respond to such realities of life?

sorry to know about her pain . InshaAllah she will be granted what is best .


related verses: Allah burdens not a person beyond his scope.


سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #286



[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Be sure We shall test you with something of fear and hunger, some loss in goods or lives or the fruits (of your toil), but give glad tidings to those who patiently persevere, who say, when afflicted with calamity: "To Allah We belong, and to Him is our return": [/SIZE][/FONT]



[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]They are those on whom (descend) blessings from Allah, and Mercy, and they are the ones that receive guidance. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1][Qur'an 2:155-157 Yusuf Ali Translation][/SIZE] [/FONT]




Prophet Muhammad, s.a.w.s. said



[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"The more severe the trial and hardship, the greater its reward. [/SIZE][/FONT]




[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]When God cherishes love for a group of people, He puts them to trial to cleanse them more and to make them pure. Hence those who acquiesce in the Will of God win the pleasure of God.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1] And those who harbour resentment against God in the hour of trial, God also is displeased with them. [Tirmidhi][/SIZE][/FONT]



[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"There is nothing (in the form of trouble) that comes to a believer even if it is the pricking of a thorn that there is decreed good for him by Allah or his sins are obliterated. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1][Sahih Muslim Book 32, Number 6241][/SIZE][/FONT]



a dua/ prayer : O Allaah, I take refuge in You from anxiety and sorrow, weakness and laziness, miserliness and cowardice, the burden of debts and from being over powered by men.’

 

[Grace Seeker]

OK. I know what the Qur'an is. And I'm better educated recently on what the ahadith is. And I know that the Sunnah is important and thought I understood it as "the way of life." But, I'm thinking that's really not right. It seems to be used by different people at different times in different ways.

Can someone define Sunnah for me (again), please?

 

[جوري]

define Sunnah

Sunnah:=The legal way or ways, orders, acts of worship and statements of the Prophet

, that are ideals and models to be followed by Muslims.​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]For some Muslims, the term Sunnah means nothing. It carries no weight in their lives nor does it inspire them to correct their actions accordingly. Through this prevailing ignorance, it has become a word which is outdated. But the reality is such, that by us rejecting this divine institution, we have taken ourselves down the slippery road of destruction and misery. To reject the Sunnah is to reject the beautiful religion of Islaam. And to reject Islaam, it to humiliate and degrade oneself, both in this world and the next. So…

[SIZE=+3]What is the Sunnah?

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Linguistically, Sunnah is an Arabic word which means a path or a way. However, Islaamically, it is a primary source of law taken from the sayings, actions and approvals of the Prophet Muhammad

. As Muslims we believe that the law Prophet Muhammad

came with, is a divine revelation from our Creator, Allaah. However many people believe that the Qur'aan is the only form of divine revelation, as it is the literal word of Allaah. This view is incorrect as it contradicts the Qur'aan itself. About the Prophet Muhammad

, Allaah says: “Your companion (Muhammad) is neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he speak of his own desire. It is (only) the revelation with which he is inspired” (Surah An-Najm 53:2-4). Thus as Muslims, we are required to believe that the Qur'aan and Sunnah go hand in hand together as our sources of legislated law. Both are revelation from Allaah, the most High. The Qur'aan is composed of the actual words of Allaah, whereas the Sunnah is expressed through the words, actions and approvals of the Prophet Muhammad

. Another difference is that the Qur'aan is recited formally in the prayers whereas the Sunnah is not.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]As a way of life, Islaam is perfect and complete. However, such are the times that we live in, that some of the liberal elite from the Muslims choose to deny aspects of Islaam to suit their own desires. It is even more sad, that many choose to deny the Sunnah in particular. However this is clearly wrong, as the saying of the Prophet

indicates: “I have been given the Qur'aan and something similar to it besides it. Yet a time will come when a man leaning on his couch will say ‘follow the Qur'aan only; what you find in it permissible, take as permissible, and what you find as forbidden, take as forbidden’. But verily what the Messenger of Allaah has forbidden is like what Allaah has forbidden”[1]. The words of the Arabian Prophet ring truthfully in our ears again. Today there are a group of people in Pakistan called the Pervezies who say exactly as the Prophet

foretold. They firmly insist that the Qur'aan is the only source of law to be followed. Thus, they neither consider the Sunnah a source of law, nor a regulation of our daily affairs. This has led to many Muslim scholars declaring (and rightly so) that the Pervezies are not Muslims. So…[/FONT]


[SIZE=+3]Why do we need the Sunnah?[/SIZE]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Before the advent of the Prophet Muhammad

, every nation on this planet had received a Messenger. The purpose of these Messengers was to instruct their people in how to worship Allaah correctly. The Prophet Muhammad

was no exception to this. If we had been given the Qur'aan on its own, then most of us who are Muslims would have gone astray through our own interpretations of this book. Rather, Allaah through his mercy, sent a noble Messenger

who came to explain this Qur'aan so that the people of the earth may understand their Creator better: “We have revealed the reminder (Qur'aan) to you (O’ Muhammad) in order that you explain to the people what has been revealed to them, that perhaps they may reflect” (Surah An-Nahl 16:44). By explaining the Qur'aan through his words and actions, the Prophet

through his Sunnah, gives us the best example of how this book is to be understood and practiced. This is why Allaah says: “Indeed in the Messenger of Allaah you have the most beautiful pattern of conduct” (Surah Al-Ahzab 33:21). Our need for the Sunnah is so great, that without it our religion would be incomplete. In fact, this is the exact predicament which all the other religious scriptures find themselves in. Books such as the Bible and the Baghvad Gita, are so lacking in a divine explanation, that one can never understand (from them) as how to worship Allaah properly. As Muslims we do not have this worry, because the Sunnah is our divine explanation. The Qur'aan commands us to worship Allaah through prayer, fasting, charity etc., but it does not inform us of how to perform these duties practically. It is through his infinite Wisdom, that Allaah has sent us a practical example in the form of the Prophet

and his teachings. The Prophet's

adherence and practice of the Qur'aan was so exemplary, that upon being asked about his character, his wife Aisha said: “…his character was that of the Qur’aan”[2]. So…[/FONT]


[SIZE=+3]Is it obligatory to follow the Sunnah?[/SIZE]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Obeying Allaah is without doubt, obligatory. So when Allaah says: “Whosoever obeys the Messenger, has indeed obeyed Allaah” (Surah An-Nisa 4:80), it should be clear that one has obeyed Allaah by obeying the Messenger. Furthermore Muhammad

said: “…whosoever disobeys me, disobeys Allaah”[3]. Following the Sunnah is clearly an obligation upon every Muslim.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The obligation is stressed even more when Allaah says: “But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make you (O’ Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept them with full submission” (Sura An-Nisa 4:65) and :[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]“It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decreed by Allaah and His Messenger to have any choice in the matter. If anyone disobeys Allaah and His Messenger he is clearly astray” (Surah Al-Ahzab 33:36)[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]. As Muslims we know that when Allaah or His Messenger decree something for us, it will always benefit us, even if we do not realize it. Thus, submitting to the Messenger is only there for our benefit and not to oppress us, as some mistakenly believe.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]It must also be remembered that besides being the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad

was an Arab man living in seventh century Arabia. This meant that he

had his own personal tastes and preferences just like any other mortal. These preferences are clearly distinguished from the Islamic law which is binding upon everyone. Thus, his personal Sunnah is clearly distinct from the legal Sunnah which he brought. An example of this distinction is when the Prophet

came to Madeenah[4] and found the inhabitants artificially pollinating the date palm trees. When he asked them why they did so, they replied that it was their habit. He suggested to them that maybe if they did not do it; it may be better. So they gave it up and the following year their crop was greatly diminished. When they told him of this he replied: “I am only a human being. When I issue any command to you regarding your religion, then accept it, but when I issue any command to you based on my own opinion, I am merely a human being”[5].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Islaam is a religion which singles out Allaah alone for worship. It is for this reason that the possibility of Muhammad

being anything more than a man, is totally absurd. As him being the Messenger of Allaah

we believe that his Sunnah is infallible, but at the same time we maintain a perfect balance by remembering the words of Allaah: “Say (O’ Muhammad) : ‘I am only a man like you (except that) it has been revealed to me that your God is one God” (Surah Al-Kahf 18:110). True Muslims will follow Muhammad

, not worship him. So…[/FONT]


[SIZE=+3]What are the benefits of the Sunnah?[/SIZE]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]One of the scholars of the past, Imam Malik[6], said: “The Sunnah is like the ark of Noah. Whoever embarks upon it achieves salvation and whoever rejects it, is drowned”[7].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]This salvation is the admittance into Paradise and avoiding the fire of Hell. Regret is a terrible state. But regret on the Day of Judgment will be even worse for the one who did not follow the Sunnah: “And remember the day when the wrongdoer will bite at his hand and say: ‘Oh! Would that I had taken the path of the Messenger’” (Surah Al-Furqan 25:27). This regret will continue during the punishment: “On the day the faces will be tossed about in the fire, they will say: ‘Woe to us! Would that we had obeyed Allaah and his Messenger” (Surah Az-Zukhruf 43:67). On the other hand, the one who adhered to the Sunnah will attain the ultimate benefit: “Whoever obeys Allaah and his Messenger will be admitted to gardens beneath which rivers flow to live there (forever), and that will be the great achievement” (Surah An-Nisa 4:13). This is further confirmed by the Prophet

himself when he said: “He who obeys me enters paradise, and he who disobeys me refuses to enter paradise”[8].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The sweetness of the Sunnah will also be tasted during this life. The vastness of the Prophet's

way is such, that is produces a physical, spiritual and psychological benefit to its adherent. This fact is also recognized by non Muslim scientists who have discovered that the Sunnah is extremely accurate in its conformity with modern scientific data. Scientific and Medical facts which were recorded more then 1000 years ago, from the tongue of the Prophet

, have only been recently discovered. Such findings prove that the Sunnah could only have been divinely revealed. Thus, the one who lives his life by this law will bring goodness upon himself and upon the rest of this decaying world. As for one who chooses to discard these divine rules, then that is a person who has lost a treasure which far outweighs any treasure that the earth can bring forward. A treasure which will bring eternal happiness. So…[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]We hope that what has been read, will encourage the reader to investigate into the way of this amazing man, and adhere to the law which he brought. Through investigation Insha'allaah (if God Wills) will come reform. And the one who reforms his life around the Sunnah of Muhammad

, can be assured of a complete guidance:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]“I have left two things among you, as long as you hold fast to them you will never go astray. They are the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger”[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][9][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Footnotes:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]1. Authentic - Reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawood.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]2. Reported by Muslim - Eng. Trans. Vol 1., Pp358-360, No. 1623.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]3. Reported by Bukhari - Eng. Trans. Vol 9., p.198, No. 251.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]4. The Prophet (saws) immigrated from his hometown of Mecca to the city of Madeenah.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]5. Reported by Muslim. Eng. Trans. Vol 4., p.1259, No. 5831.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]6. Malik bin Anas was born in 713 CE in Madeenah, where he grew up studying Hadeeth. He soon became the leading scholar of the region and often ran into the authorities for speaking the truth. This resulted in him being jailed and flogged. He compiled the classical book of hadeeth Al-Muwatta, which took over 40 years. The Maalikite School of Islamic law takes its name after him.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]7. Reported in Majmoo al-Fataawa (4/57).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]8. Reported by Bukhari - Eng. Trans. Vol 9., p.284, No. 384.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]9. Authentic - Reported from Al-Muwatta.


http://islaamnet.com/whatissunnah.html
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[YusufNoor]

OK. From a Muslim persepective it certainly makes sense for alarm bells to go off when a message is changed. I get all of that. But that really doesn't address my question:

Given that Islam holds that the disciples were faithful to Islam and never themselves changed the message of Islam that Jesus would proclaimed, and
Given that they would have known that Jesus was not crucified, and therefore also not resurrected,

What rationale does Islam provide to explain the disciples being willing to go to the death to defend a teaching that, according to Islam, they did not themselves believe?

with a little vinegar, we could have pickled red herring!

there is NO EVIDENCE outside Christians writings that claims Christians were killed for WHAT they believed! THIS IS NO LONGER considered historically accurate!

Nero killed Christians BECAUSE HE WANTED TO! for allegedly starting a fire! NOT for having 3 gods! Romans DIDN'T CARE how many gods you had, you just had to sacrifice to the ones that they told you to!

later Christians were NOT killed for being trinitarians as Gene would like to deceive you into thinking! they were persecuted for NOT performing sacrifices to the political figures of the day!

NO ROMAN gave a CRAP WHO they "thought" was god! HOWEVER if you were told to burn incense in the name of the Emperor, it was considered treason IF YOU DIDN'T!

OBEY the laws on public gatherings and perform whatever other little ceremony you were required to and you could worship your own BEHIND if you so desired! UNLESS you were a Jew! then, you didn't have to sacrifice.

what confused the Romans was that Christians wanted the "get out of sacrifice free" ticket that the Jews had! the "Christians" claimed to be the "NEW Jews" and the Romans told them to either give their "new crap" or just go back to being Jews! ODDLY enough ANTISEMITISM, as it relates to hating Jews [as opposed to a technical definition], BEGAN with the Christians!

Brothers and Sisters please do not be deceived!

:wa:

 

[Grace Seeker]

Yusuf, what I am hearing you say is that history and tradition have nothing factually in common. So, the question is not important as the events asked to be explained never happened? Surely you would not go so far as to deny that there were persecutions of Christians by the emperors Nero and Domitian. What you deny is that they had anything to do with the actual beliefs held by the Christians, is that correct?

Do you think that the persecutions they suffered were in any way connected to their behaviors?

Can you please share with us the reasons that Jews were not required to sacrifice to the emperor?

 

[YusufNoor]

Yusuf, what I am hearing you say is that history and tradition have nothing factually in common.

i"m saying that "tradition" is NOT based on facts.

So, the question is not important as the events asked to be explained never happened? Surely you would not go so far as to deny that there were persecutions of Christians by the emperors Nero and Domitian.

i would ask you to prove the "why" of their persecution, from sources "outside of and not based on" Christian traditions.

What you deny is that they had anything to do with the actual beliefs held by the Christians, is that correct?

Do you think that the persecutions they suffered were in any way connected to their behaviors?

refusal "to perform Caesar worship" and "rumors of child sacrifice, incest and cannibalism" led to their persecution.
Can you please share with us the reasons that Jews were not required to sacrifice to the emperor?

After the First Jewish–Roman War (66-73), Jews were officially allowed to practice their religion as long as they paid the Jewish tax.

During the reign of Julius Caesar Jews were granted freedom of worship in the city of Rome, in recognition of the Jewish forces which had helped him at Alexandria.

i'm watching quite a few of the courses offered by the Teaching Company

http://www.teach12.com/greatcourses.aspx?ai=16281

the Majority of the Professors are of the opinion that what has been an "entrenched Christian view" of Early Christianity is simply NOT verifiable NOR does it appear to be fact based. Early Christianity is actually quite a puzzle with VERY FEW sources outside of Christian propaganda.

even a quick google search will show how those beliefs are falling away. take wiki for instance [and YES i know it's wiki]:

After the First Jewish–Roman War (66-73), Jews were officially allowed to practice their religion as long as they paid the Jewish tax. Historians debate whether or not the Roman government distinguished between Christians and Jews prior to Nerva's modification of the tax in 96. From then on, practicing Jews paid the tax, Christians did not

According to Simon Dixon, the early Roman writers viewed Christianity not as another kind of pietas, but as a superstitio, or superstition. Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor writing circa 110 CE, called Christianity a "superstition taken to extravagant lengths." Similarly, the Roman historian Tacitus called it "a deadly superstition," and the historian Suetonius called Christians "a class of persons given to a new and mischievous superstition

On a more social, practical level, Christians were distrusted in part because of the secret and misunderstood nature of their worship. Words like "love feast" and talk of "eating Christ's flesh" sounded suspicious to the pagans, and Christians were suspected of cannibalism, incest, orgies, and all sorts of immorality

According to H. B. Workman, the average Christian was not much affected by the persecutions; rather, Christian “extremists” would have been singled out as disruptive. Persecution of Christians acquired increasing significance in the writings of the Church Fathers during the 3rd and 4th centuries, on the eve of Christian hegemony

The Roman persecutions were generally sporadic, localized, and dependent on the political climate and disposition of each emperor. Imperial decrees against Christians were usually directed against church property, the Scriptures, and clergy. Everett Ferguson estimated that more Christians have been killed for religious reasons in the last 50 years than in the church's first 300 years

The apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul are said by Christian writers to have been martyred in Rome during this persecution; there is no evidence for this beyond that derived from Christian polemic works and martyrologies.

According to many historians, Jews and Christians were heavily persecuted toward the end of Domitian's reign (89-96).[27] The Book of Revelation is thought by many scholars to have been written during Domitian's reign.[28][29] Other historians, however, have maintained that there was little or no persecution of Christians during Domitian's time.[30][31][32] There is no historical consensus on the matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire

from another website:

http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

The beginnings of Christianity are very blurry, as far as historical fact is concerned.

Most of all Christianity clashed with the official state religion of the empire, for Christians refused to perform Caesar worship. This, in the Roman mindset, demonstrated their disloyalty to their rulers.

The first real recognition Christianity other than Nero's slaughter, was an inquiry by emperor Domitian who supposedly, upon hearing that the Christians refused to perform Caesar worship, sent investigators to Galilee to inquire on his family, about fifty years after the crucifixion

Towards the end of the first century the Christians appeared to sever all their ties with the Judaism and established itself independently.
Though with this separation form Judaism, Christianity emerged as a largely unknown religion to the Roman authorities. And Roman ignorance of this new cult bred suspicion. Rumours were abound about secretive Christian rituals; rumours of child sacrifice, incest and cannibalism.

Pliny the Younger, as governor of Nithynia in AD 111, was so exercised by the troubles with the Christians that he wrote to Trajan asking for guidance on how to deal with them. Trajan, displaying considerable wisdom, replied:

' The actions you have taken, my dear Pliny, in investigating the cases of those brought before you as Christians, are correct. It is impossible to lay down a general rule which can apply to particular cases. Do not go looking for Christians. If they are brought before you and the charge is proven, they must be punished, provided that if someone denies they are Christian and gives proof of it, by offering reverence to our gods, they shall be acquitted on the grounds of repentance even if they have previously incurred suspicion. Anonymous written accusations shall be disregarded as evidence. They set a bad example which is contrary to the spirit of our times.' Christians were not actively sought out by a network of spies. Under his successor Hadrian which policy seemed to continue.
Also the fact hat Hadrian actively persecuted the Jews, but not the Christians shows that by that time the Romans were drawing a clear distinction between the two religions.

even the writings of Paul show that there was no monolithic group of Christians with a single view of what Christianity is as he is always railing about "his enemies." while Christians, especially fundamentalists and evangelicals may prefer the old myths, HISTORIC evidence implies a singular view that Romans had NO CLUE what beliefs Christians had other than they "refused to perform Caesar worship" and later, "Rumours were abound about secretive Christian rituals; rumours of child sacrifice, incest and cannibalism."

Do you think that the persecutions they suffered were in any way connected to their behaviors?

yes, rumours of child sacrifice, incest and cannibalism" and refusal "to perform Caesar worship" led to their persecution.

Can you please share with us the reasons that Jews were not required to sacrifice to the emperor?

During the reign of Julius Caesar Jews were granted freedom of worship in the city of Rome, in recognition of the Jewish forces which had helped him at Alexandria.

"The Roman Empire was generally quite tolerant in its treatment of other religions. The imperial policy was generally one of incorporation - the local gods of a newly conquered area were simply added to the Roman pantheon and often given Roman names. Even the Jews, with their single God and refusal to worship the Emperor, were generally tolerated"

if YOU want to make claims like, "most met with death for their proclamation that Jesus was Lord, crucified and risen from the grave, and worthy of worship," please provide some reliable sources that can be verified outside of Christian propaganda.

good evening

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

thread is going fftopic: :hmm:

 

[Grace Seeker]

I think the bigger issue here is not that there are contradictions, nor even how many there are, but the mere fact that up until the point of the crucifixion the four Gospels remain primarily consistent with each other (for the most part—sort of) about the majority of key issues, and then once you get into the passion the contradictions suddenly start piling up out of nowhere and just keep on increasing until the resurrection saga at the end where hardly anything is consistent. It seems to strongly support the notion, held by Muslims, Gnostics, and many secular writers, that this part is the least reliable and most mythically embellished section of the whole saga.

And this is why I keep bringing up the ahadith. I had not read much in them until recently, was satisfied just hearing people recount their stories on this board. But I am presently reading a book on the prophet that received awards within Islam, and as it recounts the events of his life it frequently refers to the ahadith. I find that there are many hadith that are direct contradictions of other hadith. I find this entirely confusing. If they are to be accepted on par with the Qur'an in terms of communicating the true Sunnah of the prophet, wouldn't there only be one true story to tell, not many different ones? If the Gospels can be rejected because of inconsistencies, shouldn't these ahadith be rejected because of inconsistencies? And yes, I know that there are different levels of acceptance of the ahadith, but I am talking about those that have supposedly been authenticated.

These questions aren't asked as attacks, but the difference in the way Muslims approach the ahadith and the gospels has me straining to understand. How can one be found to be credible and the other not, when they share similar problems?

 

[Ramadhan]

And this is why I keep bringing up the ahadith. I had not read much in them until recently, was satisfied just hearing people recount their stories on this board. But I am presently reading a book on the prophet that received awards within Islam, and as it recounts the events of his life it frequently refers to the ahadith. I find that there are many hadith that are direct contradictions of other hadith. I find this entirely confusing. If they are to be accepted on par with the Qur'an in terms of communicating the true Sunnah of the prophet, wouldn't there only be one true story to tell, not many different ones? If the Gospels can be rejected because of inconsistencies, shouldn't these ahadith be rejected because of inconsistencies? And yes, I know that there are different levels of acceptance of the ahadith, but I am talking about those that have supposedly been authenticated.

These questions aren't asked as attacks, but the difference in the way Muslims approach the ahadith and the gospels has me straining to understand. How can one be found to be credible and the other not, when they share similar problems?

I don't know if you actually haven't read about the hadith and the science of hadith and how a hadith can be accepted, or that you are playing dumb.

You are comparing hadith and the gospels.

ok.

Please bring forth on this forum the sanad, meaning the transmitters and chain of transmission of your current gospels (maybe NIV?) all the way back to jesus (as)?

and then we can compare about hadith and the gospels.

I think I have asked you this before.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

. How can one be found to be credible and the other not, when they share similar problems?

I am surprised when Christians compare Bible with Hadith. If Bible is their main holy book , words of God Almighty , then how can they compare it to Hadith ?

We Muslims believe Bible were tempered / altered by men but do Chrisitans believe that ? To Muslims , holy Quran is from Allah and no one can change it . So , when Christians compare Bible with Hadith but not with Quran , are not they degrading their holy book ?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/Peace





I am surprised when Christians compare Bible with Hadith. If Bible is their main holy book , words of God Almighty , then how can they compare it to Hadith ?

We Muslims believe Bible were tempered / altered by men but do Chrisitans believe that ? To Muslims , holy Quran is from Allah and no one can change it . So , when Christians compare Bible with Hadith but not with Quran , are not they degrading their holy book ?

I'm not comparing the Bible to either the ahadith or the Qur'an in terms of my view of the nature of revelation. I'm contrasting how Muslims respond to them when the complaint that the Muslims makes with regard to the inconsistencies sometimes found in the Bible could at times also be made of the ahadith.

It is asserted by Muslims that the ahadith are suitable for guidance on par with the Qur'an. This is so, even though there exists ahadith that conflict with each other. I don't understand how it is that Muslims are able and willing to accept the ahadith as suitable for giving guidance, but allege that the Bible is corrupt simply because there are parallel passages that are not identical to one another? How is it that with one the Muslims says, "See those differences, that book (the Bible) can't be trusted." Yet with the other the Muslim says, "See those differences, they don't mean that this guidance (the ahadith) can't be trusted."

For instance, I have learned that Islamic historians differ amongst themselves over the date of the beginning of Muhammad's prophethood. Why? Because the ahadith, those considered "authenticated" and "reliable", differ in recounting that event. If Muslims can live with that sort of ambiguity with regard to something as important them as Muhammad's prophethood, then why can't they accept the reasonableness of Christians not being thrown off by different narratives of even something as important to us as the resurrection?

 

[Ramadhan]

For instance, I have learned that Islamic historians differ amongst themselves over the date of the beginning of Muhammad's prophethood. Why? Because the ahadith, those considered "authenticated" and "reliable", differ in recounting that event. If Muslims can live with that sort of ambiguity with regard to something as important as Muhammad's prophethood, then why can't they accept the reasonableness of Christians not being thrown off by different narratives of even something as important to us as the resurrection?

I don't know any muslim that think the exact prophethood date of Muhammad SAW is important. In fact I don't even know when, I only know the narrative prophet Muhammad SAW life, and the dates bear NO importance WHATSOEVER in terms of aqeedah and fiqh.

i find it hillarious and it reeks of DESPERATION that you are trying to nitpicking the exact dates of when prophet Muhammad began his prophethood and compare that with RESURRECTION which is the cornerstone of christianity.
without resurrection, christianity crumbles into dust.
there is NO christianity if there is no resurrection.

Or do you think resurrection is actually as superfluous as the exact dates of prophethood? and it bears no relevance with who/how many gods you worship?

mind boggles.

 

[Grace Seeker]

If Bible is their main holy book , words of God Almighty , then how can they compare it to Hadith ?

The Bible is not a book. The bible is a library. So, it depends on which book in that library you are speaking of whether we would say that it is the directly dictated words of God, the interpreted reflections of a prophet, or the narration of events in the life of one God's servants. Something like the books commonly known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the narration of events in the life of one of God's servants for the purpse of telling the world the Good News of God's design for redeeming the world through the events of that life. The record of events, not the precise words spoken, is the most important part of that message.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

..... If Muslims can live with that sort of ambiguity with regard to something as important them as Muhammad's prophethood, then why can't they accept the reasonableness of Christians not being thrown off by different narratives of even something as important to us as the resurrection?

Firstly : The most important matter in Islam is God is one without partner . Exactly on what date Muhammed pbuh became Prophet , it's not as important as the oneness of God or resurrection of Jesus pbuh.

If Jeus pbuh is God , If Jesus pbuh ordered his followers to worship him , if Jesus pbuh died and rose from death - these are very important - one's eternal life is depending on these things . So , again , how come any Christian can compare these matters with the date of the prophethood of Muhammed pbuh ? Muslims eternal lives are not depending on that date .

And God Almighty knows Best.