Things in Islam I am curious about...

[Hamza Asadullah]

Hamzai,
Thank you for your response. Indeed my view of Islam maybe flawed. Yet, that is why I'm here to learn about it. Now, note I don't want to be moslem as i'm a christian and that faith is what I wish to remain and if i'm not mistaken i'm entitled to be a christian in Islam. As for christianity not having similar laws that Islam has I'd say you are both right and wrong.

Your right in that christianity doesn't have complex legal laws to govern society in all walks of life as Islam does. Those laid out in the koran can be quite complex almost legalistic which befits a society. Christianity tends to focus on the individual. Jesus said 2 things emcompass the whole of the Law. Simply put. To love your God and to love your neighbor as yourself. What Jesus said concerning life is indeed simple though. As the world is complex those that live for it need the complexity in order to survive and in some cases thrive.

Your wrong in that since christianity is based on the individual instead of the society, if said individual or society actually followed what Jesus said and lived as he instructed simply there would be no violence as the World would not hold sway as it does today. Mankind can be incredibly selfish. Jesus was not. If we followed Jesus we wouldn't be selfish either.

Now regrettfully as we all know there are those that say their christian yet don't actually act like christians. They think their honoring god when in fact their just honoring themselves in short idols. If Islam doesn't have the same type of people then thats great but I don't believe it because we're all human.

Peace be with you

Yes and i sincerely hope you do learn to clarify your beliefs regarding Islam and do not blindly believe what others try to assert regarding Islamic beliefs.

I never said that you have to be Muslim i was just simply clarifying a few things for you in reply to your post. There is no compulsion in religion according to Islam. The history of Christianity and the origins of those concepts i mentioned above is for you to look for your own knowledge in order to establish their validity and whether or not they are in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and God.

Regarding the false comparison you made of Islam and Christianity then i was also clarifying you on that in that Islam covers EVERY aspect of ones life whereas you asserted that Christianity did the same when it clearly does not. Just saying "God teaches love" is not enough to run a society. Humans are complex creatures and we live in the most complex of social structures and therefore need a system in place which covers ALL aspects of our complex social behaviours. These systems need to cover morals and values as well as many other aspects.

The simplistic view you have come out with does not and will never work and is clearly never going to be able to run a society. Christianity has and never aimed to encompass every aspect of society because Jesus came ONLY to re-establish the laws of Moses and NOT to create any new laws. Therefore any law a Christian from the past should have followed is that of Moses which is in accordance to the teachings of Jesus and God in the Bible.

One only needs to look around and see that man made law does not work for every apsect of society though it may work for some aspects to a certain extent. Whereas the law of God which encompases every aspect of our lives works for ALL aspects of our lives and not just some to a certain extent.

This is attested to by the fact that when the shariah was implemented in the past it TRULY worked. So much so that Jews and Christians wanted to be a part of it because they could actually practise their faith with peace, tranquility and freedom from opression and knowing they were protected by the Shariah.

Therefore there is NO doubt that the Sharia does truly work and is the BEST for humanity if it is implemented correctly like it was in the past and not like how it is falsely portrayed today even though there is NO shariah system in place and has not been for nearly a hundred years.

Of course humans will be humans and there are those in every faith that give the rest a bad name but we should always go back to the scriptures and look at what is consitant and there is NO doubt that the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet are consistant with ALL of the teachings of the past Prophets including the teachings and words of Jesus and is therefore in line with true monotheism.

So all i ask is that you look into Islam and the Qur'an for yourself just to clarify your views, perceptions and knowledge regarding Islam because it is knowledge that brings clarity to every apsect of life.

Thank you

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

Yes. That gets at exactly what I meant. Thank-you.


So, I wonder, in the context of what you have written, Hamza, does that make us human beings a sort of living paradox while on this earth being both mortal and immortal at the same time? I think it does from the Christian perspective, but I wonder if one would feel comfortable saying the same thing in Islam?


(And, no, Naidamar, the reason or the question still has nothing to do with anyone's divine status.)

Greetings Grace Seeker,

Yes i would agree with such a paradox. Although we have temporary bodys which can die at any second we know that our souls will live on forever whether that be in eternal doom or bliss.

Those of us who are destined for eternal doom would wish that our souls would turn to dust so that we would be no more.

 

[Ramadhan]

So, from my limited understanding Islam isn't just a religion but also like Christianity a way of life.

Please enlighten me.

I fail to see how christianity can be a way of life, when:

1. all mosaic laws thrown out the window (christians should everyday give millions thanks to saul of tarsus who did much of the abrogation, by the way, when jesus himself didnt say or teach to abrogate the laws and in fact said in the opposite)
2. when proven sinners and evil doers cannot be punished thanks to the infamous "those who have no sin cast the first stone" of "pericope adulterae" (by the way, the whole "pericope adulterae" is john 7:53-8:11 which didn't exist in all oldest bible manuscripts, and suddenly was added into latin vulgate bible, something that bible scholars have agreed that it is complete fabrication. Lies against God!). This pericope adulterae opened the door for paedophiles made as priests and practicing homosexuals made as pastors.
3. when religious practices of Jesus (who was a rabbinic jew by the way) are not even followed such as fastings, etc

All that is left of christianity is just a hollow belief that "jesus loves us", and as long as you believe that "jesus loves you" you will be saved for eternity.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Greetings Grace Seeker,

Yes i would agree with such a paradox. Although we have temporary bodys which can die at any second we know that our souls will live on forever whether that be in eternal doom or bliss.

Those of us who are destined for eternal doom would wish that our souls would turn to dust so that we would be no more.

Great!! Thanks for the help in sifting through this.

 

[Amigo]

To Getoffmyback:

Sorry I have been trying to reply to your questions but couldn't. I just noticed that I am not allowed to quote because I am new (membership statut settings I guess). However, I don't know how I was able to quote you before...

Well, it was not a big thing, I hope you figured it out it was easy.

God bless

 

[Amigo]

I also just noticed that I couldn't post using the 'at' sign I am not sure what is going on. I am thinking that I may not be able to post in the future for some other reasons that my take me time to figure out if I don't give up.

 

[gmcbroom]

Nadimar,

1. Saul of Tarsus, never taught abrogation that is unique to Islam.

2. Johns 7:53-8:11 is disputed due to the amount of old manuscripts without the passage one website lists 20 without and 11 manuscripts with it. (As for the remarks about priests and pasturs that is a pure conjecture)

3. As for your stating the lack of Fasting all I can respond is with one word. LENT.

To see the website I'm referring to just go to http://www.notjustanotherbook.com/disputedjohn.htm

Peace be with you

 

[Just_A_Girl13]

Peace be with you brothers and sisters, (I hope this is the right thing to say I am just learning so bear with me)

I hope this is the right thread to post this in. I am considering reverting to Islam but I have one major issue, which is that Islam doesn't approve of homosexuality. This isn't meant to offend anyone's beliefs and I mean the utmost respect when I say that I happen to be a big supporter of gay rights. I was just wondering if Islam is like Christianity, where there are some Christians who support gay rights. Could I revert to Islam and still not give that aspect of myself up? Please nobody try to convince me the other way, my mind is made up.

 

[Ramadhan]

1. Saul of Tarsus, never taught abrogation that is unique to Islam.

You have consistently attacked Islam without backing it up with evidence. I really don't mind if you state things about Islam AND give proof/evidence.

I have given you warnings several times which you completely ignored.

As I said, I don't have time for this, time which I can spend to give explanations to non-muslims who are here AND not trolling.

 

[Ramadhan]

By the way, did your pope not allow you to study bible, since it seems your knowledge about bible and church history is even less than average muslims:

1. Saul of Tarsus, never taught abrogation

Are you circumcised, gmcbroom?
Jesus (pbuh) was circumcised and he NEVER abrogated the laws on circumcision, and only the wicked, hypocrite Saul of tarsus, the enemy of Jesus, and the enemy of Jesus' brother, james and the enemy of Peter, it was Saul who abrogated mosaic laws, not the least in male circumcision.

2. Johns 7:53-8:11 is disputed due to the amount of old manuscripts without the passage one website lists 20 without and 11 manuscripts with it. (As for the remarks about priests and pasturs that is a pure conjecture)

I feel sorry for you who does not even know your bible.

here, read this (and by the way, I am taking this from conservative christians sources):

The Pericope Adulterae or the Woman taken in Adultery is found in John 7:53-8:11 in most manuscripts of John’s Gospel but is almost certainly not original there. The pericope is missing from most early manuscripts of John and is in a non-Johannine style. Quite apart from the question of the original location of this passage there is the problem of its original form. The pericope is highly variable among NT manuscripts and is regarded by some form critics as a hybrid narrative.http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2007/06/origins-of-the-pericope-adulterae.html

Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel. On this page I present some extended quotations from scholarly works that explain the reasons for this judgment. On another page I give an extract from one of the few scholarly defenders of the passage. To give my own opinion, it seems clear to me that the story does not belong in the Bible. If despite its absence from the early manuscripts this passage is thought to be so edifying that it is worthy of being treated as Holy Scripture, we might with equal justice add any number of edifying ancient stories to the Bible. The Quo Vadis legend about Peter's martyrdom, for instance, might just as well be added to the canonical book of Acts. For more on this, see my essay, Quo Vadis?http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Official Bible translations already recognize that the passage is not authentic. Yet why is it increasingly taught anyway? Because it has an unmistakable liberal spin to it. Let's point out the obvious.--Aschlafly 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT) http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Essay:Adulteress_Story

 

[Ramadhan]

Peace be with you brothers and sisters, (I hope this is the right thing to say I am just learning so bear with me) I hope this is the right thread to post this in. I am considering reverting to Islam but I have one major issue, which is that Islam doesn't approve of homosexuality. This isn't meant to offend anyone's beliefs and I mean the utmost respect when I say that I happen to be a big supporter of gay rights. I was just wondering if Islam is like Christianity, where there are some Christians who support gay rights. Could I revert to Islam and still not give that aspect of myself up? Please nobody try to convince me the other way, my mind is made up.

I think you first have to ask yourself, what is it that you want/seek.

 

[Just_A_Girl13]

I think you first have to ask yourself, what is it that you want/seek.

Well, I'm not entirely sure. I'm currently a Christian and I don't exactly have a problem with Christianity, but I feel very drawn to Islam for whatever reason. However, this issue is really the main thing which is stopping me from converting. I think that I would like to revert to Islam, but I don't want to give up this piece of my identity-- I want to find a religion that fits into my beliefs, not one for which I would have to change my beliefs.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam / Peace

.-- I want to find a religion that fits into my beliefs, not one for which I would have to change my beliefs.

a beleiver must surrender himself / herself to God Almighty . So , what God has forbidden , u must not support / like that . But still there is a chance for u to embrace Islam if u beleive that God is one without partner - there is no god bot God and Muhammed peace be upon him is a slave and messenger of God.

and remember , by accepting thr Truth , u are not doing any favour to God but God has shown mercy to u .

All the best.

 

[Grace Seeker]

But still there is a chance for u to embrace Islam if u beleive that God is one without partner - there is no god bot God and Muhammed peace be upon him is a slave and messenger of God.

If a Christian believes that Jesus is not a partner of God, but actually God himself, and thus agree that God is one without partner, how would such a belief be received?

 

[siam]

If a Christian believes that Jesus is not a partner of God, but actually God himself, and thus agree that God is one without partner, how would such a belief be received?

The problem here is that in order to believe this---Christians must believe in "incarnation/avatar"---that God incarnates into created form. This essentially means making this "created form" into God. Which constitutes idol worship. ----that is, believing that the "created form" is God, or equal to God.

Since God is not "created"---to arbitarily (and falsely) elevate a "created from" to God or equal to God essentially creates "a partner" to God---that is God the "Uncreated" Supreme God and God the created/incarnation/avatar. ---It is the same problem that we would have with Hinduism. The Hindus could argue till the oceans run dry that they are monotheists (though they are not as stubborn as Christians)---it (incarantion/avatar) would never be acceptable as monotheism

 

[siam]

If Christians were to pray DIRECTLY to God and use the NT as Guidance of the wisdom teachings of Jesus Christ(pbuh) ---in how to be better human beings, this would reduce the need for any emphasis on "christology" (the nature of Christ). It would align more with monotheism. Both Judaism and Islam, the two monotheistic religions use our Holy texts as Guidance to mankind and emphasise intentions and actions (orthopraxis). Prayers/worship is directly to God and is an intimate, personal realtionship between an individual and God. There are no intecessor, intermediary, or heirarchy between an individual and God.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam / Peace

If a Christian believes that Jesus is not a partner of God, but actually God himself, and thus agree that God is one without partner, how would such a belief be received?

God can not be born or die or harmed by human / angel / Jinn. God does not take form of human being. So , if anyone believes a human or any creation is God himself , s/he is commiting the blasphemy.

If die without repentance , only punishment is eternal fire.

And God Knows Best.

 

[May Ayob]

You mean God incarnite?
Well that would be very stupid because the Quran say that Jesus and his mother used to eat food , ofcourse food needs disgestion , and i think a humanbeing would have to go to the washroom in the end , Is this Suitable for the creator of the Heavens and unvierse, i don't think so , this in my opinion is a false claim because he can't be God if he is a humanbeing very simple , and simply He had a mother , who used to feed him from her own breast so is this also and idiom of God (the creator) it doesn't seem true at all.

Salaam to all.

 

[Riana17]

Edit on request of Grace seeker himself: This thread covers significantly more issue than just music which in has been sufficiently addressed over the last several month; new posters are requested to join the thread in progress on the last page, rather then just repeating what has already been stated numerous times among the many pages of this thread.

Having read the Quran and other books about Islam, and having been on these boards a short period of time there are many things I have learned about Islam. Some I agree with, some I don't. Much I respect. A few things I am still leary of.

And then there are those things that I still don't fully understand, or at least don't understand the reasoning behind them. (Perhaps for some there is none; maybe it is just what is commanded.)

First, among the things I am curious about, is the role of music, or maybe I should say the absence of a role for music. Music plays an important part in the life and worship of both Christianity and Judaism. If Islam is the same message that would have been presented by all of the prophets, and music had such an important place previously in the practice of worship, why didn't those prophets condemn it? And since they didn't, why is it not allowed now? And yet, the call to worship itself sounds like a type of chant, isn't this a form of music?

Is it just in worship that music is not allowed? On the forums I hear people talk about music as if it is itself an evil thing? Yet I know that many Muslims enjoy music, that folk music is central to the lives of many people scattered around the world in nearly every country, and these include Muslims. The whirling dervishes of Turkey are supposedly a type of worship and are most certainly accompanied to music. Some people grow rich by marketing special types of music specifically to Muslims. So, many of these things just don't fit together for me.

What is halal and what is haram in regards to music? What makes one halal and the other haram?

Salam
its been well presented by many but i have addition

it will decrease our Iman and slowly with addiction to music we will hate to pray on time or listen to Quran reading or read Quran
truly music is highly entertaining but it would not be beneficial in the long run.
This is big hindrance to our khushoo (focus in praying) also

When i was not Muslim, i told my self "Music is my life, I cant live without Music (truly nonsense belief huh?)
When i like a certain song, I would listen to it nonstop until i gave up and tired of listening

i didnt see that coming but yes the truth is that i wasted many times of my life

Now alhamdollelah, I do not have addiction to any of it

LAstnight, I asked my husband, he said that, Prophet Muhammad appreciated when people sang a poem (without instrument) during his visit to Medina

This sort of singing is allowed only in certain occasions such as: weddings, feasts, welcoming a traveler, and the like. This is based on the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) that states: “He (peace and blessings be upon him) asked, ‘Have you given the girl (i.e., the bride) anything as a present?' They (the attendants) replied, ‘Yes.' He asked, 'Did you send a singer along with her?' 'No', said `A'ishah. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) then said, 'The Ansar are a people who love poetry. You should have sent along someone who would sing: Here we come, to you we come, greet us as we greet you.'" In this case, we can say that a woman can sing only in front of women and her non-marriageable male kin.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Riana17, did you read the beginning part of what you quoted?