What do you guys know about islam

[AbdullahG]

Understandable that he would have a criminal history considering who he has made an enemy of, no? You can't offend Satan without consequences.

That was also just an excerpt from a larger work.

Understandable that his work is convincing, in a way.

 

[chunkymonster]

One issue that I have a hard time rationalizing about Islam is it's legitimate claim that it is the 3rd Abrahamic religion and Muhammad is the last and final prophet of God.

Through the Torah and into the New Testament we can trace a direct link from Abraham to Jesus. The lineage and prophecy has been vetted and confirmed; I have found no such direct link or prophesy in the Torah or New Testament that clearly states that Muhammad is a descendant of Abraham or any prophecy of a third and final prophet. The only claim to Muhammad's lineage to Abraham and Ismael is from the Koran. In all my research and reading, the connection between Ismael and Muhammad is tenuous at best. Any verses referenced in the Torah and NT directly linking Muhammad to Ismael or Abraham are taken out of context, based on conjecture, and argue points of translation. Also, when reading and correlating the Torah and the NT, there is a level of consistency with the history, prophecies, and continuation of the covenant between God and Abraham to the covenant between Jesus and his disciples that is just not found in the Koran. It seems to me that if the Koran was the third revelation of God's covenant with Man and Muhammad was the last and final prophet, there would be more consistency and correlation between the Torah, NT, and Koran; if that correlation exists, I have not seen it.

Even if Muhammad's lineage to Ismael can be proven, God told Abraham that Isaac was to the rightful heir to their covenant and Ismael was enjoined of any claim to the house of Abraham. So, while even though God did promise to make Ismael the father of 12 rulers and into a great nation, this does not assert or even imply that any of Ismael's descendants as being God's 3rd and final prophet. By any research, the prophecy of Ismael (born of an Egyptian mother) being made into a great nation and the father of 12 rulers can be resolved by the fact that he married a Pharaoh's daughter and his progeny were princes (rulers) by a matter of birth.

 

[imran_t]

The Torah and the New Testament were books revealed to the followers of Judaism i.e. the offspring of Isaac(p.b.u.h). There won't be any link between Ismael and Muhammad(p.b.u.h) mentioned because there were no prophets between the two. The Bible would have mentioned Muhammad if the Gospel of Barnabus was included. It wasn't included because the compilers of the Bible (Roman Officials) favoured Roman born Saul(Paul) over Barnabus.

Point being the Bible has inconsistencies due to human interference. Something the Quran is immune to.

The only covenant between God and Muhammad was that good/bad deeds in this life will be recompensed in the afterlife. Instead of being promised riches and land Islam takes a more 'Jobite' view that through perseverance one will attain these blessings in Heaven.

Ismaels life is not documented well because of its irrelevance to the progeny of Isaac. Abraham left Ismael and Hagar in the Arabian desert close to the location of the Kaaba, following Gods command. He married a women of a tribe that had emigrated from Yemen and Gods promise of a great nation from his offspring was only fulfilled with the Prophet-hood of Muhammad who was born of noble birth.

After all of this, even if Muhammad is not the descendant of Abraham. They are still both on the same religion. That of true monotheism. No Trinity or Intercession. No praying to immaculate virgins or one aspect of a three part deity. Just the belief and worship of one almighty, all powerful God.

 

[Mutt x]

imran_t,

Some reasonable perspectives on all this but your most radical assertion, that the Koran is immune to human interferences, is completely unsupported. Care to comment on why you think so?

 

[imran_t]

The Qur'an is the most memorised book in the world and this is due to the poetic way its written in.The period and culture it was revealed in used poetry as its media. New's and Entertainment were provided by poets just like how nowadays we have the internet and television.

The arabic prose it is written in is unique and inimmitable. Google 'Fake Surahs' or 'Fake Qurans'. People can easily point out a fake verse from a genuine one because of the way its written. The oldest copy is 500 years old and contains no differences.

Why exactly do people call Islam a backwards religion? It's because the original message has been preserved while laws and opinions have changed around it. People see it and the followers of Islam as backwards because we refuse to change the Qur'an or change any of the laws established within it.

Christians change religious law whenever they feel like it. When some amongst them refuse to accept, they're seen as extremists.

It's easy to see a scribe make a mistake or change it too his own end, but in its early days and even now the Qur'an is memorised word for word from generation t generation. Plus the fact that Islam is a global religion means that if one person were to change a verse someone else would eventually pick up on it and remove it.

 

[AbdullahG]

One issue that I have a hard time rationalizing about Islam is it's legitimate claim that it is the 3rd Abrahamic religion and Muhammad is the last and final prophet of God.

Through the Torah and into the New Testament we can trace a direct link from Abraham to Jesus. The lineage and prophecy has been vetted and confirmed; I have found no such direct link or prophesy in the Torah or New Testament that clearly states that Muhammad is a descendant of Abraham or any prophecy of a third and final prophet. The only claim to Muhammad's lineage to Abraham and Ismael is from the Koran. In all my research and reading, the connection between Ismael and Muhammad is tenuous at best. Any verses referenced in the Torah and NT directly linking Muhammad to Ismael or Abraham are taken out of context, based on conjecture, and argue points of translation. Also, when reading and correlating the Torah and the NT, there is a level of consistency with the history, prophecies, and continuation of the covenant between God and Abraham to the covenant between Jesus and his disciples that is just not found in the Koran. It seems to me that if the Koran was the third revelation of God's covenant with Man and Muhammad was the last and final prophet, there would be more consistency and correlation between the Torah, NT, and Koran; if that correlation exists, I have not seen it.

Even if Muhammad's lineage to Ismael can be proven, God told Abraham that Isaac was to the rightful heir to their covenant and Ismael was enjoined of any claim to the house of Abraham. So, while even though God did promise to make Ismael the father of 12 rulers and into a great nation, this does not assert or even imply that any of Ismael's descendants as being God's 3rd and final prophet. By any research, the prophecy of Ismael (born of an Egyptian mother) being made into a great nation and the father of 12 rulers can be resolved by the fact that he married a Pharaoh's daughter and his progeny were princes (rulers) by a matter of birth.

Then explain this, from John 14-16-17:

16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you.

And this is what the Quran says, Quran 61:6:

And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!”

Yes, the Books are technically written by man, but is the word of God (or at least to those who follow them). I believe what imran_t is trying to say is that the Quran has been unaltered by man. Every word is written down exactly how it was said, since day one. The Bible has been changed by those who have the "authority" to do so. I am unaware if the Torah has been changed. The Hadiths have not been altered. When the Hadith's were being recorded, collected, and compiled, they were taken down word for word. If any inconsistencies existed, they were disregarded. Only the ones that matched and were exactly alike throughout all of the records were kept. I am sure the Quran had no issues as well. You have to understand these people were not like us. When a Book came down, they remembered it by heart. Everyone knew the exact words to it. Why? Because it gave them something to turn to, something to give them purpose. If any changes were made, everyone would have noticed it and have it corrected. The fear they had for their God was undeniable, and they feared punishment for altering a Holy Book. They didn't have TV, movies, etc to rot away their brains. Only several million people out of the almost 7 billion people on this planet have remembered the +1 Books word for word. The majority cannot even remember the Quran (English, Arabic, w/e language they prefer), which is the smallest of all the Books.

PS- Do not trust the English version of the Quran. They are inaccurate (there are issues with the Arabic-English conversion).

If you want the best answers to your questions, don't take it from a 14 year old and move on. If you have the chance to go to an Islamic convention/gathering, go ahead. Usually, there is a scholar who happens to have read all the Books. Maybe even an Imam from a Mosque can help. If any of you happen to have interest in listen to a convert, and why they converted to Islam, I recommend this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYMKQKSV0bY

Even if you do not get your answers, the story itself is interesting.

I am not asking you to accept my views and disregard your's, nor am I asking the same for myself, but to understand the Muslim point-of-view.

 

[AbdullahG]

You have to also remember the Christian bible has been translated from Aramaic, to Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, to German, and finally to English.

Lost in translation doesn't even begin to describe it.

That is one thing I do respect about the Koran. Its still in the orignal language.

I do remember in an article online that an original copy of the Bible, either Hebrew or Greek, was found, and it did not match the original Bible of today.

My cousin happens to be atheist, and he also respects the Quran/Koran for being unchanged. Has his own point of view and disagreements, but at least he shows respect, which is really the most I can ask for from someone.

 

[chunkymonster]

The Torah and the New Testament were books revealed to the followers of Judaism i.e. the offspring of Isaac(p.b.u.h). There won't be any link between Ismael and Muhammad(p.b.u.h) mentioned because there were no prophets between the two. The Bible would have mentioned Muhammad if the Gospel of Barnabus was included. It wasn't included because the compilers of the Bible (Roman Officials) favoured Roman born Saul(Paul) over Barnabus.

Have to disagree with you here. The Gospel of Barnabus did not appear until the 16th century and is considered by Orthodox Muslim scholars to be medieval forgery and an attempt by the Moors to (falsely) link Muhammad as a descendant of Abraham. Therefore, any reference to Muhammad in the Bible through the Gospel of Barnabus is unfounded and your claims of intentional omission by "Roman Officials" are also unfounded.

Point being the Bible has inconsistencies due to human interference. Something the Quran is immune to.

The assertion that the Koran is immune to human interference is inherently flawed. This has been proven by comparing the Uthman Koran to the Sana'a Koran. This is also proven by the translations from one Arabic dialect to another. And, this is also further proven by recent Muslim scholars denying both the Uthman and Abubakar as legitimate versions of the Koran.

The only covenant between God and Muhammad was that good/bad deeds in this life will be recompensed in the afterlife. Instead of being promised riches and land Islam takes a more 'Jobite' view that through perseverance one will attain these blessings in Heaven.

That is exactly my point, no covenant was ever made between Muhammad and God. If the Koran is supposed to be the 3rd revelation of God's word, it stands to reason that it would build on and be a continuation of the covenant between Abraham and God, renew the covenant of Jesus and his disciples, or make a new covenant and revelation with Muhammad; but it does not, it does not continue the previous covenants nor does it make a new covenant between God and Muhammad. So, with that said, how can Islam rightfully claim to be the final revelation of God's word without continuing or making a covenant between God and Muhammad?

Ismaels life is not documented well because of its irrelevance to the progeny of Isaac. Abraham left Ismael and Hagar in the Arabian desert close to the location of the Kaaba, following Gods command. He married a women of a tribe that had emigrated from Yemen and Gods promise of a great nation from his offspring was only fulfilled with the Prophet-hood of Muhammad who was born of noble birth.

No, Abraham did not leave Hagar and Ismael in the Arabian dessert. All scripture regarding Hagar and Ismael place them wandering the wilderness of Beersheba and Paran which are both accurately placed in the Southern Israel and/or the Sinai Peninsula. Furthermore, Hagar was Egyptian, Ismael married a Pharaoh's daughter, by those facts alone make it highly improbable that they settled in the Arabian desert.

After all of this, even if Muhammad is not the descendant of Abraham. They are still both on the same religion. That of true monotheism. No Trinity or Intercession. No praying to immaculate virgins or one aspect of a three part deity. Just the belief and worship of one almighty, all powerful God.

Well, aside from the not so subtle crack on Christianity, the only similarity between the religion of Abraham (Judaism) and Muhammad (Islam) is that they are both monotheistic. I would even go as far to argue that Allah and the God of Abraham are not the same God. That Allah is of Sumerian origin (hence the crescent moon of Islam), that Allah was an honorific used by pagan Arabian tribes to describe any number of deities, and that Islam does not view that all monotheists worship the same god as commonly held by Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Baha'i, and Sikhism.

 

[imran_t]

1. You're knowledge may be greater then mine in this area but fake or genuine there's no doubt that due to the presence of apocryphal gospels there's no doubt that that the gospels put into the Bible were chosen by man.

You can't deny that the Roman empire had no part in the establishment of Christianities central tenets of faith. Saul a great enemy of christianity falls of his horse. See's a vision of Christ and becomes his disciple without physically living with or following Jesus(p.b.u.h).

2. Please provide a source for this. What you may claim to be Muslim may not be Muslim at all.

3. The covenant is different because the Religious Law is different. Qur'anic law overrides Mosaic law. Muslims believe that Jews fell out of Grace with god for failing to fulfill the terms of the covenant so it was abandoned and Islam was revealed. That does not mean that Islam is a brand new religion because it is a continuation of the true beliefs of the Prophets before the faith was corrupted.

I'll be honest I posted without full knowledge of covenants and merely expressed my opinion. Having done more research Muslims believe in the continuation of the covenant of Abraham and Ismael BUT the covenant is different.

4 and 5. We're both quoting from text's we believe are genuine, while opposing text we believe are false, so continuing to argue would be futile.

Allah is derived from the Aramaic Elah. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Preaching about true monotheism. Ismael was left in the desert and married into a woman from a yemeni immigrant tribe and taught them the religion of Abraham. They followed Abrahams monotheism until centuries later it was corrupted by a trader who brought idols back fom Sham (Palestine/Syria/Jordan). So the pagan god you talk of is actually the same God abraham preached of.

Ofcourse according to your texts its all different.

Also it wasn't a meant to be a subtle crack. I was merely stating the clear idol worshipping and polytheistic beliefs and practices in Christianity

I meant no harm but if telling the truth may hurt someones feelings then I believe it might be worth it.

EDIT: I have a feeling this may/has become an Islam vs Christianity thread so we may have to start a new thread to keep this one on topic. (Sorry for possible derailment 😛)

 

[jsc]

That is one thing I do respect about the Koran. Its still in the orignal language.

Sure - if you regard Church Latin and Modern Italian as the same language.

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

 

[Mutt x]

Then explain this, from John 14-16-17:

16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you.

Then explain this, from John 14-16-17:

16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you.

Abdullah,

This passage is in reference to the Holy Spirit. Can Mohammed live in someone? Can he be with someone forever?

Besides John 14:26 clearly indicates that Jesus is talking of the Holy Spirit.

I don't find your arguments convincing that because the Koran was created in an oral culture that it was perfectly preserved but at this point its a matter of faith. I understand that it is essential to Islamic faith the the words be considered perfectly preserved.

 

[Mutt x]

I do remember in an article online that an original copy of the Bible, either Hebrew or Greek, was found, and it did not match the original Bible of today.

My cousin happens to be atheist, and he also respects the Quran/Koran for being unchanged. Has his own point of view and disagreements, but at least he shows respect, which is really the most I can ask for from someone.

Abdullah,

The claim that there are vast and significant versions of the New Testament is bogus. There texual variations, most spelling and rearranged words are present but the ones that amount to a debatably different mean are a handfull. There are at least 5,600 Greek manuscripts (partial or complete documents). If you count the manuscripts that are in other languages we have 19,000 more. The earliest fragments date to within 50 years of the originals. The earliest complete copy dates to within 225 years of the original writing. The similarity between translations supports their authenticity if you look at it scientifically. By comparison Homer's Iliad has about 650 copies the newest of which is 400 years younger than the original.

Of course we are talking documents. Recognizing the Word of God as you read it is something entirely different.

As far as the various digs at the Christian doctrine of the Trinity all I can say is that when you criticize something that you don't understand you sound foolish or at best like you are setting up a straw man.

 

[Mutt x]

^+1 to Chunky's last post

 

[AbdullahG]

I am not criticizing the Bible in a sense that it is unholy. The truth is, it has been altered by man, but not to the extent that is is a completely different Book (I believe there are only small changes). Like I said many times, everyone has a different point of view on religion. I accept your view that you do find it hard to believe that the Quran has been unaltered, but yes, it is a matter of faith. Not everyone can agree on one point of view or one idea, and let's just leave it at that. Let's not be close-minded.

By the way, this is the article that talks about the Bible of today differing from that of the older versions:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-06/world/ancient.bible.online_1_codex-sinaiticus-constantine-tischendorf-new-testament?_s=PM:WORLD

 

[AbdullahG]

The only human alteration of the Quran is the order of Surahs. This is acceptable, as the text itself remains the same. The order tends to be based on the size and length of the Surah. It's still the same meaning, which is the most important factor.

Allah in the days before Islam referred to, not all the gods of the polytheistic Arabs, but to the all creator (of the world and of the other gods). The word itself mean's "God." It is used in the context of the Quran to refer to one God. In English, you do not say "Allah" as that is an Arabic word. "God" makes sense.

 

[chunkymonster]

The Qur'an is the most memorised book in the world and this is due to the poetic way its written in.The period and culture it was revealed in used poetry as its media. New's and Entertainment were provided by poets just like how nowadays we have the internet and television.

The arabic prose it is written in is unique and inimmitable. Google 'Fake Surahs' or 'Fake Qurans'. People can easily point out a fake verse from a genuine one because of the way its written. The oldest copy is 500 years old and contains no differences.

I understand the importance of and reverence given to the Classical Arabic that the Koran is spoken in. I admire the oral tradition, really amazing when you think about it, and realize it has a tremendous influence on Muslim society and culture. So, I'm sure you can appreciate that all cultures and tribes throughout history share a similar oral tradition. I suppose what I really don't understand is the perceived notion that because of the strong Muslim oral tradition that the Koran is some how more valid than words recorded on papyrus, parchment, scrolls, i.e; the Torah, the Bible, the Bhagavadgītā. Do Muslims believe that the oral tradition inherently maintains a level of infallibility that is not present in other written sacred texts?

As a Christian, I will not argue the infallibility of the Bible, I'll be the first to say that the Bible was written by fallible Men. But do not overlook the obvious and fail to realize that fallible men can and have correctly recorded events and sayings throughout history. So, logically, if fallible Men have proven that they can correctly preserve sacred texts, whether in writing or as an oral tradition, then those sacred texts are infallible. This conclusion would equally apply to the Torah, Gospels, Bhagavadgītā, and Koran.

Why exactly do people call Islam a backwards religion? It's because the original message has been preserved while laws and opinions have changed around it. People see it and the followers of Islam as backwards because we refuse to change the Qur'an or change any of the laws established within it.

Backwards religion? That's just as silly as saying that Catholics practice cannibalism because of the Eucharist! I hope you agree.

Christians change religious law whenever they feel like it. When some amongst them refuse to accept, they're seen as extremists.

What?!

It's easy to see a scribe make a mistake or change it too his own end, but in its early days and even now the Qur'an is memorised word for word from generation t generation. Plus the fact that Islam is a global religion means that if one person were to change a verse someone else would eventually pick up on it and remove it.

You might want to brush up on your own history because Uthman ibn Affan commissioned a committee to standardize and make written copies of the Koran; and if I remember correctly, it is the traditionally accepted version Muslims use today. Your supposition and ignorance of your own history shows immature thinking.

Please understand that I do not intend insult, no harm no foul. Hopefully it's obvious that I am interested in learning the Muslim perspective, but I'm afraid I may get the wrong perspective if this is the discourse.

 

[chunkymonster]

I meant no harm but if telling the truth may hurt someones feelings then I believe it might be worth it.

The truth only hurts when its wielded as a weapon. Truth by the sword is no truth at all.

EDIT: I have a feeling this may/has become an Islam vs Christianity thread so we may have to start a new thread to keep this one on topic. (Sorry for possible derailment 😛)

Glad you made this edit. I would look forward to a more thoughtful and mature discourse and hope for a level of mutual understanding.

 

[AbdullahG]

I hope for understanding as well, but not to the extent where it insults others. I hope we can express our views maturely, and in a way it is seen as a personal point of view, not a "my point of view makes more sense, accept it and move on." I hate arguments as a whole, and I also hate myself for continuing/ starting one, but in most cases, starting one...

My apologies if I offended or insulted anyone in any way. I will try not to be close-minded, as should we all.

 

[AbdullahG]

If I seem to denounce a faith(s) or claim an idea to be false (I will only do this if it is false or based on invalid information), please tell me. I will not do so again.

 

[AbdullahG]

At this point, I think we should take a break from this religion matter, and focus on other things that are more important for us or to occupy ourselves in a productive way.

 

[Maziar]

Unfortunately,threads like this never go well.Feel free to talk about religion via PM's but it's better not to share such discussions in the forums because they most likely never end well.