• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Questions for Muslims

Raahim

مكتوب
Jesus never said he was Muslim either, did he?

Also @tonorrows_child, I have already said.

1.provide me with non Islamic evidence that Jesus was a Muslim.

I think many people have problems with understanding the term Muslim, it's not equal to terms Jew or Christian because those terms describe specific groups of people.
Jews are Muslims because they acknowledge God's existence and believe in Him and they are submissive to His will. It roughly a term like "spiritual/religious" it's not strictly describing a follower of Islam but a believer in God however in today's time it is only used for followers of Islam but core word is for everyone who believe in God.


Edit: Personal knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong
 

OurCreed

There is no God but Allah
Early religious inscriptions mentioned God, but not Muhammed and used the term mu'minun rather than Muslim.

(There are early non-Islamic sources that mention Muhammed by name though, but not are aware that the Arabs are 'Muslim' they use Saracen, Hagarene, etc. for the best part of a century after being conquered by 'Muslims')

*copy/pasted from an earlier post*


Purely in terms of physical evidence, they called themselves believers (mu'minun). For example:

21425915ds.jpg


(It's Greek because Arabic wasn't adopted as the official language until Abd al-Malik's era)

  1. In the days of the servant of God Muʿāwiya (abdalla Maavia), the commander
  2. of the faithful (amēra almoumenēn) the hot baths of the
  3. people there were saved and rebuilt
  4. by ʿAbd Allāh son of Abū Hāshim (Abouasemou), the
  5. governor, on the fifth of the month of December,
  6. on the second day (of the week), in the 6th year of the indiction,
  7. in the year 726 of the colony, according to the Arabs (kata Arabas) the 42nd year,
  8. for the healing of the sick, under the care of Ioannes,
  9. the official of Gadara.
Interestingly, the person who made this inscription had time to carve a cross at the very beginning, but didn't see fit to carve Muhammed's name.

"But outside the Qurʾān, the word Islam, as a name of the religion, appears for the first time on the tombstone of a woman named ʿAbbāsa dated 71AH/ 691 CE.3 There, the Believers are called ahl al-islām. The first definitely datable evidence of the usage of the word muslimūn, in the sense of adherents of Islam, is from 123 Ah / 741 Ce,4 although it was prob- ably used widely even before that.5 Thus, the change from a “community of Believers to [a] community of Muslims”6 was a rather slow one, at least appellation- wise. Islam seems to have been a distinct religion from early on, but it took some decades, if not more, for its characteristics to become shaped."
(Muhājirūn as a Name for the First/ Seventh Century Muslims - Illka Lindstedt)

That's because the Qur'an actually referred to the followers of Muhammad as "believers", which means Mu'min. I am fairly positive that people did not call themselves "Muslim" back then like they do today in comparison with other religions. The Arabs referred to themselves as believers, just as the Qur'an calls them. This usage of the word "Muslim" has most likely began in circulation many years afterwards, and today it's become modern practice to refer to yourself as Muslim and a follower of Islam.

The Qur'an uses the word Islam only 10 times, and refers to it as a state of submission.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Human actions have absolutely NOTHING to do with the principles prescribed by religion. That's a logical fallacy at that.

Do you think that religion provides humans with any benefits?
 
That's because the Qur'an actually referred to the followers of Muhammad as "believers", which means Mu'min. I am fairly positive that people did not call themselves "Muslim" back then like they do today in comparison with other religions. The Arabs referred to themselves as believers, just as the Qur'an calls them. This usage of the word "Muslim" has most likely began in circulation many years afterwards, and today it's become modern practice to refer to yourself as Muslim and a follower of Islam.

The Qur'an uses the word Islam only 10 times, and refers to it as a state of submission.

I pretty much agree.

I think Muhammed's community of mu'minun didn't become theologically distinct until later though. The Arab conquerers were not clearly 'Islamic' and contained many Christian and Jewish monotheists.

I believe Muhammed had a specific message though (probably eschatological), but that the clear distinction of Islam as opposed to Christianity or Judaism took longer to emerge and reify.

Sort of like how it took time for Christianity to emerge as distinct from Judaism. The clear boundaries that we have today likely didn't exist back then.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Everything else you are saying is irrelevant. I never said the Qur'an talking about itself is evidence. But it is a point to note that the Qur'an ain't just a book that says a bunch of things and goes away. It's a book that has prepared itself for people coming on to refute its words.

If you come to the book with an open mind, neither a believer nor a non-believer, whenever the book proactively defends itself, such defenses indicate weakness, not strength.

God is merciful, but He is also just.

If you read the book from a neutral perspective, you will NOT conclude that the God described is merciful. Quite the opposite in fact.
 

Raahim

مكتوب
If you come to the book with an open mind, neither a believer nor a non-believer, whenever the book proactively defends itself, such defenses indicate weakness, not strength.



If you read the book from a neutral perspective, you will NOT conclude that the God described is merciful. Quite the opposite in fact.

Define neutral perspective you can't really read such books with neutral lens (or just read it) you have to study it and go deep into it to get the message. You can't read Quran same as you read for e.g Game of Thrones
 

OurCreed

There is no God but Allah
If you come to the book with an open mind, neither a believer nor a non-believer, whenever the book proactively defends itself, such defenses indicate weakness, not strength.



If you read the book from a neutral perspective, you will NOT conclude that the God described is merciful. Quite the opposite in fact.

"If you come to the book with an open mind, neither a believer nor a non-believer, whenever the book proactively defends itself, such defenses indicate weakness, not strength."

I can easily test this by looking at another book aside from the Qur'an. If I see that this book speaks of itself and knowingly provides arguments that people will raise in the future, I will take that as strength, not weakness. Any book written by any author today, if they adequately provide arguments and explanations from its own text, refuting the allegations without needing any people to add words to it, then it's a well written book!

"If you read the book from a neutral perspective, you will NOT conclude that the God described is merciful. Quite the opposite in fact."

From the way the Qur'an is written, you would. Every chapter starts with "In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful." Even if we omitted mercy, we still have His other abundant attributes to come to an understanding of what God is.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Define neutral perspective you can't really read such books with neutral lens (or just read it) you have to study it and go deep into it to get the message. You can't read Quran same as you read for e.g Game of Thrones

Wait, just a few posts ago OurCreed (a Muslim), said this:

The Qur'an says in chapter 3, verse 7, that the majority of its verses are clear and straightforward. There is no ambiguity in them. So the translations will make it easy, there is no need to go deep into the text to figure out what the Qur'an is saying.

I think you guys should sort this out and let us know whether the book is clear and straightforward, or whether you have to study it and go deep. ;)
 

OurCreed

There is no God but Allah
Wait, just a few posts ago OurCreed (a Muslim), said this:



I think you guys should sort this out and let us know whether the book is clear and straightforward, or whether you have to study it and go deep. ;)

Instead of pointing out contradictions between multiple posters, maybe you should respond to my answers and not dodge.
 

OurCreed

There is no God but Allah
Ok, so are you saying that we can give religion credit for good stuff, but we can't blame it for bad stuff? I want that kind of job :)

Did I say that? I said it depends on the religion. You asked a generalized question, painting all religions with the same brush. You can't do that.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
"If you come to the book with an open mind, neither a believer nor a non-believer, whenever the book proactively defends itself, such defenses indicate weakness, not strength."

I can easily test this by looking at another book aside from the Qur'an. If I see that this book speaks of itself and knowingly provides arguments that people will raise in the future, I will take that as strength, not weakness. Any book written by any author today, if they adequately provide arguments and explanations from its own text, refuting the allegations without needing any people to add words to it, then it's a well written book!

"If you read the book from a neutral perspective, you will NOT conclude that the God described is merciful. Quite the opposite in fact."

From the way the Qur'an is written, you would. Every chapter starts with "In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful." Even if we omitted mercy, we still have His other abundant attributes to come to an understanding of what God is.

I agree that the book frequently declares that Allah is merciful. It's simply that many other parts of the book demonstrate that he is NOT merciful. To take one example, if I end up in hell (which I don't believe, but hypothetically), then he won't have been merciful to me. Because he gave me a brain that cherishes evidence and reason, and apparently he'll torture me for not believing the incredible claims of Muslims, even though they provide no evidence. Sorry, that's not merciful.
 

Raahim

مكتوب
Wait, just a few posts ago OurCreed (a Muslim), said this:



I think you guys should sort this out and let us know whether the book is clear and straightforward, or whether you have to study it and go deep. ;)

Ever heard of opinion? It really depends what you want to make out of Quran you can read it on surface and you'll get the message but to truly understand and see how things really work you need to study it deeply within Arabic language, no translations will be sufficient for that in my opinion. On surface a verse might look violent but diving deeper you'll see that it really isn't, same goes for Torah.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Did I say that? I said it depends on the religion. You asked a generalized question, painting all religions with the same brush. You can't do that.

Ok, how about just Islam - do you think Islam provides any benefits to humans? Second question about Islam, do you think that when innocents are murdered in the name of Islam, Islam should take some of the blame?
 

Raahim

مكتوب
Ok, how about just Islam - do you think Islam provides any benefits to humans? Second question about Islam, do you think that when innocents are murdered in the name of Islam, Islam should take some of the blame?

I have to jump in and say no, Islam should not take any kind of blame for innocent murders and that goes for every monotheistic religion. People twist the verses to their needs and ignorance is the enemy not the religion.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Instead of pointing out contradictions between multiple posters, maybe you should respond to my answers and not dodge.

What question of yours have I not responded to - I will respond in a timely fashion.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I have to jump in and say no, Islam should not take any kind of blame for innocent murders and that goes for every monotheistic religion. People twist the verses to their needs and ignorance is the enemy not the religion.

Then I'll ask you the same question: Do you think Islam provides any benefits to humans?
 

OurCreed

There is no God but Allah
Ok, how about just Islam - do you think Islam provides any benefits to humans? Second question about Islam, do you think that when innocents are murdered in the name of Islam, Islam should take some of the blame?

1) Islam means submission. It's a state a person gets when they are doing acts which are in accordance with God's will. Anyone can be considered a Muslim in God's eyes if their actions are in accordance with God's will, even an atheist. Islam is what will bring a person to heaven, not anything else. If a Christian, Jew, Hindu, or atheist ends up in heaven, it's not because of their own religious beliefs, but it is because their actions were approved by God in their life on earth, and God considered them Muslims. Heaven is the ultimate benefit for humans, so everything below that follows suit.

2) You mean should the Qur'an take blame. And the answer is no. The Qur'an clearly rejects murder for innocents The blame should always lie on the person(s) doing the crimes.
 
Top