Sunnah

[loverofhumanity]

This is a question for Muslims mostly but anyone is free to add to the discussion.

As far as I know, Islam teaches that it is the original religion as practiced by Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc. and I'm wondering how can this be, since Islam includes the sunnah of Muhammad, which surely could not have existed at the time of the Patriarchs, since Muhammad was thousands of years after them? How did they, in your belief, practice Islam?

Thanks.

Truth has always existed. Muhammad taught truth, the same truth that was taught by all the Prophets before Him. So in a sense His religion always existed.

 

[Glaurung]

Of course, you are right, but the focus of the subject matter here is Abrahamic religions and all Abrahamic religions are monotheistic in belief. Likewise, if the subject matter is chocolate, then, it’s 100 percent correct to say chocolate is confectionery, but, that would NOT be totally correct if the subject matter is confectionery.

You said:

‘Abrahamic religion’ simply mean religion that preaches the belief in only 1 God. So, on that basis, Judaism, Islam and Christianity falls under the ‘Abrahamic religion’ category.​

This is an insufficient definition because to define "Abrahamic religion" by monotheism alone implies that all monotheistic religion is Abrahamic.

Monotheism is about the belief in only 1 God and other common characterics, it’s not about traditions and different schools of thought within a particular religion.

This is not hard to understand. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not the only religions which teach the belief in one sole divinity. Some schools within Hinduism (such as Krishnaism) teach that their deity is that one and only true God. If Abrahamic religion is defined by monotheism alone then the Hare Krishna people are as per your definition followers of an Abrahamic religion as they are monotheists. Clearly then, defining Abrahamic religion by its monotheism alone is insufficient.

What you fail to see is that Jesus himself is only familiar with the Pentateuch. Jesus himself has never heard of the New Testament or the term ‘Christian/Christianity’ in his entire life on earth. So, it’s only natural for the Qur’an to assume familiarity with the Pentateuch, just as Jesus would assume familiarity with the Pentateuch every time he made references to the Scripture – I can assure you Jesus certainly was NOT making references to the NT.

Jesus (as a man) would have been familiar with the entire Hebrew Bible, not just the Pentateuch. And while the New Testament did not exist in Jesus' own lifetime it is a far closer in time and thus more trustworthy account of who Jesus was and what he said then the claimed 'revelations' of a seventh century Arabian merchant turned warlord. Muhammad's Qur'an was centuries after the fact and the only evidence you have for the Qur'an's validity is nothing but a mere claim of supernatural origin.

Islam simply means submission to the One and Only God and a Muslim is one who submits and does the Will of the One and Only God. Even Jesus’ main teaching is about submitting and doing the Will of the One and Only God. So, to say Islam assumes the Bible and are forced to reject the texts as corruptions is simply BS.

I am saying Islam as a concept makes no sense without a Biblical background.

Islam simply means submission to the One and Only God and a Muslim is one who submits and does the Will of the One and Only God. Even Jesus’ main teaching is about submitting and doing the Will of the One and Only God. So, to say Islam assumes the Bible and are forced to reject the texts as corruptions is simply BS. Fact is your own scripture affirm the scribes have been corrupting the scripture and turning it into a book of lies, and this happens as early as in the times of Jeremiah! So, it makes a lot of sense that the Bible you have today is a mixture of truth and lies. It’s sad that Christians today primarily listen and follow the words and preaching of other people rather than the words of Jesus as recorded in their own Bible.

Have you considered the possibility that Christians and Jews reject Islam not out of a denial of its "obvious" truth but rather because they don't think Muhammad's claims of divine revelation are true. The Bible even warns us of false prophets that will arise after Jesus' time. After all, Muhammad turned out to be far from the last to make claims of divine revelation. And you reject them all for much the same reasons I reject Muhammad.

 

[Starlight]

Truth has always existed. Muhammad taught truth, the same truth that was taught by all the Prophets before Him. So in a sense His religion always existed.

And what is truth? What is the truth taught by all the prophets before him?

 

[firedragon]

Some schools within Hinduism (such as Krishnaism) teach that their deity is that one and only true God.

But dont they also believe in other subordinate forms? I dont have much expertise in Hinduism, so I would like some insight.

Although, I do agree with you that calling these religions as Abrahamic religions is not because of its monotheism alone. But I must disagree with you that it means "All monotheistic religions". The Christians who started calling these religions by the term Abrahamic religions thought of the Abrahamic lineage, and also the retrospective adherence to the "religion of Abraham". It was a calling for harmony based on the primary flag of "monotheism".

This does not mean calling this means there are monotheistic religions in the Aborigine traditions down under are also called Abrahamic religions. That is the fallacy of composition. Hope you understand.

I am saying Islam as a concept makes no sense without a Biblical background.

I think you are trying to argue theology here. Fine. Why do you say as a concept it makes no sense? Can you elaborate? Be specific, and then maybe I could respond objectively as well.

Have you considered the possibility that Christians and Jews reject Islam not out of a denial of its "obvious" truth but rather because they don't think Muhammad's claims of divine revelation are true.

Well, think of this. Have you considered the possibility that Judaism and Islam both reject Christianity because the claim of divinity of any of the writers in the New Testament is rejected? Jews reject that Jesus the son of Mary was the Christ outright. They reject there is anything valid called the New Testament. They reject Christians calling their sacred scripture they believe was Gods word as "the Old Testament". They reject the concept of the trinity. Utterly.

What can anyone make of alliances like that?

Peace.

 

[JerryMyers]

Jesus (as a man) would have been familiar with the entire Hebrew Bible, not just the Pentateuch.

Of course, Jesus would be familiar with the whole Hebrew Bible/the Old Testament. To me, the Pentateuch is synonymous with the Old Testament. After all, what would the Hebrew Bible/OT be without the Pentateuch ??

And while the New Testament did not exist in Jesus' own lifetime it is a far closer in time and thus more trustworthy account of who Jesus was and what he said then the claimed 'revelations' of a seventh century Arabian merchant turned warlord. Muhammad's Qur'an was centuries after the fact and the only evidence you have for the Qur'an's validity is nothing but a mere claim of supernatural origin.

Not really. The truth is the NT is very far apart from the teaching of Jesus, at least, from the way your church and your scholars have been misinterpreting and twisting Jesus’ words of who he is.

You seem to be under the false impression that because the Quran was revealed to Muhammad centuries after Jesus, Muhammad, therefore, cannot be a true prophet and the Quran is a false revelation. Such a narrow mind is what prevents you from seeing the truth. Do you know how many years apart is there between Moses and Jesus ?? It’s more than 1000 years! So does that make Jesus a false prophet and the Gospel he received and preached a false gospel ??

I am saying Islam as a concept makes no sense without a Biblical background.
Have you considered the possibility that Christians and Jews reject Islam not out of a denial of its "obvious" truth but rather because they don't think Muhammad's claims of divine revelation are true.

Well, firstly, the Jews rejected Jesus, so, it’s expected that the Jews would also reject Muhammad as Muhammad himself has never rejected Jesus Christ.

So, which part of God’s divine Revelation to Muhammad does the Christians reject ?? That the Quran reveals the trinity is a false doctrine ?? Why would the Christians reject that divine Revelation to Muhammad? Have you considered the trinity as a false doctrine as logic and common sense will tell you that if the trinity is true, then, why was the trinity never preached by Jesus nor any other prophets ?? The trinity as a concept makes no sense without the preaching from Jesus or the other prophets – the only thing that makes sense about the trinity is that it’s a man-made concept, just like the original sin.

The Bible even warns us of false prophets that will arise after Jesus' time.

Yes, Jesus did warn us, but why did the Christians ignore his warning?

Jesus said, “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah/Christ,’ and will deceive many.” – Matthew 24:4-5.

Well, the deceiver Jesus was talking about here CANNOT be Muhammad as Muhammad never claimed he came in Jesus’ name nor did he ever claimed he’s the Christ. So, who was Jesus referring to in Matthew 24:4-5? I will tell you – the only deceiver as recorded (in your Bible) who fit the description of the one who will come after Jesus and claimed he’s Jesus Christ is that character who appeared to Paul on that wilderness road to Damascus (Acts 9) – can you think of anyone else who came after Jesus claiming he’s Jesus Christ ? No, I don’t think so.

After all, Muhammad turned out to be far from the last to make claims of divine revelation. And you reject them all for much the same reasons I reject Muhammad.

Not really. Who do you think I rejected ? Jesus Christ? Never said I reject Jesus Christ, now did I ? I only reject the lies of your church, scholars, priests who said Jesus is God. In your own Bible, did God Almighty say or imply Jesus is God the Son ? Nope ! Did Jesus himself say or imply he’s God the Son? Nope !
So, who do you really listen to – God Almighty, His prophet, Jesus Christ or the words of other people?

 

[Glaurung]

But dont they also believe in other subordinate forms? I dont have much expertise in Hinduism, so I would like some insight.

That depends on what Hindu religion you're talking about. The particular sect I mentioned (as an example of a monotheistic Hinduism) worship Krishna as the sole true God. The other deities like Vishnu and Rama are either manifestations of Krishna or demigods equivalent to angels; creatures dependent on God. ISKCON are the most famous proponents of that particular religion.

I think you are trying to argue theology here. Fine. Why do you say as a concept it makes no sense? Can you elaborate? Be specific, and then maybe I could respond objectively as well.

A religion like Islam could not have emerged in a culture that lacked extensive influence from Judaism and Christianity. Islam trades on concepts that would make little to no sense without the context of Biblical religion. Heck, much of the Qur'an itself is but paraphrased reiterations of Biblical stories. Adam, Abraham, Jacob, Issac and Ishmael, Moses and Jesus... Who would any of those people be to anyone without at least an indirect knowledge of the Bible? What would a claim to being the 'Seal of the Prophets' even mean to a pagan without any concept of what a prophet even is?

Well, think of this. Have you considered the possibility that Judaism and Islam both reject Christianity because the claim of divinity of any of the writers in the New Testament is rejected? Jews reject that Jesus the son of Mary was the Christ outright. They reject there is anything valid called the New Testament. They reject Christians calling their sacred scripture they believe was Gods word as "the Old Testament". They reject the concept of the trinity. Utterly.

• Christianity does not claim the New Testament writers were divine. It claims the various texts in the New Testament were divinely inspired.
• What Jews object to means little to me because I don't recognize rabbinic authority. I also reject any implication that Christian use of the Old Testament is illegitimate just because some people hold to the bizarre notion that Rabbinic Judaism (which was yet far from crystalized when Christianity emerged) has some kind of exclusive right to those books as 'their' scripture. It isn't and was never exclusively 'theirs'. And I say Old Testament because what I read as a Catholic as the Old Testament differs from what Jews read as the Tanakh. The Catholic canon is not the same.

But more importantly you miss the point. My argument there was not that Christianity is true, but that grand assertions that the Christian Bible contains corruptions and lies because Islam says so does not mean much unless you are already convinced of Islam's validity. Islam is true because Islam is true is not an argument.

 

[firedragon]

That depends on what Hindu religion you're talking about.

Specifically "Krishnaism". If you read the post I responded to you would understand why I asked this question. And you would understand that if there are any other deities whatsoever, it is not monotheism.

The other deities

In monotheism that we are talking about, there are no "other deities".

A religion like Islam could not have emerged in a culture that lacked extensive influence from Judaism and Christianity. Islam trades on concepts that would make little to no sense without the context of Biblical religion. Heck, much of the Qur'an itself is but paraphrased reiterations of Biblical stories. Adam, Abraham, Jacob, Issac and Ishmael, Moses and Jesus... Who would any of those people be to anyone without at least an indirect knowledge of the Bible? What would a claim to being the 'Seal of the Prophets' even mean to a pagan without any concept of what a prophet even is?

See, you just repeated what you said brother. You didnt give specific reasoning but just repeated what you said earlier. Only lengthily.

Why is the question!

Christianity does not claim the New Testament writers were divine. It claims the various texts in the New Testament were divinely inspired.

Right. So Jews deny that anything in the NT was "Divinely Inspired".

What Jews object to means little to me because I don't recognize rabbinic authority.

Of course. Same thing. You just proved the point.

But more importantly you miss the point. My argument there was not that Christianity is true, but that grand assertions that the Christian Bible contains corruptions and lies because Islam says so does not mean much unless you are already convinced of Islam's validity. Islam is true because Islam is true is not an argument.

So how is that relevant? Please enlighten me.

If you wish another thread with this particular topic could be opened in order to examine further.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And what is truth? What is the truth taught by all the prophets before him?

Many. One God. That we are spiritual beings. To do good.