Sunnah

[sun rise]

Islam includes the sunnah of Muhammad

Quran only Muslims would disagree. Quranism - Wikipedia

How would that be 'the same' religion though? If you took Christianity and eliminated half the practices and beliefs, it would no longer be Christianity.

What practices and beliefs? Shi'a, Sunni and other groups have different beliefs and practices to a greater or lesser degree. Sufis who are aligned with Islam often note that the Quran has an inner meaning distinct from the outer meaning.

Early Christians worshiped in houses not churches. Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christians have very different practices.

And it was not until the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed that beliefs were codified.

To use Judaism as another example, what are the "practices and beliefs" of practitioners of Judaism from ultra Orthodox to Reform. And where does the belief in reincarnation from Kabbalah fit in with Jewish belief?

 

[Rival]

Quran only Muslims would disagree. Quranism - Wikipedia

Yes, I know about Quranis, I'm talking about mainstream Islam, both Sunni and Shia.

What practices and beliefs? Shi'a, Sunni and other groups have different beliefs and practices to a greater or lesser degree. Sufis who are aligned with Islam often note that the Quran has an inner meaning distinct from the outer meaning.

Whichever, both have strict methods on how one should pray, when they should pray, fast, etc.

My question is pretty simple: If Islam is the original religion as the Qur'an appears to claim, how did the sunnah exist before Muhammad?

 

[Augustus]

Abraham was considered a 'hanif', a term with disputed meaning (no time to write more so lengthy quote will have to do , attached another article too that discusses disputed meanings)

Jewish sources, like the Babylonian Talmud, Josephus (d. ca. 100 CE), Jubilees, and Christian sources like Sozomenos of Gaza (d. ca. 450) attest to the fact that Arabians in the late antique period were increasingly abandoning pagan cults and developing a religious lifestyle more akin to that of Jews and Christians prior to Islam in which Abraham and Ishmael played a major role.74 According to the Qur’ān, the h. unafā’ of the H. ijāz came to view Abraham as the earliest hanif since he came before both Hebrew and Christian scripture—vindicating him from the heretical stain latent of the h. anpē in the Aramaic sphere. It informs us that he was not one of the mushrikūn.75 It states,

Abraham was neither a Jew (yahūdiyyan) nor a Christian (nas.rāniyyan) but was rather a Hanafite-Muslim (h. anīfan musliman). And he was not one of the polytheists (mushrikūn).

(Q 3:67: see also Q 2:135, 140; 3:64)76

Firstly, The use of muslim in Q 3:67 clearly does not indicate a confessional identity, but rather an adjectival or adverbial qualifier to h.anīf.77 Abraham was, therefore, the symbolic founder of the most basic, non-denominational prophetic tradition—Hanifism. In addition, this verse is an emendation to the views espoused in Paul’s Letters where Abraham is portrayed as the paragon of faith.78 Paul’s emphasis on Abraham’s faith, his abolishment of circumcision (Romans 4:1–25), his criticism of Jewish Law and his nullification of Jewish superiority over hea- thens (Galatians 3:6–29), was re-articulated by the Qur’ān to give credence to the h. unafā’ (see in relation Chapter 3). It states,

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen [‘ammā] through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham . . . that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ . . . There is neither Hebrew nor Gentile [armāyā] . . . for ye are all one in Jesus Christ.

(Galatians 3:8–28)

Q 3:67’s reply to Galatians 8:29 is dogmatic by further limiting Paul’s language to give preeminence, not to Christianity, but toa newer prophetic tradition associ- ated with the h.unafā’.79 Abraham was, therefore, neither a Jew nor a Christian, but rather a heathen (‘ammā), gentile (armāyā) who was—all the while—not a polytheist, that is, a Hanafite-Muslim.80 Moreoever, the Qur’ān rejects Paul’s per- ception of Abraham, that “God would justify a heathen through faith,” adding at the end of Q 3:67—almost as an afterthought—that “he was not one of the polytheists.” It may even have been the case that the idea of religious disassocia- tion was—in part—inspired by an interpretation of Paul’s description of Abraham which imbued his heathen and gentile qualities in a positive light.

Still, some h.unafā’ succumbed to the proselytization of their revivalist Chris- tian compatriots by converting to Christianity. In relation to this point, Lüling sees Hanifism as the oldest form of Christianity in Arabia, which he describes as an anti- trinitarian heresy;81 Abū Zayd sees Hanifism not as a step backward from Judeo- Christian prophetic tradition but rather as a midway point in the transition of the Arabian peoples away from idol worship towards Christianity.82 Included among the ranks of the h. unafā’ were: Waraqah b. Nawfal, the priestly cousin of Muh. ammad’s first wife Khadījah; his companions‘ Uthmānb. H. uwayrith,‘ UbaydAllāhb.Jah.sh...

Many hunafā’ who did not convert to Christianity may have taken a new path— islām. One hanīf in particular, who possessed all the marks of a leader, was not satisfied with the relative indifference of Hanifism towards the social injustice of tribal society and its political irrelevance. Nor was he about to simply give in to Christianity. Empowered by the sectarian dialogue of the late antique Near East (Q 22:17), sensitized by deep mystical reflection (Q 53:1–18), dismayed by the social injustice of his tribal society (Q 4:2–10; 5:89; 81:8–10; and so on), and emboldened by the rise of an Arabian ethnic consciousness (Q 41:44; 42:47)86 Muh.ammad b. ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abd al-Mut.t.alib (ca. 570–632) of the Quraysh tribe “rose up” against the corruption of his society, like a prophet straight of out of the Bible (cf. Q 73; 74; Isaiah 51; Jeremiah 1:17; Psalms 88; Ephesians 5:14). He channeled his divine insights and compassion for society’s downtrod- den (see Chapter 3) into an ambitious, unprecedented project that would unite not merely all the churches of the Near East, but consolidate the entire religious fabric of the region and beyond into a world empire

Quran and the Aramaic Gospel traditions - E El-Badawi

 

[Rival]

Abraham was considered a 'hanif', a term with disputed meaning (no time to write more so lengthy quote will have to do , attached another article too that discusses disputed meanings)

Jewish sources, like the Babylonian Talmud, Josephus (d. ca. 100 CE), Jubilees, and Christian sources like Sozomenos of Gaza (d. ca. 450) attest to the fact that Arabians in the late antique period were increasingly abandoning pagan cults and developing a religious lifestyle more akin to that of Jews and Christians prior to Islam in which Abraham and Ishmael played a major role.74 According to the Qur’ān, the h. unafā’ of the H. ijāz came to view Abraham as the earliest hanif since he came before both Hebrew and Christian scripture—vindicating him from the heretical stain latent of the h. anpē in the Aramaic sphere. It informs us that he was not one of the mushrikūn.75 It states,

Abraham was neither a Jew (yahūdiyyan) nor a Christian (nas.rāniyyan) but was rather a Hanafite-Muslim (h. anīfan musliman). And he was not one of the polytheists (mushrikūn).

(Q 3:67: see also Q 2:135, 140; 3:64)76

Firstly, The use of muslim in Q 3:67 clearly does not indicate a confessional identity, but rather an adjectival or adverbial qualifier to h.anīf.77 Abraham was, therefore, the symbolic founder of the most basic, non-denominational prophetic tradition—Hanifism. In addition, this verse is an emendation to the views espoused in Paul’s Letters where Abraham is portrayed as the paragon of faith.78 Paul’s emphasis on Abraham’s faith, his abolishment of circumcision (Romans 4:1–25), his criticism of Jewish Law and his nullification of Jewish superiority over hea- thens (Galatians 3:6–29), was re-articulated by the Qur’ān to give credence to the h. unafā’ (see in relation Chapter 3). It states,

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen [‘ammā] through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham . . . that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ . . . There is neither Hebrew nor Gentile [armāyā] . . . for ye are all one in Jesus Christ.

(Galatians 3:8–28)

Q 3:67’s reply to Galatians 8:29 is dogmatic by further limiting Paul’s language to give preeminence, not to Christianity, but toa newer prophetic tradition associ- ated with the h.unafā’.79 Abraham was, therefore, neither a Jew nor a Christian, but rather a heathen (‘ammā), gentile (armāyā) who was—all the while—not a polytheist, that is, a Hanafite-Muslim.80 Moreoever, the Qur’ān rejects Paul’s per- ception of Abraham, that “God would justify a heathen through faith,” adding at the end of Q 3:67—almost as an afterthought—that “he was not one of the polytheists.” It may even have been the case that the idea of religious disassocia- tion was—in part—inspired by an interpretation of Paul’s description of Abraham which imbued his heathen and gentile qualities in a positive light.

Still, some h.unafā’ succumbed to the proselytization of their revivalist Chris- tian compatriots by converting to Christianity. In relation to this point, Lüling sees Hanifism as the oldest form of Christianity in Arabia, which he describes as an anti- trinitarian heresy;81 Abū Zayd sees Hanifism not as a step backward from Judeo- Christian prophetic tradition but rather as a midway point in the transition of the Arabian peoples away from idol worship towards Christianity.82 Included among the ranks of the h. unafā’ were: Waraqah b. Nawfal, the priestly cousin of Muh. ammad’s first wife Khadījah; his companions‘ Uthmānb. H. uwayrith,‘ UbaydAllāhb.Jah.sh...

Many hunafā’ who did not convert to Christianity may have taken a new path— islām. One hanīf in particular, who possessed all the marks of a leader, was not satisfied with the relative indifference of Hanifism towards the social injustice of tribal society and its political irrelevance. Nor was he about to simply give in to Christianity. Empowered by the sectarian dialogue of the late antique Near East (Q 22:17), sensitized by deep mystical reflection (Q 53:1–18), dismayed by the social injustice of his tribal society (Q 4:2–10; 5:89; 81:8–10; and so on), and emboldened by the rise of an Arabian ethnic consciousness (Q 41:44; 42:47)86 Muh.ammad b. ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abd al-Mut.t.alib (ca. 570–632) of the Quraysh tribe “rose up” against the corruption of his society, like a prophet straight of out of the Bible (cf. Q 73; 74; Isaiah 51; Jeremiah 1:17; Psalms 88; Ephesians 5:14). He channeled his divine insights and compassion for society’s downtrod- den (see Chapter 3) into an ambitious, unprecedented project that would unite not merely all the churches of the Near East, but consolidate the entire religious fabric of the region and beyond into a world empire

Quran and the Aramaic Gospel traditions - E El-Badawi

Thanks, this is the kind of thing I'm looking for.

I'm really interested in sort of the Qur'an vs the ahadith, to put it crudely, because the one seems much older than the other and I'm interested in the traditions brought forward in the Qur'an and how the ahadith added to them - so what were proto-Muslims (so to speak) doing in the interim or 'pre-Sahih-Hadith' period.

 

[exchemist]

Abraham was considered a 'hanif', a term with disputed meaning (no time to write more so lengthy quote will have to do , attached another article too that discusses disputed meanings)

Jewish sources, like the Babylonian Talmud, Josephus (d. ca. 100 CE), Jubilees, and Christian sources like Sozomenos of Gaza (d. ca. 450) attest to the fact that Arabians in the late antique period were increasingly abandoning pagan cults and developing a religious lifestyle more akin to that of Jews and Christians prior to Islam in which Abraham and Ishmael played a major role.74 According to the Qur’ān, the h. unafā’ of the H. ijāz came to view Abraham as the earliest hanif since he came before both Hebrew and Christian scripture—vindicating him from the heretical stain latent of the h. anpē in the Aramaic sphere. It informs us that he was not one of the mushrikūn.75 It states,

Abraham was neither a Jew (yahūdiyyan) nor a Christian (nas.rāniyyan) but was rather a Hanafite-Muslim (h. anīfan musliman). And he was not one of the polytheists (mushrikūn).

(Q 3:67: see also Q 2:135, 140; 3:64)76

Firstly, The use of muslim in Q 3:67 clearly does not indicate a confessional identity, but rather an adjectival or adverbial qualifier to h.anīf.77 Abraham was, therefore, the symbolic founder of the most basic, non-denominational prophetic tradition—Hanifism. In addition, this verse is an emendation to the views espoused in Paul’s Letters where Abraham is portrayed as the paragon of faith.78 Paul’s emphasis on Abraham’s faith, his abolishment of circumcision (Romans 4:1–25), his criticism of Jewish Law and his nullification of Jewish superiority over hea- thens (Galatians 3:6–29), was re-articulated by the Qur’ān to give credence to the h. unafā’ (see in relation Chapter 3). It states,

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen [‘ammā] through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham . . . that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ . . . There is neither Hebrew nor Gentile [armāyā] . . . for ye are all one in Jesus Christ.

(Galatians 3:8–28)

Q 3:67’s reply to Galatians 8:29 is dogmatic by further limiting Paul’s language to give preeminence, not to Christianity, but toa newer prophetic tradition associ- ated with the h.unafā’.79 Abraham was, therefore, neither a Jew nor a Christian, but rather a heathen (‘ammā), gentile (armāyā) who was—all the while—not a polytheist, that is, a Hanafite-Muslim.80 Moreoever, the Qur’ān rejects Paul’s per- ception of Abraham, that “God would justify a heathen through faith,” adding at the end of Q 3:67—almost as an afterthought—that “he was not one of the polytheists.” It may even have been the case that the idea of religious disassocia- tion was—in part—inspired by an interpretation of Paul’s description of Abraham which imbued his heathen and gentile qualities in a positive light.

Still, some h.unafā’ succumbed to the proselytization of their revivalist Chris- tian compatriots by converting to Christianity. In relation to this point, Lüling sees Hanifism as the oldest form of Christianity in Arabia, which he describes as an anti- trinitarian heresy;81 Abū Zayd sees Hanifism not as a step backward from Judeo- Christian prophetic tradition but rather as a midway point in the transition of the Arabian peoples away from idol worship towards Christianity.82 Included among the ranks of the h. unafā’ were: Waraqah b. Nawfal, the priestly cousin of Muh. ammad’s first wife Khadījah; his companions‘ Uthmānb. H. uwayrith,‘ UbaydAllāhb.Jah.sh...

Many hunafā’ who did not convert to Christianity may have taken a new path— islām. One hanīf in particular, who possessed all the marks of a leader, was not satisfied with the relative indifference of Hanifism towards the social injustice of tribal society and its political irrelevance. Nor was he about to simply give in to Christianity. Empowered by the sectarian dialogue of the late antique Near East (Q 22:17), sensitized by deep mystical reflection (Q 53:1–18), dismayed by the social injustice of his tribal society (Q 4:2–10; 5:89; 81:8–10; and so on), and emboldened by the rise of an Arabian ethnic consciousness (Q 41:44; 42:47)86 Muh.ammad b. ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abd al-Mut.t.alib (ca. 570–632) of the Quraysh tribe “rose up” against the corruption of his society, like a prophet straight of out of the Bible (cf. Q 73; 74; Isaiah 51; Jeremiah 1:17; Psalms 88; Ephesians 5:14). He channeled his divine insights and compassion for society’s downtrod- den (see Chapter 3) into an ambitious, unprecedented project that would unite not merely all the churches of the Near East, but consolidate the entire religious fabric of the region and beyond into a world empire

Quran and the Aramaic Gospel traditions - E El-Badawi

Extremely illuminating. Thanks for this.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

Among Muslims there are different understanding regarding this.

I have seen some Muslims believe Jesus or Prophets before Him, were worshiping God exactly same as Muhammad, in a sense they had exactly same Salaat, or fasting Laws.

However, when we look at the Quran, it says God had asked Jews to follow Sabbath Law. Yet, Muhammad did not ask His followers to keep the Sabbath.
This tells us, what Muhammad was revealing in the Quran, is not a claim that all Prophets asked their followers the same exact Laws and ordinances. What Muhammad must mean is, all prophets taught Submission to will of God. He called this behavior Islam, or Submission.

 

[Clara Tea]

The Christian and Muslim religions are spinoffs of the Jewish religion. As such, they believe in the teachings of the old testament. Muslims also believe in Jesus. Essentially, both Christians and Muslims are some form of Jew (not ethnically, but religiously). Both Christians and Muslims might be offended by this.

Many Christians insist that Jesus was not Jewish, pointing out that he was the first Christian. But, Jesus was Jewish and was very likely circumcised. Jesus undoubtedly spoke Hebrew (among many other languages). Jesus brought the Jewish religion to non-Jews, and without the requirement of a bris, without the requirement to grow the hair long on the corners of the head (sideburns...payot), and Christians don't have restrictions on eating pork (though Muslims do). Jews and Muslims also drain the blood to make Kosher and Halal meats, respectively. They also require a holy man to inspect the food production processes.

Jews were instructed "eye for an eye" and Christians were instructed "turn the other cheek." Both were instructed "thou shalt not kill" (which makes modern wars so puzzling). It would appear that God had different instructions for different people at different times. That is, Jews needed to fight to stay alive (dominated and enslaved), but modern Christians are in charge of nuclear weapons so they have to restrain themselves. This made the actions of President George W. Bush all the more puzzling as he said things like "nukes are not off the table." Meaning, of course, that he was ready to nuke Iraq.

Each religion seems intent on siting the differences in their respective religions, rather than focusing on the points of commonality. Surely it is God's will to get along and not kill.

 

[exchemist]

The Christian and Muslim religions are spinoffs of the Jewish religion. As such, they believe in the teachings of the old testament. Muslims also believe in Jesus. Essentially, both Christians and Muslims are some form of Jew (not ethnically, but religiously). Both Christians and Muslims might be offended by this.

Many Christians insist that Jesus was not Jewish, pointing out that he was the first Christian. But, Jesus was Jewish and was very likely circumcised. Jesus undoubtedly spoke Hebrew (among many other languages). Jesus brought the Jewish religion to non-Jews, and without the requirement of a bris, without the requirement to grow the hair long on the corners of the head (sideburns...payot), and Christians don't have restrictions on eating pork (though Muslims do). Jews and Muslims also drain the blood to make Kosher and Halal meats, respectively. They also require a holy man to inspect the food production processes.

Jews were instructed "eye for an eye" and Christians were instructed "turn the other cheek." Both were instructed "thou shalt not kill" (which makes modern wars so puzzling). It would appear that God had different instructions for different people at different times. That is, Jews needed to fight to stay alive (dominated and enslaved), but modern Christians are in charge of nuclear weapons so they have to restrain themselves. This made the actions of President George W. Bush all the more puzzling as he said things like "nukes are not off the table." Meaning, of course, that he was ready to nuke Iraq.

Each religion seems intent on siting the differences in their respective religions, rather than focusing on the points of commonality. Surely it is God's will to get along and not kill.

This doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the question that was asked.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

I would be interested to hear from Muslims and don’t have much knowledge about different streams of thought within Islam.

The obvious answer is that Islam means submission to the will of Allah or God, which of course is the religion practiced in ancient times from the time of Adam.

http://nursing.kumc.edu/Documents/son/fsep/CPS-Islam-3.pdf

The Sunnah doesn’t have the same degree of authority and authenticity as the Quran nor many of the Hadiths.

 

[robocop (actually)]

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.

Looking over your thread, it looks like no Muslims took the bait.

 

[Earthtank]

Islam includes the sunnah of Muhammad

Ill do my best to summarize what a 3 min google search could have answered for you. The word Sunnah simply means optional, they are acts Prophet Muhammad did voluntarily that are NOT obligatory upon all Muslims. If a Muslim does a Sunnah act he is rewards with good deeds however, if they do not perform them they are NOT sinful for not doing so either. Prophet Muhammad was the perfect Muslim so he went above and beyond, if Muslims decide to perform these optional acts that great for them, if they don't then, that's also perfectly fine.

 

[Earthtank]

Looking over your thread, it looks like no Muslims took the bait.

Personally, i would say they don't want to waste their time clearing upon very clear and obvious misunderstandings about their religion when, if anyone truly wanted an answer, can literally find all those answer within less than 10 mins of research. These misconceptions are nothing new and i don't blame the Muslims for not wanting to waste their time. I work night shifts and its pretty slow tonight so that's the only reason i am actually replying even though i am not a Muslim myself however, i did extensively study Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

 

[danieldemol]

The word Sunnah simply means optional

I think this is an incomplete answer.

Wikipedia states, 'In Islam, the word "sunnah" is also used to refer to religious duties that are optional, such as Sunnah salat'

Wikipedia defines Sunnah as follows;
'Sunnah (سنة [ˈsunna], plural سنن sunan [ˈsunan]) is an Arabic word that means

• "habit" or "usual practice" (USC glossary);[19] also
• "habitual practice, customary procedure or action, norm, usage sanctioned by tradition" (Wehr Dictionary);[20]
• "a body of established customs and beliefs that make up a tradition" (Oxford Islamic Studies Online);[6]
• "a path, a way, a manner of life" (M.A.Qazi).[2]
• "precedent" or "way of life" (pre-Islamic definition, Joseph Schacht and Ignác Goldziher).[21]

Its religious definition can be:

• "the Sunna of the Prophet, i.e., his sayings and doings, later established as legally binding precedents" (along with the Law established by the Koran ) (Hans Wehr);[20]
• "All of the traditions and practices of the Prophet" of Islam, "that have become models to be followed" by Muslims (M.A.Qazi);[2]
• "the body of traditional social and legal custom and practice of the Islamic community" (Encyclopædia Britannica);[22]
• "the actions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad" (Oxford Islamic Studies Online).[6]

Islam Web gives two slightly different definitions:

• "the statements, actions and approvals (or disapprovals) of Prophet Muhammad", (definition used by "legal theorists");
• "anything narrated from or about the Prophet ... either before or after he became a prophet, of his statements, actions, confirmations, biography, and his physical character and attributes," (used by scholars of hadith).[23]'

Source Sunnah - Wikipedia

As you can see it can be used to mean, Muhammad's sayings and doings, later established as legally binding (ie according to my understanding non-optional) precedents

 

[atanu]

See the Qur'an quote above.

And because Christianity makes no claim to be the original religion, but Islam makes this claim for itself in the Qur'an:

Hey Rival.

In my opinion that is a wrong opinion.

All religions do teach of ‘Subject’ that underlies space-time-objects.

"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

...

 

[Earthtank]

I think this is an incomplete answer

No, its not

 

[Samael_Khan]

Hey Rival.

In my opinion that is a wrong opinion.

All religions do teach of ‘Subject’ that underlies space-time-objects.

"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

...

Christians don't believe that Christianity is the original religion, but that it is the end of God's plan, and that people only really knew that part of the plan when Jesus walked the earth.

Islam on the other hand says that it is just confirming what previous prophets wrote and that the Bible today is corrupted, as the historical documents got certain points wrong, an example being that Ishmael was the child that Abraham tried to sacrifice, not Isaac.

Christianity did not rewrite the stories of the Torah but embraced them, even though they reinterpreted it to an extent. Islam on the other hand rewrote stories and claimed that they were the originals.

 

[atanu]

Christians don't believe that Christianity is the original religion, but that it is the end of God's plan, and that people only really knew that part of the plan when Jesus walked the earth.

Islam on the other hand says that it is just confirming what previous prophets wrote and that the Bible today is corrupted, as the historical documents got certain points wrong, an example being that Ishmael was the child that Abraham tried to sacrifice, not Isaac.

Christianity did not rewrite the stories of the Torah but embraced them, even though they reinterpreted it to an extent. Islam on the other hand rewrote stories and claimed that they were the originals.

Thank you. But. What you say applies to the fact that the Prophet also appeared temporally as did Jesus or Lord Krishna.

Your explanation does not seem to touch upon Jesus’ saying "Very truly I tell you before Abraham was born, I am!" When Hindus say that the Vedic religion is ‘sanatan’, it means the same as above — not only the religion is perennial but it underlies the space-time itself.

I understand that God is not temporal, but God is the very source of space-time (and the perennial religion).

On the other hand, all religions have taught Islam only. All religions ultimately teach surrender using different words. For Hindus it is ‘prapatti’ or ‘sharanagati’. For Christians it is ‘Thy Will be done’. All these constitute Islam only.

...

My two cents. YMMV.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Looking over your thread, it looks like no Muslims took the bait.

Looks like still no Muslims took the bait.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Thank you. But. What you say applies to the fact that the Prophet also appeared temporally as did Jesus or Lord Krishna.

Your explanation does not seem to touch upon Jesus’ saying "Very truly I tell you before Abraham was born, I am!" When Hindus say that the Vedic religion is ‘sanatan’, it means the same as above — not only the religion is perennial but it underlies the space-time itself.

I understand that God is not temporal, but God is the very source of space-time (and the perennial religion).

On the other hand, all religions have taught Islam only. All religions ultimately teach surrender using different words. For Hindus it is ‘prapatti’ or ‘sharanagati’. For Christians it is ‘Thy Will be done’. All these constitute Islam only.

...

My two cents. YMMV.

I am talking about what each religion says about itself. You can believe the above, but that isn't what those religions say. Those religions are very different to each other too, as one cannot base what the religion says on proof texting, as it ignores the context of the scriptures.

 

[firedragon]

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.

There are a few things that you should understand in they discourse.

One is, the Quran does not anywhere mention anything about "Sunnah of Muhammed", but rather it only mentions "Sunnathullah" or the Sunnah of God.

Second thing is Sunnah by definition is not fardh or God given mandatory instructions. Some Muslims of course take Sunnah very seriously and they consider it God given mandatory instructions, but what I am saying is that it is Fardh by definition, not by practice. Thus, you cannot objectively say "this is Islam" because the Quran is the criterion, the yardstick, the Furqan.

The concept of Sunnah in any Muslim school of thought is the Sunnah of the prophet, not Muhammed. It so happens that Muhammed is the prophet who Muslims are closest to because he was recent. The Muslims who were close to Abraham would have followed his Sunnah. I am trying to explain the concept of Sunnah. The Muslims who propagate Sunnathul Rasool take verses from the Quran that says "Atiullah, atiul rasool" which means "Obey God, obey the messenger" which obviously does not say "Obey Muhammed". Thus, it is wrong to say that Islam with Quran and Sunnah means obey Muhammed. It is only logical that Muhammed is the last Nabi, thus it is his Sunnah muslims follow because he is recent. But it is the rasool, any rasool. Not just Muhammed.

Thus, I believe your OP was constructed based on a wrong premise due to a misunderstanding.