S
SteveVH
Guest
It doesn’t matter. The question is “who are they referring to”? The answer is, primarily Christians and Jews, even if they are mistaken as to Christianity being based upon a book rather than a Person.
- Status
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
Understood after reading the first post again too. 
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
When you say the revelation revealed to Jesus was compiled into the bible, you must mean the gospels right? You would not include the entirety of the New testament? We as Christians believe the entirety of the New testament and even if we are regarded as people of the book for the gospels only, there are many things in the gospels which Muslims must be opposed to.
So either the scripture we have now is corrupted beyond all recognition of what it originally was (very unlikely) or perhaps the quranic authors did not know what the Christian gospel books were, which seems to me the most likely scenario.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
No, Christians do not believe that there are three gods. The doctrine of the Trinity is not about three gods. Islam is wrong on this when the Quran says that Christians believe in three gods and that the Trinity consists of father (husband), son and Mary (wife).
H
hasantas
Guest
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. An-Nisa(4):171
Qur’an do not mention Mary as God. Qur’an mention that Jesus is son of Mary and a messenger, that is all.
Christians believe that God has three personalities as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In Qur’an God state that God is one in one personality. So it is better to say one but not three! God in Qur’an obviously caution that He is one. Qur’an do not mention that Christians say there are three distinct gods but istead Quran state that Christians say Allah(God) is three(And do not say , “Three”). But Qur’an say “Allah is but one God”. So Allah is not three God or Allah do not consists of three Gods.
Allah is one but Allah has many distinct manifestations.
12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. 1 Corinthians 12 : 4-11
So it is no true to say Spirit is an other God. God sometimes operate by spirits(ruhaniyat) or angels or directly. In all circumstances God is unique source or cause to start. The others(spirit, angel, prophets etc) are means.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Certainly it was not peaceful in India from the very beginning. To this day, there is struggle between Muslims and “pagans” in both China and India. Very serious struggle.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Pamela Geller says the exact same thing and wonders why we don’t believe it. Remarkable.
H
hasantas
Guest
Yes we hear Buddhists slain Muslims nowdays. But Islam firstly got into India by Islamic merchants. Ofcourse later there have been some wars between Indians and Muslims.
D
Dpoc41
Guest
Oh Yeah -
HOW CONVERSION TOOK PLACE IN INDIA?
In Muhammad bin Qasim’s first successful foray into India, as recorded by al-Biladuri and Muhammad al-Kufi (in Chachnama): at Debal, ‘the temples were demolished, a general massacre endured for three days; prisoners were taken captive;’ at Nairun, ‘the idols were broken, and mosques founded despite its voluntary surrender;’ at Rawar and Askalanda, ‘all the men in arms were put to the sword, and the women and children carried away captive;’ at Multan, ‘all men capable of bearing arms were massacred; six thousand ministers of the temple were made captive, besides all the women and children.’ (141. Eliot HM and Dawson J, The History of India As Told by the Historians, Low Price Publications, New Delhi, Vol. I, p. 469)
In Sultan Mahmud’s conquest of Kanauj, ‘ the inhabitants either accepted Islam or took up arms against him to become the food of Islamic swords,’ records his secretary Abu Nasr al-Utbi.(Ibid, p. 26) In the captured of Baran, records al-Utbi, ‘since God’s sword was drawn from the scabbard, and the whip of punishment was uplifted… ten thousand men proclaimed their anxiety for conversion and their rejection of idols.’(Ibid, p. 42–43)
After conquering a city, Sultan Mahmud—an educated cultured man and a master of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh)—would normally slaughter the men of fighting age, enslave their women and children and force the remaining inhabitants to embrace Islam.
The words of famous Islamic scholar and historian, Alberuni, on the exploits of Sultan Mahmud’s repeated invasions of India, will suffice to summarize what the Muslim conquerors had brought upon the conquered peoples. Alberuni (973–1050), an outstanding Persian scholar, was captured by Sultan Mahmud during his conquest of the Central Asian state of Khwarizm in 1017. Mahmud brought him to his capital Ghazni and appointed as an official in his court. Mahmud brought Alberuni to India in the course of his invasions. He traveled across India for twenty years and studied Indian philosophy, mathematics, geography and religion from Hindu pundits. He wrote of the Muslim conquest of India: ‘Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all direction, and like a tale ofold in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion toward all Muslims.’(150. Sachau EC (2002) Alberuni’s India, Rupa & Co., New Delhi, p. 5–6 (first print 1888)
Amir Timur or Tamerlane, on his campaign to India—undertaken for fulfilling his obligation of waging holy war against the infidels—slaughtered 100,000 captives in a single day in Delhi in December 1399. (143. Lal KS (1999) Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, p. 18)
When Muhammad bin Qasim began the conquest of Sindh, he exercised the policy of converting the people of a territory, which gave a fight, at the pain of death. He gave quarters to the people, if they submitted to his invading army without giving a fight. He did not force them to convert. When the report of his latter lenient policy reached his patron Hajjaj in Baghdad, disapproving the leniency, he wrote to Qasim:
‘…I learnt that the ways and rules you follow are conformable to the (Islamic) Law. Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, and make no difference between enemy and friend. God says, ‘Give no quarter to Infidels, but cut their throats.’ Then know that this is the command of the great god. You should not be too ready to grant protection… After this, give no protection to any enemy except to those who are of rank (i.e., accept Islam). This is a worthy resolve, and want of dignity will not be imputed to you.’( Elliot & Dawson, Vol. I, p. 173–74)
Having received this command from Hajjaj, Qasim followed it through in his next conquest of Brahmanabad, sparing none who did not embrace Islam. According to al-Biladuri, ‘eight, or some say twenty-six thousand, men were put to the sword.’ (Ibid, Vol. I, p. 122) However, putting the great multitude of Hindus, who often refused to embrace Islam, to death was difficult. Instead, giving them quarters for raising taxes was a more lucrative alternative. Qasim later wrote to Hajjaj in this regard. In response, Hajjaj wrote back:
‘The letter of my dear nephew Muhammad Kasim has been received and the fact understood. It appears that the chief inhabitants of Brahmanabad had petitioned to be allowed to repair the temple of Budh and pursue their religion. As they have made submission, and agreed to pay taxes to the Khalifa, nothing can be properly required from them. They have been taken under our protection (dhimmi), and we cannot in any way stretch out our hands upon their lives or property.’ (Sharma, p. 109)
Hindus were, thus, accepted as dhimmi subjects, which spared them from conversion by the sword. The Godless Umayyad rulers were more interested in filling the treasury by extracting higher taxes from non Muslim subjects than converting them to Islam. For example, al-Hajjaj harshly treated those, who converted to Islam.(Bulliet RW (1979) Conversion to Islam and the Emergence of a Muslim Society in Iran, N. Levtzion ed., Conversion to Islam, Holmes and Meier Publishers Inc., New York, p. 33) When a group of non-Muslims came to him to inform their acceptance of Islam, al-Hajjaj refused to recognize their conversion and ordered his troops to return them to their villages.(Pipes (1983), p. 52)
FREE BOOK
Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery
J
Jerusha
Guest
It is interesting that the Gypsies appeared in Europe during the time of the Islamic invasion of India. Appears that they must have been refugees of that mayhem. telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9719058/European-Roma-descended-from-Indian-untouchables-genetic-study-shows.html
J
jimkhong
Guest
Sorry I am not Muslim (except in the same sense that good Muslims can be considered Christians in a way
) but there doesn’t seem to be one who explained satisfactorily to my mind. So I hope me little offering here would help.Muslims believe that God sent many prophets (nabi) in their time. They include almost all the patriarchs of the OT, some of the prophets plus Jesus, John the Baptist in NT. The role of the nabi is to teach people about God.
Among the nabi are four rasul (messengers), who delivered scriptures from God. They are Musa (Moses) who brought the Torat, Daud (David) who brought the Psalms, Isa (Jesus) who brought the Gospel (singular, not plural) and Mohammad. None of these scriptures (except the Quran of course) is defined in the sense as which specific books/version/canon did they refer to.
As such, the Jews (& Christians as continuation of the Jews) received the revealed scriptures from God and as such are considered People of the Book, who believed in the one true God. As a result, the Quran asked anyone who has doubts to refer to the People of the Book and also required Muslims to protect churches, monasteries and synagogues. Muslims are also not allowed to call Jews & Christians kafirs (infidels) as we believe in the same one true God, albeit incorrectly
(The way Muslims see it, not my opinion) All these scriptures have been changed and the versions today are not the same ones that God sent. This is evident in the way some parts contradict the Quran, the only scripture with a guarantee of authenticity because it was written by God himself and have been preserved unchanged.
As such, the original scriptures that God gave the Jews and Christians are now lost, but are equally undefined in the Quran. It is not clear which verses have been amended as most of the polemics seem to be against perceived beliefs and practices of Jews and Christians rather than on the scriptures themselves.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
There is conflicting understanding on this or maybe I was being told differently. The Christians mentioned were those who lived during Muhammad’s time and before, and yes, they were indeed considered as the people of the Book and thus believed in the one true God. Asking Muslims to refer to them was a testament of this trust in them.
However, the Bible was corrupted or its original form was lost, thus the necessity for God to send the final revelation which would be preserved for eternity. (No cut off point was mentioned AFAIK when this occurred). This required, since the Christians were the people of the Book, to accept the revelation of the last prophet, Muhammad, eventually, and not to believe the priests and monks who had deviated from the original message.
Those Christians (and that could be the present day Christians) that did not convert could be called kafirs, as you mentioned, since they refused the ‘truth’ brought forth by Muhammad.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Much of what you mentioned is very well described, Rueben.
I am not sure about whether there is any difference between what we both described.
The ironic thing is that the one who will be judging at the end of time will Isa, who will then condemn those who do not accept the revelation given to Mohammad. This seems to be an unusual syncretisation of Christian belief in Jesus coming at the end of time to judge the living and the dead with the primacy of loyalty to the Quran as the sole measure of a man’s worth in God’s syes.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Anyway, thanks.
I just wanted to clarify that point. My knowledge of Islam is probably just skin deep. I did not have any formal training in it or took it as a subject. Most of it came from Muslim friends. During college it was more of a my religion is better than your religion basis, but I did get honest feedback from them. As older adults, inter-religious discussion became more organized and objective.I think there are two types of Muslims on this issue: (1) one who hold that Christians are indeed people of the Book and thus given that recognition as per the Quran ( refer to them; and give them protection) and (2) the period of Christians as people of the Book has passed (for lack of word) for they should have converted when the final unadulterated revelation was given. The stubborn that resisted this new revelation were indeed the kafirs, which probably are the remaining Christians today.
God bless.
Reuben
J
jimkhong
Guest
:thumbsup:Good to know and understand the difference between Christianity and Islam. It sometimes help to understand one’s own faith as well.Anyway, thanks.
I think there are two types of Muslims on this issue: (1) one who hold that Christians are indeed people of the Book and thus given that recognition as per the Quran ( refer to them; and give them protection) and (2) the period of Christians as people of the Book has passed (for lack of word) for they should have converted when the final unadulterated revelation was given. The stubborn that resisted this new revelation were indeed the kafirs, which probably are the remaining Christians today.
God bless.
Reuben
The problem with Muslim-Christian relationship is that there is another verse in the Quran which was an injunction on Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends. So, there are Muslim leaders who follow that verse to its logical conclusion.
This difference in verses arises with the change in Mohammad’s attitude when he migrated from Mecca to Medina (I think I touched on it in another post).
The Quran is riddled with contradictions (in the Bible we call them paradoxes
). Muslims, basing their belief in the inerrancy of the Quran because it was written by the hand of God himself, are unable to sort out these contradictions since they are not able to study the Quran like we do.You have pointed out one of those contradictions. Are we ‘pre-Islamic Muslim’ worthy of salvation because of our acceptance of the one true God or are we kafirs because we do not accept Mohammad. Both interpretations are in the Quran.
H
hasantas
Guest
There is no any contradiction in Qur’an. Qur’an mentions Christians and Jews as people of the book. But also it is mentioned that that books(scriptures) were changed. And also people of the book have some wrong thoughts about faith and God. They say God is three which is very dangerous and wrong. So Qur’an awaken Muslims to not take them as friend mean that do not recognize their assumptions about God and faith as acceptable and friendly. Otherwise Muslims may take anyone as friend in society, economy, trade, vicinity etc. The warning is for their(people of the book) thoughts about God. And Qur’an call people of the book to see the right form of their beliefs.:thumbsup:Good to know and understand the difference between Christianity and Islam. It sometimes help to understand one’s own faith as well.
The problem with Muslim-Christian relationship is that there is another verse in the Quran which was an injunction on Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends. So, there are Muslim leaders who follow that verse to its logical conclusion.
This difference in verses arises with the change in Mohammad’s attitude when he migrated from Mecca to Medina (I think I touched on it in another post).
The Quran is riddled with contradictions (in the Bible we call them paradoxes
You have pointed out one of those contradictions. Are we ‘pre-Islamic Muslim’ worthy of salvation because of our acceptance of the one true God or are we kafirs because we do not accept Mohammad. Both interpretations are in the Quran.
Muslims do not say kafirs(infidels) for people of the book. Kafir means to reject God. people of the book do not reject God. But unfortunately it is true that some Muslims call Christians as kafir. The exact reason of that term kafir was because of that Christians do not accept Islam. Christians reject Islam so they are to be kafir(rejection) of Islam. But that does not mean that Christians or Jews are kafir who reject God. So Islamic scholars warn Muslims to not say kafirs for people of the book in any way.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Of course, that is your starting point - that the Quran cannot be wrong. If you start with that conclusion, there is no contradiction in the Quran.
What does the Quran say about the People of the Book?
O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand.
(sura 3:118)
And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then ask those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee.
(sura 10:95)
The first verse above clearly injuncts Muslims not to befriend Jews & Christians, which goes beyond avoidance of theological debate, but identifying Jews & Christians as the enemy who hates them. The second actually refer Mohammad to learn from the Jews & Christians if he has any doubts (which he did, learning from Waraqa, an Ebionite Christian uncle of his wife, Khatijah).
Of course, if dogma precede context, you can always explain away the difference - humans are creative after all. Contexts are created or interpreted to justify the dogma. Like to hear yours, hasantas.
If however, you believe that context precede dogma, a different explanation emerges. Placing the Quran in a historical context (which mainstream Islam does not do because God wrote the Quran himself, outside of the context of human history), sura 3 was written in Medina while sura 10 was written in Mecca.
In Mecca, Khatijah was still alive and Mohammad was still under the tutelage of Waraqa. Mohammad was also in a position of weakness, not having that many converts and constantly in need of allies while under persecution. Hence, the friendliness to Christians and Jews.
After the death of Khatijah, Mohammad moved to Medina, away from the moderating influence of Khatijah and her uncle Waraqa, Mohammad views changed (for instance he changed his direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca). His success also means that he had less of need for allies outside of Muslims and can afford to now distance himself from Christians and Jews.
The Quran is organised in order of the length of the suras and thus cannot be read chronologically. If you were to read the Quran chronologically, you can see the development of Mohammad’s thoughts with the changing circumstances of his life. Such a technique, allowed and common in Christianity, is alien to Muslims as the Quran is deemed written by God himself and so cannot be influenced by human events.
So take your pick - we have different approaches based on different values. Does the facts come first or the conclusion? Is it context first or dogma first? Your values determines your religion. It is not for me to judge whether Christians or Muslims are right - that is for Jesus to judge, as both religions believe he will. You choose your religion based on your values.
H
hasantas
Guest
118- O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom. Ali-Imran
Did you write into brackets? In these verse Allah warn Muslims to not trust Munafiks. Munafiks were used to be fink.
You assume as if Muhammed took and learnt from Waraka. Waraka was a bit aware of scripture and revelation. So Hadija took Muhammed to by Waraka and Waraka verified that Muhammed is to be prophet and revelation was by angel Gabriel. That was all and nothing else.
There are some differences between Meccan and Medinan suras. I had written about that. But it is unhappy that some people imply as if Mhammed had written Qur’an by Himself. Qur’an verses were revealed according to circumstances. Some were revealed because people ask Muhammed and Allah answered in Qur’an. Sometimes a case emerged and Allah decided about that. In Mecca verses were rather about faith. In Medina verses were about other issues which includes worshipping, marriages, trade, wars, people of the book etc. In Medina Muslims had established a state and a community so verses were revealed according to those circumstances.(sabab-al nuzul )
M
mamlukman
Guest
No one has mentioned other groups–Yazidis (who have been the news for the last year), Zoroastrians, Sabians, and even Hindus.
As with many other issues, there is disagreement within Islam as to whether the members of these groups are ahl al-kitab or not. Yazidis are a good example–ISIS treats them as devil worshipping unbelievers. Other Muslims count them as one of the peoples of the book, who deserve a certain degree of protection and respect. Muslims in India generally consider Hindus people of the book. It’s a matter of political expediency rather than religion in many cases. But there’s no uniformity or agreement.
One interesting footnote to all this is the common Muslim name for Christians: Nazaris. Most people mistakenly think this means something like “Nazareans” --i.e., from Nazareth. It doesn’t–it refers to Nazaris, a little sect in S. Iraq with a set of rather esoteric beliefs. The Muslims ran into them early on and began to use the name to refer to Christians. The name stuck and the original Nazaris are basically forgotten, although there are still some around. If you notice, ISIS marks the houses of Christians with an “N” --Nazari.
As with many other issues, there is disagreement within Islam as to whether the members of these groups are ahl al-kitab or not. Yazidis are a good example–ISIS treats them as devil worshipping unbelievers. Other Muslims count them as one of the peoples of the book, who deserve a certain degree of protection and respect. Muslims in India generally consider Hindus people of the book. It’s a matter of political expediency rather than religion in many cases. But there’s no uniformity or agreement.
One interesting footnote to all this is the common Muslim name for Christians: Nazaris. Most people mistakenly think this means something like “Nazareans” --i.e., from Nazareth. It doesn’t–it refers to Nazaris, a little sect in S. Iraq with a set of rather esoteric beliefs. The Muslims ran into them early on and began to use the name to refer to Christians. The name stuck and the original Nazaris are basically forgotten, although there are still some around. If you notice, ISIS marks the houses of Christians with an “N” --Nazari.
M
MartinJordan
Guest
- Status