Some Respectfull Questions for Muslims

[inJESUS]

What is a better way to determine the teachings of Islam?

Study Islam according to the scholars of Islam?
Or look at how Muslims throughout history have acted?

Try replacing with Christianity/Christians.

depends on who the Muslims are. If they were Caliphs who waged oppressive wars to spread Islam by killing and subduing and taking booties, then yes i look at them to learn about Islam in the same way you can look at Jesus’ disciples to see how they spread Christianity to learn about Christianity.

 

[Valke2]

Maybe becaue the “rapid spread of islamic fundamentalism” is a figment in the imagination of the entertainment industry.

I am saying that you can’t understand the teachings of a religion merely by observing its adherents.

You can’t have teachings WITHOUT adherents. You may disagree with their interpretation, and with good cause. But it cannot be disputed that their particular brand of volience to promote religion is influencing much of the moderate muslim world.

 

[cathopologist]

If they were Caliphs who waged oppressive wars to spread Islam by killing and subduing and taking booties, then yes i look at them to learn about Islam in the same way you can look at Jesus’ disciples to see how they spread Christianity to learn about Christianity.

Sunni Islam reveres such Caliphs as ‘Rashidun’ or ‘Rightly Guided’, because they adhered to true teachings of Islam. Nevermind the pillaging, looting, and humiliation of the lands they invaded.

 

[paarsurrey]

You can’t have teachings WITHOUT adherents. You may disagree with their interpretation, and with good cause. But it cannot be disputed that their particular brand of volience to promote religion is influencing much of the moderate muslim world.

Hi

But they don’t get any support from Quran/Islam/Muhammad. So Quran/Islam/Muhammad are not responsible for their deeds.

Thanks

 

[swariffin]

Hi

But they don’t get any support from Quran/Islam/Muhammad. So Quran/Islam/Muhammad are not responsible for their deeds.

Thanks

Their action is based on the writing of Muhammad. So, Muhammad is liable for not putting “God’s word” in more detail explanation, so nothing in Quran has double/triple/quadruple meanings for human. Why? (a) Muhammad made a mistake in writing when the angel Jibril dictated the word of Allah, (b) The source is not from Allah, (c) Quran has been corrupted, perhaps by Uthsman

 

[Valke2]

Hi

But they don’t get any support from Quran/Islam/Muhammad. So Quran/Islam/Muhammad are not responsible for their deeds.

Thanks

Fine. Muhammad is not responsible. And your holy book is not responsible. But your people are responsible. A book is only as good as the ideas it promotes. And look at the ideas you are permitting to be promoted. (with the help of our petro dolalrs of course).

 

[inJESUS]

Hi

But they don’t get any support from Quran/Islam/Muhammad. So Quran/Islam/Muhammad are not responsible for their deeds.

Thanks

sure, there is always someone to blame in Islam and now they are Muhammad’s own immediate followers who so “misunderstood” his “peace”. So maybe Allah sent Ghulam Ahmad to correct the misinterpretations of Muhammad’s direct followers. Why not, this idea squares well with the deity Islam preaches, after all, why stop at Muhammad if the Quran is misinterpreted yet cannot be interpreted without the hadith, but the hadith is corrupt and/or can be misinterpreted, and the followers are as corrupt as the hadith. What is it that Allah managed to preserve after all, only a book yet allowed lies and corruption in hadith and immediate disciples so the best solution in Allah’s wisdom is to send Ghulam Ahmad after centuries to correct the corrupt “non-peaceful” Islam of Muhammad’s direct followers.

 

[paarsurrey]

Fine. Muhammad is not responsible. And your holy book is not responsible.

Hi

Thanks for accepting of what is an obvious reality.

The people who are doing it are resposible for their action and I don’t support them in their wrongs.

Rest is all politics; which is not under scope of discussion here.

Regards

 

[swariffin]

Hi

Thanks for accepting of what is an obvious reality.

The people who are doing it are resposible for their action and I don’t support them in their wrongs.

Rest is all politics; which is not under scope of discussion here.

Regards

Fine with me too. The problem is Islam cannot distinguish between religion and politics.

 

[severntofall]

What is a better way to determine the teachings of Islam?

Study Islam according to the scholars of Islam?
Or look at how Muslims throughout history have acted?

Try replacing with Christianity/Christians.

I say the best way to determine the teaching of Islam is by looking at the actions of it’s founder.

 

[famdigy]

depends on who the Muslims are. If they were Caliphs who waged oppressive wars to spread Islam by killing and subduing and taking booties, then yes i look at them to learn about Islam in the same way you can look at Jesus’ disciples to see how they spread Christianity to learn about Christianity.

inJESUS, the Caliphs do not represent Islam and should not be looked towards to understand the religion. Firstly because they were not appointed by the prophet to represent the religion. They merely appointed themselves to the throne and as you put it “waged oppressive wars” not to spread Islam but to spread their power and influence. These are the same people who conspired to Kill the prophet on more than one occasion because of their hunger for power and greed.

Many at the time felt that leadership of muslims should have remained within the immediate family of the prophet and this caused great troubles and in-fighting among the muslims.

For this reason the Omayad and Abbasid dynasties sought to misinterpret the quran and fabricate hadiths in the favor of the Chaliphs and companions by hiring paid fabricators and scholars, which allowed them to create an alternative source of Islamic authority to the holy family of the prophet. They branded this false authority with titles such as “the rightly guided Caliphs” or “the righteous companions”. Authority not sanctioned by Allah and the prophet.

keep in mind these oppressive wars were not waged on non-Muslims alone. They were waged on muslims who opposed the Caliphs and refused to recognize their authority. Entire tribes were massacred and many more imprisoned.

 

[cathopologist]

inJESUS, the Caliphs do not represent Islam and should not be looked towards to understand the religion. Firstly because they were not appointed by the prophet to represent the religion. They merely appointed themselves to the throne and as you put it “waged oppressive wars” not to spread Islam but to spread their power and influence. These are the same people who conspired to Kill the prophet on more than one occasion because of their hunger for power and greed.

Many at the time felt that leadership of muslims should have remained within the immediate family of the prophet and this caused great troubles and in-fighting among the muslims.

For this reason the Omayad and Abbasid dynasties sought to misinterpret the quran and fabricate hadiths in the favor of the Chaliphs and companions by hiring paid fabricators and scholars, which allowed them to create an alternative source of Islamic authority to the holy family of the prophet. They branded this false authority with titles such as “the rightly guided Caliphs” or “the righteous companions”. Authority not sanctioned by Allah and the prophet.

keep in mind these oppressive wars were not waged on non-Muslims alone. They were waged on muslims who opposed the Caliphs and refused to recognize their authority. Entire tribes were massacred and many more imprisoned.

The Caliphs are not honoured as ‘Rashidun’ without reason.

 

[famdigy]

The Caliphs are not honoured as ‘Rashidun’ without reason.

This honourable title “Rashidun” was confered on them sometime durring the Omayyad dynasty to legitimize their own governments.

In other words, if Islam allows for the leadership of muslims to be attained by people other than the immediate family of the prophet, it would remove any grounds for a religious objection to the rule of the omayyids ect…

the ligitimization of the Caliphs right to rule sets precedent for anyone else who comes after them to be able to rule over muslims.

This point was the cause of several civil wars and inter fighting among muslims.

When the first Caliph Abu bakr assumed leadership, many people refused to acknowledge him as legitimate leader, and in turn were labled apostates and quickly killed in what was called “the apostacy wars”

 

[inJESUS]

yes Famdigy, i wouldn’t expect much from people who didn’t even attend the funeral of whom they considered their prophet, but instead and on the very next day were interested in power and money.

 

[Sister_Amy]

yes Famdigy, i wouldn’t expect much from people who didn’t even attend the funeral of whom they considered their prophet, but instead and on the very next day were interested in power and money.

Or couldn’t you say that the matter of succession, which would affect the lives of millions of people, was important enough to require immediate resolution?

 

[inJESUS]

Or couldn’t you say that the matter of succession, which would affect the lives of millions of people, was important enough to require immediate resolution?

why should one negate the other? what would have happened if for one day there was no successor?

 

[famdigy]

Or couldn’t you say that the matter of succession, which would affect the lives of millions of people, was important enough to require immediate resolution?

Sister Amy,
this reasoning presumes the prophet was neglectful, he presumably did not prepare for the issue of succession which would affect the lives of millions of people, yet the companions realized how important this was and decided the matter of succession behind closed doors in secret. In other words, they knew better than their prophet.

how could the prophet be negligent and leave to chance something so important?

 

[planten]

**J C, you must be referring to Hamba. But This latest post from Hamba is the second one I have seen very recently which is a marvel of exellence. There was another one before this post in some other thread. I praise Hamba for good discernment.

I would not be harsh with the original poster (neploho) but I would like to know about the faith of neploho. What is the meaning of secular compared to an atheist? Perhaps Atheist does not believe in God. Secular must be believing in God, then must have some denomination with good feelings for all faiths. But cannot be without any denomination. I have read only a few initial post of this thread. I will go through the rest of the posts to know more.

In the meantime please do not take the words of Hamba as evil. Hamba is suggesting some good way of approach so as to reach the goal. I admire Hamba for the good advice without any ill meaning.**

 

[planten]

Abraham had Hargar.

**neploho, I have reached to the post #25. Abraham had Hagar. You seem to refer to Hagar as his concubine? I hope not.

I am surprised at your knowledge. The status of Hagar is written in the bible as “Wife”. That is why, I am most interested in your faith denomination. You should stand with the Jews or the christians or the Hindus or Budhists with good feelings for all. Will you please let us know where you stand yourself.?

What would you say about the two mistresses of Jacob? They were producing children for Jacob, openly allowed? They were only servants, not mentioned as wives, for Jacob. Please reply and let me know if an Atheist can be called Secular?**

 

[planten]

Salaam/ Peace

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

Solomon (p) had 300 concubines . Why u think Jesus (p) allowed it for him ?

** Please correct yourself. Soloman had 300 wives and 1000 concubines.**

Why people wanted to say that Muhammed (p) was crazy for women ? He could have them easily as pagans wanted to stop his preaching about oneness of God .They offered him money , power , women …anything he wanted

.

Yes, a very good reply to inJesus. IinJesus and Severntofall had spread much mischief and misinformation about our prophet. Muslim Woman, you have given very good replies. May Allah bless you with more…

His uncle went to him with this proposal & Prophet answered : O my uncle, if they placed the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand to cause me to renounce my task, verily I would not desist therefrom until Allah made manifest His cause or I perished in the attempt."

That was the Great man of God, not manGod.

He only did that was allowed for him . War , slavery , concubines …he did not introduce anything. Jesus (p) allowed all these …if u don’t believe me , read your Bible.

**
Well said…**

If I am not mistaken , Bible allows father to sell their daughters as slaves . If her new Master does not like her , his son is allowed to have her. Correct me if I am wrong

.

I do not know. But if it is true then inJesus should first attend to those serious problems.

this has been answered more than once. Islam did not introduce polygamy , instead fixed a maximum number of wives with condition . Jesus (p) allowed polygamy without fixing mamimum numbers & Abraham , Moses , David , Solomon ( pbut) had more than one wife upto 700.

Very true. Polygamy and salvery was already there. inJesus should please comment on the number of wives of their own prophets mentioned in the bible.

Hadith also say either David or Solomon (pbut ) went to All his wives ( minimum 100 ) at one night . Muslims don’t make fun or use any nasty word against that Prophet because of it . God did not fix any maximum limit for any husband about how many times he can go to his wives in a single night or day.

** Well said. No further comment could be better**.

lol , Bible tells u Prophet Lot (p) slept with own daughters. Zaid (p) was a slave , Zainab (p) was cousin of Prophet Muhammed (p) . Marrying cousin is allowed in Islam.

oh , it’s so tiring to read your whole post , same allegations again & again & again

** Yes, same allegations by inJesus. Gain and again. Need no replies.

I would add just one point about the rising of the Sun from the west. That is symbolic. **