The Quran's claim that the first Christians were Muslim

  • Thread starter Thread starter fnr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WuXiaoXia said:
Your last sentence shows the unbridled ignorance at play for many people on these boards. The fact is that Islamic theology would agree that anything in existence is a “muslim” because it conforms to the will of God as I just stated. It isn’t too hard an idea to wrap your mind around. Anything that exists does so because of God and hence owes its existence to God. All that “muslim” means is “one who submits”. Anything that exists “submits” to the will of God". Whether you want to call that thing a muslim or not is your choice.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you are here for discussion. 🤷

MJ
 
Maybe within the world of relativism in which things cease to be meaningful what you said could be true but we live in a world with meaning and a quran which denies at its very core the idea that Christ is God.

Allah goes so far as to ask Jesus did he say for people to take him and his mother (possibly an ignorance on behalf of Muhammad who might have thought Christians considered her apart of the trinity) and worship him and her with God to which the quranic Isa declares emphatically no that those words would not dare utter from his lips. I’m no expert on the quran but I can see Unitarianism when it is preached and it flows forth from the quran, its one of its central arguments that the Christians have created false things about Allah and thus Christians are told to desist and not call God three, but one. An obvious reference to the trinity, even if the quranic Author Muhammad had no real knowledge of the trinity.

So yes the trinity is utterly impossible within the Islamic universe. And trinity has only one definition. So the problem is still present to anyone with eyes to see it. The Quran declares it would seem those victorius followers of Christ as the true followers whom would exist to the day of judgement. We have history before Muhammad, a lot of history. There were no ancient groups which had the theology of Muhammad on the precise level (pits and pieces could be found in different groups but never in one group) and only one group was the most powerful by the time Muhammad came, and that was the Nicene Christians. Those who said God was trinity. This is my point in saying that there is a problem in the quran declaring that those who committed shirk are the true followers of Christ.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
**Maybe within the world of relativism in which things cease to be meaningful what you said could be true but we live in a world with meaning and a quran which denies at its very core the idea that Christ is God. **

*And what do you think you are doing right now? Are you not putting your own personal judgement on these topics? A classical example of the pot calling the kettle black. For the record everyone the Koran in no way denies the idea that Christ is God. *

**Allah goes so far as to ask Jesus did he say for people to take him and his mother (possibly an ignorance on behalf of Muhammad who might have thought Christians considered her apart of the trinity) and worship him and her with God to which the quranic Isa declares emphatically no that those words would not dare utter from his lips. I’m no expert on the quran but I can see Unitarianism when it is preached and it flows forth from the quran, its one of its central arguments that the Christians have created false things about Allah and thus Christians are told to desist and not call God three, but one. An obvious reference to the trinity, even if the quranic Author Muhammad had no real knowledge of the trinity. **

Well let’s see. You say “ignorance on behalf of Muhammad who might have thought Christians considered a part of the trinity.” That is a totally baseless statement that I have no idea where it could come from except your own personal opinion. You say you can see Unitarianism and again that is a baseless formulation derived from your own personal interpretation.

So yes the trinity is utterly impossible within the Islamic universe. And trinity has only one definition. So the problem is still present to anyone with eyes to see it. The Quran declares it would seem those victorius followers of Christ as the true followers whom would exist to the day of judgement. We have history before Muhammad, a lot of history. There were no ancient groups which had the theology of Muhammad on the precise level (pits and pieces could be found in different groups but never in one group) and only one group was the most powerful by the time Muhammad came, and that was the Nicene Christians. Those who said God was trinity. This is my point in saying that there is a problem in the quran declaring that those who committed shirk are the true followers of Christ.
Click to expand...
So, like no, the Trinity is entirely possible within the Islamic universe. You do a terrible job at trying to disprove what I’ve said and you only use your own limiting personal interpretation in doing so. The Koran does agree that those who follow Christ are true followers because if they did they would be following a messenger of God. That is permitted within the Islamic universe.

Noah was a prophet, and so was Adam the very first human and prophet in Islam. According to Islam since the beginning of time messengers have existed.
 
Now I find it strange, I really do that despite what at least would seem clear to me about the quran that Christ is not God. Do you not recall the quran in this light?

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things.
Quran sura 5 (Al-Ma’ida), ayah17

Maybe another translation will suffice

They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, “Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?” And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.

Sahih International

I don’t know what liberal has been teaching you that the quran could say what you are saying but you really need to face the obvious. The world does not fit into some sort of univeralist box. Humans contradict each other. And The quran contradicts trinity.
That same Trinitarian statement which is as follows.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
Nicene Creed.

These two are not compatible Wu.

And yes I do say ignorance on behalf of Muhammad or at least an unclear intention. Who was Muhammad responding in this surah? The quran is not a text which simply speaks on things for the sakes of things. Many times in the quran things were revealed precisely for the prophet that he may (no pun intended) profit, such as him marrying his Step son’s wife or various other things. While I am not sure of the historical context of this, it does make me wonder. Who is he referring to here? The Christians? They didn’t worship mary, they didn’t consider her on par with God. Perhaps Muhammad saw a liturgy praising the theotokos and thought of us as pagans I don’t know but ignorance is not out of the spectrum of things.

Now you say I do a terrible job. So if I do such a terrible job I want you to find me any Islamic source, any that would suggest that the quran could be meant to take Jesus as God. Be comparable to the doctrines of the trinity. And preferably an early source. Of course I doubt youwill find such a thing. You make yourself out to be some sort of expert but don’t seem to know an awful lot. The point I am making is this huge distinction, it is a problem. Most modern day muslims whom are asked this know it is a huge problem. They would never suggest that the Christians in the roman empire were true knowing the history. Though in early islam it seems that they did.
Stop this pretension and lets have actual discussion.
 
WuXiaoXia said:
Your last sentence shows the unbridled ignorance at play for many people on these boards. The fact is that Islamic theology would agree that anything in existence is a “muslim” because it conforms to the will of God as I just stated. It isn’t too hard an idea to wrap your mind around. Anything that exists does so because of God and hence owes its existence to God. All that “muslim” means is “one who submits”. Anything that exists “submits” to the will of God". Whether you want to call that thing a muslim or not is your choice.
Click to expand...
I do not go around insulting people here by calling them ignorant. You come across as very superior by your so called theology studies and you are giving the impression and play on words that you are not here to really 'seek" but to show off your knowledge from you studies.
the Op of this thread has done an excellent job for research and quotes. All you have done is try to play on words and tell the rest of us that we don’t know what we are talking about. While muslim is arabic for submit, it does mean submitting to Mohammed and it is used and understood to mean just that. All you have done is just tell the rest of us that we don’t understand Islamic theology and you give no reference for your thinking but that we are suppose to believe you because you have “studied” this. It sounds like the theology school you went to out east is rather liberal and most likely unorthodox by any Christian standards. This is probably why you have gotten sarcastic comments from others. Most of the people on CAF are not “professional” theologians but normal everyday men and women that have a passion and interest in their own Catholic faith. We are not interested in some so called theology student looking to either argue or insult us about our “lack of knowledge” over Islamic theology or any other faith. There come a time to decide that you want to know God not just know about God and religion. Most of the posters here on CAF want a deeper relationship with God in the Catholic faith and we are trying to help each other do that. That is the subtility you are missing here. Do you want to really know God or just argue with us about religion?
 
robwar, I think when as you put it “normal everyday men and women that have a passion and interest in their own Catholic faith”, make what seems to be very informed comments like this, on this thread:
Contra_Mundum said:
Very interesting. I’m always amazed when people consider leaving Christ for Islam, since its claims are so poorly rooted in both logic and evidence. I hope those tempted to convert are reading this and learning.
Click to expand...
stating that Islam is poorly rooted in logic and evidence, it implies a “theology school” education on Islam.

I’m just sayin’…but this may irk some Muslims and seems to be rather prejudiced (but I’m not taking any sides here).

It would be lovely to have a reasoned, mutually respectful, discussion to discover the truth.
 
robwar said:
I do not go around insulting people here by calling them ignorant. You come across as very superior by your so called theology studies and you are giving the impression and play on words that you are not here to really 'seek" but to show off your knowledge from you studies.
the Op of this thread has done an excellent job for research and quotes. All you have done is try to play on words and tell the rest of us that we don’t know what we are talking about. While muslim is arabic for submit, it does mean submitting to Mohammed and it is used and understood to mean just that. All you have done is just tell the rest of us that we don’t understand Islamic theology and you give no reference for your thinking but that we are suppose to believe you because you have “studied” this. It sounds like the theology school you went to out east is rather liberal and most likely unorthodox by any Christian standards. This is probably why you have gotten sarcastic comments from others. Most of the people on CAF are not “professional” theologians but normal everyday men and women that have a passion and interest in their own Catholic faith. We are not interested in some so called theology student looking to either argue or insult us about our “lack of knowledge” over Islamic theology or any other faith. There come a time to decide that you want to know God not just know about God and religion. Most of the posters here on CAF want a deeper relationship with God in the Catholic faith and we are trying to help each other do that. That is the subtility you are missing here. Do you want to really know God or just argue with us about religion?
Click to expand...
So what your long paragraph basically amounts to is a straw man argument and ad hominem against me. You attempt to refute a fact that I’ve already stated and then go on to attack my character for the bulk of the paragraph. Yet I am the one here looking to argue or for trouble. 👍

Generalize all you want, criticize all you want, but the fact stands that I’m here for discourse and not to attack others. I’m attempting to give an answer rooted in some Islamic thought. The hope would be that some Catholics attempt to understand those views without feeling personally attacked. Doing so is difficult though since religion has an emotional and personal component to so many people here.

Everyone here wants to get their biases confirmed and I’m here to show people like you that doing that isn’t alright or fine. Step outside your enclosed box for once and see how others view paths outside their own.
 
WuXiaoXia said:
There is a lot of ignorance going on in this thread. That is what happens with those from other faiths think they can read into the complexities of any topic and tackle it head on.

The fact is-as mentioned by two users in this thread- that their is a clear distinction between the use of “muslim” and “Muslim” in the Koran. The former relates to anyone and anything in existence that conforms to the will of God. The latter is an individual-either a human being, jinn, or even Angel- that chooses to voluntarily follow Islam the religion brought by the Prophet Muhammad.

According to Muslims everything in existence is a “muslim”. Be it rocks, oceans, lakes, trees, galaxies, planets, atoms, etc. Since they all exist they all are conforming to the will of God who created all things.
Click to expand...
Xiao,

One thing I will point out is that the valid Hadith (656) says that Jesus will come back to “destroy the cross.” The Quran condemns of the Christian notion that Allah would have a son or could be represented in trinitarian form as including the “son:”
*In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. *
(Sura 5/17)
As regards a small-m “muslim,” Jesus and his followers in the Quran clearly say that they are capital-M Muslims.

Blessings,
-Chad
 
I once hard a guy say Jesus was a Mormon. Jesus, you can come back anytime.
 
I recently learned about Garshuni, a form of early written Arabic employing the Syriac alphabet. According to Wikipedia,

*The Syriac alphabet has three principal varieties:
Code: 
The estrangelâ script (the classical Syriac script),
The madnhâyâ script (the eastern Syriac script, often called 'Assyrian' or **'Nestorian'**),
The sertâ script (the western Syriac script, often called **'Jacobite' **or 'Maronite').*
For context, see the original post (OP) to this thread, and my other post on how the Quran may have been translated from written Syriac Christian texts…
 
WuXiaoXia said:
There is a lot of ignorance going on in this thread. That is what happens with those from other faiths think they can read into the complexities of any topic and tackle it head on.

The fact is-as mentioned by two users in this thread- that their is a clear distinction between the use of “muslim” and “Muslim” in the Koran. The former relates to anyone and anything in existence that conforms to the will of God. The latter is an individual-either a human being, jinn, or even Angel- that chooses to voluntarily follow Islam the religion brought by the Prophet Muhammad.

According to Muslims everything in existence is a “muslim”. Be it rocks, oceans, lakes, trees, galaxies, planets, atoms, etc. Since they all exist they all are conforming to the will of God who created all things.
Click to expand...
if it seems something strange ,may be you don’t know that everything in existence prays for the GOD of course according to the koran ,but the wounder is that the scientists discovered that everything in existence make a sound (speak )–israa -44
needless to say if something seems strange for you have a look on the wonderful miracles of islam in science,you will get it better
 
Father Dr. Labib Kobti, an Arab Christian priest, in one his articles titled The Christian Arab Heritage (available on his web site at: al-bushra.org/arbhrtg/arbxtn04.htm ) says: “Recently Father Pecerillo, a famous Franciscan Archaeologist, found more than twenty churches in Madaba at the south of Jordan. From the Fourth Century, we found houses in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine with this inscription in Arabic :“Bism El-Lah al Rahman al Rahim” that showed that Christians were the first to use this name so as to indicate their belief in the Holy Trinity, more than two hundred years before Islam.”
What this Christian priest is revealing is extremely important for the following reasons:
(1) This Arabic phrase “Bism El-Lah al-Rahman al-Rahim” ( بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ) that the priest says has been discovered in houses of Christians dating back to the 4th Century is the same phrase that most Suras (Chapters) of the Quran start with. This phrase can be translated as “In the name of Allah the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful”.
(2) The fact that this phrase was found in houses of Christians dating back to the 4th Century, meaning three centuries before the Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammad. This indicates that the beliefs of early Christians were very similar to the beliefs of Muslims. In other early Christians did not believe in the Trinity: “In the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit”, instead they the Muslims phrase “In the name of Allah the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful”. This is proof that Jesus was a Muslim and he preached Islam, and early followers of Jesus were Muslims.
 
Ali_Hasnath said:
Father Dr. Labib Kobti, an Arab Christian priest, in one his articles titled The Christian Arab Heritage (available on his web site at: al-bushra.org/arbhrtg/arbxtn04.htm ) says: “Recently Father Pecerillo, a famous Franciscan Archaeologist, found more than twenty churches in Madaba at the south of Jordan. From the Fourth Century, we found houses in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine with this inscription in Arabic :“Bism El-Lah al Rahman al Rahim” that showed that Christians were the first to use this name so as to indicate their belief in the Holy Trinity, more than two hundred years before Islam.”
What this Christian priest is revealing is extremely important for the following reasons:
(1) This Arabic phrase “Bism El-Lah al-Rahman al-Rahim” ( بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ) that the priest says has been discovered in houses of Christians dating back to the 4th Century is the same phrase that most Suras (Chapters) of the Quran start with. This phrase can be translated as “In the name of Allah the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful”.
(2) The fact that this phrase was found in houses of Christians dating back to the 4th Century, meaning three centuries before the Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammad. This indicates that the beliefs of early Christians were very similar to the beliefs of Muslims. In other early Christians did not believe in the Trinity: “In the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit”, instead they the Muslims phrase “In the name of Allah the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful”. This is proof that Jesus was a Muslim and he preached Islam, and early followers of Jesus were Muslims.
Click to expand...
no, it proves that there were Christians in the area before Mohammed. Jesus was not a Muslim at all. He is the Son of God, Crucified on the third day (not a substitute) and rose again in fulfillment of Scripture not the Koran. Scholars who have critically look at Islam think that it may have come out of heretical Christian groups in the area at the time and that the Koran is complied from them or Mohammed used their material in the Koran. Finding Arabic phrases in homes pre-Mohammed does not prove this at all.
 
I believe that this is closer to the mark. Arabic doesn’t have capital letters, so the expression “innanaa muslimuuna” comes after “we are helpers of God. we believe in God, we testify to God, so we are muslims”. In this case “muslim” means one who submits to the command of God. In that sense, Christians should have little to contend with since we know from the Gospels how Jesus called his disciples and how they unquestioningly followed Him.
Publisher said:
I believe the Quran’s assertion that all who believe and follow God faithfully are Muslim since “Muslim”, as I recall, means “one who submits to God”…using this definition as one who submits to the will of God, Abraham is “muslim”…so was Israel…and Jesus…and Paul…on down…saying one can only be “muslim” from the time of the Prophet and only one who embraces Islam as a specific religious tradition is not necessarily taking into account the meaning of “Muslim”.
Click to expand...
 
robwar said:
no, it proves that there were Christians in the area before Mohammed. Jesus was not a Muslim at all. He is the Son of God, Crucified on the third day (not a substitute) and rose again in fulfillment of Scripture not the Koran. Scholars who have critically look at Islam think that it may have come out of heretical Christian groups in the area at the time and that the Koran is complied from them or Mohammed used their material in the Koran. Finding Arabic phrases in homes pre-Mohammed does not prove this at all.
Click to expand...
If anything, this discovery goes to show yet another of Muhammad’s adopting of a Christian (or in some cases pseudo-Christian) idea to promote his own religion. To say they were the same religion on the basis of a single common phrase is the shakiest argument I’ve heard in a long time. Buddhism and Hinduism both use the term “bodhi” to describe an enlightening person (or the quality of being an enlightened person), along with several other phrases and words. But Buddha and his followers were not and are not Hindus. In fact they were much like Muslims. They saw Hinduism as corrupt and misguided, and themselves as its correctors. So while they based themselves on a previous tradition, they are most definitely NOT the same. (Note I’m not saying that Hinduism or Buddhism are anything but false religions. I’m just using them as an example.)

IMHO Islam stands on even shakier ground since it wasn’t a continuation or branching-off of an earlier faith, it just claimed to be, like Wicca claims to be the descendant of pre-Christian paganism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top