Questions about Islam

[Pico]

Hello, last thursday, I was talking to some Muslims at my school about Islam, but there were some things about it that didn't really make sense to me. I am a Christian, and I was wondering if anyone can help clarify these for me:

1) Muslims belive that to get to heaven all you have to do is ask God to forgive your sins; that's all you have to do and he will. Now what I don't get is this: if God made it that from day 1 (considering that God is un-changing) that by simply asking for forgiveness he will forgive you, why would he withhold such valuable information from the Jews (his "chosen people")? That seems like a cruel thing for a loving god to do. Not only that, but Jesus would never have had to, nor been wiling to give up his life for humanity.

God made it clear that without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sins. The Jews would sacrifice animals to forgive their sins, Christians have Jesus, who took the punishment of all humanity's sins on the Cross. Where's this "shedding of blood" in Islam?

2)Muslims believe that Jesus was not the son of God and did not die for forgiveness of our sins. Yet in the Old Testament, there are some 200 prophecies about the Messiah, who will save God's chosen people so that they will not have to be separated from Him forever. All these prophecies were fullfilled by Jesus, which talk about his life, lineage, where he would be born, how he would die, and how people would react to him. Many of those are completely out of Jesus' controll.

Now other prophets were able to perform miracles with the power granted to them by God, yet none of them claimed to be God like Jesus did (there are many documents, including non-Christian documents about Jesus doing things only God has the authority to do, like telling people their sins are forgiven). Now, if Jesus was not the Son of God like he claimed it would be blasphemy, and why would God give him the authority to do such miracles as raising the dead, healing the sick, paralized, blind, lame, etc.?

3) The Muslims I talked to said that the other 2 religions--Judaism, and Christianity--really got it wrong, and that Islam is the clarification of what really is. But the Bible was written by some 60 authors (about 20 for the New Testament) and is very consistent with itself, plus there are around 100,000 sources that have been found that back up what the Bible says (with about 30,000 about Jesus alone); whereas the Quaran was written by 1 man (Muhammad? I read that the oldest manuscript of the Quaran was dated to 100+ years after the death of Muhammad). What seems more likely: that 60 people got it wrong, or that 1 person got it wrong?

 

[thipps]

1) Muslims belive that to get to heaven all you have to do is ask God to forgive your sins; that's all you have to do and he will. Now what I don't get is this: if God made it that from day 1 (considering that God is un-changing) that by simply asking for forgiveness he will forgive you, why would he withhold such valuable information from the Jews (his "chosen people")? That seems like a cruel thing for a loving god to do. Not only that, but Jesus would never have had to, nor been wiling to give up his life for humanity.

God made it clear that without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sins. The Jews would sacrifice animals to forgive their sins, Christians have Jesus, who took the punishment of all humanity's sins on the Cross. Where's this "shedding of blood" in Islam?

You are asking questions on islam but using christianity as a pivot. All your questions are flawed in that sense.
And asking for forgiveness is just part of being Muslim. Faith MUST be followed by actions (Note: I suggest you read the book of James in your Bible). goes without saying that sincerity is part of this all too.
Its been made clear many times before that the stance of the Quran regarding the Jewish and Christian scriptures is that these have been corrupted (recall 7 book difference between catholic and protestant bible, Pico). If some part of it agrees with the Quran, then it can be said that this might be some of the Word of God still left intact. Furthermore, we believe that the previous messengers/prophets sent by God were sent to thier nations only but Mohammad(pbuh) was sent to all humanity.
In short thats it. so your 'shedding of blood' concept doesnt really apply.

2)Muslims believe that Jesus was not the son of God and did not die for forgiveness of our sins. Yet in the Old Testament, there are some 200 prophecies about the Messiah, who will save God's chosen people so that they will not have to be separated from Him forever. All these prophecies were fullfilled by Jesus, which talk about his life, lineage, where he would be born, how he would die, and how people would react to him. Many of those are completely out of Jesus' controll.

Now other prophets were able to perform miracles with the power granted to them by God, yet none of them claimed to be God like Jesus did (there are many documents, including non-Christian documents about Jesus doing things only God has the authority to do, like telling people their sins are forgiven). Now, if Jesus was not the Son of God like he claimed it would be blasphemy, and why would God give him the authority to do such miracles as raising the dead, healing the sick, paralized, blind, lame, etc.?

Muslims dont agree that Jesus(pbuh) ever claimed divinity and neither did he die on the cross. We believe he was a messenger of God. And some of those prophecies are shown to apply to the Prophet Mohammad(pbuh) more than Jesus(pbuh). I suggest a book which attempts to answer all these claims. Read it if you wish.
What did Jesus really say by Misha'al ibn Abdullah Al-Kadhi.
I got it a long time ago from the internet. so, If you google it, you might find it.

3) The Muslims I talked to said that the other 2 religions--Judaism, and Christianity--really got it wrong, and that Islam is the clarification of what really is. But the Bible was written by some 60 authors (about 20 for the New Testament) and is very consistent with itself, plus there are around 100,000 sources that have been found that back up what the Bible says (with about 30,000 about Jesus alone); whereas the Quaran was written by 1 man (Muhammad? I read that the oldest manuscript of the Quaran was dated to 100+ years after the death of Muhammad). What seems more likely: that 60 people got it wrong, or that 1 person got it wrong?

Some clarification is required here. Mohammad(pbuh) didnt write the Quran. He couldnt. He was an illiterate. The chain of narration is like this: God (Most Gracious)-> Gabriel(peace be upon him)->Mohammad(pbuh)-> his Companions(May Allaah be pleased with them all)-> to the rest of the world.
He would dictate it and have it read back to him for rechecking. Dont know about the 100+ years thing. I dont think thats correct. Hope someone else can clear that up for you. Just a note... since you are really into comparing christianity and Islam. Recall the council of nicea (325 AD). You have a problem with 100+ years, how about 325 years after the fact? and another thing, no two manuscripts of the bible are alike. which one is the right one?
etc. etc.
regards,
thipps.

 

[Pico]

You are asking questions on islam but using christianity as a pivot. All your questions are flawed in that sense.
And asking for forgiveness is just part of being Muslim. Faith MUST be followed by actions (Note: I suggest you read the book of James in your Bible). goes without saying that sincerity is part of this all too.
Its been made clear many times before that the stance of the Quran regarding the Jewish and Christian scriptures is that these have been corrupted (recall 7 book difference between catholic and protestant bible, Pico). If some part of it agrees with the Quran, then it can be said that this might be some of the Word of God still left intact. Furthermore, we believe that the previous messengers/prophets sent by God were sent to thier nations only but Mohammad(pbuh) was sent to all humanity.
In short thats it. so your 'shedding of blood' concept doesnt really apply.

Well, if I'm going to belive that Islam is superior to Christianity, I would need to compare them in order to be sure.

I know that Catholics and Protestants split becaues of disagreements about how they should go about the relgion, and those 7 extra books is one of those disagreements. Back in 325AD, the coucil tried to decide what should be put into the Bible, but they wanted to make sure that the books were 1)divinely inspired 2)known to be valid 3)contained life-changing guidance and 4) that they were consistent with the rest of the Bible. All the New Testament author either personaly knew Jesus, or were in close association of those who did.

I don't see how there being 7 more books in the Catholic Bible means it was corrupted, because they both believe the same general message, just some small technicalitites are different.

Muslims dont agree that Jesus(pbuh) ever claimed divinity and neither did he die on the cross. We believe he was a messenger of God. And some of those prophecies are shown to apply to the Prophet Mohammad(pbuh) more than Jesus(pbuh). I suggest a book which attempts to answer all these claims. Read it if you wish.
What did Jesus really say by Misha'al ibn Abdullah Al-Kadhi.
I got it a long time ago from the internet. so, If you google it, you might find it.

I'm sure you could interpret some prophecies to be about Mohammad, but that doesn't change that every single one of them applies to Jesus. I would also rather listen to those who personaly knew Jesus, as opposed to somone who didn't about what Jesus did or did not say. Not only that, but Jesus' diciples (except or John) all died horrible deaths (many were beaten and imprised also) for spreading the word that Jesus was the Massiah and rose from the dead, as opposed to saying it didn't hapen. Now no body would willingly give up their life for something they knew was a lie, so these people obviously knew Jesus was alive (Jesus appeared to many people after he was ressurected). And yes, Jesus only preached in a certain nation, but after the ressurection, he sent his diciples out to spread the word to the world.

Some clarification is required here. Mohammad(pbuh) didnt write the Quran. He couldnt. He was an illiterate. The chain of narration is like this: God (Most Gracious)-> Gabriel(peace be upon him)->Mohammad(pbuh)-> his Companions(May Allaah be pleased with them all)-> to the rest of the world.
He would dictate it and have it read back to him for rechecking. Dont know about the 100+ years thing. I dont think thats correct. Hope someone else can clear that up for you. Just a note... since you are really into comparing christianity and Islam. Recall the council of nicea (325 AD). You have a problem with 100+ years, how about 325 years after the fact? and another thing, no two manuscripts of the bible are alike. which one is the right one?
etc. etc.
regards,
thipps.

Oh, sorry, the Musilms I talked to said that after Mohammad talked to Gabriel he was able to write. Well, all the previous prophets wrote down what God dictated to them, but for the Quaran, a man dictated to others what he claimed God revealed to him? How can one be absolutely sure that he got it right in the first place if it's all based on what one person said? People arent' perfect, and they make mistakes. The Bible was written by many different authors, but they proclaim the same message.

As for the council that put the Bible together 325 years after Jesus, they could have changed it to how they wanted, but the origional manuscripts have been found dating from 5-50 years or so (the gospels were written 5-20 years) after Jesus was ressurected. And they are consisten with the general message, it's just little technicalities that differ.

 

[mansio]

Thipps

as-salaamu 3alayka

You can assert that the Bible has been corrupted. If you want to give proofs for that we would be interested by them.
But do not give a non-proof like the 7 seven books difference between Protestants and Catholics.

When Pico says Muhammad wrote the Quran he means Muhammad is the author of the Quran, not necessarily the person who wrote it down. So your argument that the Prophet was illiterate does not hold, as Muhammad could have dictated the Quran of which he could be the author.

Pico also mentions the discrepancy between Jibrîl in the Quran saying to Muhammad "Recite" and Jibrîl in Bukhari's Hadith saying "Read".

 

[iBrian]

I believe we have many discussions about the fallibility or not of the Bible already - better to keep those discussions on those threads.

I believe this original thread was supposed to be asking specific questions about Islam, but it seems to be fast changing into a "my faith is better than Islam thread". Would be great if we didn't see that continue.

As for the illiteracy of Mohammed - this is indeed the accepted history. If anyone's going to argue that Mohammed wrote the Qur'an with his own hand, I want to see sources.

And certainly it should be noted that there's a big difference in authority between the Qur'an and the Hadith.

 

[bananabrain]

i'd also like to hear some islamic arguments for why the Torah is supposedly corrupt. it keeps coming up as if it's clear, but nobody's ever shown me any evidence. i might as well say "the bits of the Qur'an that agree with the Torah are correct" - as indeed i do, but i don't then go on to say that the rest of it is obviously not the true word of G!D.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[mansio]

I, Brian

As far as I know from discussions on Muslim forums, Quran and Hadith have the same degree of authority to the point that I said (half jokingly) that Muslims have three or four Holy Books, not only one.
Of course I mean only the Hadith that are recognized as true by a majority of Muslims (Bukhari's Sahi and Muslim's Sahi for example).

 

[didymus]

Not to fan the flames further but i suggest you reread what took place at the Council of Nicea.

 

[pharma4ever]

Hello, last thursday, I was talking to some Muslims at my school about Islam, but there were some things about it that didn't really make sense to me. I am a Christian, and I was wondering if anyone can help clarify these for me:

1) Muslims belive that to get to heaven all you have to do is ask God to forgive your sins; that's all you have to do and he will. Now what I don't get is this: if God made it that from day 1 (considering that God is un-changing) that by simply asking for forgiveness he will forgive you, why would he withhold such valuable information from the Jews (his "chosen people")? That seems like a cruel thing for a loving god to do. Not only that, but Jesus would never have had to, nor been wiling to give up his life for humanity.

God made it clear that without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sins. The Jews would sacrifice animals to forgive their sins, Christians have Jesus, who took the punishment of all humanity's sins on the Cross. Where's this "shedding of blood" in Islam?

ok let me discuss that with u
1st) Not only Asking God for forgiveness is the way to heavens,that's wrong.
u have to be a good muslim who pray and do what God ordered u to do ,so u should pray and help the poor ...etc
but as we are created as humans not angels we will do mistakes and then the matter is easy,u only can regret and ask God for forgiveness and He will forgive u.
Why God need to kill his son(that if he has a son and i am sure he doesn't)if He really wanna to forgive us?? and why we call the human who kill his son a bad human and a terrorist who has no mercy then u say God himself killed his son!!!
God can forgive easily why shall He need blood?
yes in Islam we have also killing some animals (e.g cows ) and the killing should be by cutting off the head by a knife,why we do that?
this is to distribute the meat on the poor .
in islam we have from the very begining the same method of forgiving from the day of Adam till noe,when u make a mistake u can ask for forgiveness and that will be done as God is most merciful.
look for this translation of meaning of Quran (7:23)
They (Adam and Eve)said: "Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: if Thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall Certainly be
lost."
so u can find that Adam also asked for forgiveness by words not by blood

 

[pharma4ever]

2)Muslims believe that Jesus was not the son of God and did not die for forgiveness of our sins. Yet in the Old Testament, there are some 200 prophecies about the Messiah, who will save God's chosen people so that they will not have to be separated from Him forever. All these prophecies were fullfilled by Jesus, which talk about his life, lineage, where he would be born, how he would die, and how people would react to him. Many of those are completely out of Jesus' controll.

Now other prophets were able to perform miracles with the power granted to them by God, yet none of them claimed to be God like Jesus did (there are many documents, including non-Christian documents about Jesus doing things only God has the authority to do, like telling people their sins are forgiven). Now, if Jesus was not the Son of God like he claimed it would be blasphemy, and why would God give him the authority to do such miracles as raising the dead, healing the sick, paralized, blind, lame, etc.?

i don't know why although all ur words are about bible,u came to ask muslims!!
Don't u know that Mohammed also was able to heal the sick,blind,...by permission of God??
i wanna also ask
in Mat 19 (16-17) that says that Jesus is not God and not lord at all
that also tells us that he is completely different from God!!
Matt 4 (23-24) in this u will find Jesus praying!!
if Jesus is the lord why the lord pray??? and pray to worship whom??!!
i think Jesus is not lord but just messenger of God who worship Him
that make us sure that Bible is full of discrepancies ,sometimes u find Jesus lord and in the same time he is not lord!!

 

[pharma4ever]

3) The Muslims I talked to said that the other 2 religions--Judaism, and Christianity--really got it wrong, and that Islam is the clarification of what really is. But the Bible was written by some 60 authors (about 20 for the New Testament) and is very consistent with itself, plus there are around 100,000 sources that have been found that back up what the Bible says (with about 30,000 about Jesus alone); whereas the Quaran was written by 1 man (Muhammad? I read that the oldest manuscript of the Quaran was dated to 100+ years after the death of Muhammad). What seems more likely: that 60 people got it wrong, or that 1 person got it wrong?

the sources found about bible are all different ,so,that never make us sure which is the correct one!
if i wroted an article and then u found 5 articles different all are said to be mine ,how can u say that this one exactly is mine and others are not??
if 2 sources only are the same ,we will think they are the correct but for sorrow all are different.
Mohammed is not the author of Quran
the author of Quran is God
God told Gepriel the Quran and Gepriel told Mohammed
Mohammed told the muslims who wrote the Quran
but the 1st time to collect the written Quran in one book was after death of prophet Mohammed (only one year or less)
and then the one book was copied many copies then each copy was sent to a muslim country and that happened after death of prophet Mohammed by about 15 years

 

[pharma4ever]

I, Brian

As far as I know from discussions on Muslim forums, Quran and Hadith have the same degree of authority to the point that I said (half jokingly) that Muslims have three or four Holy Books, not only one.
Of course I mean only the Hadith that are recognized as true by a majority of Muslims (Bukhari's Sahi and Muslim's Sahi for example).

the same degree of authority??
wrong

 

[mansio]

Pharma

Muslims use the Sahih Hadith only because they have the same authority as the Quran. They would not use them if they had not that authority.
Of course there are Hadith which have a lesser degree of authority and others no authority at all.
Just try to discuss about Islam without resorting to Hadith !

 

[thipps]

I, Brian

As far as I know from discussions on Muslim forums, Quran and Hadith have the same degree of authority to the point that I said (half jokingly) that Muslims have three or four Holy Books, not only one.
Of course I mean only the Hadith that are recognized as true by a majority of Muslims (Bukhari's Sahi and Muslim's Sahi for example).

I dont recall that you were (half-)joking at that time. The problem really lies in where you use the word 'Book'. Every statement attributed to the Prophet(pbuh) is every hadith book is not authentic. Thats why i didnt agree with you. Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are hadith books, not hadith. We dont just take a collection of ahaadith wholly. Each individual statement in each book is checked and authenticated. Please read the summary of a book I mentioned below.

And certainly it should be noted that there's a big difference in authority between the Qur'an and the Hadith.

Actually there isnt really. I think ive said it before that the Sunnah explains the Qur'an. You can't do without it. btw, having knowledge of the arabic language wont negate its necessity either.

I would suggest a treatise (only 18 pages) on this subject entitled:
The status of the Sunnah in Islam BY Imam Muhammad Naasir-ud-Din Al-Albaanee.
btw, shiekh Albaanee was an expert in hadith. I will write the summary here for you (the book says in the beginning that it is permissible to do so):
It is an obligation on all of the Muslims to not differentiate between the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, with regard to the obligation of accepting both of them together and establishing Laws based on both of them. Indeed this is the guarantee that will prevent them from drifting to the right and the left, and from returning to deviation.
This is as the Prophet (pbuh) clearly stated: "I have left two things for you, which you will never go astray so long as you adhere to them: The Book of Allaah and my Sunnah. These two will never separate from one another until they return to the Fountain." [Reported by Maalik and Al-Haakim with a sound chain of narration].
I'll add something more here:
The Qur'aan uses also the word "Hikmah" literally meaning wisdom. Allaah the Most High states:
"He is the One who sent from amongst the unlettered a Messenger reciting to them His verses. And purifying them, and teaching them the Book and al-Hikmah (wisdom)." [Qur'an, 62:2]
Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee explains this word "Hikmah" or wisdom to mean Sunnah. His view is representative of the majority.
Anyway, read the book. its short and very helpful.
Hope this helped.
And Allaah knows best.

 

[thipps]

Pharma

Muslims use the Sahih Hadith only because they have the same authority as the Quran. They would not use them if they had not that authority.
Of course there are Hadith which have a lesser degree of authority and others no authority at all.
Just try to discuss about Islam without resorting to Hadith !

This is strange indeed. You say that they have the same authority then tell the other person to discuss about Islam without resorting to hadith. strange.

 

[iBrian]

Actually there isnt really. I think ive said it before that the Sunnah explains the Qur'an. You can't do without it. btw, having knowledge of the arabic language wont negate its necessity either.

That's interesting actually - I was under the impression that the Qur'an was essentially the word of God and that if anything appears to be at odds with what the Qur'an says, then it's the Qur'an that is always the authority?

I guess it sounds a it like the Jewish Torah and Oral law - the written scriptures, and the commentary to understand them better.

 

[mansio]

Thipps

I did not say not to use the Hadith, I just challenged Pharma to discuss Islam without resorting to the Hadith.

 

[thipps]

Thipps

I did not say not to use the Hadith, I just challenged Pharma to discuss Islam without resorting to the Hadith.

i wasnt aware that you came here to play games. and if you were serious, then both of you are wasting your time. There is no point in that. I think not too long ago a guy came around who was in teh mood for just that in the Islam channel. I think it was amply clear that he had nothing to stand on.

 

[ThePennyDrops]

Well, if I'm going to belive that Islam is superior to Christianity, I would need to compare them in order to be sure.

Why do you have to believe that one religion has to be superior to another?

 

[aburaees]

I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding here.
What Mansio is trying to say is that we would have a hard time trying to discuss Islam without referring to Hadiths (Sahih).
We would have a hard time trying to discuss Islam if we only referred to the Qur'an.
Sahih Hadith and Qur'an have an equal contribution to our understanding of Islam, can't have one without the other.