What does Islam mean for you?

[Zemouli Chahra]

Hi for all, or should I say Salam Alaikom, السلام عليكم,the greeting of muslism.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam comes from the same source. They all tend to make people believe in one single great God, Allah. By doing so, God sent prophets to guide people. All prophets have the same aim. Mousa came with Judaism, Jesus with christianity and Mohammed with Islam, Peace be upon all prophets.
However, the true religions were corrupted and the holy texts too changed to make the single God a father or a son. This single God was given sons and daughters which goes against the first aim of prophets. Thus, it came the last religion,Islam, to unify people under one single religion and one single God. And the holy Quran, the holy text of Islam, to correct the destructive other texts that were changed. Christianity is a true religion if wasn't corrupted, and Judaism too. But God said I'll protect Islam and that is why we still believe in one single God and having one holy text, Quran. Thus, all religions complement each other and all prophets are aqual having the same message.

I did my best to give a clear relationship between the three religions. I hope it is cleare now!

For you, what do you know about Islam and what is the realtionship between it and Christianity? And does Islam comes from the same source of Christianity?

With all respect to your beliefs

[Zemouli Chahra]

Hi for all, or should I say Salam Alaikom, السلام عليكم,the greeting of muslism.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam comes from the same source. They all tend to make people believe in one single great God, Allah. By doing so, God sent prophets to guide people. All prophets have the same aim. Mousa came with Judaism, Jesus with christianity and Mohammed with Islam, Peace be upon all prophets.
However, the true religions were corrupted and the holy texts too changed to make the single God a father or a son. This single God was given sons and daughters which goes against the first aim of prophets. Thus, it came the last religion,Islam, to unify people under one single religion and one single God. And the holy Quran, the holy text of Islam, to correct the destructive other texts that were changed. Christianity is a true religion if wasn't corrupted, and Judaism too. But God said I'll protect Islam and that is why we still believe in one single God and having one holy text, Quran. Thus, all religions complement each other and all prophets are aqual having the same message.

I did my best to give a clear relationship between the three religions. I hope it is cleare now!

For you, what do you know about Islam and what is the realtionship between it and Christianity? And does Islam comes from the same source of Christianity?

With all respect to your beliefs

Just to add
Aslaam alikum is not only for muslims. it means merci upon you.. so its applicable to everyone i think whenever u start talking to anyone and wish n pray for him.......

[cafolini]

Around the 7th century the Arabs decided they were tired of not being their own bankers and created Islam to do so against the West. Muhamed fought for hegemony in La Mecca and Yahtrib (now Medina), and armed with the Quran, by around 632 he managed to create one of the greatest empires that expanded through Malacca and into Africa and most of the Iberian peninsula. When the first Portuguese got to Malacca, at that time the center and pivot of the empire, they were impressed and one said that the owner of Malacca had his hands around the neck of VENICE. That's what Islam means to me.

[togre]

To react to specific points in your questions/comments...



Christianity, Judaism and Islam comes from the same source. They all tend to make people believe in one single great God, Allah.

There is a superficial similarity between the three. Specifically all three acknowledge only one God. However, the identity of God (who he is, what he requires, etc.) is markedly different between the three.



By doing so, God sent prophets to guide people. All prophets have the same aim. Mousa came with Judaism, Jesus with christianity and Mohammed with Islam, Peace be upon all prophets.

I could not disagree with this statement more strongly. To identify Jesus as merely a prophet, as one among many, is impossible. He identifies himself as God's Son in a unique way, he accepts praise, worship and titles that God alone deserves. Either he is who he says he is, or he a pretender and usurper of God's glory. No fence-sitting is allowed.



However, the true religions were corrupted and the holy texts too changed to make the single God a father or a son. This single God was given sons and daughters which goes against the first aim of prophets. Thus, it came the last religion,Islam, to unify people under one single religion and one single God. And the holy Quran, the holy text of Islam, to correct the destructive other texts that were changed. Christianity is a true religion if wasn't corrupted, and Judaism too.

This ignores the massive textual evidence that exists for both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. We have manuscripts and translations that vastly predate Islam and guess what? They contain no material differences from each other or from later manuscripts. Can and does and did error creep into the worship of Christians and Jews? Yes, but the thing needed for reform was not new revelation, but a return to the old.

Indeed, although much was muddled within the house of Israel when Jesus was born, he came not for reform, but for redemption.

And that is what distinguishes Christianity from Islam and the remnants of Judaism. Christianity reveals that the relationship between God and man can only exist on the basis of grace (undeserved love), mercy and forgiveness from God. Islam and what's left of Judaism approach God the basis of 'works-righteousness' --the idea that man must and can behave well enough to be acceptable to God. Christianity (in line with the teaching of Old Testament Judaism) recognizes that a holy God cannot accept "good enough" or lower his standards. But in an unparalleled act of love he provided his Son as a Substitute--one who provided a holy life, in our place, and one who suffered death for sin, in our place.


I mention all this to reiterate what I stated at the very beginning. Yes, the three great monotheistic religions have some outward points of similarity. But at their heart and core, at their essence, they are and ever will remain antithetical.

[mortalterror]

Islam means never having to say you're sorry... about the holocaust.

[mal4mac]

How do you know that Islam is the true religion?

Islam is not the last religion - Mormonism is more recent, for one.

How do you know that God said, "I'll protect Islam"? Unless you have had a revelation you have only heard men say this, or have seen it in books written by men.

[tonywalt]

I would say Islam and the other members of the "big three" monotheistic religons are right up there with "how many angels can dance on a pin or pen" in terms of my interest.

I am interested in God offering protection for Islam. When did he "say" this, I suppose he was chatting with Mohammad. Seems to me he has been rather selective lately as Western forces have a freehand, and use it in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not to mention aiming drone missiles at free will in many Islamic countries. While I do not condone this, he could step up that protection if given his undertaking.

I think dogma of any kind strangles free thinking and keeps certain people in power, which is just what it was designed to do.

[Paulclem]

My experience of Islam is through the Muslims I have met whilst travelling and through my job.

There were the friendly market people in the Bazaar in Istanbul, and the bread seller with the cat outside the Haji Sofia. There was the Manager of a Supermarket in Izmir who invited me into his office for a chat whilst my wife went with some of his staff for a haircut. (I forget how it was that they took her - I think it came out in conversation and they offered to take her to a local one). There was the friendly shopkeeper who always had a smile and a wave for us when we lived in Bombay, and the Bangladeshi taxi driver who often responds to calls we make when we are taking out the old Auntie here in Coventry.

Then there are the many Learners who were Muslim in my English, and now maths classes. In my current class there are Muslim ladies and a gent from the Sudan, Iraq, Somalia and Egypt.

All of them have been pleasant people who are good to know and teach. I think of this when I hear about the problems that are evident in the world between Islam and Christianity and Judaism. I can't equate the people I know with what are political power problems. The excuse and context of religion is often used in order to polarise opinion and cause unrest and problems. With the media a very willing advocate of this, it's very difficult to see through.

Nor can I really equate them with the "my religion is better than your religion brigade" which unfortunately the OP postulates.

the true religions were corrupted and the holy texts too changed to make the single God a father or a son. This single God was given sons and daughters which goes against the first aim of prophets. Thus, it came the last religion,Islam, to unify people under one single religion and one single God.

This is clearly a reference to the Christian trinity, and I find it most unhelpful from someone who really wants to find out what people think of Islam. It also, by inference, criticises wider religions such as Hinduism. It's as unhelpful as Cafolini's potted historial interpretation which has nothing to do with how Muslims are now and how we should get on.

My experience of Islam is positive because of the people I have met - friendly, accommodating, generous and tolerant.

[tonywalt]

My experience of Islam is positive because of the people I have met - friendly, accommodating, generous and tolerant.[/QUOTE]

I am always way behind the curve on mass media "campaigns", but I would say that the new mantra for the Western mass media is that Moslems are "a tolerant and peaceful people" and this should be coupled with anecdotal evidence. The majority are relatively tolerant and peaceful, no need to keep reciting it.

I noticed after the London tube bombings the BBC bent over backwards, sideways, and updside down to interview people of Pakistani decent (and other moslem majority countries) and have them express that how they did not condone the grevious action. Really! I would hope not. They must have zeroed in on every "Asian" in the bombing area standing around.

[cafolini]

My experience of Islam is through the Muslims I have met whilst travelling and through my job.

There were the friendly market people in the Bazaar in Istanbul, and the bread seller with the cat outside the Haji Sofia. There was the Manager of a Supermarket in Izmir who invited me into his office for a chat whilst my wife went with some of his staff for a haircut. (I forget how it was that they took her - I think it came out in conversation and they offered to take her to a local one). There was the friendly shopkeeper who always had a smile and a wave for us when we lived in Bombay, and the Bangladeshi taxi driver who often responds to calls we make when we are taking out the old Auntie here in Coventry.

Then there are the many Learners who were Muslim in my English, and now maths classes. In my current class there are Muslim ladies and a gent from the Sudan, Iraq, Somalia and Egypt.

All of them have been pleasant people who are good to know and teach. I think of this when I hear about the problems that are evident in the world between Islam and Christianity and Judaism. I can't equate the people I know with what are political power problems. The excuse and context of religion is often used in order to polarise opinion and cause unrest and problems. With the media a very willing advocate of this, it's very difficult to see through.

Nor can I really equate them with the "my religion is better than your religion brigade" which unfortunately the OP postulates.

the true religions were corrupted and the holy texts too changed to make the single God a father or a son. This single God was given sons and daughters which goes against the first aim of prophets. Thus, it came the last religion,Islam, to unify people under one single religion and one single God.

This is clearly a reference to the Christian trinity, and I find it most unhelpful from someone who really wants to find out what people think of Islam. It also, by inference, criticises wider religions such as Hinduism. It's as unhelpful as Cafolini's potted historial interpretation which has nothing to do with how Muslims are now and how we should get on.

My experience of Islam is positive because of the people I have met - friendly, accommodating, generous and tolerant.

But that's not what Islam is. You are talking about adherents of Islam, who are the Muslims. They live in Islam or in many other parts of the world, but they are not Islam. Islam is what I said it is. Each adherent is an individual who has been imposed Islam by force in the historical context I talked about.
I don't have to be helpful toward your presupositions to be helpful about anything. You are a demagogue when you do that. Of course you are too kind to be a despot.

[Paulclem]

But that's not what Islam is. You are talking about adherents of Islam, who are the Muslims. They live in Islam or in many other parts of the world, but they are not Islam. Islam is what I said it is. Each adherent is an individual who has been imposed Islam by force in the historical context I talked about.
I don't have to be helpful toward your presupositions to be helpful about anything. You are a demagogue when you do that. Of course you are too kind to be a despot.

But that's not what Islam is.

The OP said "What does Islam mean to you?" I have met Islam through the Muslims I've met.


Islam is what I said it is.

Around the 7th century the Arabs decided they were tired of not being their own bankers and created Islam to do so against the West. Muhamed fought for hegemony in La Mecca and Yahtrib (now Medina), and armed with the Quran, by around 632 he managed to create one of the greatest empires that expanded through Malacca and into Africa and most of the Iberian peninsula. When the first Portuguese got to Malacca, at that time the center and pivot of the empire, they were impressed and one said that the owner of Malacca had his hands around the neck of VENICE. That's what Islam means to me.

Is it this? Still lke the 7th century?

Each adherent is an individual who has been imposed Islam by force in the historical context I talked about.

I don't think so. Whatever the history, Islam is now culturally established under different conditions. It's like saying the Church of England as established by Henry VIII is still the vehicle of Royal oppression in the UK.

My point is that it is important how we relate to religions on an individual basis. Relating to Governments, power and politics only is an avenue that leads to polarisation and movement away from the actual human representatives. We all know that natural media hates a vacuum and stereotypes rush in to fill the gaps where no human individuals are referenced. I don't trust the media, government or politicians to to do this for me.

In response to Tonywalt though, good on the BBC if that's what they were doing. I saw the bombings on TV, and it would be all too easy to take the rabidity of the paper press and project it onto all Muslims. No-one wants poor judgement to be capitalised on by those elements in the political sphere who want religious/ racial strife.

[cafolini]

But that's not what Islam is.

The OP said "What does Islam mean to you?" I have met Islam through the Muslims I've met.


Islam is what I said it is.

Around the 7th century the Arabs decided they were tired of not being their own bankers and created Islam to do so against the West. Muhamed fought for hegemony in La Mecca and Yahtrib (now Medina), and armed with the Quran, by around 632 he managed to create one of the greatest empires that expanded through Malacca and into Africa and most of the Iberian peninsula. When the first Portuguese got to Malacca, at that time the center and pivot of the empire, they were impressed and one said that the owner of Malacca had his hands around the neck of VENICE. That's what Islam means to me.

Is it this? Still lke the 7th century?

Each adherent is an individual who has been imposed Islam by force in the historical context I talked about.

I don't think so. Whatever the history, Islam is now culturally established under different conditions. It's like saying the Church of England as established by Henry VIII is still the vehicle of Royal oppression in the UK.

My point is that it is important how we relate to religions on an individual basis. Relating to Governments, power and politics only is an avenue that leads to polarisation and movement away from the actual human representatives. We all know that natural media hates a vacuum and stereotypes rush in to fill the gaps where no human individuals are referenced. I don't trust the media, government or politicians to to do this for me.

In response to Tonywalt though, good on the BBC if that's what they were doing. I saw the bombings on TV, and it would be all too easy to take the rabidity of the paper press and project it onto all Muslims. No-one wants poor judgement to be capitalised on by those elements in the political sphere who want religious/ racial strife.

They actually continue to impose Islam by force today. The Muslims do not want Islam. They want Western democracies and hence all the trouble Islam is having today.
The people want Western demacracies. Look at Egypt, Lybia, Syria, etc. Islam is still what it always was, as I said. And they better stop financing terrorism and killing their citizens or I can guarantee you they are going to be finished faster than through slow evolution.
Why do most Muslims want to migrate out of Islam if they can? You think it is because Muslims like Islam. But of course, while inside, they could lose their tongues if they told anyone what they want. Islam is obsolete as a system of government and this is the end of this discussion. I'll not go in circles about this.
And by the way, your knowledge of English history is deficient. You cannot attribute the protestant church to a madman like Henry VIII who had nothing to do with his daughter Elizabeth I, the actual one who established it and send the Catholics back home. Sorry, my man. You are in error there too.

[tonywalt]

.........

[Paulclem]

They actually continue to impose Islam by force today. The Muslims do not want Islam. They want Western democracies and hence all the trouble Islam is having today.
The people want Western demacracies. Look at Egypt, Lybia, Syria, etc. Islam is still what it always was, as I said. And they better stop financing terrorism and killing their citizens or I can guarantee you they are going to be finished faster than through slow evolution.
Why do most Muslims want to migrate out of Islam if they can? You think it is because Muslims like Islam. But of course, while inside, they could lose their tongues if they told anyone what they want. Islam is obsolete as a system of government and this is the end of this discussion. I'll not go in circles about this.
And by the way, your knowledge of English history is deficient. You cannot attribute the protestant church to a madman like Henry VIII who had nothing to do with his daughter Elizabeth I, the actual one who established it and send the Catholics back home. Sorry, my man. You are in error there too.

You see I agree with some of what you say concerning some countries like Saudi - but that's not what the OP asked. I do think you generalise too much as well particularly considering that Muslims live not only in Muslim states but Western Democracies as well.

It might also be a little premature to assume that the Arab Spring will bring western style democracy to Libya etc. But that's not Islam - that's the politics like I said.

And they better stop financing terrorism and killing their citizens or I can guarantee you they are going to be finished faster than through slow evolution.

Don't you think you'd better leave those decisions to those who make them?

And by the way, your knowledge of English history is deficient. You cannot attribute the protestant church to a madman like Henry VIII

You're right - he was nuts. But it was in fact Henry VIII who made himself head of the Church of England when his divorce to Katherine of Aragorn was not ratified by the Pope. You're not C of E protestant are you?

this is the end of this discussion

Why do you assume that yours is the last and most important word? Surely we're just beginning. I have to say that I do enjoy your posts.

Just added this:

Reformation

While Anglicans acknowledge that Henry VIII's repudiation of papal authority caused the Church of England to become a separate entity, they believe that it is in continuity with the pre-Reformation Church of England. Apart from its distinct customs and liturgies (such as the Sarum rite), the organizational machinery of the Church of England was in place by the time of the Synod of Hertford in 672–673, when the English bishops were first able to act as one body under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry's Act in Restraint of Appeals (1533) and the Acts of Supremacy (1534) declared that the English crown was "the only Supreme Head in earth of the Church of England, called Ecclesia Anglicana," in order "to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same." The development of the Thirty-Nine Articles of religion and the passage of the Acts of Uniformity culminated in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. By the end of the 17th century, the English church described itself as both Catholic and Reformed, with the English monarch as its Supreme Governor.[3] MacCulloch commenting on this situation says that it "has nevgituer subsequently dared to define its identity decisively as Protestant or Catholic, and has decided in the end that this is a virtue rather than a handicap."[4]
[edit] King Henry VIII of England

The English Reformation was initially driven by the dynastic goals of Henry VIII, who, in his quest for a consort who would bear him a male heir, found it expedient to replace papal authority with the supremacy of the English crown. The early legislation focused primarily on questions of temporal and spiritual supremacy. The introduction of the Great Bible in 1538 brought a vernacular translation of the Scriptures into churches. The Dissolution of the Monasteries and the seizure of their assets by 1540 brought huge amounts of church land and property under the jurisdiction of the Crown, and ultimately into the hands of the English nobility. This simultaneously removed the greatest centers of loyalty to the pope and created vested interests which made a powerful material incentive to support a separate Christian church in England under the rule of the Crown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Church_of_England

[Zemouli Chahra]

Hello,
First, I'd like to say that my weakness in the language mastery did prevent me from transmitting clearly what I want.But I'll try my best to give you what I mean.
Here a small passage that explains very important points:" sorry if it is long"


Islam is not Just for Arabs:
Islam is not Just for Arabs The Truth of Islam is meant for all people regardless of race, nationality or linguistic background. Taking a look at the Muslim World, from Nigeria to Bosnia and from Malaysia to Afghanistan is enough to prove that Islam is a Universal message for all of mankind --- not to mention the fact that significant numbers of Europeans and Americans of all races and ethnic backgrounds are coming into Islam. Every Religion Claims That It Is The Truth (The Criteria Of The Truth) There are so many sects, cults, religions, philosophies, and movements in the world, all of which claim to be the right way or the only true path to Allah (God). How can one determine which one is correct or if, in fact, all are correct? The method by which the answer can be found is to clear away the superficial differences in the teachings of the various claimants to the ultimate truth, and identify the central object of worship to which they call, directly or indirectly. False religions all have in common one basic concept with regards to Allah. They either claim that all men are gods or that specific men were Allah or that nature is Allah or that Allah is a figment of man's imagination. Thus, it may be stated that the basic message of false religion is that Allah may be worshipped in the form of His creation. False religion invites man to the worship of creation by calling the creation or some aspect of it God. For example, prophet Jesus invited his followers to worship Allah but those who claim to be his followers today call people to worship Jesus, claiming that he was Allah! Buddha was a reformer who introduced a number of humanistic principles to the religion of India . He did not claim to be God nor did he suggest to his followers that he be an object of worship. Yet, today most Buddhists who are to be found outside of India have taken him to be God and prostrate to idols made in their perception of his likeness. By using the principle of identifying the object of worship, false religion becomes very obvious and the contrived nature of their origin clear. As God said in the Our'aan: That which you worship besides Him are only names you and your forefathers have invented for which Allah has sent down no authority: The command belongs only to Allah: He has commanded that you only worship Him; that is the right religion, but most men do not understand ". (Soorah Yoosuf 12:40) It may be argued that all religions teach good things so why should it matter which one we follow. The reply is that all false religions teach the greatest evil, the worship of creation. Creation-worship is the greatest sin that man can commit because it contradicts the very purpose of his creation. Man was created to worship Allah alone as Allah has explicitly stated in the Our'aan: "I have only created Jinns and men, that they may worship me"(Soorah Zaareeyaat 51:56) Consequently, the worship of creation, which is the essence of idolatry, is the only unforgivable sin. One who dies in this state of idolatry has sealed his fate in the next life. This is not an opinion, but a revealed fact stated by Allah in his final revelation to man: The following criteria can best serve as a gauge to find out the authenticity of the last revelation (the Qur'an) as words of God: 1. Rational Teachings: Since our Creator bestowed reason and intellect upon us, it is our duty to use it to distinguish the TRUTH from falsehood. True, undistorted revelation from God must be rational and can be reasoned out by all unbiased minds. 2. Perfection: Since our Creator is all perfect, His revelation must be perfect and accurate, free from mistakes, omissions, interpolations and multiplicity of versions. It should be free from contradictions in its narration. 3. No Myths or Superstitions: True revelation is free from myths or superstitions that degrade the dignity of our Creator or man himself. 4. Scientific: Since our Creator is the Creator of all knowledge, true revelation is scientific and can withstand the challenge of science at all times. 5. Factual Prophecy: Our Creator is the Knower of the past, present and future. Thus His prophecies in His revelation will be fulfilled as prophesied. 6. Inimitable By Man: True revelation is infallible and cannot be imitated by man. God's true revelation is a Living miracle, an open book challenging all mankind to see and prove for themselves its authenticity or veracity.

[Zemouli Chahra]

They actually continue to impose Islam by force today. The Muslims do not want Islam. They want Western democracies and hence all the trouble Islam is having today.
The people want Western demacracies. Look at Egypt, Lybia, Syria, etc. Islam is still what it always was, as I said. And they better stop financing terrorism and killing their citizens or I can guarantee you they are going to be finished faster than through slow evolution.
Why do most Muslims want to migrate out of Islam if they can? You think it is because Muslims like Islam. But of course, while inside, they could lose their tongues if they told anyone what they want. Islam is obsolete as a system of government and this is the end of this discussion. I'll not go in circles about this.

If there are any Muslims that do anything that is wrong we should realize that this is an individual who happens to be Muslim, therefore, one’s deeds are not to be attributed to the religion. Just as in a Judeo-Christian society like the United States, whenever a Jew or a Christian perpetrates a crime it is not attributed to Judaism or Christianity. Thus, the bad that the Muslims may do is not to be associated with Islam. Since the creation of humankind there has been an opposition for Islam to exist in its pristine purity and total completeness and the forces against it are still prevalent today.
Also, after the Egyptian and tunisian revolution, what did happen? The Muslim parties wone the parliamentery election with high percentage...And you should know that they were prevented from participation before revolution and the late governments did its possibility to prevent them from politics.... this refutes the idea that you've given that muslims don't like Islam. the opposite, they did choose Muslim parties for their representation in parliament.

"and this is the end of this discussion. I'll not go in circles about this"
Why? We did benefit from your opinion... and it would be better if you maintain discussion.

[Zemouli Chahra]

A Biblical picture of God
A Muslim believes that God is unlike anything we can imagine. No one can look at him and live. He never tires. He is All-Knowing, All-Seeing, All-Powerful, Perfect. All he needs do is decree a matter and it will be. Yet the language of the current Bible never fails to picture even God himself in undignified terms: God goes for a stroll: Genesis 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden." God can not find Adam (not all-knowing): Genesis 3:9-10 "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where are you? And he said, I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself."(from God?) God does not know if Adam ate from the tree or not (not all-knowing): Genesis 3:11 "And he (God) said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" Before looking for hidden meanings for the above verses, we should consider the following: 1) Read section 2.3. 2) If you were to give your child total, unconstrained freedom to do whatever he wants in your house, you only ask him "don’t play with my stereo." If he then goes ahead anyway and proceeds to dismantle it into fifty different pieces. If you know for a fact that he did it and you know exactly where he has hidden himself (maybe you had a hidden camera somewhere), would you walk all over the house calling out "Where are you my son?," "come out, come out wherever you are"?, or would you storm up to the place where he was hiding, pull him out by his ears, and punish him severely? 3) If you did not know where he was hiding, but knew what he had done without a doubt, would you, once you had found him, ask him: "why are you hiding? Did you break my stereo?" It is important to first attempt to think logically before looking for abstract meanings. Note: For the Islamic version of this incident please read chapter 15. God becomes tired and needs to be *******ed: Exodus 31:17 "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was *******ed." Notice that the verse does not claim that God Almighty "abstained from work," but rather that He "rested." This implies that it is possible for God Almighty to experience fatigue and that He is not All-Mighty and All-Powerful since He sometimes needs to be "*******ed." God is not cognizant and/or is not eternally aware (not all knowing, all seeing, attentive and aware): Psalms 44:23 "Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever." When God finally becomes cognizant attentive and aware, He acts like a drunkard: Psalms 78:65 "Then the LORD awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine." The above verses are responded to by the Almighty in the noble Qur’an as follows: "And verily We (God) did create the heavens and the earth in six days and no fatigue touched Us." The noble Qur’an, Qaf(50):38 "Allah! there is no god but He, the Living, the Sustainer and Protector. Neither slumber nor sleep overtake Him. His are all things in the heavens and the earth. Who can intercede in His presence except as He permits? He knows what is before and behind them. Nor do they encompass aught of His knowledge except as He wills. His throne does extend over the heavens and the earth and He feels no fatigue in preserving them. For He is the Most High, the Supreme." The noble Qur’an, Al-Baqarah(2):255 Jacob wrestles with God. God can not win against Jacob. Jacob sees God face to face: "And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Genesis 32:24-30 Many people claim the Jacob wrestled with an angel. Does this sound like he wrestled with an angel? Did Jacob (pbuh) say "I have seen the angel of God"? Did he say "I have seen the light of God" or some other statement that might have had an abstract meaning? No! He said "I have seen God" and just so that there would be no doubt in anyone's mind he added the words "face to face." If Jacob (pbuh) had wrestled with an angel, then why would he need to say "my life is preserved"? Do people who see angels die? (Numbers 22:31, 2 Samuel 24:17, 1 Chronicles 21:16, ...etc.). If Jacob had seen the face of an angel then why would he name the place "the face of God"(peni-el), and not "the face of the angel"(peni-malak)? Indeed, this is how the great St. Augustine and many others understood this verse. This brings up another question. How do we reconcile this with point 25 in the table of section 2.2 (regarding seeing God)? We are beaten over the head four times with the fact that a human (Jacob, peace be upon him) managed to out-wrestle God Almighty, but the translators realizing the fallacy of this concoction continually try to reinterpret this verse and make excuses for it. Notice how we are beaten over the head not once, but four times with the fact that this was GOD who was beaten by Jacob: 1) "I have seen GOD." 2) "FACE to FACE." 3) "And my life is preserved." 4) They called the place "Peniel" ("FACE OF GOD"). Are we now to believe that God wrestled with Jacob all night, He resorted to hitting Jacob (pbuh) below the belt, and in the end was still bested by Jacob ("I will not let thee go, except thou bless me")? When someone has you in a headlock and tells you: "do as I tell you," is he victorious or not? God forbid! High exalted is He! Illustrious! Mighty! Magnificent! All-Powerful! Neither Moses nor Jacob would ever make such a claim. Nor would the other prophets of God. The great and noble prophets would never dare to claim that God had been reduced to a punching bag to further their own egos. Notice how we are encouraged to believe that it is not sufficient to humbly prostrate oneself before God, bowing down and beseeching Him for His favors in earnest prayer and in all submission. Rather it is necessary to slap Him silly and beat Him into the ground then force Him to bless the victor. Is this not preposterous? Does this not reek of tampering fingers? May God Almighty forgive me for even repeating these words. God regrets his actions, God can not see the future, God can not change the past: Genesis 6:6 "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." It is not possible to regret doing something unless the result of this action was something bad that had not been foreseen and can not be changed. In Webster's New Dictionary (1990), the word "repent" is defined as follows: to regret, sorrow for, to wish to have been otherwise what one has done or left undone. Thus, God is claimed to be: 1) Unable to see the future: If I know for a certainty that performing "action" will result in "result," then when "result" comes about I will not regret it unless I was forced in the first place to perform "action." There is a difference between "disliking" something and "regretting" something. 2) Unable to change the past if he wanted to: As per the above Webster's definition, to repent is to "wish to have been otherwise what one has done or left undone." But if God is capable of doing all things, as a Muslim believes, then he does not need to "wish." He simply decrees it and it is. Also notice that God is not merely claimed to have regretted this action, but to have "grieved at His heart." Webster's defines grief as: Deep sorrow caused by loss, distress. So according to this passage, God felt the deepest sorrow from the bottom of his heart. If one of us felt this kind of torment and was given the means to change matters, would we hesitate? God is not this helpless! For the Islamic perspective on God Almighty, read the following: God Almighty: Al-Ikhlas(112):1-4, Kaaf(50):38, Al-Aaraf(7):143, Al-Shurah(24):11-12, Al-Anaam(6):3, Saba(34):27, Al-Zumar(39):1-7, Al-Hashir(59):21-24, Al-Hadeed(57):1-6
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch5.1.html
Holy Quran translation of all language and voice

http://quran.nu/jp/

[Electric]

To identify Jesus as merely a prophet, as one among many, is impossible. He identifies himself as God's Son in a unique way, he accepts praise, worship and titles that God alone deserves. Either he is who he says he is, or he a pretender and usurper of God's glory. No fence-sitting is allowed.



It is not that impossible to say Jesus was, based on his words, a prophet. Jesus called himself a prophet in Mark 6:4, Matthew 13:57, and Luke 13:13.


- Mark 6:4 (NKJV) But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”

- Matthew 13:57 (NKJV) So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”



Jesus doesn't seem to have claimed glory, accepted to be worshipped, or even allowed others to praise him. He didn't have an agenda of his own according to him.

For his rejection of praise:


- Matthew 19:17(NKJV) So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?[a] No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments



For Jesus's respect to God the creator who sent him:


- John 14:28(NKJV) ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I.

- John 6:38(NKJV) For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

- Luke 4:8 (NKJV) ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”[c]

- John 5:30(NKJV) I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because [B]I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.



Just to quote few verses from the bible in support of Islam's position on Jesus, who was a messenger among messengers, a human like Adam, a man who spread the same message others before him and the one after him did.



One thing is for certain, Pauline Christianity(today's christianity), is totally different from Jesus's monotheistic teachings. Jesus's first order of business when he declared his messengership was: - Mark 12:29(NKJV)Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one".


So, three gods in one, devinity of jesus, sonship of jesus and all other doctrines have No support in the bible, just forced interpretation and no clear evidence for them

[cafolini]

It is not that impossible to say Jesus was, based on his words, a prophet. Jesus called himself a prophet in Mark 6:4, Matthew 13:57, and Luke 13:13.


- Mark 6:4 (NKJV) But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”

- Matthew 13:57 (NKJV) So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”



Jesus doesn't seem to have claimed glory, accepted to be worshipped, or even allowed others to praise him. He didn't have an agenda of his own according to him.

For his rejection of praise:


- Matthew 19:17(NKJV) So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?[a] No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments



For Jesus's respect to God the creator who sent him:


- John 14:28(NKJV) ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I.

- John 6:38(NKJV) For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

- Luke 4:8 (NKJV) ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”[c]

- John 5:30(NKJV) I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because [B]I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.



Just to quote few verses from the bible in support of Islam's position on Jesus, who was a messenger among messengers, a human like Adam, a man who spread the same message others before him and the one after him did.



One thing is for certain, Pauline Christianity(today's christianity), is totally different from Jesus's monotheistic teachings. Jesus's first order of business when he declared his messengership was: - Mark 12:29(NKJV)Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one".


So, three gods in one, devinity of jesus, sonship of jesus and all other doctrines have No support in the bible, just forced interpretation and no clear evidence for them

The funniest Roman satire was: Nobody goes to the father except through me.
The funniest Islamic satire was that the Quran was revelation because Mohammed was an analphabet that could not have composed it on his own.

[Electric]

The funniest Roman satire was: Nobody goes to the father except through me.
The funniest Islamic satire was that the Quran was revelation because Mohammed was an analphabet that could not have composed it on his own.



It is true Jesus said "no one comes to the father except through me", a valid point all messengers made to people who wanted to invent their ways to God rather than follow the guidlines of the book from the entrusted person(Jesus in christianity's case). The people Jesus was talking to had different ideas and rejected his claim of messengership, accused him of falsehood etc, so his reply was what you quoted as a roman saying. You either followed Jesus to Get to God, or you were lost. That is the meaning.

As for the Quran being a revelation, not the invention of Mohamed, you need to open it up and read it to conclude otherwise.

[cafolini]

"As for the Quran being a revelation, not the invention of Mohamed, you need to open it up and read it to conclude otherwise."

I find that statement of yours memorable, perspicacious and accurate. One can't help but wonder how many Muslims actually ever read the Quran apart from talking about hearsay and gossip.

[Electric]

"As for the Quran being a revelation, not the invention of Mohamed, you need to open it up and read it to conclude otherwise."

I find that statement of yours memorable, perspicacious and accurate. One can't help but wonder how many Muslims actually ever read the Quran apart from talking about hearsay and gossip.



How do you know muslims don't read the Quran? You misunderstood me. I meant to say that for you to make conclusive verdict on the Quran, you have to take the time to read it personally, the kind of efforts you want Muslims themselves to make. That way, what you say has legs to stand on.

[cafolini]

How do you know muslims don't read the Quran? You misunderstood me. I meant to say that for you to make conclusive verdict on the Quran, you have to take the time to read it personally, the kind of efforts you want Muslims themselves to make. That way, what you say has legs to stand on.

Ha! I still find your statement like I said I did. It is you a posteriori that pressuposes I didn't read the Quran. I didn't misunderstand what you said. It is you who thought you said what you didn't. Reread it until you find your shortcircuit, Electric. Case closed.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm interested to read Cafolini's response to Paul. Clear, the discussion was not a an end.

[Alexander III]

My experience of Islam is through the Muslims I have met whilst travelling and through my job.

There were the friendly market people in the Bazaar in Istanbul, and the bread seller with the cat outside the Haji Sofia. There was the Manager of a Supermarket in Izmir who invited me into his office for a chat whilst my wife went with some of his staff for a haircut. (I forget how it was that they took her - I think it came out in conversation and they offered to take her to a local one). There was the friendly shopkeeper who always had a smile and a wave for us when we lived in Bombay, and the Bangladeshi taxi driver who often responds to calls we make when we are taking out the old Auntie here in Coventry.

Then there are the many Learners who were Muslim in my English, and now maths classes. In my current class there are Muslim ladies and a gent from the Sudan, Iraq, Somalia and Egypt.

All of them have been pleasant people who are good to know and teach. I think of this when I hear about the problems that are evident in the world between Islam and Christianity and Judaism. I can't equate the people I know with what are political power problems. The excuse and context of religion is often used in order to polarise opinion and cause unrest and problems. With the media a very willing advocate of this, it's very difficult to see through.

Nor can I really equate them with the "my religion is better than your religion brigade" which unfortunately the OP postulates.

the true religions were corrupted and the holy texts too changed to make the single God a father or a son. This single God was given sons and daughters which goes against the first aim of prophets. Thus, it came the last religion,Islam, to unify people under one single religion and one single God.

This is clearly a reference to the Christian trinity, and I find it most unhelpful from someone who really wants to find out what people think of Islam. It also, by inference, criticises wider religions such as Hinduism. It's as unhelpful as Cafolini's potted historial interpretation which has nothing to do with how Muslims are now and how we should get on.

My experience of Islam is positive because of the people I have met - friendly, accommodating, generous and tolerant.

This is probably one of the finest posts I have ever read on the religion sub-forum.

People always make the distinction atheist/christian/jew/islamic.

But that is not the real distinction, the real distinction and the only one that really matters is, sane/zealot.

Every religion or non religion has the sane and it has the zealot.

Instead of critiquing zealotry people criticizes groups, when groups are not the problem.

[cafolini]

I'm interested to read Cafolini's response to Paul. Clear, the discussion was not a an end.

Sorry. Anything I had to say was said. To extend this would be circular and boring to me. It's people's right to judge the discussion as they please. I am not trying to convince anyone.
"Convictions are not necessarily true: a note for asses." F. Nietzsche. I agree with that.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Whatever.

I came up with a quote of my own: "Nietzsche: creator of quotes to be used by pompous asses."

[Scheherazade]

~

Please do not personalise your comments.

This thread will now be closed.

~