Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Leto

Islamic Soteriology

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In the Qor'an (3:45) Jesus is given the title Messiah (Greek: Kristos, English: the anointed one). If I got it right the islamic teaching about Jesus is that after his life as a prophet he was taken into heaven where he awaits the destined time to return to this world to bring about God's victory on the unbelievers. The Imam Mahdi will also return from his occultation.

In the Old Testament the kings of Juda and Israel where anointed as where the priests and the prophets. Some Hebrew prophets promised a man from the House of David that will be anointed like his great forefather and thus become a messiah like David and the other kings of old. The promise of this special messiah gained importance and eventually he became known as the Messiah, the anointed one pur sang. He would be the saviour of the faithful and the champion of God.

Christianity is based on the belief in Jesus as Messiah. In Christian theology the contemplation about the nature of the salvation brought by Jesus is perhaps the most central theme. The doctorines of Incarnation (of the pre-existent Logos), Self-Sacrifice and Ressurection are the most important cornerstones of this debate. In the theology of the reformer Calvin (in the trail of Anselm) the notion of Jesus' self-sacrifice as the way to mediate forgiveness of sins became the central concept in the soteriology. This notion made its way to the Puritanst movement that would lay the foundations for the American "Bible-Belt" Christianity. In the Catholic and Orthodox branches of Christianity the doctorine of Incarnation remained the central concept of the theological thinking about the nature of Christ. The Word became Flesh, the Divine became Man to make Men Divine. Devout Catholics profess this doctorine three times a day by reciting the Angelus-prayer on fixed times.

These teachings are being rejected by Islam. The belief in Jesus' divinity is being considered to be shrik and the crucifixion is being rejected as untrue. By doing so Islam disqualifies the two main pillars under Christian soteriology. This raised some question of which I hope people here can provide me an answer:

-What is the nature of the Messiah according to Islam? Which qualities define the Messiah?

-Why would Jesus be the Messiah?

-What is the purpose of the Messiah?

-Is there a connection between the kinghood of the house of David and the role of Jesus? What is this connection?

-What is (the nature of) salvation? Is there a relationship between salvation and the Messiah?

-The notion of Jesus as a metaphysical saviour is being denied. Is he a political saviour? Why did he live on this earth for a while and disappeared afterwarts if his role was political?

-Jesus preached the Injil. Was his role as Messiah important in this preaching? Is it important to belief him to be the Messiah?

Thanks for the effort!

Edited by Leto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, friend, as a convert from Christianity to Islam, I can say that I've asked the same questions and I've heard from Muslims some differing opinions on the topics you've put forth. I think you are going to get different answers from different Muslims in regards to your questions. The trouble is that the answers you get from Muslims depends not so much on the Quran as it does other Islamic traditions as well as scriptures and traditions Muslims have adopted from certain Christian groups.

The Quran actually focuses more on Mary than Jesus, but what it does say about Jesus is that Jesus was God's "Word/ a Word from God" and "the Messiah" but that he was also a prophet of God and God's servant, not God himself. These ideas are universally accepted by Muslims, but the more specific details as to what these terms mean are matter of debate even amongst Muslims. For example, it's not really even universally agreed as to what the specific details were regarding the crucifixion. All the Quran says is that it "appeared so to them" but as far as what exactly happened, there are different opinions. Most of these views are derived not from the Quran but rather from Hadiths or whatever Christian traditions or scriptures Muslim scholars have at their disposal. Like, the swoon hypothesis, the theory that Jesus was indeed hung on the cross, but merely fell into a coma and people thought he had died, is believed by some Muslims, but the evidence supporting this theory is drawn not so much from the Quran but rather from the 4 current synoptic gospels and other records of crucifixions and their effects on the human body. Other Muslims believe that a look-a-like was put on the cross and Jesus escaped the cross.

What Islam accepts is the notion of Jesus being a "Logos" of some kind as well as a savior of the world during the end times from the Dajjal who will claim Jesus' status as "Messiah" Jesus will destroy him with the assistance of Imam Mahdi who is a descendant of Prophet Muhammad as well as Simon Peter(at least according to Shia traditions)

Hope that helps a little.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good questions but you did not mention the meaning of the word 'Messiah' in Jewish scriptures and whether anyone else was referred to by this title in the Old Testament.

Anyway, such questions are best answered by someone with a Ph.D. in Islamic theology.

But I shall do my bit.

-What is the nature of the Messiah according to Islam?

Allama Tabatabi says there are several possibilities for the meaning of the word 'Messiah'.

'The Messiah', according to him means 'anointed' or 'wiped clean'.

Jesus was given this name because

(i) He was anointed with success and blessings or

(ii) He was purified or

(ii) He was anointed with holy olive-oil, with which earlier prophets were also anointed or

(iv) Gabriel wiped him with his wings at his birth, to protect him from Satan or

(v) He used to touch and wipe the heads of the orphans or

(vi) He used to wipe the eyes of the blind and they gained eye-sight or

(vii) Whenever he touched a suffering person, he became whole.

These are the possible reasons given for this title.

You will appreciate that there is no certainty in regard to the meaning of the word 'Messiah'.

But I shall try and give you a response on the basis of my knowledge and understanding.

What is the nature of the Messiah according to Islam?

It is not particularly relevant. Jesus is described by the Quran as a prophet for the children of Israel.

Which qualities define the Messiah?

Nothing particular, I believe. Please see Allama Tabatabai's response above.

-Why would Jesus be the Messiah?

That is a very strange question. I could just as well ask you:

'Why was Adam the first man and not somebody else '?

What is the purpose of the Messiah?

Nothing that we know of.

Is there a connection between the kinghood of the house of David and the role of Jesus? What is this connection?

The Quran does not mention any connection.

What is (the nature of) salvation? Is there a relationship between salvation and the Messiah?

Salvation depends on the assessment of your performance, on the Day of Judgment. Some sins will be forgiven but there will be punishment for the ones that are not forgiven.

The Quran does speak of intercession but one can only intercede with God’s permission. No prophet has unrestricted license to intercede on someone’s behalf.

The Messiah has nothing to do with salvation.

-The notion of Jesus as a metaphysical saviour is being denied. Is he a political saviour?

In Islam, he is not a savior. As I said in response to a previous question, his role is described as a prophet to the children of Israel. No politics seems to be involved.

Why did he live on this earth for a while and disappeared afterwards if his role was political?

Because God wanted him back. Beyond that, I believe, we don't know.

And it is not particularly relevant to us. Jesus' role was restricted to the children of Israel. Apparently, he may have a different role in his second coming.

Jesus preached the Injil. Was his role as Messiah important in this preaching?

As would be clear by now, the connotation of the Messiah for Muslims is quite different from what it is for Jews and Christians.

Is it important to believe him to be the Messiah?

Absolutely.

A Muslim must believe in every word of God. Jesus is clearly named the Messiah in the Quran.

There is clearly a difference in the connotation of the word 'Messiah' among Jews, Christians and Muslims.

The Quran clearly states that Jesus was 'no more than a prophet' and he was sent only 'to the people of Israel'.

If there was any special meaning to the Messiah as understood by Christians, the above statements would be invalidated.

Having said that, let me assure you that we Muslims hold both Jesus as well as his mother in extremely high regard.

If Jesus was to appear anywhere on the planet today, it would be the duty of every Muslim to obey him.

Disrespect or disobedience to Jesus would amount to excommunication from Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IloveImamHussain:

The Bible mentions others being "annointed" or other "annointed ones" such as David but as far as the promised Messiah of the Old Testament mentioned in much of the Jewish apocalyptic scriptures, Jesus is mentioned as this promised one in both Christian AND Islamic doctrine. Also, out of all the prophets, he is the only one mentioned as returning to fight Dajjal. From my learning, no other prophet is scheduled to return alive before the Day of Resurrection and the Dajjal will basically claim that he is Christ, so even though he was sent primarily to warn the Children of Israel, he has certain significance and duty that no other Prophet is given, not even Muhammad. What I think is a tough question for many Muslims is: why?

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IloveImamHussain:

The Bible mentions others being "annointed" or other "annointed ones" such as David but as far as the promised Messiah of the Old Testament mentioned in much of the Jewish apocalyptic scriptures, Jesus is mentioned as this promised one in both Christian AND Islamic doctrine. Also, out of all the prophets, he is the only one mentioned as returning to fight Dajjal. From my learning, no other prophet is scheduled to return alive before the Day of Resurrection and the Dajjal will basically claim that he is Christ, so even though he was sent primarily to warn the Children of Israel, he has certain significance and duty that no other Prophet is given, not even Muhammad. What I think is a tough question for many Muslims is: why?

I think it's because the majority of people since his time are Christians and who is better to guide them to truth then Jesus (as) himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

In sha Allah I'll try to explain Jesus' place in Islam. First relevant point is his identity: he was a man, born miraculously from his mother Mary, and made into a prophet on the day he was born. He was a Messenger (which necessitates a higher status than an ordinary prophet), and some scholars have said that he is among a special rank of 5 Messengers, who's status is above the rest of humanity: Muhammed (pbuh), Abraham (as), Noah (as), Moses (as), and Jesus (as).

Jesus' message, according to the Qur'an, is threefold:

a) Bring the Israelites back to Torah abidance and monotheism. A portion of the Jews had gone astray, and Jesus (as), like earlier prophets, was to push them back to the straight path.

B ) Preach the Injeel. Many translate Injeel as 'Gospel' or even 'New Testament', but the Qur'anic description of the Injeel does not fit either. The revelation was one taught by God to Jesus (as), and from him to his apostles. Some believe that this was a physical book like earlier books in the Old Testament, but I'd personally say that this was some kind of oral teaching. Anyhow, the Injeel was a sort of extension to the Mosaic law - it brought new laws, and abrogated some older ones.

c) Inform the people on the coming of Muhammed (pbuh). Some of course point to the prophecies on "the Comforter" in John as a human person who was to come, rather than the Holy Spirit.

Although Jesus holds an undoubtedly high place in humanity, I think his role in Islam as a way of life is minimal. Most of the verses relating to Jesus in the Qur'an seem to be for the purpose of correcting Christian perceptions. For example, the Qur'an puts down the Trinity, the crucifixion, the worship of Jesus and Mary, the Sonship of Jesus, and puts up the idea that Jesus is simply fatherless. So most of these verses are not actually establishing a doctrine venerating Jesus, but rather, they are a criterion and a response to [what we see as] incorrect beliefs regarding Jesus. But why I say it is minimal is because our prayer (salat), zakat (alms), fasting (sawm), and pilgrimage (Hajj) are all Muhammedan. We see Muhammed's religion as the final manifestation of God's religion for all humanity, and we believe it has been perfected and completed until the end of times. Islam partly incorporates the messages and laws of Jesus and Moses of course, but we believe their messages were limited to a time period and space, while Muhammed's (pbuh) religion is not.

As for Messiashship, to us it is more of a title than a special station of veneration ("savior", "God incarnate", etc.). The term Messiah in Arabic means 'to rub, to wipe, to anoint', and in Hebrew it holds a similar meaning. Likewise, in Judaism, there were many messiahs - David was a messiah, Cyrus the Great was a messiah, even inanimate objects were messiahs. The term refers to a spiritual or divine anointment. Likewise, Jesus (as) was God's representative on earth, and is to return to rule with al-Mahdi (as), but we, like some early Christian denominations, disagree with his divinity and atonement of sin. Other prophets held their own unique titles as well - Abraham was the Friend of God (khaleel Allah), Moses was the One Who Heard God's Speech (Kaleem Allah), Jesus was the Word of God (kalimatullah) and Muhammed's (pbuh) was God's Loved One (habib Allah), the Praised One (Ahmed), the Erasing One (al-Mahi), the Seal of Prophets (khatim al-anbiyya'), etc.

Edited by Qa'im

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qaim that is probably the best answer I've read regarding Jesus' role in Islam. However, I thought Messengers, that is "Apostles," were considered lower than Prophets that a Prophet is a Messenger but a Messenger isn't necessarily a prophet but can refer to figures like divinely inspired saints. Hence why Jesus' disciples were called "apostles" while Jesus himself was an "apostle" as well.

The definition of the word "messiah" you gave is spot on. However, what I found funny is that the Koran goes into deep criticism of Christian and Jewish perceptions regarding Jesus but is completely silent as to the nature of "the Messiah" and ONLY Jesus is called by this title in the Quran and hadith. If the term Messiah is so general, why is Muhammad or Ali or Imam Mahdi not called by the same title. Why does Islam reserve the title for Jesus? Also, the Quran doesn't dispute the use of the term "Messiah" for Jesus nor does it correct any misconceptions as to what "Messiah" meant. Instead it goes out of it's way to correct the "begotten son of God" idea and defend Mary's virtue and virginity.

In the Quran and Hadith, Jesus is the only figure addressed as "the Messiah" and also there doesn't seem to be any confusion amongst the Jews, the Christians, or the Muhammadans concerning the nature of what this term meant until more recent years. The Quran doesn't extrapolate the meaning or purpose of "the Messiah" and his mission but instead disputes with Jews and Christians regarding the person and nature of Jesus. Nowhere does it say "They think the Messiah was meant to be the king of Israel, but they're wrong" It seems like the Jews, Muslims, and Christians of Muhammad's time all agreed as to what the word "Messiah" meant but disagreed on topics like "who was/is the Messiah?" and "was the Messiah the son of God?" more specifically.

If "Messiah" is such a general term, why in Islam, does it only seem to be used for Jesus. Why is Muhammad nor Mahdi called a "Messiah?"

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody thanks for replying! I've read them with great interest!

Good questions but you did not mention the meaning of the word 'Messiah' in Jewish scriptures and whether anyone else was referred to by this title in the Old Testament.

I did mention the title messiah as anointed one was applied to all kings of the House of David and especialy David himself. It is an important theme in the books of the Hebrew prophets and the Psalms.

Psalm 20:6-7

Now I know that the Lord saves his anointed.

He will answer him from his holy heaven,

With the saving strength of his right hand.

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses,

But we trust the name of the Lord our God.

That is a very strange question. I could just as well ask you:

'Why was Adam the first man and not somebody else '?

What I really meant was: what events that are known of Jesus use makes that he is given the title "messiah". There is a difference being given a title and being the subject of an action (like being created). Edited by Leto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, the fact that the Quran doesn't clear any misconceptions regarding the term Messiah, nor do the Hadiths as far as I've read, show that there was a general consensus as to what the term "Messiah" meant amongst the people Muhammad (pbuh) preached to. Otherwise, there would have been some sort of correction, some sort of discourse between Muhammad and the Jews and Christians on what the "Messiah's" purpose was. The Quran at times criticizes even the most tiny heresy amongst the communities where Muhammad and his followers dwelt. Take the mentioning of Ezra being called "Son of God" by the Jews.

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! --9:30

This verse has sometimes been used by Jews to discredit the Quran, but Muslims cite apocryphal Jewish works such as 3 Enoch where Enoch (pbuh) is said to have become the Angel Metatron who is amongst a choir of angels called the "Sons of God," in some esoteric Jewish traditions. So the idea that Ezra (pbuh) could have been given the same or similar treatment by a group of Jews in the company of the Prophet (pbuh) is not inconceivable. Also, criticism of this verse did not appear until more recent generations. There are no records of Jews ever having any issue with this verse as making up a lie concerning them during the early centuries Islam amongst the rabbinical authorities and their discourses with the Muslims. But the fact there are little to no records of this "Ezra cult" shows that the Quran goes out of its way to criticize a small esoteric heresy with the intention of proving a greater point. Since we see no such thing concerning misconceptions of the purpose of "the Messiah" in the Quran, I think it's safe to make this conclusion:

The Quran and hadith are in agreement with some prevailing tradition concerning the mission of "The Messiah" There was a certain agreement amongst the three groups as to what exactly the Messiah's mission was and the debate was more about the "person" of the Messiah rather than the Messianic mission itself. The Quran was not arguing with Jews as to what the Messiah was supposed to do, but arguing for Jesus' identity as the Messiah. And with the Christians, it is criticizing the unnecessary and false embellishments of Christ's person and nature. And it does this all while agreeing with central tenants of Messianic doctrine within both religions.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

However, I thought Messengers, that is "Apostles," were considered lower than Prophets that a Prophet is a Messenger but a Messenger isn't necessarily a prophet but can refer to figures like divinely inspired saints. Hence why Jesus' disciples were called "apostles" while Jesus himself was an "apostle" as well.

When I say prophet, I mean nabi, when I say messenger, I mean rasool, when I say apostle, I mean hawari (like the close followers of Jesus). Sometimes rasool is translated as 'apostle of God', but a better translation of the word is Messenger, since the trilateral root R-S-L has more to do with 'message' than discipline.

As for their ranks, see this hadith (graded muwathaq)

"I asked Abu 'Abdallah (as) about the words of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, 'He was a messenger, a prophet'. What is a messenger and what is a prophet?'" The Imam said, "A prophet is one who sees things in his dream and hears the voice but does not see the angel. The messenger is one who hears the voice, in his dreams and sees the angel." I then said, "What is the position of the Imam?" The Imam (a.s.) said, "He hears the voice but does not see and observe the angel" Then he recited the following verse of the Holy Quran. 'Satan would try to tamper with the desires of every Prophet or Messenger or Muhaddith ..." (22:52)

Mind you I think the Qur'an uses the two terms interchangeably, but in hadiths and scholarship, there is an established difference.

Jesus but is completely silent as to the nature of "the Messiah" and ONLY Jesus is called by this title in the Quran and hadith. If the term Messiah is so general, why is Muhammad or Ali or Imam Mahdi not called by the same title. Why does Islam reserve the title for Jesus? Also, the Quran doesn't dispute the use of the term "Messiah" for Jesus nor does it correct any misconceptions as to what "Messiah" meant.

You're right, there is no scriptural akhbar on the meaning of the word 'Messiah' as a title unique to Jesus (as). But one can reason with a comparison: the Prophet (pbuh) was called Habeeb Allah, and whenever we say that title, it refers to Muhammed (pbuh). This doesn't mean that God didn't love the other prophets too, but rather the term is specified for Muhammed (pbuh). You can also say the same with the word "Imam" - the word simply means leader, and all prophets were leaders in one way or another, but we only really designate the title for twelve persons.

Although there were other "messiahs", Jesus (as) is the Messiah - he was the final Jewish prophet, a Davidic leader, he brought miracles and God established a covenant with his followers, and he will return to rule in God's government in the end days. As the Qur'an says, all of Ahl al-Kitab will believe in him before he dies, and I understand this to mean, he will guide all Christians and Jews upon his return. Surely, all these epithets point to a deserving title, Jesus (as) as the Messiah. Another possible reason would be to finalize Jesus' status - there had of course been a long of confusion as to whether or not Jesus (as) was the promised Messiah of Isaiah and Psalms - the Jews did not believe in this, and the title of Messiah was known to the Gentile Christians as an epithet of Jesus. If the Qur'an went and called everyone and everything messiahs, I feel that it would make matters much more confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice posts, I'm in agreement with most of what's written, (agreed upon already) but I still have trouble with a couple things.

There is an ayat that says all Prophets are equal, refer to it often, but now we're talking Prophets, and Messiahs, and/or messengers, and...

Does an accumulation of titles give anyone any more position than the rest?

That ayat kinda bugs me because there are enough reasons in the Quran, (forget NT) to declare Jesus above the rest. It's almost been admitted, but nobody dare. No. I'm not talking son of, nor God.

Your regular Christian, when told Jesus spoke from the cradle, would say "what?" Tell them Jesus made a live bird from clay and they'll think you're nuts. Shamefully if you told some christians Jesus was a Jew they'd be upset. You want to tell them Jesus didn't come for them??? lol/sry Hang on tho, how many prophets did the virgin birth, were infantly linguistically talented, or made live skeets?

There may be 5 "super" messengers in Islamic hadith, and it's gotta be great to be in the top 5,(with Muhammad) but even though the NT and the Quran (which aren't clearly aligned yet) agree that Jesus also ascended, that also puts Him in the company of 3 with Eli'jah and Enoch. Who were Eli'jah and Enoch? According to the NT, by mention in the OT they were the two that greeted Jesus on His ascension, so they musta been someones, other than being the only two others recorded in the OT to ascend...

There's gotta be a hierarchy we can't possibly know. I wonder who chuckles at out best guesses.

The other thing...Jesus is the Messiah, but as mentioned above that really doesn't mean anythng to a Muslim. It's more or less history, yet Jesus is "reveered".

Just wondering, in the "reverence" of Jesus, what do muslims do? Is there actually "Jesus anything" in Islam other than refference? <---against christians

I hate to even ask about hadith, but the Islamic admonition of Jesus seems kinda shallow. Just sayin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there are traditions where Muhammad (pbuh) does tell his followers that it is improper to say that he is a greater prophet than Moses, Jonah, or any other prophet. Peace to them all.

If you look at the three religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, certain prophets are focused on a bit more. Prophets like Jesus, Muhammad, and Moses are far more popular topics of discussion and debate than say Haggai,Micah, Zephanaiah, John the Baptist, Ezra, Enoch. Peace and Blessings upon them all. And even amongst these prophets, some seem to have "done more" than others. But this might be because of loss of more extensive records on these prophets lives over the years. Oral traditions being forgotten, written records being destroyed. Indeed, Enoch is but a footnote in most modern Judeo-Christian-Islamic schools, but when you dig deeper into the mystic teachings that have risen over the years amongst the three, Enoch's importance is elevated remarkably. Some Kabbalists teach he became an angel that is sometimes seen as "substitute creator" who rules over all other angels. Muslims associated him with the figure of Hermes. So it's hard to say which prophets were "more important" than others when indeed todays "minor prophets" were yesteryear's most embellished figures. It shows that some of the "minor prophets" were actually seen as anything but such and that the only reason they may be considered minor is due to a loss of access to more extensive and forgotten traditions.

My guess is that the equality of the prophets is in their message and stations as prophets. As a prophet, Jesus is no better than Muhammad and vice versa, but the same may or may not be true in regards to other stations the two may hold in the Kingdom of God outside of this prophethood. Jesus is the only prophet given the honor being the "Messiah" and the honor of returning to save the world alongside Imam Mahdi. If the Quran says no difference is made between the prophets, then why doesn't every prophet show up before the Day of Resurrection to aid Mahdi in battle? Obviously, this shows a "differentiation" of greater purpose being bestowed upon Jesus by God. The same goes for Mahdi, who is not a prophet. Instead of another prophet being chosen to assist Jesus. Instead of Muhammad, a prophet, it is Muhammad's 12th generation descendant, who is not a prophet. Yet both Mahdi and Jesus have similar missions. I think what this shows is that Jesus' return has nothing to do with his prophethood but more to do with his being "the Messiah."

From my learning, a prophet is a messenger, but a messenger isn't necessarily a prophet, but a prophet is more important than one who is strictly a messenger.Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here. Jesus was greater in importance than his disciples for various reasons, because they were merely apostles, divinely inspired messengers who spread the teachings and scripture of their patron prophet with assistance from supernatural forces. Jesus was the author of the notes, and the disciples were the carrier pigeons. In regards to two prophets, the two prophets are equal, but if God has given another great task outside of that prophethood to one of them and not the other, is the one who is bestowed that favor a better prophet or just a guy who works two jobs?

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is an ayat that says all Prophets are equal, refer to it often, but now we're talking Prophets, and Messiahs, and/or messengers

Islam abhors the idea of us humans trying to put down one prophet vis-a-vis another. For reference, I am quoting one verse but there are five with this instruction.

[2:136] Say ye: "We believe in God, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between them: And we bow to God in submission."

Likewise, there are also verses which say that there are 'differences' between them.

For example :-

[17:55] And thy Lord knows best those that are in the heavens and the earth. And WE exalted some of the Prophets over others and to David WE gave a Book.

The important thing to understand is that even identical twins are a little different. In Islam, a prophet is, by definition, someone who has submitted himself totally to God and goodness. Therefore any differences between them are not really perceptible to the naked eye. Besides, every prophet is so dear to God that the faithful are instructed not to distinguish between them but to hold all of them in the highest respect.

As for messengers (Rasool) and prophets (Nabi, corresponding perhaps to the Hebrew Navi), the Quran uses the words interchangeably, perhaps to tell us implicitly that a distinction is not meaningful. It also uses the word ‘messenger (Rasool) for angels.

Does an accumulation of titles give anyone any more position than the rest?

As I have just said, we Muslims are not supposed to entertain those thoughts. As the phrase goes 'Don't even think of it'...

That ayat kinda bugs me because there are enough reasons in the Quran, (forget NT) to declare Jesus above the rest. It's almost been admitted, but nobody dare. No. I'm not talking son of, nor God..

I can see that a Christian could be tempted to draw that conclusion. But I don't think it is true. There are verses which seemingly place Abraham above the rest. For example, Abraham and Mohammad are the only two prophets described as paragons of virtue. Does it mean that the others were not virtuous ?

Of course not.

Your regular Christian, when told Jesus spoke from the cradle, would say "what?" Tell them Jesus made a live bird from clay and they'll think you're nuts. Shamefully if you told some christians Jesus was a Jew they'd be upset. You want to tell them Jesus didn't come for them??? lol/sry Hang on tho, how many prophets did the virgin birth, were infantly linguistically talented, or made live skeets?

I forget the exact reference but there is a verse that says very clearly that nothing that a prophet does is out of his own powers. Their miracles are all the work of God. Any seeming difference between the quality of miracles means nothing.

So, from Islam’s point of view, Jesus speaking at birth or doing other miracles does not give him any distinction over others.

But, of course, you are free to draw your own conclusions.

There may be 5 "super" messengers in Islamic hadith, and it's gotta be great to be in the top 5

Once again, 'Super' is not the right word. Let me remind you, that unlike Judaism and Christianity, where prophets can be ordinary sinful people, in Islam, they are all exceptional and excellent people. So no one is really superior or inferior.

The Quran avoids such comparisons and does not mention any 'super' prophets.

If there is mention of the 'super' five in hadeeth, well, who knows if hadeeth may have failed to record the exact context of that statement.

There may be 5 "super" messengers in Islamic hadith, and it's gotta be great to be in the top 5,(with Muhammad) but even though the NT and the Quran (which aren't clearly aligned yet) agree that Jesus also ascended, that also puts Him in the company of 3 with Eli'jah and Enoch. Who were Eli'jah and Enoch? According to the NT, by mention in the OT they were the two that greeted Jesus on His ascension, so they must a been someone, other than being the only two others recorded in the OT to ascend.

Every prophet had his own individual assignment. The nature of assignment does not determine their station in the eyes of God.

As one example, Moses is regarded as one of the 'super' five, if I may be briefly permitted to use that word. But apparently, he was superseded by one not so ‘super’, in Chapter 18 of the Quran. Please read verses [18:65] thru to [18:82]. It is a not so difficult a narrative.

In short, Islam regards them all as members of its top brass - its VIP club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Leto and others,

This is an interesting subject, and it is good to learn how Muslims view the Messiah.

I would like to add a little background if I may.

--- The word Messiah was used twice in Daniel 9 in prophecy concerning Jesus, and Jesus was only called the Messiah twice in the NT, but was referred to often in that role as is explained in these verses.

In John 1:29, John the Baptist had said, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

Later, two disciples, Andrew and John, who heard John the Baptist speak, followed Jesus and remained with Him that day.

40. One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.

41. He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated, the Christ).

42. And he brought him to Jesus.

43. The following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and He found Philip and said to him, “Follow Me.”

44. Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

45. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

In John 4, after a long conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well:

25. The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.”

26. Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”

--- These verses establish two truths, --- First. --- The word 'Messiah' is translated, 'the Christ' --- so wherever Jesus was called --- 'Christ,' or 'the Christ,' --- it refers to Him as the Messiah.

Concerning His name Jesus and what it means, this is written:

--- Matthew 1:21. --- "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

--- Luke 1:31. (The angel Gabriel said to Mary), "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus." --- So, 'Jesus' means 'Savior' --- and Christ means 'Messiah.'

--- This is quite well expressed in Surah 3:

45. (And remember) --- When the angels said, 'Mary, God gives thee good tidings of a Word from Him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; high honoured shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to God.

The second truth is in the statement, --- "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law --- wrote, --- Jesus of Nazareth."

This fulfilled the Scripture in Deuteronomy 18:

15. “The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,"

18. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.

19. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.

--- There is more to consider, but enough for now.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice posts, I'm in agreement with most of what's written, (agreed upon already) but I still have trouble with a couple things.

There is an ayat that says all Prophets are equal, refer to it often, but now we're talking Prophets, and Messiahs, and/or messengers, and...

Does an accumulation of titles give anyone any more position than the rest?

Some verses in the Qur'an indicate that certain messengers were preferred more by God than others, namely, Muhammed (pbuh) over all, the other 4 messengers over others, etc. The tafsir of the ayah that that says "we make no difference between them" is that we do not accept some and reject others: we accept all prophets revealed to us and do not debate their station as prophets. Otherwise, these two things would be contradictory.

That ayat kinda bugs me because there are enough reasons in the Quran, (forget NT) to declare Jesus above the rest. It's almost been admitted, but nobody dare. No. I'm not talking son of, nor God.

Your regular Christian, when told Jesus spoke from the cradle, would say "what?" Tell them Jesus made a live bird from clay and they'll think you're nuts. Shamefully if you told some christians Jesus was a Jew they'd be upset. You want to tell them Jesus didn't come for them??? lol/sry Hang on tho, how many prophets did the virgin birth, were infantly linguistically talented, or made live skeets?

Well, you can really say that about any prophet by singling out his miracles. Adam, Isaac, etc. are also born miraculously in their own way, Muhammed (pbuh) had his own miracles with animals, etc. To me, Jesus (as) speaking as an infant, and making birds out of clay, as the Qur'an indicates, are miracles of God and not Jesus (as). Smilarly, other prophets did miracles that were by the permission of God and not by themselves. The NT verse "I by my own self can do nothing" comes to mind. So to me, this raises the status of God and indicates His superiority, rather than the superiority of men who were just subject to these miracles.

The other thing...Jesus is the Messiah, but as mentioned above that really doesn't mean anythng to a Muslim. It's more or less history, yet Jesus is "reveered".

Just wondering, in the "reverence" of Jesus, what do muslims do? Is there actually "Jesus anything" in Islam other than refference? <---against christians

I hate to even ask about hadith, but the Islamic admonition of Jesus seems kinda shallow. Just sayin...

What can you really expect us to do? Celebrate Christmas and Easter, both holidays with pagan origins, which Jesus (as) himself did not tell you to observe? Jesus (as) called for the worship of God, love each other - this was the essence of his Message - and this is what we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qaim: As I said I personally feel that each prophet was given a great task and revelation to carry out and the position they each have as a prophet is equal, but as far as other duties they have, these are what makes certain ones more important figures overall in God's plan. I believe the Quran simply says some were "blessed" more than other, not that some were more "preferred"

The way I see it, when all the prophets are gathered in council, the focus is not on them and their respective duties, but the worship of God and the spread of the worship. The other blessings that have been bestowed on them are of no importance at those moments. When Jesus and Muhammad are together in prostration side by side with Enoch and the others, there is no savior, ahlul bayt, holy scribe. Only slaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far I am aware, there are no verses in the Quran which explicitly identify individual prophets as being superior to others, by name.

As for generalized indications, they could be quite subjective.

Besides, the word 'preference' is rather misleading, as it creates a marked heirarchy, for which there does not seem to be any evidence in the Quran.

Please don't take this aqs an offence but if you do wish to promote the propostion you have outlined, a better way to present it might be something on the lines of the following starement :-

'Prophets, despite their ecxcellence, are not on exactly the same level in the eyes of God'.

A statement such as this is more graceful and polite and avoids the pitfalls of a misinterpretation.

Please don't forget that in all probability, even the 'worst' prophet, if I may again be permitted to use such a word, is dearer to God than the best Ayatollahs that Islamic history has to offer.

100% agreed

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some verses in the Qur'an indicate that certain messengers were preferred more by God than others

As far I am aware, there are no verses in the Quran which explicitly identify individual prophets as being superior to others, by name.

Besides, the word 'preference' is rather misleading, as it creates a marked hierarchy, for which there does not seem to be any evidence in the Quran.

Please don't take this as an offence but if you do wish to promote the proposition you have outlined, a better way to present it might be something on the lines of the following :-

'Prophets, despite their excellence, are not on exactly the same level in the eyes of God'.

A statement such as this is more graceful and polite and avoids the pitfalls of a possible departure from etiquette.

And I am sure you will agree that even the 'worst' prophet, if I may again be permitted to use such a word, is dearer to God than the best Ayatollahs, Muftis, Popes or Rabbis, that history has ever been able to muster.

The other 4 messengers over others

Once again, could you kindly quote the verses which elevate those four prophets (over others) by name.

The tafsir of the ayah that says "we make no difference between them" is that we do not accept some and reject others: we accept all prophets revealed to us and do not debate their station as prophets.

And could you also kindly provide the link to a tafsir which supports that view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe the Quran simply says some were "blessed" more than other, not that some were more "preferred"
As far I am aware, there are no verses in the Quran which explicitly identify individual prophets as being superior to others, by name.

Besides, the word 'preference' is rather misleading, as it creates a marked hierarchy, for which there does not seem to be any evidence in the Quran.

I quote from the noble Qur'an:

(bismillah)

تِلْكَ الرُّسُلُ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ مِّنْهُم مَّن كَلَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَفَعَ بَعْضَهُمْ دَرَجَاتٍ وَآتَيْنَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَيَّدْنَاهُ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا اقْتَتَلَ الَّذِينَ مِن بَعْدِهِم مِّن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءتْهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ وَلَـكِنِ اخْتَلَفُواْ فَمِنْهُم مَّنْ آمَنَ وَمِنْهُم مَّن كَفَرَ وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا اقْتَتَلُواْ وَلَـكِنَّ اللّهَ يَفْعَلُ مَا يُرِيدُ

"Some of these apostles have We endowed more highly fadhalna than others: among them were such as.were spoken to by God [Himself], and some He has raised yet higher.' And We vouchsafed unto Jesus, the son of Mary, all evidence of the truth, and strengthened him with holy inspiration. And if God had so willed, they who succeeded those [apostles] would not have contended with one another after all evidence of the truth had come to them; but [as it was,] they did take to divergent views, and some of them attained to faith, while some of them came to deny the truth. Yet if God had so willed, they would not have contended with one another: but God does whatever He wills". (2:253)

And again:

وَرَبُّكَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ وَلَقَدْ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَ النَّبِيِّينَ عَلَى بَعْضٍ وَآتَيْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا

And thy Lord is best aware of all who are in the heavens and the earth. And we preferred (fadhalna) some of the Prophets above others, and unto David We gave the Psalms. (17:55)

Thus, it is not only me saying that God preferred some prophets over others, it is the Qur'an that says the same. The trilateral root F-Dh-L means to prefer, to bestow liking over something else, etc. 2:253 establishes superiority in Moses (as) (as the one God spoke to directly), Jesus (as), and an unnamed person (or people) who were raised higher than Moses. Both verses make the blanket statement that indicates God preferred and uplifted some prophets over others.

Once again, could you kindly quote the verses which elevate those four prophets (over others) by name.

This is not altogether in one ayah in the Qur'an; it is in the scholarly works' analyses of the Qur'an and Sunna. I know it is in Mufid's works but unsure where.

And could you also kindly provide the link to a tafsir which supports that view.

Tafsir Safi, ayah 2:285. There is no English translation available, but if you can read Arabic, the work is available online in its entirety. It may be available in Urdu and Farsi somewhere too, but I don't know where those are.

And the position of the tafsir makes the most sense. To say that 2:285 establishes the complete equality of prophets, like some Sunnis and English translations say, it would contradict the two verses I mentioned above. Rather, we make no distinction between them (la nufarriqu bayna ahadin min rasulihi) means we do not choose to believe some and not others: we are to believe in them all.

Not to mention, there are hadiths that establish Muhammed's (pbuh) superiority over all prophets.

Edited by Qa'im

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what iloveImamHussain is trying to say though is that your use of the word "preference" implies a certain hierarchy that suggests God doesn't quite care about them as much.

True, God elevated some, but God made them that way and he can undo that and elevate another prophet instead easily.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Hierarchy doesn't mean the ones at the bottom are bad. Allah preferred the prophets over all of humanity, but among the prophets there were some higher than others. Just as `Ali (as) is superior in Imamate than the other Imams (as); but this does not lower their status. The prophets and imams hold a higher position than the rest of humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

"Some of these apostles have We endowed more highly fadhalna than others: among them were such as.were spoken to by God [Himself], and some He has raised yet higher.' And We vouchsafed unto Jesus, the son of Mary, all evidence of the truth, and strengthened him with holy inspiration. And if God had so willed, they who succeeded those [apostles] would not have contended with one another after all evidence of the truth had come to them; but [as it was,] they did take to divergent views, and some of them attained to faith, while some of them came to deny the truth. Yet if God had so willed, they would not have contended with one another: but God does whatever He wills". (2:253)

And thy Lord is best aware of all who are in the heavens and the earth. And we preferred (fadhalna) some of the Prophets above others, and unto David We gave the Psalms. (17:55)

Thus, it is not only me saying that God preferred some prophets over others, it is the Qur'an that says the same.

Please read my posts again. I have already conceded that there are differences between prophets. In my post #13, I have even quoted the second of the two verses you mention - [17:55].

What I was trying to say was that it is not at all appropriate that we mortals should be discussing their differences, create a hierarchy and play favourites.

It also stands to reason that the differences are so small as to be hardly perceptible, from the human point of view. Otherwise, Islam’s assertion that all prophets are without sin would fall to pieces.

Thus, it is not only me saying that God preferred some prophets over others, it is the Qur'an that says the same.

I never said anything to the contrary.

However, the Quran does not name anyone, so we don’t know what the pecking order is.

This is not altogether in one ayah in the Qur'an; it is in the scholarly works' analyses of the Qur'an and Sunna. I know it is in Mufid's works but unsure where.

I was just presenting the drift of the Quran. There are strong indications in the Quran that all prophets are men of the highest merit and we must respect and honour them as such.

Invidious comparisons are unwholesome and parochial.

Tafsir Safi, ayah 2:285. There is no English translation available, but if you can read Arabic, the work is available online in its entirety. It may be available in Urdu and Farsi somewhere too, but I don't know where those are.

Fine again but even if the Tafsir seems to build a supposed hierarchy, it still does not mean that we should show disrespect to anyone.

Harping on the tune that one prophet is better than another is not my definition of respect.

And the position of the tafsir makes the most sense.

Well, I think that opinion would be subjective.

I am sorry to say that I don’t share that view.

o say that 2:285 establishes the complete equality of prophets, like some Sunnis and English translations say, it would contradict the two verses I mentioned above.

Did I ever say that it establishes the equality of prophets ?

If you read my post # 13 a little carefully, you will see that i said very clearly that even identical twins are a little different.

Not to mention, there are hadiths that establish Muhammad's (pbuh) superiority over all prophets.

In your post #15, you claimed that 4 other prophets were mentioned by the Quran as being superior to all the rest.

Here is part of your post for quick reference.

Some verses in the Qur'an indicate that certain messengers were preferred more by God than others, namely, Muhammad (pbuh) over all, the other 4 messengers over others[/b.

But you have not produced supporting evidence from the Quran, as I had requested.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I'm not sure why you had to answer eight parts of my post in defense of yourself, as it was not in response to you specifically or exclusively, but a general look at God's preference of some prophets over others as mentioned in the Qur'an. We are in agreement of most of the points and I didn't misunderstand your points - I was making a general case based on yours, Jinn's, and Son's posts on this thread.

What I was trying to say was that it is not at all appropriate that we mortals should be discussing their differences, create a hierarchy and play favourites.

I don't think anyone is making that point. But if the hadiths indicate that Muhammed (pbuh) was preferred over all prophets and humanity, then they essentially do create a hierarchy. People shouldn't assume or reason that prophet X is superior to prophet Y, but if there is akhbar for it, then it is a different matter.

Fine again but even if the Tafsir seems to build a supposed hierarchy, it still does not mean that we should show disrespect to anyone.

Harping on the tune that one prophet is better than another is not my definition of respect.

I did not disrespect anyone, nor did I call people to do so. Let me ask, if I were to say that Imam `Ali (as) was superior in rank to Imam Muhammed al-Jawad (pbuh), would that be disrespecting the latter? In my view, not at all; it is well established that these two are amongst the best of Allah's creations, but uplifting `Ali (as) is simply a fact that can be established through our traditions. In other words, if I were to prove that an apple was healthier than an orange, that does not negate the orange.

Well, I think that opinion would be subjective.

I am sorry to say that I don’t share that view.

Subjective to what? Do you think Tafsir Safi was using his personal opinion?

Did I ever say that it establishes the equality of prophets ?

If you read my post # 13 a little carefully, you will see that i said very clearly that even identical twins are a little different.

No, nor did I say you said that. It was in response to the point made by post #11, Sunnis, and some English translation of the Qur'an.

But you have not produced supporting evidence from the Quran, as I had requested.

Perhaps the wording was confusing as I was at school, but what I meant was, the Qur'an indicates that certain messengers were preferred more by God than others, period, then give the rest of the sentence in a different light. I know quite well that there are no verses which say "these 5 are the best, bam bam bam bam bam" as it simply does not exist. But the idea of 5 Messengers being above the other prophets and messengers is well-established within the scholarly works of the Sunni and Shi`i schools. They are known as Ulul `Azm:

"And when We exacted a covenant from the Prophets, and from thee (O Muhammad) and from Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus son of Mary. We took from them a solemn covenant;" (33:7)

"Then have patience (O Muhammad) even as the stout of heart among the messengers (ulul `azmi) (of old) had patience, and seek not to hasten on the doom for them. On the day when they see that which they are promised (it will seem to them) as though they had tarried but an hour of daylight. A clear message. Shall any be destroyed save evil living folk?" (46:35)

Again, these verses alone are not clear-cut in establishing the conclusion, but the superiority of Muhammed (pbuh), Noah (as), Abraham (as), Moses (as), and Jesus (as) is well-established in Islamic schools in general.

Edited by Qa'im

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you Qaim that there were certain messengers that were given an elevated status, particularly the five you mentioned. But again your use of the word "preferred" in my opinion can be misunderstood. Just saying "God preferred these 5 messengers,"sounds like God plays favorites vainly. I think the best wording is "for the most important responsibilities, God chose/preferred these particular messengers" see the difference?

How people perceive the hierarchy of the messenger in my opinion can cause people to forget certain figures, feeling there is more benefit to veneration and adoration of other figures and that somehow veneration of these lower ones brings no benefit the higher ones can. I feel like a faulty perception of the hierarchy can lead to one to say something like "Oh I don't need to study Enoch, just Jesus and Muhammad. Enoch's not so important that I must study him so much" I feel that's a bad way of thinking. We are free to have a favorite prophet or saint, but the idea that somehow a diligent and persistent veneration and study of certain less powerful messengers has no real benefit now that there is this higher one I don't think is respectful to either figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • I  understand what you are trying to say but kindly understand what i am trying to ask. You are saying that how leaving Islam should be punishable by death. I am asking its not about what should be and how it should be, its about what is ruling in this matter. And whether any Ayyah  directly hints towards this ruling ?  I completely agree but similar to above discussion in link there is no reference to Quran. 
      I understand that even treason against country is punishable by death then why not for religion. But what i want you to understand that rulings are not as per yours and mine understanding. If that so then i say it should not be done like this.  Its matter of life and death of a human being. It cant be interpreted that easily as per one's thinking. Same Islam asks to respect every human being regardless of their religion and color. 
    • @hasanhh and anyone else who would enjoy a light comedy war film. This one has its moments. Its also thought provoking and asks a big question about the purpose (or the absence of it) behind the US occupation of Afghanistan.
    • KSA wants to try and make a dent before their abominable presence leaves the stage of history forever. However it is ridiculous to think Saudis will be fighting a war with anyone alone while they can't even bomb Yemeni babies on their own. Same goes for Israheil. So naturally they will bring their uncle Frankenstein Sam to help them out with the heavy lifting as usual. However due to important strategic reasons they will be go for Lebanon and Syrian territory first. This is why Netanyuhu and King Salamander have been grovelling at Putin's feet through 2017. If I was Putin I would pull a Danzig with them and take their monies then back stab them after having filled my defending allies with weapons. China will not be joining in. They are worse than Jews in seeking wealth. Of course the US senate will soon give the go ahead for their troops and fleet to deploy (since someone in the thread was innocently asking why one of their fleets stays in the region, this is it). This is also why they had Iran under sanctions since so many years, to weaken their preparations. This is also why they have created hell in Balochistan and other borders surrounding Iran. They think that will prove to be enough deterrence for paramilitary forces attempting to reinforce IRGC. Manpower. That stupid video someone linked before was right about one thing and that is the very significant advantage in manpower Iran has. Available manpower is directly proportional to motivation of the people. That is why Israhellis and Saudis and Yanks are bound to lose if the Shia manpower is mobilized who a lot of them will proceed to fight till the death while the axis of bankers has little motivation which will die out when the body bags start coming in. Israhellis used to literally die of fear when Saddam fired a few scuds into their cesspool. Saudis are too decadent and incompetent. Yanks are waking up to the truth and are also oppressed now and its not a false flag attacked year 2001 anymore. Those of them who will fight will have to fight each other being transsexual, pro-Trump, anti-feminist, white supremacist, pedophiles and all the throngs of tedious little issues plaguing them now. So with such a difference in Morale and perhaps a little bit Russian support as well, God willing above all else, things will change forever. At worst there will be a regime change in Iran which will not change anything because the biggest push of all pushes comes later under Mahdi (as) and Jesus (as) who are promised the manpower, hardware and the ultimate victory to bring the world about and set if free.
    • I know some eastern women put up with their husbands, even after being beaten and abused, as they are very dependant on them. I mean, some women go to the extent of obeying their husband soo much and this is just pure injustice! As for your question about a guy being rejected because he was Eastern - I feel it is a very personal choice as long as she doesn't think Eastern men are inferior to Western men. The choice could be associated with a lot of factors, like personality clash etc I personally would find it easier to get along with Western Muslim girls, because their way of thinking, interacting etc would be similar to mine. However, I'm okay with marrying an Eastern Muslim girl if I get along with her.    
    • You could have fed an entire family for a year with that money, instead of buying things that eventually go out of style and fall apart/get lost after a few years.
×