Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SolidRock

What Did Muhammad Believe Before His Revelations?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Galatians and Paul are Romans.

Arabs in Arabia , a non Roman territory , did not follow the Roman church nor adopted the Roman bible. They had their own bible which was not influenced by the Herodians.

Paul isn't even mentioned in Islamic literature prior to Islamic Spain(As far as I'm aware).

Edited by Chaotic Muslem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answers given here are correct. I did a little study on Western Arabian history and yes Hanifiya, did exist but the numbers were low. Before Muhammad(S) there was another great truth searcher(forgot his name) who was neither a jew or christian but monotheistic Hanif. Despite the rise of paganism, Ibrahim had a significant presence in pre-islamic culture. The Kabah was of course one of the reason. Many northern yemeni tribes seem to have had him in their "legends". Now i dont know about Khadija but Muhammad(S) was definitely a hanufa.

I was thinking could prophet Shuaib and Salih have been Yemeni prophets. Considering the Quran mentions the destruction of their individual tribes, it could their towns were near the Yemeni ring of fire. I could be wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chaotic Muslim,

Quote from Post 26:

Galatians and Paul are Romans.

Arabs in Arabia , a non Roman territory , did not follow the Roman church nor adopted the Roman bible. They had their own bible which was not influenced by the Herodians.

Paul isn't even mentioned in Islamic literature prior to Islamic Spain(As far as I'm aware).

Response: --- Galatia was a district in Asia Minor where Paul and Barnabas had started a Church some years before.

Paul was a Jew from Tarsus in Silicia, Asia Minor. They were under Roman rule from about 100 BC.

Paul had never been to Rome and was more closely associated with the Greeks, and the Gentile Church they were from was in Antioch, Syria.

Paul Had been studying in Jerusalem under the leading Theologian Gamaliel, He was a devout Pharisee and perhaps had ambition to become a High Priest.

That is why he opposed the teaching of the Gospel and took the initiative to have Christians arrested and confined in prison to get them off the streets. ---The Jews had no authority to put anyone to death so had to turn them over to the jailers on some charge.

But Paul was miraculously converted and was no longer welcome in Jerusalem.

He had a vision of Jesus when he was in the Temple in Jerusalem and it is recounted in Acts 22:

17 “Now it happened, when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I was in a trance

18 and saw Him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, for they will not receive your testimony concerning Me.’

21 Then He said to me, ‘Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.’”

--- (If you object to the thought of Paul receiving a message while in a trance, --- that was how Muhammad received all of his revelations, was it not?)

Paul and Barnabus had been starting Churches in Asia Minor, and what happened in the Galatian Church was that Jews had come in later and wanted to turn the people back to following the OT Law, --- which was not given to the Gentiles,

So Paul was really speaking for the benefit of the Jews in relating the history of Abraham from Genesis, and the promise that through him (Abraham) all the nations would be blessed.

The Roman Church, did not start until after 300 AD, so Paul had no connection with Rome when he wrote this letter to the Galatians about 56 AD.

In referring to a Roman Bible, you must mean the Catholic Bible that has extra Books in the OT, --- but the New Testaments all have the same Books.

Before the time of Muhammad in 600 AD, the New Testament had been translated from Greek into, Latin and Syriac about 150 AD, into Coptic about 200, Armenian about 400, and in subsequent years into, Gothic, Ethiopic, Georgian, Arabic, Persian and Slavonic languages. --- So they had the New Testament in whatever languages they spoke.

As for Paul not being mentioned, --- None of the Apostles were mentioned in the Quran, --- Only Zecharias, the father of John the Baptist, then John and Jesus.

You don’t have to believe this if you don’t want to, I just relate what is written in the Scriptures --- (and in this case, making the connection through Waraqa bin Naufal, a follower of Abraham, as Christians are, --- because the promised was given, to be fulfilled in Christ.)

The fact is that Gabriel, in his revelation to Muhammad, confirmed that the ‘former Scriptures were true,' --- So I believe it from the Quran as well as it being written in the NT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Galatians and Paul are Romans.

Arabs in Arabia , a non Roman territory , did not follow the Roman church nor adopted the Roman bible. They had their own bible which was not influenced by the Herodians.

Paul isn't even mentioned in Islamic literature prior to Islamic Spain(As far as I'm aware).

 

Hi Chaotic!

 

I can tell you right now that we follow both Peter and Paul, which are the leaders of the Roman church.

Peter visited modern day Iraq and gave his blessing to the churches. 1 Peter 5:13

 

The Pesheta is a Nestorian text, and many churches in Sham and the Arabian Peninsula were Nestorian or part of the Western (Catholic and Orthodox) Church.

The Nestorian church stretched from Syria to Japan, so it covers a lot of ground.

The earliest versions of the Pesheta (khubarus codex) we have already has Paul in it. If you follow the link you'll see on Romans 1:1

ܦܘܠܘܤ ܥܒܕܐ ܕܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ

Paulus, 3bda-d-Yesho3 Meshikha

Paul,  the servant of Jesus Christ.

 

The Church of the East's bishops (Assyrians) commonly make their names Paulus. An example is the Bishop Paulus Benyamin or Paul Benjamin.

Contrary to what you posted, Paul has a rich history within the Church of the East, and is certainly accepted as an apostle of Jesus.

Edited by salamtek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chaotic!

 

I can tell you right now that we follow both Peter and Paul, which are the leaders of the Roman church.

Peter visited modern day Iraq and gave his blessing to the churches. 1 Peter 5:13

 

The Pesheta is a Nestorian text, and many churches in Sham and the Arabian Peninsula were Nestorian or part of the Western (Catholic and Orthodox) Church.

The Nestorian church stretched from Syria to Japan, so it covers a lot of ground.

The earliest versions of the Pesheta (khubarus codex) we have already has Paul in it. If you follow the link you'll see on Romans 1:1

 

The Church of the East's bishops (Assyrians) commonly make their names Paulus. An example is the Bishop Paulus Benyamin or Paul Benjamin.

Contrary to what you posted, Paul has a rich history within the Church of the East, and is certainly accepted as an apostle of Jesus.

Hi there,

I have nothing against Paul in particular, which is why I mentioned the Herodians as well. Mark, Luke, Matthew and John are all equally against the Quran.

Placid hinted that prophet got some education from Christian men. He brought Paul as an example of a source of teaching. I pointed to the fact that prophet was a dressing Christians of Arabia, yemenites and those in Yathrib. In the Israelite literature (narrations by ex Christians and ex jews converts) we find little mention of Paul or mention him but put less significance. A good example is the biography of Paul narrated by wahab bin manbeh

قال وهب بن منبه: كان بولس من رؤساء اليهود وأشدهم بأساً، وأعظمهم شأناً في إنكار ما جاء به المسيح عليه السلام ودفعه، ودفع الناس عنه.

فجمع العساكر وسار إلى المسيح عليه السلام ليقتله ويمنعه عن دخول دمشق، فلقيه بكوكبا فضربه ملك بجناحه، فأعماه، ورأى من دلائل أمره والأحوال التي لم يصل معها إلى ما أراد من مكروهه ما اضطره إلى الإيمان به، والتصديق بما جاء به، فأتى المسيح على ذلك، وسأله أن يفتح عينيه فقال له المسيح: كم تسعى في أذاي وأذى من هو معي، وتفعل وتصنع.

ثم قال له المسيح: امض حتى تدخل دمشق وخذ في السوق الطويل الممدود في وسط المدينة، يعني دمشق، حتى تصير في آخره وتصير إلى حنينا وكان حنينا قد اختفى منه فزعاً في مغارة نحو الباب الشرقي حتى يفتح عينينك.

فأتاه عند الكنيسة المصلبة وهي الكنيسة المنسوبة إليه اليوم، وكان بولس قد أخذ ابن أخيه، وكان قد آمن بالمسيح فحلق وسط رأسه ونادى عليه ورحمه حتى مات، فمن ثم أخذ النصارى حلق وسط رؤوسهم للتأسي بذلك، فيما كان عوقب به، وإنه كالتواضع لا كالعيب لمن آمن بالمسيح عليه السلام

So they did not view him as a pillar but a mere folower. His story reminds me of the story of sunni Mahdi. A faulty man who will be guided over a night then turns missionary.

It is also worth noting to mention that Quran went against the herodian narrative . Quran said that Jesus did not say that he is god. Quran also said that it is the claim of Christians that Jesus is son of God. Similarly, Quran said that it is the claim of Christians (not in injil nor said by Jesus ) that Christians are children of God.

And (both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are the children of Allah and His loved ones." Say: "Why then does He punish you for your sins?" Nay, you are but human beings, of those He has created, He forgives whom He wills and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and to Him is the return (of all).

14For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.

Here is what I mean by herodian, somewhat reminds me of the effect of ummayad on the Islamic sunni canon. http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to understand something, and I'm a little confused...

 

In my discussions with Muslims over the years, I've been told that the Bible has been corrupted and cannot be trusted (even though no Muslim has been able to tell me when the Bible supposedly became corrupted).  I've also been told that Islam honors Noah, Moses, Abraham and Jesus as great prophets of God.  But here's my question -- before the Qur'an was revealed, what did Muhammad and those in his community know about Noah, Moses and Abraham, and where did they get their information about those prophets from?  Did they have their own historical records, or were they getting their knowledge from a corrupted Bible?  Or was the Bible correct 1,400 years ago in Muhammad's time, and only got corrupted after the Qur'an was revealed?  To word the question better, was the Bible ALREADY corrupted in Muhammad's time?  If so, the corruption (at least the corruption of the New Testament) would have to have occurred during the 600 years between the time of Jesus and the time of Muhammad.  And if the Old Testament had been corrupted in Jesus' time, He would have said so, but since He didn't, then both the OT and the NT would have to have suddenly become corrupted during the 600 years between Jesus and Muhammad (even though no corruption happened for thousands of years prior to that, and no corruption has occurred since then -- I find it amazing that the corruption could only have occurred in the time after Jesus, leading up to Muhammad!).  Is that the Muslim belief? 

 

Again though, the main question is, what did Muhammad know about Noah, Moses and Abraham prior to the revelation of the Qur'an, and where did he get that knowledge from?  The corrupted Bible, or another source?

 

Peace,

The Rock   <><

 

(salam) SolidRock

 

The Prophet (pbuh) was incognizant of the previous scriptures and was astray / lost / in error before he got the scripture (Qur'an). 

"And He found you erring / in error / lost / astray (dall), so He guided" (93:7)Please note how the same Arabic word (dall) is used in Surah Fateha verse 7 as read by potentially billions of Muslims every day. They know very well its meaning in that verse yet oft fail to apply its meaning to verse 93:7.

 

Was the Original Injil lost?

'BETWEEN HIS HANDS' OR 'BEFORE IT' (MA BAYNA YADAYHI)

 

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chaotic Muslim,

I read the long link, --- This article which was written by Robert Eisenman --- from:

'The Institute for Jewish-Christian Origins.' --- follows a lot of erroneous Talmud writings.

Quote from online: In the centuries following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE), the Jewish people began writing in the 2nd century, two versions of Jewish thought, religious history and commentary. One was written in Palestine and became known as the Jerusalem Talmud. The other was written in Babylon and was known as the Babylonian Talmud.

It was written from the 2nd to about the 6th century. It is not Scripture and has its own agenda.

--- When the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, all the records and genealogies were lost, so the Jews recorded their thoughts from other writings including some history from the Historian Josephus.

So the Talmud was compiled from the writings of Rabbis with an attempt to continue Judaism without the Temple, the sacrifices, and the Holy of Holies.

It is anti Christian so denied most everything about Jesus and the New Testament except to ridicule Him and the Apostle Paul, and others like him.

There are two quotes below from the article that ends by saying they have no proof or evidence, just their stories. --- They major on Paul being a Roman and not a Jew. --- (I will show some verses on how he was a Jew with Roman citizenship.)

Also, there is a story of one called Paulus (a name not in the NT) who started a riot in Jerusalem before 70 AD, about the time that James, the Pastor of the Jerusalem Church, was killed

This was years after Paul left Jerusalem, so there was no connection, and they say things about a supposed connection to king Herod, which has no basis in Scripture, and has not been heard of before.

Quote from link on Post 31,

In our view, it is just these Herodian origins where Paul is concerned that explain his very peculiar view of Judaism, what we perceive to be his inferiority complex and defensiveness where Jews are concerned, his jealousy of Jews, in fact his anti-Semitism generally, and finally his extremely lax and, from the Jewish viewpoint, utterly unconscionable view of the Law. It is hard to consider that a native-born Jew, comfortable in his identity, could have indulged in the kind of insults Paul gratuitously makes concerning circumcision, circumcisers, and those keeping dietary regulations, or adopted the curious approach towards the possibility of simultaneously being a Law-keeper to those who keep the Law and a Law-breaker to those who did not in order, as he puts it, "to win, not beat the air," or that by avoiding circumcision, one could avoid the demands of the Law, which in some manner he saw as "a curse."

Ending with

Quote: Though these matters are hardly capable of proof, and we have, in fact, proved nothing, still no other explanations better explain the combination of points we raise. One thing cannot be denied, Paul's Herodian connections make the manner of his sudden appearances and disappearances, his various miraculous escapes, his early power in Jerusalem, his Roman citizenship, his easy relations with kings and governors, and the venue and terms of his primary missionary activities comprehensible in a manner no other reconstruction even approaches.

They don’t write from having any spiritual knowledge, so they can’t understand that Paul was converted and was guided by the Holy Spirit of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chaotic Muslim,

To respond to things said on the link.

Paul was born a Jew, in Tarsus, and was first introduced as Saul of Tarsus, with his Hebrew name,

About 100 BC the Roman Government had taken over the districts of Tarsus, Galatia, and others, so the children born had Roman citizenship by birth.
Saul was studying in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, and no doubt had ambitions of becoming a high priest of the Pharisees.

After the rapid growth of Christians, following the Day of Pentecost, Saul was most anxious to oppose them and stop them from preaching, and the first mention of Saul was in Acts 7:
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him (the martyr, Stephen) with one accord;
58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.
59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep (in death).

--- Saul wasn’t involved in throwing stones, because as a Pharisee he knew the Jews had no authority to kill anyone, and he must not be involved in killing. --- But he could round up Christians and turn them over to the jailers and get them off the street.


So he had influence with the Sanhedrin and High Priest to give Saul some soldiers to go to Damascus to round up Christians, but this happened in Acts 9:
3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven.
4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”
6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”
Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

--- The Lord spoke to a Christian in Damascus, Ananias, to have him go and pray for Saul to receive his sight, because he had been blinded in the vision.
13 Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem.
14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.”
15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, FOR HE IS A CHOSEN VESSEL OF MINE to bear My name BEFORE GENTILES, KINGS, and THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL
16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

And it was when he returned to Jerusalem and wanted to witness to the Pharisees and others that Christ was the Messiah, --- that it says in Acts 22:
18 And saw Him (Jesus) saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, for they will not receive your testimony concerning Me.’
21 Then He said to me, ‘Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.’”

On another occasion when they were going to whip him:
25 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?”
26 When the centurion heard that, he went and told the commander, saying, “Take care what you do, for this man is a Roman.”
27 Then the commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?”
He said, “Yes.”
28 The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained this citizenship.”
And Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.”
29 Then immediately those who were about to examine him withdrew from him; and the commander was also afraid after he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

So you see, nothing of what is mentioned in the article about Paul being a Herodian is true. --- And it was the Lord, through visions, that directed Paul in going to the Gentiles and before Kings.

If you don’t believe in visions, then I guess you wouldn’t believe in Mohammad’s vision of Gabriel.

Placid
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chaotic Muslim,

Quote from link on Post 31:
It is hard to consider that a native-born Jew, comfortable in his identity, could have indulged in the kind of insults Paul gratuitously makes concerning circumcision, circumcisers, and those keeping dietary regulations,

Response: --- Each of the comments have to be with sarcasm, but the truth is that the writer doesn’t know what the Old Testament said about circumcision.
However, Paul was a student of the OT and this is why he could present the law with understanding.

Circumcision was a sign given to Abraham and it identified the Jews, so it was a regulation to be followed, along with the other Laws that God gave later to Moses. --- As soon as the Hebrew people started ignoring God’s law and even began to worship the idols of the Pagans around them, they lost their place with God. --- Therefore, circumcision did nothing to save them, did it?

--- After the Assyrian Captivity of Jews in 722 BC and a few years before the Babylonian captivity in 600 BC, the Prophet wrote this in Jeremiah 31:
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.
33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

The New Testament is the New Covenant.
--- While all the Jews were circumcised according to the law, including John the Baptist, Jesus, all the Apostles, and all the Jewish people. --- It was part of the law, and the law was set aside, when the preaching of the Gospel by John the Baptist and Jesus brought the Jews to “Faith in God” not as a nation, but as individuals.

And Jesus, who ministered to the Jews and prepared the Apostles to go out, gave them this commission in Mark 16:
15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved;”

So Salvation was by Faith in God, --- and “Baptism” was the sign that replaced “circumcision.”

Jesus taught nothing about circumcision, and the word circumcision is not in the Quran, --- So Muhammad didn’t teach circumcision, did he?

But here is what the OT said about circumcision in Deuteronomy 30:
5 “He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers.
6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.”

This is in the Book of Moses, and it shows the inner conviction of the heart, to love God, with all your heart and all your soul (or your whole being).

It was in reference to this OT Scripture that Paul taught the same in Romans 2:
25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision (of no significance)..
29 He is a (Spiritual) Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

And it says in 1 Corinthians 7:
19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

Galatians 5:
6 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.”

Collosians 2:
11 “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”


In the same way, ‘baptism’ is of no benefit to unbelievers because we are saved by Faith in God, not by baptism.
Baptism is an outward sign of an inner conviction, --- but if there is no inner conviction then there is no significance to baptism either.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/03/2015 at 7:18 PM, Chaotic Muslem said:

Placid,

If prophet muhammad was influenced by Christians, then also prophet Esa was influenced by jews. We belive that they all are messengers of Allah and the source of their wisdom is one . Enough said.

As for waraqa, I think we Shia tell it's story a bit differently.

We don't buy that story at all.  Muhammad was born as a Prophet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2015-3-10 at 6:51 AM, andres said:

How do we know that Muhammad was born a monotheist?

He used to go to the hills nearby in worship of the one God.

On 2015-3-10 at 0:05 AM, andres said:

Is there any reason to doubt that he, before the revelations, shared the beliefs of his own tribe?

 While the majority of his tribe were non-believers, there was a small group of people among them who believed in one God.

They were known as Haneefs.

Muhammad's family belonged to this group of people.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, baqar said:

He used to go to the hills nearby in worship of the one God.

 While the majority of his tribe were non-believers, there was a small group of people among them who believed in one God.

They were known as Haneefs.

Muhammad's family belonged to this group of people.   

What is known about Haneef belief, besides being monotheists? 

What does the word Haneef mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, baqar said:

So Nestorians were actually Muslims and  hanifs! Of course they were not

 Ibn Ishaq seems to be the source relied upon. He lived a century after Muhammed. 

Hanif religion looks like a myth to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, baqar said:

So Nestorians were actually Muslims and  hanifs! Of course they were not

 Ibn Ishaq seems to be the source relied upon. He lived a century after Muhammed. 

Wikipedia say the word "hanifs" probably originally was used by Christian and Jews to describe pagan Arabs. The Quran being the first to use it refering to the belief of Abraham. A belief first was recorded in the Torah less than 3.000 years ago.

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, baqar said:

There were no Muslims before Muhammed, no Christians before Jesus and no Judaism before King David. This is as certain as that the earth is not flat. 

Why did God set different rules all over the world. Most likely because conditions vary. Some rules in our holy books are eternal and universal. Others, like stoning for adultery or for working during Sabbath, are not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andres said:

So Nestorians were actually Muslims and  hanifs! Of course they were not

I just gave you those links as a possible reference.

I am sorry I should have studied them first.

Many of these links are quite useless. 

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andres said:

Wikipedia say the word "hanifs" probably originally was used by Christian and Jews to describe pagan Arabs. 

 "Hanif" is the term used to describe people who believed in one God and the religion of Abraham.

I googled and  just gave you those links as a possible reference, hoping they might have something useful.

Everything in the hundreds of links that relate to a given subject is not necessarily true.

Ignore all the rest in those links. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, baqar said:

 Everything in the hundreds of links that relate to a given subject is not necessarily true.

Ignore all the rest in those links. 

Maybe no link can tell the truth. It is difficult to prove that a non existant religion did not exist. But since it has left no traces behind, the probability of it having existed is minimal.

That knowledge developes, culture and moral change, and thereby also affects religious beliefs and practises, is a fact. Even thou the Quran and the Bible stay the same, Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hanif, in the Qurʾān, the sacred scriptureof Islām, an Arabic designation for true monotheists (especially Abraham) who were not Jews, Christians, or worshipers of idols. The word appears to have been borrowed from a Syriac word meaning “heathen” and, by extension, designating a Hellenized person of culture. There is no evidence that a true hanif cult existed in pre-Islāmic Arabia, but there were certain individuals who, having repudiated the old gods, prepared the way for Islām but embraced neither Judaism nor Christianity. In this sense, some of Muḥammad’s relatives, contemporaries, and early supporters were called hanifs—e.g., Waraqah ibn Nawfal, a cousin of the Prophet’s first wife, Khadījah, and Umayyah ibn Abī aṣ-Ṣalt, an early 7th-century Arab poet.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Melvind said:

Hanif, in the Qurʾān, the sacred scriptureof Islām, an Arabic designation for true monotheists (especially Abraham) who were not Jews, Christians, or worshipers of idols. The word appears to have been borrowed from a Syriac word meaning “heathen” and, by extension, designating a Hellenized person of culture. There is no evidence that a true hanif cult existed in pre-Islāmic Arabia, but there were certain individuals who, having repudiated the old gods, prepared the way for Islām but embraced neither Judaism nor Christianity. In this sense, some of Muḥammad’s relatives, contemporaries, and early supporters were called hanifs—e.g., Waraqah ibn Nawfal, a cousin of the Prophet’s first wife, Khadījah, and Umayyah ibn Abī aṣ-Ṣalt, an early 7th-century Arab poet.

 

 

I also learned this from Wikipedia. Waraqah ibn Nawfal was originally a Nestorian priest that seemingly converted to Islam when Islam entered the Scene. There were monotheists before Muhammed, but they were Christian and Jews. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andres said:

 There were monotheists before Muhammed, but they were Christian and Jews. 

And there were other monotheists such as the hanifs of the line of Ishmael, to which the family of the Prophet belonged;.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, baqar said:

And there were other monotheists such as the hanifs of the line of Ishmael, to which the family of the Prophet belonged;.

You need no proofs. The word written in the Quran is enough for you to make this stand. This issue is unharmful, but the fanatic belief that the Qurans word cannot be questioned is in reality a great problem for Muslim nations. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, andres said:

You need no proofs. The word written in the Quran is enough for you to make this stand. 

You are going outside the bounds of civil discourse by making assumptions that are clearly unwholesome.

Regardless whether I need proof or not, it would have been much more courteous if you had asked for supporting evidence.

In any case, historically, there is evidence to believe that the Prophet's great-grandfather, Hashim and his grandfather Abdul Muttalib were hanifs.

This is my last post on the topic.

Keep posting whatever your heart desires, regardless of the quality of your arguments. .  

 

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!

    • There is a popular saying: "Knowledge without deed is nothing". This saying applies to some of the things but according to my speculation doesn't work for everything. For example, if ilm is: "Allah is 1" and the practical deed one might say is to "avoid shirk". Now, I truly believe and I gain knowledge. How about proton, neutron and electron revolve around nucleus? And proton has other particles in it etc. What could be the deed of this knowledge? Is it just information, then schools and university are mostly focusing on learning information rather than the true knowledge?
    • Hypothetically they can, but it seems more likely that they will slow access to sites that don't pay a ransom, not cut them off entirely. 
    • This reminds  me the following  hadith:  Ali ul Ma'a ul haq wal haq ma'a Ali Imam Ali is with haq and haq is with Ali As.  Ali ul Ma'a ul Quran wal Quran ma'a Ali. Imam Ali is with quran and quran  is with Ali As.  (This also provides the evidence for the hadith thaqlayn.) wasalam
    • Yes i own a car and i drive as well .   Its necessity in this part of the world ...... Positive : Ease your movement  Negative : Normally i dont swear at all .but while driving i swear every minute ......:))
×