Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

This can easily be understood as never happening, but can also be seen as the Quran not adding to what's already been written previous.

Apart from that, the Quran was never intended to be a book of history and refers to a historical account only it deems necessary. to make its point.

43 minutes ago, Kamaaluddeen al-Ismail said:

Allah says in the Holy Quran Chapter 40 Surah Gafir verse 78:

O Prophet, We have sent many Messengers before you. Of them there are some whose stories We have related to you, and of others We have not related.

Indeed true. 

The number is not relevant.

Share this post


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

 Where is the Arab history? Not in the Quran. 

Correct. As I just said, the Quran was never intended to be a book of history.

6 hours ago, andres said:

 And those 25 belong to the Jewish-Israelitic culture, except for Mohammed, who is Arab. 

Well, my friend, when I was younger and I knew very little about evolution, I used to wonder how 124,000 prophets could be squeezed into 10,000 years which used to be the common view for Adam's arrival on our planet.

But if human history can be traced to an earlier time, as is now the case after Darwin, the number seems to fit in more easily.

As for the point why only Biblical prophets are mentioned in the Quran, well the question had occurred to me as well. I had often thought why Confucius and Tao and Krishna and the Buddha are not mentioned, assuming that they were prophets.

But the question does not seem to have piqued the Prophet's audience. They did not know about those men and their teachings. So how could they ask that question? Whatever the reason, I believe there is no record of the Prophet ever addressing the issue.

However, Islam came down in a region where the predominant scripture was the Bible. If the Quran had attempted to talk about the prophets and scriptures of India and China and Peru and Alaska and Lapland and Bulgaria and Nigeria, they may have thought that it was trying to import and impose a foreign set of unfamiliar and unwanted beliefs upon the people. They may have said that it was trying to build on stories that are irrelevant to them and was using their ignorance to fool them and that would have set the clock back for Islam. It would have been a serious point of contention and caused a lot of tension and confusion among the people and more problems for the fledgling faith.

The Quran therefore sticks to the stories of prophets that the people were familiar with.

Edited by baqar
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Baqar

Yes there were both Christians and Jews living in the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century. But the society was pagan Arab. Muhammed reformed a polytheistic society into monotheistic, like the Israelites had done 1.500 years earlier. I agree the Quran is not a history Book like the Bible, but still there are some stories, like Joseph in Egypt. Israelite stories. Of course, the Quran recognises the same God as the Jews worshipped. The Bible was the only scripture dedicated to him (Jahwe) and the Qurans mission was not to tell about the old semitic pagan Gods. (The Bible does, but thats another subject). 

We may differ on how to define a prophet. But have there been prophets in America, Australia and Lappland, they certainly did not preach the message of the Quran or the Bible. Neither did Buddah or Krishna. Humans have existed for more than 100.000 years so depending on the definition of who is a prophet, 124.000 of them would be possible. None of them would have a message identical to that of Muhammed thou.

Maybe God has given different messages adapted to the very different societies on our globe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again Baqar

Assume you are right. Adam was created 10.000 years ago, and there has now been 124.000 prophets worldwide. In average 12,4 prophets are born every year. If they are active averagely 20 years, there would be 249 prophets alive today. Where are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no evidence that Adam was born 10,000 years ago. He could have been born 1 million years ago. 

Remember what I said,:  "10,000 years used to be the common view for Adam's arrival on our planet."

But it doesn't have to be.

Share this post


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

There is no evidence that Adam was born 10,000 years ago. He could have been born 1 million years ago. 

Remember what I said,:  "10,000 years used to be the common view for Adam's arrival on our planet."

But it doesn't have to be.

Of course.  I agree. Still the number of  successful prophets after Muhammed are very few. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Islamic belief, there is no prophet to come after Prophet Muhammad.

Both Shias and Sunnis believe in successors of the Prophet to guide Muslims, not prophets.

In Sunni belief, the first such person was the caliph Abu Bakr.

In Shia  belief, it was Imam Ali. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.

 Mormons believe Smith was a prophet, he came after Muhammed. Many religions have got a prophet of their own. Non-muslims like me believe Muhammed was the only Islamic prophet. In our Nordic countries we never had a prophet. I also believe there were no Mormonism before Smith, no Christianity before Jesus, no Islam before Muhammed and no Judaism before the first milennium BC. Before that all humanity worshipped many Gods.

Edited by andres

Share this post


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

OK.

 Mormons believe Smith was a prophet, he came after Muhammed. Many religions have got a prophet of their own. Non-muslims like me believe Muhammed was the only Islamic prophet. In our Nordic countries we never had a prophet. I also believe there were no Mormonism before Smith, no Christianity before Jesus, no Islam before Muhammed and no Judaism before the first milennium BC. Before that all humanity worshipped many Gods.

All so confusing, glad it's not up to me. 

One of the questions I ask atheists is, "How is it atheism only exists in the civilized world?"

It sounds like a simple answer...because we're civilized...but then it strikes them that the uncivilized world hasn't had civilized religion, yet they all know there's a higher power. They all believe in something. 

Paganism seems to have a gory side to it. Many did sacrifices, animal, human, precious stones, whatever. Doesn't mean they were polytheists, because they normally point to one great spirit in the sky, and many spirits, good and evil around them, in the case of a fellow named Otto Koning, a missionary who took on some rough terrain in Papua New Guinea,  noted how superstition and symbolic traditions backed up by a spiritual evil ran their lives, and how his interference shaped his belief on what's really real and what's not . At the same time, on the other side of the world, the Mayan beliefs are eerily similar. 

There is mention in the OT that many prophets were slain by the hands of those they went to save. There are many stories of missionaries ending up in a stew pot. It's also possible that it takes 124,000 prophets just to get a few to survive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

It's also possible that it takes 124,000 prophets just to get a few to survive. 

Indeed so.

Imagine you are living in an older time when communication was extremely poor. I can imagine the day when it would take a number of weeks to travel from Montreal to Quebec, and several months to Mexico or Anchorage, assuming that one could live through the vagaries of the weather.

In a world of such poor communications, I wouldn't be surprised if there were anywhere from one to two thousand prophets concurrently preaching to their individual villages around the world. And that being the case, it is not difficult to come up the figure of 124,000 envisaged by Islam.

The point that those prophets do not seem to have left much of a trace is also understandable. As the scriptures might agree, except for a handful, they were ALL harassed and MANY were killed. That being the case, it is obvious that the people who harassed or killed them were hell bent to destroy whatever they left behind.

And they seem to have succeeded.

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


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Bismehe Ta3ala, Assalam Alikum  I would never celebrate the slaughter of a nation.  Curse be upon CC. Just like we hate it when people celebrate on Ashura, we should feel the same way towards this mass murdering day.  But every year I mention the same thing, just a reminder for the passerby. M3 Salamah, FE AMIN Allah 
    • Thanks the most relevant answer to the question i have got is given below:  Mirza Jawad Tabrizi سؤال: ألا يكره للمصلي لبس السواد؟ كيف نجمع بين هذا الحكم الشرعي وبين استحباب لبس السواد عزاءا على الحسين عليه السلام؟ جواب: لم يثبت كراهية لبس السواد لا في الصلاة ولا في غيرها، نعم ورد في بعض الروايات ما يستفاد منها كراهية لبس السواد، ولكنها ضعيفة السند، ومع الإغماض عن ضعفها، فالكراهة في الصلاة بمعنى أقل ثوابا، ولبس السواد في عزاء الحسين والأئمة عليهم السلام لأجل إظهار الحزن وإقامة شعائر المذهب مستحب نفسي، وثوابه أكثر من نقص الثواب في الصلاة، والله العالم. Question: Isn’t wearing black while praying Makruh? On the other hand, donning black is commendable during the mourning period for Imam Hussein (AS). What is the justification for the contradiction between these two points? Answer: The undesirability of wearing black clothes in the state of praying or in other situations is not proven as an absolute fact. It is only derived from a number of narratives the chains of transmission of which are unreliable and weak. Regardless of their unreliability, wearing black clothes while praying will lessen its spiritual reward. But putting on black clothes in grief for Imam Hussein (AS) is a religious rite and commendable. Al-‘Amili; al-Intisar, vol. 9, p. 247; publication, Dar al-Sirat, Beirut, Lebanon, the first edition, 1422. Following the analysis of jurists’ ideas it was finally revealed that wearing black in prayers is Makruh. Another question which may come into the readers’ minds is whether praying in black clothes for black-clad mourners during the month of Muharram or ceremonies held for the martyrdoms of the Aimma is Makruh as well. The question has been answered by Haj Aqa Mirza Jawad Tabrizi. سؤال: ما حكم اللباس الأسود في الصلاة أيام وفيات الأئمة عليهم السلام، هل هو مكروه ؟ جواب : إذا كان اللبس بداع إظهار الحزن وتعظيم الشعائر فليس بمكروه، والله العالم. It is not Makruh if the motivation behind the clothing is the expression of grief. Al-‘Amili; al-Intisar, vol. 9, p. 247; publication: Dar al-Sirat, Beirut, Lebanon, the first edition, 1422. The considerable point in jurists’ decrees is bad this kind the prohibition implies that wearing black while praying will only diminish its spiritual rewards. In other words, donning black while praying does not nullify the prayer. It only decreases its rewards. So, wearing garments in other colors is recommended for the state of praying. http://www.valiasr-aj.com/english/mobile_shownews.php?idnews=251 wasalam
    • ^^^ A7SANTI sister, Mash'Allah.  God bless you. Allhoma sali 3la Mohammad wa Ahli Mohammad 
    • Are you asking if they are makrooh to wear in Muharram? No they are not.  They are only makrooh to wear in days that are not mourning days. Sayyed Al-Sistani said it is makrooh to wear black in a normal day.
    • My intention is clear as given in my questions. Wasalam
×