Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Christianity Is Created By Paul

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

One example includes the word: 'Mu'minoon'. The Tribe of the Propet did not pronounce this word the way most of us do now. They pronounce it as: 'Moominoon'. The former is read with the Hafs Qira'at and the latter is done with the Warsh Qira'at. Both carry the exact same meaning and are the exact same word, just pronounced slightly different. 

 

What a relief, thanks! 

 

That is a difference in pronunciation only, not in the body of the text.

 

I suppose there are dozens of different speech styles for every language in the world.

 

I wonder why S/o/P would have mentioned it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 313
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In terms of virtues like charity and justice I don't believe that they should be played off against each other. There has to be a certain ordening to society which promotes justice and protects the pe

If Jesus was born by a Virgin or not is not important and make no difference to me as a Christian. Nor does trinity. No one understands the relations between God and Jesus anyway.

Dear friend   I have very little knowledge of either Biblical history or of Paul's part in it. I can understand some of the objections that non-Christians might have. But I have a feeling that our Chr

  • Advanced Member

^He doesn't accept the Quran. But the Quran is the Truth and it is Eternal

 

You should refrain from making statements like the above. This is not the orthodox position of Shi'i Theologians who deduce their arguments and conclusions from the Imams [as] themselves. 

 

 

Islam. You believe in the Divine Revelation of the Qur'an but are you upholding its laws and regulations? Do you pray the Salah 5 times a day? Fast during the entire Month of Ramadhan? and so on?

 

we can't accept its Divine Revelation and then ignore its explicit instructions. We no longer have to adhere to entire Sharia (Law of Moses) as the Law of Muhammad has come and the Qur'an has final authority over the previous scriptures (Torah, Injeel, Psalsm, etc, NOT the New Testament). The Law of the Prophet will remain with us until the day of judgement. We are obliged to follow it and adhere to it. Messengers may have had different sharia's with slightly different laws and regulations for its community but there is no new law coming. The last one has come. 

 

Edit: I meant the Sharia (Divine Law) of Moses [a] is no longer binding on us.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I think it is time to address the topic title and see where Paul changed anything.

Jesus was the Messenger of the New Covenant, --- Paul was a teacher.

However, the one subject that Muslims blame Paul for is ‘changing the law concerning circumcision.’

The sign of Circumcision was a part of the Jewish covenant with Abraham and continued with the Jews. --- No doubt every Jew in Bible days, including Jesus and His disciples would have been circumcised on the 8th day, when, they say, --- ‘the blood clotting process is the highest on that day of any day in their lives.’

So, what did Jesus teach about circumcision? ---Nothing,

What did Muhammad teach about circumcision? --- Nothing, --- in fact the words ‘circumcise’ and ‘circumcision,’ are not even in the Quran,

--- So where do Muslims get the teaching? --- Was it from the influence of the Jews in Mecca or Al-Madinah?

The Gentiles were never required to be circumcised and when the Gospel spread to the Gentiles, it bothered the Jews because they said that believers should keep the Law of Moses, including circumcision, before they became Christians, Acts 15:1. --- Because it was an issue, they all came together in a meeting in the Church in Jerusalem, where James, the brother of Jesus was the Pastor, or Leader.

--- The Jerusalem Council, which consisted of Apostles and Elders, discussed this, and this was their instruction for Gentile Christians, Acts 15:

22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.

23 They wrote this letter (and sent it) by them:

“The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law” —to whom we gave no such commandment—

25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth.

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.”

Since there is no teaching on circumcision from Jesus, --- it was part of the law that passed away. --- Circumcision did nothing to make anyone righteous.

--- You can be sure that all of the scribes and Pharisees would be circumcised, but Jesus said this in Matthew 5:

20 “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Placid

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

What a relief, thanks! 

 

That is a difference in pronunciation only, not in the body of the text.

 

I suppose there are dozens of different speech styles for every language in the world.

 

I wonder why S/o/P would have mentioned it. 

Are you kidding? Look how many people pop up in the thread. Names I've never seen before.

There's more to the differences than pronunciation but that's not the point.

Nobody cares while we're bashing the Bible but show similar situations with the development of the Quran and everybody jumps.

 

If you're talking differences in the Bible it's all altered/corrupted/perverted but when it's the Quran it's nothing, it just pronunciation, it's dialect, superficial, it's anything but... There's also an urgent need to defend it.

 

Note how content you were to only have one Arabic Quran. (There's actually more like 14 Arabic versions.) Does your relationship with God have to change because there's another version? If you're like me you have to wait until it's translated into English anyway.

 

None of these translations tell me how Paul dreamed the pork into my stomach tho.

Edited by Son of Placid
Link to post
Share on other sites

You should refrain from making statements like the above. This is not the orthodox position of Shi'i Theologians who deduce their arguments and conclusions from the Imams [as] themselves.

Edit: I meant the Sharia (Divine Law) of Moses [a] is no longer binding on us.

The Quran is Eternal in this universe. It is is not outside of time like Allah is though

Are you kidding? Look how many people pop up in the thread. Names I've never seen before.

There's more to the differences than pronunciation but that's not the point.

Nobody cares while we're bashing the Bible but show similar situations with the development of the Quran and everybody jumps.

If you're talking differences in the Bible it's all altered/corrupted/perverted but when it's the Quran it's nothing, it just pronunciation, it's dialect, superficial, it's anything but... There's also an urgent need to defend it.

Note how content you were to only have one Arabic Quran. (There's actually more like 14 Arabic versions.) Does your relationship with God have to change because there's another version? If you're like me you have to wait until it's translated into English anyway.

None of these translations tell me how Paul dreamed the pork into my stomach tho.

Thousands of words in the current bible have been deleted, altered, replaced, added an many other things. The Quran has ha no words added or deleted. This is fact acknowledged by all non Muslim religious or atheist scholars

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The Quran is Eternal in this universe. It is is not outside of time like Allah is though

Thousands of words in the current bible have been deleted, altered, replaced, added an many other things. The Quran has ha no words added or deleted. This is fact acknowledged by all non Muslim religious or atheist scholars

I like the "an many other things" It's so specific. Keep this up and I'll show you what your atheist scholars have missed.

 

You were going to say something about Paul? I'd prefer a little proof rather than your parroted declarations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Maybe by all Muslim scholars but not at all by all secular scholars.

Than those individuals are not scholars as it is historically proven that all words of the Quran are intact and there is no proof of any Quran having one word less or one word more.

While the bible has thousands of deletions, alterations, additions and many other various perversions

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Than those individuals are not scholars as it is historically proven that all words of the Quran are intact and there is no proof of any Quran having one word less or one word more.

While the bible has thousands of deletions, alterations, additions and many other various perversions

Since there is no existing Quran from Uthmans time, noone can prove if there are alterations or not from his edition.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Than those individuals are not scholars as it is historically proven that all words of the Quran are intact and there is no proof of any Quran having one word less or one word more.

While the bible has thousands of deletions, alterations, additions and many other various perversions

Lol, that's right Lion, they're only a scholar if you say so.

 

Just wondering, but if one word, more or less between versions would be a bad thing, then a difference of 22 verses between two "originals"  should be enough to take them both off the shelf right?

 

I remember a fellow challenged me with a Jesus vs Paul thing once.

His first point was that Jesus had long hair and Paul said it was a shame for men to have long hair.

What's your opinion on this matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there is no existing Quran from Uthmans time, noone can prove if there are alterations or not from his edition.

You can't prove it so there's no point in talking about it then

@sop nobody knows if Isa PBUH had long hair or not though i doubt he did. I don't give any value to paul and he said a lot of lies about Isa PBUH actually as he was an enemy of Isa peace be upon him

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

You can't prove it so there's no point in talking about it then

@sop nobody knows if Isa PBUH had long hair or not though i doubt he did. I don't give any value to paul and he said a lot of lies about Isa PBUH actually as he was an enemy of Isa peace be upon him

For certain you must know some of these lies. If there's "a lot" then you could list them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

in fact the words ‘circumcise’ and ‘circumcision,’ are not even in the Quran,

 

Hi Placid

 

The words of the Prophet are as valid to be part of Islam as the Quran.

 

And for Shia Muslims, also the words of our Imams.

 

So saying that something is not in the Quran does not help the argument.

 

There are other things we believe that are not in the Quran. 

There's more to the differences than pronunciation but that's not the point.

 

Please tell us what they are.

 

Unless you do, I will continue to believe the poster who said, there isn't any other textually different version of the Quran in the world today.

 

That is why I said  'What a relief'.

 

 

Wrong. Maybe by all Muslim scholars but not at all by all secular scholars.

 

Not by all. Possibly a few, but doesn't necessarily mean they are right.

 

I have read a book compiled by two Germans 'The Hidden Origins of the Quran'.

 

The arguments are plain rubbish.

 

It is not easy to discuss the book except with someone who has already read it. 

 

So if you ever read the book, then open a thread, and God Willing, I will trash their arguments to you right here.
 
Right here, buddy.

Maybe by all Muslim scholars but not at all by all secular scholars.

 

Secularism is not a religion.

 

 

India is one of the most secular countries in the world.

 

But every Indian has a distinct religion of his own.

 

The scholars you are talking about are largely either Christians or atheists / agnostics etc.

And atheists are a bunch of eggheads with never any arguments based on logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Yeah sure soppy

He created the dream he had about pig eating, circumscion, Isa PBUH is god, Isa PBUH is son of god

All various lies about Isa PBUH including Isa PBUH cursing a tree

Okay, we're getting there slowly.

Now all you have to do is show me where.

When did Paul have this dream about pig eating?

When/where did Paul ever call Jesus God? 

Paul said Jesus cursed a tree?

and various lies...

n stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

And atheists are a bunch of eggheads with never any arguments based on logic.

One of the most unlogical and unfounded statements I have ever read, or maybe just a desperate defense?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Just what is it you assume I am talking about?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Not by all. Possibly a few, but doesn't necessarily mean they are right.

My comment to Wisdom Lion was that he was wrong in saying that all non muslim scholars agree that the Quran is unchanged. You obviously agree with me althou you believe the seculat sceptics are few, I believe they are many.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

In response to the cursing of the tree in Post 119:

I will mention the prophecy concerning the “Fig Tree.” Which Paul had nothing to do with, nor was he even known till years later.

--- Jesus had preached to the multitudes, healed the sick, fed 5000 on the hillside, but the authorities of Jerusalem opposed Him, and since He knew the destruction that was coming, He gave the disciples an object lesson with the Fig Tree, since the Fig Tree was symbolic of the nation Israel.

Very early in Jesus’ ministry, it says this in John 2:

13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business.

15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.

16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”

--- (None of them should have been in the Temple court, but outside, however, they showed what little respect they had for the House of God.)

And some 3 years later, near the end of His ministry, they had moved back in again, and Jesus prophesied against Jerusalem and the nation Israel.

Here is the later cleansing of the Temple in Matthew 21:

12 Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.

13 And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’”

17 Then He left them and went out of the city to Bethany, and He lodged there.

18 Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry.

19 And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, “Let no fruit grow on you ever again.” Immediately the fig tree withered away.

20 And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither away so soon?”

The symbolism was that Jesus came to Jerusalem, the Holy City of Israel expecting spiritual fruit, but they had lapsed back to their dishonor of God and the Temple.

With all of their pomp and ceremony they appeared to be fruitful, but it was all a sham, ‘nothing but leaves,’ so Jesus cursed the Fig Tree, and His disciples took note of it.

21:42 Jesus said to them (the Jewish leaders), “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone.

This was the Lord’s doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.

26 Blind Pharisees, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

--- (And Jesus Laments over Jerusalem.)

37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

38 See! Your house is left to you desolate.”

In the next verse the destruction of the Temple is predicted in 24:

1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

--- The Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, --- and a tradition says that when the Temple was burned with fire, all the gold from the interior ran down between the stones and the soldiers used their horses to pull the stones apart to retrieve the gold, --- so the Temple was left, ‘not one stone upon another.’

But in the same chapter it speaks of the restoration of the Fig Tree, 24:

32 “Now learn this parable from the Fig Tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near.

33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!

34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

Those who follow prophecy agree that the ‘budding of the Fig Tree,’ --- refers to the rebirth of the Nation Israel in 1948. --- This is why they say we are in the end times, meaning the end of ‘this order of things.’

Placid

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 You obviously agree with me althou you believe the seculat sceptics are few   I believe they are many

 

Of course, there are.

 

Jesus had many more enemies than friends.

 

So?

 

Instead of flashing the numbers, you would be better off trying to show that their arguments are coherent.

 

I have already told you about the quality of their arguments in a certain book.

 

If you disagree with me, read that book and then we can discuss.

 

All these so-called scholars have pre-set agendas.

 

I am sure you an understand that.

 

Human nature, my friend.

 

If you have gripes against someone, you will do your best to find him guilty. 

 

That is all there is to it.  

Those who follow prophecy agree that the ‘budding of the Fig Tree,’ --- refers to the rebirth of the Nation Israel in 1948

 

Hi Placid

 

I think those who follow the prophecy are clearly those who love to appease the Jews. 

 

 

This is why they say we are in the end times, meaning the end of ‘this order of things.’

 

Your use of the words 'that is why' is not very clear. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

@sop nobody knows if Isa PBUH had long hair or not though i doubt he did.

Thank you. At least that's one point I won't have to deal with.

 

Let's get back to this dream Paul had.

It must be somewhere, (book/chapter/verse) where someone can find it so we can discuss intelligently.

Maybe we could ask Peter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Hi Peace,

We have often asked what Muslims believe and the results are sketchy, however, I think I see a pattern emerging from Ali Musaaa and yourself.

Ali said in Post 97:

Quote: Islam. You believe in the Divine Revelation of the Qur'an but are you upholding its laws and regulations? Do you pray the Salah 5 times a day? Fast during the entire Month of Ramadhan? and so on?

We can't accept its Divine Revelation and then ignore its explicit instructions. We no longer have to adhere to entire Sharia (Law of Moses) as the Law of Muhammad has come, and the Qur'an has final authority over the previous scriptures (Torah, Injeel, Psalsm, etc, NOT the New Testament). The Law of the Prophet will remain with us until the day of judgement. We are obliged to follow it and adhere to it. Messengers may have had different sharia's with slightly different laws and regulations for its community but there is no new law coming. The last one has come.

And he said in post 107:

Quote: Edit: I meant the Sharia (Divine Law) of Moses [a] is no longer binding on us.

And you said in Post 120:

(I had said) in fact the words ‘circumcise’ and ‘circumcision,’ are not even in the Quran,

(And in response you said):

The words of the Prophet are as valid to be part of Islam as the Quran.

And for Shia Muslims, also the words of our Imams.

So saying that something is not in the Quran does not help the argument.

There are other things we believe that are not in the Quran.

Ali says: We no longer have to adhere to entire Sharia (Law of Moses) as the Law of Muhammad has come, and the Qur'an has “final authority” over the previous scriptures (Torah, Injeel, Psalsm, etc, NOT the New Testament).

And you say ‘you believe the Quran,’ but you add to it.

When Ali says the Quran is the “final authority,” --- but you can observe some of the Laws of Moses if you choose to, --- then we can consider your response to ‘circumcision’ though it is not mentioned in the Quran.

--- I accept the Revelations given to Muhammad, and the instructions that Muhammad gave to his followers. Over 60 times it says in the Quran, “Believe in God and do good works.” --- That is the basic message.

When I came on Shiachat and said I wanted to learn about Islam, a Moderator at that time said, “If you want to learn about Islam, read the Quran.”

So, I read the Quran and have been studying it along with the former Scriptures ever since.

Now since Ali says that the Quran is the “Final Authority,” --- and since it has added no new rules within its pages, --- then we should be right in following the "Quran," should we not?

I understand that Muslims circumcise their children, is that right?

--- But since it was no longer a 'law' after Jesus came, although the Jews have always practiced it, --- and it was not taught in the Quran, --- then it is up to the customs and traditions that you follow as Muslims, is it not?

--- So you can’t really introduce it again as a 'law,' and impose it on others, can you?

If it is no longer a ‘law,’ --- but just a tradition with some hygienic benefits, then both Christians and Muslims can practice circumcision as a matter of choice, is that not right?

--- This is what it means to be “FREE FROM THE LAW.” --- It doesn’t mean you stop following the law if it is desired or beneficial, --- but it is not required, and there is no spiritual benefit, whether you do, or you don’t.

--- And this is what Paul taught.

Placid

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(To add some verses)

What Paul said about circumcision of the heart was not his own words, but comes from what the Lord said in the OT, in these verses of revival and restoration, in Deuteronomy 30:

5 Then the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it. 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.

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;

29 but he is a 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.

Romans 4:11 And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,

12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

And you say ‘you believe the Quran,’ but you add to it.

 

 

Hi Placid

 

If the preposition 'it' in your statement refers to the Quran, then you have misunderstood what I said.

 

I did not say that we add to the Quran.

 

I said (or rather I meant) that the words of the Prophet and the Imams are just as binding on us as the Quran.

 

And I stand by what I said.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 But since it was no longer a 'law' after Jesus came, although the Jews have always practiced it, --- and it was not taught in the Quran, --- then it is up to the customs and traditions that you follow as Muslims 

 

It has nothing to do with customs or traditions.  

 

As for Jesus outlawing circumcision, Muslims don't believe he did.

 

But even if he did, what matters is what our Holy Prophet asked us to do.

 

And as already stated, it does not matter if it has not been mentioned in the Quran.

 

If the Prophet introduced a practice, well then it becomes a part of Islam.  

 This is what it means to be “FREE FROM THE LAW.

 

We do not believe in freedom from the law.

 

No civilized society does.

 

 And this is what Paul taught.

 

That may well be and would apply to us if we followed him but we don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Hi Peace,

We have often asked what Muslims believe and the results are sketchy, however, I think I see a pattern emerging from Ali Musaaa and yourself.

Ali said in Post 97:

Quote: Islam. You believe in the Divine Revelation of the Qur'an but are you upholding its laws and regulations? Do you pray the Salah 5 times a day? Fast during the entire Month of Ramadhan? and so on?

We can't accept its Divine Revelation and then ignore its explicit instructions. We no longer have to adhere to entire Sharia (Law of Moses) as the Law of Muhammad has come, and the Qur'an has final authority over the previous scriptures (Torah, Injeel, Psalsm, etc, NOT the New Testament). The Law of the Prophet will remain with us until the day of judgement. We are obliged to follow it and adhere to it. Messengers may have had different sharia's with slightly different laws and regulations for its community but there is no new law coming. The last one has come.

And he said in post 107:

Quote: Edit: I meant the Sharia (Divine Law) of Moses [a] is no longer binding on us.

And you said in Post 120:

(I had said) in fact the words ‘circumcise’ and ‘circumcision,’ are not even in the Quran,

(And in response you said):

The words of the Prophet are as valid to be part of Islam as the Quran.

And for Shia Muslims, also the words of our Imams.

So saying that something is not in the Quran does not help the argument.

There are other things we believe that are not in the Quran.

Ali says: We no longer have to adhere to entire Sharia (Law of Moses) as the Law of Muhammad has come, and the Qur'an has “final authority” over the previous scriptures (Torah, Injeel, Psalsm, etc, NOT the New Testament).

And you say ‘you believe the Quran,’ but you add to it.

When Ali says the Quran is the “final authority,” --- but you can observe some of the Laws of Moses if you choose to, --- then we can consider your response to ‘circumcision’ though it is not mentioned in the Quran.

--- I accept the Revelations given to Muhammad, and the instructions that Muhammad gave to his followers. Over 60 times it says in the Quran, “Believe in God and do good works.” --- That is the basic message.

When I came on Shiachat and said I wanted to learn about Islam, a Moderator at that time said, “If you want to learn about Islam, read the Quran.”

So, I read the Quran and have been studying it along with the former Scriptures ever since.

Now since Ali says that the Quran is the “Final Authority,” --- and since it has added no new rules within its pages, --- then we should be right in following the "Quran," should we not?

I understand that Muslims circumcise their children, is that right?

--- But since it was no longer a 'law' after Jesus came, although the Jews have always practiced it, --- and it was not taught in the Quran, --- then it is up to the customs and traditions that you follow as Muslims, is it not?

--- So you can’t really introduce it again as a 'law,' and impose it on others, can you?

If it is no longer a ‘law,’ --- but just a tradition with some hygienic benefits, then both Christians and Muslims can practice circumcision as a matter of choice, is that not right?

--- This is what it means to be “FREE FROM THE LAW.” --- It doesn’t mean you stop following the law if it is desired or beneficial, --- but it is not required, and there is no spiritual benefit, whether you do, or you don’t.

--- And this is what Paul taught.

Placid

 

Greetings Placid, 

 

I think I can answer these and give Br. Ali Mussa a break. 

 

Yes. Muslims circumcise their children. As muslims, we believe that we are bound by the laws that were Brought by Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them both) EXCEPT the parts that were not practiced by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) (such as observation of the Sabbath as the Jews observe it). His actions, or Sunnah, is considered the same to us as Divine Revelation as far as what we can practice and what we can't. 

 

There are some areas of Sunnah which muslims disagree about (for example the temporary marriage) but most things which are Sunnah are agreed upon by all muslims, such as circumcision, prayer, fasting, hajj, giving charity, etc. We are under an obligation to practice what we are sure is Sunnah, and most of these are also mentioned in the Quran. We are not obliged to practice what we are not sure about, but we should gain knowledge so that we know what is and what isn't. 

 

Circumcision is a law, not a tradition because you cannot make the Hajj (pilgrimage) unless you are circumcised, and Hajj is wajib(required) if you can afford to go. So if something is required in order to do something that is required by God(s.w.a), then both things are required, i.e. law not tradition. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Hi Peace,

We have often asked what Muslims believe and the results are sketchy, however, I think I see a pattern emerging from Ali Musaaa and yourself.

Ali said in Post 97:

Quote: Islam. You believe in the Divine Revelation of the Qur'an but are you upholding its laws and regulations? Do you pray the Salah 5 times a day? Fast during the entire Month of Ramadhan? and so on?

We can't accept its Divine Revelation and then ignore its explicit instructions. We no longer have to adhere to entire Sharia (Law of Moses) as the Law of Muhammad has come, and the Qur'an has final authority over the previous scriptures (Torah, Injeel, Psalsm, etc, NOT the New Testament). The Law of the Prophet will remain with us until the day of judgement. We are obliged to follow it and adhere to it. Messengers may have had different sharia's with slightly different laws and regulations for its community but there is no new law coming. The last one has come.

And he said in post 107:

Quote: Edit: I meant the Sharia (Divine Law) of Moses [a] is no longer binding on us.

And you said in Post 120:

(I had said) in fact the words ‘circumcise’ and ‘circumcision,’ are not even in the Quran,

(And in response you said):

The words of the Prophet are as valid to be part of Islam as the Quran.

And for Shia Muslims, also the words of our Imams.

So saying that something is not in the Quran does not help the argument.

There are other things we believe that are not in the Quran.

Ali says: We no longer have to adhere to entire Sharia (Law of Moses) as the Law of Muhammad has come, and the Qur'an has “final authority” over the previous scriptures (Torah, Injeel, Psalsm, etc, NOT the New Testament).

And you say ‘you believe the Quran,’ but you add to it.

When Ali says the Quran is the “final authority,” --- but you can observe some of the Laws of Moses if you choose to, --- then we can consider your response to ‘circumcision’ though it is not mentioned in the Quran.

--- I accept the Revelations given to Muhammad, and the instructions that Muhammad gave to his followers. Over 60 times it says in the Quran, “Believe in God and do good works.” --- That is the basic message.

When I came on Shiachat and said I wanted to learn about Islam, a Moderator at that time said, “If you want to learn about Islam, read the Quran.”

So, I read the Quran and have been studying it along with the former Scriptures ever since.

Now since Ali says that the Quran is the “Final Authority,” --- and since it has added no new rules within its pages, --- then we should be right in following the "Quran," should we not?

I understand that Muslims circumcise their children, is that right?

--- But since it was no longer a 'law' after Jesus came, although the Jews have always practiced it, --- and it was not taught in the Quran, --- then it is up to the customs and traditions that you follow as Muslims, is it not?

--- So you can’t really introduce it again as a 'law,' and impose it on others, can you?

If it is no longer a ‘law,’ --- but just a tradition with some hygienic benefits, then both Christians and Muslims can practice circumcision as a matter of choice, is that not right?

--- This is what it means to be “FREE FROM THE LAW.” --- It doesn’t mean you stop following the law if it is desired or beneficial, --- but it is not required, and there is no spiritual benefit, whether you do, or you don’t.

--- And this is what Paul taught.

Placid

 

 

As I said before, the Prophet wasn't some mail man who delivers the Qur'an and then walks away and is of no use to us. He explains it. The Qur'an says to uphold the religion of Abraham [a]. A key aspect of Abraham's faith to God was circumcision. The Prophet explain that we are to circumcise the males after they are born (i think 7 days later?). So no, it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of submitting to God's Law which is what Islam is all about and means (submission to God).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I have already told you about the quality of their arguments in a certain book.

If you disagree with me, read that book and then we can discuss.

All these so-called scholars have pre-set agendas.

I dont have time or to read the book, but I Googled it and found this 14min video on youtube:

RE : Innocence of Muslims - The hidden Origin of Quran. TheMohammedFilms

Interesting. The facts presented seem reliable, but I am not sure about the conclusions.

Of course I know that researchers (muslim, christian or secular) may have a personal agenda. But when it comes to historical seeking or argumentation, a serious historian must try to put aside his religious or atheist belief.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I dont have time or to read the book, but I Googled it and found this 14min video on youtube:

RE : Innocence of Muslims - The hidden Origin of Quran. TheMohammedFilmsI

 

I do not know about the video.

 

But I have read  the book very intently . 

 

Unless you read it, I cannot argue with you,

 

By the way, I intend to write a book report on that book.

 

I could let you know when it is done.

 

In the meantime, if you do ever read it, we can discuss it right here. 

 

Of course I know that researchers (muslim, christian or secular) may have a personal agenda. But when it comes to historical seeking or argumentation, a serious historian must try to put aside his religious or atheist belief.

 

I am glad you make that point.

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Hi Abu,

Response to Post 132,

So Sharia law comes from the laws of Moses that are practiced by Muslims, is that right? --- Are they the same for each group or are there different ones from Shia to Sunni, and other groups? --- I would like to know a little more about Sharia.

Does it contain the ‘justice law,’ --- an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?

I can understand if you say that circumcision is a law for you, then that is okay, but you can understand from the Christian point of view, it was part of the Mosaic laws for the Jews, --- and it was not imposed on the Gentiles.

--- Therefore, it is a silly blame game to say that Paul did away with it, when it was not taught by Jesus, nor was it included in the letter sent by James from the Church of Jerusalem to the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.

The letter said:

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

--- (This is basically the same instruction that is given in Surah 2:173 and in the first part of 5:3, except for the exclusion of ‘swine,’ --- is it not?)

But I want to show you an interesting thing that happened in the next chapter.

Paul, and others mentioned at the meeting in Jerusalem, were traveling to the various Churches, delivering the letter, when they came here, Acts 16:

1 Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek.

2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium.

3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.

4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.

5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Notice this: ---“And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region.”

--- Because his father was Greek it was not required that Timothy be circumcised, but because they were working among the Jews, Paul circumcised him, so he could work freely among the Jews, because it complied with their law.

Timothy became a leader and the Pastor of the Church at Ephesus, and later travelled to Rome to see Paul and Luke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Hi Abu,

Response to Post 132,

So Sharia law comes from the laws of Moses that are practiced by Muslims, is that right? --- Are they the same for each group or are there different ones from Shia to Sunni, and other groups? --- I would like to know a little more about Sharia.

Does it contain the ‘justice law,’ --- an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?

 

The laws of Moses are the basis for Islamic law, but there are parts that were abrogated. We do not say, as some Christians say, that the law of Moses does not apply to us. It applies to us, as much as was taught by Prophet Muhammad. Regarding Sunni / Shia, like I said in my previous post, most of the laws are the same between Sunni and Shia, but there are some that are different, kind of like Protestants and Catholics have some rules that are different, for example Catholic Priests cannot marry and Protestant Ministers can. 

 

Islam has five pillars of practice and Five pillars of faith

 

The five pillars of practice are Tauhid, Prayer, Fasting, Charity, and Hajj. These are the same for Sunni and Shia although a few of the rules for these practices may differ ((but most are the same)

 

The five pillars of faith are Tauhid(belief in the Oneness of God), Adl(Belief that God is always just), Nabbuwat(Belief that God sends his message to mankind  thru Prophets), Imamate(Belief that God appoints leaders over mankind), and Qiyyamat (Belief in the Afterlife and the Day of Judgement)

 

Of those ten, there is only one, Imamate, in which the concept is quite different between Sunni and Shia. The rest are identical or extremely similar. 

 

Sharia is those ten pillars translated into practical laws. The subject of Sharia is vast, but if you would like, I can post a few links. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Of course I know that researchers (muslim, christian or secular) may have a personal agenda. But when it comes to historical seeking or argumentation, a serious historian must try to put aside his religious or atheist belief.

 

What you call 'personal agenda' is common in every walk of life.

 

If you have had an education in science, you will appreciate what I am trying to say.

 

If not, perhaps you should read some science magazines.

 

You will find the same attitude among rival scientists.

 

If one scientist staunchly believes in something, he will do his best to resist arguments, including experimental evidence, given by others.

 

It is not easy to just quickly abandon something you believe in strongly in a jiffy just because someone claims to have found evidence to the contrary.

 

And as far as material evidence is concerned, don't forget that all over the world, millions of innocent people have been sentenced to death, because the judge thought that there was sufficient evidence to prove the guilt

 

It happens very often that evidence is accepted by the court but the person is innocent.

 

They find out only too late that the evidence was flawed  - when the person has been executed.

 

Similarly, in religious debates, it is natural to think of countervailing arguments as flawed.

 

That is not the same as 'personal agenda'.

 

Of course I know that researchers (muslim, christian or secular) may have a personal agenda. But when it comes to historical seeking or argumentation, a serious historian must try to put aside his religious or atheist belief.

 

When you say, 'Muslim, Christian or secular', you seem to be saying  that a secular person cannot be either Muslim nor Christian.

 

That is not true.

 

I know lots of Muslims as well as Christians who are religious in their private life but are secular in their dealings with the outside world.

 

Go to India. 

 

You will find Muslim judges. You will see Christian parliamentarians. You have Zoroastrian industrialists. And you have Sikh professors.  

 

They don't mix their religion with their duties to their country and their dealings with those outside their religious fold. 

 

Their religion is their private affair. 

 

They know when and where to draw the line.

 

That may not be true in your experience but a person can definitely be 'secular' and 'religious' at the same time.

 

Being religious and secular are not mutually exclusive.

 

You should know when to wear your religious hat and when to wear your secular hat.

 

Of course, you cannot wear the two together.

 

Of course I know that researchers (muslim, christian or secular) may have a personal agenda. But when it comes to historical seeking or argumentation, a serious historian must try to put aside his religious or atheist belief.

 

I think you should spell proper names beginning with capital letters.

 

'Muslim' and 'Christian' are both proper nouns.

 

Even when used as adjectives,  the names of religions should always be spelled with the first letter in upper case.

 

It is actually incorrect according to the rules of English grammar.

 

I am sure it was not your intention to be insulting but some people feel uncomfortable with the name of a religion beginning with a small character. 

Edited by baqar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Hi Bagar

A very important rule is the "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" . Errors still occur, and this is one reason why I am against Death Penalty.

When I speak about Christians Muslims and Secular persons, the two first are religious. Secular persons are not religious in my vocabulary. Atheists and agnostics I call Secular.

As you know English is not my language. Christian in Swedish is "kristen". We do not write it with Capital letter, not even in the Bible. Thank you for the information, it should be easy to comply with your request, but I find Swedish spelling rules more convinient on an Iphone!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Hi Abu,

Quote from Post 137:

Islam has five pillars of practice and Five pillars of faith

The five pillars of practice are Tauhid, Prayer, Fasting, Charity, and Hajj. These are the same for Sunni and Shia although a few of the rules for these practices may differ ((but most are the same)

The five pillars of faith are Tauhid(belief in the Oneness of God), Adl(Belief that God is always just), Nabbuwat(Belief that God sends his message to mankind thru Prophets), Imamate(Belief that God appoints leaders over mankind), and Qiyyamat (Belief in the Afterlife and the Day of Judgement)

Response: --- Thank you, this is most interesting. I have a Booklet that explains the five Pillars of Islam. --- The first four, faith, prayer, fasting and charity, are ‘Pillars of Faith’ from the OT, and were practiced all through the NT as well.

The first one, Tauhid, Faith, --- is explained this way in the Booklet.

Quote: The religion of Islam demands from its believers, first Iman, faith, which their theologians define as “confession with the tongue and belief with the heart.” The fuller form of this confession is: “I believe in God, His angels, His books, His prophets, in the last day, in the predestination by the Most High God of good and evil, and in the resurrection after death.” --- End of quote.

This would come from Surah 2:

285 The Apostle believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in God, His angels, His books, and His apostles. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His apostles." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."

--- And from Surah 4:

136 O ye who believe! Believe in God and His Apostle, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Apostle and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth God, His angels, His Books, His Apostles, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.

This then is identified in the five pillars of faith, --- so to put them together we have:

1 Tauhid (belief in the Oneness of God), --- “Each one (of them) believeth in God,”

2 Adl (Belief that God is always just), --- “His angels, His books,” (that record His just dealing with mankind.)

3 Nabbuwat (Belief that God sends his message to mankind thru Prophets), --- “His prophets.”

4 Imamate (Belief that God appoints leaders over mankind), --- I suppose that would refer to the ‘Prophethood’ which is recorded in “the scripture which He sent to those before (him).” 4:136. (the former Scriptures)

5 Qiyyamat (Belief in the Afterlife and the Day of Judgment), --- “in the last day, and in the resurrection after death.”

--- They are close to reflecting the two verses that the statement of Faith is derived from. ---They shy away a little from endorsing the former Scriptures as the record of the Prophethood.

--- This is the first time I have seen these identifications of the five pillars of faith.

In the Booklet it also says:

Quote: There is, however, a briefer statement, known as the Kalima: “I believe there is no god but God; Muhammad is the Apostle of God.” --- End of quote.

(Quite a difference between the two statements, isn’t there?)

Placid

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...