Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, my OP consisted from video link AND second post asking to discuss this by representatives of the involved religions, but I'm easy. It's interesting topic, worth reposting.
So here I am with discussion part of it.
According to this professor, claim is that Jesus, Solomon and other prominent Abrahamic religions characters were Muslim.
This is not aligned with the official "date" of Islam revelation, circa mid 7th century CE.
Is there any merit to this claim? Or, it is simply misunderstood and means something else.
Will be most educational to have civil and intelligent discussion of this topic by Muslims, Christians and Judaism followers ( can't say Judaists, right?)
Thank you.
Civil and intelligent, please.
It is my understanding, that this based on simple play of words. Islam is surrender, Muslim is one who surrenders to god. In that etymology, ANYONE who surrenders to god is a Muslim. Moses included, as example.
actually he is wrong but kind of getting close...Jesus and Moses being taught by jethro was (AE)lycian was probably had his beliefs based in pre canaanite / pre menes(mengewi) MN Egyptians who were animists and ancestral worshippers .
and of the same belief's as JOB and his family .... who was also in that same area....He is wrong as far is islam and muslim.. but he is right as far as that whole area roots was JOB and his love for God and his sacrificing system of Bulls and such to cover his families possible sins. this being the root of temple worship >
so he is 90 % wrongish and 10 rightish. but Muslim are just revived Menes and his brothers canaanite 's religion with a new paint job but just as much liars and just as aggressive. ( see MN/ Namers palette and the death of Job's family aka THE Great kings)
actually he is wrong but kind of getting close...Jesus and Moses being taught by jethro was (AE)lycian was probably had his beliefs based in pre canaanite / pre menes(mengewi) MN Egyptians who were animists and ancestral worshippers .
and of the same belief's as JOB and his family .... who was also in that same area....He is wrong as far is islam and muslim.. but he is right as far as that whole area roots was JOB and his love for God and his sacrificing system of Bulls and such to cover his families possible sins. this being the root of temple worship >
so he is 90 % wrongish and 10 rightish. but Muslim are just revived Menes and his brothers canaanite 's religion with a new paint job but just as much liars and just as aggressive. ( see MN/ Namers palette and the death of Job's family aka THE Great kings)
Woooooeeeeooooo.
Menes an in Narmer of Dynasty 1? Cananites, eh? I'd no idea they went back that early.
No, I still think you are evading the question, either because you can't see it ir prefer not to. I could be wrong. But we'll see.
Your analogies really can be set aside. We know what we are talking about here. Different religions. Or as you suggests, the 'bigger ones'. Doesn't that inclusde Hinduism and Buddhism?
I never suggested "bigger ones". I never suggested bigger religions or smaller religions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
They are all about our actions, "god of human beings, not of religions' as you say.
I don't say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
If you say 'all are paths to God', then we have no disagreement.
I don't say so either. There is no path to God. God is not remote from us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You can say they are all ''submission to god'.
What are "submission to god"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
But then, there is not right or wrong religion; no warning of punishment to be made later on, on the basis of what religion one professed, only on how you acted as a human.
Obedience is right and disobedience is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
We call it humanism. It is distinct from religion.
Jury is out for that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Let's go thus far before we look at this professor and his claim that Islam regards the 'all the same religion' view as the thin edge of the conversion -agenda.
The point to note is that obeying commands from God is the pivotal factor in so-called Abrahamic religions. Take out this one factor and such religions will fall apart.
So the people (and Mordechai) are referred to as "Yehudim" and Haman explains that "dateihem shonot" their "religious laws" are different. So the label for the people following a different set of religious laws is "Yehudim" (plural).
There is no mention of "Judaism" in any verse from God.
You are talking about "Yehudim" ("Jews") rather than "Judaism". "Judaism" does not mean "Yehudim".
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
A religion is a code which is driven by the existence of and adherence to religious law. My religion is not "Obeying" - that is the flaw in your logic. My practice of my religion requires that I obey and obey specifically Jewish law. "Dat" is "religious law" and my religious laws are those labeled by my peoplehood (Yehudim). In America, you can be an American if you are a law-abiding citizen, but your identity-label isn't "law abiding"; because you adhere to "American law" so you are American.
The question was about the word "Judaism" in any verse from God. It was not about "Yehudim".
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
You might want to label someone who obeys his own laws as complying with "islam" but you wouldn't say that the person who obeys a religious law to work on Friday and rest on Saturday, and religiously refuses to pray 5 times on either one or bow at all is following Islam.
Obeying your own laws is not "islam". Obeying God's laws is "islam".
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
This hinges on your defining "islam" as "obeying" and having it not be the term for ANY religion. That's great. I will define, in Hebrew, the word "dati" as "religious" with no particular religion in mind. That means that you, if you follow your religion, are "dati."
Yes, I am "dati" ("religious") and "muslim". I don't have problem with that.
It might even make you uncomfortable if, when you walked in Israel, people referred to you as "dati" because they can't hear the distinction between semantically neutral and common political usage.
Don't you think that it's time to return to the word "Judaism" rather than keep talking about "dati"?
I never suggested "bigger ones". I never suggested bigger religions or smaller religions.
Then explain this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER That brings up the "Which God?' question again, but they miss it because they believe It is "all the same God they worship - but those others do it wrong."
ALLAHU AKBAR. Not the smaller ones.
I took this to mean that you consider the Abrahamic religions (the Big Ones) are all doinh Submission to God, but not the 'smaller ones' (non -Abrahamic religions), but by all means explain what you meant by the term.
Quote:
I don't say so.
Then explain this:
Both Chris and Abdul will benefit if they do as they are told. Both have obeyed the commands. Both have submitted to Khalif. Both have benefited by obeying Khalif. Khalif blesses them both. Both are in Islam even though they have done a different specific act. Overall, they have done the same; obeyed Khalif for their own good.
In the "Fruit" analogy they are by doing "submission' in the Abrahamic way, they are all doing His Will. Thet is many methods; all doing God's will. That is what is called "many paths to God".
Quote:
I don't say so either. There is no path to God. God is not remote from us.
given your fondness for analogies, I'm surprised you take that so literally.
Quote:
What are "submission to god"?
Well - you tell me, since I don't presume to tell you what you believe.
Quote:
Obedience is right and disobedience is wrong.
But is carrying out the Abrahamnic commands, but NOT the ones in the Quran Obeying or not? Are the various religious observences doing God's will or not? If they are, then the remark that they are all "Subission to God" (in Arabic, Islam" is harmless, but if the professor is right and reflects a Muslim view that they are all doing Submission to God - but they have to "Bring the right fruit" as in the Last command (the Quran) that is a problem for the other religions. Which is it, in your view?
Quote:
Jury is out for that one.{/quote] I accept that not everyone will agree with me on humanism being the good, without the religious observances.
[qupte]The point to note is that obeying commands from God is the pivotal factor in so-called Abrahamic religions. Take out this one factor and such religions will fall apart.
But what is obeying the commands from God? In the commands of the Torah or the Bible as well as the Quran - all equally good? Or should it be the ones in the Quran or the comands are not being obeyed correctly - they are all bringing "fruit", but not all the right ones. That is not obeying the command. Again - which is it?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-01-2017 at 11:05 PM..
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER That brings up the "Which God?' question again, but they miss it because they believe It is "all the same God they worship - but those others do it wrong."
ALLAHU AKBAR. Not the smaller ones.
I took this to mean that you consider the Abrahamic religions (the Big Ones) are all doinh Submission to God, but not the 'smaller ones' (non -Abrahamic religions), but by all means explain what you meant by the term.
Were you talking about "religions" or talking about "Which God". It was quite clear to me that it was "Which God" and not "religions". Therefore my reply, "ALLAH" (The God) and not all those smaller man-made gods; idols.
The talk was specifically about "Which God" and not about "Which religion". You may go back and read the post again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Then explain this:
Both Chris and Abdul will benefit if they do as they are told. Both have obeyed the commands. Both have submitted to Khalif. Both have benefited by obeying Khalif. Khalif blesses them both. Both are in Islam even though they have done a different specific act. Overall, they have done the same; obeyed Khalif for their own good.
In the "Fruit" analogy they are by doing "submission' in the Abrahamic way, they are all doing His Will. Thet is many methods; all doing God's will. That is what is called "many paths to God".
Doing God's Will is in fact "submission" to God. One is doing "islam". It is "doing" ("submitting"). That's what is meant by "islam". If you want to turn this verb into noun (religion as a whole) then it is called "al-islam" (in Arabic) and "the submission" (in English) which is expressed (in English) in one single word as "Islam" (using capital I at the beginning). The same happens with the word "lah" (in Arabic) is "god" (in English). The real One God is "al-lah" ("the god") which is written in just one word as "Allah" ("God" in English) using either capital A with Arabic word or capital G with English word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
given your fondness for analogies, I'm surprised you take that so literally.
I am surprised you still can't understand that various commands are means to obey God. There is only one way to comply with them all; obey God by obeying the commands from Him. It is the act of "obeying the commands" that is called "submission"/"submitting"/"islam".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Well - you tell me, since I don't presume to tell you what you believe.
It is not submissions to God but just submission to God. Islam; not Islams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
But is carrying out the Abrahamnic commands, but NOT the ones in the Quran Obeying or not?
It is of course obeying. That's the whole point of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Are the various religious observences doing God's will or not?
Not in case of idol worship. That's not observing/doing God's Will. Religious observances that we regard "doing God's Will" is in the Abrahamic tradition only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
If they are, then the remark that they are all "Subission to God" (in Arabic, Islam" is harmless, but if the professor is right and reflects a Muslim view that they are all doing Submission to God - but they have to "Bring the right fruit" as in the Last command (the Quran) that is a problem for the other religions. Which is it, in your view?
Good question. I am now hopeful that you are trying to get to the heart of the matter. It deserves detailed answer.
God commanded Abraham to leave his idol worshiping father and go to another land. He did as commanded. He obeyed God. He submitted to God. This act of him submitting to God is "submission", otherwise known in Arabic as "islam".
The same kind of submitting happened after the covenant of circumcision. These were the commands to Abraham and he obeyed them.
Then a few centuries later God commanded bani Israel to do more after they came out of Egypt. They had to obey those commands. They didn't complain that those commands were not given to Abraham and, therefore, we will only do what Abraham was commanded to do. THEY did what THEY were commanded to do.
Of course they had to obey the new commands because these commands were from God.
A few centuries after the Sinai revelation God commands Jewish people in Madina to do something else too. If they do, they submit to God and if they refuse then they refuse to obey God. Just as they could not refuse to obey the commands after Sinai on the basis of them not being given to Abraham, they could not refuse to obey commands given to them in Madina on the basis that these were not given to bani Israel with Moses.
If they do not obey the commands given to them through the Qur'an thinking that these are not from God but still adhere to and obey the commands given through Moses, it is still submitting to God. But on the other hand, if they dismiss the commands in the Qur'an saying that, even if they are from God, we are going to obey previous commands only then this would be willful refusal of obeying God.
If in doubt, one should keep the mind open rather than plainly refuse to obey the later commands. Keeping the mind open is fine. It is not refusal. But plain refusal would mean refusing to obey God.
Having said that, answer to your question is that if they keep obeying the previous commands, they are still righteous people and will have a place in life of the world to come. They will still get the blessings promised to them for doing what they were commanded to do through the Torah. None of the good that people do will be in vain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
The same kind of submitting happened after the covenant of circumcision.But what is obeying the commands from God? In the commands of the Torah or the Bible as well as the Quran - all equally good? Or should it be the ones in the Quran or the comands are not being obeyed correctly - they are all bringing "fruit", but not all the right ones. That is not obeying the command. Again - which is it?
These questions have been answered above to a large extent.
Abraham was to obey all the commands to him.
Children of Israel, before going to Egypt, were to obey all the commands to them.
Children of Israel post-exodus were to obey all the commands to them.
Everyone in Madina 1400 years ago was to obey all the commands through the Qur'an. The Qur'an does not nullify anything in the previous revelation but verifies/confirms what was given before and what is no longer needed to be obeyed. What is no longer needed to be obeyed is clarified and reason given in the Qur'an as to why it was commanded in the first place. It's the same as what was commanded to Abraham such as leaving his father or sacrificing his son is no longer needed to be obeyed by the later generations.
What is definitely needed at all times is "obeying God" which is done by "obeying commands from God" which is called "submitting to God" known as "submission" to God. And that is "islam". It's not very difficult to understand it, is it?
You still seem to have difficulty in understanding it. .
Let me put it plainly. Is Abrahamic observance which does NOT involve praying five times and day and making the Haj (there may be other commandments I am unaware of, in the Quran) obeying god's commandments correctly. Will that satisfy Allah as much as the Muslim practices satisfy Allah.
You of course studiously don't mention the other Abrahamic religion, and I know that Muslims say that their beliefs are just wrong. Are observing those and not even circumcising obeying Allah's commands? Your argument suggests that they are, but my argument that they are 'submitting to god in their own way - but it is the wrong way and therefore NOT carrying out his command is the point you seem to be missing.
The 'Which god' question was of course answered by your saying that all the 'amall' ones (non Abrahamic religions) are simply false and Not submission to God.
The question of 'which religion' (unless you agree they are all equally carrying out God's coimmands) still remains in respect of the Abrahamic religions.
You still seem to have difficulty in understanding it.
I don't think you are trying to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Let me put it plainly. Is Abrahamic observance which does NOT involve praying five times and day and making the Haj (there may be other commandments I am unaware of, in the Quran) obeying god's commandments correctly. Will that satisfy Allah as much as the Muslim practices satisfy Allah.
Now you are asking what will satisfy Allah. The subject is not what will satisfy Allah but what is "islam".
Also, Abrahamic observance is only that which Abraham had observed. He had observed what he was commanded to observe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You of course studiously don't mention the other Abrahamic religion, and I know that Muslims say that their beliefs are just wrong.
Belief is one thing in a religion, practice is another. We are, here in this thread, discussing main practice part of the religion; "obeying God" or "keeping the commandments". It is pivotal part of the practice and observance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Are observing those and not even circumcising obeying Allah's commands?
Observing anything that Allah has commanded is obeying Allah. Circumcising is a token to show that you have agreed to abide by the covenant agreed with God that one will obey God and God will bless you for doing as commanded. It is an expression of obedience unless you have never heard about the command from God to circumcise. But if you have heard that it is God's command to circumcise then not doing it would be disobeying God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Your argument suggests that they are, but my argument that they are 'submitting to god in their own way - but it is the wrong way and therefore NOT carrying out his command is the point you seem to be missing.
This is where you are unable to understand me. "Submitting god in their own way" is not "islam". Submitting to God is the way God has commanded them to obey.
Therefore, whatever was commanded to Abraham and he obeyed is his obedience to God.
Whatever Israelites (Bani Israel) were commanded after the exodus and they obeyed is their obedience to God.
Whatever is commanded in the Qur'an to all (whether unbelievers, new believers or old believers), and they obeyed is their obedience to God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
The 'Which god' question was of course answered by your saying that all the 'amall' ones (non Abrahamic religions) are simply false and Not submission to God.
Small ones were not "religions" in my statement but "gods" other than Allah/God. It was never meant by me to be "small religions" or even non-Abrahamic religions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
The question of 'which religion' (unless you agree they are all equally carrying out God's coimmands) still remain remains in respect of the Abrahamic religions.
And for you it will still remain until the cows come home unless you realize that Abraham did not have more than one religion.
Thank you. I now have your answer - which is pretty much what I would have put my money on.
Yes - all the Abrahamic religions are 'submitting to God' - in their own way.
But as you say, if they don't carry out the commandments in the Quiran, they are not carrying out His commandments, and not doing it right, therefore their submission to God, which indeed Islam translates as, is only valid if done according to the Quran.
This is clear. Everyone to really obey Allah's/God's commandments must drop their Jewish and Christian way of doing things and become Muslims. That goes for all the "small' religions, too.,
We knew it all the time. The 'It is all the same' is no more that a propaganda trick to try to fool the Abrahamic religions, at any rate, into thinking that they are really doing "Islam" anyway. That is what the professor was getting at and he has it perfectly right. His is NOT saying Jews and Christians are Muslims, but Muslims are using the "Islam= submission to God" ploy as a way of casting the Muslim net over other rival religions.
There is an old saying coined by one of the brightest, most eloquent, charismatic and monstrously attractive spokesbods for atheism: "Once you have seen through the trick - you can't be fooled by it again."
For me, the trick is over.
Now As to Abraham. I don't even know there was such a person. If there was, he is more likely to have been a worshipper of the Mesoptamian king of the Gods, El - from which the Jewish Eli and the Muslim Allah derive. I do not credit any of the stories about him in the OT, and much less in the Quran, which comes later and in my view, that makes it less authoritative, not more so,
But without the law given, he was righteous simply because he believed in one God - and one of many by the look of it. But that was His god, while the others were presumably the gods of other tribes, nations and countries. So Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma, old son (or young lady, perhaps) are as valid for their people as El was for Abraham.
Judaism hadn't even been invented, never mind that Greek perversion, Christianity, and forget about late-comers like Islam and Mormonism. In terms of validity anyway. Numbers do not make a religion Right but they can sure make it a damn' nuisance.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-02-2017 at 12:21 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As to Abraham. I don't even know there was such a person. If there was, he is more likely to have been a worshipper of the Mesoptamian king of the Gods, El - from which the Jewish Eli and the Muslim Allah derive. I do not credit any of the stories about him in the OT, and much less in the Quran, which comes later and in my view, that makes it less authoritative, not more so,
