Of faith

lifeisboring · Post by **lifeisboring** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:30 pm

I was just curious about this.

In Islam, Muhammad (not too sure), just woke up and says he saw God, or Allah. He began preaching and soon many people were following him.

But how does the people know if he's lying or not? What were the chances that people would believe you if you just said you saw God?

Qazwa · Post by **Qazwa** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:53 pm

lifeisboring wrote:I was just curious about this.

In Islam, Muhammad (not too sure), just woke up and says he saw God, or Allah. He began preaching and soon many people were following him.

But how does the people know if he's lying or not? What were the chances that people would believe you if you just said you saw God?

Peace be to you, Life.

First I must congratulate you. You are thinking! True faith I don't think can be built on following blindly. Allah (God) gave us the power to ask and reason and I don't believe he meant for us to forgo the use of our brains.

First, Muhammad(peace be upon him) never saw God. Nobody can see God. The Message from God was brought to him by an Angel we call Gabriel. We believe In Islam that nobody can see God until we die. Allah is unseen. If a person claims to have seen God then what ever they witnesed is no God but only an idol.

How do we know Muhammad(peace be upon him) was telling the truth?

This is a good question.

Muhammad(peace be upon him) was a messenger of God. One of many messengers. We know how to recognize a messenger of God because there are qualifications that must be met. All of these must be met not just one or 2.

First a messenger from God must have knowledge of the future. He should be able to perform miracles by God's will. A messenger of God must produce a message or book or bring to light a message. He must have been mentioned by previous messengers. Not necessarily by name. Last but not least he must have been born at or before the time of Muhammad(peace be upon him).

peace to you,

Qazwa

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:04 am

Qazwa wrote: First a messenger from God must have knowledge of the future. He should be able to perform miracles by God's will. A messenger of God must produce a message or book or bring to light a message. He must have been mentioned by previous messengers. Not necessarily by name. Last but not least he must have been born at or before the time of Muhammad(peace be upon him).

peace to you,

Qazwa

salaam alaikum Qazra

welcome to the forum.

How did Muhammad (pbuh) fulfil the requierments set out above?

snappyanswer · Post by **snappyanswer** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:41 pm

First a messenger from God must have knowledge of the future. He should be able to perform miracles by God's will. A messenger of God must produce a message or book or bring to light a message. He must have been mentioned by previous messengers. Not necessarily by name. Last but not least he must have been born at or before the time of Muhammad(peace be upon him).

Then Mormonism or Bahai is more truthier. Joseph Smith especially is claimed to be all of the above. Yes I know truthier is not a real word.

Islam appears too convenient for warrior tribes to continue warring to not find a worrisome place in most people's minds. Do Arabs or others in Islamic countries ruled by Muslims get the privilege of refusing to become Muslims or believe in Muhammad's religion?

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:24 pm

snappyanswer wrote:Islam appears too convenient for warrior tribes to continue warring to not find a worrisome place in most people's minds. Do Arabs or others in Islamic countries ruled by Muslims get the privilege of refusing to become Muslims or believe in Muhammad's religion?

Perhaps you should read about Bayezit I the Thunderbolt of Ottoman Turkey. His primary concern was that the Empire be running smoothly - he didn't think religion much mattered in the case of the Christians at Thessaloniki. Under successive Ottoman rulers, particularly Suleyman I the Magnificent, his son Selim II and his grandson Murad III, the Empire welcomed many people of different faiths, including Jews (many of whom were fleeing persecution in Europe) and Orthodox Christians (whose Patriarchs were seated quite comfortably in Istanbul until general chaos came about as a result of the Empire's downfall - there they remain to this day, however). Indeed, it seems that Selim II and Murad III even allowed some Athenians to worship Athena and Hephaestos during their reigns (though such practise was, by this time, rare).

This was a country, mind you, whose leaders throughout remained Islamic, but who tolerated and employed people of other faiths far more than their Catholic, Calvinist and Lutheran neighbours to the north and west (who continued to have religious wars up until the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia).

snappyanswer · Post by **snappyanswer** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:38 am

Please compare the fruits of Islam today against that of Christianity today.

I would like to see your defense of Christianity as a whole as well?

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:24 pm

snappyanswer wrote:Please compare the fruits of Islam today against that of Christianity today.

I would like to see your defense of Christianity as a whole as well?

Modern Christendom does fairly well at tolerating other faiths, with a few exceptions (Ireland notable among them). But this much I thought obvious, given the state of Europe and the Americas today. At any rate, modern Christendom was not at issue. Modern Islam was.

Islam of today is tricky, but a blanket condemnation of Islam for intolerance of other faiths simply doesn't work, and a cursory inspection of any history book on the subject will reveal precedent to that effect. Even today, the Patriarchs of Constantinople are seated comfortably at Istanbul and are not persecuted at all by the government of Turkey. The rest of the Islamic world has quite a ways to go to catch up with the Turks, it seems - looking at Saudi Arabia, the Sudan and Iran of course.

But in answer to your question:

snappyanswer wrote:Do Arabs or others in Islamic countries ruled by Muslims get the privilege of refusing to become Muslims or believe in Muhammad's religion?

it would depend on the country, but if you're asking whether Islam has any compatibility with principles of freedom of religion, the answer (judging by history and by the best the Islamic world has to offer now) is a resounding yes.

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:45 pm

MagusYanam wrote: it would depend on the country, but if you're asking whether Islam has any compatibility with principles of freedom of religion, the answer (judging by history and by the best the Islamic world has to offer now) is a resounding yes.

Religious tolerance and freedom of expression are, I believe, implicit in the koran.

As usual - as has happened with christianity - interpretation is another matter.

snappyanswer · Post by **snappyanswer** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:28 am

Shirk:

Shirk is Unforgivable

4:48

Verily, Allâh forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allâh in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin.

Not exactly a welcoming mat greeting for people of the Book about the Son of God, i.e. Christians.

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 10:31 am

Christianity and Judaism have the idea of shirk built-in as well. It's one of the Ten Commandments: 'you shall worship no other gods before me', correct?

And yet, modern Christianity and modern Judaism have turned out to be relatively tolerant of other faiths. I wonder why this is?

Debating Christianity and Religion

Of faith

Of faith

Re: Of faith

Re: Of faith