Can Muslims Answer These Conundrums?

a reply to: babloyi

Mohammed is not the last messenger according to the Koran.

The Koran says a messenger will unite the Jews, Christians, Muslims and Sabians. Mohammed did not accomplish this.

Thier are 2 messengers in the Koran not one. We are still waiting for the messenger to be revealed who will bring the religions together. Man will be unified by a messenger at some point according to all the texts.

Until everyone is unified under ONE God it is impossible to say we have seen the last messenger.

a reply to: WarminIndy

If a man can read a book and from within the pages his heart can be turned inward to see the Holy Spirit and thus reflect the Light to the world, then those are the words of a prophet.

The Koran passes this test, as does the Bible and many other religious texts. God did not send just a few prophets to a few people. God sent many prophets to ALL people.

At the tower of Babel God separated us and scattered us across the globe with different languages. (A 3500 year old prophecy that men of different languages would be found all over the globe).

After he separated us he also sent us prophets. He predicted through ALL of the prophets that when mankind could finally see that all the prophets spoke the same message we would all be united under ONE God.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

IS Jesus the Son of God? Or WAS Jesus the Son of God?

Both. His Spirit is and was and is once again. His flesh was not but was but is not now.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Oh, clap clap clap. What an amazing feat of intellect you have produced here. Now, if you'll be so kind and unbiased, apply the same kind of tough logic and semantic hairsplitting to your own articles of faith and see how far you get.

a reply to: Involutionist

How can one call themselves a true Christian if they are ignorant of this basic fact: Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the SAME God; believe in the same Angels; historical figures such as Moses, Jesus, Mary, etc....?

Not true at all. You need additional education.

The Celestial "Word" was Begotten of the God of Abraham and is the image of the God of Abraham but is not accepted by any other than Christianity.

The preexisting Celestial "Word" became the terrestrial flesh of Yahusha (Jesus) but is not accepted as such by any other than Christianity.

The Celestial "Word" has been and is now restored as the Celestial Begotten of God but is not accepted by any other than Christianity.

There is no other authority given to men than that of the Celestial Begotten Son of God and is not accepted by any other than Christians.

Without the above accepted principles, no man including Muhammad can be saved. That is only a part of true Christianity and is not accepted by any other than Christianity. Christianity is not the same as those that you postulate.

a reply to: Seede

Please....

They are all the same....distortions.

Know Thyself.

a reply to: Seede

He doesn't need additional education, he simply has a different view from your Christ-centric Jesus only way opinion. I could say you need additional education in seeing his opinion, which is that all the Abrahamic faiths are valid and become exclusive through ego and distortions. You not agreeing with his opinion is not the same as not as him not having knowledge. We are all bountifully aware of Christians who consider that all will burn in hell who do not accept Jesus as the only lord and savior through faith and that he is the begotten preexistant word... Yada yada.. Some of you Christians really have trouble realizing that just because we don't believe that, or think Jesus was just a human prophet, that that doesn't mean we don't know your interpretation or opinion. We know! Some of us just don't agree! Some of us don't accept the gospels as written so don't go quoting scripture at me like it will make a difference! Some of you really have an issue realizing that just because we disagree with you doesn't mean we aren't fully aware of what you think. How could we not? I see hyper Christian threads and posts everyday and live in the bible belt! Just because most Christians are painfully ignorant of Islamic philosophy and thought doesn't mean Muslims or people of other faiths are ignorant of what Christians believe! We can't escape your constant banter on any English speaking social website!

Thank God that there are Christians who support the idea that God can save without people's belief in Jesus, so luckily for Christianity, your opinion of what "orthodox" (not Orthodox) Christianity is is not the only opinion held by Christians. There are also other sources Christian belief like the Gnostic texts that often disagree with the NT version. It's a big wide world.

a reply to: Seede

Oh, and one more thing: I was raised as a Gnostic Christian. I don't believe in labels or religious dogmas of any religion like many do. Frankly, if I were to choose a label, I would choose: Spiritual Free Thinker. When one immerses themselves in the esoteric teachings of any religion (as I have with Kabbalah, Sufism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, Vedic,) they quickly discover a common thread....a silver lining.

If you would like to discuss Christianity more deeply then please start a thread. Perhaps you can "educate" me further.

For the record, I'm not a Muslim, I'm a Christian, but this seems to be little more than a Muslim affirmation of faith.

How is that a conundrum?

Perhaps you're using the term 'witness' in too literal (or physical) a sense?

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Would it be therefore acceptable to say "There is no God but Ahura Mazda and Mohammed is his messenger"? Acceptable, yes or no?

Yes, you can say that because Zoroastrianism also teaches ONE God and one internal Holy Spirit that will guide all men to the truth.

The Quran says Allah has all the best names. And Ahura Mazda is my personal favorite.

Elohim, Brahman these are also a few of the fine names attributed to the ONE God who created everything.

So yes Mohammed was a prophet of Ahura Mazda because Allah and Ahura Mazda are the same God. Who also happens to be the father of Christ, our Messiah.

See, here is the problem with that....

Allah WAS an idol in the ka'aba. Yes, true, proven fact of history.

In fact, the ancient symbol before Mohammed WAS the crescent moon and the Star of Ishtar.

Ahura Mazda was never called Father or Husband to his people. Therefore, Ahuraz Mazda was a different god altogether.

And if you claim Ahura Mazda is the name of Allah, you are still going to have to justify the triad nature of Ahura Mazda with Mithra and Apam Napat.

Sorry, three in a triad is Ahura Mazda.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
For the record, I'm not a Muslim, I'm a Christian, but this seems to be little more than a Muslim affirmation of faith.

How is that a conundrum?

Perhaps you're using the term 'witness' in too literal (or physical) a sense?

So nothing in Islam is to be taken literally?

Is all of the Quran an allegory? Some of it?

Let's see,

Surat An-Nūr 24:35... Allah speaketh to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of ...

according to Pickthal.

Should we listen to Pickthal if Sahih sounds better to the paradigm? Did Pickthal mistranslate?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Have you listened to the consensus of the debate and applied your own "hair splitting" to your own religion. The bible was not intended to be spoken in English nor was it meant for anyone outside Israel. I hear many christians claim they are witness to gods power on a daily basis ( thankyou lord for providing this microwavable meal). The same can apply to muslims? No? Can they not claim to witness Allah or mohammeds teachings?

I do not believe in religion. I am aware of its purpose and do not suscribe to it. I was born a Christian but I will belittle each religion equally, and apply the same scrutiny to each ideology. You seem incapable of applying this to your own.

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: Seede

Please....

They are all the same....distortions.

Know Thyself.

No, they are not.

Let me give an example from the Quran

Surat Al-Baqarah 2:148 For every nation there is a direction to which they face (in their prayers). So hasten towards all that is good. Wheresoever you may be, Allah will bring you together (on the Day of Resurrection). Truly, Allah is Able to do all things.

I am assuming that Mohammed knew about every nation so that he could make that claim, and that he is claiming Islam as a nation. If Islam is a nation then the local god Allah, that was an idol in the ka'aba before Mohammed was born, would not be the same as other gods.

Allah existed as an idol, from Yemen, because that's where Mohammed's tribe was from, so Yemen should have already been practicing the worship of Allah. This is in the story of Saba, they already had been for a long time before Mohammed, worshipers of Allah.

So, if the Quran says that the Yemenite Sabeans, which was where Mohammed's Quraysh tribe came from, because the Quran says the Sabeans worshiped Allah, then which one of the five gods of the Yemenites was Allah?

Well now, the one with the crescent moon symbol of the Yemenites was Almaqah. And this was known to the Romans and Greeks, they called it Felix Arabia. The trade with Yemen was ancient. So this disqualifies this Quranic verse

Surat Saba' (Sheba) - سورة سبإ 34:44And We had not given them any scriptures which they could study, and We had not sent to them before you, [O Muhammad], any warner.

Who is the Quran directing this at? The Yemenites (Sabeans)?

Well, yes, they did HAVE a warner before Mohammed, according to the Quran, their warner was Noah. That verse is now disqualified, because the Sabeans had Noah, their warner.

Unfortunately, there was no direction of prayer for every nation. Please, show us any sources that every nation faced a particular direction in prayer.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: WarminIndy

Have you listened to the consensus of the debate and applied your own "hair splitting" to your own religion. The bible was not intended to be spoken in English nor was it meant for anyone outside Israel. I hear many christians claim they are witness to gods power on a daily basis ( thankyou lord for providing this microwavable meal). The same can apply to muslims? No? Can they not claim to witness Allah or mohammeds teachings?

I do not believe in religion. I am aware of its purpose and do not suscribe to it. I was born a Christian but I will belittle each religion equally, and apply the same scrutiny to each ideology. You seem incapable of applying this to your own.

At least you are an equal opportunity belittler.

The good thing though is that I wouldn't stone, hang or beat you to death for it. And apparently you haven't read all my posts.

Islam isn't really a religion, it is a political movement. Always has been, always will be. Mohammed started it as a political movement based on killing by the sword and demanding his own companions do the same. Why? Because Mohammed wanted control of the Makkah region. Why do you think there were caliphates? What is a caliphate anyway? It is not religious, it is political.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I testify the shahada because through practices like dhikr I have felt the reality of the oneness of God and have experienced deep personal spiritual states from the Qur'an spoken by Muhammad and his practices. I have experienced ecstasy through Islamic practices. The states I have experienced were best explained and closest to the explanations given by Muslim mystics, even before I knew about Islam... For ME, the map fit the terrain I have seen with my own eyes. And then I experienced it on another level through Islamic teachings, prayers, and spiritual practices.

Some people have visions of Jesus and than testify Jesus is real.. Your point?

a reply to: WarminIndy

originally posted by: WarminIndy
See, here is the problem with that....

Allah WAS an idol in the ka'aba. Yes, true, proven fact of history.

Uh, no. Proven nonsense. I suggest you read up on history.
Here, even wikipedia knows what rubbish that idea is, and provides sources for you to check up if you really care. But honestly, any sensible research on the topic-i.e. not written by idiots out to "disprove" islam for some reason- will tell you the same. Isn't it interesting that EVERY SINGLE MODERN source that claims that Allah is the moon-god, Allah was an idol, etc., flies in the face of known history, and is almost with certainty either some christian figure trying to "disprove Islam" (most often it is Robert Morey), or someone quoting some christian figure trying to disprove Islam (again, almost always leading back to Morey).

originally posted by: WarminIndy
In fact, the ancient symbol before Mohammed WAS the crescent moon and the Star of Ishtar.

Uhhh...what on earth does that have to do with anything? The crescent moon and star is not a symbol of Islam (neither at it's genesis, nor now). Even if it was (which again, I stress, it isn't), the Star of Ishtar is an octagram, the star used on (some) flags of muslim countries today (coopted by the turks from the Byzantine Christians, by the way) is a pentagram.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Ahura Mazda was never called Father or Husband to his people. Therefore, Ahuraz Mazda was a different god altogether.

And if you claim Ahura Mazda is the name of Allah, you are still going to have to justify the triad nature of Ahura Mazda with Mithra and Apam Napat.

You mean how Jesus worshipped only the Father, and yet many modern christians worship Jesus and the Holy Spirit as well? Ahura Mazda is the "Uncreated Creator". Mithra is the Guardian of Cattle, the Harvest and of The Waters. Apam Naput is the Son of Waters. Guess which one would correspond to Allah?

EDIT: You added a lot more ridiculous stuff now, so I had to extend my answer. I really don't know what to say. The Quraysh were a Hijazi tribe, not a Yemeni tribe. I really don't know what more I can add to this. You keep saying more and more crazy things, WarminIndy, and I'm almost certain that they aren't coming directly from you. Perhaps you can link your source so I can read through it for a good laugh?

originally posted by: AudioOne
a reply to: WarminIndy

I testify the shahada because through practices like dhikr I have felt the reality of the oneness of God and have experienced deep personal spiritual states from the Qur'an spoken by Muhammad and his practices. I have experienced ecstasy through Islamic practices and the states I have experienced where best explained and closest to the explanations given by Muslim mystics, even before I knew about Islam... For ME, the map fit the terrain I have seen with my own eyes.

Some people have visions of Jesus and than testify Jesus is real.. Your point?

Interesting.

So you use prayer beads like the Catholics or Tibetan monks?
Yes, I have also experienced Jesus through the Holy Spirit, as the Bible teaches. A lot of people have. Yet, in my experience, the voice I hear speaking through that has affirmed to me that Allah is a foreign god and to avoid Allah, because Allah is nothing like the God that I know.

So you connected to a spiritual entity that you have only tested through the lens of Islam and the Quran? The best of deceivers?

If Allah is the best of deceivers, then how do you know this spiritual connection is not deceiving you? What criteria do you apply to test if the spirit you connect to is of God?

1 Corinthians 14: 7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. 11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

There are many voices in the world, and none without significance. Mohammed's god could never be the same as the Bible's God, because the Bible's God speaks expressly through His Son, as it was in the Old Testament and the New. This Allah speaks a tongue I do not know nor do I understand it.

Mohammed almost got it right

1 Corinthians 4:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

As his words did not bring comfort to the 900 people he had beheaded in The Trench, nor did it bring comfort to Safiyah after Kaybhar, and neither brought comfort to the many people he had killed for disagreeing with him, why are you mystically connected to that same spirit that led Mohammed to murder?

But that's your comfort. Mohammed died being led by that spirit, being filled with that spirit. And if that spirit caused him to murder a mother breast feeding her child, then perhaps you should test to see if that Allah you have connected to is indeed a god you should follow and be filled with. Because the connection to a spiritual entity also means being filled with it if you believe in the religious ecstasy you experience through chanting "Allah is one".

What comfort do you find in a god that neither says he loves you and changes his mind at whim for Mohammed to sleep with Zainab?

a reply to: babloyi

Still a triad.

That's three gods, wouldn't you say?

Oh, what was the Quraysh tribe? Oh wait, they were Jewish, weren't they?

All you have to do is Google Yemenite history of Mecca. Abraha, the Ethiopian king who controlled Yemen AND Makkah. Wait, that sounds relatively close to Abraham.

You know, the more you tell us to look for sources, the more we come up with. Abraha, the warner in Yemen. Abraha of Yemen

If Mohammed's own father was not called Ab'dullah, then we might just have a different discussion. Ab'dullah, slave of Allah. Wouldn't that indicate his father was submitted to Allah, making his father a Muslim?

a reply to: WarminIndy

From Muhammad Asad's translation and commentary on this verse (2-148) (PS You should really consult commentaries like his)

"Almost all of the classical commentators, from the Companions of the Prophet downwards, interpret this as a reference to the various religious commentaries and their different modes of "turning towards God" in worship. Ibn Kathir, in his commentary on this verse, stresses its inner resemblance to the phrase occurring in 5:48: "unto every one of you have We appointed a [different] law and way of life." The statement that "every community faces a direction of its own" in its endeavor to express its submission to God implies, firstly, that at various times and in various circumstances man's desire to approach God in prayer has taken different forms . . . . secondly, that the direction of prayer - however important its symbolic significance may be - does not represent the essence of faith as such: for as the Qur'an says, "true piety does not consist in turning your faces towards the east or the west" (2 : 177), and, "God's is the east and west" (2 : 115 and 142). Consequently, the revelation which established the Ka'bah as the qiblah of the Muslims should not be a matter of contention for people of other faiths."

And I would add, it is this belief (stated in the Qur'an as "we made you all different that you may know one another") that caused liberal musilims to be accepting of many different religions when Christianity eradicated every strand of different faiths from Europe (and tried with the Jews, saved only by being related through the OT). In Muslim lands you still found Yazidis, followers of Mani, Zoroastrians... Where in Europe do you find these ancient cults passes down through the last 2,000 years?

Also, you need to learn some history. The concept of a nation was created by Europeans and exported through colonialism. By knowing things like that you would know that while a translator may use the word Nation in translating an ancient text, this is a problematic translation as the concept of Nation wasn't around back then.

a reply to: WarminIndy
Thor, Odin and Frigg are also 3 gods, what is your point? Are every 3 divine beings that you can name together in a sentence a triad? You use your scripture to claim that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit make up a trinity. A Unitarian christian would use the scripture to disagree- they might believe in those 3 entities, but automatically believing in something that sums to 3 doesn't make it a trinity. I never claimed that Zoroastrianism as we know it today is a representation of God's message. I said it is very likely it started out like that.

Odd that out of all the things that I mentioned, you chose to address that.