Isalm and its relationship to other religions

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by I am free

Why is this? What difference would it make to God what religion I follow?

If a person is truly good & kind and loving, would such a person still burn in hell? If yes, then why?

Different religions have different proscriptions on what is regarded as good and kind and loving - the position within Islam, so far as I understand it, I think is a little more complex than is being considered in that comment.

Originally Posted by redindica

Hi ebel86

Then why have Jesus as one of the Prophets of Islam and condemn His followers to hell? Same with the Jews and Abraham (he also being the founder of Islam if another thread is to be belived) Seems illogical. Contradictory in fact??


Peace

I don't believe that Islam simply condemns Christians - there is great respect for "People of the Book" (ie, Jews and Christians) written in the Qur'an.

I'm happy to be corrected, but I think the Muslim position towards Christianity could be over-simplified to: "Wrong path, right direction".

Where Christians are seen to be upholding God, there is not so much of an issue as when Christians are seen to be abusing God.

Originally Posted by wil

and it is mine!

no mine!

'You are going to Hell, God Bless,' boy do we have a long way to go...

Everyone is doing the best with the knowledge they currently have. There is no right or wrong it just is.

I believe this thread is specifically about the Islamic position, which obivously has a more exclusive position - but let's please allow the Muslims to answer the question of Islam's relationship to other religions, rather than deride the replies.

[redindica]

Thank you I, Brian...(and thankyou for the welcome btw!)

I very interested in how the world is going both in a secular sense and religious, if there are any convergences or overriding disputes. So your explination helps me greatly.

Thanks again!
Peace
Red

[I am free]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Different religions have different proscriptions on what is regarded as good and kind and loving - the position within Islam, so far as I understand it, I think is a little more complex than is being considered in that comment.

Hmmm, that is some food for thought. If I understand what you are saying correctly, a person who does not follow all Islamic injunctions to the T would not be seen as a "good" person.

But still, I am not looking for a strict Islamic view. I want to know the personal views of muslims. Surely you would have met some "good" people who are not muslims - kind, courageous, courteous, etc, etc - exemplary human beings in every way. What would be the personal opinion of muslims, are these people going to hell?

[Light]

Hmmm, that is some food for thought. If I understand what you are saying correctly, a person who does not follow all Islamic injunctions to the T would not be seen as a "good" person.

But still, I am not looking for a strict Islamic view. I want to know the personal views of muslims.

The answer to the above, in my personal opinion is I have none. Allah knows best. For a start Muhammad pbuh has been sent as a prophet for the mercy of all human kind. Islam was revealed as a way of life for all human kind. Allah reward everyone justly. He is the most gracious and most merciful. Similarly a person who is a non-muslim whom are "good" will have their reward equivalent to their labour. Allah knows best of our inward and outward intention.

Surely you would have met some "good" people who are not muslims - kind, courageous, courteous, etc, etc - exemplary human beings in every way. What would be the personal opinion of muslims, are these people going to hell?

We ourself don't know if we ever make it to Heaven. There is a well know prayer from a well know devout Muslim which I can't remember his name;

Oh Allah, I am not fit for you heaven. However, I can't bear the torture of your hellfire. Thus, forgive me for all my sin. Verily you are the forgiver of sins.

You see even for a devout Muslim, he prayed for his safety from Hell. The bottom line here is every actions we do here is counted based on our intention. For example, if we donate $500.00 to charity and our intention is purely to show off our wealth, this gains nothing to us except sin. Reason being, we allow pride to overcome ourself and thus forget that there is someone more wealthier than us and all that we have is not ours but truly a temporary loan while we are alive on Earth.

I hope this helps you some what.

peace.

[I am free]

Yes, thank you Light. You have been very helpful.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by thipps

hCommenting on 5:69, Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
“What is meant is that every group believed in Allah and the Last Day, which is the appointed Day of Reckoning, and did righteous deeds. But after Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was sent to both mankind and the jinn, true belief can only be in accordance with the way of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

Hi Thipps.

For me, it all turns on what is meant by "Islam". If Islam means submission to God, then it should include all believers, all theists, including Hindus. If it means, subscribing to a particular monotheistic sect, with a particular prophet and language, then for me - with all respect - it's a form of blasphemy, holding a mere human being, a mere book, a mere language, or mere series of historical events to level of God. Again, no disrespect intended, but God is beyond all books, including the Qur'an.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

[Aidyl Nurhadi]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Hi Thipps.

For me, it all turns on what is meant by "Islam". If Islam means submission to God, then it should include all believers, all theists, including Hindus. If it means, subscribing to a particular monotheistic sect, with a particular prophet and language, then for me - with all respect - it's a form of blasphemy, holding a mere human being, a mere book, a mere language, or mere series of historical events to level of God. Again, no disrespect intended, but God is beyond all books, including the Qur'an.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

Congratulations Davadatta, you have successfully confused Islam with your dastardly notions yet again. Islam in its complete meaning is peace and submission to the will of the One True God. The idea is that when you submit yourself to God's will then you shall attain peace. The CREED and PILLAR of Islam is the Shahadah or the testimony i.e. LAI ILAA HA'ILLALLAH MUHAMMADARRASULULLAH or ASYHADU'ALLA ILLA HA'ILLALLAH WA ASYHADU ANNA MUHAMMAD RASULULLAH which means I bear withness that there is NO GOD BUT ALLAH(the One TRUE God) and that MUHAMMAD IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH. If Hindus could subscribe to this creed Devadatta, we as Muslims have no problem in accepting them into the fold of Islam. Unfortunately, many Hindus do not really believe in ONE God....millions revere the cow for example and worship it as such....this sort of behaviour does not belong to Islam. Islam does mean subscribing to the PROPHET MUHAMMAD s.a.w. by saying that this is blasphemy is VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY disrespectful to Muslims Devadatta, so don't try to BUTTER your devilish accusation with words like with all respect and no disrespect intended. God is beyond the Qur'an? Obviously....who said He's confined to the Qur'an? which Muslim says so? which scholar says so? The Qur'an is God's wahi...His revelation..His very utterances(not that we say He has a mouth like a human being to speak), if we deny that, then consequently we deny Him.

[Aidyl Nurhadi]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Hi Thipps.

For me, it all turns on what is meant by "Islam". If Islam means submission to God, then it should include all believers, all theists, including Hindus. If it means, subscribing to a particular monotheistic sect, with a particular prophet and language, then for me - with all respect - it's a form of blasphemy, holding a mere human being, a mere book, a mere language, or mere series of historical events to level of God. Again, no disrespect intended, but God is beyond all books, including the Qur'an.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

Devadatta....if you truly believe that all theists and Hindus ought to be included in Islam then why don't you call yourself a Muslim and other Hindus as such? You're a Hindu I take it? Muslim is the correct term for one who subscribe to Islam..it's the fa'il in Arabic..meaning the person who does something to the fi'il(verb)....but you know you consider yourself a non-Muslim as I understand it(you said and I quote,"As a non-Muslim, this reasoning seems to me mistaken."), thereby your proposition that Hindus ought to be included under the banner of Islam is quite silly.

[thipps]

Devadatta,
I am not interested in your personal views/interpretations as to what islam should be or even what you think it is even when you are told it is not. So, finally I repeat to you the last verse of the 109th chapter of the Qur'aan:
To you be your religion, and to me my religion.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

Congratulations Davadatta, you have successfully confused Islam with your dastardly notions yet again. Islam in its complete meaning is peace and submission to the will of the One True God. The idea is that when you submit yourself to God's will then you shall attain peace. The CREED and PILLAR of Islam is the Shahadah or the testimony i.e. LAI ILAA HA'ILLALLAH MUHAMMADARRASULULLAH or ASYHADU'ALLA ILLA HA'ILLALLAH WA ASYHADU ANNA MUHAMMAD RASULULLAH which means I bear withness that there is NO GOD BUT ALLAH(the One TRUE God) and that MUHAMMAD IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH. If Hindus could subscribe to this creed Devadatta, we as Muslims have no problem in accepting them into the fold of Islam. Unfortunately, many Hindus do not really believe in ONE God....millions revere the cow for example and worship it as such....this sort of behaviour does not belong to Islam. Islam does mean subscribing to the PROPHET MUHAMMAD s.a.w. by saying that this is blasphemy is VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY disrespectful to Muslims Devadatta, so don't try to BUTTER your devilish accusation with words like with all respect and no disrespect intended. God is beyond the Qur'an? Obviously....who said He's confined to the Qur'an? which Muslim says so? which scholar says so? The Qur'an is God's wahi...His revelation..His very utterances(not that we say He has a mouth like a human being to speak), if we deny that, then consequently we deny Him.

Hi again.

I'm not sure you want to converse with me much further since I'm dastardly & a devil! So this exchange I guess is winding down. But I take no offense.

Again, I feel you misunderstand my ultimate meaning. If it's my manner of expression, then I apologize.

I'm merely pointing out a contradiction: if the one God is transcendent, beyond all human calculation, why would it be essential to approach that God through a particular tradition, language or book?

My impression is that you're no fully aware of how much other traditions point to the same reality. To speak, for example, of Hindus worshipping cows is to distort a highly sophisticated tradition and to ignore the fact that most Hindus are also monotheists, while employing differing concepts & practices.

As Thipps quotes below, to you your religion and to me mine, but I can't help feeling you live in a kind of bubble of your own concepts.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

Devadatta....if you truly believe that all theists and Hindus ought to be included in Islam then why don't you call yourself a Muslim and other Hindus as such? You're a Hindu I take it? Muslim is the correct term for one who subscribe to Islam..it's the fa'il in Arabic..meaning the person who does something to the fi'il(verb)....but you know you consider yourself a non-Muslim as I understand it(you said and I quote,"As a non-Muslim, this reasoning seems to me mistaken."), thereby your proposition that Hindus ought to be included under the banner of Islam is quite silly.

Again, high again.

Let me explain. I was looking at the idea of "Muslim", or that person who submits to God and thus experiences peace (following on a definition of "Islam" as that submission to God that brings peace) from two sides, the ultimate & the conventional.

From the conventional side, to be a Muslim is to subscribe to a particular ideology rooted in a particular book & language, but built up over centuries by various religious & legal scholars & functionaries. From that side, I'm obviously a non-Muslim.

From the ultimate side, a Muslim is anyone who says yes to ultimate reality. As the Qur'an points out in many places, in its own language, to say no to this ultimate reality is to create your own hell. William James, I believe, talked about "yea-sayers, and nay-sayers". I'm a yea-sayer, and in the ultimate sense a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian, a Jew, etc., though on a conventonal level I've at long last discovered that I'm a Buddhist.

I hope that clears things up a little.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by thipps

Devadatta,
I am not interested in your personal views/interpretations as to what islam should be or even what you think it is even when you are told it is not. So, finally I repeat to you the last verse of the 109th chapter of the Qur'aan:
To you be your religion, and to me my religion.

Indeed. But consider that while for some the eschewing of all personal views/interpretations is an act of piety for others it is piety itself.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

[Aidyl Nurhadi]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Hi again.

I'm not sure you want to converse with me much further since I'm dastardly & a devil! So this exchange I guess is winding down. But I take no offense.

Again, I feel you misunderstand my ultimate meaning. If it's my manner of expression, then I apologize.

I'm merely pointing out a contradiction: if the one God is transcendent, beyond all human calculation, why would it be essential to approach that God through a particular tradition, language or book?

My impression is that you're no fully aware of how much other traditions point to the same reality. To speak, for example, of Hindus worshipping cows is to distort a highly sophisticated tradition and to ignore the fact that most Hindus are also monotheists, while employing differing concepts & practices.

As Thipps quotes below, to you your religion and to me mine, but I can't help feeling you live in a kind of bubble of your own concepts.

Sincerely,
Devadatta

As long as you present erronuous standpoints about Islam, I will continue to refute you as best I can. Whether you'll respond to my refutations or not, that's your prerogative. Yes Devadatta, I still stand with what I said. For saying that it is BLASPHEMY to follow a particular prophet Devadatta, you are DASTARDLY. It implies that we Muslims are blaspheming for FOLLOWING A CERTAIN PROPHET i.e. Muhammad s.a.w.
I believe it's established that you're a Hindu. You said that you see no point in approaching God through a particular religion, language or book because you reason that if God is transcendal, then it would be unimportant for one to approach him through the three things you suggested. If we were to take you advice then what we as Muslims are suppose to do is to just chuck away our Holy Qur'an and refer to it as a secondary or tertiary or lesser value in our pursuit to find and understand the true path. With this concept in mind, it would also suggest at the same time that you in turn should also chuck away or try not to refer to the Mahabhrata, The Vedas, the Puranas, Upanishads etc. At the same time you must also disregard the language of these scriptures which are mainly sanskrit..can you suggest to the Hindu an alternative way to understand Hinduism without referring to their religious texts in their pursuit to find God? How are you suppose to understand what exatly is that you're suppose to worship, is it God? is it natural elements? animals? WHAT? if not by referring to these texts? Do you even know what you're talking about Devadatta? You said most Hindus are monotheists, meaning they worship Brahma the unseen God. Well I would agree with what you said except for the part where you said "MOST" Hindus. I believe the majority believe in pantheism dear. Evidence to this is nearly all temples are decorated with hundreds if not millions of statues adhered and worshipped by the populace. I know, I live in Malaysia and I've been to India.

[Aidyl Nurhadi]

[quote=Devadatta]Again, high again.

Let me explain. I was looking at the idea of "Muslim", or that person who submits to God and thus experiences peace (following on a definition of "Islam" as that submission to God that brings peace) from two sides, the ultimate & the conventional.

From the conventional side, to be a Muslim is to subscribe to a particular ideology rooted in a particular book & language, but built up over centuries by various religious & legal scholars & functionaries. From that side, I'm obviously a non-Muslim.

From the ultimate side, a Muslim is anyone who says yes to ultimate reality. As the Qur'an points out in many places, in its own language, to say no to this ultimate reality is to create your own hell. William James, I believe, talked about "yea-sayers, and nay-sayers". I'm a yea-sayer, and in the ultimate sense a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian, a Jew, etc., though on a conventonal level I've at long last discovered that I'm a Buddhist.

I hope that clears things up a little.

Sincerely,
Devadatta[/quoAlas, you are distorting ISLAM yet again ! Your conclusion to this reply of yours was that "I hope that clears things up a little". Unfortunately, you've made a mess out of something clear. Yes a Muslim BY DEFINITION ALONE does mean someone who submits. However, in essence it means someone who follows the five pillars of Islam ! The first of which is to say the SHAHADAH without which a grown person is NOT a Muslim. You divided what is a Muslim into two seperate entities namely; conventional side and ultimate side. I've never come across such a division, personally speaking. You said to be a Muslim in the convetional side is to follow a certain ideological set of beliefs rooted in a particular language and book. We all know you mean Arabic and the Qur'an, why don't you just say it as it is. You know why you don't say it as it is? Because in truth you know that what you're suggesting is radically against Islam, thus you've been playing with seemingly nice and respectful terms alongside your views. By your definition the majority of Muslims today including myself will fall into your first category. Thus I take it as a PERSONAL insult that you've practically saying what I've been doing all this while as a Muslim are made up of BID'AH or innovations, never taught by the Prophet himself. THE FIRST IDEOLOGICAL TEACHING OF ISLAM IS THE CREED OF ISLAM as I have clarified to you earlier ! What you've done is saying that this creed of Islam is the development of centuries of distortions and additions by certain groups. It is to say that the CREED OF ISLAM was inexistent and never taught by the Prophet of Islam. You're going too far Devadatta....In your second category you said that, a Muslim in this sense is anyone who submits to ultimate reality. That's just pure hogwash. What ultimate reality? And where does the Qur'an says that you're creating a hell for yourself for denying this so-called ultimate reality??? What ultimate reality? Basically the bulk of the Muslim world since Prophet Muhammad's time have fallen short of this second definition of yours and have created hells for ourselves......yes I'm sure that's true.........geez

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

Alas, you are distorting ISLAM yet again ! Your conclusion to this reply of yours was that "I hope that clears things up a little". Unfortunately, you've made a mess out of something clear. Yes a Muslim BY DEFINITION ALONE does mean someone who submits. However, in essence it means someone who follows the five pillars of Islam ! The first of which is to say the SHAHADAH without which a grown person is NOT a Muslim. You divided what is a Muslim into two seperate entities namely; conventional side and ultimate side. I've never come across such a division, personally speaking. You said to be a Muslim in the convetional side is to follow a certain ideological set of beliefs rooted in a particular language and book. We all know you mean Arabic and the Qur'an, why don't you just say it as it is. You know why you don't say it as it is? Because in truth you know that what you're suggesting is radically against Islam, thus you've been playing with seemingly nice and respectful terms alongside your views. By your definition the majority of Muslims today including myself will fall into your first category. Thus I take it as a PERSONAL insult that you've practically saying what I've been doing all this while as a Muslim are made up of BID'AH or innovations, never taught by the Prophet himself. THE FIRST IDEOLOGICAL TEACHING OF ISLAM IS THE CREED OF ISLAM as I have clarified to you earlier ! What you've done is saying that this creed of Islam is the development of centuries of distortions and additions by certain groups. It is to say that the CREED OF ISLAM was inexistent and never taught by the Prophet of Islam. You're going too far Devadatta....In your second category you said that, a Muslim in this sense is anyone who submits to ultimate reality. That's just pure hogwash. What ultimate reality? And where does the Qur'an says that you're creating a hell for yourself for denying this so-called ultimate reality??? What ultimate reality? Basically the bulk of the Muslim world since Prophet Muhammad's time have fallen short of this second definition of yours and have created hells for ourselves......yes I'm sure that's true.........geez

Again, several points:

1. Our difference, I believe, is that I look at Islam in historical terms, so that I make distinctions between the Prophet, his companions, the ulama, etc., while you appear to look at Islam in a unitary fashion. So I’m not putting into question the Prophet, the Qur’an or the five pillars, but only subsequent interpretations & developments. You appear to be taking any questioning of any part of your orthodoxy as an attack on the whole. The tradition itself (to my view) makes clear that the ulama come after the companions, that the companions come after Muhammad, that Muhammad comes after the Qur’an, that the Qur’an comes after Allah. Or, to put it in reverse order, Allah comes first, the Qur’an...etc. In fact, to confound these distinctions is to put oneself in danger of “innovation”, in my view.

2. I apologize for the use of term “ideology”, which is a hot-button word. I guess my point is that should Muslims lose track of what their words & traditions point to, i.e., Allah, then they do indeed fall into mere ideology.

3. As far as submitting to ultimate reality and the reference to the Qur’an, surely, you know the Qur’an better than I do and can guess what I’m referring to. In many places it makes the point that “to sin against Allah is to sin against yourself” This can be taken literally of course as just saying do what you’re told or you’ll suffer. To me there’s the deeper message that I’ve already described, and one that connects Islam to other faith traditions.

4. This is going to sound patronizing, I know, but have you tried deep breathing before responding to my posts? Why are you so quick to put the worst possible construction on what I say? Why are you so seemingly eager to be insulted? You are quick to complain that outsiders brand Muslims unfairly as violent or aggressive, and yet your hair-trigger responses only feed that view.

You know, I live in a country, Canada, that’s always looking over its shoulder at what the U.S. thinks, and is always anxious about its “identity”. I find that frustrating. Canadians are Canadians and only need to be what they are. We are all our own worst enemies. Perhaps you should cease looking backward and jumping at every offence to orthodoxy, and start looking forward and through a spirit of inquiry help bring out the best in your tradition for the future.

Sincerely,
Devadatta