Moderator will soon get tired of banning and hiding posts sometime in the near future, unless of course this is his full time Job

@Frobel: A scenario for you; I come to your house often and without permission i just pick up your car keys, always on the table each time to run my personal errant for the evening lasting up to 4 hours, each time.

Your wife is the one who makes the decision for the household that the car keys be left on the kitchen table where I do pick the bunch up.

This past tuesday, i arrived and I cant find the keys so that i could not run my errant and burn off the gas in your car which i never care to put back in the tank.

Now I am going about your neighborhood saying to people that you are a bad person for taking your car keys from the kitchen table to where i can not get to it as i used to before.

are you really such a bad person as i am conceive it in my heart or my characterization of you as bad person is unfounded and fly in the face of sound logic and common sense?

Sweetnecta: @Prof Kenny: Prof Kenny, i do hope you know that the human has a natural instinct to self preservation and survival? No one can endure pain except that he reaches a breaking point that he show signs that he can not endure it any further. He therefore will go into survival mode to prevent any further piling up of about by either running away, fighting back or simply avoid more pain as it were before.

if I are now permitted to do something now, people of insight will think before now you were not permitted, even though it wa necessary that you do so or not necessary yet to do so. either way, if it was fighting those who have been fighting you, how do you see your new condition being permitted to fight back as being contradiction to you being peaceful by nature or that suddenly you are now a violent person?

Those who advocate turning the other cheek do not often observe it especially when they perceive the pain that will come will dishonor them. They resort to preemptive strike before any strike or strike harder that what they received or dont take the strike without showing that it came with overwhelming pain that disorient them, so much so that you wonder why pretend to be the another cheek turner when you will disrespect everyone, including the One Who did not inflict pain on you.

I see fighting those who fight you are the most humane of all strategies that can be proposed in peace or war time, even if you are a giant or weakling.

yr point is quite daisy! If i'd go by d moral of yr msg, i'd not jus strike, i'll do so with all intent and purpose and make it as hard as possible, before my enemy strike! Not very good a msg to preach at dis times! May not be yr intention, but i tell u, d picture is all over yr msg!

Hehehehe, I am now part of those that their posts get hidden.....Famous quote from a few good men. You can't handle the truth!!!

proo212: Hehehehe, I am now part of those that their posts get hidden.....Famous quote from a few good men. You can't handle the truth!!!

On the contrary your misguided arguments are derailing the thread. A perfect example is referring to people having PhD's as experts in Islam. Any informed person would just laugh at you. A PhD is good but in the context of Islamic knowledge not worth that much especially if it comes from the western educational institutions.

You may be irritating but if you think you are on to some factual information about Islam, you are joking.

@SimplySEA:

by SimplySEA(m): 10:37pm

Sweetnecta: @Prof Kenny: Prof Kenny, i do hope you know that the human has a natural instinct to self preservation and survival? No one can endure pain except that he reaches a breaking point that he show signs that he can not endure it any further. He therefore will go into survival mode to prevent any further piling up of about by either running away, fighting back or simply avoid more pain as it were before.

if I are now permitted to do something now, people of insight will think before now you were not permitted, even though it wa necessary that you do so or not necessary yet to do so. either way, if it was fighting those who have been fighting you, how do you see your new condition being permitted to fight back as being contradiction to you being peaceful by nature or that suddenly you are now a violent person?

Those who advocate turning the other cheek do not often observe it especially when they perceive the pain that will come will dishonor them. They resort to preemptive strike before any strike or strike harder that what they received or dont take the strike without showing that it came with overwhelming pain that disorient them, so much so that you wonder why pretend to be the another cheek turner when you will disrespect everyone, including the One Who did not inflict pain on you.

I see fighting those who fight you are the most humane of all strategies that can be proposed in peace or war time, even if you are a giant or weakling.

how you think the below is to what i wrote above is mind bugling.

yr point is quite daisy! If i'd go by d moral of yr msg, i'd not jus strike, i'll do so with all intent and purpose and make it as hard as possible, before my enemy strike! Not very good a msg to preach at dis times! May not be yr intention, but i tell u, d picture is all over yr msg!

my point is dicey? I was making a case for "Now you are permitted to fight back". Think about that before you respond. I used preemptive strike to say that "Permission to fight back those who are fighting you" is superior and normal, even as the USA of George Bush thought preemptive strike was quite adequate in the case of Iraq. Imagine if USA simply fought back and did not engage in preemptive strike? Which of the two conditions would truly justified the position of USA without arm strong tactics of UN and the rest of the world?

lets talk about Afghanistan which i am sure you will say was not a preemptive strike like what happened in Iraq, but was of higher moral quality stand because we can loosely say that since Bin Laden was their guest and they did not release him, Afghanistan did the 911 attack. However, while USA had the moral right and permission after 911 to strike back those that struck her. What she did was struck harder and even continue to strike after it was obvious that it has been worse than a total beat down. Islam cautions muslims that when they fight back those who have been fighting them, when those people lay down their hostility, muslims should stop right there because there is no reason to fight anyone who is not continuing to fight you because he has stopped his aggression.

In two situation Islam tell the muslims to take the best moral position. Not turn the other cheek or preemptive strike but fight back those who fight you, until they lay down their hostility against the muslims. America is morally correct to fight back, except no moral justification for neither over beating in Afghanistan nor the preemptive strike in Iraq.

There is no moral excellence in turning the other cheek because you may lose your life when the second cheek is struck. You will look like a person who does not care for his life if you allow people to abuse you, which is what turning the other cheek is.

I am talking to a christian friend as I am typing this: she is telling me a scenario at bible study many years ago concerning the biblical turning the other cheek. turning the other cheek is the pastor allowing a home invader to rap.e his wife, as he was told to watch. the pastor didn't tell them what he will do.

my friend who was the questioner said she said if her husband will turn the other cheek by sitting down and not fighting to prevent the rap.e he will be watching as it is going on, she said she will give her husband a beat and then go back to being rap.ed.

that is the immorality of turning turning the other cheek, regardless of who is reported to have said it and i doubt if a teacher of moral value will say it or where it is written.

my christian friend said that permission to fight now until the enemy laid down his burden of aggression is the best and most moral, over and above the turning the other cheek, or preemptive strike or over beating of your enemy.

@Maclatunji, yes PhD is good but these are the same experts that advice on how Islamic law should be applied. These are some of the people who issue fatwas because they are authorities in Islamic or Sharia law...Notice I said some.

Sweetnecta: @SimplySEA: how you think the below is to what i wrote above is mind bugling.


my point is dicey? I was making a case for "Now you are permitted to fight back". Think about that before you respond. I used preemptive strike to say that "Permission to fight back those who are fighting you" is superior and normal, even as the USA of George Bush thought preemptive strike was quite adequate in the case of Iraq. Imagine if USA simply fought back and did not engage in preemptive strike? Which of the two conditions would truly justified the position of USA without arm strong tactics of UN and the rest of the world?

lets talk about Afghanistan which i am sure you will say was not a preemptive strike like what happened in Iraq, but was of higher moral quality stand because we can loosely say that since Bin Laden was their guest and they did not release him, Afghanistan did the 911 attack. However, while USA had the moral right and permission after 911 to strike back those that struck her. What she did was struck harder and even continue to strike after it was obvious that it has been worse than a total beat down. Islam cautions muslims that when they fight back those who have been fighting them, when those people lay down their hostility, muslims should stop right there because there is no reason to fight anyone who is not continuing to fight you because he has stopped his aggression.

In two situation Islam tell the muslims to take the best moral position. Not turn the other cheek or preemptive strike but fight back those who fight you, until they lay down their hostility against the muslims. America is morally correct to fight back, except no moral justification for neither over beating in Afghanistan nor the preemptive strike in Iraq.

There is no moral excellence in turning the other cheek because you may lose your life when the second cheek is struck. You will look like a person who does not care for his life if you allow people to abuse you, which is what turning the other cheek is.

Hey lady, u've spoken very well! And is quite obvious d side u're on! It may interest u to know dat i'm not on any side. I want d side of peace. Talkin about war and retaliative strikes don't really go down well wit me! My fren, wat'll happen "if an eye for an eye should prevail...? Do u not tink d whole world will go blind? Want to tell me u've never wronged someone before intentionally or not? If we preach dis kind of msg, what will happen to d world "forgiveness"?
Definitely no matter d msg one follows, there's a limit to wat one can bear. Besides, A "slap" is an instant action. D example u imported is quite continuous - raping and watchin. If i can stop it, i would. Jesus, in one of his home cities, was bein ill treated and even stoned, he didn't jus stayed there cos he intend to turn d other cheek, he said some few nice words and walked away.
"....turnin d other cheek.." is quite proverbial. D true meanin as explained by my spiritual leader is to walk away, don't retaliate. In other words, forgive! Doesn't mean u can't have him stopped while he's at it. Or would u allow yr husband go over to d rap*ist house to ra.pe his own wife in retaliation?
i want peace. My best fren is muslim. Now we don't trust eachother anymore.

I like yr arguments.

^ Self defence is different from retaliation...

If someone is attacking my home , i can't turn the other cheek... I would try my best to keep my loved one safe.... Fight the one who has fought you is exactly in that context...

In the case of retaliation, you can not retaliate as an individual in islam. So even though the law of equality in judgement exists, you have to go through the sharia courts to determine the case.

So if someone hit my car, i cannot just go and hit his car back.... The courts would determine what transpired....

Self defence is a normal human instinct..... turning the other cheek isn't...

LagosShia:

[size=18pt]Aren't there some verses of the Qur'an that condone "killing the infidel"? [/size]
By Huda, About.com Guide

Question: Aren't there some verses of the Qur'an that condone "killing the infidel"?
Answer: The Qur'an commands Muslims to stick up for themselves in a defensive battle -- i.e. if an enemy army attacks, then Muslims are to fight against that army until they stop their aggression. All of the verses that speak about fighting/war in the Qur'an are in this context.
There are some specific verses that are very often "snipped" out of context, either by critics of Islam discussing "jihadism," or by misguided Muslims themselves who wish to justify their aggressive tactics.


"Slay Them" - If They Attack You First
For example, one verse (in its snipped version) reads: "slay them wherever you catch them" (Qur'an 2:191). But who is this referring to? Who are "they" that this verse discusses? The preceding and following verses give the correct context:
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter, But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful, If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).
It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed and prevented from practicing their faith. In these circumstances, permission is given to fight back -- but even then Muslims are instructed not to transgress limits, and to cease fighting as soon as the attacker gives up. Even in these circumstances, Muslim are only to fight directly against those who are attacking them, not innocent bystanders or non-combatants.


"Fight the Pagans" - If They Break Treaties
A similar verse can be found in chapter 9, verse 5 -- which in its snipped, out of context version could read: "fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)." Again, the preceding and following verses give the context.
This verse was revealed during a historical period when the small Muslim community had entered into treaties with neighboring tribes (Jewish, Christian, and pagan). Several of the pagan tribes had violated the terms of their treaty, secretly aiding an enemy attack against the Muslim community. The verse directly before this one instructs the Muslims to continue to honor treaties with anyone who has not since betrayed them, because fulfilling agreements is considered a righteous action. Then the verse continues, that those who have violated the terms of the treaty have declared war, so fight them, (as quoted above).

Directly after this permission to fight, the same verse continues, "but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them, for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." The subsequent verses instruct the Muslims to grant asylum to any member of the pagan tribe/army who asks for it, and again reminds that "as long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God loves the righteous."


Conclusion
Any verse that is quoted out of context misses the whole point of the message of the Qur'an. Nowhere in the Qur'an can be found support for indiscriminate slaughter, the killing of non-combatants, or murder of innocent persons in 'payback' for another people's alleged crimes.
The Islamic teachings on this subject can be summed up in the following verses (Qur'an 60:7-8 ) :
"It may be that God will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things), and God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
God does not forbid you, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loves those who are just."

http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/f/terrorism_verse.htm

hmm your quote was interesting but i find it quite hard to reconcile that wit the fanatics around the world. Starting wit boko haram.

tbaba1234: ^ The authenticity of the Jesus with the adulteress story is highly doubted; It is not contained in the earliest manuscripts....

Jesus followed the Jewish law completely and lived by the customs....

Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

It is a nice story but the textual integrity of the story is highly doubted, seems like a later addtion to the text..

Marginal annotations of various versions

American Standard Version (1901). Marginal note: "Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53--viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other."

Revised Standard Version (1946). 7:53-8:11 given in the margin, with the note, "Most of the ancient authorities either omit 7.53-8.11, or insert it, with variations of the text, here or at the end of this gospel or after Luke 21.38." Since 1971 the section is printed as ordinary text, with the note, "The most ancient authorities omit 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text."

New American Standard Version (1963). "John 7:53-8:11 is not found in most of the old mss."

New International Version (1973). "The most reliable early manuscripts omit John 7:53-8:11." Later editions of the NIV have, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11."

New King James Version (1980). "NU [that is, the United Bible Societies' Greek text] brackets 7:53 through 8:11 as not in the original text. They are present in over 900 mss. of John."

How do we even know about Jesus when the integrity of some of the stories is highly doubtful?

Jesus followed Judaic law and was a jew, He never heard the word christian. The Quran confirms what is true in the previous scriptures...

Right, two quick questions;

(i) What of other pacifist commands that Jesus gave. Are they also doubtful?

(ii) Also, may I ask if there is evidence that there ever was a term "Muslim" or "Islam" BEFORE Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). (I mean from historical, archaeological and non-Muslim sources)


Thanks

@Brentkruge, I find myself on the side of Lagosshia and the brethren. A lot of the things that are in place couldn't have come from coincidence. I'm fairly certain that he existed from the history and the actions of present day Muslims.

tiarabubu:

Right, two quick questions;

(i) What of other pacifist commands that Jesus gave. Are they also doubtful?

(ii) Also, may I ask if there is evidence that there ever was a term "Muslim" or "Islam" BEFORE Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). (I mean from historical, archaeological and non-Muslim sources)


Thanks

Poor questions, off point

i.) This is not the point of the discussion, the point was that Jesus stayed within the letter of the Jewish law... He said so himself in your books... If we believe some of the stories in the bible,,,, Jesus was tough when he needed to be...

ii.) Another poor question, There have always been people who submitted to God alone, that is the definition of a muslim is.... the word muslim is just an arabic term for an act of submission, it does not come from a name so you cannot tie it to a timeframe or a language.... So yes, people have always existed that submitted.... The term does not come from a name of a man, it comes from an action that true believers have always done including Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him)

Hear this Jewish rabbi


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKU0HcfZ1f4

@Simplesea:

]by SimplySEA(m): 8:21am

Hey lady, u've spoken very well! And is quite obvious d side u're on! It may interest u to know dat i'm not on any side. I want d side of peace. Talkin about war and retaliative strikes don't really go down well wit me! My fren, wat'll happen "if an eye for an eye should prevail...? Do u not tink d whole world will go blind? Want to tell me u've never wronged someone before intentionally or not? If we preach dis kind of msg, what will happen to d world "forgiveness"?

i am a he/man, so don't let the sweet and necta fool you. i am simply on the side of reason, reason, non oppressive, freedom to retaliate appropriately, see compensation instead of retaliation or forgive for the sake of God. No one can be peaceful under all circumstances, including extreme circumstances.

it is often people who talk about unlimited peace who will be the first to seek their pound of flesh the moment somebody wronged them. an eye for an eye is still on the books in america, the leader of the the free world because a murderer is executed if found guilty, in many instances. when george bush was the governor of texas, he signed the execution of many.


not everyone in the world will commit crime as cruel as poking eye so that his own eye is fair to poke it out. so the argument that the whole world will go blind is weak. forgiveness is a chose especially when you can bear the loss. i am sure you will not forgive a person who is doing your people harm and in spite of you telling him to stop, he continued until he completed the job. if you say i forgive you, the family member who was the victim and now in pain will not forgive you for being a whoosie who didnt defend them and let them be violated. no one should be stupid.

Definitely no matter d msg one follows, there's a limit to wat one can bear.

so what wil make you reach your breaking point?

Besides, A "slap" is an instant action. D example u imported is quite continuous - Molesting and watchin. If i can stop it, i would.

what will a slap do in the rap.e situation? and whats continuous about the rap.e incident? if a an can protect his woman folks that he dies in the process of protecting them, he is not fit to be a son, a nephew, a brother, an uncle, a cousin, a husband or even a neighbor to the woman abused. i didnt raise the rap,e case, a woman dr. did, telling how she felt about turning the other cheek as an immoral principle in some situation.

Jesus, in one of his home cities, was bein ill treated and even stoned, he didn't jus stayed there cos he intend to turn d other cheek, he said some few nice words and walked away.

Muhammad [sa] reaction to his experience at the city of Taif is just as magnanimous if not higher. The prophets [as] of God bear much suffering. And i don't thin you believe that our action should be that of the prophets, in all condition because you have to look at the cross, if you are christian?

"....turnin d other cheek.." is quite proverbial.

like each statement in the the bible, eg. bring them before me and slay them, i do the work of my father, etc, etc? Dont be selective now.

D true meanin as explained by my spiritual leader is to walk away,

i dont buy it because the other cheek was on the face and it has not been struck, yet.

don't retaliate. In other words, forgive! Doesn't mean u can't have him stopped while he's at it.

when mike tyson was mike tyson, you wouldnt dare to try to stop him and if he really wanted the other cheek, he will take if you will not obey the instruction of biblical Jesus to voluntarily turn it for a big whack.

Or would u allow yr husband go over to d rap*ist house to ra.pe his own wife in retaliation?

turning the other cheek in this case is offer the other women for this atrocious act, so that its a common thread that not just one cheek was slapped, all the cheeks were.

i want peace.

so do i. you are not alone in this.

My best fren is muslim. Now we don't trust eachother anymore.

i wonder why you dont trust each other, because i trust my christian and other non muslim friends. and they trust me, just as much.

tbaba1234:

Poor questions, off point

i.) This is not the point of the discussion, the point was that Jesus stayed within the letter of the Jewish law... He said so himself in your books... If we believe some of the stories in the bible,,,, Jesus was tough when he needed to be...

You didnt answer the question.

You stated, among other things ....How do we even know about Jesus when the integrity of some of the stories is highly doubtful?

And I asked ... What of other pacifist commands that Jesus gave. Are they also doubtful?

And you went on a journey to Timbuktu.

ii.) Another poor question, There have always been people who submitted to God alone, that is the definition of a muslim is.... the word muslim is just an arabic term for an act of submission, it does not come from a name so you cannot tie it to a timeframe or a language.... So yes, people have always existed that submitted.... The term does not come from a name of a man, it comes from an action that true believers have always done including Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him)

From your answer, the words "Islam" and "Muslim" were just Arabic words that early converts used to describe themselves and their actions which they assumed all else who practice monotheism did. Also, no words like "Islam" and "Muslim" were in currency or used terms BEFORE prophet Mohammed anywhere in Arabia or beyond.



If the word Muslim is just an Arabic term for an act of submission, what makes you think those who believed in God submitted to Allah? Why would Islam appropriate others this way? Just because others believed in one God doesn't make them Muslims. Judaism predated Islam in the worship of one God. Are adherents of Judaism Muslims? Do Muslims even consider them so (apart from their prophets of course)

I could very well invent a word, say, Jepenism for example, and claim that all those who prostrated from the beginning of time in the act of worship to God practise "Jepenism". Can Muslims be considered "Jepenists"? Would you agree?

What of religions that practised monotheism and submitted to One God? Are they Muslims too? Sikhism,Hellenistic, Judaism and what of Siberian tradition which were once monotheists. Where they Muslims too?

Why would Arabians coin a term for their new religion and try to define all others(who vehemently disagree no less) under their umbrella from 632 AD onwards.

My conclusion is that Muslims and Islam were words coined and used to describe the young band of converts and the subsequent community in those early days of the Prophet Mohammed. They were in the mists of polytheists. The words had nothing to do with other monotheist religions of the region or the era and incidentally, no religion so appropriated agree otherwise.

Sorry for the digression, I wanted to highlight this important point. Y'all can resume your topic

tiarabubu:

You didnt answer the question.

You stated, among other things ....How do we even know about Jesus when the integrity of some of the stories is highly doubtful?

And I asked ... What of other pacifist commands that Jesus gave. Are they also doubtful?

And you went on a journey to Timbuktu.





If the word Muslim is just an Arabic term for an act of submission, what makes you think those who believed in God submitted to Allah? Why would Islam appropriate others this way? Just because they believed in one God doesn't make them Muslims. Judaism predated Islam in the worship of one God. Are adherents of Judaism Muslims? Do Muslims even consider them so (apart from their prophets of course)

I could very well invent a word, say, Jepenism for example, and claim that all those who prostrated from the beginning of time in the act of worship to God practise "Jepenism". Can Muslims be considered "Jepenists"? Would you agree?

What of religions that practised monotheism and submitted to One God? Are they Muslims too? Sikhism,Hellenistic, Judaism and what of Siberian tradition which were once monotheists. Where they Muslims too?

Why would Arabians coin a term for their new religion and try to define all others(who vehemently disagree no less) under their umbrella from 632 onwards.

My conclusion is that Muslims and Islam were words coined and used to describe the young band of converts in those early days of the Prophet Mohammed. The words had nothing to do with other monotheist religions of the region or the era and Incidentally, no religion so appropriated agree otherwise.

Your conclusion is wrong! Anybody who was before Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and followed the teachings of the Prophet of his time is a Muslim.

You also don't know that being a Muslim is the lowest entry level in Islam. We call everybody in Islam "Muslim" but there are many people above that level.

tiarabubu:
If the word Muslim is just an Arabic term for an act of submission, what makes you think those who believed in God submitted to Allah? Why would Islam appropriate others this way? Just because others believed in one God doesn't make them Muslims. Judaism predated Islam in the worship of one God. Are adherents of Judaism Muslims? Do Muslims even consider them so (apart from their prophets of course)

please review this thread:

"Christians God (yaweh) ,is He The Same With Muslims Allah?"
https://www.nairaland.com/993524/christians-god-yaweh-he-same

maclatunji:

Your conclusion is wrong! Anybody who was before Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and followed the teachings of the Prophet of his time is a Muslim.

You also don't know that being a Muslim is the lowest entry level in Islam. We call everybody in Islam "Muslim" but there are many people above that level.

Let's understand each other

In relation to your first paragraph, Muslims regard followers of monotheistic faiths before them Muslims. And Is it because the word describes submitters in general in Arabic which they identified with or they truly believed that these were fore runners of muslims


And that leads to my point. How come none of the monotheistic religions mention a generic term for submitters save the Arabs? And why the branding together of unwilling faiths with the cord of the term Muslims. A term their own writings didn't recognize even in its basic form. And that leads me to the origin of the term Muslim (by name or implication) which appeared only after the Prophet Muhammad started his message. How then are earlier faiths Muslims if not by appropriation?

Holy Quran 2:132-133
"And Abraham instructed his sons [to do the same] and [so did] Jacob, [saying], "O my sons, indeed Allah has chosen for you this religion, so do not die except while you are Muslims.Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, when he said to his sons, "What will you worship after me?" They said, "We will worship your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac - one God. And we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

Holy Quran 3:84
"Say, "We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [submitting] to Him."

Holy Quran 4:163
"Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him. And we revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, the Descendants, Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the book [of Psalms]".

Holy Quran 38:45-47
"And remember Our servants, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - those of strength and [religious] vision.Indeed, We chose them for an exclusive quality: remembrance of the home [of the Hereafter].And indeed they are, to Us, among the chosen and outstanding".

Holy Quran 29:25-27
"And [Abraham] said, "You have only taken, other than Allah , idols as [a bond of] affection among you in worldly life. Then on the Day of Resurrection you will deny one another and curse one another, and your refuge will be the Fire, and you will not have any helpers.And Lot believed him. [Abraham] said, "Indeed, I will emigrate to [the service of] my Lord. Indeed, He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.And We gave to Him Isaac and Jacob and placed in his descendants prophethood and scripture. And We gave him his reward in this world, and indeed, he is in the Hereafter among the righteous".

tiarabubu:

Let's understand each other

In relation to your first paragraph, Muslims regard followers of monotheistic faiths before them Muslims. And Is it because the word describes submitters in general in Arabic which they identified with or they truly believed that these were fore runners of muslims

All of the above. In fact, even the angels and other creatures except the devils are Muslims.

By Islamic beliefs then. Not by empirical evidence. Cos there is no historical evidence of the term "Muslims" or "Islam" in Arabia or any other language before Muhammed. If there were we could have seen it in the writings of earlier monotheistic faiths.

But there are none. And none of the monotheistic faiths agree with Muslims on this.

^ watch the statement by the rabbi in the video above

Well interesting conclusions by the rabbi.

This "rabbi" belongs to a group desperate to seek peace between Islam and Judaism. This is their website

http://www.jews-for-allah.org/

The site has sections like

HOW TO BECOME A MUSLIM
INTRODUCTION TO ISLAM PAGES
ADVICE TO AND FROM CONVERTS

Are they to give a fair assessment of the matter as being potrayed? They are akin to say anything to rub Muslims the right way. In fact, they ARE Muslims.

Remember how people often say Islam means "peace" instead of "submission" ? And we all accept. It's now gradually being accepted as true. But it's not. This "rabbi" wants a comfortable Alliance with Islam. Without evidence his words mean nought. I want evidence to show "islam" existed before Prophet Muhammad. Not just statements from a political rabbi.




Well, how about this I saw posted in this section yesterday


online.wsj.com/article/SB122669909279629451.html


If you believe the rabbi then maybe this Islamic scholar is right too.

^Go and read the Qur'an in detail. If that doesn't convince you, nothing will.

And so you know, your not being convinced will not change the price of bread or garri at the market.

maclatunji: ^Go and read the Qur'an in detail. If that doesn't convince you, nothing will.

And so you know, your not being convinced will not change the price of bread or garri at the market.

Neither my being convinced will.

Check out http://www.jews-for-allah.org/ . Their site copyright says © 2004 copyrighted by the Multi-National Muslim Community

And Tbaba will quote from a Muslim site to hoodwink us into believing that the rabbi is real?! HABA! I don't like this. Its unlike tbaba my intellectual friend.


PS ^{I hope this revelation doesnt change the price of bread or garri in the market}

tiarabubu: Well interesting conclusions by the rabbi.

This rabbi belongs to a group desperate to seek peace between Islam and Judaism. This is their website

http://www.jews-for-allah.org/

So they are akin to say anything to rub Muslims the right way. Remember how people often say Islam means "peace" instead of "submission" ? And we all accept. It's now gradually being accepted as true. But it's not. This rabbi wants a comfortable Alliance with Islam. Without evidence his words mean nought. I want evidence to show "islam" existed before Prophet Muhammad. Not just statements from a political rabbi.

No Jews for Allah are jewish converts to Islam.... It says: Ethnically Jewish, Spiritually Muslim,

The guy is a rabbi so cannot be a member of the group.... you just put a random website and you suppose to have made some sense... He gave his references on the video, check the names he called and disprove it... you showed no evidence that he belongs to any group.... I guess it suits you if he does.. The only place a jew can pray apart from a synagogue is a mosque.... This is from the evidence from all jewish scholars and i am talking from history....

"It would be better to pray in a mosque and do so with meaning and after the sun rises, rather than at home, at dawn or at the airport and without meaning," Rabbi Baruch Efrati
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4016144,00.html

Rabbi Moshe Iserlish states that only Muslims cannot abolish idolatry (as opposed to other nations). This is because only Muslims are a collective of monotheistic believers, as opposed to the other nations, in which beliefs with respect to monotheism varied by individual. (Responsa Melamed Le'hoil, part 2:55)

Rabbi Moshe Iserlish comments there that - "and our nations and Ishmaelites, that are not idol worshippers, cannot abolish idolatry."

Are they all Jew for Muslims?

Submission to God existed since the creation of man..... That is what Islam means... And yea it does come from the root 'salam' which means peace... It is the only faith whose meaning is universal and not tied to any time frame or language.

Any one who had submitted his will to that of the one true God is Muslim... full stop...

tbaba1234:

No Jews for Allah are jewish converts to Islam.... It says: Ethnically Jewish, Spiritually Muslim,

The guy is a rabbi so cannot be a member of the group.... you just put a random website and you suppose to have made some sense... He gave his references on the video, check the names he called and disprove it... you showed no evidence that he belongs to any group.... I guess it suits you if he does.. The only place a jew can pray apart from a synagogue is a mosque.... This is from the evidence from all jewish scholars and i am talking from history....

"It would be better to pray in a mosque and do so with meaning and after the sun rises, rather than at home, at dawn or at the airport and without meaning," Rabbi Baruch Efrati
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4016144,00.html

Rabbi Moshe Iserlish states that only Muslims cannot abolish idolatry (as opposed to other nations). This is because only Muslims are a collective of monotheistic believers, as opposed to the other nations, in which beliefs with respect to monotheism varied by individual. (Responsa Melamed Le'hoil, part 2:55)

Rabbi Moshe Iserlish comments there that - "and our nations and Ishmaelites, that are not idol worshippers, cannot abolish idolatry."

Are they all Jew for Muslims?

Submission to God existed since the creation of man..... [size=15pt]That is what Islam means[/size]... And yea it does come from the root 'salam' which means peace... It is the only faith whose meaning is universal and not tied to any time frame or language.

Any one who had submitted his will to that of the one true God is Muslim... full stop...

Islam [size=15pt]means[/size] submission to GOD in Arabic, yes! OF COURSE. I am saying that the term "Muslim" or "Islam" came up at the time of the Prophet around 600 AD to mean subimission to God in ARABIC. It was coined to [size=15pt]mean[/size] just that by the Muslims.

we are talking empirically here.

IF the words "Islam" and "Muslim" and has no correlation with the mode of worship that Prophet Mohammed brought, it would have been just words, like, say, Abrahamism (used to describe the Abrahamic religions). But as we know it, the words "Muslims" and "Islam" are not generic but are used to describe a religious group. So the words have lost their generic meaning and now relate to a recognised mode of worship, beliefs (such as jinns, janna, jihad, janaba,wudu etc)and norms. It is therefore not correct to use the generic meaning of the term "Islam" and "Muslim" on other monotheist faiths. Judaism, Christianity, and other monotheist faiths don't believe in Jannah, Jihad, Ramadan, jinns etc so they can't be Muslims as you want us to believe. Even they don't accept that classification and their writings don't support that assertion.

Incidentally, none of the older religions of Judaism and Christianity mention the term "Muslim" or "Islam" (or anything close to that) in their written form. If the older ones are from the same God, why did He miss telling us that they are "Muslims" or practice "Islam" or at least used a term that will resemble, in structure and meaning, the Arabic words in question.

Abrahamism would be a better generic name for Islam, Christianity and Judaism; not "Islam" or "Muslim" because all three claim Abraham as a route to the present day. The day a group comes up with a mode of worship called Abrahamism, the word will lose its meaning completely. Then we may want to use my invented word "Jepenism"

tiarabubu:


Islam [size=15pt]means[/size] submission to GOD in Arabic, yes! OF COURSE. I am saying that the term "Muslim" or "Islam" came up at the time of the Prophet around 600 AD to mean subimission to God in ARABIC. It was coined to [size=15pt]mean[/size] just that by the Muslims.

If it the term is generic and has no correlation with the mode of worship that Prophet Mohammed brought, it would have been just a word, like, say, Abrahamism (Abrahamic religions). But as we know it, Muslims and Islam are not generic but are a religious group so the term "Muslim" and "Islam" has lost is generic meaning and now relates to a recognised mode of worship, beliefs (such as jinns, janna, jihad etc)and norms. It is therefore not correct to use the generic meaning of the term "Islam" and "Muslim" on other monotheist faiths. Judaism, Christianity, and other monotheist faiths don't believe in Jannah, Jihad, Ramadan, jinns so they can't be Muslims as you want us to believe. They don't accept that classification.

Incidentally none of the older religions of Judaism and Christianity mention the term "Muslim" or "Islam" (or anything close to that) in their written form. If the older ones are from the same God, why did He miss telling us that we are "Muslims" or practice "Islam" or at least used a term that will resemble the Arabic words in question.

Abrahamism would be a better generic name for Islam, Christianity and Judaism; not "Islam" or "Muslim" because all three claim Abraham as a route to the present day. The day a group come up with a mode of worship called Abrahamism, the term will lose its meaning completely. Then we may want to use my invented word "Jepenism"

According to your bible, Jesus said : I do not my own will but the will of the father..

That is submission to the will of God, that is islam.... Whatever language he spoke...

Looking for an arabic word from non-arabs is a pretty silly thing really

Submission to God is a more generic name.... what is abrahamism?? please

Jannah is an arabic word... simply means paradise/ heaven, i am sure these faith have a concept of a recompense
Jinn are 'spirits' unseen creatures... It is not peculiar to muslims either
Jihad means struggle, the jews have a very similar concept ('the struggle agianst the yetzer hara)
Obligatory charty (Zakat), every jew is required to give at least two gifts to two poor people.
Ramadan was the month of the Quran revelation.... The Quran is the latest revelation and was unknown to previous nations
Muslim pray 5 times daily... Jews pray 3 times Shacharis (morning prayers), Mincha (afternoon prayers), and Ma'ariv (evening prayers).

The name 'Islam' is the completion of the message of the prophets.... Allah chose the name 'Islam' after the message was complete.... Allah says in the Quran:

[5:3] “This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favors upon you, and have chosen for you, Islam as your religion.”

It is only after the perfection of the message, that the name was given.. The previous prophets preached the same message of submission to the will of God and submitted their will to God. From that assessment, they are muslims... People coined religions from the names of prophets like Christianity and Judaism.

It is the only true generic faith that explains the acts of all prophets.... Like the rabbi said in the video, jews believe there is one generic faith for everyone..... As a muslim, i am intellectually convinced, that that is islam