A question to Muslims re converts from other religions

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


You're welcome, wildtimes.

We all start as newbies..


Peace!




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by queenofangels_17
 


so wildtimes,

By Him in whose hand is my soul, no one who testifies that God is only One and Muhammad is His Messenger will enter Hell fire to dwell there in forever.

Good tidings to such a one!

Peace!

Thanks. Peace back to you, and with you.......


Can you clarify please: what if he who testifies at the last moment that "God is only One" (with which I agree), and "Muhammed is His Messenger" (okay, but, what if a person thinks there have been other of 'His messengers", before and after Muhammed?)

Is that person who thinks there have been several Messengers and count Muhammed and Jesus as equals doomed?

(I don't think so, but, I want to hear your belief
)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by mideast
 



To those who mock beliefs to back their ignorance ,

I am waiting to see the face of the people who mock prophets in this modern age and civilization.

Thank you so much for your answer! I was hoping that was the case.....that it's one's actions that determine "destination" after death.
I'm not mocking anything, btw. I think they (the prophets) all had important information to impart....and all are equally deserving of respect.


All spirits have their path and pain and pleasure to experiance and work to do and deserve to have their efforts noticed. If the prophets are proud and cannot joke about themselves then I do not think they are at the level that they said they was. If you cannot laught at the missery then it will be hard coping with it. Sometimes it can be good to let go and just not take it so seriously. In 10000 years todays problems will probably not be known and spirits will not care about any human religions that existed today. But still god will exist and evolution will continue. Until the last soul have been taught and gone home and become ONE again. So be it



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by apushforenlightment
 


In 10000 years todays problems will probably not be known and spirits will not care about any human religions that existed today. But still god will exist and evolution will continue. Until the last soul have been taught and gone home and become ONE again. So be it

. Yes, So Be It. I agree with you. Actually, in five (5) years, today's problems will be largely forgotten. Religion is not helping anyone stay totally free of what's going down.....




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I also like how he called you a 'righteous slave'. Is that what you confess to be? A slave?

"Islam" is generally considered to be "Submitting to the will of God". The word for slave/servant in arabic is "abd". You may have seen this as the prefix in a lot of muslim names (Abdullah, Abdul Malik, Abdul Qadir, etc.). The word in arabic that is generally translated as "worship" in english is "ibadat", which also derived from "abd".
So yeah, muslims would not have any problems being called servants/slaves of God. Neither Christians or Jews, I guess. Perhaps this gives you pause because of connotations of lack of free will in the english word "slave"? Be assured, no such connotations exist in the arabic. It simply means "Person who serves (the will of God)".


reply to post by wildtimes
 


Originally posted by wildtimes
Can you clarify please: what if he who testifies at the last moment that "God is only One" (with which I agree), and "Muhammed is His Messenger" (okay, but, what if a person thinks there have been other of 'His messengers", before and after Muhammed?)

Is that person who thinks there have been several Messengers and count Muhammed and Jesus as equals doomed?

Considering that belief in all the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental requirement listed in the Quran for you to be able to call yourself "Muslim", I don't think so.
The Quran acknowledges that some of the Messengers and Prophets had greater gifts and abilities, some did not. They were all just humans (including Jesus and Muhammad).
edit on 25-8-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Considering that belief in all the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental requirement listed in the Quran for you to be able to call yourself "Muslim", I don't think so.
The Quran acknowledges that some of the Messengers and Prophets had greater gifts and abilities, some did not. They were all just humans (including Jesus and Muhammad).

Thanks, babloyi. I hoped you would respond to the thread.

Yes, I'm on board with that idea: "some of the Messengers and Prophets had greater gifts and abilities, some did not."

I also agree, just humans.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


The English word 'slave' is used to describe servants who are held against their will. English is the language in which that quote is spoken, it doesn't matter what its context in Arabic is in this situation.


slave (slv)
n.
1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: "I was still the slave of education and prejudice" (Edward Gibbon).
3. One who works extremely hard.
4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component.


Are any of those definitions positive in any way? It would be a different story if that quote used the word 'servant', but calling you a 'slave'? You really have no problem with them using the English word 'slave' to describe you?

The word slave within our language and our society has very negative connotations, so the question is: why did they choose to translate abd into slave?
edit on 25-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
It does not matter what faith you are, the thing that counts can be found in Matt 19:16 One came and said unto him, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

We all have to face the reality of death and understand or realize that we are created being and as such God, our creator requires us to respect the rights and dignity of others.
This life is only a trial period to determine if we are ready to live eternally. It is not about what we will say after death but rather what we do or determine to do before death that counts.

It is not a question of what you have done but one of what you will do in the future. The direction of a falling tree determines where it will lie.

Ezek 18:21 If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
Prov 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.
Islam teaches the same thing. Quoran 7:153 Those who do wrong, then repent and believe, are forgiven, for your Lord is forgiving and kind.
4:147. Why should I punish you if you acknowledge the truth and believe? 46:36 This is the message to be conveyed: shall any perish but the ungodly?

If someone believes that he will escape hell without keeping the commandments of God he has been deceived into believing a lie.
Both the Quoran and the Bible teach submission to Gods commandments, it is organized religion that has confused it.
brben



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenofangels_17
At any other time though, while your soul is still between your teeth, as longs as you confess that there is only One God, all your sins though it be like a mountain as long as you repented sincerely it will be forgiven and you will be accepted to Paradise, unlees you revert to disbelief before you die.

And yes, I am one of His slaves and I am not ashamed to come as a slave to the Beneficent Creator, Who gave me life and cause me to die, and after death He gave me life again.

Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds!


Wow, it seems Islam is a lot like Christianity, except it's upfront about the nature of the religion.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by queenofangels_17
 


so wildtimes,

By Him in whose hand is my soul, no one who testifies that God is only One and Muhammad is His Messenger will enter Hell fire to dwell there in forever.

Good tidings to such a one!

Peace!

Thanks. Peace back to you, and with you.......


Can you clarify please: what if he who testifies at the last moment that "God is only One" (with which I agree), and "Muhammed is His Messenger" (okay, but, what if a person thinks there have been other of 'His messengers", before and after Muhammed?)

Is that person who thinks there have been several Messengers and count Muhammed and Jesus as equals doomed?

(I don't think so, but, I want to hear your belief
)




Belief in all Prophets and Messengers sent by God is one of the pillars of faith in Islam. We are told to believe in the other prophets who came before prophet Muhammad, but are told not to distinguish from any of them, but to accept all of them To deny any of them, is to deny all of them, since they are all as one To sum up, to deny any one of the prophets is to deny God, who sent them.

God has exalted some prophets above others, and God knows best who they are, but Muslims are ordered by God not to make distinctions among any of them and to accept their prophethood equally.

2:285 The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) the believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers--we make no distinction between any of His messengers--and they say: we hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.

Peace!



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by babloyi
 


The English word 'slave' is used to describe servants who are held against their will. English is the language in which that quote is spoken, it doesn't matter what its context in Arabic is in this situation.


slave (slv)
n.
1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: "I was still the slave of education and prejudice" (Edward Gibbon).
3. One who works extremely hard.
4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component.


Are any of those definitions positive in any way? It would be a different story if that quote used the word 'servant', but calling you a 'slave'? You really have no problem with them using the English word 'slave' to describe you?

The word slave within our language and our society has very negative connotations, so the question is: why did they choose to translate abd into slave?
edit on 25-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Because slave is the right word for it. All your other meaning for slaves are right on, except that it should not be to anything or person but only to God. We should be slaves to God only, because we are His property, and we all will be returned to Him in the end.

Wether you admit to being a slave or not, doesn't change the fact that you are a slave, that is to God.

A similitude for you to think about.


56:83 Why, then, when the soul cometh up to the throat (of the dying) -

56:84 And ye are at that moment looking

56:85 And We are nearer unto him than ye are, but ye see not

56:86 Why then, if ye are not in bondage (unto Us)

56:87 Do ye not force it back, if ye are truthful?

***


3:83 Seek they other than the religion of Allah, when unto Him submitteth whosoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly, or unwillingly, and unto Him they will be returned.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

As queen said it was used because it fits. The word matches 3 of the 4 definitions you mentioned- none of which, by the way, mentioned being held against one's will. Some translations use the term "servant" instead. It really doesn't matter either way, if the meaning is conveyed.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Thank you all for your responses! I do understand it better, now...
can we expand the discussion to how "Christians" are "infidels"?
They only believe in One God, and the Trinity thing doesn't really change that...although I can see how it would seem so.

They do believe Jesus was more than a man, and disregard Muhammed (I guess)....so, is it in the disrespect of Muhammed that they are considered infidels? Is that the big catch? That by saying Jesus is God, they are claiming there is more than one??

Might be, if that is the case, that the same "translation" situation is occurring there between the two.. creating a misunderstanding (as has been discussed above regarding servitude/slavery as a "negative connotation" by some), where the Christians consider the One God became incarnate, but is still the One God.....

So, is that why they are doomed in the Muslim's eyes?
Or, if a life-long hard-core Bible literalist -- at that last moment of ability -- acknowledges Muhammed was equal to Jesus, is he then treated as though he believed it his whole life and is forgiven?

This is all highly interesting to me, thanks again, everyone who has participated.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 

Christians aren't really considered infidels. The christians of today are generally considered to have gone astray, but they are referred to as "People of the Book" in the Quran.


Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 62
Verily those who believe (in the Quran), and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
edit on 26-8-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


I'll never understand how you can be proud to be called a slave, that's not something I would ever want to be referred to as. To each his own I guess.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I'll never understand how you can be proud to be called a slave, that's not something I would ever want to be referred to as. To each his own I guess.

Have you ever been really, deeply, hopelessly in love and devoted to your beloved, begged your beloved to allow you to be their slave??
I think it's supposed to be that sort of "self-imposed" slavery....that one does willingly, with an idolized hero (whether Justin Bieber, or Jesus Christ, or whomever). At least, I know several of the Christians say that "being in love" with Jesus is a way to describe it.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I guess? I can see what you mean but I don't think I'd ever fall that far into love where they control the way I think and what I do. I've been through that phase of my life already, I enjoy freedom, not slavery.
But like I said, to each his own.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



Christians aren't really considered infidels. The christians of today are generally considered to have gone astray, but they are referred to as "People of the Book" in the Quran.

Well, that's a relief!! How has it come to be that so many think that 'The West' is considered the arch-enemy of Islam, then? All the "jihad" stuff, and the "fatwa" things...all just hype?

I couldn't remember "fatwa" for a moment, so I googled "Muslim terminology", and ran across this website. Would you (or anyone) like to comment on its accuracy, for the benefit of those of us who are understandably confused? At leat, I'd really appreciate it!
www.commongroundnews.org...

Some of the terminology regarding Muslim-Western relations has been widely misused or misunderstood, confusing key issues and clouding constructive opportunities. In an attempt to improve ongoing communication, we have developed the following Terminology in Muslim-Western Relations guide

Here's their description of the problematic interpretation regarding "Jihad":

Term: Jihad / Jihadist
Intended Meaning: In Western media, this term is almost always linked to acts of violence and is often used to mean terrorism/terrorists
Why a Problem: To Muslims, jihad means the struggle to move closer to God, to live in the way of God – thus it is a positive, predominantly non-violent and personal act by a devoted individual, or jihadi (also mujahed)
Impact: Angers Muslims as it equates a noble religious concept with violence/terrorism; extends the respectability of being true travelers in the way of God to terrorists, who welcome the title; the use of an Islamic term to describe violent acts gives the non-Muslim Westerner the impression that Islam sanctions such violent acts

and here is "fatwa":

Term: Fatwa
Intended Meaning: An opinion or pronouncement by a trained Islamic jurist, or Mufti
Why a Problem: A fatwa is a legally non-binding opinion, but is often understood in the West to be a religious edict that must be acted upon. It entered Western parlance with the issuance of a fatwa calling for the death of the author, Salman Rushdie, in the 1980s. Thus the general perception is that a fatwa is a death sentence, which feeds into the notion that Islam is a violent religion which does not value "rights of due process" or human life. Another problem that has arisen is that many opinions issued by unqualified persons recently have been called fatwas in the media; calling such pronouncements fatwas lends such opinions a legitimacy they in fact lack.
Impact: Creates the impression that judicial systems in Muslim-majority countries are based on the opinions of religious leaders. Although this is sometimes the case, it is rare; by calling illegitimate opinions fatwas, the person making the pronouncement is automatically being acknowledged as a legitimate religious jurist, or Mufti


I read The Looming Tower some years ago, and in that text I was led to believe, by a nationally acclaimed journalist, that these above MISREPRESENTATIONS were the actual DEFINITIONS. Now I'm pissed. This book was presented as a historical research piece with credible research and facts. NOT!!
:
edit on 26-8-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Both those explanations are correct, although, in the interests of fairness, actual physical fighting DOES come under the term "Jihad" as well (although it was referred to by the Prophet Muhammad as the "lesser Jihad", and is only one of many many different kinds of Jihad).

Any sort of "striving" or hard effort put towards a task with the goal of it being for the sake of God (education, self-improvement, educating others, etc.) can come under "Jihad", depending on the intention.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 



I guess? I can see what you mean but I don't think I'd ever fall that far into love where they control the way I think and what I do. I've been through that phase of my life already, I enjoy freedom, not slavery. But like I said, to each his own.

And, because you are self-confident enough to NOT allow your beloved to control you, you are stronger than many.
Hopelessly devoted lovers often DO allow themselves to be controlled, manipulated, told what to wear, eat, do, how to walk, speak, etc. I've been on both the dishing it out end of that (long ago) and the taking it end (not so long ago)...but have finally found my own voice and the strength to say no to manipulation and dictation from others, as well as the serenity to allow my beloved to be who he is, regardless of what things I would suggest. I'm not the boss of him. I respect him, and he respects me, and we have full trust in one another, warts and all.

The most devout Christian zealots are those who are willing to give their lives over to their beloved....and state that Christ is their leader.

congrats to you, though, 3NL ....and stand for what you believe in, no matter the odds.





top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join