Israelis: Is Judaism more similar to Christianity or Islam?

[TSA321]

 

[PakLFC]

Islam no doubt! Like Muslim's they reject the trinity and Hadrat Isa altogether let alone him being the literal "son of God". Jews are the only people who may enter a Masjid to make to make prayer with us, they are disallowed from praying with Christian's. Even the Jewish prayer is similar to our salat as well. There understanding of "Allah" is exactly the same as Muslim's only that they reject the final Prophet(saw).

 

[PakLFC]

There dietary habits are much like ours as well avoiding swine and only consuming halal/koshar.

 

[hussain.r97]

There dietary habits are much like ours as well avoiding swine and only consuming halal/koshar.

Christianity is such a large group with so many different sects, you can't really lump them all together. From what I know, the Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian, etc) and Oriental Orthodox (Ethiopia, Egypt, Armenia, etc) do not have the same concept of salvation as Catholics and Protestants, nor do they believe in the original sin. Like Islam, they believe that salvation comes through actions, and your deeds determine whether you go to hell or heaven, not your belief in Jesus as the son of God, and the savior.

The Eastern Oriental and other Eastern Christians also don't really give a huge deal of importance on Jesus being the "son of God", and to them, "the father" is the almighty supreme God, while Jesus is a "God's word" in flesh. Muslims also have the belief of Jesus being "God's word in flesh", but the difference is that Islam says God's word is something created, while Eastern Christians say it is not created, and has always existed as a part of God.

When it comes to dietary laws. the Ethiopian church and many other Eastern churches do not eat swine, they only eat meat slaughtered in the name of God with the blood drained, and they only have alcohol very moderately. Then you also have some Protestant churches who refrain from swine, and only eat slaughtered meat.

As you can see, it is very hard to lump them together. The Christians you are thinking of are more the typical Catholic or Evangelical Protestant Christian.

 

[hussain.r97]

Islam no doubt! Like Muslim's they reject the trinity and Hadrat Isa altogether let alone him being the literal "son of God". Jews are the only people who may enter a Masjid to make to make prayer with us, they are disallowed from praying with Christian's. Even the Jewish prayer is similar to our salat as well. There understanding of "Allah" is exactly the same as Muslim's only that they reject the final Prophet(saw).

Another thing worth mentioning, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Middle Eastern churches also have the exact same prayer as us, though most of them don't believe it to be obligatory.

They traditionally pray towards the East, in defiance of the Jews of the time praying facing Jerusalem.

 

[PakLFC]

[MENTION=331]Hussain[/MENTION].r97

Yeah I am talking about mainstream Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Al three Ibrahamic faiths have many groups within who contradict the majority belief. Like we have Qadyani's who insist on being called Muslim's yet reject the kalimah there is a group of Christian's who accept our Akka(saw) as a Prophet as well. Muslim's have many sects as well.

 

[hussain.r97]

[MENTION=331]Hussain[/MENTION].r97

Yeah I am talking about mainstream Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Al three Ibrahamic faiths have many groups within who contradict the majority belief. Like we have Qadyani's who insist on being called Muslim's yet reject the kalimah there is a group of Christian's who accept our Akka(saw) as a Prophet as well. Muslim's have many sects as well.

Yeah, I understand you talk more of the Western Churches. However, we can't ignore that the Eastern Churches comprise of a good 350million Christians, that is a similar number to the number of Shia Muslims.

Adherents to Oriental Orthodoxy


Adherents to Eastern Orthodoxy

 

[PakLFC]

@husaain.r97

What you are pointing out is similar to how Arab Islam is practised differently to Pakistani Islam. Eastern Christians and much closer to the real Christian faith then their western counterparts. They understand their Gospel much more, they also realise that swine and pork are disallowed in Christian scripture as well. Sadly Arab Islam has become the hub of extremism which has greatly effected the historically much more tolerant Pakistani Islam. The scripture we follow is the one yet often understood differently. The hate many Muslim's have for Jews is totally against the tradition of Islam.

 

[hussain.r97]

@husaain.r97

What you are pointing out is similar to how Arab Islam is practised differently to Pakistani Islam. Eastern Christians and much closer to the real Christian faith then their western counterparts. They understand their Gospel much more, they also realise that swine and pork are disallowed in Christian scripture as well. Sadly Arab Islam has become the hub of extremism which has greatly effected the historically much more tolerant Pakistani Islam. The scripture we follow is the one yet often understood differently. The hate many Muslim's have for Jews is totally against the tradition of Islam.

That is true, and if you look at groups of all three Abrahamic faiths that are closest to the most traditional teachings, you will find them to be very similar.

Take traditional Islam (Shia and Sunni), Eastern Oriental Christianity (Ethiopian), and traditional Judaism, and what do you find?

Between all three faiths:
-The same, completely united and almighty God.
-Don't eat swine, and have a classification of pure and impure animals.
-Only eat meat slaughtered in the name of God.
-Have regular prayers, in the same style (bowing in front of God).
-Same Prophets, more or less the same stories.

However, I would say that traditional Christianity and Islam are more similar to each other because:
-Same concept of heaven and hell.
-Same concept of salvation (your deeds take you to heaven or hell), as opposed to the Jewish belief of being the chosen race.
-Belief in Hazrat Isa, who was the "word of God" (the Injil). (The difference being in how we both classify "word of God")
-Belief in Hazrat Isa as the Messiah, who will return. (Jews believe in a different Messiah).
-Then there are things like usury, etc that we both differ on with Judaism. Basically, Islam and Christianity give more weight to afterlife, Judaism gives a lot of weight to the material life.

 

[Madplayer]

In practice, Jews and muslims are the closest to each other.

However, the Quran tells us that Christians are the closest to us because they understand us the best. Christians have actually complicated their faith with the concept of trinity which no Christian can reconcile with the concept of monotheism which is central to Abrahamic faiths. I mean you can play around with words but at the end of the day 3 is 3 and 1 is 1.

What is more amazing is that people of the book are not considered Kafirs and as per Shariah, a muslim man can marry their woman even if she doesnt believe in Islam (but she needs to believe in 1 God).

 

[hussain.r97]

In practice, Jews and muslims are the closest to each other.

However, the Quran tells us that Christians are the closest to us because they understand us the best. Christians have actually complicated their faith with the concept of trinity which no Christian can reconcile with the concept of monotheism which is central to Abrahamic faiths. I mean you can play around with words but at the end of the day 3 is 3 and 1 is 1.

What is more amazing is that people of the book are not considered Kafirs and as per Shariah, a muslim man can marry their woman even if she doesnt believe in Islam (but she needs to believe in 1 God).

One thing I have wondered is why is it that in translations of the Quran, the words "Islam" and "Muslim" are not translated? Islam and Muslim respectively mean "submission" and "one who submits". Don't Jews and most Christians also submit to God?

There is only one Quran I have come across that translates these words (The Study Quran). They have translated these words on most occasions, with a couple of exceptions. It makes a lot of sense.

 

[Robert]

In practice, Jews and muslims are the closest to each other.

However, the Quran tells us that Christians are the closest to us because they understand us the best. Christians have actually complicated their faith with the concept of trinity which no Christian can reconcile with the concept of monotheism which is central to Abrahamic faiths. I mean you can play around with words but at the end of the day 3 is 3 and 1 is 1.

Not really, we know from modern physics that a thing can be a different thing depending on the question you ask of it.

The Hindu gods have their avatars that perform different functions.

Though I agree that the Trinity is a Council of Nicaea fudge to try to unite the various Christian strands.

 

[Itachi]

In practice, Jews and muslims are the closest to each other.

However, the Quran tells us that Christians are the closest to us because they understand us the best. Christians have actually complicated their faith with the concept of trinity which no Christian can reconcile with the concept of monotheism which is central to Abrahamic faiths. I mean you can play around with words but at the end of the day 3 is 3 and 1 is 1.

What is more amazing is that people of the book are not considered Kafirs and as per Shariah, a muslim man can marry their woman even if she doesnt believe in Islam (but she needs to believe in 1 God).

Two or more parallel lines could meet at infinity. If we take the infinity as the "god", then these lines could co exist yet they could point to the same which means the religion itself doesn't break from monotheism.

You are trying to use logics at own convenience disregarding any philosophical interpretation that it may have. Though even in science, it is possible indeed.

 

[Justcrazy]

These three proclaim to be monotheist religion , so there is bound to be some similarities , all three have similar sources , with common prophets.

 

[Madplayer]

Not really, we know from modern physics that a thing can be a different thing depending on the question you ask of it.

The Hindu gods have their avatars that perform different functions.

Though I agree that the Trinity is a Council of Nicaea fudge to try to unite the various Christian strands.

The Christian concept of trinity isnt as straight forward. It comprises of : Father, son and the Holy Spirit.
Are father and son the same person (God)? So Father is his own Son and son is his own father? Son sacrificed himself on the cross while his father (who is the son himself???) watched without doing anything. If Son was god, did god die on the cross? Why does the son keep saying in the bible that "my father is greater than me"?
Bring physics into it or whatever you want, the conversations and series of events which took place are hard to reconcile with monotheism unless you concede that Jesus was not God.

 

[Madplayer]

One thing I have wondered is why is it that in translations of the Quran, the words "Islam" and "Muslim" are not translated? Islam and Muslim respectively mean "submission" and "one who submits". Don't Jews and most Christians also submit to God?

There is only one Quran I have come across that translates these words (The Study Quran). They have translated these words on most occasions, with a couple of exceptions. It makes a lot of sense.

There are many Islamic scholars who say that all Christians and Jews arent doomed to hell like some people will have you believe. Tahir-ul-Qadri is one of them who says so.

 

[Madplayer]

Two or more parallel lines could meet at infinity. If we take the infinity as the "god", then these lines could co exist yet they could point to the same which means the religion itself doesn't break from monotheism.

You are trying to use logics at own convenience disregarding any philosophical interpretation that it may have. Though even in science, it is possible indeed.

If two lines meet at any point then they arent parallel in the strict sense. They just appear to be parallel in a given time and space.

 

[hussain.r97]

There are many Islamic scholars who say that all Christians and Jews arent doomed to hell like some people will have you believe. Tahir-ul-Qadri is one of them who says so.

Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians—whoever ˹truly˺ believes in God and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.[Quran 2:62]

Sad, when verses like these exist throughout the Quran and clearly prove their point of view wrong.

 

[hussain.r97]

Sad, when verses like these exist throughout the Quran and clearly prove their point of view wrong.

[MENTION=131678]Madplayer[/MENTION], I read your comment as "are doomed to hell".

Yes, there are many good scholars out there who don't believe others are doomed to hell. Unfortunately, a huge amount of people follow scholars who believe only Muslims will be in heaven.

 

[James]

Orthodox Judaism and Islam are extremely similar, almost like two sides of the same coin. Orthodox Judaism however is stricter than Islam in a number of ways.

Reform Judaism definitely has crossovers with Islam, but is notably more liberal from a social point of view (for better or worse).

 

[barah_admi]

One thing I have wondered is why is it that in translations of the Quran, the words "Islam" and "Muslim" are not translated? Islam and Muslim respectively mean "submission" and "one who submits". Don't Jews and most Christians also submit to God?

There is only one Quran I have come across that translates these words (The Study Quran). They have translated these words on most occasions, with a couple of exceptions. It makes a lot of sense.

Even if the Quran stated Muslim as "one who submits" Jews and Christians do not submit to the will of Allah. Neither of them submit to Allah's will of Islam being the final religion nor of Prophet Muhammad PBUH being the final prophet. On top of that, Christians do not believe in one God, once again not submitting to His will.

So they are not Muslims.

 

[hussain.r97]

Even if the Quran stated Muslim as "one who submits" Jews and Christians do not submit to the will of Allah. Neither of them submit to Allah's will of Islam being the final religion nor of Prophet Muhammad PBUH being the final prophet. On top of that, Christians do not believe in one God, once again not submitting to His will.

So they are not Muslims.

It is debatable, as there are many viewpoints on what it means "to submit".

 

[James]

Even if the Quran stated Muslim as "one who submits" Jews and Christians do not submit to the will of Allah. Neither of them submit to Allah's will of Islam being the final religion nor of Prophet Muhammad PBUH being the final prophet. On top of that, Christians do not believe in one God, once again not submitting to His will.

So they are not Muslims.

Jews believe in essentially the same God as Muslims - singular, outside of time and space, everlasting, of no specific form, and genderless.

 

[barah_admi]

It is debatable, as there are many viewpoints on what it means "to submit".

If you're a Muslim and have read the Quran than no, there isn't. There is only one view point and non Muslims do not match it.

 

[Robert]

The Christian concept of trinity isnt as straight forward. It comprises of : Father, son and the Holy Spirit.
Are father and son the same person (God)? So Father is his own Son and son is his own father? Son sacrificed himself on the cross while his father (who is the son himself???) watched without doing anything. If Son was god, did god die on the cross? Why does the son keep saying in the bible that "my father is greater than me"?
Bring physics into it or whatever you want, the conversations and series of events which took place are hard to reconcile with monotheism unless you concede that Jesus was not God.

We are offered the Parable of the Three-in-One Oil.

 

[hussain.r97]

If you're a Muslim and have read the Quran than no, there isn't. There is only one view point and non Muslims do not match it.

Once again, that is your point of view. There are other points of view. My point of view is that there are many instances in the Quran where the words "Islam" and "Muslim" exclusively refer to those who follow Muhammad (pbuh). However, there are also many instances where it refers to anyone "submitting to God". This is one example-

Al-Baqara 111 - 112

Arabic
وَقَالُوا لَن يَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَن كَانَ هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَىٰ ۗ تِلْكَ أَمَانِيُّهُمْ ۗ قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ - 2:111
2:112 - بَلَىٰ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ فَلَهُ أَجْرُهُ عِندَ رَبِّهِ وَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

Default translation found online - (Sahih International)

2:111 And they say, "None will enter Paradise except one who is a Jew or a Christian." That is [merely] their wishful thinking, Say, "Produce your proof, if you should be truthful." 112 Yes [on the contrary], whoever submits his face in Islam to Allah while being a doer of good will have his reward with his Lord. And no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.

Translation where Islam is translated as "whomsoever submits" - (The Study Quran by Sayed Hossein Nasir)

2:111 And they said, “None will enter the Garden unless he be a Jew or a Christian.” Those are their hopes. Say, “Bring your proof, if you are truthful.” 112 Nay, whosoever submits his face to God, while being virtuous, shall have his reward with his Lord. No fear shall come upon them; nor shall they grieve.

 

[James]

If you're a Muslim and have read the Quran than no, there isn't. There is only one view point and non Muslims do not match it.

Hooray, we have another holier-than-thou know-it-all poster who has joined the forums. Gotta love em.

 

[gani999]

I once asked this question to a former Ukranian-Israeli colleague of mine. He is a bit of an orthodox Jew and is extremely pro-Israel.

He told me that Judaism is much closer to Islam than to Christianity, and has been recognized as such by the Jewish clergy. According to rules laid down by the Jewish clergy, if a Jew found himself in a place without a synagogue, he could pray in a mosque instead but was not allowed to pray in a church. If kosher food was not available, then Jews could eat halal food as the two had the same rules. There were many other such rules.
In fact, orthodox Jewish groups like the Hasidic Jews follow very similar rules and have a similar lifestyle to orthodox Muslims.

 

[barah_admi]

Once again, that is your point of view. There are other points of view. My point of view is that there are many instances in the Quran where the words "Islam" and "Muslim" exclusively refer to those who follow Muhammad (pbuh). However, there are also many instances where it refers to anyone "submitting to God". This is one example-

Al-Baqara 111 - 112

Arabic
وَقَالُوا لَن يَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَن كَانَ هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَىٰ ۗ تِلْكَ أَمَانِيُّهُمْ ۗ قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ - 2:111
2:112 - بَلَىٰ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ فَلَهُ أَجْرُهُ عِندَ رَبِّهِ وَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

Default translation found online - (Sahih International)


Translation where Islam is translated as "whomsoever submits" - (The Study Quran by Sayed Hossein Nasir)

Noneo f this is my opinion. There is no Islamic scholar who has studied the Quran and the Hadiths who would state that a Jew or a Christian, in their current form, is one who has submitted to God, because they do not follow his commandments. You can post your views all you want but they are meaningless and not scholarly.

Hooray, we have another holier-than-thou know-it-all poster who has joined the forums. Gotta love em.

It's not about being holier than thou. The poster I am actually having a discussion with, which you seem to interrupt and not understand, is speaking about the use of the word Muslim. If you read back at it, you will understand.

Submission to God is not to merely accept he exists but to do as he says. The same way as a Christian can not claim to be thus and then not believe in Jesus as the son of God.

So rather than getting your knickers in a twist, maybe try to read and understand what is being said.

 

[enkidu_]

Jews are religiously the closest to Islam and ethnically to the Levantines (mainly Muslims as well).

Jews consider Christianity to be "avodah zara", which basically means polytheism (because of the Trinity), and many of their greatest rabbis, incl. the greatest one, the RamBam/Maimonides, forbid to enter into a Church for this reason (icons of Jesus, etc), while they can pray in a mosque.

If you read their literature, their single biggest foe is "Edom", which is considered to be the Roman Empire and, basically, modern West (which projects itself in continuation of the Roman Empire). More precisely, in some the so-called apocalyptic literature (written when they were under extreme Roman domination), it's the children of Ishmael who are supposed to liberate them.

But that being said Jews have transformed their religion into an ethnic supremacist cult since the times of Ezra (that's why you shouldn't consider the State of Israel as a religion struggle, but a national-ethnic one, otherwise you miss the crux of the issue), and ofc they have rejected/killed their prophets, incl. Jesus, which is why they have been punished to live in a state of exile for millennia, going back to their Holy Land only towards the end of times.

The Jewish scholar Bernard Lewis, who passed away few months ago at 101, has the definitive book on situation/relation of Jews under/with Islam, "The Jews of Islam".

 

[hussain.r97]

Noneo f this is my opinion. There is no Islamic scholar who has studied the Quran and the Hadiths who would state that a Jew or a Christian, in their current form, is one who has submitted to God, because they do not follow his commandments. You can post your views all you want but they are meaningless and not scholarly.



It's not about being holier than thou. The poster I am actually having a discussion with, which you seem to interrupt and not understand, is speaking about the use of the word Muslim. If you read back at it, you will understand.

Submission to God is not to merely accept he exists but to do as he says. The same way as a Christian can not claim to be thus and then not believe in Jesus as the son of God.

So rather than getting your knickers in a twist, maybe try to read and understand what is being said.

To my understanding, there is a scholarly view among a section of scholars that many (not all) Christians and Jews do to submit to God, and it is accepted as "submission" because they are genuinely trying to fulfil God's commandments, but are unaware or ignorant that God has sent new commandments through Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the Quran. However, if they are aware of Islam as the truth, but they still turn away from it, then they are not submitting to God.

Either way, not submitting to God's Quranic commandments definitely does not mean that they will go to hell.

 

[enkidu_]

To my understanding, there is a scholarly view among a section of scholars that many (not all) Christians and Jews do to submit to God, and it is accepted as "submission" because they are genuinely trying to fulfil God's commandments, but are unaware or ignorant that God has sent new commandments through Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the Quran. However, if they are aware of Islam as the truth, but they still turn away from it, then they are not submitting to God.

Either way, not submitting to God's Quranic commandments definitely does not mean that they will go to hell.

Islamic soteriology (the study of salvation) is indeed complex, Imam al Ghazali (r) has a very nuanced position indeed, which is basically reflective of the Ashar'i position (if a Jew/Christian hasn't been exposed to Islam, or been exposed the right way some add, then it's up to God) but no one put it the way you do, that they "submit themselves" by being "good Jews/Christians" - Christians in fact commit shirk (polytheism), which is the single biggest sin in Islam, the only one unforgivable as per the Qur'anic imperative (ironically a 2th century Christian theologian, Tertullian, says the exact same thing.)

Jews/Christians should be treated as dhimmis and pay the jizya in humiliation, as per the normative standards of traditional/classical Islam, for a reason.

On the verse 2:62 you quoted there's an interesting comment by Al Qushayri (an authority for Al Ghazali) tho, but it's not mainstream (issue of abrogation, etc) :

Surely those who believe and those of the Jews and the Christians and the Sabaeans whoever believes in God and the Last Day and performs righteous deeds-their wage is with their Lord and no fear shall befall them neither shall they grieve.

The diversity of [religious] paths in spite of the unity of the source does not prevent a goodly acceptance [for all]. For anyone who affirms the Real سبحانه in His signs and believes in what He has said concerning His truth and attributes the dissimilarity of [religious] laws and diversity that occurs in [the] name [of religion] is not a problem in terms of who merits [God's] good pleasure. Because of that He said “Surely those who believe and those of the Jews.” Then He said “whoever believes” meaning if they fear [God] in [their] different ways of knowing [Him] all of them will have a beautiful place of return and an ample reward. The believer muÌmin is anyone in the protection amān of the Real سبحانه. For anyone who is in His protection it is fitting that no fear shall befall them neither shall they grieve.

 

[Napa]

If two lines meet at any point then they arent parallel in the strict sense. They just appear to be parallel in a given time and space.

We are offered the Parable of the Three-in-One Oil.

"Son sacrificed himself on the cross while his father (who is the son himself???) watched without doing anything". If you are going down this path of questioning, then the first question to be answered is "if humans are created by God, and God is all powerful, then why do you have the evil humans?"

 

[hussain.r97]

Islamic soteriology (the study of salvation) is indeed complex, Imam al Ghazali (r) has a very nuanced position indeed, which is basically reflective of the Ashar'i position (if a Jew/Christian hasn't been exposed to Islam, or been exposed the right way some add, then it's up to God) but no one put it the way you do, that they "submit themselves" by being "good Jews/Christians" - Christians in fact commit shirk (polytheism), which is the single biggest sin in Islam, the only one unforgivable as per the Qur'anic imperative (ironically a 2th century Christian theologian, Tertullian, says the exact same thing.)

Perhaps maybe this is why we differ, but I am Shia, and as far as I know, the Shia point of view is that if the message of Islam has not properly reached a Christian or Jew, then their devotion to God's old commandments in the Torah and Injil are accepted as "submission to God's commandments". This point of view has been backed up by countless Shia scholars, and they have derived these theories from the Quran as well as hadith coming from the Prophet through the twelve Imams.

Regarding Christians, I said "many Christians" not "all Christians" submit to God. Christians are a huge group of people with ranging beliefs, and it's not fair to lump them all together. You will find that a huge amount of Christians living in the East, mainly those belonging to the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthox churches, do not take Jesus as God, nor do they take him as his literal son. They definitely do not believe in the concept of the original sin and salvation through Jesus's sacrifice, they have a more similar concept of salvation to Muslims then they do to the Catholic or Protestant churches.

Jews/Christians should be treated as dhimmis and pay the jizya in humiliation, as per the normative standards of traditional/classical Islam, for a reason.

Could you explain since when is the purpose of jizya to "humiliate"? As far as I know, jizya was a tax on dhimmis because they did not pay zakat as they were not obliged to pay a religious tax.

 

[enkidu_]

Perhaps maybe this is why we differ, but I am Shia, and as far as I know, the Shia point of view is that if the message of Islam has not properly reached a Christian or Jew, then their devotion to God's old commandments in the Torah and Injil are accepted as "submission to God's commandments". This point of view has been backed up by countless Shia scholars, and they have derived these theories from the Quran as well as hadith coming from the Prophet through the twelve Imams.

Can you enlighten me on what "najis" stands for in Shi'a-Jafari jurisprudence ? And which demographics are concerned by this term ?

Regarding Christians, I said "many Christians" not "all Christians" submit to God. Christians are a huge group of people with ranging beliefs, and it's not fair to lump them all together. You will find that a huge amount of Christians living in the East, mainly those belonging to the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthox churches, do not take Jesus as God, nor do they take him as his literal son. They definitely do not believe in the concept of the original sin and salvation through Jesus's sacrifice, they have a more similar concept of salvation to Muslims then they do to the Catholic or Protestant churches.

I've studied Christian theology in details, incl. the Orthodoxy and its greatest exponents, from the classical times (Cappadocian fathers, ...) to the medieval ones (St Gregory of Palamas, ...) and to the last century (Bulgakov, Florensky, ...), and it's all a big mess because God humiliate them with their own superstitions, coming up with watered down metaphysics in order to justify their theological black hole (Trinity), and basically every Christian subscribes to the Trinity, which makes all of them(minus the <1% Unitarians) mushrikun.

I don't even get your point about "Non-Chalcedonianist Oriental Orthodox churches" because the Chalcedonian council of 451 wasn't about the nature of God but of Jesus - the Trinity was already been made mainstream, and what you got were theologian debates about how Jesus situates his humanity with regards to his supposed divinity (Orthodoxy vs Monophysitism/Miaphysitism vs Nestorianism.) The famous historian of Christianity Philip Jenkins has a whole book on the issue, "Jesus' wars", showing how these debates on the nature of Jesus (and not God, who was thus trinitarian) led to violence on scale never seen before, saying that they outdo the crusades in atrocities.

Could you explain since when is the purpose of jizya to "humiliate"? As far as I know, jizya was a tax on dhimmis because they did not pay zakat as they were not obliged to pay a religious tax.

Read sura 9, they should pay jizya while being "saghirun", which in Arabic means "made little, humiliated, ridiculed, etc".

It shows that they accept the societal dominance of Islam, as well symbolically repay their spiritual misdeed through material over-compensation (tribute).

In medieval Islam the local Christian authority was slapped publicly in front of his believers when he was distributing his jyzia to the Islamic authorities.

 

[hussain.r97]

Can you enlighten me on what "najis" stands for in Shi'a-Jafari jurisprudence ? And which demographics are concerned by this term ?

Depends on the maraja's ruling, but most of them universally accept that all Ahl-e-kitab are "taahir". Many will even include Zoroastrians in Ahl-e-kitab. "Najis" is only used for demographics that are non-Muslim and non-Ahl-e-kitab.

I've studied Christian theology in details, incl. the Orthodoxy and its greatest exponents, from the classical times (Cappadocian fathers, ...) to the medieval ones (St Gregory of Palamas, ...) and to the last century (Bulgakov, Florensky, ...), and it's all a big mess because God humiliate them with their own superstitions, coming up with watered down metaphysics in order to justify their theological black hole (Trinity), and basically every Christian subscribes to the Trinity, which makes all of them(minus the <1% Unitarians) mushrikun.

I don't even get your point about "Non-Chalcedonianist Oriental Orthodox churches" because the Chalcedonian council of 451 wasn't about the nature of God but of Jesus - the Trinity was already been made mainstream, and what you got were theologian debates about how Jesus situates his humanity with regards to his supposed divinity (Orthodoxy vs Monophysitism/Miaphysitism vs Nestorianism.) The famous historian of Christianity Philip Jenkins has a whole book on the issue, "Jesus' wars", showing how these debates on the nature of Jesus (and not God, who was thus trinitarian) led to violence on scale never seen before, saying that they outdo the crusades in atrocities.

Probably didn't make my point clearly enough, but what I am saying is that you will find a huge amount of Christians, especially those who are part of the Oriental Orthodox churches, not believing in the trinity, nor really giving a huge deal of importance to what their church says. Most of them see their churches as corrupt and greedy, and have started to logically reject many theological stances taken by their churches. When I said "many Christians submit" in my original post, I was specifically talking about those who now reject the trinity.

Read sura 9, they should pay jizya while being "saghirun", which in Arabic means "made little, humiliated, ridiculed, etc".

It shows that they accept the societal dominance of Islam, as well symbolically repay their spiritual misdeed through material over-compensation (tribute).

In medieval Islam the local Christian authority was slapped publicly in front of his believers when he was distributing his jyzia to the Islamic authorities.

That is just one point of view. The Shia point of view is that "subduing" them refers to making them accept living under an Islamically run state, without them keeping sovereignty over the land. After they accept this, jizya is imposed on them as a protection and also a kind of "compensation", since the rate of jizya is meant to be less than that of zakat because non-Muslims are not obliged to pay for Islamic things, nor are they bound to fight for the state. Humiliating them goes against many other verses in the Quran which direct Muslims to make peace with them and deal with them with the best manners.

What do you mean by medieval Islam?

 

[Madplayer]

"Son sacrificed himself on the cross while his father (who is the son himself???) watched without doing anything". If you are going down this path of questioning, then the first question to be answered is "if humans are created by God, and God is all powerful, then why do you have the evil humans?"

Because humans are given free will by God.

 

[enkidu_]

Depends on the maraja's ruling, but most of them universally accept that all Ahl-e-kitab are "taahir". Many will even include Zoroastrians in Ahl-e-kitab. "Najis" is only used for demographics that are non-Muslim and non-Ahl-e-kitab.

In fact the majority of the maraja consider Christians as impure as dogs or urine, and some even go as far as saying the same of Sunnis (because they "reject" the "Imams").

Some scholars say that's it's a Zoroastrian influence, itself which considered anything outside its perimeter to be impure.

I'd like to know from a credible Shi'a authority that Christians believing in the Trinity (99% of them) will somehow get into Paradise.

Probably didn't make my point clearly enough, but what I am saying is that you will find a huge amount of Christians, especially those who are part of the Oriental Orthodox churches, not believing in the trinity, nor really giving a huge deal of importance to what their church says. Most of them see their churches as corrupt and greedy, and have started to logically reject many theological stances taken by their churches. When I said "many Christians submit" in my original post, I was specifically talking about those who now reject the trinity.

Well, I did get your point, and I think you're wrong : you mentioned "non-Chalcedonianist Oriental Orthodox churches" as if they differed on the Trinity (nature of God), while they only differed on the nature of Jesus (debates on how the human and divine substance co-exist into one personality). 99% of Christians, minus few intellectual Unitarians (the likes of Newton, etc), accept the Trinity, which hasn't really been debated by Christian scholars since the council of Nicea (325), and when rare ones like Michael Servetus did, he was burned alive on public place thanks to Calvin's lobbying and accused of being a "secret Moor".

That is just one point of view. The Shia point of view is that "subduing" them refers to making them accept living under an Islamically run state, without them keeping sovereignty over the land. After they accept this, jizya is imposed on them as a protection and also a kind of "compensation", since the rate of jizya is meant to be less than that of zakat because non-Muslims are not obliged to pay for Islamic things, nor are they bound to fight for the state. Humiliating them goes against many other verses in the Quran which direct Muslims to make peace with them and deal with them with the best manners.

What do you mean by medieval Islam?

Can you quote classical Shi'a authorities on the subject ?

Medieval Islam = classical Islam (in the sense that the most respected scholars/authorities are from this period which roughly corresponds to the European Middle Ages.)

Mawdudi on 9:29

This is the aim of Jihad with the Jews and the Christians and it is not to force them to become Muslims and adopt the Islamic way of life. They should be forced to pay jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the right way, while they should become their subjects and pay jizyah. Jizyah is paid by those non-Muslims who live as zimmis (proteges) in an Islamic state, in exchange for the security and protection granted to them by it. This is also symbolical of the fact that they themselves agree to live in it as its subjects. This is the significance of “they pay the tribute out of (their) hand,” that is, “with full consent so that they willingly become the subjects of the believers, who perform the duty of the vicegerents of Allah on the earth.”

At first this command applied only to the Jews and the Christians. Then the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself extended it to the Zoroastrians also. After his death, his companions unanimously applied this rule to all the non Muslim nations outside Arabia.

This is jizyah of which the Muslims have been feeling apologetic during the last two centuries of their degeneration and there are still some people who continue to apologize for it. But the way of Allah is straight and clear and does not stand in need of any apology to the rebels against Allah. Instead of offering apologies on behalf of Islam for the measure that guarantees security of life, property and faith to those who choose to live under its protection, the Muslims should feel proud of such a humane law as that of jizyah. For it is obvious that the maximum freedom that can be allowed to those who do not adopt the Way of Allah but choose to tread the ways of error is that they should be tolerated to lead the life they like. That is why the Islamic state offers them protection, if they agree to live as its zimmis by paying jizyah, but it cannot allow that they should remain supreme rulers in any place and establish wrong ways and impose them on others. As this state of things inevitably produces chaos and disorder, it is the duty of the true Muslims to exert their utmost to bring to an end their wicked rule and bring them under a righteous order.

As regards the question, “What do the non-Muslims get in return for jizyah”, it may suffice to say that it is the price of the freedom which the Islamic state allows them in following their erroneous ways, while living in the jurisdiction of Islam and enjoying its protection. The money thus collected is spent in maintaining the righteous administration that gives them the freedom and protects their rights. This also serves as a yearly reminder to them that they have been deprived of the honor of paying Zakat in the Way of Allah, and forced to pay jizyah instead as a price of following the ways of error.

 

[hussain.r97]

In fact the majority of the maraja consider Christians as impure as dogs or urine, and some even go as far as saying the same of Sunnis (because they "reject" the "Imams").

Some scholars say that's it's a Zoroastrian influence, itself which considered anything outside its perimeter to be impure.

I'd like to know from a credible Shi'a authority that Christians believing in the Trinity (99% of them) will somehow get into Paradise.

Realized that this discussion is pretty much pointless when you said this. I think that I being Shia would know what my faith says, I don't need someone else to tell me.

Please bring me your evidence that the majority of maraja consider Christians to be "impure", and please bring evidence of the same thing being said of Sunnis. The most I have seen a Shia maraja say about the "impurity of people of the book" is that it is a "recommended precaution" to consider them "najis", and even that is very much a small minority view.

I never said any Shia authority said that Christians believing in heaven will get to paradise (nor am I claiming they will go to hell, that is for God to decide). I think you are totally wrong about Christians, and you need to differentiate between what people believe and what scholars set as doctrine. I think you will find that a huge amount of Christians do not believe in the trinity, even if their church/sect instructs them to do so.

 

[hussain.r97]

Realized that this discussion is pretty much pointless when you said this. I think that I being Shia would know what my faith says, I don't need someone else to tell me.

Please bring me your evidence that the majority of maraja consider Christians to be "impure", and please bring evidence of the same thing being said of Sunnis. The most I have seen a Shia maraja say about the "impurity of people of the book" is that it is a "recommended precaution" to consider them "najis", and even that is very much a small minority view.

I never said any Shia authority said that Christians believing in the trinity will get to paradise (nor am I claiming they will go to hell, that is for God to decide). I think you are totally wrong about Christians, and you need to differentiate between what people believe and what scholars set as doctrine. I think you will find that a huge amount of Christians do not believe in the trinity, even if their church/sect instructs them to do so.

Correction

 

[barah_admi]

To my understanding, there is a scholarly view among a section of scholars that many (not all) Christians and Jews do to submit to God, and it is accepted as "submission" because they are genuinely trying to fulfil God's commandments, but are unaware or ignorant that God has sent new commandments through Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the Quran. However, if they are aware of Islam as the truth, but they still turn away from it, then they are not submitting to God.

Either way, not submitting to God's Quranic commandments definitely does not mean that they will go to hell.

You are confusing some points. There was a time when some Jews and Christians submitted to God's will, i.e. followed their holy books. However, since the advent of the Quran, all of that is made obsolete and in the last thousand years, the almost exclusive overtake of Christianity through the trinity makes it even less so.

It is stated quite plainly in the Quran that only Islam will now be accepted. That's all that matters.

 

[barah_admi]

Realized that this discussion is pretty much pointless when you said this. I think that I being Shia would know what my faith says, I don't need someone else to tell me.

Please bring me your evidence that the majority of maraja consider Christians to be "impure", and please bring evidence of the same thing being said of Sunnis. The most I have seen a Shia maraja say about the "impurity of people of the book" is that it is a "recommended precaution" to consider them "najis", and even that is very much a small minority view.

I never said any Shia authority said that Christians believing in heaven will get to paradise (nor am I claiming they will go to hell, that is for God to decide). I think you are totally wrong about Christians, and you need to differentiate between what people believe and what scholars set as doctrine. I think you will find that a huge amount of Christians do not believe in the trinity, even if their church/sect instructs them to do so.

Can you tell me which Christians do not believe in the trinity? AND how many of them even practice their faith?

 

[enkidu_]

Realized that this discussion is pretty much pointless when you said this. I think that I being Shia would know what my faith says, I don't need someone else to tell me.

Please bring me your evidence that the majority of maraja consider Christians to be "impure", and please bring evidence of the same thing being said of Sunnis. The most I have seen a Shia maraja say about the "impurity of people of the book" is that it is a "recommended precaution" to consider them "najis", and even that is very much a small minority view.

I never said any Shia authority said that Christians believing in heaven will get to paradise (nor am I claiming they will go to hell, that is for God to decide). I think you are totally wrong about Christians, and you need to differentiate between what people believe and what scholars set as doctrine. I think you will find that a huge amount of Christians do not believe in the trinity, even if their church/sect instructs them to do so.

Ofc it's not a discussion about Shi'a, but the point is that no credible Shi'a scholar portrays the soteriology of Christians as casually as you do.

You're just recycling postmodernist relativism.

That's from Ayatollah Abu'l Qasim al Khoi, many consider him the leading cleric in the Shi'a world in modern times :

107. An infidel i.e. a person who denies Allah or the Day of judgement, or associates anyone else with Allah, is impure. Similarly Ghulat (i.e. those who believe one of the holy twelve Imams to be God or say that God has penetrated into him) and khawarij and Nawasib (i.e. those who are enemies of the holy Imams) are also impure. And similar is the case with one who denies Prophethood or one of the necessities of religion i,e. a thing like prayers, and fasting, which are considered by the Muslims to be a part of the religion of Islam when he knows at thing is a necessity of religion. As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of the last of the Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him and his progeny), they, too, are impure according to well-known narrations and this remark is as a precautionary measure. Hence, it is necessary to avoid them also.

108. The entire body of an infidel and even his hair and nails and all liquid substances of his body are impure.

109. If the mother, father, paternal grandmother and paternal grandfather of a minor child are all infidels that child is also impure, except that he should be conscious of professing Islam. In case, however, even one person out of his parents or grandparents is a Muslim the child is pure.

110. A person about whom it is not known whether he is a Muslim or not is pure. However, he does not enjoy other orders applicable to the Muslims, for example he cannot marry a Muslim woman and should not be buried in the graveyard of the Muslims.

111. Any person, who abuses any of the twelve holy Imams on account of enmity, is impure.

https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-laws-ayatullah-abul-qasim-al-khui/impure-things-najasat#infidel

When Musa Sadr, one of the leading modern Shi'a figures, ate an ice cream offered by some Christian in Lebanon, the local Shi'as were outraged.

Keep in mind we talk of 20-21th century figures, but you could find more pristine positions from the classical scholars, because the modern ones have a tendency to choose the most consensual positions, for practical reasons (Arab nationalism looking for trans-religious unity, etc).

Also 99% of Christians believe in the Trinity BY DEFAULT, even if they don't "tell" or "show" it, like Muslims believe in tawhid but all don't understand its profound subtleties like the scholars or awliya.

 

[hussain.r97]

Can you tell me which Christians do not believe in the trinity? AND how many of them even practice their faith?

Once again, you are all failing to understand the point. I am not talking about a specific denomination, I am talking about the personal beliefs of many people who have found the trinity to be illogical, and have hence started to believe in one supreme God while continuing to practice their faith. I am not talking of entire churches or sects, I reiterate, I am talking about the personal beliefs of quite a large number of people.

 

[hussain.r97]

Ofc it's not a discussion about Shi'a, but the point is that no credible Shi'a scholar portrays the soteriology of Christians as casually as you do.

You're just recycling postmodernist relativism.

That's from Ayatollah Abu'l Qasim al Khoi, many consider him the leading cleric in the Shi'a world in modern times :



https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-laws-ayatullah-abul-qasim-al-khui/impure-things-najasat#infidel

When Musa Sadr, one of the leading modern Shi'a figures, ate an ice cream offered by some Christian in Lebanon, the local Shi'as were outraged.

You are bringing very extreme examples. And no, Ayatollah Khoi is not the leading cleric in the Shia world, that would be Ayatollah Sistani. This is what he has to say (his point of view is generally the same as the majority of other marajas too).

36. A well known religious law says: "Everything is ritually pure for you unless you come to know that it is ritually impure." This law declares everything to be pure unless one becomes sure a particular item has become impure. And as long as you are not sure that it has become ritually impure (najis), it is to be considered pure and you can apply all the rules of purity to it without any hesitation or doubt.

37. The Ahlul Kitab (that is, the Jews, the Christians and the Zoroastrians) are ritually pure (tahir) as long as you do not know that they have become ritually impure (najis) by coming into contact with an impure object. You can follow this ruling when dealing with them.

38. The impurity transfers from one item to another through flowing wetness [that is, there is so much wetness in the impure item that it permeates to another item and makes it impure]. The impurity is neither transferred when it is dry, nor is transferred by non-flowing wetness. So, if you place your hand on a dry najis item, your hand will not become impure.

39. You can assume the ritual purity (taharat) of any person that you meet and shake hands with (even if that person's hand is wet) as long as you do not know his faith and religion - in such cases you can assume that he might be a Muslim or one of the Ahlul Kitab. Moreover, it is not obligatory for you to ask him in order to ascertain his religion; that is, even if doing so does not put you or him in any inconvenience. (See the question-answer section below).

40. Any water drops or other liquids that fall upon your body or dress are to be considered pure as long as you do not know that they are najis.

41. All kinds of alcohol (whether extracted from wood or other sources) is pure, not najis. So, the medicines, the perfumes, and the food containing alcohol are pure and can be used. It is also permissible to eat such food if the amount of alcohol is very minute.

42. No matter who was the previous user, the everyday commodities and utensils can be used without the need for purifying them as long as you do not know that they had become najis previously. (See the question-answer section below.)

 

[enkidu_]

You are bringing very extreme examples. And no, Ayatollah Khoi is not the leading cleric in the Shia world, that would be Ayatollah Sistani. This is what he has to say (his point of view is generally the same as the majority of other marajas too).

Ayatollah Al Khoei was the shaykh of Ayatollah Sistani (and many others), who's the one to compromise here. An "extreme example" would be Ayatollah Shirazi who considers Sunnis to be najis. AFAIK Khomeini too considered Ahl ul Kitab as najis (impure), and it's simply the majority position.

But that's nearly a tangential point, even if we admit they're tahir, you still have to now substantiate on how classical or in fact even modern mainstream Shi'a scholars somehow accept mainstream Christians to go to Heaven, or even accept an agnostic position ("only God knows".)

 

[DeadBall]

It's all from the same source. Christianity just took from Judaism and added a few things/changes to make it more feasible for their populace and Islam further copied from them both and added some things/changes to suit their people and culture at the time.

 

[Adijazz1706]

"Son sacrificed himself on the cross while his father (who is the son himself???) watched without doing anything". If you are going down this path of questioning, then the first question to be answered is "if humans are created by God, and God is all powerful, then why do you have the evil humans?"

Can't see any correlation between God being all powerful and some humans being evil. Evil human deeds do not diminish God's power

 

[Madplayer]

It's all from the same source. Christianity just took from Judaism and added a few things/changes to make it more feasible for their populace and Islam further copied from them both and added some things/changes to suit their people and culture at the time.

I think its an uninformed opinion. There is little probability that the warring Arab pagans would have learnt such indepth (i emphasise on this word greatly) details about Abrahamic faiths at that time. Secondly, Islam corrected (sometimes even scientifically) a lot of previously held notions rather than simply copying them as they were. Its convenient to say that everybody copied from the previous religions without looking at the circumstances prevailing at the time.

 

[imrankhannsu]

Did Pakistan ever have a Jewish community?

 

[Napa]

Islam corrected (sometimes even scientifically) a lot of previously held notions

When you say scientifically, do you mean by following the scientific process of knowledge discover? Observation, hypothesis and experiments to validate? Can you give some examples?

Also, the idea of the struggle between good and evil, and of a monotheistic God first arose with Zarathustra, and Judaism is supposed to have been inspired by the religion he founded.

 

[Manager101]

Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in one God and they will be rewarded depending on their deeds and are not among the oppressors.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It is indeed very similar. Many of the practices are the same and the style of worship is the same.

In contrast mainstream western Christianity seems to have gone off at a real tangent from its Judaic routes. I find it difficult to believe that any of the earlier Christians would have practiced their religion in this way.

Eastern Orthodox Christian beliefs seem more in line with Islamic/Judaism customs.

 

[Yossarian]

The Christian concept of trinity isnt as straight forward. It comprises of : Father, son and the Holy Spirit.
Are father and son the same person (God)? So Father is his own Son and son is his own father? Son sacrificed himself on the cross while his father (who is the son himself???) watched without doing anything. If Son was god, did god die on the cross? Why does the son keep saying in the bible that "my father is greater than me"?
Bring physics into it or whatever you want, the conversations and series of events which took place are hard to reconcile with monotheism unless you concede that Jesus was not God.

Hey, anything is possible, as is already being shown by science. eg When a woman, via IVF and her own daughters egg, gives birth to a child, then from one perspective she's the mother of the child, whilst from a different perspective, she's the grandmother of the child. Complicate that even further, say if the sperm donor for the IVF is her own son, then the relationships become even more mind boggling.

Similarly, if in future a human being is cloned (as is already the case with some animals), is the original and it's clone the 'same' person, or two different people? And taking that further, if in the future, via cloning, both the donor cell and egg cell are taken from the same female, fused together, and the resulting embryo placed back into the same female, who then gives birth, is she giving birth to her own clone, ie giving birth to a copy of herself?

With modern and future science, all the existing concepts go out of the window.

 

[Nostalgic]

Did Pakistan ever have a Jewish community?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Pakistan

There are still a few hundred in Pakistan, and some sources say there are probably many more who choose to pass for Christian or Parsi. They were obviously more numerous in years past. There was an article a few years back about Jewish graves in Christian graveyards, and another about an elderly Jewish lady in Karachi fighting to keep the last synagogue from being demolished by land grabbers intent on turning it into a shopping mall.

 

[imrankhannsu]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Pakistan

There are still a few hundred in Pakistan, and some sources say there are probably many more who choose to pass for Christian or Parsi. They were obviously more numerous in years past. There was an article a few years back about Jewish graves in Christian graveyards, and another about an elderly Jewish lady in Karachi fighting to keep the last synagogue from being demolished by land grabbers intent on turning it into a shopping mall.

Thank you for that insight. It must be really tough for that elderly Jewish lady

 

[DeadlyVenom]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Pakistan

There are still a few hundred in Pakistan, and some sources say there are probably many more who choose to pass for Christian or Parsi. They were obviously more numerous in years past. There was an article a few years back about Jewish graves in Christian graveyards, and another about an elderly Jewish lady in Karachi fighting to keep the last synagogue from being demolished by land grabbers intent on turning it into a shopping mall.

You forget about the many yehudi agents that are supposedly in various political parties.

 

[Nostalgic]

You forget about the many yehudi agents that are supposedly in various political parties.

Going by those allegations, our Jewish population probably exceeds Israel's.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

It's all from the same source. Christianity just took from Judaism and added a few things/changes to make it more feasible for their populace and Islam further copied from them both and added some things/changes to suit their people and culture at the time.

Basically this from whatever i've read.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

You are confusing some points. There was a time when some Jews and Christians submitted to God's will, i.e. followed their holy books. However, since the advent of the Quran, all of that is made obsolete and in the last thousand years, the almost exclusive overtake of Christianity through the trinity makes it even less so.

It is stated quite plainly in the Quran that only Islam will now be accepted. That's all that matters.

The problem I have with such blanket statements is that, IF YOU as a human HAVE ALREADY DECIDED WHO IS GOING TO HEAVEN AND HELL then why the Hell does God exist?

Just to vindicate your sense of superiority and know-it-all attitude?

And if the decision is left up to you, then are you claiming yourself to be omnipotent instead of Allah?

Would like to know your input on the matter.

 

[Musakhel]

The problem I have with such blanket statements is that, IF YOU as a human HAVE ALREADY DECIDED WHO IS GOING TO HEAVEN AND HELL then why the Hell does God exist?

Just to vindicate your sense of superiority and know-it-all attitude?

And if the decision is left up to you, then are you claiming yourself to be omnipotent instead of Allah?

Would like to know your input on the matter.

Why The need for Allah to send Nabi Muhammad (SAW) if other paths can lead to salvation?.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Why The need for Allah to send Nabi Muhammad (SAW) if other paths can lead to salvation?.

I am not questioning the path or the necessity of Prophets.

I have no issue with people believing Islam is the true religion, as its my personal belief as well.

There is a difference between following a true religion and condemning those who don't follow the religion you believe in to go to Hell.

I must say that is for Allah to decide, not his creation.

Can you say with a straight face that your neighbor who is a non-Muslim is going to end up in hellfire because you said so?

Go on.

I dare you to make such a bold statement because you are all knowing.

 

[Musakhel]

I am not questioning the path or the necessity of Prophets.

I have no issue with people believing Islam is the true religion, as its my personal belief as well.

There is a difference between following a true religion and condemning those who don't follow the religion you believe in to go to Hell.

I must say that is for Allah to decide, not his creation.

Can you say with a straight face that your neighbor who is a non-Muslim is going to end up in hellfire because you said so?

Go on.

I dare you to make such a bold statement because you are all knowing.

Anyone who dies on disbelief if the message Of Islam reached them will be in hell.

 

[hussain.r97]

Why The need for Allah to send Nabi Muhammad (SAW) if other paths can lead to salvation?.

Anyone who dies on disbelief if the message Of Islam reached them will be in hell.

Who are we to judge or decide who will go to hell? Only Allah can judge.

As far as I know, the Quran has verses saying anyone who believes in the one true God, and has good deeds, has a path to heaven. To me, it is against God's "trait" of justice to condemning every single non-Muslim to hell. However, it is possible that the interpretation you or I believe/have recieved is incorrect, so we should refrain from making judgements, and instead focus on ourselves. We are not answerable to God for the deeds of other people, we are only answerable to our own deeds.

 

[Musakhel]

Who are we to judge or decide who will go to hell? Only Allah can judge.

As far as I know, the Quran has verses saying anyone who believes in the one true God, and has good deeds, has a path to heaven. To me, it is against God's "trait" of justice to condemning every single non-Muslim to hell. However, it is possible that the interpretation you or I believe/have recieved is incorrect, so we should refrain from making judgements, and instead focus on ourselves. We are not answerable to God for the deeds of other people, we are only answerable to our own deeds.

Can you post these verses please?

 

[hussain.r97]

Can you post these verses please?

Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians—whoever ˹truly˺ believes in God and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.[Quran 2:62]

Can you show me where it says anyone non-Muslim will be condemned to hell?

 

[Musakhel]

Can you show me where it says anyone non-Muslim will be condemned to hell?

“Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur’aan and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikoon will abide in the fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures”

[al-Bayyinah 98:6]

Verse 2:62 is regarding the people before the advent of Islam.

 

[hussain.r97]

Al Bayyinah 98:1-8 Those who disbelieve among the People of the Book and the idolaters will not desist until the clear proof comes unto them, a messenger from God reciting scriptures purified, wherein are books upright. Those who were given the Book did not become divided until after the clear proof had come unto them. They were not commanded but to worship God, devoting religion entirely to Him, as ḥanīfs, and to perform the prayer, and to give the alms—that is the upright religion. Truly the disbelievers among the People of the Book and the idolaters are in the Fire of Hell, abiding therein; it is they who are the worst of creation. Truly those who believe and perform righteous deeds, it is they who are the best of creation. Their reward is with their Lord—Gardens of Eden with rivers running below, abiding therein forever, God content with them and they content with Him. That is for whosoever fears his Lord.

First of all, the translation you have quoted has added words in the brackets, those aren't actually a part of the Quranic text. Above is the full text. This surah has been interpreted in many ways, and is widely considered as one of the one difficult to interpret.

One of these interpretations is that "those who beleive among the People of the Book" refers to those Christians and Jews who have abandoned and changed their own teachings. This interpreatation makes the most sense to me, as it matches with the concept of an all encompassing and truly just God.

So once again, both of us believe in separate interpretations, both of us could be wrong. Better not to condemn people to hell, let God judge.

 

[James]

Anyone who dies on disbelief if the message Of Islam reached them will be in hell.

Can’t wait for my trip.

 

[Pakistanian]

Can’t wait for my trip.

Hell will be forever. You still got time to change your mind.

 

[James]

Hell will be forever. You still got time to change your mind.

The beliefs choose the person, not the other way around.

 

[DeadBall]

Hell will be forever. You still got time to change your mind.

Nothing is forever. Apart from Hafeez making his way back into the side.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Anyone who dies on disbelief if the message Of Islam reached them will be in hell.

Just wow.

So you have decided to play God now?

What else can that crystal ball of yours tell?

Will I end up in Hell ?

By the way you do know that it is a major sin to try to become God ? Right? Just making sure you know the core concept of your religion before your condemnation of others to Hell.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Anyone who dies on disbelief if the message Of Islam reached them will be in hell.

Also I have a genuine question for you.

If it is indeed your decision as you so aptly put, that Christians will go to Hell, then how is it allowed for a Muslim man to actually marry a Christian woman?

You mean to say that Muslim man can have sexual relations , family and children with someone who will end up in Hell ? Does that not strike you as odd?

Or do you believe that males are superior over females, so they can have sex with Christians and Jew girls, take them as their wives, because those girls will end up in Hell anyways?

Curious to know what other pearls you have and where you stand on this topic?

 

[hussain.r97]

Anyone who dies on disbelief if the message Of Islam reached them will be in hell.

Doesn't Allah condemn the Christians and Jews for saying exactly what you are saying now? That only they will go to heaven:

Al-Baqara 2:111-112 And they said, “None will enter the Garden unless he be a Jew or a Christian.” Those are their hopes. Say, “Bring your proof, if you are truthful.” Nay, whosoever submits his face to God, while being virtuous, shall have his reward with his Lord. No fear shall come upon them; nor shall they grieve.

Don't you think that it completely goes against Allah's principle of justice to condemn all non-Muslims to hell? Are you telling me that a Christian or a Jew who leads a very dignified and pious life is going to burn in hell with the worst genocidal maniacs who have ever existed?


Can you also explain what the meaning of this verse is according to your own twisted interpretations of the Quran?

Al-Maidah 5:48 And We have sent down unto thee the Book in truth, confirming the Book that came before it, and as a protector over it. So judge between them in accordance with what God has sent down, and follow not their caprices away from the truth that has come unto thee. For each among you We have appointed a law and a way. And had God willed, He would have made you one community, but [He willed otherwise], that He might try you in that which He has given you. So vie with one another in good deeds. Unto God shall be your return all together, and He will inform you of that wherein you differ.

It would also be nice if you could answer [MENTION=43242]Dr_Bassim[/MENTION]'s very relevant questions.

 

[Musakhel]

Just wow.

So you have decided to play God now?

What else can that crystal ball of yours tell?

Will I end up in Hell ?

By the way you do know that it is a major sin to try to become God ? Right? Just making sure you know the core concept of your religion before your condemnation of others to Hell.

I haven't condemned anyone to hell, just telling you the agreed upon concencus of the majority of scholars.

Condeming would mean Saying such and such indiviual is in hell, I would never do that unless specified in The Quran for example Abu Lahb.

 

[Musakhel]

Doesn't Allah condemn the Christians and Jews for saying exactly what you are saying now? That only they will go to heaven:




Don't you think that it completely goes against Allah's principle of justice to condemn all non-Muslims to hell? Are you telling me that a Christian or a Jew who leads a very dignified and pious life is going to burn in hell with the worst genocidal maniacs who have ever existed?


Can you also explain what the meaning of this verse is according to your own twisted interpretations of the Quran?




It would also be nice if you could answer [MENTION=43242]Dr_Bassim[/MENTION]'s very relevant questions.

Only those Allah chooses to have mercy on Will Go to Heaven regardless if he is muslim or not, but As Allah tells us only Islam is the path acceptable To Him, therefore only through the path of Islam can one have hope of Heaven.

Leading a pious life if it is not for the sake of Allah is worthless, the christians should ask for their reward from Jesus( pbuh) and the jews from whoever they worship.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Also I have a genuine question for you.

If it is indeed your decision as you so aptly put, that Christians will go to Hell, then how is it allowed for a Muslim man to actually marry a Christian woman?

You mean to say that Muslim man can have sexual relations , family and children with someone who will end up in Hell ? Does that not strike you as odd?

Or do you believe that males are superior over females, so they can have sex with Christians and Jew girls, take them as their wives, because those girls will end up in Hell anyways?

Curious to know what other pearls you have and where you stand on this topic?

I haven't condemned anyone to hell, just telling you the agreed upon concencus of the majority of scholars.

Condeming would mean Saying such and such indiviual is in hell, I would never do that unless specified in The Quran for example Abu Lahb.

Care to answer the above post??

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Only those Allah chooses to have mercy on Will Go to Heaven regardless if he is muslim or not, but As Allah tells us only Islam is the path acceptable To Him, therefore only through the path of Islam can one have hope of Heaven.

Leading a pious life if it is not for the sake of Allah is worthless, the christians should ask for their reward from Jesus( pbuh) and the jews from whoever they worship.

You haven't studied enough religion then if you believe that Christians worship Jesus and Jews worship someone else other than Allah.

 

[barah_admi]

The problem I have with such blanket statements is that, IF YOU as a human HAVE ALREADY DECIDED WHO IS GOING TO HEAVEN AND HELL then why the Hell does God exist?

Just to vindicate your sense of superiority and know-it-all attitude?

And if the decision is left up to you, then are you claiming yourself to be omnipotent instead of Allah?

Would like to know your input on the matter.

Can you show me where I said WHAT I THINK?

I sourced the Quran; if you have a problem with the Quran, take it up with God when you see him.