• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should Muslims be concerned with what is written in Gospel and Torah?

firedragon

Veteran Member
Okay, this is from Wikipedia.

The military career of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, lasted for the final ten years of his life,
from 622 to 632. After he and his small fellowship were pushed out of the holy trading town of
Mecca, controlled by the powerful Quraish tribe, he started intercepting Meccan caravans. After
his first victory in a pitched battle at Badr in 623, his power grew increasingly and he began to
subjugate other tribes through either diplomacy or conquest. In 630 he finally accomplished his
long-term goal of conquering Mecca and the Kaaba. By his death in 632, Muhammad had managed
to unite most of the Arabian Peninsula, laying the foundation for the subsequent Islamic expansion.

Note the words in t his brief paragraph:
military
intercepting
victory
pitched battle
power grew
subjugate
conquest
conquering
expansion

Mohammed was a man of the world, and a violent man at that. I love what Jesus said, "My kingdom is
not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight..."

Okay. So why do you trust this Wikipedia source. Do you have complete trust enough to be so sure of your statements or do you take a different position?
 
Well, I am sorry. Mohammed was a warlord.
Later his armies spread right up into Europe itself.

Like i said, What is written in history books is not always facts, I m not saying the people who came after Mohammed didn't do mistakes but Mohammed himself is innocent from what they did
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
See brother, my question is unless God spoke to you directly or cited in his scripture without any inference how could you know what God "would want" to do? Do you understand?
I understand what you are getting at, but I do not agree.
I believe I can know what God "would want" to do IF God revealed that to Baha'u'llah.
If God spoke to me directly I would not know anything because I would not understand a thing God said.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I understand what you are getting at, but I do not agree.
I believe I can know what God "would want" to do IF God revealed that to Baha'u'llah.
If God spoke to me directly I would not know anything because I would not understand a thing God said.

So you are saying God revealed to Bahaullah that he should protect the Bible?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
So you are saying God revealed to Bahaullah that he should protect the Bible?
No, He did not reveal that, but He did reveal that the Muslims should not claim the Gospel had been corrupted.

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 88
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
No, He did not reveal that, but He did reveal that the Muslims should not claim the Gospel had been corrupted.

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 88

Okay brother. I understand. Respectfully, I do not adhere to the Kitab I iqan so you have to understand my position. Hope you understand.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Okay brother. I understand. Respectfully, I do not adhere to the Kitab I iqan so you have to understand my position. Hope you understand.
Okay, I understand that you do not adhere to the Kitab I iqan so you have a different position.
But I do not know what your position is.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Okay, I understand that you do not adhere to the Kitab I iqan so you have a different position.
But I do not know what your position is.

My position is that the Bible as a whole is not mentioned in the Qur'an at all. The Bible has 66, 73, 75 or even 81 books based on your perspective. I respect their personal view, but I don't adhere to that. The Quran mentions many scriptures like Taurat, Zaboor, Injeel, Suhufi Ibrahima wa moosa, and other scripture revealed to Jacob etc etc. Thus, the Bible will definitely contain some remnants of any revelation of God but the whole of it as one book or 75 books is not mentioned in the Quran.

Thus, this is my position and I base it on the Qur'an.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
My position is that the Bible as a whole is not mentioned in the Qur'an at all. The Bible has 66, 73, 75 or even 81 books based on your perspective. I respect their personal view, but I don't adhere to that. The Quran mentions many scriptures like Taurat, Zaboor, Injeel, Suhufi Ibrahima wa moosa, and other scripture revealed to Jacob etc etc. Thus, the Bible will definitely contain some remnants of any revelation of God but the whole of it as one book or 75 books is not mentioned in the Quran.

Thus, this is my position and I base it on the Qur'an.
Okay, thanks for explaining that...
To be quite honest, I am out of the game when it comes to the Bible or the Qur'an, since I know so little about either one, especially relative to Christians and Muslims....The Baha'i Faith was my first and only religion and I was never that much into religion even after I became a Baha'i.... a rather long story that is.

But after many decades, about 7 1/2 years ago I started to regain my interest in the Baha'i Faith, came to forums and started learning a little about other religions.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Okay, thanks for explaining that...
To be quite honest, I am out of the game when it comes to the Bible or the Qur'an, since I know so little about either one, especially relative to Christians and Muslims....The Baha'i Faith was my first and only religion and I was never that much into religion even after I became a Baha'i.... a rather long story that is.

But after many decades, about 7 1/2 years ago I started to regain my interest in the Baha'i Faith, came to forums and started learning a little about other religions.

I learned about the Bahai faith purely from this forum. Credit for the most patient answers from gentlemen like Adrian and of course some others. But yet the Bahai faith is so vast, to claim minimum knowledge will take a hell of a lot of study. So I will not make proclamations about the faith that I do not really have a little bit of deeper knowledge.

And old age has made me lazy. I have some books in my hand which I haven't read. ;) Soon, hopefully.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thus, the Bible will definitely contain some remnants of any revelation of God but the whole of it as one book or 75 books is not mentioned in the Quran.

Thus, this is my position and I base it on the Qur'an.

I was interested as to that statement so I did a search on when the Bible was compiled. It appears that about 695 the orthodox version was embraced. Prior to that it was around AD300 that most of the books were commonly used as the Bible.

So by the time Muhammad gave revelation in the Early 600's, it appears most of the books were already accepted. My search of the Quran then only found passages that supported the Bible as it was at this time.

I am interested if it is only one passage, or multiple passages that would not support the fuller Bible in use at that time?

Regards Tony
 
Like taking a young wife off another man?
Marrying a minor?
Murdering opponents?

Sounds typical of the corruption of power.

I don't believe this stuff actually happened
Do you believe Muhammed had a flying horse ?
Well i don't believe that
So how i can trust a source that says that ?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I was interested as to that statement so I did a search on when the Bible was compiled. It appears that about 695 the orthodox version was embraced. Prior to that it was around AD300 that most of the books were commonly used as the Bible.

So by the time Muhammad gave revelation in the Early 600's, it appears most of the books were already accepted. My search of the Quran then only found passages that supported the Bible as it was at this time.

I am interested if it is only one passage, or multiple passages that would not support the fuller Bible in use at that time?

Regards Tony

So you guess that Muhammed only referred to the books in the Bible as it was existing during Muhammed time in the early 7th century? So you believe he is no prophet of God who received wahi from God?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So you guess that Muhammed only referred to the books in the Bible as it was existing during Muhammed time in the early 7th century? So you believe he is no prophet of God who received wahi from God?

Your question does not make sense to me.

Regards Tony
 
Top