Explain islam and how it intermixes with the bible

[Krista]

If you actually read what I wrote instead of dismissing it as a rant, you would see that it speaks directly to Poki's concern about whether Muslims, Christians, and Jews worshipped the same God. Your description of the trinity is accounted for. I am making a distinction here between reality and belief. Whatever incompatibility exists between Christianity and Islam must be found elsewhere.

I actually read it and saw that it had nothing to do with my quote. You were also all over the map and don't actually touch on anything in particular. Not to mention the fact that the topic was about Islam and the bible, not relativistic babble.

 

[Poki]

That must explain it then.

Yeah, i have laughed and been laughed at. I mean, when you have her on the side of the bed and your damn foot gets tangled in some kind of strap. Or she fights a strap and hits you because it broke. Or she straps you down and you bend the matress in half to touch her and she laughs as in WTF.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

If you actually read what I wrote instead of dismissing it as a rant, you would see that it speaks directly to Poki's concern about whether Muslims, Christians, and Jews worshipped the same God. Your description of the trinity is accounted for. I am making a distinction here between reality and belief. Whatever incompatibility exists between Christianity and Islam must be found elsewhere.

The incompatibility IS in the differences of where the emphasis is placed.

I see your point. Most religions are deist. Right? So, the respect issue comes into play. Maturely, we would all recognize the common that religions share and be respectful of others choice of emphasis.

But it's a little dissmissive to say "I don't get it. The details shouldn't be relevant." But they are. That doesn't excuse violence in "defending" religion, btw.

But it's equating different things because they fall under the same category. You could say Pagans worship Mother Earth/Nature but God created nature, so therefore Pagans are Christian...which isn't really correct.

So, details of dogma counts. How much dogma influences action is a better accountability of a religion. I think, anyway. That's all.

 

[Poki]

The incompatibility IS in the differences of where the emphasis is placed.

I see your point. Most religions are deist. Right? So, the respect issue comes into play. Maturely, we would all recognize the common that religions share and be respectful of others choice of emphasis.

But it's a little dissmissive to say "I don't get it. The details shouldn't be relevant." But they are. That doesn't excuse violence in "defending" religion, btw.

But it's equating different things because they fall under the same category. You could say Pagans worship Mother Earth/Nature but God created nature, so therefore Pagans are Christian...which isn't really correct.

So, details of dogma counts. How much dogma influences action is a better accountability of a religion. I think, anyway. That's all.

My grandma studies the bible, the same exact bible as christans. She is catholic. She does not believe in the trinity, but the rest of the bible. She must believe in a different God right?

There in lies the issue of emphasis.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

My grandma studies the bible, the same exact bible as christans. She is catholic. She does not believe in the trinity, but the rest of the bible. She must believe in a different God right?

There in lies the issue of emphasis.

Well yes and no? Even if everyone in the world believes that there worshiping the same God that's a moot point to some extent.

By the way my personal belief is that we are all worshiping the same God we just call it a different name. So I understand where you're coming from but when you really get into religious belief it's not just about a God/ an abstract concept of God. It's about particulars of that faith .

You're Catholic relative is Catholic for a reason she's not Muslim or Christian why? Because there's variances in the interpretations of what God is and what the emphasis is.
Because the differences in the dogma attached and the emphasis on what each religion focuses on are different.

 

[Mole]

Most religions are deist.

Surely most religions are theist.

Certainly the three religions of the Book, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are theist.

And those who reject theism are called atheists.

As I understand it, deists believe God does not intervene in history, while the God of the Book does intervene in history.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Surely most religions are theist.

Certainly the three religions of the Book, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are theist.

And those who reject theism are called atheists.

As I understand it, deists believe God does not intervene in history, while the God of the Book does intervene in history.

Thank you for the correction. That is what I should have stated.

 

[Coriolis]

I actually read it and saw that it had nothing to do with my quote. You were also all over the map and don't actually touch on anything in particular. Not to mention the fact that the topic was about Islam and the bible, not relativistic babble.

You seem incapable of posting without baseless pejoratives. Curious.

The incompatibility IS in the differences of where the emphasis is placed.

I see your point. Most religions are deist. Right? So, the respect issue comes into play. Maturely, we would all recognize the common that religions share and be respectful of others choice of emphasis.

But it's a little dissmissive to say "I don't get it. The details shouldn't be relevant." But they are. That doesn't excuse violence in "defending" religion, btw.

But it's equating different things because they fall under the same category. You could say Pagans worship Mother Earth/Nature but God created nature, so therefore Pagans are Christian...which isn't really correct.

So, details of dogma counts. How much dogma influences action is a better accountability of a religion. I think, anyway. That's all.

OK. It is clear that I did not make myself understood the first time. Let's step through it more carefully.

First, Poki mentioned the idea of whether Muslims, Christians, and Jews all worship the same God:

Can some please explain his thought to me. The above quote is what alot of christians use to prove that God and Allah are different.

Please explain how this works. The quran states Moses God, Noahs God, Jesus's God, abrahams God, The God that made heaven and earth, the God that created Adam, and split the nile, and went against the pharoahs, etc. Is Allah.

Yet because the believe Jesus is not God they must be different.

He also cites one argument against the claim that they worship the same God. Additional arguments were presented:

The father sent the son to deliver the holy spirit; the holy spirit is the identity and congregation of the church, and has communion with Christ to be reintegrated with the father. Christians and Muslims don't believe in the same God by virtue of not following the same teaching or spirit.

My grandma studies the bible, the same exact bible as christans. She is catholic. She does not believe in the trinity, but the rest of the bible. She must believe in a different God right?

Now consider the reality of the situation. It will align with one of the three cases below, though we cannot know which is correct, at least in this lifetime:

1. The atheists are correct and there is no god. In this case, everyone is worshipping a figment of their imagination, and our minds being what they are, no wonder our imaginings are different.

2. The atheists are wrong and deity actually exists. Since it does exist in this scenario and there is only one, anyone believing in deity is believing the same thing - sort of like everyone on earth gets energy from the same sun. They still may worship in different ways, call this deity by different names, and have quite different beliefs about the nature of deity.

3. The atheists are wrong and so are the monotheists. Several distinct and separate deities exist. This is the only case in which it is even possible for different faiths to believe in different gods. I omitted this before because all three faiths in question claim there is only one god. If there is only one, and presumably followers of faith A believe in this God, there is no other god for other faiths to believe in. Same for faiths B and C. If anyone believes in god, it must be the same one, which brings us back to (2).

So, the question of whether different faiths believe in the same god begs the question of how many, if any, gods actually exist, a question we cannot answer. This renders the first question either moot or almost tautological, and leaves us arguing instead about who/what the various faiths THINK they believe in. Unfortunately the inherent uncertainty is lost on most folks, and they dig into these arguments for dear life, to everyone's detriment. I like to think that if everyone believed that all this divine wisdom and inspiration came from the same one source, they would be much more tolerant of divergent perspectives and approaches to that source. That seems to be as unlikely as proving the existence of god itself.
Bottom line:

 

[Beorn]

You seem incapable of posting without baseless pejoratives. Curious.

Your Most High and Mighty, you started the conversation with this when Krista explained basic Christian doctrine:

Good grief. This is cherry picking to the extreme, or mental gymnastics.

Limits matter. They define what something is and is not.
It's as true for a piece of wood as it is for God himself.
I personally am quite happy that my God can do no evil, but if you don't want to limit your god to that incapability then I guess that's up to you.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

You seem incapable of posting without baseless pejoratives. Curious.

Not really. She is explaining *why* they aren't worshipping the same God, to her at least. She gave her reasonings.

Your response went out of the realm of the question about whether or not they worship the same God, to explain a differentiation OR alternatively, similarities between entire religions and what that must mean.

OK. It is clear that I did not make myself understood the first time. Let's step through it more carefully.

I think you did.

First, Poki mentioned the idea of whether Muslims, Christians, and Jews all worship the same God:


He also cites one argument against the claim that they worship the same God. Additional arguments were presented:

Yes. I'm with you.

Now consider the reality of the situation.

We all are.

It will align with one of the three cases below, though we cannot know which is correct, at least in this lifetime:

Or maybe it can't fit into all one category, but okay.

1. The atheists are correct and there is no god. In this case, everyone is worshipping a figment of their imagination, and our minds being what they are, no wonder our imaginings are different.

No one is talking about this in this thread, but I see your point.

2. The atheists are wrong and deity actually exists. Since it does exist in this scenario and there is only one, anyone believing in deity is believing the same thing - sort of like everyone on earth gets energy from the same sun. They still may worship in different ways, call this deity by different names, and have quite different beliefs about the nature of deity.

I posted this in response: "So, the respect issue comes into play. Maturely, we would all recognize the common that religions share and be respectful of others choice of emphasis."

Again, I see your point and validated it.

3. The atheists are wrong and so are the monotheists. Several distinct and separate deities exist. This is the only case in which it is even possible for different faiths to believe in different gods. I omitted this before because all three faiths in question claim there is only one god. If there is only one, and presumably followers of faith A believe in this God, there is no other god for other faiths to believe in. Same for faiths B and C. If anyone believes in god, it must be the same one, which brings us back to (2).

"Well yes and no? Even if everyone in the world believes that there worshipping the same God, that's a moot point to some extent. (You said this yourself)

By the way my personal belief is that we are all worshipping the same God we just call it a different name. This goes far in actually having tolerance for other religions but that is about it...and even then it doesn't mean not believing this won't give you a tolerant outlook...

So I understand where you're coming from BUT when you really get into religious belief it's not just about a God/ an abstract concept of God. It's about particulars of that faith.

This is sort of what (I see) that you are having trouble with coming to terms with or understanding.

To particular faiths, they have gotten past the philosophical question of "abstract God" and existance of one. Meaning: they already believe.

As such, they have gotten into the nitry gritty of interpretation (dogma) and came out with different nuances.

With that, has come violence and abhorant behavior because we are human and therefore asshats.

Because there's variances in the interpretations of what God is and what the emphasis is. (and this is a big deal)

Because the differences in the dogma attached and the emphasis on what each religion focuses on are different." (It's literally the basis for "freedom of worship")

So, the question of whether different faiths believe in the same god begs the question of how many, if any, gods actually exist, a question we cannot answer.

This renders the first question either moot or almost tautological, and leaves us arguing instead about who/what the various faiths THINK they believe in.

Yes. We are talking about believers who have already rejected atheism.

Unfortunately the inherent uncertainty is lost on most folks, and they dig into these arguments for dear life, to everyone's detriment.

It's personal and dear to people's hearts. To believers, there is not so much uncertainty. They have already been through that existential crisis...

Religious people DO question their part in it their faith, all the time. How well are they upholding their tenets? More do this than don't.

They ones who don't are extremists, tbh because there is no room for questioning.

I do think discussion shouldn't be so heated. So I'm with you here.

I like to think that if everyone believed that all this divine wisdom and inspiration came from the same one source, they would be much more tolerant of divergent perspectives and approaches to that source. That seems to be as unlikely as proving the existence of god itself.
Bottom line:

Yes. Agree...it's not an outright determination of tolerance but a little realization of commonality instead of focus on differences would help ease relations

Cherry picking, yes. Although, I know some religious people who would bristle at that terminology.

Everyone does this. Politics or religion. Are you cherry picking to self-serve? To manipulate? You could.

Having faith doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility of action. Anyone who excuses violence due to a call from their religion is self-serving and corrupt and generally has an ulterior motive.

 

[Poki]

Your Most High and Mighty, you started the conversation with this when Krista explained basic Christian doctrine:



Limits matter. They define what something is and is not.
It's as true for a piece of wood as it is for God himself.
I personally am quite happy that my God can do no evil, but if you don't want to limit your god to that incapability then I guess that's up to you.

What religion does God do evil?

 

[Zangetshumody]

To respond to the original question of this thread:
In my own research, and after interviewing learned people surrounding all the issues, I have come up with my own opinion which will likely be unacceptable to most "Muslims". I say Muslims in inverted commas, because according to my understanding, there are no real Muslims.

This is only a little bit different from my complaint that there are also extremely few real Christians in comparison to the hordes that claim the title. In Islam it is far more straight forward: there are 5 requirements to be a Muslim, and every so-called Muslim can even recite these 5 requirements, there is one requirement which every so-called Muslim overlooks, and takes it just as a given, and if you ever interview and ask questions about it, you get very poor reasoning in reply, and very poor excuses, and very feeble double-speak.

Generally 'Islamic' culture is very straight forward and honest, but no-one likes to admit that they aren't a real Muslim: so "Muslims" are very eager to forgive their poor reasoning for the Injil requirement, because the burden is out of their hands, and exists apart from their tradition. They attempt to fix this issue by pretending its already built into their tradition, they will say: the Injil is just a book, and it was corrupted by the Christians, so the Injil only exists inside the Quaran. This is an utterly and demonstrably specious rationalization: because then why would there be two separate requirements, to believe in the Injil, and the Quaran is from God.

And some might say, yes, we don't know the Injil, but we still believe in it- so they claim the requirement is being met... to me it is a very sore and telling blind spot that lets themselves continue to live with a crafted sense of integrity. There are some honest groups of Muslims who do sometimes go on religious quests: in search of the Injil, and they survey Churches to try and find it, some will even just settle on a particular translation of a Bible, read that translation and call it that (sometimes this happens because they ask a "Christian": Can you tell me how to get the Christian Gospel?
And the Christian will hand them Bible or point out a Bible they call the Gospel, and so then the so-called Muslim has found an easy way out, especially if the translation is an oversimplified perversion of the Scriptures). Some who have chosen the KJV actually read it because they are commanded to believe in it, in order to achieve the status of a real Muslim; and then they realize, because they read the whole thing, trying to piece together a clear understanding of what it tells them to do, going through it painstakingly to make sure they are matching up with everything that is commanded, through the way its being explained in the new testament (something that "Christians" very rarely get around to doing), they realize that the philosophy is very very sophisticated because its all about weighing motivations, and how those motivations relate to the appearances of reality, and not how physical reality relates to intentions: and the complexity makes it clear that the book is not enough, they need someone who can piece together the doctrine, the doctrine which the book itself says, is the true Gospel. Whats more, the word Injil doesn't mean book, it means Gospel (these things are not synonymous, the Scripture talks of the Gospel, but the written word is dead because literal words can never themselves contain the Gospel). The problem is, its very hard to take on the KJV and intellectually get a 100%, and usually when people go deep enough, they know it contains a complete understanding of very crucial spiritual dynamics, but they can't access them;- but exceptionally few so-called Muslims get anywhere even near this: they notice that most people in the Islamic world, and even some of their peers, have a lot of family who will never search and study the Injil, it is a decadent quest for a spiritual elite in some small sections of Islam, and its hard to take seriously, because of how little consideration its given in the traditional systems of Islamic belief, that has always told them its pointless to look, by some craft of reasoning that has assuredly taken over the title of Islam, a religion that measures success in its progress toward the world's conversion, and to take seriously the search for the Injil,- is to admit that the that state of World Conversion is a rather meek form of hopefulness when taking this requirement as Gospel (because of revising the number of real Muslims accordingly).

The problem can be put simply as there is no separation of mosque and State in Islam, while there is the separation of church and State in Christianity.

This has huge ramifications. It means Christianity is not totalitarian and is friendly to liberal democracy, and it means Islam is totalitarian and hostile to liberal democracy.

Unfortunately we don't want to face these facts of religion, and desire a Pollyanna view of life, so we must continue to fool ourselves that we live in a world suited to our desires.

For centuries Europe belonged to the Pope-Emperor of Christiandom, who could declare war on behalf of Christiandom, and mark royalty for their disobedience, so they would be quashed by the pious rulers who took direction from the head of the faith, and also the Pope's instructions when they were issued. This lasted till the cultural shift that was Protestantism: just after it had proven itself a survivor of the many totalitarian moves taken to smother it. "Islam" is today somewhat analogous to so-called Christianity before the motions toward the great Reformation.

 

[Poki]

To respond to the original question of this thread:
In my own research, and after interviewing learned people surrounding all the issues, I have come up with my own opinion which will likely be unacceptable to most "Muslims". I say Muslims in inverted commas, because according to my understanding, there are no real Muslims.

This is only a little bit different from my complaint that there are also extremely few real Christians in comparison to the hordes that claim the title. In Islam it is far more straight forward: there are 5 requirements to be a Muslim, and every so-called Muslim can even recite these 5 requirements, there is one requirement which every so-called Muslim overlooks, and takes it just as a given, and if you ever interview and ask questions about it, you get very poor reasoning in reply, and very poor excuses, and very feeble double-speak.

Generally 'Islamic' culture is very straight forward and honest, but no-one likes to admit that they aren't a real Muslim: so "Muslims" are very eager to forgive their poor reasoning for the Injil requirement, because the burden is out of their hands, and exists apart from their tradition. They attempt to fix this issue by pretending its already built into their tradition, they will say: the Injil is just a book, and it was corrupted by the Christians, so the Injil only exists inside the Quaran. This is an utterly and demonstrably specious rationalization: because then why would there be two separate requirements, to believe in the Injil, and the Quaran is from God.

And some might say, yes, we don't know the Injil, but we still believe in it- so they claim the requirement is being met... to me it is a very sore and telling blind spot that lets themselves continue to live with a crafted sense of integrity. There are some honest groups of Muslims who do sometimes go on religious quests: in search of the Injil, and they survey Churches to try and find it, some will even just settle on a particular translation of a Bible, read that translation and call it that (sometimes this happens because they ask a "Christian": Can you tell me how to get the Christian Gospel?
And the Christian will hand them Bible or point out a Bible they call the Gospel, and so then the so-called Muslim has found an easy way out, especially if the translation is an oversimplified perversion of the Scriptures). Some who have chosen the KJV actually read it because they are commanded to believe in it, in order to achieve the status of a real Muslim; and then they realize, because they read the whole thing, trying to piece together a clear understanding of what it tells them to do, going through it painstakingly to make sure they are matching up with everything that is commanded, through the way its being explained in the new testament (something that "Christians" very rarely get around to doing), they realize that the philosophy is very very sophisticated because its all about weighing motivations, and how those motivations relate to the appearances of reality, and not how physical reality relates to intentions: and the complexity makes it clear that the book is not enough, they need someone who can piece together the doctrine, the doctrine which the book itself says, is the true Gospel. Whats more, the word Injil doesn't mean book, it means Gospel (these things are not synonymous, the Scripture talks of the Gospel, but the written word is dead because literal words can never themselves contain the Gospel). The problem is, its very hard to take on the KJV and intellectually get a 100%, and usually when people go deep enough, they know it contains a complete understanding of very crucial spiritual dynamics, but they can't access them;- but exceptionally few so-called Muslims get anywhere even near this: they notice that most people in the Islamic world, and even some of their peers, have a lot of family who will never search and study the Injil, it is a decadent quest for a spiritual elite in some small sections of Islam, and its hard to take seriously, because of how little consideration its given in the traditional systems of Islamic belief, that has always told them its pointless to look, by some craft of reasoning that has assuredly taken over the title of Islam, a religion that measures success in its progress toward the world's conversion, and to take seriously the search for the Injil,- is to admit that the that state of World Conversion is a rather meek form of hopefulness when taking this requirement as Gospel (because of revising the number of real Muslims accordingly).




For centuries Europe belonged to the Pope-Emperor of Christiandom, who could declare war on behalf of Christiandom, and mark royalty for their disobedience, so they would be quashed by the pious rulers who took direction from the head of the faith, and also the Pope's instructions when they were issued. This lasted till the cultural shift that was Protestantism: just after it had proven itself a survivor of the many totalitarian moves taken to smother it. "Islam" is today somewhat analogous to so-called Christianity before the motions toward the great Reformation.

I dont see this requirement in the quraan, where does it say they are required in order to be muslim? I am only on chapter 12. I have found many places that refer to it, but no requirement.

 

[Zangetshumody]

I dont see this requirement in the quraan, where does it say they are required in order to be muslim? I am only on chapter 12. I have found many places that refer to it, but no requirement.

This is a good source that will probably answer all the points you just asked about: I will quote a small entry from the website I put below-

The Injil (Arabic إنجيل , also transcribed Injeel) is one of the four Scriptures that the Qur'an records as revealed by Allah—the others being the Zabur, Tawrat, and Qur'an. The word Injil is generally held by non-Muslim historians to be an abbreviation of the Greek word Ευαγγέλιον, sometimes rendered in English as evangel (and literally meaning "good news"). It is usually translated as Gospel, as in the four Gospels of the New Testament. The word Injil usually denotes the New Testament. Some Muslims believe the Gospel or the New Testament may have been corrupted over time. Conversely, Quranic scholars point to references in the Quran that imply that Allah would not allow his revelation (i.e. the Injil) to become corrupted.

Injil - New World Encyclopedia

The word Injil occurs twelve times in the Qur'an (III, 2, 43, 58; V, 50, 51, 70, 72, 110; VII, 156; IX, 112; XLVIII, 29; LVII, 27 )

 

[Poki]

A just realized i am on 16. Really like this verse and is good to follow in religious discussions

 

[Coriolis]

Not really. She is explaining *why* they aren't worshipping the same God, to her at least. She gave her reasonings.

There is nothing that cannot be explained without namecalling. There has been far too much of that hereabouts.

Your response went out of the realm of the question about whether or not they worship the same God, to explain a differentiation OR alternatively, similarities between entire religions and what that must mean.

My response was aimed largely at the nature and utility of the question itself.

"Well yes and no? Even if everyone in the world believes that there worshipping the same God, that's a moot point to some extent. (You said this yourself)

By the way my personal belief is that we are all worshipping the same God we just call it a different name. This goes far in actually having tolerance for other religions but that is about it...and even then it doesn't mean not believing this won't give you a tolerant outlook...

So I understand where you're coming from BUT when you really get into religious belief it's not just about a God/ an abstract concept of God. It's about particulars of that faith.

This is my point, that the real disagreement is over those particulars of how they practice their faith and what they believe is the nature of God. Examination of their respective doctrines on a fundamental level leads inescapably to the conclusion that the god they believe in is one and the same, even if the average believer does not recognize that.

Limits matter. They define what something is and is not.
It's as true for a piece of wood as it is for God himself.
I personally am quite happy that my God can do no evil, but if you don't want to limit your god to that incapability then I guess that's up to you.

Limits certainly do matter. Who, in your estimation, has enough wisdom or authority to place limits on god? I would not presume to do it.

How do you know that "your god" can do no evil? What is evil anyway?

God is what god is, irrespective of whatever anyone believes about him/her/it. Our beliefs do not change god's reality.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

This is a good source that will probably answer all the points you just asked about: I will quote a small entry from the website I put below-



Injil - New World Encyclopedia

The word Injil occurs twelve times in the Qur'an (III, 2, 43, 58; V, 50, 51, 70, 72, 110; VII, 156; IX, 112; XLVIII, 29; LVII, 27 )

Interesting. Are you saying there is a "New Testament" to the Qur'an that rarely gets included in study?

This is interesting because in The Bible there is an Old and New Testament and many different faiths either fall on accentuating one more highly than the other. The reasons of why one over the other, are complex. So I won't go into it here.

For instance, Orthodox jews believe strictly in the Old Testament, Torah. So, the new would be invalid to them.

The four books of the gospel, in Christianity, are held highly as it's includes direct words from Jesus.

In belief in emphasis in the New comes belief in Forgivingness, grace, etc. It doesn't call for animal sacrifice because Jesus sacrifices himself for everone. It diminishes a lot of Old Testament laws as necessary.

Does the Injil do the same?

I may take [MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION]'s lead and read this in conjunction, if possible. Is that how it is supposed to be read? Or following the Qur'an?

 

[Poki]

Interesting. Are you saying there is a "New Testament" to the Qur'an that rarely gets included in study?

This is interesting because in The Bible there is an Old and New Testament and many different faiths either fall on accentuating one more highly than the other. The reasons of why one over the other, are complex. So I won't go into it here.

For instance, Orthodox jews believe strictly in the Old Testament, Torah. So, the new would be invalid to them.

The four books of the gospel, in Christianity, are held highly as it's includes direct words from Jesus.

In belief in emphasis in the New comes belief in Forgivingness, grace, etc. It doesn't call for animal sacrifice because Jesus sacrifices himself for everone. It diminishes a lot of Old Testament laws as necessary.

Does the Injil do the same?

I may take [MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION]'s lead and read this in conjunction, if possible. Is that how it is supposed to be read? Or following the Qur'an?

Zabr is the holy book of David, Tawrat is the holy book of Moses, Injiil is the holy book of Jesus, Quraan is the holy book of Mohammed. They were revealed by God (Allah) in that order. David, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed are messengers of God. All sent to us for the purpose of guiding us to heaven.

They are referred to in many different ways. I see the Tawrat referred to as Torah and Injiil referred to as Evangel or Gospels.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Zabr is the holy book of David, Tawrat is the holy book of Moses, Injiil is the holy book of Jesus, Quraan is the holy book of Mohammed. They were revealed by God (Allah) in that order. David, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed are messengers of God. All sent to us for the purpose of guiding us to heaven.

They are referred to in many different ways. I see the Tawrat referred to as Torah and Injiil referred to as Evangel or Gospels.

Are these other books not studied, dismissed or just not given as much emphasis as Qur'an is (in Islamic faith)?

 

[Zangetshumody]

Interesting. Are you saying there is a "New Testament" to the Qur'an that rarely gets included in study?

This is interesting because in The Bible there is an Old and New Testament and many different faiths either fall on accentuating one more highly than the other. The reasons of why one over the other, are complex. So I won't go into it here.

For instance, Orthodox jews believe strictly in the Old Testament, Torah. So, the new would be invalid to them.

The four books of the gospel, in Christianity, are held highly as it's includes direct words from Jesus.

In belief in emphasis in the New comes belief in Forgivingness, grace, etc. It doesn't call for animal sacrifice because Jesus sacrifices himself for everone. It diminishes a lot of Old Testament laws as necessary.

Does the Injil do the same?

I may take [MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION]'s lead and read this in conjunction, if possible. Is that how it is supposed to be read? Or following the Qur'an?

It might be quite difficult for me to respond to you without there being a divergence because of our cross-purposes. From how you describe the Christian doctrine, I take a quite a nuanced stand on what you seem to understand by the meaning of "Christianity", and so its difficult for me to answer your question directly without thinking you will relate it to something different to what I mean.

To be a Muslim, it is generally regarded, by the entire "Muslim" world, that the Gabriel Hadith (a particular Hadith that I would credit as being genuine), commands that you must believe in all the Revelations made by God to his Apostles. Jesus is one of these (and is considered to be the second greatest Apostle after the Prophet). Now then, to believe in all God's Apostles, named in the Qur'an, is to believe in the Revelation made to each Apostle. The Revelation made to Jesus is called the Injil (and this word has been connected to the Greek word for "Good news", and is generally understood to be the Gospel of Christ). Technically speaking then, to be a Muslim, you must also be a follower of Jesus (Isa). Obviously the "Christian" world, just like the "Islamic" world, is filled with many clowns and religious fakery, in the form of false traditions created by men, and so then, for all practical purposes, the Muslim world treats the Injil, which is the independent source of God's revelation through Jesus, as if it has been lost, even though the Qur'an clearly implies that God would not allow any of his Revelations to be lost and thereby wasted and put to ruin.

As I said in my original response, this is a bit of a sensitive issue for "Muslims", so much so, that overlooking this topic, or finding a way to get get around it, is part of every "Muslim's" tradition.