How does Islam make theologically sense when looking at the previous traditions it claims to be the conclusion of?

>Depending on which side of historic Islamic eschatology you fall on, the Messiah has yet to come, or the Messiah was Jesus.
Or Ali was the messiah, and Muhammad was John the Baptist.

Good to know you got yourself a trip so I know who to ignore.

The truth doesn't change just because you don't want to hear it.

nice tumblr gif

Jesus is the Messiah in Islam. What that entails just means judging the world at the end of things

>Muhammed WAS the Messiah
See

>Ali
>Messiah

Shiite detected

It doesn't just mean he'll judge the world; Muslims also believe he was a great prophet, and that he'll return to fight the anti-christ. But yes, Muslims do believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

What led you to your particular interpretation of Islam? Did you come up with it yourself, or were you inspired by any particular writers?

Shias believe Ali was the first Imam, not the Messiah.

>What led you to your particular interpretation of Islam?
My reading and understanding of Scripture.

Also Matthew 7:15-20

Simple; these Jews either aren't Israelites, or they are only a small part of the Israelites and the corrupt part at that.

>How does Christianity make theologically sense when looking at the previous traditions it claims to be the conclusion of?
ftfy, attack the root of the problem - revisionism

if by messiah you mean that there will be a man holding humanities hand at the end of the day then jesus is that messiah in most well accepted views.

are you the same trip as Leftism, or a different guy?

Different guy I guess, I've never used that trip.

There's a big difference between a messenger and a Prophet. There was literally hundreds of messengers throughout history but only a handful of Prophets. Jesus is a messiah in Islam, he's one of the most respected and important Prophets as well.

Who said a messiah had to die on the cross to be considered a messiah?

Islam says that the bible is heavily corrupted which invalidates such claims.
The Quran is a small book and taken alone its easy to get a narrative story out of it.

>Who said a messiah had to die on the cross to be considered a messiah?
the OT

M8 you have it backwards, there were many Prophets but very little Messengers. Those who brought a Book with them are considered Messengers. David was a Messenger because he had the Psalms, Adam obviously was not, he just a Prophet.

Jesus is LITERALLY called Messiah, Son of Mary in Qu'ran lads, it's kinda hard to miss. The belief is that rather than die on the cross, God didn't kill but brought him directly to heaven, where he is still alive now. He will then be brought back to Earth during the End times yadayada you know the story.

It's kinda sad because it seems Islam has a more miraculous view of Jesus despite not believing him to be God, unlike Christfags. How does God die for the sins he himself put on you? Makes no sense to me oniifam

Hebrew word for messenger is angel.

The term "prophet" literally means "speaker", in this case it means a speaker for God.

>the sins he himself put on you
What is this supposed to mean? How does God put sins on us?

Does He not Judge us? I mean, He deemed certain actions to be sins, and told us not to do them, right? Doesn't make sense that He would then come down (in human form) and then proceed to die on a cross to forgive said sins He Himself decreed to be sins. Wouldn't it just be easier to forgive those that directly ask for forgiveness rather than making a convoluted cycle of belief?

Perhaps we may be using the wrong words, but in Islam the Angels are also Messengers yes, it's how the Message gets from Heaven to Earth, but there are also Messengers on Earth responsible for spreading it in written form amongst the people. Again, at least in Islam, not sure how it works in other Abrahamic religions

God could forgive sins long before the cross, he does several times in the OT. The point of the cross is so actually cleanse the ontological condition of sins. Sins are "crimes" but not just crimes, their level beyond the juridical is primary concern of Christianity.

I'm saying Islam calling Adam a "prophet" goes to show Islam doesn't even know what a "prophet" is. Adam is in no way a "prophet", a prophet is a spokesman for God. Adam was just a patriarch.

Pretty sure in Islam there really isn't much other philosophical basis for Sin other than doing X when God said not to do X. I'm by no means a scholar so I can say for certain but that's as far as I know at least

As for the the position of Adam, yes he is the patriarch, but due to the nature of being first Man, he is in the greatest position to talk about God to his immediate children and acted to pass down the worship of God. Is that anything other than the action of a Prophet?

>I talk about things I don't understand at even a base level

Islam Just wanted to cut out any mention of an empire before theirs

A prophet is someone God designates in particular to be his personal spokesman. It's not just a teacher of belief and worship, otherwise bishops would all be prophets. A prophet is an official representative of God with the authority to speak on God's behalf (sort of like how Catholics think of the Pope, except a prophet isn't an "office" it's for a set message).

Well I guess that's the other thing, by (Sunni) Islamic definition someone with access to God like the Pope technically would be a Prophet, which is why there is an important distinction between Prophet and Messenger (and also why heretical statements are taken much more seriously in Islam)

My question however, is why does Adam being the patriarch diminish his ability to be a spokesperson for God?

Islam doesn't require the sacrifice on the cross because it doesn't define our natural state as one of sin. Our nature is good (fitra), but we fall away from it as we become attached to this world. Sins are individual acts, which are forgiven individually. This is the big difference.

Adam's doesn't have a dimished ability, he just is never designated as a spokesman for God in either Islam or Christianity anymore than Imans are prophets in Islam. The difference between "prophet" and "messenger" Biblically, is only that messengers are sent directly from heaven, whereas prophets are dwelling on earth and are activated from there.

Orthodox Christianity doesn't define our natural state as sin either, but defines sin a sickness which death is the end product of.

There's an entire section of the Koran dedicated to the Romans.

holy shit, the majority of people in hell according to them are women. That's fucked up

>hadith

I don't think Muhammad ever personally killed anyone.

Also i find it funny how Christians always focus on Jesus, forgetting all the prophets before Jesus who went on mad genocidal rampages that make Muhammad look like a saint, excuse the pun.

It makes sense desu.

>God
Your god is not God, your god is Satan.

>other Abrahamic religions
Islam is a demonic religion.

I actually agree with based Muhammad ok this one.

Holy shit,you finally put on a trip,you have no idea how long i have waited for this so i can filter your ass.

This, this dude has to be mentally ill thinking that anybody here(on fucking Veeky Forums) cares about his sperging, not only that but he is always begging the question with his arguments so they go into the trash

...

Not that guy you're responding to but there's nothing in the quran that says adam was a prophet,HOWEVER a lot of muslims think he is due to the verse 3:33 which says ''Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of 'Imran over the worlds''

However a lot of people have been chosen by god throughout the quran which wasn't necessarily for prophethood such as verse [3:42] ''And [mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds.''

And no one claims mary was a prophet.

>i find it funny how Christians always focus on Jesus

Didn't Judea remain majority Jewish?

So you Don't have to be a Muslim to not go to hell?

Nope
>[2:62] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.
>[5:69] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the converts, and the Christians; any of them who (1) believe in GOD and (2) believe in the Last Day, and (3) lead a righteous life, have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

Since you seems to know your things, would you say Christianity or Islams condemn most people will go to by just looking at the requirements to go there?
Also ignoring any non scriptural based things like that anonymous Christian thing.

In their most raw forms, to go to heaven in Islam you just need to believe and not be a dick. To go to heaven in Christianity you just need to accept Jesus, and you can still be a dick. So Islam condemns people more, but that doesn't go into all the little denominations who invent rules that doing X and X will send you to hell.

For example the Quran does not actually condemn homosexuality but 99% of Muslims are against it.

>Quran does not condemn homosexuality
Muslim here and i'm quite curious as to how you got to this conclusion considering verse 7:80 and 7:81

Thats a historical story, there isn't a legal condemnation of homosexuality.

But the story is that the act of homosexuality incurs god's wrath,or are you trying to say that it is indeed a bad act but judging it is left for god and not for us?

Yes its left for us. If it isn't banned in the Quran don't go about putting religious laws on it

>[6:144] Regarding the two kinds of camels, and the two kinds of cattle, say, "Is it the two males that He prohibited, or the two females, or the contents of the wombs of the two females? Were you witnesses when GOD decreed such prohibitions for you? Who is more evil than those who invent such lies and attribute them to GOD? They thus mislead the people without knowledge. GOD does not guide such evil people."
>[3:94] Those who fabricate false prohibitions after this, and attribute them to GOD, are truly wicked.
>[5:87] O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by GOD, and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors.
By the way 90% of Sunni Islam is void according to these verses of the Quran

I'm not a sunni,i'm a quranist,What would you consider the proper way of approaching homosexuality then,we know it's something that angers god but a specific way of approaching it doesn't exist so do you believe it should be treated the same as zina.

Let it be, it's not our place to judge. I am agnostic but i used to be quranist. It's the best form of Islam and should be its reformation.

All religion is silly though and just leads to a false person.

So why does Jesus (with Mohammed tag team I think) return during the armageddon in Islam to kick ass? He was just the prophet preceding Muhammed?

I believe 4:16 is the closest we can get to as to how to handle homosexuality which is nowhere close to the current beheading/stoning situation in some places,A bit off topic though but what caused you to ditch quranism/islam,you seem to do your research so i am intrigued.

Explain the Quranic chapter on the Romans then.

Adultery is forbidden, and men can only marry women legally, so by extention homosexuality is impossible, but it would be dealt with as adultery, not homosexuality.

I left religion because it's obviously not true, if there is a God it's not the God of any particular religion proclaiming itself today. There's far too many stretches of logic, mental gymnastics, and grasping at straws to justify Islam or any religion as being real.

It also creates a total false person. I like drinking Alcohol and having fun with my friends, i like casual sex, i see absolutely no reason these things should be banned but even more so a pious religious girl who doesn't do these things is literally just lying about who she is.

I see where you're coming from,I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise ofcourse after all that's not for me to do,I thank you for your time and for holding a proper arguement for you successfully convinced me on this matter,Salam.

>Isn't the whole core of the Judaic belief that a Messiah will come?

Yes, Messiah. A savior, not god incarnate.

>Islam just says that whole death on the cross didn't happen and even degredates him to being just another messenger.

Before, you tell me one thing: What is the point of a savior who dies crucified as a sacrifice to God?

Read the OT. God forbade that kind of sacrifice.

That said, what is the logic of God incarnate be sacrificed to himself?

Tell me Muzzies, how is the muslim world treating evolution?

Depends. Creationism is more popular though. Also there is that guy called Harun Yahya(or Adnan Oktar), who tried to spread new Earth creationism and anti-darwinism for 30 years, and he has been pretty succesful.

Other than that, there are tons of people who claim evolution doesn't contradict with Islam, like "Dinasours lived to become oil" and "the clay mentioned in Quran symbolizes formation of nucleic acids"

Wikipedia explains it pretty good actually: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution

Evolution is taught in schools across most of the Islamic world. It certainly isnt a big deal or controversial issue. There's nothing in Islam to contradict the idea of animals changing over time.

>calling the ancient Israelite faith "judaism"

lol wtf is new earth creationism, I meant young Earth creationism

No. The majority converted to Christianity.

Adnan Oktar is a dönmeh Jew.

but the mohammedans also accept the prophets before christ.
Abraham is holy to them as well.
Your point is?

>How does Islam make theologically sense when looking at the previous traditions it claims to be the conclusion of?
Literally "their version was twisted with lies and misinterpretations, we are the real followers of God". That's the very point of Islam.

>Isn't the whole core of the Judaic belief that a Messiah will come?
Jesus is the Messiah in Islam too.

>Islam just says that whole death on the cross didn't happen and even degredates him to being just another messenger.
Second greatest messenger next to Muhammad, which isn't nothing.

Source?
What i have seen so far sort of points to the contrary.

It's the prophecy of the end times. Besides, he was ascended instead of dead. So in Quran, the one who was crucified isn't Jesus, but Judas who God turned his face to look like Jesus as a punishment to being kind of a dick to Jesus.

And i think Islamic End Times has a pretty badass prophecy

>Muhammad talks to a man in his sleep that the end time is close
>That man will become the Mahdi
>Anti-christ appears in this world where vice and wickedness reign supreme
>Antichrist preaches falsehood, Mahdi tries to fix it
>They will ended up in a final battle
>Gog and Magog rises again
>The Century's end Monster rises up with the help of the Anti-christ
>With quad threat on Mahdi. He fought and fought
>He will then be slain
>Then suddenly, Jesus came down
>He beat the shit out of everything. The monster, Gog and Magog and the Antichrist
>He united mankind under one banner
>Rule as King of the World until his death
>Time went by after his death
>The trumpet of destruction is blown
>The world is destroyed
>Every mortal then judged for paradise or damnation