The oldest religion in the world - that is islam

Cab has the right to believe what he believes though, and you rather rudly tried to trample his beliefs. You are also ignorant of Mormonism, Mormon is the name of a prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter day saints. If Mormons believe themselves to be the oldest faith, I would support that as well, because, from a certain point of view, it can be true.

 

Even saying that sanatana-dharma is the "oldest religion" in relation to "other religions" is a misrepresentation, because using the word "old" implies that it came into being at some point in time...it never came into being, and will never cease to be; and using the word "religion" in this way implies a sectarian faith.

And again this makes the point clear that anyone can do what Cab and the Muslim Apologists are doing with this idea.
You can apply this to anything including Mormons if you want.

Mormons and Muslims have a lot in common actualy.. the Mormons claim they have Prophet who delivered inerrant new Scriptures which correct and supercede all previous ones.
Again, they could just as easily argue that they are not something that 'came into existance' recently but that God had it that everyone including Abraham was really a 'Mormon' back to Noah and Adam even.
Meaning: They worshipped God.
Its just now the Mormons (not a sect but simply worshipping God) have a final revelation.
This may sound silly but Im just saying that a Mormon can 'just as easily' make this argument too.
So can anyone.
Muslims keep presenting this as if its clever ands it really isnt.

 

Mr. Erasmus70, Vedas are "Old" , don't trust me, but atleast trust the scientific analysis that tries to carbon date the oldest upanishads and vedas that were before that- as stated in them were passed down orally. But all this discussion about what is old is pointless, for the past is in the past, what one must do is 'submit' (as said by mr. Cabri-Das) here to God now and for that, you really do not need a past.

 

Erasmus...I don't think you have the faintest idea of what the post was about...clue number one: I wasn't trying to make an argument. Now, with that in mind, you can do some scholarly research and figure it out for yourself.

 

I do understand what and how you were trying to explain your position to me.
(all three above).
I already have 'figured it out' and that is why Im posting this in the last place.
Just used your post as an example or 'case in point'.
Sorry you didnt like that.

 

Ewokutopia, acually that would be incorrect.
The word christian is bound to the man Christ (peace be upon him), judaism is bound to this certain tribe, the same with hinduism and buddhism. The word (islam) it self describes a way of life rather than being bound to something like "mohammedism" which is an incorrect word. Muslims describe everone who submitted /submitts to Gods will under the term muslim, christians wont do that (with the word christian).

 

Your reply is largely unintelligible, but I can glean that you've just told me you still don't know what I was talking about. You just tossed my post, which clearly broke new ground in this particular thread, into your list of "examples" of what suggests disagreement with your positions.

Like it or not?...neutral. I'm as used to being disagreed with as you are.

 

I know, and I completely understand what you are saying, thats one of the reasons I am actively interested in Islam, it doesnt glorify any person, but rather it puts the faith in one underlying reality (god, allah, what have you) above anything else. In my own personal spirituality (which I dont have a name for) I draw upon many of Islam's teachings, and I think that if people in this part of the world would stop putting media-induced stigmas on Muslim's and Islam, we would realize how much there is in Islam for lay people.

 

Come on Cab.
I know your a Muslim and you must act as if you are intellectually superior (as well as cleaner) but at his point you are only playing 'Word Games' which not even a child should be fooled by.

Again, I can just as easily announce to you that 'Christ' simply means God Incarnate (and therefore God Himself) so as you can see - whenever we say 'Christian' we are simply meaning 'One who follows (submits) to God).
So as you can see.. Abraham was a 'Christian' and so was Noah.. and in fact, Adam was the First Christian - meaning he simply submitted to God (who is also containing Christ in Himself).

Now of course, when I put it to you that way - you will just say that is not good enough and I am just playing with a 'word game' and that an adult knows when I say Christian Im refering to the Jewish Sect of 30AD.
However
This is just as easily for me to say as for you to say.

The well-understood world-wide understanding when we say 'Muslim' and 'Islam' is refering to THE MUHAMMED VERSION OF SUBMITTING TO THE GOD MUHAMMED CLAIMS.

Please stop with this game.
You have better ways to justify your Muhammedian claim to what is 'submitting' and if the Koran is true revelation or not than this poor angle.

Maybe you can even tell me what Muhammed (as inspired by Allah) is the required number of Witnesses I must have before I take a Claim seriously?
Is it ONE witness who claims something?
or
Is it FOUR Witnesses word of mouth?

Please tell me what is Allahs decree on this (through the mouth of Muhammed)?

 

Pardon my poor late-night sentence structure in my reply.

Starting again:
I totally understand now and before what you intended to communicate in your statements in the first place.
I ALSO thought it was a good example of what we were talking about at the time.
A topic that was somewhat 'beside your point'.
I used it as an example to that.

Did not mean to be rude or give you the impression I did not also understand your specific point.
Just applied it to the second point already in play.

In a sense I agree with everyone (in a way) in that, if you go back far enough there is no 'name' for a 'religion' anyways.
Meaning: Noah is just burning incense to God.
This is not a deal where 'Well what Religion is that then?"
No.
Theres just God and thats the deal. No 'Religions'.
Later (actualy rather quickly thereafter) you have everyone dividing into this and that.
Some begin to worship the Patriarchs 'as if they were gods' and others forget, others change and add and on and on and on .....

In a 'Sense' everyone of these individual branches is 'in a way' claiming they are the proper and 'therefore' oldest true lineage.
Mormons think they have it right and 'therefore' are the 'true descendants' of the oldest religion.
That being simply 'proper submission to the one true God'.

Dig?

So thats why Im saying - if one can make that arguments (Cab and Muhammed) then Im showing how its 'Just as easily' made by everyone else, according to what they claim is right.

SOMEONE might be right - but just 'saying so' is not enough in itself.

 

Cool, fair enough.

Yes, I had intended my contribution to simply be food for thought and not to stir anything up.

Peace and apologies....

 

Thats just straight up racist and Islamophobic. Using the word "Muhammedan" is religiously derogitory, and is akin to calling Catholic's "papists" calling protestants "heretics" and calling Sikh's "towel-heads". you are a very offensive person, so please do not spread your hate for Islam and Muslims any further, youve allready made it clear. we get it, your intolerant.

 

Again, more 'word games' in which you take common terms and then pour your own meaning into them.

Total Nonsense and having nothing to do with Racism, Skin colour, dress or any such thing.

In this case, Cab is suggesting that 'Islam' or 'Muslim' are simply all-purpose, all-encompassing general terms.
Ok.
So how then would we define or describe the certain 'Muslims' who are submitting by Muhammeds orders?

Koranians?
No.

Muhammedian is a very common terms and its used in no derogatory sense to simply describe those who are practicing submission to God AS laid out by Muhammed.
Simple.

Thats no more offensive or different than describing Jews or Christians as "People of the Book".

Not at all Derogatory.
Mind you - you are a Uni Student taking Native Studies so Im sure the 'Political Correctness' propaganda machine has you trained to make such 'finds' in anything.

 

you really found the wrong forum, didnt you. I could respond to your ignorance with a million counterpoints (like telling you that every Muslim I have talked to has said that Mohammedan is an offensive term that basically throws thir beliefs in the trash and it offends them as much as if I called them a Camel-Jockey, which i would never even think of mind you, just an example) but that will just lead us in circles which bore me. you dont understand shit, so please either open your closed mind, or close your open mouth.

 

Thats too bad.
I guess if someone is arrogant enough to declare 'Islam' to mean 'the true religion' so far that even describing it otherwise is an 'Insult'.
Then you can blame Cab because he wants to eliminate any distinction for the word 'Muslim'.

So what is it gonna be?
Can I keep using 'Muslim' to refer to the 1,400 year old religion that started in Arabia under Muhammeds Koran
or
Would you rather be called 'Muhammedians'?

BTW.. Id sure like to know why you are pretending that is such an offensive term?
Isnt Muhammed the One and only True Messenger (according to his Book)?

Explain why this should be offensive and even better.. shouldnt you be proud to call yourself a Muhammedan?

Keep on getting angry Ewok and dont hold back.
I would be happier if you want to bring a Million 'Counterpoints'.
Maybe you can do the popular trick of Listing all of them in one post - we see that tactic all the time by poor Muslim apologists.

 

I believe that is truly offensive, however whatever responce i can give wont be enough, for this isnt my place to respond, you have offended islam, and it is up to a muslim to respond to your hatred and ignorance, not i.

 

Your wrong.
By the standards of Muhammed, Allah and the Koran you are wrong.
There is no insult where none is intended.
There is no offense when none was intended.

Even at worst - calling someone a Muhammedan is hardly 'hateful' and not even close to 'ignorance'.
Hey.. maybe you can provide a list of acceptable or 'politically correct' terms from your University teachers.
Find out if 'Jew' is acceptable now or not?
What about 'Crusader'?
Jihadist?
All Muslims are 'Jihadists' now?

Hey.. what do you think about the Jews in Toronto trying to shut down all the 'Pro Palestinian' Orgs on the Campuses there?

 

He´s not wrong, what he says is correct. I would take it as a deep insult by being called "muhammedian" or something of the like, since that might be understod as worshipping him or as more likely that islam is an arabic religion bound to arabs even though the prophet preached an universal message. (18% of the muslims come from arab countries, the rest does not).

"...It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (Revelation); that the Messenger may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind! So establish regular Prayer, give regular Charity, and hold fast to Allah! He is your Protector - the Best to protect and the Best to help!(Qur´an 22.78)

"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam (not mohammedism) as your religion." (Q 5.3)

Don't you see the difference? Where in the bible does it use the word christian or christianity? Those words were acually used by their enemies to scorn them (like those who persist using the word muhammedin) and they used to be called "the people of the way". What way?

"But when Jesus became conscious of their disbelief, he cried: Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We will be Allah's helpers. We believe in Allah, and bear thou witness that we have surrendered (unto Him) [the word muslimoon being used] (Koran 3.52)

The bible claims that Jesus(peace be upon him) said: "Thy Will Be Done On Earth As It Is In Heaven", the only religion of God is the religion of following His will.

What you object to is the fact that the rules were told by Muhammed(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) and you are correct, they were taught by him but even though rules might have been altered by the following prophet the religion never were (with the coming of Christ, some rules were changed but the same religion applied, atleast until Paul came along) and the like but never the religion it self. This is why we muslims hate innovations in our religion, were not interested in changing the religion (except for some heretic now and then), if we innovate a matter in our religion, that would mean that we think that God needs help in forming His religion and He is free from such.

Finnaly I conclude, the prophets(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) adopted a son who was an african slave whom he released too freedome, his wife Zainab was from jewish orgin and his close companion Salman was persian. His message was universal and not fixed or bound to any desert, compare that to the jewish and christian faith, yes christian, according to the Bible Jesus(peace be upon him) said that he "was only sent to the blind sheep of Israel" and so was the case with all the other prophets who were all sent to their restricted areas except for the last and final of them, Muhammed (may Allahs peace and blessing be upon him).

"Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided."

 

Despite thinking erasmus is a bit of a prick, I have to agree with him on this one.

Word games, nothing more.

 

"And certainly We have explained in this Quran every kind of example, and man is most of all given to contention" 18:54