What if Islam was as old as Christianity?

@John7755 يوحنا ?

This seems like the place for this question: do you believe, is it a common belief among Muslims, that another prophet will arrive if humans forget the message of the Koran? Could humans on another planet who could never hear the message receive a prophet?

No need to derail, it's just too small a question for a new thread. I'll start one in FH if you like.

No, the Quran claims to be the only such book in existence and the one from which Allah perfected the deen. So, it would not be befitting for another prophet to come. Shi'i believe another prophet will come, especially the Ghulat and Rafidhi among them.

The Djinn received the Quran and Muhammad the same as men, thus, so the same would be for any other creation that exists. In terms of planets and stars and such, these are considered to be upon tawheed juts like mountains, water, etc...
 
No, the Quran claims to be the only such book in existence and the one from which Allah perfected the deen. So, it would not be befitting for another prophet to come. Shi'i believe another prophet will come, especially the Ghulat and Rafidhi among them.

The Djinn received the Quran and Muhammad the same as men, thus, so the same would be for any other creation that exists. In terms of planets and stars and such, these are considered to be upon tawheed juts like mountains, water, etc...

Thanks!

I was talking to Muslim-anon not long ago who believed that other planets would receive messengers if their founders did not bring Korans with them. It didn't seem mainstream at the time, just an interesting way Muslim faith and future speculation can merge.
 
@John7755 يوحنا ?

This seems like the place for this question: do you believe, is it a common belief among Muslims, that another prophet will arrive if humans forget the message of the Koran? Could humans on another planet who could never hear the message receive a prophet?

No need to derail, it's just too small a question for a new thread. I'll start one in FH if you like.

Muslims generally believe that Muhammad is the final Prophet. It is, at least in principle, reasonable to suppose that sentient beings may receive lesser Prophets after Muhammad's life before they are ready to receve knowledge of the final Qur'anic revelation, but in general Muslim thought avoided this concept AFAIK. People who believe that there are Prophets after Muhammad are normally regarded as "not Muslims anymore".
 
No, the Quran claims to be the only such book in existence and the one from which Allah perfected the deen. So, it would not be befitting for another prophet to come. Shi'i believe another prophet will come, especially the Ghulat and Rafidhi among them.

The Djinn received the Quran and Muhammad the same as men, thus, so the same would be for any other creation that exists. In terms of planets and stars and such, these are considered to be upon tawheed juts like mountains, water, etc...

Most Shiites do not believe in future Prophets and never did. Some Ghulat, as you note, did hold such views, but they always have been in the minority. There is the Ismaili belief in a cicle of "wilaya" after the cycle of prophecy, but it is considered different from Prophecy.
 
Most Shiites do not believe in future Prophets and never did. Some Ghulat, as you note, did hold such views, but they always have been in the minority. There is the Ismaili belief in a cicle of "wilaya" after the cycle of prophecy, but it is considered different from Prophecy.

Then how would you define the Infallible Imamiyyah? Some Rafidhi scholars belief for instance that Ali was the prophet or Jabril made a mistake. It is too early however for a full response. I will try to respond in full later when I have time.
 
Then how would you define the Infallible Imamiyyah? Some Rafidhi scholars belief for instance that Ali was the prophet or Jabril made a mistake. It is too early however for a full response. I will try to respond in full later when I have time.

The usually consider the Imamiyya as distinct from prophecy (Nubuwwa) although indeed it is not the case for some Ghulat sects.
 

Sulemain

Banned
Discussion like this more then make up for the Dead Baby Society tendencies on this part of the forum :) .
 
The usually consider the Imamiyya as distinct from prophecy (Nubuwwa) although indeed it is not the case for some Ghulat sects.

Shaykh Ali al-Qo said:

"And our belief is that the ahlul-bayt are better than all the prophets. Our prophet and the ahlul-bayt comes first in rank and then follows Ibrahim and his ahlul-bayt. And then comes the rest."

Shaykh Yaseem al-Musawi said:

"The saying; 'Imam is a prophet' is ghulu (exaggeration). The prophets are something and the Imams are another. But we say to the one who says that the Imams are prophets, is kufr. But, when we say they are not prophets we do not mean that they are less. Allama al-Majisi says, [ infact there is a consensus among the Imami (as) may Allah keep them, that the 12 Imams are greater than all the prophets.] We do not disagree that the Imams are better than the prophets. It is only natural that Allah preferred Muhammad and his ahlul-bayt above all His creation."

Shaykh Abbas al-Hilfi said:

"Today the messenger of Allah (saw) cannot do anything. Not because he is not able to, but that he has no right to. Nor can Amir al-Mu'minin (Caliph); nor can Allah the Creator of the Worlds. The only on in whose hands lies all decisions and the implementation is, Saheb al-Zaman (12 Imam)."

Ayatollah Sayyed Mohd Redha al-Shirazi said:

"Allah (SWT) gave the control of every atom in the universe to His Awliya (Imams)."

So not the same as prophets but in a way a higher status. It fits what I was saying. Mind you, these are all modern scholars. If I was to pull out many of the older scholars, there would eb even more evidence and this page would be filled and become a compendium of Islamic writers.
 
Shaykh Ali al-Qo said:

"And our belief is that the ahlul-bayt are better than all the prophets. Our prophet and the ahlul-bayt comes first in rank and then follows Ibrahim and his ahlul-bayt. And then comes the rest."

Shaykh Yaseem al-Musawi said:

"The saying; 'Imam is a prophet' is ghulu (exaggeration). The prophets are something and the Imams are another. But we say to the one who says that the Imams are prophets, is kufr. But, when we say they are not prophets we do not mean that they are less. Allama al-Majisi says, [ infact there is a consensus among the Imami (as) may Allah keep them, that the 12 Imams are greater than all the prophets.] We do not disagree that the Imams are better than the prophets. It is only natural that Allah preferred Muhammad and his ahlul-bayt above all His creation."

Shaykh Abbas al-Hilfi said:

"Today the messenger of Allah (saw) cannot do anything. Not because he is not able to, but that he has no right to. Nor can Amir al-Mu'minin (Caliph); nor can Allah the Creator of the Worlds. The only on in whose hands lies all decisions and the implementation is, Saheb al-Zaman (12 Imam)."

Ayatollah Sayyed Mohd Redha al-Shirazi said:

"Allah (SWT) gave the control of every atom in the universe to His Awliya (Imams)."

So not the same as prophets but in a way a higher status. It fits what I was saying. Mind you, these are all modern scholars. If I was to pull out many of the older scholars, there would eb even more evidence and this page would be filled and become a compendium of Islamic writers.

I don't think we are disagreeing ultimately. The bolded part is key. Prophets and Imams are different, even if Shiites revere their Imams to a point that may look like idolatry to a Sunni perspective. (The last statement you quote is indeed remarkably odd in any Islamic context).
 
I don't think we are disagreeing ultimately. The bolded part is key. Prophets and Imams are different, even if Shiites revere their Imams to a point that may look like idolatry to a Sunni perspective. (The last statement you quote is indeed remarkably odd in any Islamic context).

From my studies of Shi'i Islam, there are certain oddities found in their scholars and most learned that are extremely radical especially among the Twelvers and the Is'maili and Nizari. Most of these views are not held by their followers. This is seen profoundly when you read the works of their highest leaders and learned people of both the past and present. Further, I direct you to a debate between two Shi'i scholars, Shaykh Yasr al-Habib vs Muhammad al-Musawi on the topic of Taqqiyyah and when it is to be used. One of the debaters argued that the time was ripe for their views to be spoken in defiance to the Sunni and the other that favored continued Taqqiyyah in terms of outward opinions.

Yasr al-Habib made very interesting arguments. His opinion was essentially that Shi'i flourished when they attack the Sunni actively and curse the companions. He takes a historical outlook essentially looking to the examples of the Fatimid and Safavid as golden ages and that today's time mimicked the days of the Safaviyya. He also actively promotes the outward reference to Aisha as a whore who made it permissible to consume rats or other such allegations or the view that Aisha and Umar are suffering in hellfire. Many would say that he is radical, however, no scholar of merit in Shi'i cricles has attacked or reprimanded him for his opinions, only his brazen stance. Further, most of these scholars vast books within actively promote opinions that the Qu'ran is corrupted or various beliefs even, I have seen that an opinion within the Shi'i is that the true tawheed is only with the Imamiyyah or that it is a fifth parcel of Tawheed or the true tawheed as the ayatollah Redha al-Shirazi believes and presumably his predecessor.
 
Top