Do muslims follow the teachings of all prophets?

[One Ummah]

I passed by someone who claimed that muslims follow the teachings of prophet Muhammad pbuh and no other prophet besides him. your thoughts?

 

[Asiyah3]

The Prophets (Peace be upon them) were all truthful, speakers of the truth, righteous, wise, pious and honest, and all of them were Muslims, for they all called people to believe in One God (Tawheed) and to devote worship sincerely to Him alone. We should and have very much to learn from each one of them. With regard to laws as to command and prohibitions, what was permitted and what was forbidden, we follow the teachings of our Messenger (SAAS).
“To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way” [al-Maa’idah 5:48].

 

[Neelofar]

Sallamz

Taking on board what Sister Muslimah said, we do have a tremennnnnndous amount to learn from all the prophets [may Allah S.W.T be pleased with them] and we can learn something from all the Prophets but it is Muhammed S.A.W's teachings which we must follow..[i hope that answers your question and doesn't confuse you! =| ]

 

[Woodrow]

To be Muslim it would be a grave error not to follow the teachings of all of the Prophets. Islam did not begin with Muhammad(PBUH) although we do know him better and know that the message revealed to him is intact and unchanged.

But, all of the Prophets(PBUT) are equal and revealed only the truth. The message given to Adam(PBUH) was just as important and true as that revealed to Muhammad(PBUH). All true Prophets are to be followed.

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Aslaamu`Alaaykum,^ I agree

"We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom." [Al-Qur`aan: 14.4]

"Verily We have sent thee in truth, as a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner: and there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past)."[Al-Qur`aan: 35.24]

There are many more verses concerning this, these are a few.

Wa`Alaaykum Salaam

 

[Woodrow]

I think it is important to point out that in following the teachings of all the Prophets(PBUT), we must be certain what we are reading is truly what they taught. Sadly, with the exception of Muhammad(PBUH) none of the teachings exist in their original form. While some parts of the truth may still exist in the Jewish Torah and the Christian Bible, we do not have the original revelation and we can not be certain as to what was changed, deleted or added. So while we are obligated to follow the teachings of all Prophets(PBUT) we can not be certain of what they were. However, we do know that what was revealed to Muhammad(PBUH) is a compilation of what was revealed to all Prophets(PBUT) Therefore if what is presented as the teachings of any Prophet(PBUT) is not contrary to the Qur'an we can have a reasonable assumption it was part of the true revelation.

 

[One Ummah]

To be more specific, I spoke to a brother from Hizb who as they all do claimed that participating in a democratic system in any way is strictly forbidden. This time phew) I responded that the prophet Yusuf however was in fact a leading political figure in the ancient non islamic egyptian system. He replied that we as muslims however only follow the teachings of prophet Muhammad pbuh, and that what prophet Yusuf (as) did therefore is irrelevant to us.

 

[Woodrow]

To be more specific, I spoke to a brother from Hizb who as they all do claimed that participating in a democratic system in any way is strictly forbidden. This time phew) I responded that the prophet Yusuf however was in fact a leading political figure in the ancient non islamic egyptian system. He replied that we as muslims however only follow the teachings of prophet Muhammad pbuh, and that what prophet Yusuf (as) did therefore is irrelevant to us.

It is difficult to answer this ina clear manner. The teachings of Yusuf(PBUH) are important to us. Yusuf(PBUH) did not live in a democratic society and since he is a Prophet, and was a political figure, we can be assured that whatever political system he was following was halal. Democracy as we now know it is very far removed from democracy, the democracy of today can best be described as a free enterprise, secular, pseudo-democracy and it is not the political system under which Yusuf(lived).

To know the truth of the teachings of Yusuf(PBUH) read Surah 12 Yusuf inthe Qur'an and do not believe all of what the Bible writes about him.

What is opposed about todays concept of democracy is it's disregard for the Laws of God(swt) in regards to morality. Islam is true Allaah(swt) guided democracy and not this western philosophy of "Allow all things the majority wants"

We need to live in accordance with what Allaah(swt) requires of us not by what we as humans want.

 

[cat eyes]

To be more specific, I spoke to a brother from Hizb who as they all do claimed that participating in a democratic system in any way is strictly forbidden. This time phew) I responded that the prophet Yusuf however was in fact a leading political figure in the ancient non islamic egyptian system. He replied that we as muslims however only follow the teachings of prophet Muhammad pbuh, and that what prophet Yusuf (as) did therefore is irrelevant to us.

we should follow all the prophets peace be upon them all and respect them and remember them... there teachings are certainly not irrelevant. this is just ignorance to say such a thing.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

we should follow all the prophets peace be upon them all and respect them and remember them... there teachings are certainly not irrelevant. this is just ignorance to say such a thing.

the flute was played at the time of Dawud alaihissalaam and wine was drunk at the time of Eesa alaihissalaam.

So i would say we follow the perfected religion taught to us by Muhammad sallallahi alaihiwasallaam whos source was the same as every other prophet. We do of course respect and love every other prophet, but we follow Muhammad sallallahi alaihi wasallaam who had said himself that were any other prophet to live, they would follow him.

 

[cat eyes]

the flute was played at the time of Dawud alaihissalaam and wine was drunk at the time of Eesa alaihissalaam.

So i would say we follow the perfected religion taught to us by Muhammad sallallahi alaihiwasallaam whos source was the same as every other prophet. We do of course respect and love every other prophet, but we follow Muhammad sallallahi alaihi wasallaam who had said himself that were any other prophet to live, they would follow him.

there teachings were the same but of course we have different shariah.

salam

 

[One Ummah]

It is difficult to answer this ina clear manner. The teachings of Yusuf(PBUH) are important to us. Yusuf(PBUH) did not live in a democratic society and since he is a Prophet, and was a political figure, we can be assured that whatever political system he was following was halal. Democracy as we now know it is very far removed from democracy, the democracy of today can best be described as a free enterprise, secular, pseudo-democracy and it is not the political system under which Yusuf(lived).

Democracy by western definitions is man made laws, which ever kind of system they had going in the ancient egypt surely was man made aswell and so equally forbidden by hizb definition. Whether the system that prophet Yusuf lived under is similar to western democracy or not I find irelevant, as they both were invented by man. Yusuf pbuh took part in a man made system with the nia of changing it in favour islam, equally as modern muslim participants in western democracy have the nia to change things for the better of our deen. Am I correct in assuming that their participation in the system therefore is justified?

 

[Zafran]

Democracy by western definitions is man made laws, which ever kind of system they had going in the ancient egypt surely was man made aswell and so equally forbidden by hizb definition. Whether the system that prophet Yusuf lived under is similar to western democracy or not I find irelevant, as they both were invented by man. Yusuf pbuh took part in a man made system with the nia of changing it in favour islam, equally as modern muslim participants in western democracy have the nia to change things for the better of our deen. Am I correct in assuming that their participation in the system therefore is justified?

Salaam

I believe we can participate in the system - to allow muslims the right to practice there religion freely in the country - and making sure right wing parties dont prevent us from doing this in the future eg for the UK BNP. So it would be a good idea to vote for parties that will not restrict our freedom to pray. The lesser of the two evils.

Muslims have to be active in the system IMO otherwise they have a chance of losing there freedom to practice Islam especially in europe -

If you dont wnat to to be active - then why do you live in a democracy? Why not do hijra if your so against it? this is to the people who believe its an absolute no no.

peace

 

[Woodrow]

Democracy by western definitions is man made laws, which ever kind of system they had going in the ancient egypt surely was man made aswell and so equally forbidden by hizb definition. Whether the system that prophet Yusuf lived under is similar to western democracy or not I find irelevant, as they both were invented by man. Yusuf pbuh took part in a man made system with the nia of changing it in favour islam, equally as modern muslim participants in western democracy have the nia to change things for the better of our deen. Am I correct in assuming that their participation in the system therefore is justified?

Killing is also wrong except when it is done in defence. Voting in a Democracy may/may not be wrong but it is the only effective weapon for bringing about change. Physical warfare is not only messy it is ineffective, in todays world.

You can not bring about a Shariah State except through the acceptance of the Majority, which means using a man made system to escape from a man made system. When faced with 2 evils ie Living under a man made government or participating in the man made government for the purpose of changing it.

Just my opinion Astagfirullah

Yes, man made governments but the only way to change them and bring about a Shariah state is by participating in them.

Oddly it is a member of Hizb speaking against participating in man made government when they themselves are a political party.

 

[manaal]

Believing in all the Prophets of Allah is one of the principles of Eemaan. But all the prophets before Muhammad :saws1: were sent for a particular time to a particular group of people. Muhammad :saws1:, on the other hand was sent for all mankind and for all times. Therefore we do not follow the teachings of previous prophets. The Qura'n and Sunnah supersede them all.

Allah knows best.

 

[Tawangar]

I passed by someone who claimed that muslims follow the teachings of prophet Muhammad pbuh and no other prophet besides him. your thoughts?

The Din of all Prophets(asws) is the same but the Shari'ah with which they came was different. We believe in all Prophets but follow the Shari'a of Muhammad(saws). Anything from the Sharia' of the earlier Prophets that clashes with our Shari'a is rejected. WS.

 

[Yassouid]

Salaam,
As far as i know, any person who does not believe in ALL of Allah (saw) messengers is not a muslim.

Allahu a'laam

 

[IAmZamzam]

When I saw the title of this thread, I was almost certain that it was started by a Christian as yet another rehash of the old "Muhammad (P) went against the Bible he said he confirmed and therefore Islam can't be right" tactic. When I saw that this was not the case, I was still fairly sure that somewhere down the line, long before the thread made it to the second page, they would still come chiming in with such B.S. Probably it's still only a matter of time but the fact that we have even made it this far is remarkable (I am a little tempted to say almost miraculous). Kudos.

We are told in the Koran not to make any distinction between God's prophets. Following each one individually is not always an issue since they all taught the same core teachings retold in oodles of places in the Koran, but there are times when it does become specifically necessary to follow one in particular when he is mentioned. For instance, Lot's (P) maxims on the practice of homosexuality are the only ones we have (possibly with certain ahadith I don't know of notwithstanding) but this does not detract from them, because Lot (P) was a prophet and that's all it takes.

 

[GuestFellow]

Democracy as we now know it is very far removed from democracy, the democracy of today can best be described as a free enterprise, secular, pseudo-democracy and it is not the political system under which Yusuf(lived).

To sum it up, democracy now is crazy. It is like a big circus, where political parties spend millions of pounds on campaigning, demonizing minorities to gain popularity, having pointless debates and politicians ranting on about change change change. All they care about is staying in power. I feel like throttling some of these politicians, absolutely useless.

 

[IAmZamzam]

To sum it up, democracy now is crazy. It is like a big circus, where political parties spend millions of pounds on campaigning, demonizing minorities to gain popularity, having pointless debates and politicians ranting on about change change change. All they care about is staying in power. I feel like throttling some of these politicians, absolutely useless.

I know how you feel, especially when it comes to the urge to throttle politicians. But you'll have to remember that politicians are the same anywhere and in any system. If there ever was a fully developed political affiliation that was a good idea on all levels whatever, it would still have to be adulterated by the corruption that naturally comes with the actual practice of politics everywhere. Democracy is no worse than anything else in this regard; in fact, it may be better (or to put it less misleadingly, it may be less terrible, relatively speaking). But even the oldest democracies were designed more to take away freedom from the masses than to give it to them. This kind of thing is the reason why I seldom if ever vote: I don't believe in the idea of taking your pick of poison. If I am to be poisoned, they're going to have to force feed the toxin to me. The last thing I'm going to do is willingly let someone stomp on me. Even if I can't stop the stomping from coming, I can still elect not to lie back, close my eyes, and say to my oppressor, "C'mon, have a stomp! No, not you, I mean: just him!"