It's Good Friday because Jesus died for you on this day
Alan Cossey
example, Sura 4.136 tells us, "Believers, have faith in God and His apostle,
in the Book He has revealed to His apostle, and in the Scriptures He
formerly revealed." It is thus clear that the Qu'ran teaches that it was
still trustworthy at the time of Mohammed. Otherwise, how can we "have
faith" in it? Again we can see 5.68, which says, "Say: People of the Book,
you will attain nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that
which has been revealed to you from your Lord". Clearly this teaches that
the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) were to "observe the Torah and
the Gospel" and that could only happen if they knew what it was!
For followers of Jesus, the next three days are the highlight of our year.
Today we celebrate Good Friday, the day when Jesus died for our sins, and on
Sunday we celebrate his rising to life again, which demonstrated God's power
over death and the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice of himself for us.
May all who frequent these newsgroups come to know the truth of the Gospel
and the riches we have in Christ Jesus.
Amen!
Alan Cossey
Richard Dell
> The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Christian (and Jewish) scriptures.
How can that be, Alan, when Christianity and Islam have mutually
exclusive blasphemies? "Jesus is the Son of God" is blasphemy to the
Muslim and "God has no son" is blasphemy to the Christian. Moslems do
not believe Christian and Jewish scriptures and they certainly do not
believe "Jesus died for us".
Take off the rose tinted glasses Alan - Islam wants world domination
and it wants your mind and soul.
Salahuddin
were from Allah, but they were corrupted and altered by man, thus the Quran
was revealed to reconfirm previous scriptures and to finally complete
Allah's favour upon mankind.
A question for Christians, if Jesus can die for you, why dont you die for
him?
Oh Allah increase the believers in their Imaan and keep us steadfast, ameen.
Salahuddin
Altway
"Alan Cossey" wrote > For followers of Jesus, the next three days are the
highlight of our year.
> Today we celebrate Good Friday, the day when Jesus died for our sins, and
on Sunday we celebrate his rising to life again, which demonstrated God's
power over death and the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice of himself for us.
Comment:-
The trouble with this is that Islam confirms that Jesus did not teach that
he was God,
that God is a trinity and that salvation is through the crucifixion of
Jesus.
You can verify this from reading the Gospels.
As for sacrifice, the Prophet Muhammad sacrificed/devoted his life to the
service of God
and man as did Jesus and Moses and other Prophets. But the sacrifice
consisted of bringing us the Message of God, not the worship of the
Messenger.
The Quran and Jesus tell us that Salvation is through obedience to God:-
"Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven, but He THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. Many
will say to me in that Day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful
works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME,
YE THAT WORK INIQUITY." Matthew 7:21-23
"And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3
"While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12
"He that hears my word and believes on Him that sent me, hath everlasting
life, and shall not come unto condemnation, but is passed from death into
life." John 5:24
"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Mt
19:17
"..I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak these
things." John 8:28
> May all who frequent these newsgroups come to know the truth of the Gospel
and the riches we have in Christ Jesus.
Comment:-
May all Christians come to know the Truth about God and the way to
salvation.
Amen
Hamid S. Aziz
Mike
Salahuddin wrote:
> The Quran says have faith in the previous scriptures in the sense
that they
> were from Allah, but they were corrupted and altered by man, thus the
Quran
> was revealed to reconfirm previous scriptures and to finally complete
> Allah's favour upon mankind.
>
> A question for Christians, if Jesus can die for you, why dont you die
for
> him?
Can I point out that it is partly unfair to pose this sort of question
in this forum. Properly answering a question in SRI of this nature is
nigh-on impossible - how can an answer to such a question be framed to
be "relevant" to Islam? Any answer made from a Christian POV involves
looking at Christian history, which while interwoven at times with
Islamic history, is also not necessary "relevant" under the terms of
SRI.
The simple answer to the question is that countless numbers have, and
in a mystical way all Christians are to do so on a daily basis. I am
not sure how meaningful this would be to an Islamic audience who are
skeptical of the whole death/resurrection thing in Christianity, or
even whether the idea of dying to oneself has any sort of resonance.
In practical terms, I have to ask what the tenure of the question is. I
hope it does not display a hope that we will all go away and disappear.
Discounting that, are you suggesting all Christians should go off
somewhere and find some way we can die for the faith? Or is it a
question of wondering why so many people think twice at putting their
own lives on the line in defence of their faith?
One thing is clear. We are not to go out seeking martyrdom (a term we
use in rather different terms than seems to be the case in Islam - is
this just the case of one word being used to describe two different
concepts?), and we are not to commit suicide. I would guess that most
Muslims could see the merit in taking that approach.
Mike.
M.S.M. Saifullah
It is strange that a religion would celebrate the alleged death of its
founder with pomp and joy and called it a "Good" Friday.
> The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Christian (and Jewish) scriptures. For
> example, Sura 4.136 tells us, "Believers, have faith in God and His apostle,
> in the Book He has revealed to His apostle, and in the Scriptures He
> formerly revealed." It is thus clear that the Qu'ran teaches that it was
> still trustworthy at the time of Mohammed. Otherwise, how can we "have
> faith" in it?
The full verse reads:
"O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His messenger and the Scripture
which He hath revealed unto His messenger, and the Scripture which He
revealed aforetime. Whoso disbelieveth in Allah and His angels and His
scriptures and His messengers and the Last Day, he verily hath wandered
far astray."
Sure, it says that the Muslims should have faith in all the revealed Books
including the Qur'an. But it does not say here anything about the
trustworthiness of the scriptures. I really wonder where exactly you see
that the Qur'an teaches that the former scriptures were still trustworthy
at the time of Muhammad, SAW. In fact, this claim was refuted by us at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html
Any Christian who is learned enough would not dare to venture into the
claim of the scriptures were still trustworthy at the time of Muhammad,
SAW. Coming back to the scriptures, please can you please tell us what
"scriptures" are you talking about? And why? Every Church has its own
brand of "inspired" scriptures as listed at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/
> Again we can see 5.68, which says, "Say: People of the Book,
> you will attain nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that
> which has been revealed to you from your Lord". Clearly this teaches that
> the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) were to "observe the Torah and
> the Gospel" and that could only happen if they knew what it was!
The verse says much more. It reads:
"Say O People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance) till ye
observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto you from
your Lord. That which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) from thy Lord is
certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many of them. But
grieve not for the disbelieving folk."
Not exactly the one that you should be quoting to prop up your
non-existing point.
> For followers of Jesus, the next three days are the highlight of our year.
> Today we celebrate Good Friday, the day when Jesus died for our sins, and on
> Sunday we celebrate his rising to life again, which demonstrated God's power
> over death and the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice of himself for us.
Since Jesus(P) died for your sins, time to sin more; innit?
Regards
Saifullah
Alan Cossey
"Salahuddin" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ue1e.289$%r3....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Hi Salahuddin,
On this point I'll actually go with what the Qu'ran says, i.e. have faith in
the previous scripture, and not add human interpretation to the plain
meaning. I would suggest you are making the Qu'ran say something that isn't
there. Not good.
Alan
Alan Cossey
"Richard Dell" <rfd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a986964c.05032...@posting.google.com...
I don't believe the Qu'ran to be inspired by God. My point in my original
post was that the Qu'ran tells Muslims to believe in the Christian and
Jewish scriptures, which is great. Wish they would do so. The fact that you
can't believe both the Qu'ran and the Christian and Jewish scriptures is a
problem for Muslims, not for Christians.
Alan
PS My glasses are a plain Ł8.99 from Super Drug. No rose tint at all.
Amr Sabry
> I don't believe the Qu'ran to be inspired by God. My point in my original
> post was that the Qu'ran tells Muslims to believe in the Christian and
> Jewish scriptures, which is great. Wish they would do so. The fact that you
> can't believe both the Qu'ran and the Christian and Jewish scriptures is a
> problem for Muslims, not for Christians.
It is always funny that some people refer to "Christian and Jewish"
scriptures on one side vs. the Qur'an on another side. There are many
problems with such a position, not least of which is that the Jewish and
Christian positions are fundamentally at odds with each other, and the Muslim
position is rather in-between them:
The Jews are Jews because they rejected the claim that Jesus is the
Messiah. Here the position of the Muslims is the same as the Christians.
The Jews consider it a blasphemy that the Christians deify the
Messiah. Here the position of the Muslims is the same as the Jews.
--Amr
Alan Cossey
"Altway" <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:11120372...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Alan Cossey" wrote > For followers of Jesus, the next three days are the
> highlight of our year.
>> Today we celebrate Good Friday, the day when Jesus died for our sins, and
> on Sunday we celebrate his rising to life again, which demonstrated God's
> power over death and the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice of himself for
> us.
>
> Comment:-
>
> The trouble with this is that Islam confirms that Jesus did not teach that
> he was God,
> that God is a trinity and that salvation is through the crucifixion of
> Jesus.
Hamid,
The trouble with this is that Islam came along 600 years later, claimed that
the Christian and Jewish scriptures (aka New and Old Testaments) were
inspired by God, taught its people to believe them then ignored much of what
they actually said. In the context of our discussion, it is "Islam alleges
that Jesus did not teach that he was God...".
> You can verify this from reading the Gospels.
>
Afraid not. The gospels are quite clear that Jesus is God. That's why his
followers taught that he was God. See long spiel marked * at the end of this
post.
> As for sacrifice, the Prophet Muhammad sacrificed/devoted his life to the
> service of God
> and man as did Jesus and Moses and other Prophets. But the sacrifice
> consisted of bringing us the Message of God, not the worship of the
> Messenger.
>
> The Quran and Jesus tell us that Salvation is through obedience to God:-
>
> "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom
> of
> heaven, but He THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. Many
> will say to me in that Day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in thy
> name?
> and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful
> works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM
> ME,
> YE THAT WORK INIQUITY." Matthew 7:21-23
>
There is some common ground here between us (as there is in other areas).
The bible teaches that we should obey God. There are various reasons for
this, the two most important being our relationship with God himself and
also with our fellow human beings. Jesus said the two most important
commandments were "Love the Lord your God with all our heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the secod is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself'.'"
If we ignore God, then we can hardly have a relationship with him. This is
similar to if I ignore my wife, I can hardly call it a relationship. God
knows what is best for my life. Much of the time I can see why he says
something, but sometimes I have to take it on trust. As for rules for our
society, we need them just as you do in a game of football. If we were to
argue about where the touchline is or just ignore it if the ball goes out of
play, we will get into an awful muddle. If we were all Roy Keanes, it would
be anarchy. Ditto our life. If we cheat on our wife/husband, steal, ignore
the state of the poor and needy etc., life will be mess.
I don't think we disagree on the rightness of obeying God. However, where we
diverge is what the bible teaches about God is holy and the requirement to
be like him. Islam and Christianity both teach a fall (Adam and Eve), but
the bible makes more of it. It teaches that its effects are more serious. We
don't live up the standards God demands of us (I don't even live up to the
standards I expect of other people). Islam teaches that Allah says (and I
know this is a bit of a caricature, but you will get my gist), "It's
alright, Hamid/Alan. I can forgive your sin straight off. You've repented.
That's enough. The fact that you lied/cheated/killed/committed
adultery/stole/ignored 30,000 people dying from hunger-related illnesses
each day/ignored the madmen in your Islamic/Christian religion and settled
for the cosy atmosphere of a newsgroup/whatever doesn't really matter.
Despite the eternal consequences of some of your actions, I am going to
ignore them and treat eveything as if they never happened." The bible
recognises our actions for what they are and some of them have huge
consequences. God can't/won't just say, "Well that's alright then, you're
forgiven." Sin requires a penalty. That may sound harsh, morbid or whatever,
particularly to a Western ear where we reckon we have a right to the pursuit
of happiness/pleasure/a decent car, but if that is what God says, then that
is what God says (and people living outside the cosiness of Western
Europe/America will be more inclined to agree than softie Westerners). This
where Jesus paid for our sin by dying on the cross. He took our sins on
himself. Don't ask me to explain it fully because I can't, but somehow there
was some sort of separation between Jesus and his Father. "My God, my God.
Why have you foresaken me?" he cried. Though the physical pain was immense,
even that was not the main thing. It was this sinless God-who-was-and-is-man
taking my sins upon him. You may disagree with this teaching, but if there
is even the faintest chance that it is correct, how can you and I ignore it.
If God loves me that much - that he would send his son to die like this for
you and me - how can I do anything but turn to him in awe, thankfulness and
repentance? And if I do that will my actions, my life as a whole, not be
somewhat different to how it used to be? In the New Testament, James writes
that if someone claims to have faith without the resulting actions then
there is something horribly wrong with my so-called faith. You can't have
one without the other.
To sum up, if a person claims to have faith without
actions/deeds/works/obeying God, then their "faith" is not truly faith.
However, it is our turning to God in faith and repentance that is the actual
turning point, the bit that gets us forgiven. Jesus paid the price on the
cross to make it possible. Our faith and repentance do not earn us the right
to be forgiven. No way. It is the route in though and as a response to God's
truly wonderful, awe-inspiring forgiveness, we want to live a life pleasing
to him. Our response will be to "do the will of our father who is in heaven"
and not "work iniquity". Our obedience will not earn us the right to
forgiveness, the pass mark in the exam is 100% and I only score 40% or
whatever, but being forgiven means I want to do what God wants much more
than before.
> "And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
> Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3
When discussing the Trinity, Christians avoid phrases like "makes up" to try
to avoid giving the impression that the Father, Son or Holy Spirit were in
any way created/made, but let's use that phrase. God consists of / is made
up of/ exists as three persons. "Person" is the best word we can find in the
English language and any word describing God is going to be incomplete, but
let's use it. The Father (part of the tri-une God) is the only true God;
Jesus (part of the tri-une God) is the only God; the Holy Spirt (part of the
tri-une God) is the only God. I am not God nor are you. Father, Son and Holy
Spirit together are the only true God. They are not totally separate
entities like I am separate from you, but the Son is not the Father and the
Holy Spirit is not the Son etc. Look at a photo of my head and someone who
knows me will say, "That's Alan Cossey." Show someone a photo of me as a
whole and they will say, "That's Alan Cossey". Show someone my left leg from
behind (where you can see my birthmark) and they will say, "That's Alan
Cossey". My head is not all of me and my left leg is not my head but they
are all Alan Cossey.
>
> "While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12
A bit of context helps. Jesus is praying to the Father and praying for his
disciples. He protected them with the authority the Father gave him. That is
what "in the name" of someone means. In English we only use it in a similar
fashion if we were policemen and say "Open up in the name of the law". We
don't mean the "forename and surname" of the law as that just does not make
sense; it means "I demand you open up because the law allows me to demand
it".
>
> "He that hears my word and believes on Him that sent me, hath everlasting
> life, and shall not come unto condemnation, but is passed from death into
> life." John 5:24
I do wish translations of the bible (and Qu'ran) would use English English,
not posh, feigned English. No-one says, "I believe on" something. We say, "I
believe in" something. What does that mean? Everyone believes in Tony
Blair/George Bush/Margaret Thatcher, i.e. that they exist, so is Jesus
saying we just need to believe in God's existence. Nope. Even Satan does
that. Again we are talking about putting our faith in God. If I get on a
plane, I need to do more than believe in the existence of the pilot; I need
to have faith in his ability. Same with the faith Jesus is talking about. I
need to have faith in God and what he has done, particularly sending Jesus
to die for my sins. I need to put my trust in him. This verse doesn't tell
me not to put my trust in Jesus.
>
> "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but
> one,
> that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Mt
> 19:17
Yes, God alone is truly and completely good. The Father is God; Jesus is
God; the Holy Spirit is God. This verse does not have Jesus denying that he
himself is good. He is making the man think about what he is saying and, if
anything, is a hint to him that Jesus is more than what the man was taking
him for. "You call me good, God alone is good, so who does that make me?
Eh?"
>
> "..I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak these
> things." John 8:28
This may not be the whole answer, but the gospels taught that there were
things Jesus did not know, e.g. when he would return to earth after his
ascension to heaven after his resurrection (the Second Coming). When he
became man he was obviously restricted in some ways, e.g. being in only one
place at a time, having to go to the loo, being hungry, needing sleep. We
are also taught that he had to learn stuff, e.g. when he went to the Temple
with his parents. What this verse is saying is that Jesus is claiming to be
totally in tune with the Father (unlike any other human being in history).
I acknowledge that the verses you quoted are capable of being understood in
the manner you are implying. However, I would contend that they could also
be understood in the manner I explained. To understand which is the correct
way, we need to look at them in the context of the whole of the bible, in
particular in the context of the New Testament. See below for more details.
>
>> May all who frequent these newsgroups come to know the truth of the
>> Gospel
> and the riches we have in Christ Jesus.
>
> Comment:-
> May all Christians come to know the Truth about God and the way to
> salvation.
> Amen
>
> Hamid S. Aziz
>
A couple of questions for you now.
1) Why do Muslims quote the New Testament when it is meant to be corrupt?
Why do Muslims ignore what the Qu'ran teaches about the New Testament, e.g.
4.136, 5.68 and so on? No hint there of "corruption".
2) When Jesus rose from the dead, one of his disciples, Thomas, refused to
believe it until he saw Jesus. When he did, he exclaimed to Jesus, "My Lord
and my God!" (John 20.28). What would Mohammed's response have been if
someone had said that to him? What does that tell us about about who
Mohammed thought he himself was and what Jesus thought he himself was?
Alan
* Long spiel promised early on
The bible, original texts and translations alike,
teach that God is one. Christians believe in one God. The Christian creeds
teach one God. Even the Church of England teaches one God! It is wrong to
say that Christianity teaches otherwise. To say that Christianity teaches
polytheism or anything-else-ism is to present a caricature of the Christian
faith. Our disagreement is not on how many gods there are, but who he is and
what he is like (to some extent). It is clear to me that you want to have an
intelligent discussion with Christians and it will make it much easier all
round if none of us tries to argue against beliefs that the other discussion
members don't believe anyway. I hope that doesn't sound like a lecture and
do feel free to let me know if/when I do something similar! It is just that
there is enough misunderstanding in this world (and this newsgroup in
particular) that we could do with not arguing about things we actually agree
on.
On Jesus being part of the Trinity, i.e. on him being God, below is part of
a post I made a while back. Hope it helps you see where Christians are
coming from:
The Jewish followers of Jesus did not rush to believe that Jesus was God.
They understood that there was one God, much like you do. It was only after
spending time living with Jesus, hearing what he taught and seeing what he
did that they came to the conclusion that Jesus was indeed God. The word
"Trinity" and the creeds, particularly the Anathasian Creed, that were
formulated later are a (good) summary of what the bible, particularly the
New Testament, said about who God is. Have a look at
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=223 and
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/Quicumque.html for example,
More biblical passages:
a.. John 1.1 & 2 say, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with
God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning", i.e. he was
already there when God started creating things.
b.. John 1.18 explains this further, "No-one has ever seen God, but God
the only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known."
c.. John 20.28 Thomas, who had real doubts up to that point, was driven to
the response "My Lord and my God" when he saw Jesus after his death and
resurrection. If Jesus was not his Lord and his God, his appropriate
response under Jewish law would have been to have got Thomas stoned to
death. Instead, he accepted his worship and chided him for being slow on the
uptake.
d.. John 5.23 Jesus says that he is worthy of the same honour as the
Father.
e.. In John 10, Jesus spoke of him and the Father being one. The Jews knew
what this meant and went to stone him for blasphemy (John 10.30-33). Jesus
didn't say, "Hang on chaps! You misunderstand me. I'm not God" when they
said to him, "...you, a mere man, claim to be God." Why not? If someone was
about to stone me because they thought I was claiming to be God, I would
certainly have pointed out the misunderstanding! Wouldn't you?
f.. Similarly John 8.58 where Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." See
the rest of that chapter to get the context. The importance of this saying
of Jesus is that "I am" is the meaning of the name of God, i.e. Yahweh (or
YHWH without the vowels). Here again, the Jews fully understood what Jesus
was saying. Jesus did not just say, "Before Abraham, I was" (though that
would have wound them up any way claiming to exist a couple of thousand
years beforehand), but instead he used God's name for himself.
g.. John spoke of Jesus as being YHWH. See John 12.41 where he says,
"Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him" referring
to a quotation from Isaiah 6.1-10 where Isaiah said he saw YHWH.
h.. Matthew (3.3) speaks of John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus,
saying, "
"A voice of one calling in the desert,
`Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.' "
This is a quote from Isaiah 40.3, i.e.
"A voice of one calling:
'In the desert prepare
the way for the LORD;
make straight in the wilderness
a highway for our God.'"
a.. Jesus is the First and the Last. See Isaiah 44.6 and Revelation 1.17,
18.
"This is what the LORD says--
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God."
(John speaking) "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he
placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and
the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever
and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."
a.. Have a look at Philippians 2 which is describing Jesus.
"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something
to be grasped (hung onto), but made himself nothing, taking the very
nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in
appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and
gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every
knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every
tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
a.. Again John speaks of Jesus as the true God.
"We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding,
so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true--even in
his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. " 1 John 5.20.
a.. John 5.18 says that the Jews knew who Jesus was claiming to be.
"For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he
breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making
himself equal with God."
a.. God is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords according Paul in 1 Timothy
6.15
"God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, "
Hello, that's Jesus, isn't it, in Revelation 19.13-16?
"He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
... On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS. "
a.. 1 Samuel 2.2 from the Old Testament tells us that there is no-one holy
like the LORD.
"There is no one holy like the LORD;
there is no one besides you;
there is no Rock like our God."
Peter, speaking on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the
early believers and speaking about Jesus, said:
"You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be
released to you. 1You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the
dead. We are witnesses of this. "
a.. Isaiah 9.6 tells us that the Messiah will be called, "Mighty God".
Christians and Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah, so the logical
conclusion is.....
b.. etc, etc.
Uncle_Sinbad
> example, Sura 4.136 tells us, "Believers, have faith in God and His apostle,
> in the Book He has revealed to His apostle, and in the Scriptures He
> formerly revealed." It is thus clear that the Qu'ran teaches that it was
> still trustworthy at the time of Mohammed. Otherwise, how can we "have
> faith" in it? Again we can see 5.68, which says, "Say: People of the Book,
> you will attain nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that
> which has been revealed to you from your Lord". Clearly this teaches that
> the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) were to "observe the Torah and
> the Gospel" and that could only happen if they knew what it was!
This argument looks very much like the famous logical paradox of
Aristotles and Socrates.
It can be summarised in two statements:
1)The Quran is trustworthy and says the Bible is trustworthy
2)The Bible is trustworthy and says the Quran is not trustworthy.
It would follow that if (1) is true then (2) is true wich would make
(1) false wich would make (2) false wich would make (1) true wich
would make (2) true wich would make (2) false wich would make (1) true
etc.
Compare:
1)Aristotle says whatever Socrates says is true
2)Socrates says whatever Aristoteles says is false.
What the christian tried by this argument is to bring the muslim to
accept the Bible as 100% trustworthy from 100% belief in the the
Quran, but if he does this he ends up believing in a contradiction
wich is not acceptable for a reasonable person. The two statements
make a referential circle, and together they form a logical
contradiction. It's very foolish if you think about it.
But the problem can be solved easely from a muslim perspective if it
is proven that the Quran does not accept the Bible to be 100%
trustworthy or by proving that the Bible is misinterpreted and thus
does not contradict the teachings of the Quran.
I think it's a combination of both. For e.g.:
a)The christian's belief in the trinity is a misinterpretation since
it is not clearly expressed or explained in the Bible and
b)the belief that Jesus died for the sins of the world is clearly
expressed by writings of Paul in the New Testament and thus can be
believed to be be a man made alteration/corruption if it can be proven
1. Negatively: that the Quran does not say that the Bible is
errorfree.
2. Positively: the Quran makes the positive claim that the Bible
has
changed.
ad 1)I don't think there is any verse in the Quran that explicitely
says that the Scriptures that exist among the people of the Book today
are 100% reliable. What it says is that they are being confirmed and
that christians should be truthfull towards themselves and if they
don't accaept islam atleast practice what they (or their Book) preach.
The Quran "confirms" the previous scriptures, does not mean it
accepted them as unchanged, uncorrupted or errorfree:
(Quran 5:15-16) O people of the Scripture! Now hath Our messenger come
unto you, expounding unto you much of that which ye used to hide in
the Scripture, and forgiving much. Now hath come unto you light from
Allah and a plain Scripture, Whereby Allah guideth him who seeketh His
good pleasure unto paths of peace. He bringeth them out of darkness
unto light by His decree, and guideth them unto a straight path.
(Quran 2:89) And when there comes to them a Book from Allah,
confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed
for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them
that which they (should) have recognized, they refuse to believe in it
but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith.
Narrated Abu Huraira: "The people of the Book used to read the Torah
in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's
Apostle said (to the Muslims). 'Do not believe the people of the Book,
nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is
revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' ' (Translation of
Sahih Bukhari, Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah, Volume 9, Book
92, Number 460)"
ad 2)The theory that the Quran and the first muslims including the
prophet recognised the holy books of the people of the Book
uncorrupted seems to exist even among some academics of Missionaries
and Orientalists. This would surely lead to the contradiction since
the Quran clearly rejects some believes that are expressed in the
Bible for eg that Jesus died for the sins of mankind.
Some people seem to be ignorent of the following verse and the
following hadith refuting this theory positively:
2:79 Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their
hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a
small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written,
and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.
Narrated Ubaidullah: "Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of
the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been
revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure,
undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of
the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and
distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said,
'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the
knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about
anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking
you regarding what has been revealed to you!" (Translation of Sahih
Bukhari, Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah, Volume 9, Book 92,
Number 461)"
Other verses about corruptions/changes in previous scriptures:
(Quran 2:59) But the transgressors changed the word from that which
had been given them; so We sent on the transgressors a plague from
heaven, for that they infringed (Our command) repeatedly. (see also
similar verse 7:162)
(Quran 5:13) "But on account of their breaking their covenant We
cursed them (Jews and Christians) and made their hearts hard; they
altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of
what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in
them except a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah
loves those who do good (to others)."
(Quran 5:41) O Messenger. let not those grieve thee, who race each
other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe"
with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the
Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who
have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their
(right) times and places: they say, "If ye are given this, take it,
but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by Allah, thou
hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such - it is
not Allah's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in
this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.
I think this all is more than enough proof to refute the claim that:
to accept the Quran you must belief the Bible is 100% trustworthy or
an errorfree book. Wich I showed in the start anyway ends in believing
in a BIG contradiction.
Peace,
Kamal
M.L. Dante
> The Quran says have faith in the previous scriptures in the sense that they
> were from Allah, but they were corrupted and altered by man, thus the Quran
> was revealed to reconfirm previous scriptures and to finally complete
> Allah's favour upon mankind.
>
> A question for Christians, if Jesus can die for you, why dont you die for
> him?
Many Christians *have* died for Him. Starting with the Apostles, and many
of the early Christians who were put to death for refusing to deny Him.
And at the time of the birth and growth of Islam, many Christians were put
to the sword by Muslims for refusing to deny Jesus Christ.
And even today, Christians are being slaughtered because of their loyalty
to Jesus Christ.
Yes, many Christians have and are dying for Him.
mld
Viqar Ahmed
and Torah) were
revealed to Jesus and Moses (Peace be Upon Them Both).
There is no requirement for muslims to believe in the veracity of what
Christians and
Jews consider to be their scripture today.
Peace,
Viqar Ahmed
PS: The problem is not with your glasses, and their cost is, therefore,
immaterial.
M.L. Dante
> The Quran says have faith in the previous scriptures in the sense that they
> were from Allah, but they were corrupted and altered by man, thus the Quran
> was revealed to reconfirm previous scriptures and to finally complete
> Allah's favour upon mankind.
As you can read in Genesis, the way Satan works is to tell partial truths,
and then slip in the lie that will kill. He truthfully says God gave a
command to Adam and Eve (you must not eat of the fruit) but then he lies
about God's reasons.
In the same way, the Quran contains many truths, including the fact that
previous scriptures (Torah and Bible) are from God. Then comes the lie
that - gee, once again God's plans were foiled, and so we need the Quran
to correct all those errors.
When the angel prevented Abraham from sacrificing his son, God taught us
that He is a different god from Baal, who insisted on children being
sacrificed to him. Killing a child in His name is not permitted. Killing
another human being as a sacrifice to Him is unacceptable.
God does not change. He still hates the Palestinians killing Israeli
children in His name, and He still hates the Muslims flying planes into
buildings and killing innocent persons. And He hates that people cut off
the heads of men and women. There is no paradise awaiting the suicide
bombers. The 70 virgins are actually 70 demons who will torture them for
all eternity. The paradise with 70 virgins is another lie of Satan who is
master of those 70 demons.
mld
zev
<snipped>
> The Jewish followers of Jesus did not rush to believe that Jesus was God.
> They understood that there was one God, much like you do. It was only
> after
> spending time living with Jesus, hearing what he taught and seeing what he
> did that they came to the conclusion that Jesus was indeed God. The word
> "Trinity" and the creeds, particularly the Anathasian Creed, that were
> formulated later are a (good) summary of what the bible, particularly the
> New Testament, said about who God is....
Alan, I'm sure you are aware of the argument used against Islam
that Muslims say Muhammad must be a prophet because
God dictated to him, through Gabriel, the Qur'an,
and the Qur'an must be God's word because
the prophet Muhammad wrote it.
Since this argument is circular, both parts remain unproven.
The Christian belief in the Trinity is much the same.
The NT is true because it consists of Jesus' teachings,
Jesus is (son of) God because
that's how the NT seems to refers to him.
Isn't this just as circular?
What really prevents us from believing that Jesus
was much less than (a) God,
and that God is one and absolutely indivisible
as both Jews and Muslims believe?
Why invent a 'Godhead' with parts,
each of which can be called 'God' on its own?
Can't the relevant verses of the NT
be explained some other way to avoid
postulating an idea which no ancient Hebrew
would have agreed with, based on the entire OT?
Zev
Amr Sabry
> God does not change. He still hates the Palestinians killing Israeli
> children in His name,
and He loves the Israelis killing the Palestinian children in His name ????
> and He still hates the Muslims flying planes into
> buildings and killing innocent persons.
and He loves the Americans for dropping two nuclear bombs on innocent
civilians, for killing two million Vietnamese, a few hundred thousand South
Americans, a few tousands Iraqis because God told them to spread freedom ???
> And He hates that people cut off
> the heads of men and women.
and He loves that you instead drop bombs on them ???
> There is no paradise awaiting the suicide
> bombers.
but there is a paradise awaiting the one who drops a bomb from an airplane
instead ???
--Amr
James Dowdeswell
reason given. Thank you).
> Any Christian who is learned enough would not dare to venture into the
> claim of the scriptures were still trustworthy at the time of Muhammad,
> SAW.
"Any Christian"? They would and *do* Dr Saifullah. Do I really need
to produce one for you? Unless of course you are equating "learned
enough" with "those who happen to agree with you"!
> Coming back to the scriptures, please can you please tell us what
> "scriptures" are you talking about? And why? Every Church has its own
> brand of "inspired" scriptures as listed at:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/
Where do your beliefs come from? From the Qur'an only? No, but from
the Hadith too. So, do you suppose *all* Muslim groups accept the
same body of Hadith? No, of course they don't.
Here's a question for you:
Which has the bigger impact on our respective "beliefs"? The
differences in Christian cannon, that you list on your site, or the
difference in authoriative Hadith collections between Muslims groups?
Warm regards,
James.
Altway
"Alan Cossey" wrote in message
>> The trouble with this is that Islam confirms that Jesus did not teach
>> that
he was God, that God is a trinity and that salvation is through the
crucifixion of
Jesus.
> The trouble with this is that Islam came along 600 years later, claimed
> that
the Christian and Jewish scriptures (aka New and Old Testaments) were
inspired by God, taught its people to believe them then ignored much of
what
they actually said. In the context of our discussion, it is "Islam alleges
that Jesus did not teach that he was God...".
Comment:-
Certainly the Quran affirms that revelation were given to Moses and Jesus
but also affirms that these came to be misinterpreted.
>> You can verify this from reading the Gospels.
> Afraid not. The gospels are quite clear that Jesus is God. That's why his
followers taught that he was God. See long spiel marked * at the end of
this
post.
Comment:-
You see what we mean by misinterpretation.
Nowhere does Jesus say he was God. Nowhere does he say that
God is a Trinity and nowhere does he say that salvation is by his death.
These are human speculations.
>> As for sacrifice, the Prophet Muhammad sacrificed/devoted his life to the
service of God and man as did Jesus and Moses and other Prophets. But the
sacrifice
consisted of bringing us the Message of God, not the worship of the
Messenger.
The Quran and Jesus tell us that Salvation is through obedience to God:-
>> "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven, but He THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.
Many
will say to me in that Day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in thy
name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful
works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM
ME,
YE THAT WORK INIQUITY." Matthew 7:21-23
> I don't think we disagree on the rightness of obeying God. However, where
> we diverge is what the bible teaches about God is holy and the requirement
> to
be like him. Islam and Christianity both teach a fall (Adam and Eve), but
the bible makes more of it. It teaches that its effects are more serious.
Comment:-
I do not agree.
According to the Quran man has Fallen owing to sin and has been sent to
earth to learn
and develop with the guidance sent by God and return to Paradise.
>Islam teaches that Allah says (and I know this is a bit of a caricature,
>but you will get my gist), "It's
alright, Hamid/Alan. I can forgive your sin straight off. You've repented.
That's enough. The fact that you lied/cheated/killed/committed
adultery/stole/ignored 30,000 people dying from hunger-related illnesses
each day/ignored the madmen in your Islamic/Christian religion and settled
for the cosy atmosphere of a newsgroup/whatever doesn't really matter.
Despite the eternal consequences of some of your actions, I am going to
ignore them and treat eveything as if they never happened."
Comment:-
Is that how you interpret the Quran?
So you have not read and understood it and
probably have a strong desire not to.
This kind of closed mind can hardly be admirable.
>Sin requires a penalty. That may sound harsh, morbid or whatever,
particularly to a Western ear. ..This where Jesus paid for our sin by
dying on the cross. He took our sins on himself.
Don't ask me to explain it fully because I can't,
taking my sins upon him. You may disagree with this teaching, but if there
is even the faintest chance that it is correct, how can you and I ignore it.
Comment:-
Sorry this makes no sense to us. It does not even make sense to you.
Allah is Just and quite able to forgive sins without requiring Jesus to die.
How can the death of Jesus cause forgiveness of other peoples sin.
"He who accepts guidance (or does right), accepts it only for his own soul:
and he who errs, errs only against it; nor shall one burdened soul bear the
burden of another." Quran 17:15
Even Paul taught:-
"Be not deceived: God is not mocked:for whatsoever a man soweth that shall
he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life
everlasting." Galatians 6:7-8
I will tell you how:-
The Messengers God sent sacrificed/devoted their lives to the service of
God and Man in that they brought the Word, the message of God to man.
It is by obeying this Message that salvation is gained, not by the sacrifice
of the Messenger.
However, we are all required to follow the Messengers (They are example)
in sacrifice our worldly life in order to regenerate our spiritual life
(this is death and resurrection).
"Say (O Muhammad): If you love Allah then follow me, and Allah will love you
and forgive you your sins, for Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." Quran 3:31
"O you who believe! Respond unto Allah and His Messenger when He calls you
to that which quickens you; and know that Allah comes in between a man and
his own heart; and that He it is unto Whom you shall be gathered." Quran
8:24
What Jesus taught was:-
"And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of
me." Matthew 10:38
"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Matthew 16:24
Yes, there is suffering involved in giving up the sinful life. But it is
one's own suffering, not that of someone else.
> If God loves me that much - that he would send his son to die like this
> for
you and me - how can I do anything but turn to him in awe, thankfulness and
repentance?
Comment:-
The love of God for man is shown by every Messenger that God sent.
The love of the Messenger also leads his followers to obey God as he did.
The phrase "Son of God" is symbolic and is explained in your Bible as those
who are led by the Word or Spirit of God
see John 1:12-13, John 10:33-35 (quoting Psalms 82:6) and Romans 8:14
Jesus taught:-
"..I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak these
things." John 8:28
See also John 6:38, 57, 7:16, 8:28, 10:37-38, 12:49.
"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Mt
19:17
"Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man (Jesus) it shall be
forgiven him; but unto him that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost it shall
not be forgiven." Luke 12:10
None of these show that Jesus thought he was a God. In fact John 1:18 tells
us that no man has seen God, but the Word of God has delclared him. The
"Word was made flesh" is also symbolism because we are told in John 1:14
that "we beheld his glory, the glory AS OF the only begotten of the Father"
not "of the only begotten". The "only begotten" refers to the Word. This is
how John sees it, not Jesus. According to the Quran Allah begets not, but
"He says only Be. And it is."
>> "And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3
> When discussing the Trinity, Christians avoid phrases like "makes up" to
> try to avoid giving the impression that the Father, Son or Holy Spirit
> were in any way created/made,
Comment:-
Sorry Trinity does not make any sense to us unless it refers not to God but
to Religion.
Certainly religion is presented to us by God, the Messenger and the Spirit
that informs both the Messenger an his followers.
Trinity refers to a Relativity wheras God is Absolute.
Jesus like other Messengers represents God on earth, he is "God-with-Us" not
"God".
Even Paul did not believe in Trinity:-
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus" 1 Tim 2:5
"There is actually to us one God the Father,...and there is one Lord, Jesus
Christ" 1 Cor 8:6
"One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" Eph
4:6
"And ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's" 1 Cor 3:23
Thus John 1:1 should be "...Word was God's" [Theos=God, Theou=God's]
>> "While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John
>> 17:12
> A bit of context helps. Jesus is praying to the Father and praying for his
disciples. He protected them with the authority the Father gave him. That
is
what "in the name" of someone means. In English we only use it in a similar
fashion if we were policemen and say "Open up in the name of the law". We
don't mean the "forename and surname" of the law as that just does not make
sense; it means "I demand you open up because the law allows me to demand
it".
Comment:-
This is rationalisation, confusion caused by the invention of Trinity.
What is clear is that Jesus kept his followers in the name of God.
>> "He that hears my word and believes on Him that sent me, hath everlasting
life, and shall not come unto condemnation, but is passed from death into
life." John 5:24
> I do wish translations of the bible (and Qu'ran) would use English
> English,
not posh, feigned English. No-one says, "I believe on" something. We say,
"I
believe in" something. What does that mean? Everyone believes in Tony
Blair/George Bush/Margaret Thatcher, i.e. that they exist, so is Jesus
saying we just need to believe in God's existence.
Comment:-
It is clear to me: "on Him" means believes his teachings and example
and that he was sent by God as he said.
>> "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but
one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments." Mt
19:17
> Yes, God alone is truly and completely good. The Father is God; Jesus is
God; the Holy Spirit is God.
Comment:-
This invention. There is nothing like this in the words of Jesus.
What he said is clear:-
It is not Jesus, but God alone is the Good. And we are expected to obey the
commandments of God.
>> "..I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak
>> these
things." John 8:28
> This may not be the whole answer, but the gospels taught that there were
things Jesus did not know, e.g. when he would return to earth after his
ascension to heaven after his resurrection (the Second Coming).
Comment:-
So he was not the Omnipotent God.
> I acknowledge that the verses you quoted are capable of being understood
> in
the manner you are implying. However, I would contend that they could also
be understood in the manner I explained.
Comment:-
No. I deny that your interpretation is possible without contradicting what
Jesus said
and without extraneous invented doctrines.
To us Allah surrounds all things and is self-sufficient.
That cannot be said about Jesus.
But we do recognise that the word "God" was used to refer to the Pharoahs
and Caesars and other human authorities in the past.
That is why the term "Allah" is quite distinct from the term "God".
Allah refers only to what Jesus calls "The Father" and not to the
Word, or Messenger who carries the Word of God, nor to the
Holy Ghost separately.
>> May all Christians come to know the Truth about God and the way to
salvation.
Amen
> A couple of questions for you now.
> 1) Why do Muslims quote the New Testament when it is meant to be corrupt?
Why do Muslims ignore what the Qu'ran teaches about the New Testament, e.g.
4.136, 5.68 and so on? No hint there of "corruption".
Comment:-
Jesus was given Revelations. These are not the same thing as the Books
written by human beings - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. However, these contains
the teaching of Jesus.
> 2) When Jesus rose from the dead, one of his disciples, Thomas, refused to
believe it until he saw Jesus. When he did, he exclaimed to Jesus, "My Lord
and my God!" (John 20.28). What would Mohammed's response have been if
someone had said that to him? What does that tell us about about who
Mohammed thought he himself was and what Jesus thought he himself was?
Comment:-
Many people say "My God" when they recognise something wonderful
without implying that the thing itself is God. It is a common expression
among Muslims
to praise God when something wonderful occurs.
Muhammad would have understood what Thomas meant or
if Thomas meant it literally, he would have corrected him.
Apart from this this is a report by John, not a teaching of Jesus.
Note that the disciples thought that Jesus had died and when they saw him
they thought he was a Ghost. But Jesus asked him to touch him to see that he
was still flesh and bones.
> * Long spiel promised early on
> The bible, original texts and translations alike,
teach that God is one. Christians believe in one God. The Christian creeds
teach one God. Even the Church of England teaches one God!
It is wrong to say that Christianity teaches otherwise.
Comment:-
Yes, but it divides God into parts and they make a man into a God.
This is the Islamic objection.
Because the phrase "Son of God" came to be taken literally,
then the Quran denies it.
> On Jesus being part of the Trinity, i.e. on him being God, below is part
> of
a post I made a while back. Hope it helps you see where Christians are
coming from:
Comment:-
We have heard the Christian position often enough.
You have a great number of missionaries -
Islam does not.
Muslims are expected to tell others about Islam when they wish to know.
Christians criticise Islam without understanding their point of view,
but at the same time want Muslims to understand their point of view
without expecting a reply to their criticisms of Islam.
Christians can believe whatever they like, but if they come to
Islamic sites in order to push their criticisms and points of view
they must expect replies in the same kind.
We find the Christian position rather primitive because it uses
ancient notions while the Islamic position much more reasonable,
an advance over Christianity as that wasove Hebrewism.
Hebrewism places emphasis on Hope, Justice and ritual. Christianity
places it on Love and Charity, because Hebrewism became formal and
emphasised the letter ignoring the spirit. Islam while including the others,
places emphasis on Truth and Awareness, mainly because many Christians
tended to rationalise and to attribute good motives to themselves.
> The Jewish followers of Jesus did not rush to believe that Jesus was God.
They understood that there was one God, much like you do. It was only after
spending time living with Jesus, hearing what he taught and seeing what he
did that they came to the conclusion that Jesus was indeed God.
Comment:-
No. The early Christians did not believe that Jesus was God.
That is a much later invention.
> More biblical passages:
a.. John 1.1 & 2 say, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with
God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning", i.e. he was
already there when God started creating things.
Comment:-
No. The word was Divine i.e. it was the Word of God.
It is not something apart from God,
But it is not separately a god, as in a person or a book.
When I utter a word that word though it started as part of me
is not me.
> b.. John 1.18 explains this further, "No-one has ever seen God, but God
the only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known."
Comment:-
Not "only Son", but "only begotten" which refers to the Word.
> d.. John 5.23 Jesus says that he is worthy of the same honour as the
Father.
Comment:-
The Messenger must be honoured because he represents God.
> e.. In John 10, Jesus spoke of him and the Father being one. The Jews
> knew
what this meant and went to stone him for blasphemy (John 10.30-33). Jesus
didn't say, "Hang on chaps! You misunderstand me. I'm not God" when they
said to him, "...you, a mere man, claim to be God." Why not? If someone was
about to stone me because they thought I was claiming to be God, I would
certainly have pointed out the misunderstanding! Wouldn't you?
Comment:-
Jesus did point out the misunderstanding by pointing to Psalms 82:6
"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High."
No Jew interprets this literally as meaning they are all gods.
Jesus points out that " If He called them gods unto whom the Word of God
came..."
> f.. Similarly John 8.58 where Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." See
the rest of that chapter to get the context. The importance of this saying
of Jesus is that "I am" is the meaning of the name of God, i.e. Yahweh (or
YHWH without the vowels).
Comment:-
Do you think that everytime the phrase "I am" is mentioned it refers to
God.
What the saying probably means is that Jesus as a word of God was planned
by God before Abraham. Certainly Jesus in the flesh came long after Abraham.
> g.. John spoke of Jesus as being YHWH. See John 12.41 where he says,
"Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him"
referring
to a quotation from Isaiah 6.1-10 where Isaiah said he saw YHWH.
Comment:-
In Isaiah 6:8, What makes you think that the person who agreed to be sent by
God
was also God.
What makes you think that Isaiah 6:10 does not apply generally to people who
do not accept the Messengers.
h.. Matthew (3.3) speaks of John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus,
saying, "A voice of one calling in the desert, `Prepare the way for the
Lord,
make straight paths for him.' "
Comment:-
This is a very naive interpretation.
You prepare the way of the Lord by accepting the commandments of God
or preparing to hear and accept the Message.
> a.. Jesus is the First and the Last. See Isaiah 44.6 and Revelation 1.17,
> 18
Comment:-
Isaiah 44:6 also says "Besides Me there is no God."
How can this apply to Jesus.
> a.. Have a look at Philippians 2 which is describing Jesus.
"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God
something
to be grasped (hung onto), but made himself nothing, taking the very
nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
Comment:-
That is Paul writing.
But Jesus is reportedto have said:-
"...For my Father is greater than I" John 14:28
"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." John
5:19
> a.. Again John speaks of Jesus as the true God.
"We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding,
so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true--even in
his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. " 1 John 5.20.
Comment:-
You are misquoting:- The sentence reads "This is the true God, and Eternal
Life"
It refers to the true God.
Apart from this these are not the words of Jesus and we also know that the
chapter contains false verses. For instance 1 John 3:7, ( in the King James
Version) on which the notion of Trinity is based,
has been excluded from all modern versions of the Bible.
John Eritsu
religious orthodoxy apart, it is not inconceivable that christian
account of jesus dying on fri and waking up on sun can be correct.
muslims think that jesus was raised to heaven. christians think the same
too. christian give a timeline for the events leading up to jesus
ascending to heaven. muslims just say jesus ascended to heaven but do
not say a timeline. so in principle both can be right.
thebit
> that - gee, once again God's plans were foiled, and so we need the Quran
> to correct all those errors.
Before you throw an accusation it would be prudent for you to you show
us where in the Qur'an it says "God's plans were foiled".
The coming of the Prophet (upon whom be peace) was a fulfilment of the
prayer of the Prophet Abraham (upon whom be peace).
> Killing a child in His name is not permitted. Killing
> another human being as a sacrifice to Him is unacceptable.
This must exclude Iraqis, Afghans and probably Iranians and Syrians --
indeed any of the more swarthy races -- I take it?
> God does not change.
I think all Muslims would agree with you. He does not send Prophets to
teach monotheism, only then to send his "son" to "die" on a cross.
> He still hates the Palestinians killing Israeli
> children in His name
"Gee", I wonder what happened to all that "love your enemy" stuff?
> and He still hates the Muslims flying planes into
> buildings and killing innocent persons.
"Gee", I wonder if you will say the same about all those "Christian
soldiers", like Bush, who bomb "innocent persons" and watch "innocent
persons" die in Africa due to the greed of the current economic
conditions.
> And He hates that people cut off
> the heads of men and women.
"Gee", I wonder if "He hates" that people drop tonnes of metal on
people living in abject poverty who probably couldn't tell you where
New York is on a map of the world?
<snip>
Salaam and Regards
Abdus Salaam
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > Any Christian who is learned enough would not dare to venture into the
> > claim of the scriptures were still trustworthy at the time of Muhammad,
> > SAW.
>
> "Any Christian"? They would and *do* Dr Saifullah. Do I really need
> to produce one for you? Unless of course you are equating "learned
> enough" with "those who happen to agree with you"!
Dowdeswell, let me put it this way. I challenge you to show us the Bible
in your hands was same as in Muhammad's, SAW, time. Yes, you really need
to produce one for us to believe. I think we have had enough to those
missionaries who come to this newsgroup announcing this claim but without
any evidence. Perhaps you have an evidence hidden somewhere.
> > Coming back to the scriptures, please can you please tell us what
> > "scriptures" are you talking about? And why? Every Church has its own
> > brand of "inspired" scriptures as listed at:
> >
> > http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/
>
> Where do your beliefs come from? From the Qur'an only? No, but from
> the Hadith too. So, do you suppose *all* Muslim groups accept the
> same body of Hadith? No, of course they don't.
We are talking about the Qur'an endorsing the Bible. It has nothing to do
with from where our beliefs come. So, why create a red-herring? Come down
to the point, will ya?
> Here's a question for you:
>
> Which has the bigger impact on our respective "beliefs"? The
> differences in Christian cannon, that you list on your site, or the
> difference in authoriative Hadith collections between Muslims groups?
The ahl as-Sunnah wa-l-Jama` already accepts the authoritative hadith
collection. As for the Christians, one man's "inspired" scripture is other
man's apocrypha. What is your point anyway?
Regards
Saifullah
Altway
Re: Trinity
Islam is strictly Monotheist and does not accept the Christian idea of
Trinity.
However, it does recognise that Allah has many aspects that can be
seen from different points of view - i.e the Attributes.
Trinity could be understood as referring to Religion rather than God -
It is presented to us by God, the Messenger and the Spirit
However, Trinity could be understood by another analogy:- There is the
Sun in heaven, there are its rays and there is the reflection in a
mirror or pond or in other things. These are all one and continuous.
But neither the rays nor the image is the Sun.
The Quran also makes the link between the three:-
"The Spirit is by the Command (or Word) of Allah." 17:85
We also recognise that Allah is Transcendental, Imminent in the
Universe and Personal (i.e. within man - 32:9, 50:16). These could,
perhaps, be understood as Father, Spirit and Son respectively.
These ideas could, perhaps reconcile the two religions or lead to
understanding.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
My incomplete reply was accidentally posted.
Here is the rest
Reply to "Alan Cossey" (continued)
Comment:-
You are misquoting:- The sentence reads "This is the true God, and Eternal
Life"
It refers to the true God.
Apart from this these are not the words of Jesus and we also know that the
chapter contains false verses. For instance 1 John 3:7, ( in the King James
Version) on which the notion of Trinity is based,
has been excluded from all modern versions of the Bible.
> a.. God is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords according Paul in 1
> Timothy 6.15
"God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, "
Hello, that's Jesus, isn't it, in Revelation 19.13-16?
"He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of
God.... On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS
AND LORD OF LORDS. "
Comment:-
This is not a teaching of Jesus.
And Revelation is highly symbolic and cannot be understood literally.
Many people have the name of their firm or company, teams, heros etc.
written on their caps, T-Shirts etc
> a.. 1 Samuel 2.2 from the Old Testament tells us that there is no-one
> holy like the LORD.
> Peter, speaking on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the
> early believers and speaking about Jesus, said: "You disowned the Holy
> and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed
> the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of
> this. "
Comment:-
Samuel does not say that there are no other Holy Ones?
> a.. Isaiah 9.6 tells us that the Messiah will be called, "Mighty God".
Comment:-
The verse states:-
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government
shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,
Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."
It says: "his name shall be called" not that he is.
Nor is this a teaching of either Moses or Jesus.
Nor ss the book of Isaiah unaltered.
> Christians and Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah, so the logical
> conclusion is.....
Comment:-
That Jesus is the Messiah.
As the Quran affirms he is a word and spirit from Allah.
But we believe we have the truth about him as opposed to
speculations by human beings, the original intent of which
have also become obscure.
But there are many different sects in Christianity with different doctrines.
There are Unitarians also. Just think of Islam as another Christian sect as
we think of the different versions of Christianity as sects of Islam.
Hamid S. Aziz
Uncle_Sinbad
> Alan, I'm sure you are aware of the argument used against Islam
> that Muslims say Muhammad must be a prophet because
> God dictated to him, through Gabriel, the Qur'an,
> and the Qur'an must be God's word because
> the prophet Muhammad wrote it.
> Since this argument is circular, both parts remain unproven.
> The Christian belief in the Trinity is much the same.
> The NT is true because it consists of Jesus' teachings,
> Jesus is (son of) God because
> that's how the NT seems to refers to him.
> Isn't this just as circular?
No it isn't because the NT doesn't teach the Trinity. NT and Trinity
are two worlds apart because christology developed apart from
Scripture. The word trinity doesn't exist in the Bible, Jesus (p)
never calls himself God and there is not a single verse that
unambigous states that Jesus is God. Verses like 1 john 5:7 that seem
to refer to the trinity are proven to be later corruptions.
Secondly, It's a bad example to compare this with what muslims do. No
one who is fair and wise would raise the circular argument against
muslims because muslims don't use it and have never used it. That
would be a straw-man. They always used external evidence for
prophethood and devine origin of the Quran in their apologetics. Even
the Quran states that signs can be found in the Book as well as
outside it and even in yourself.
The Quran calls itself a reminder for mankind, It reminds the heart of
what it already knew and strengthens the heart and is a cure and
guidance for the hearts.
Peace,
Kamal
abdul.h...@gmail.com
Alan Cossey wrote:
> I don't believe the Qu'ran to be inspired by God. My point in my
original
> post was that the Qu'ran tells Muslims to believe in the Christian
and
> Jewish scriptures, which is great. Wish they would do so. The fact
that you
> can't believe both the Qu'ran and the Christian and Jewish scriptures
is a
> problem for Muslims, not for Christians.
>
I understand what you are saying but I think there are ways to address
your point. First off, the Quran doesn't mention "the Bible" per se. It
mentions the Torah given to Moses, the Injil of Jesus, the Zabur of
David, and the Suhuf of Abraham and Moess. These are described as
revelation. The Quran does not just say to believe whatever the Jews
and Christians say is revelation.
You've probably heard this but many Muslims believe that the Bible has
been changed over time. For example, the original Torah given to Moses
was definitely revelation. But virtually every Biblical scholar (Muslim
or not) believes that the current Penteteuch in the Bible was actually
composed many centuries after Moses and contains materials from
multiple authors.
So as a Muslim, I think it is possible to say in good faith that the
Torah is revelation, and in fact that the Torah might substantially be
contained in the first five books of the Bible, but that the Biblical
Penteteuch also contains things which probably aren't revelation (for
example, I might say that I don't believe God would order genocide so I
don't believe those sections are actually inspired.)
Something else which should be mentioned is that even just from a
Christian perspective it is hard to specify what the limits of those
scriptures are. Do the Jewish scriptures stop at the Torah (as the
Samaritans teach) or do they include the other books of the Old
TEstament? Do they include the apocryphal books? The Talmud?
The Quran refers to a single revelation called the Injil given to
Jesus. Does that mean that the epistles of Paul are inspired?
Catholics, Protestants, ORthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians
have different canons. Which one is "the Bible"?
In any case, to make a long story short. As a Muslim I would say that
God really did give revelation to the Jews and Christians and that in
*some* form the essence and core of that revelation is actually still
contained in the Bible. (And so it is justified for the Quran to tell
Jews and Christians to follow what is inspired in their scriptures) But
there are also other materials in the Bible which aren't inspired. (And
even Jews and Christians would say don't come from God) So Muslims are
certainly justified in having reservations and criticisms of the
current Biblical text.
Peace
Abdul-Halim
Viqar Ahmed
muslims because muslims don't use it and have never used it".
Sssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
What muslims believe is not what they say they believe, but what
non-muslims (any variety) claim they believe in.
Viqar Ahmed
Alan Cossey
"John Eritsu" <Eri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2kllq$1uo$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
our sins on the cross and then being raised to life is the crux of the
Christian message (crux = Latin for "cross") and is what sets Christianity
apart from all other religions (basics like God existing being assumed). It
is this that supremely demonstrates God's love for you and me.
Alan
Altway
"Alan Cossey" wrote
> The trouble is that Islam teaches that Jesus did not die. Jesus dying for
our sins on the cross and then being raised to life is the crux of the
Christian message (crux = Latin for "cross") and is what sets Christianity
apart from all other religions (basics like God existing being assumed). It
is this that supremely demonstrates God's love for you and me.
Comment:-
It is the Christian Message, but not that of Jesus.
Islam accepts Jesus and his teachings but not the Christian
misinterpretation.
The love of God for you and me is demonstrated when He sent
Messengers to mankind to show them the way of forgiveness and salvation,
and these devoted heir lives despite persecution to bring that message.
Islam being surrender to God, also assumes that God exists.
Hamid S. Aziz
James Dowdeswell
> never calls himself God
Jesus never calls himself "the Messiah" (Or Arabic equivalent) in the Qur'an.
So, can we assume you don't believe he is the Messiah then?
Warm regards,
James.
John Eritsu
Alan,
I did mean it when I said "religious orthodoxy apart". You want to bring
in christian fundamentalism, then we are talking christian
fundamentalism, not the events around good friday.
Events are one thing, their fundamentalistic interpretation by
christians are yet another thing. Here we are talking about the
chronology of what actually happened.
So the events do not preclude the following scenario:
1. Jesus was crucified but he did not exactly die on the cross. He went
into a unconscious state that looked like death. Some hindu mystics can
do it even today.
2. He was buried in that tomb with a big stone,
3. Jesus came out of that state of unconsciousness on Easter Sunday.
4. He disappeared from the tomb,
5. He was subsequently raised to heaven by God.
Now all the peripherals, like him dying for your sins, the notion of the
cross as some thing beyond twigs of wood, etc are the problems not for
an impartial observer but for a christian fundamentalist.
The scenario I cited above is consistent with the Christian historians
(not fundamentalists) and Muslim views. So in that sense the twi
versions are the same.
James Dowdeswell
> > > Any Christian who is learned enough would not dare to venture into the
> > > claim of the scriptures were still trustworthy at the time of Muhammad,
> > > SAW.
> >
> > "Any Christian"? They would and *do* Dr Saifullah. Do I really need
> > to produce one for you? Unless of course you are equating "learned
> > enough" with "those who happen to agree with you"!
>
> Dowdeswell, let me put it this way...
(Read: "let me *abandon* my original statement"!).
For evidence that backs up my point - Read:
Lee Strobel, 'The Case for Christ', Zondervan, 1998, p.19-128
> > > Coming back to the scriptures, please can you please tell us what
> > > "scriptures" are you talking about? And why? Every Church has its own
> > > brand of "inspired" scriptures as listed at:
> > >
> > > http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/
> >
> > Where do your beliefs come from? From the Qur'an only? No, but from
> > the Hadith too. So, do you suppose *all* Muslim groups accept the
> > same body of Hadith? No, of course they don't.
>
> We are talking about the Qur'an endorsing the Bible.
I can see that Dr Saifullah, but with Alan and not me. Alan is free
to reply to you if he so wishes.
> > Here's a question for you:
> >
> > Which has the bigger impact on our respective "beliefs"? The
> > differences in Christian cannon, that you list on your site, or the
> > difference in authoriative Hadith collections between Muslims groups?
>
> The ahl as-Sunnah wa-l-Jama` already accepts the authoritative hadith
> collection. As for the Christians, one man's "inspired" scripture is other
> man's apocrypha...
Didn't *you* write:
"It should be pointed out that some Muslim authorities such as Ibn
al-Athir, Ibn `Abd al-Barr and `Abd al-Haqq al-Dihlawi included the
Muwatta' in the six canonical collection in the place of the Sunan of
Ibn Maja. The majority, however, do not include the Muwatta' among the
six canonical collections, because almost all the important traditions
contained in it are included in the Sahihs of al-Bukhari and
Muslim.[8]"?
(http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/muwatta.html)
So, there is not a single authoritative hadith collection is there.
One need go no further than our recent discussion about Aisha's
marriage age to realise that one Muslim's *reliable* hadith is
*unreliable* for another Muslim.
Of the muslims here, Dr Saifullah, you perhaps seem the most willing
to defend the reliability of the hadith. So, what do you do with ones
like this? Do you believe meteor shots are angels attacking Jinn? Do
you think Muhammad was mistaken? Is this hadith not reliable - and if
so on what grounds?
'Abdullah. Ibn 'Abbas reported: A person from the Ansar who was
amongst the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)
reported to me: As we were sitting during the night with Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him), a meteor shot gave a dazzling
light. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: What did you
say in the pre-Islamic days when there was such a shot (of meteor)?
They said: Allah and His Messenger know best (the actual position),
but we, however, used to say that that very night a great man had been
born and a great man had died, whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace
be upon him) said: (These meteors) are shot neither at the death of
anyone nor on the birth of anyone. Allah, the Exalted and Glorious,
issues Command when He decides to do a thing. Then (the Angels)
supporting the Throne sing His glory, then sing the dwellers of heaven
who are near to them until this glory of God reaches them who are in
the heaven of this world. Then those who are near the supporters of
the Throne ask these supporters of the Throne: What your Lord has
said? And they accordingly inform them what He says. Then the dwellers
of heaven seek information from them until this information reaches
the heaven of the world. In this process of transmission (the jinn
snatches) what he manages to overhear and he carries it to his
friends. And when the Angels see the jinn they attack them with
meteors. If they narrate only which they manage to snatch that is
correct but they alloy it with lies and make additions to it.
(Sahih Bukhari, Book 026, Number 5538)
Warm regards,
James.
HArden
> The trouble is that Islam teaches that Jesus did not die.
Jesus dying for our sins on the cross and then being raised to life is the
crux of the Christian message (crux = Latin for "cross") and is what sets
Christianity apart from all other religions (basics like God existing being
assumed). It is this that supremely demonstrates God's love for you and me.
Comment:-
Muslims believe in Resurrection and Judgement. They also believe that Jesus
was raised to heaven. Jesus did die physically (Quran 19:33, 5:117, 21:34)
but like the martyrs (Quran 2:154) is spiritually alive. What the Quran says
is that he was not crucified or killed by the Jews (4:157).
We do not think Christianity is unique. God's love is shown by the fact that
He has sent us Messengers to show us the way of forgiveness and salvation,
Messengers (carrying the Word of God) who were willing to devote and
sacrifice their lives to the service of God and Man and set us examples. In
so far as the phrase "Son of God" is defined as those who are led by the
Word or Spirit of God, then these Messengers were all Sons of God.
Alan Cossey
<abdul.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112921137.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Abdul-Halim,
I see what you mean, but, to quote some stuff from the Qu'ran that I've also
quoted elsewhere on this thread, I don't think you are accurately quoting
the Qu'ran.
A bit further on, I've requoted something I posted elsewhere, so my
apologies if it is a second time through it for you. However, may I make the
following comments on what you are suggesting.
You are basically arguing against the reliability of the biblical texts
separate from what the Qu'ran says about them. That is a huge discussion and
I am struggling a bit follow the whole of this thread as it is (26
contributions so far), so could we discuss that bit on a separate thread if
you wish to pursue it. My attempted point is that the Qu'ran requires people
to give more than an intellectual assent that once upon a time there used to
be some stuff that God revealed to various people but that it had all got
muddled up by Mohammed's time. This leads to a contradiction in Islamic
faith in that Muslims are called to believe the biblical texts that were
around during Mohammed's time, but none do. You state, "And so it is
justified for the Quran to tell Jews and Christians to follow what is
inspired in their scriptures". OK. Tell us which bits are inspired and which
aren't. We have manuscripts from well before Mohammed's time (thousands of
them). Let us know which bits are right and which bits are wrong.
Quick replies on a couple of your questions:
"Does that mean that the epistles of Paul are inspired?" Obviously, I would
say, "Yes", but where do Muslims stand on this? Why won't/can't they give an
answer? I would really like to know which bits of the bible Muslims actually
believe are trustworthy. So far it has come across very much as Muslims
believing the bits they want to believe and not believe the bits they don't
want to believe.
Which booksactually constitute the bible? There is a helpful (long)
explanation at http://www.pastornet.net.au/rtc/canon.htm. There it explains
that determining the Old Testament (OT) list of books was not a big deal.
The Palestinian Jews in Jesus' time accepted what is still the Hebrew bible
(and is the Protestant Old Testament). I don't know enough to explain why
the Roman Catholics have extra books in their OT apart from the fact that
they were in the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint). For details
on why the books we accept as forming the New Testament are in it, have a
look at the link above.
Here is the post I made elsewhere and is uncle Alan's attempt at
understanding what the Qu'ran says:
It seems clear from a plain reading of the Qu'ran is that 2.236, 3.2-3,
4.136, 5.47-50 state that it was worth people trusting the Christian/Jewish
scriptures (aka the bible) of Mohammed's time.
2.136, in my translation, says, " We believe in God and that which has been
revealed to us; in what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and
the tribes; to Moses and Jesus and the other prophets by their Lord. We make
no distinction among any of them, and to Him we submit." It lumps together
what was revealed to Mohammed with what had been revealed before. The logic
here is that if you can't believe in the previous scriptures, you can't
believe in the Qu'ran. If you are to believe the Qu'ran, you have to believe
the previous scriptures as well. At least that is how the English goes.
3.2-3. This Sura is written to Muslims, e.g. 3.6 says, " It is He who has
revealed to you the Book", i.e. the Qu'ran. So let's go back to 3.2 and 3.3.
Though the emphasis is on the revelation of the Qu'ran, it does say it
confirms the previous scriptures with no hint that they were no longer
trustworthy. If Islam at the time of the revelation of the Qu'ran taught
that the bible was no longer trustworthy, don't you think someone, somewhere
would have said so? If God wanted people to understand that the bible was no
longer trustworthy, you would think he would have mentioned it.
4.136 This seems pretty plain to me. My translation says, "Believers, have
faith in God and His apostle, in the Book He has revealed to his apostle,
and (here comes the important bit) in the Scriptures He formerly revealed."
Are you saying this really means, "Believers, have faith in God and His
apostle, in the Book He has revealed to his apostle and the Scriptures He
formerly revealed, but remember they've been corrupted and are no longer
trustworthy so I don't really mean 'have faith in them' but have an
intellectual assent that they were worth believing once upon a time." If
someone tells me to have faith in something, it means that it is trustworthy
(present tense).
5.47, 48 These say "After them We sent forth Jesus son of Mary, confirming
the Torah already revealed, and gave him the Gospel in which there is
guidance and light, corroborating what was revealed before in the Torah: a
guide and an admonition to the righteous. Therefore let those who follow the
Gospel judge according to what God has revealed therein. Evil-doers are
those that do not judge according to God's revelations. And to you We have
the revealed the Book with the truth. It confirms the Scriptures which came
before it and stands as a guardian over them." This clear to me that the
Qu'ran is teaching here that there was no problem at that time with the
previous scriptures. There is no hint that it considers them untrustworthy.
How could Christians "judge according to what God has revealed" in the Torah
and Gospel if they no longer had it?
The Qu'ran says that the Torah and Gospel should be used to judge matters,
we should believe in them, that they were revealed by God and so on.
Alan
CooolBreeeze
COMMENT:
No, Alan and John, it is the christian idea that is questionable and
problematic. If Jesus died for our sins, then who died? God? Or
man? God cannot die - we know that. If the man portion died then
we know what ever a man does is NOT good enough. So it does not
matter.
If Jesus is both God and man which portion died? That concoction was
never expounded upon by any prophets from Adam to Jesus over 4000
years, not once. It is a man made Paulist idea ("Jesus is resurrected
by MY gospel", says Paul). For example, if I drank a malted shake we
know it is made of malt and ice cream. Without the malt or the ice
cream, it ceases to be a malted shake. If I say that is what I drank
then a drink without those ingredients is NOT a malted shake. If God
did not die then then you have a regular man dying which merely a man
dying. Jesus asked for forgiveness as he recognized his shortcomings.
He was a crying, sleeping, eating, fearing, ignorant, praying, and
discovering man. God is none of those things.
No, Alan, what you are constructing is a defense for trinitarism,
another man made idea. No prophet from Adam to Jesus not ONE not ONCE
over 4000 years ever mentioned the word "trinity" and none, not one not
once, expounded the idea. The christian takes tid bits and fragments
to construct the idea. It is an invention which is Christianity's
uniqueness. Jesus' statements were a statements of AGREEMENT never
identity. All slave/servants of God, including lowly Jesus, agree
with Him as He is the Lord of Hosts.
"Good Friday" is good because the Friday Jumah congregation is fullest
on that day, alhamdulilah
Mike
Altway wrote:
> "Alan Cossey" wrote
> > The trouble is that Islam teaches that Jesus did not die. Jesus
dying for
> our sins on the cross and then being raised to life is the crux of
the
> Christian message (crux = Latin for "cross") and is what sets
Christianity
> apart from all other religions (basics like God existing being
assumed). It
> is this that supremely demonstrates God's love for you and me.
>
> Comment:-
>
> It is the Christian Message, but not that of Jesus.
Unfortunately Christians have a tendency to put store in the many
Biblical accounts of Jesus' life and death, and these accounts not only
record the claim that he died, but also numerous teachings from Jesus
Himself predicting his own death. These accounts are even given some
credence by non-Christian scholars as well. Indeed, the only major
group who now seriously doubt Jesus' death are Muslims.
The Qur'an in comparison IIRC has a single passage dealing with the
claimed non-death of Jesus.
The two sides here are at loggerheads. From one POV the Christian
message has the advantage, both in terms of numbers of accounts, and in
terms of immediacy to the actual events. Its weakness, if any, is in
the clearly supernatural and at times mysterious nature that His death
would have.
In contrast the Islamic account simplifies the mystery by denying it
ever happened. But it is less believable to those lacking faith in the
Qur'an, both owing to the claims of supernatural transmittance of the
book itself, and also from its lack of immediacy to the events, at
least in terms of time.
> Islam accepts Jesus and his teachings but not the Christian
> misinterpretation.
No. Islam accepts what the Qur'an teaches of Jesus and no more. In
fact, accounts of Jesus' teachings are rather thin on the ground in the
Qur'an - for these we seem to need to go back to the Bible. Which is
claimed to be flawed by Islam...
Islam has a different interpretation of Jesus' teaching from the
Christian interpretation, which is informed and coloured by the
teaching in the Qur'an. How valid that is, and how it affects Jesus'
teaching depends on what you believe. But I don't believe we're likely
to come to consensus on that score any time soon.
> The love of God for you and me is demonstrated when He sent
> Messengers to mankind to show them the way of forgiveness and
salvation,
> and these devoted heir lives despite persecution to bring that
message.
God shows his love in many ways. Indeed, the major religions of the
world all teach of divine love and its implication for our lives. It's
just a pity we often forget that it applies to everyone, and not just
when it suits us.
Mike.
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > Dowdeswell, let me put it this way...
>
> For evidence that backs up my point - Read:
>
> Lee Strobel, 'The Case for Christ', Zondervan, 1998, p.19-128
Lee Strobel has interesting series on the "The Case For...". One can fill
in the blanks with Christ, Easter, Faith, and Creator. But this has
nothing to do with the challenge that we had issues, i.e., to prove that
the Bible that you have in your hands was the same during the time of
Muhammad, SAW. This book has *nothing* to show the evidence that the Bible
in your hands was the same during the time of Muhammad, SAW. In fact,
this book or the series of book offers apology for Christian faith.
Now Dowdeswell, please can you get back to the issues instead of fiddling
around with Lee Strobel's material.
> "It should be pointed out that some Muslim authorities such as Ibn
> al-Athir, Ibn `Abd al-Barr and `Abd al-Haqq al-Dihlawi included the
> Muwatta' in the six canonical collection in the place of the Sunan of
> Ibn Maja. The majority, however, do not include the Muwatta' among the
> six canonical collections, because almost all the important traditions
> contained in it are included in the Sahihs of al-Bukhari and
> Muslim.[8]"?
>
> (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/muwatta.html)
>
> So, there is not a single authoritative hadith collection is there.
The ahl as-Sunnah wa-l-Jam`ah is united upon the authoritative
hadith collection. Malik's Muwatta is not a hadith collection and hence
there are differences of opinion as to whether it should be included in
the hadith collection. The Malikis want it to be a part of
authoritative collection But the majority have rejected the idea that the
Muwatta should be the part of authoritative hadith collection. If you
would bother to read well, you should be able to get the answers. The
religion of Islam works on the basis of ijma` not ones personal whims and
desires.
> Of the muslims here, Dr Saifullah, you perhaps seem the most willing
> to defend the reliability of the hadith. So, what do you do with ones
> like this? Do you believe meteor shots are angels attacking Jinn? Do
> you think Muhammad was mistaken? Is this hadith not reliable - and if
> so on what grounds?
Since Jesus comes and speaks to many Christians, you should be better off
asking them about the reliability of the hadiths. Believing in the unseen
is the part of our faith. And we do not question about the unseen.
Regards
Saifullah
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1112047876.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> One thing is clear. We are not to go out seeking martyrdom (a term we
> use in rather different terms than seems to be the case in Islam - is
> this just the case of one word being used to describe two different
> concepts?), and we are not to commit suicide. I would guess that most
> Muslims could see the merit in taking that approach.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What 'thing is clear'? Can anti-Islam propaganda, denoted in your veiled
attack, be 'clear' i.e. free of suspicion? Didn't Jesus (p) die because of
veiled prejudicial attacks of this kind? So, should most Muslims merit this
perverse and pejorative stance? For the sake of altruism, isn't it 'clear'
that the following brief historical synopsis is correct?
What is historically interesting is that the 'suicide as martyrdom
'phenomenon, in a monotheistic religious context, originated with the
Christian Agonistici (i.e. soldiers of Christ); Circumcellions (i.e. circum
cellas) in the Catholic Churches lexicon; in fourth century, North Africa.
So can this phenomena be attributed, or confined, to Islam and Muslims in
particular, as many contemporary Christian apologists would like? Does the
Christian Agonistici war cry laudes Deo ("praises to God") still have
resonance? Although, I doubt if many modern day Islamists would care to
acknowledge, or even know, the historical Christian origin of 'martyrdom
operations'!
For further information reference this search link (32,400 hits):-
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Agonistici
But is this "one thing clear" and free from bias?
--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly by
weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
prejudice. - Schopenhauer
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Amr Sabry
> > Jesus (p)
> > never calls himself God
>
> Jesus never calls himself "the Messiah" (Or Arabic equivalent) in the Qur'an.
Huh ??? In the Qur'an, almost every occurrence of "Jesus" comes associated
with "Messiah." The most common description of him is: the Messiah Jesus son
of Mary. --Amr
hajj abujamal
Mike wrote:
> ... the only major group who now seriously
> doubt Jesus' death are Muslims.
You might want to check into the background material for the novel
"The DaVini Code." Numerous groups throughout history have recognized
the zionists' device for what it was, a complete and utter fabrication
intended to discredit 'Isa 'alaihi as-salaam among the Jews and to
mislead the northern goyim (of Japheth) about "that messenger" (of
Deuteronomy 18:18), which was successful in both cases ~ until now.
> Islam accepts what the Qur'an teaches of Jesus and no more.
We know that what the Qur'an says is the sum total of what we know ~
we know what absolutely DID NOT happen: there was no "crucifiction"
(i.e., 'Isa 'alaihi as-salaam was not "accursed" according to the
Torah). I'm fairly certain that we have no idea of what actually DID
happen, and Christianity (in this regard) is purely a pursuit of
speculation ~ and muslims who speculate (e.g., about a tomb in Kashmir)
are practicing Christianity.
Knowing what did NOT happen, the next question even remotely
relevant to faith is "Where did this fiction come from and why?" ~ the
first of which is answered by the Qur'an, proving its relevance. That
"why" is much more answerable than any questions about his later life.
> I don't believe we're likely to come to
> consensus on that score any time soon.
The novel (above) presents nothing new ~ but it has popularized some
beliefs that date back quite a ways in Europe. It opens the door for
many people who never thought about it before. I find that interesting,
that modern American Christians are experiencing their first real
opportunity to question the Pauline myths at a time when Islam is newly
available for them to consider.
The corrupt of Temple Israel fabricated a lie against Jesus, to
discredit him and fabricate a mystery religion for pagan Europe, to
prevent their discovery of the Messenger of the Endless Covenant. The
history is clear to just about everyone else.
> Mike.
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
Altway
Biblical accounts of Jesus' life and death, and these accounts not only
record the claim that he died, but also numerous teachings from Jesus
Himself predicting his own death. These accounts are even given some
credence by non-Christian scholars as well. Indeed, the only major
group who now seriously doubt Jesus' death are Muslims.
> The Qur'an in comparison IIRC has a single passage dealing with the
claimed non-death of Jesus.
Comment:-
You are mistaken.
What the Quran says is that he was not crucified or killed by the Jews
(4:157).
Muslims believe in Resurrection and Judgement. This belief does not
depend on Jesus having died and resurrected.
They also believe that Jesus was raised to heaven.
Jesus did die physically (Quran 19:33, 5:117, 21:34)
but like the martyrs (Quran 2:154) is spiritually alive.
> In contrast the Islamic account simplifies the mystery by denying it
> ever happened. But it is less believable to those lacking faith in the
Qur'an, both owing to the claims of supernatural transmittance of the
book itself, and also from its lack of immediacy to the events, at
least in terms of time.
Comment:-
You are mistaken again.
It is much more believable that Jesus fainted.
Note that according to Luke 24:37-43, it is the disciples
that thought that Jesus was dead and so when he reappeared
they thought he was a ghost.
But Jesus showed them that he was still flesh and bones.
He had not died.
He was only later taken to heaven.
>> Islam accepts Jesus and his teachings but not the Christian
misinterpretation.
> Islam has a different interpretation of Jesus' teaching from the
Christian interpretation, which is informed and coloured by the
teaching in the Qur'an. How valid that is, and how it affects Jesus'
teaching depends on what you believe. But I don't believe we're likely
to come to consensus on that score any time soon.
Comment:-
We cannot agree.
In the Gospels Jesus did not teach that he was God, the Trinity
or vicarious atonement. What he did say was:-
""Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven, but he that does the will of My Father which is in heaven."
Matthew 7:21
"And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3
"While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12
"He that hears my word and believes on Him that sent me, hath everlasting
life, and shall not come unto condemnation, but is passed from death into
life." John 5:24
>> The love of God for you and me is demonstrated when He sent
Messengers to mankind to show them the way of forgiveness and
salvation, and these devoted heir lives despite persecution to bring that
message.
> God shows his love in many ways. Indeed, the major religions of the
world all teach of divine love and its implication for our lives. It's
just a pity we often forget that it applies to everyone, and not just
when it suits us.
Comment:-
By pointing out that Allah sent many Messengers, Islam has universalised
religion whereas Christians want to confine it to Jesus.
That is why Christianity is called Christianity and Islam is not called
Muhammadanism.
Certainly the sacrifice of the Messengers is recognised and the love
for the Messenger is a part of Religion, but to say that the Messenger is
God
is to deny the Message, and, therefore, to libel the Messenger.
It is clearly absurd to suppose that a man who was confined in space and
time
and depended on the resources of the earth was the all pervading creator of
the
Universe.
But yes, he like other Messengers represented God on earth.
They were "emanuel".
As the Spirit of God is in all human beings (Quran 32:9), and it
was active in Jesus, then yes, God was acting through him,
as in the case of other Messengers.
The phrase "Son of God" is defined as referring to people who are led by
the Spirit or Word of God.
See John 1:12-13, John 10:33-35 (quoting Psalms 82:6) and Romans 8:14
Hamid S. Aziz
James Dowdeswell
'Abdullah. Ibn 'Abbas reported: A person from the Ansar who was
amongst the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)
reported to me: As we were sitting during the night with Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him), a meteor shot gave a dazzling
light. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: What did you
say in the pre-Islamic days when there was such a shot (of meteor)?
They said: Allah and His Messenger know best (the actual position),
but we, however, used to say that that very night a great man had been
born and a great man had died, whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace
be upon him) said: (These meteors) are shot neither at the death of
anyone nor on the birth of anyone. Allah, the Exalted and Glorious,
issues Command when He decides to do a thing. Then (the Angels)
supporting the Throne sing His glory, then sing the dwellers of heaven
who are near to them until this glory of God reaches them who are in
the heaven of this world. Then those who are near the supporters of
the Throne ask these supporters of the Throne: What your Lord has
said? And they accordingly inform them what He says. Then the dwellers
of heaven seek information from them until this information reaches
the heaven of the world. In this process of transmission (the jinn
snatches) what he manages to overhear and he carries it to his
friends. And when the Angels see the jinn they attack them with
meteors. If they narrate only which they manage to snatch that is
correct but they alloy it with lies and make additions to it.
(Sahih Bukhari, Book 026, Number 5538)
> > Of the muslims here, Dr Saifullah, you perhaps seem the most willing
> > to defend the reliability of the hadith. So, what do you do with ones
> > like this? Do you believe meteor shots are angels attacking Jinn? Do
> > you think Muhammad was mistaken? Is this hadith not reliable - and if
> > so on what grounds?
...
> Believing in the unseen
> is the part of our faith. And we do not question about the unseen.
Can you give me a *straight* answer then. Again:
"Do you believe meteor shots are angels attacking Jinn?"
Am I to take your response above to be a 'yes'?
Warm regards,
James.
James Dowdeswell
> >
> > For evidence that backs up my point - Read:
> >
> > Lee Strobel, 'The Case for Christ', Zondervan, 1998, p.19-128
>
> Lee Strobel has interesting series on the "The Case For...". One can fill
> in the blanks with Christ, Easter, Faith, and Creator. But this has
> nothing to do with the challenge that we had issues, i.e., to prove that
> the Bible that you have in your hands was the same during the time of
> Muhammad, SAW.
Actually, Dr Saifullah, as was rather obvious - despite your attempts
to cover it up - I was responding to your comment:
"Any Christian who is learned enough would not dare to venture into
the claim of the scriptures were still trustworthy at the time of
Muhammad, SAW."
I suggest the readers look back and check that for themselves. Also,
note that Dr Saifullah "snipped" the line:
(Read: "let me *abandon* my original statement"!).
Which drew attention to the fact that he was attempting to switch his
original statement, i.e.,
"Any Christian who is learned enough would not dare to venture into
the claim of the scriptures were still trustworthy at the time of
Muhammad, SAW."
with another one.
My advise to you, Dr Saifullah, is *don't* make unmeasured statements
if you can avoid it. And if you do, we're all only human after all,
don't try to cover it up using "tricks", because its all written down
and we can all see you doing it.
> The
> religion of Islam works on the basis of ijma` not ones personal whims and
> desires.
So, what is the "the Consensus of the Scholars" regarding Muslims
*today* consumating marriages to nine year old girls?
Clearly, on this newsgroup, "consensus" is against your "opinion" that
it is okay for Muslims today to consumate marriages to nine year old
girls. I didn't see anyone agreeing with you and 3 Muslims openly
disagreed with you. So, if you care so much about "consensus" among
Muslims, why do you cling to this view instead of coming into line
with the other Muslims here?
Warm regards,
James.
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> "Mike" <hu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1112047876.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> <snip> ...
>
> > One thing is clear. We are not to go out seeking martyrdom (a term
we
> > use in rather different terms than seems to be the case in Islam -
is
> > this just the case of one word being used to describe two different
> > concepts?), and we are not to commit suicide. I would guess that
most
> > Muslims could see the merit in taking that approach.
> <snip> ...
>
> Comment:-
> What 'thing is clear'? Can anti-Islam propaganda, denoted in your
veiled
> attack, be 'clear' i.e. free of suspicion? Didn't Jesus (p) die
because of
> veiled prejudicial attacks of this kind? So, should most Muslims
merit this
> perverse and pejorative stance? For the sake of altruism, isn't it
'clear'
> that the following brief historical synopsis is correct?
Before I reply, I would like to comment that my issue with the use of
the term "martyr" is that the principles of martyrdom differ between
our two religions, and I wondered if this is more a question of these
differences being more one of problems with language than with
doctrinal concepts or parallels. For the concept of a Christian martyr
bearing arms and dying in battle is an anachronism. As Jesus said,
"those who live by the sword will die by the sword.". Dying for ones'
faith in that context is tempered by the fact that one has obviously
chosen the way of the sword, and the consequences of that action are
that one is dying, not for ones' faith, but in physical combat.
For a more accurate understanding you may wish to visit this page:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09736b.htm
So the concept of "martyrdom" has its roots in the sufferings of the
early Church, and is tied specifically to a dogged determination to
witness to the Gospel, even if one consequence is that one will be
killed. It is interesting to note that at that time the taking of
anothers' life in the process was not even entertained, should
"Christian" martyrdom be considered as the end result.
This does not in any way invalidate the Islamic concept of martyrdom.
It is simply the fact that the two religions and traditions use the
same term for (perhaps marginally) different concepts.
> What is historically interesting is that the 'suicide as martyrdom
> 'phenomenon, in a monotheistic religious context, originated with the
> Christian Agonistici (i.e. soldiers of Christ); Circumcellions (i.e.
circum
> cellas) in the Catholic Churches lexicon; in fourth century, North
Africa.
One can also list the Donatists, who actively sought persecution and
death, even to the extent of provocation. But both Donatist and
Agonistici were condemned by the Church and thrown out. Theirs was not,
and still is not, the way of the Christian Church.
> So can this phenomena be attributed, or confined, to Islam and
Muslims in
> particular, as many contemporary Christian apologists would like?
Does the
> Christian Agonistici war cry laudes Deo ("praises to God") still have
> resonance?
Not in the Church. This does not mean that there are those who have
been deluded into believing they, as Christians, can achieve paradise
or absolution or whatever by bearing arms and waging war with those who
are seen to be attacking "Christendom". But tying this sort of activity
with martyrdom has never been an activity condoned by the Church. There
are parallels with those from other faiths who have been deluded in a
similar way; even Muslims.
> Although, I doubt if many modern day Islamists would care to
> acknowledge, or even know, the historical Christian origin of
'martyrdom
> operations'!
I'm not entirely comfortable with this parallel. From my understanding
the Islamic concept of martyrdom has more to do with specific passages
in the Qur'an than following heterodox Christian traditions. These
passages specifically deal with situations of war between the Ummah and
the Kaafir, and in that sense have no direct link to orthodox Christian
traditions.
Mike.
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > Believing in the unseen
> > is the part of our faith. And we do not question about the unseen.
>
> Can you give me a *straight* answer then. Again:
>
> "Do you believe meteor shots are angels attacking Jinn?"
>
> Am I to take your response above to be a 'yes'?
Let me put it this way to you, if you are slow in understanding.
Christianity also believes in the unseen aspects, i.e., the Day of
Judgment, Heaven and Hell. If someone else comes and say that do you
really *believe* in this then what would you say? The answer would be
similar to what we have given. This is the knowledge of unseen and we
simply accept as it is unless, of course, you bring us a firm evidence of
exactly the opposite.
Regards
Saifullah
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Before I reply, I would like to comment that my issue with the use of
<snip> ...
Comment:-
It's unfortunate that many discussions amongst well-meaning Muslim and
Christian people centre on these kind of ferocious 'verbal disputes'. See
this search link for 'verbal disputes' background:-
Are you asserting that Christian religious concepts and meanings own the
'martyrdom' term and that its use can only validly be used in that way? Does
this 'intellectual' presumptuousness apply to all religious concepts and
meanings?
Can you understand that these often, wearisome, 'pseudo-controversies'
cannot be resolved by being clearer about the meaning of our words but only
by a further investigation of the facts, dogma permitting of course!
But, one might just as well ask what exactly is to count as 'aggressive'
apologetics? Isn't this verbal difficulty then dependent on what constitutes
as being 'aggressive', Islamic or otherwise? Isn't that the truth?
Mike
> Salaam!
Hello again, Abujamal!
> Mike wrote:
>
> > ... the only major group who now seriously
> > doubt Jesus' death are Muslims.
>
> You might want to check into the background material for the
novel
> "The DaVini Code." Numerous groups throughout history have
recognized
> the zionists' device for what it was, a complete and utter
fabrication
> intended to discredit 'Isa 'alaihi as-salaam among the Jews and to
> mislead the northern goyim (of Japheth) about "that messenger" (of
> Deuteronomy 18:18), which was successful in both cases ~ until now.
I believe I can decrypt your point here to get to the nub of what
you're trying to say. It would help if you didn't package it up in such
an inaccurate way.
It is true that, from time to time, various groups have tried to
discredit the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and rose again.
Chief among these in the pre-Qur'anic early days were Jewish groups,
but it wasn't long before the idea of denying the the crucifixion fell
by the wayside - it was, after all, no more than supposition for them
to suppose the crucifixion was a non-event. So other theories - the
"revival" theory, the stolen body, and so on - became more popular.
By the time Muhammad arrived on the scene the general position taken by
Jewish critics of Christian doctrine was to discredit Jesus Himself as
a prophet, rather than attack the crucifixion story itself. So to a
degree the Qur'an took the only line which would have been vaguely
uninsulting to either Jew or Christian - to Christians it ceded that
Jesus was a prophet due of honor and not the insults of Jewish groups,
and to Jews it conceded that the resurrection could not happen and
thereby the idea of Jesus being divine - the biggest issue they had
with Christianity as a whole - was false. Even if you don't accept the
Qur'an as divine scripture, this approach has something of political
genius about it.
But there are a number of ideas you've used which seem out-of-place:
The concept of "Zionism" is rather more contemporary than 1st-century
Palestine. So there weren't any Zionists there to fabricate anything.
Besides, the idea that a Jewish group fighting against anti-Semitism
should attempt to fabricate any story to support Christian doctrine is
laughable. I'm quite sure you could find an alternative and more
accurate label to use to lambast us with.
Discrediting Jesus by recognising Him as divine is an oddity. Certainly
I can understand the Islamic view that Christian views on Jesus'
divinity are incompatible with the Islamic understanding of His
message. But it is a stretch, to put it mildly, to describe the
elevation of anyone to divine status as "discrediting" them.
Any misleading of groups of Gentiles in 1st Century Palestine by
Christians would scarcely have been confined to the "northern Goyim".
The first recorded extra-Palestinian convert was Egyptian, after all.
Deuteronomy 18:18 is a hotly disputed verse; at no time have Christians
been universal in their appraisal as to who this prophet was. It could
have been Joshua, it could have been Jesus. But the guy would have had
to have been a Jew. For at the time of transmission the sons of Esau
were less brothers of Jews and rather more a different nation entirely.
And the lineage from Esau to the Arab nation is by no means clear or
undisputed either.
But we have, of course, discussed this before and reached no agreement.
> > Islam accepts what the Qur'an teaches of Jesus and no more.
>
> We know that what the Qur'an says is the sum total of what we
know ~
> we know what absolutely DID NOT happen: there was no "crucifiction"
> (i.e., 'Isa 'alaihi as-salaam was not "accursed" according to the
> Torah). I'm fairly certain that we have no idea of what actually DID
> happen, and Christianity (in this regard) is purely a pursuit of
> speculation ~ and muslims who speculate (e.g., about a tomb in
Kashmir)
> are practicing Christianity.
Speculation is a pretty wide term. The Gospel accounts provide details
of various experiences claimed by Jesus' followers after the supposed
"non-crucifixion". These experiences formed the core of the early
Christian message, and it is telling that *all* of His followers were
willing to put their lives on the line in spreading the message of
their experiences. If you want to put this down to speculation, then
that is up to you. But it is no more speculation than believing the
message given by Muhammad was by divine dictation.
> Knowing what did NOT happen, the next question even remotely
> relevant to faith is "Where did this fiction come from and why?" ~
the
> first of which is answered by the Qur'an, proving its relevance.
That
> "why" is much more answerable than any questions about his later
life.
>
> > I don't believe we're likely to come to
> > consensus on that score any time soon.
>
> The novel (above) presents nothing new ~ but it has popularized
some
> beliefs that date back quite a ways in Europe. It opens the door for
> many people who never thought about it before. I find that
interesting,
> that modern American Christians are experiencing their first real
> opportunity to question the Pauline myths at a time when Islam is
newly
> available for them to consider.
The problem is not that the questioning occurs. Americans have had a
history of spawning odd religious movements based on misinterpretations
or mangling of Biblical and other religious texts. The two most famous
examples are, of course, Jehovahs' Witnesses and Mormons. This has also
extended to other religions, most notably Islam. For movements such as
the Nation of Islam are clearly an Americanism.
But increasingly the questioning has not been of "Pauline myths", but
the whole nature of religious experience and practice. The spirit of
the age is not just one of spiritual hunger, but also of skepticism and
indivdualism. This poses as much of a challenge and threat to Islam as
it does to Christianity. For if the skeptic is likely to call into
question one religious text, you can be certain they will likely treat
all others with a similar degree of mistrust. Given that in the society
I live in, where freedom of expression is a cornerstone of society, the
Muslim community has increasingly found itself incapable of maintaining
religious observance other than by creating separatist enclaves, I
would suspect that it is only a matter of time before both Christian
and Muslim find the need to unite in order to attack the spirit of
skepticism and secularism which pervades American, secular European,
and increasingly global societies.
> The corrupt of Temple Israel fabricated a lie against Jesus, to
> discredit him and fabricate a mystery religion for pagan Europe, to
> prevent their discovery of the Messenger of the Endless Covenant.
The
> history is clear to just about everyone else.
Discrediting Jesus is not the same as calling Him Lord and God. All
religions, including Islam, include some element of mystery; for the
Divine is too much for human minds to grasp fully. The Christian
message was not created "for pagan Europe". At its inception it was a
Jewish sect, and exclusively Jewish. In that sense there was no concept
of it becoming a "European" religious movement; no grand design to
expand or even acquire "Christian" land and ownership, or to set up a
religious state in the style of Islam. Before the rise of Islam
Christendom was less European than it was Mediterranean, or even
universal. It was only the invasive nature of Islamic nations, and the
ensuing wars with their neighbours, which polarised Eurasia into any
concept of a "Western" Christendom and an "Eastern" Ummah.
As for some 1st-century conspiracy to prevent people from accepting
Islam 500 years later, are you really serious?
History is never all that clear. But what *is* clear is that the
conspiracy theories you've put forward are either poorly transmitted,
or simply wild conjecture based on some form of misplaced indignation.
Neither further the cause of Islam. At least, not from where I'm
standing.
Mike.
Altway
"Mike" <hu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> For the concept of a Christian martyr
bearing arms and dying in battle is an anachronism. As Jesus said,
"those who live by the sword will die by the sword.".
Comment:-
This does not say that it is necessarily wrong.
There are people willing to sacrifice their lives in a good cause.
It is a question of whether the cause is good or not.
Jesus also said:-
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it,
and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment,
and
buy one." Luke 22:36
Hamid S. Aziz
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Actually, Dr Saifullah, as was rather obvious - despite your attempts
> to cover it up - I was responding to your comment:
>
> "Any Christian who is learned enough would not dare to venture into
> the claim of the scriptures were still trustworthy at the time of
> Muhammad, SAW."
And the response that you gave amounts to zilch. You still have not shown
to us precisely the opposite, i.e., the trustworthiness of your scriptures
at the time of Muhammad, SAW.
Regards
Saifullah
James Dowdeswell
> > > Jesus (p)
> > > never calls himself God
> >
> > Jesus never calls himself "the Messiah" (Or Arabic equivalent) in the Qur'an.
>
> Huh ??? In the Qur'an, almost every occurrence of "Jesus" comes associated
> with "Messiah."
"Jesus" occurs 25 times in the Qur'an, "Messiah" occurs 11 times, but
on only 3 occassions do "Jesus" and "Messiah" appear together.
> The most common description of him is: the Messiah Jesus son
> of Mary. --Amr
This occurs only 3 times (the same 3 as above). However, he's called
"Jesus, son of Mary" 13 times. So, "Jesus, son of Mary" will be the
most common description of him in the Qur'an.
(Do check my counting! I could be wrong).
I brought up this "sound byte", (which I believe is factually
correct), because, like saying, "Jesus never calls himself "God",
(which in my view, if are looking for the 'sense' rather than the
'word', is not correct), it is misleading.
One might say, "Jesus (p) never calls himself "God"", was not meant to
be taken as a conclusive argument. Good, then let that be
acknowledged. And also let it be acknowledged that the Bible makes it
clear that he was God.
Just as I can acknowledge that the Qur'an makes it clear, despite
Jesus not saying it himself (in the Qur'an), that he was the Messiah.
Warm regards,
James.
James Dowdeswell
Dr Saifullah was asked: "Do you believe meteor shots are angels attacking Jinn?".
> > > Believing in the unseen
> > > is the part of our faith. And we do not question about the unseen.
> >
> > Can you give me a *straight* answer then. Again:
> >
> > "Do you believe meteor shots are angels attacking Jinn?"
> >
> > Am I to take your response above to be a 'yes'?
>
> Let me put it this way to you,
And why can't you instead give a straight answer?
> Christianity also believes in the unseen aspects, i.e., the Day of
> Judgment, Heaven and Hell. If someone else comes and say that do you
> really *believe* in this then what would you say?
I would say, "yes", i.e. give a straight answer.
> The answer would be
> similar to what we have given.
Take a look. It wasn't. I gave a straight - not an ambiguous - answer.
> This is the knowledge of unseen and we
> simply accept as it is unless, of course, you bring us a firm evidence of
> exactly the opposite.
Again:
"Do you believe meteor shots are angels attacking Jinn?"
Yes or No? (Qualify it if you need to but please give a straight answer).
Warm regards,
James.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> This does not in any way invalidate the Islamic concept of martyrdom.
> It is simply the fact that the two religions and traditions use the
> same term for (perhaps marginally) different concepts.
Comment:-
On reflection, to avoid ambiguity in SRI, when you use the singular and
capitalised term 'Church', as a proper noun, what church are you precisely
referring to? Is there, in fact, a singular or universal 'Christian Church',
or 'Christendom' in the original sense of that concept? Many Muslims in the
Islamic world, and, presumably, some vociferous Christian fundamentalists,
are confounded by this loose association of the 'Church' term that often
leads to crooked thinking, don't you think?
What does Islam actually say about suicide? Many Christian apologists who
respond in this forum have never bothered to do any in-depth research into
this matter, they appear to blindly react to the 'pulp media' and the 'shock
jocks' misleading redefinition's. Just review some of the articles in this
search link (4,510,000 hits):-
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=islam&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=suicide
Another delimiting factor in the semantics of indiscriminate violence is how
does the 'Church' (your definition) view and reconcile the political term
'collateral damage' (i.e. damage and destruction of targets or personnel not
considered as lawful military targets) in accordance with its religious
teachings? See these search links:-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Acollateral+damage&btnG=Google+Search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
What should we, or can we, ethically say about 'martyrdom' and 'collateral
damage', in this euphemistic language context, used by the 'political' spin
doctors on both sides of the religious divide to manufacture consent?
--
Peace
--
If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what
is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone.
[Confucius]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
James Dowdeswell
> > to cover it up - I was responding to your comment:
> >
> > "Any Christian who is learned enough would not dare to venture into
> > the claim of the scriptures were still trustworthy at the time of
> > Muhammad, SAW."
>
> And the response that you gave amounts to zilch.
It would only amount to "zilch" if you didn't read the reference,
i.e.,
Lee Strobel, 'The Case for Christ', Zondervan, 1998, p.19-128
And, if you didn't read it, you shouldn't be belittling my response.
> You still have not shown
> to us precisely the opposite, i.e., the trustworthiness of your scriptures
> at the time of Muhammad, SAW.
Since when has the *exact* opposite of:
"Any Christian who is learned enough would not dare to venture into
the claim that the scriptures were still trustworthy at the time of
Muhammad"
been:
"the trustworthiness of your scriptures at the time of Muhammad."
Nice try at substitution, *again*. No, the opposite is:
"Is there a Christian out there, who is learned enough, who *would*
dare to venture into the claim that the scriptures were still
trustworthy at the time of Muhammad"?
And there are *many* such learned Christians.
You snipped the questions below. Can you reply to them this time
please. Thank you:
Altway
"James Dowdeswell" <dowde...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote
> 'Abdullah. Ibn 'Abbas reported: ...
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said:
(These meteors) are shot neither at the death of
> anyone nor on the birth of anyone. Allah, the Exalted and Glorious,
> issues Command when He decides to do a thing. Then (the Angels)
> supporting the Throne sing His glory, then sing the dwellers of heaven
> who are near to them until this glory of God reaches them who are in
> Dr Saifullah was asked: "Do you believe meteor shots are angels attacking
> Jinn?".
And why can't you instead give a straight answer?
"Do you believe meteor shots are angels attacking Jinn?"
Yes or No? (Qualify it if you need to but please give a straight answer).
Comment:-
What a naive question!!!
The answer, it seems obvious, depends on whether this is understood
literally
or symbolically, factually or morally, physically or psychologically.
It would also depend on what is understood by the "angel" and "jinn".
Hamid S. Aziz
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > > "Any Christian who is learned enough would not dare to venture into
> > > the claim of the scriptures were still trustworthy at the time of
> > > Muhammad, SAW."
> >
> > And the response that you gave amounts to zilch.
>
> It would only amount to "zilch" if you didn't read the reference,
> i.e.,
>
> Lee Strobel, 'The Case for Christ', Zondervan, 1998, p.19-128
Well, in that case, please quote us where exactly in that book it has been
*shown* that the scriptures were still trustworthy at the time of
Muhammad, SAW. The disagreement of Jews and Christians among themselves
about their own scriptures was well-known during the advent of Islam and
that also gave an impetus for `Uthman to collect the Qur'an.
"Hudhaifa bin al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time when the people of
Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Armenia and
Azerbaijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq)
differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to `Uthman, "O
Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book
(Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before.""
Even today there is no agreement among the Christians about the nature as
well as extent of their scripture. Oh! please can you tell us why the
"Bible" that you have in your hands is "inspired" and not any other other
"Bible" since you have claimed that your Bible is whopping 99.5%
accurate. Evidence please.
As far as we are concerned, It is very appropriate to say that one
Christian's "scripture" is another one's "apocrypha". Examples at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/
> You snipped the questions below. Can you reply to them this time
> please. Thank you:
Do I need to reply to everything you throw at me? Or am I obliged to reply
to everything that you write? The answer no.
> So, what is the "the Consensus of the Scholars" regarding Muslims
> *today* consumating marriages to nine year old girls?
I do not. Perhaps you have some answers. In any case please let us know.
Regards
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > Huh ??? In the Qur'an, almost every occurrence of "Jesus" comes associated
> > with "Messiah."
>
> "Jesus" occurs 25 times in the Qur'an, "Messiah" occurs 11 times, but
> on only 3 occassions do "Jesus" and "Messiah" appear together.
Surely "Jesus" occurs 25 times in the Qur'an and "Messiah" 11 times.
"Al-Masih `Isa ibn Maryam" occurs 3 times. "Al-Masih ibn Maryam" occurs 5
times. "Al-Masih" is used once and so is "Al-Masih ibn Allah". The latter
one is used to deny the sonship of Jesus.
> > The most common description of him is: the Messiah Jesus son
> > of Mary. --Amr
>
> This occurs only 3 times (the same 3 as above). However, he's called
> "Jesus, son of Mary" 13 times. So, "Jesus, son of Mary" will be the
> most common description of him in the Qur'an.
"Jesus, son of Mary" occurs 16 times in the Qur'an. That makes "Jesus, son
of Mary" the most common description.
> I brought up this "sound byte", (which I believe is factually
> correct), because, like saying, "Jesus never calls himself "God",
> (which in my view, if are looking for the 'sense' rather than the
> 'word', is not correct), it is misleading.
If we looking at both "sense" and the "word" Jesus never called himself as
God in the Qur'an.
> acknowledged. And also let it be acknowledged that the Bible makes it
> clear that he was God.
The question now is where exactly did in the Bible Jesus say that he
was God and he needs to be worshipped. Obviously we need to hear
everything from horse's mouth before we can conclude anything about his
personality.
Regards
Saifullah
hajj abujamal
Andri Keshav wrote:
> What is more important for Islam is the question of the
> authenticity and reliability of the main [Biblical] canonical
> books, which are accepted by all mainstream christians.
Actually this is of no importance whatever to muslims, because we do
not, in any way, rely on what Christians call the Bible or on what Jews
call the Torah and the prophets, and each calls "The Word of God"
according to varying understandings. We rely on the Qur'an in its
entirety, and have no doubts whatsoever about its authenticity and
reliability. So that which is crucially important to the People of the
Book (i.e., authenticity, reliability, and "The Word") is utterly
inconsequential to muslims. We have answered those questions for
ourselves and have complete certainty about "The Word of God" upon which
we rely.
So rather than quibble about something that is meaningless to
muslims but of paramount importance to Jews and Christians ~ the
authenticity and reliability of that upon which Jews and Christians rely
~ let's instead get to the meat of the matter in terms of what is
alleged to be "The Word" upon which Jews and Christians rely.
The central tenet upon which both Jews and Christians rely, without
exception, is the identity of someone known commonly as "The Savior,"
whom the Jews call by a Hebrew word that we translate as "The Messiah."
Christians elicit from the Bible statements claimed to prove that
Jesus, 'alaihi as-salaam, was/is this individual. Jews elicit from the
Bible statements claimed to prove that he was NOT this individual. Both
Jews and Christians agree that this individual, mentioned throughout
"The Word" as believed by either or both of them, is a descendant of
Jacob, of Israel.
Muslims declare, unequivocally and without the least doubt, that
'Isa bin Maryam was, is, and will always be, the Messiah of Israel, and
that there is no other who ever was or ever will be the Messiah of Israel.
However, Jesus was not, and will never be, the individual that Jews
call The Messiah of Israel, and there is no such person and never will
be. The Messiah of Israel was sent to them, and a few followed him and
the rest rejected him, and there will never be a "second chance" for
those who denied him.
Some of those who followed him took careful note of what they read
and knew about "The Savior" and "The Messiah" and saw that Jesus did not
do a tremendous portion of what the Jews say "The Messiah of Israel"
does according to The Word. The Jews say this proves that Jesus was not
the one they call "The Messiah of Israel" and the Christians say that
Jesus will return to do those things.
Muslims declare, unequivocally and without the least doubt, that
'Isa bin Maryam did everything that The Word says the Messiah of Israel
would do, completely fulfilling every prophecy about the Messiah of
Israel, and that this constitutes irrefutable proof that he was the
Messiah of Israel. We have no doubt of this whatever.
What is important to Christians is whether those things the Jews say
The Messiah of Israel will do ~ but which Jesus didn't do ~ actually
refer to Jesus.
Muslims declare what all Jews and Christians know ~ that Jesus did
not do those things. Muslims further declare that all those things were
done, and that history shows they were done, and that most Christians
have been kept ignorant of this history deliberately.
The Bible, incidentally, says all this.
> Regards
> AK
asimm...@yahoo.com
Interesting that the Jews would try and discredit the crucifixion, even
though according to the Old Testament they were involved in trying to
get him crucified? How logical would that be? Considering further
that the only alleged witnesses to this event were NONE from among the
Jews. Really, why would the Jews have to deny it when there were his
small handful of followers that saw him after this alleged event.
Why would other theories become more popular Mike, unless there was
already a cloud over the disappearance of Jesus? It is only illogical
readings of history which try and justfy some crucifixion as the basis
of a religion, though one cannot find from Jesus' very beginning any
speech whatsoever which deals with this 'philosophy of Jesus being the
blood sacrifice'.
> By the time Muhammad arrived on the scene the general position taken
by
> Jewish critics of Christian doctrine was to discredit Jesus Himself
as
> a prophet, rather than attack the crucifixion story itself.
Evidence please. I mean from the very beginning of Jesus' mission,
according to the New Testament, they were trying to discredit his
prophethood. In fact, they boasted that they killed Jesus' by
crucifying him. What history are you talking about? Considerng the
fact that Jesus' raised a man from the grave, cured the blind, and the
lepers, any type of rejection would be proof that they were denying his
prophethood. The Jews did not need a 'crucixion'. In fact, to claim
that they crucified him was well more in line. Why would the Jews feel
threatened by an event that was not even witnessed by a handful of his
followers if it even happened? The reality is Jesus' mission before
this alleged event had already made treachery of the pharisees and
rabbis guilty. Jesus' mission was already a success.
So to a
> degree the Qur'an took the only line which would have been vaguely
> uninsulting to either Jew or Christian - to Christians it ceded that
> Jesus was a prophet due of honor and not the insults of Jewish
groups,
> and to Jews it conceded that the resurrection could not happen and
> thereby the idea of Jesus being divine - the biggest issue they had
> with Christianity as a whole - was false. Even if you don't accept
the
> Qur'an as divine scripture, this approach has something of political
> genius about it.
Npothing but pure speculation without any evidence whatsoever.
>
> Discrediting Jesus by recognising Him as divine is an oddity.
They tred to get him to proclaim divinity, so they could accuse him of
blasphemy and stone him. What other way of maintaining their lie than
propagating a pagan notion... everybody who reads the NT without bias
understands that Jesus' was presenting the charge sheet of crimes to
the Bani Israel, and because of this, the kingdom would be taken away
from them.
Snipping baseless interpretations of trying to make the Deuteronomy
portion in line with the descendants of Esau, when he wasn't even born
at the time. Let alone Moses was speaking to all the descendants of
Isaac at the time, which included not only the bloodline of Jacob but
others as well... But I'm sure you knew that...
> But increasingly the questioning has not been of "Pauline myths", but
> the whole nature of religious experience and practice. The spirit of
> the age is not just one of spiritual hunger, but also of skepticism
and
> indivdualism. This poses as much of a challenge and threat to Islam
as
> it does to Christianity.
This is another divergence, for many reason which I won't deleve into
right now, other than the fact that anti-Pauline rhetoric was prominent
in early Chrstianity with the Ebonites, and in fact, Muslim scholars of
past, way before this century, including ibn Taymiyya have discredited
Paul. To claim it poses a challenege and threat to Islam is utterly
baseless, nor does it challenge the whole nature of religious
experience in practice. What it does do is in fact re-establish the
religious experience and practice. Why would anyone want to believe a
man whose story changted 3 times about an event that allegedly
happened. It wouldn't stand in court on a minor legal issue, let alone
one who claims to have spoken to Jesus.