The 'Corruption' of the Injil.
Robert
believe this because they wish to claim that Jesus was a Muslim, and
because they believe that the coming of the Prophet Muhammad was
foretold in the Injil. Of course, there is no trace of any of this in
the New Testament so, it is concluded, the truth must have been
excised. Why the Christians would have wished to so corrupt the Gospels
- their sacred Scripture - is not explained.
A difficulty even more pressing for Muslims is the fact that the
Koran states that the Injil is the Word of God, and that it also states
that the Word of God cannot be corrupted.
But let's leave arguments and look at facts. Thousands of
manuscripts of the New Testament documents have survived from the first
600 years of the Christian era. These can be compared to those dating
from after the time of Muhammad, when any corruption must have taken
place: there is no evidence of any significant change. By this time the
New Testament was spread, with Christian communities, across the Roman
Empire and was also present in the Persian Empire. How could the
manuscripts have been collected in from such an area?
FFI Bob
I hope you don't mind if I butt in with another question.
Muslims believe that a Kitab revealed to a prophet is in the prophet's
own language. The language of Jesus/Isa was Aramaic, the semitic
language spoken by the Jews at the time of Jesus. But why in the Quran
do we find the word 'Injil' ? This is not derived from Aramaic but from
Greek. It is either:
? a corruption of the Greek word 'evangelion', meaning good news. In
this case the Arabic word elides the 'v' which is a consonant that is
not found in Arabic. We find this phenomenon in the Arabic word
'Al-Andalus', "the land of the Vandals", in which the 'v' has also
been elided.
? It could be that the word 'Injil' is quite simply a transcription of
the Greek for messenger 'aggelos'. If you compare the English word
'angel' which is derived from this Greek word, and the Arabic 'Injil'
then the resemblance is clearly very close.
In either case, the word 'Injil' is a corruption of the original Greek.
INJIL is NOT an Arabic word. The consonants do not from a radical group
from which other words can be derived. The word Injil has only one
meaning in Arabic.
Now, Christians and non-Christians alike (except for Muslims) do
indeed acknowledge that the Gospels were written in Greek. Only Muslims
believe that a Kitab was revealed to Isa. For Christians, Jesus only
wrote once, and that was in the sand.
Presumably the Arabs of the time of Mohammed were using the word Injil
derived from the Greek. But this words refers to a Kitab that had
already been corrupted. So why, for Muslims, didn't Allah in the
Koran give the correct name for the Kitab revealed to Isa?
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"FFI Bob" <ffi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I hope you don't mind if I butt in with another question.
>
> Muslims believe that a Kitab revealed to a prophet is in the prophet's
> own language. The language of Jesus/Isa was Aramaic, the semitic
> language spoken by the Jews at the time of Jesus. But why in the Quran
> do we find the word 'Injil' ? This is not derived from Aramaic but from
> Greek.
Because, as you yourself suggest later, it is the word in use in the
time of the Prophet among Arabs to identify the Revelation given to
Jesus (peace be on him). You might just as well ask why the common word
in English is "Gospel", which is certainly not Aramaic (or Greek) but an
Old English word, "godspel" that means "good news". It was a translation
of the Latin "bona adnunciatem" (good news), which in turn was a
translation of the Greek euvangelion (good news), which was derived from
angellein (to bring news) and angelos (messenger). In English, we have
both "gospel" and "evangel", with the latter usually seen in the form
"evangelist".
In both the Old (Hebrew) and New (Greek) Testaments, prophetic messages
are called "good news" or "glad tidings". For example:
"Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their
synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every
disease and sickness." (Matthew 6:35)
Jesus (peace be on him) preached the Divine revelation by reciting the
Gospel (good news) he received from God, just as Muhammad (peace be on
him) preached the Divine revelation by reciting the Qur'an.
> (...)
> Now, Christians and non-Christians alike (except for Muslims) do
> indeed acknowledge that the Gospels were written in Greek. Only Muslims
> believe that a Kitab was revealed to Isa. For Christians, Jesus only
> wrote once, and that was in the sand.
Muslims too know that the four Gospel accounts of the New Testament were
written in Greek. However, the Qur'an does NOT talk about the four,
second-hand, gospel accounts. The word "injiil" is singular and is not
pluralized in the Qur'an. The Qur'an never mentions the "gospels"
(plural) but on the Gospel (singular). While the four gospel accounts
are considered by Christians to be divinely inspired, they know that the
writers were NOT the same Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who were Jesus's
disciples. And when they sing one of their hymns, they do not talk about
the four books as such but about the single revelation that all four
claim to reiterate: "Thy Gospel [singular] Jesus, we believe...".
>
> Presumably the Arabs of the time of Mohammed were using the word Injil
> derived from the Greek. But this words refers to a Kitab that had
> already been corrupted. So why, for Muslims, didn't Allah in the
> Koran give the correct name for the Kitab revealed to Isa?
The Gospel of Jesus (peace be on him) is NOT the four canonical gospel
accounts now found in the Christian Bible and attributed to Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John. Each of those accounts was an attempt by someone
(or some regional Church) to set down on paper a recension of Jesus'
gospel message.
The Book received and taught by Jesus and the Book received and taught
by Muhammad (God's grace and peace be on them both) are NOT books
written originally on paper or parchment. They are physical and temporal
instanciations of God's Divine Speech (called the Mother of the Book)
that were instilled in the hearts of Jesus and Muhammand by the Will of
God.
The "book" sent to Jesus, like the "book" sent to Muhammand, is
uncreated in its essence and meaning but created in its letters and
sounds. The very fact that the Bible now contains FOUR gospel accounts
shows that by the time the Church Fathers decided to approve a canonical
version of the Gospel received by Jesus, it was impossible to do so. The
best that could be done was to adopt four different accounts of the same
Gospel and declare that although the writers were not recording the
exact revelation that their efforts were inspired by God.
In the Arabo-Muslim sense, a "kitaab" (book) is not necessarily a scroll
or a collection of leaves that bear some form of writing. The usual name
for Muslim Scripture is the Qur'an, which literally means "recitation"
and which suggests that the Muslim Scripture cannot exist as mere,
written text but that its intonation is a neccesary and essential
element.
Of itself, the Qur'an says:
"This is indeed a most honourable Qur'an (recitation), in a Well-Guarded
Book, which none shall touch except those who are purified (clean). It
is a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds." 56:77-79
Because of this verse, Muslims generally do not touch a Qur'an book
unless they are ritually clean. (Some juridical schools make exceptions,
such as the Malikite permission for someone who is memorizing the Qur'an
to touch it at any time.) However, some scholars see in this verse
another meaning. The Qur'an (i.e. the recitation that must be
proclaimed) comes from a well-guarded book, that is from what the Qur'an
calls in one place the "Mother of the Book" and in another, the
Well-Guarded Tablet", which are similes for the heavenly depository of
God's Divine Speech and which is accessible directly only to God, his
Angels, and eventually those who will be purified souls in Heaven.
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Robert
applied to a book.
One reason why Muslims believe the New Testament is corrupt is that
it contains no reference to Muhammad. The references can only have been
excised after the advent of the Prophet, so in this respect the Injil
would not have been corrupt at the time of Muhammad.
Abdalla Alothman
Robert wrote:
> Muslims believe that the New Testament, the Injil, is corrupt.
Muslims do not believe the new testament is the injeel.
> A difficulty even more pressing for Muslims is the fact that the
> Koran states that the Injil is the Word of God, and that it also states
> that the Word of God cannot be corrupted.
So the holy books you hold in your hand are from Allah?
See:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/af3286da47c93a7e
You really don't need the Quran to tell you that your books
are corrupted.
> But let's leave arguments and look at facts. Thousands of
> manuscripts of the New Testament documents have survived from the first
> 600 years of the Christian era.
And new manuscripts are being discovered. Problem is that
your people can't add them to the sacred texts, because it would
be an embarrassment. Talk about the Gospel of James and the
Gospel of Mary...
Salam,
Abdalla.
Yusuf B Gursey
> Hello,
>
> I hope you don't mind if I butt in with another question.
>
> Muslims believe that a Kitab revealed to a prophet is in the prophet's
> own language. The language of Jesus/Isa was Aramaic, the semitic
yes, and most scholars believe that the Gospels derive from an Aramaic
oral traditon. not so incidentally, Koine Greek was also widely
understood, also among Jews, in 1st, cent. Palestine.
> language spoken by the Jews at the time of Jesus. But why in the Quran
> do we find the word 'Injil' ? This is not derived from Aramaic but from
> Greek. It is either:
because it happens to have been the word understood by Arabs at the
time,
and place, of Muhammad for the Gospels.
the Qur'an says that it is revealed in "clear arabic" in order for
it to be understood, i.e. the arabic of its original audience.
>
> ? a corruption of the Greek word 'evangelion', meaning good news. In
> this case the Arabic word elides the 'v' which is a consonant that is
> not found in Arabic. We find this phenomenon in the Arabic word
> 'Al-Andalus', "the land of the Vandals", in which the 'v' has also
> been elided.
well,arabic does not have the phoneme [v], not is it a common
secondary articulation of arabic phonemes. arabic substitutes
the phonemes /f/ (common inmodern arabic), /w/ and occaisonally /b/
for it. /w/ is a semivowel which is sometimes dropped in favor of
a hamza (i.e. the glottalic onset before an intial vowel).
but, good observation.
> ? It could be that the word 'Injil' is quite simply a transcription of
> the Greek for messenger 'aggelos'. If you compare the English word
> 'angel' which is derived from this Greek word, and the Arabic 'Injil'
> then the resemblance is clearly very close.
>
> In either case, the word 'Injil' is a corruption of the original Greek.
actually it is accepted by orientalists that it is more directly
from Ethiopic wangel , in turn from greek. Ethiopians were actively
proselytising in Arabia (based in Yemen).
>
> INJIL is NOT an Arabic word. The consonants do not from a radical group
> from which other words can be derived. The word Injil has only one
> meaning in Arabic.
it's arabic in the sense that it is arabized and intelligible to
arabs that know only arabic.
>
> Now, Christians and non-Christians alike (except for Muslims) do
> indeed acknowledge that the Gospels were written in Greek. Only Muslims
as was pointed out, actual "writing" is not the essential theological
point. the canonical gospels are the teachings of Jesus via other
people.
but there is for example, a non-canonical gospel, surviving in the
Coptic finds, which is just the "Sayings of Jesus"
> believe that a Kitab was revealed to Isa. For Christians, Jesus only
> wrote once, and that was in the sand.
>
> Presumably the Arabs of the time of Mohammed were using the word Injil
that's a very, very good assumption, with the modification that it
came to arabic via ethiopic.
> derived from the Greek. But this words refers to a Kitab that had
that ambiguity in arabic has been noted in Enc. of Islam II, as it
refers both to (what is believed to be) the original teachings of
Jesus,
and the current Gospels, or for that matter, the New Testament in
general. similarly also for the arabic words "Christian", "Jewish"
or "Torah".
> already been corrupted. So why, for Muslims, didn't Allah in the
> Koran give the correct name for the Kitab revealed to Isa?
the Qur'an does not claim to be a treatise on philology, neither
should it be treated as such. it says it is a revelation in "clear
arabic" intended to be intelligible to its audience. this was
recognised as such by at least some schools of medieval muslim
scholars. using arcane terms (relative to 7th cent. Hijaz) would
have contradicted this. indeed the Qur'an does use arabized terms
where at least in some cases Christian Arabic uses terms closer to
Syriac.
Robert wrote:
> But let's leave arguments and look at facts. Thousands of
> manuscripts of the New Testament documents have survived from the first
> 600 years of the Christian era. These can be compared to those dating
> from after the time of Muhammad, when any corruption must have taken
who says that the "corruption" took place during the 7th cent.?
> place: there is no evidence of any significant change. By this time the
it's widely recognized that the Gospels were written in variations
with differing nuances with various different audiences from the
in mind from the very earliest period of attestation, and with
later (relative to the lifetime of Jesus) accretions from the
very earliest period, and that there were different Gospels of
quite differing theologies from the very earliest period, and this
is a quite solid fact.
> New Testament was spread, with Christian communities, across the Roman
> Empire and was also present in the Persian Empire. How could the
> manuscripts have been collected in from such an area?
I fail to see the relevance of this. there was a wide variety
in circulation, only a few were declared canonical, others
were not, by Imperial Roman decree (or by so acquiscence to
church councils).
BTW all questions in this post are rhetorical.
Robert
do not say that, I say that corruption must have taken place after the
time of Muhammad. If references to Muhammad were excised this can only
have taken place when people knew of Muhammad.
The definition of the Canon did not take place by Imperial Roman
decree; the canonical scriptures were defined by the Church Council,
confirming what had long been accepted.
The different "Gospels" were not from an early period, and were not
Christian, but usually Gnostic, as is patent. The famous Gospel of
Barnabas, of which Muslims make so, much is a forgery. You can easily
find a demonstration of this on the internet.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1132343743.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Muslims believe that the New Testament, the Injil, is corrupt. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Have you considered the neutral article "Islamic Holy Books" at this link:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Holy_Books
Extract:-
"Islamic holy books are the books the Qur'an records as dictated by Allah to
prophets; they are the Tawrat (Torah), the Zabur (commonly the Psalms), the
Injil (commonly the Gospel), and the Qur'an. There is a less common
interpretation that the Tawrat is the entire Tanach, the Christian Old
Testament, and the Injil is the entire New Testament." ...
End extract.
So it would appear that the main premise of your purported argument rests
on the assumption that the Injil is the whole New Testament, which as you
see above is the "less common" interpretation.
Therefore, hasn't the "less common" interpretation been artfully selected
from the other facts to give you the result you want?
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot
explain to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
hajj abujamal
Robert wrote:
> Muslims don't believe the New Testament is the Injil.
Some muslims don't believe the New Testament is the Injil. Most
people who read it, including most Christians, know that it is mostly
letters of Paul, and that only four books ~ Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John ~ even purport to be Gospels. And they most certainly do not
contain the entirety of what Jesus 'alaihi as-salaam brought, as
Christian scholars continue to discover, as you yourself say.
> You mention the Gospel of James and of Mary; I
> do not know these, but I assume ...
What you do not know and assume is painfully evident in your posts.
> Muslims make much of these, but are unacquainted with
> the Scripture scholarship needed to assess them.
Two books might help you:
Muhammad in the Bible, written at the beginning of the Twentieth
Century by the former Bishop Benjamin Kaldani, a papal emissary and
student at the Vatican before being appointed to his bishopric; and
The Mysteries of Jesus, written at the beginning of the
Twenty-First Century by Ruqauyyah Waris Maqsood, a leading British
religious scholar whose life-long studies in Christianity led her to
accept Islam.
I will not trouble you with the innumerable books written between
those two by now-former Christian scholars. In short, you don't know
what you're talking about. Muslims are far more familiar with
Christian Scripture than Christians are. For some, that's why they
are now muslim.
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.
Mike
> Salam,
>
> Robert wrote:
> > Muslims believe that the New Testament, the Injil, is corrupt.
>
> Muslims do not believe the new testament is the injeel.
Well, some don't and some do. There has been a certain degree of
confusion over this amongst Muslims. The most popular position the
Ummah has adopted on this has evolved over the centuries, largely as a
result of a combination of dialogue and apologetics between Muslims and
Christians, and is only one of a plethora of different possibilities
which can be inferred from the Qur'an.
...
> You really don't need the Quran to tell you that your books
> are corrupted.
The Qur'an claims they are, and yet provides zero proof. Indeed, on one
score (the death of Jesus by crucifixion) the Qur'an stands pretty much
alone in its insistence that it is right where almost everyone else has
concluded that the Biblical account is reliable. The upshot is that you
believe that the NT is corrupted because the Qur'an claims it is so.
Since I don't believe in the Qur'an as you do, do you really expect me
to accept that as proof?
Rubbishing the Bible and Christian belief in general isn't really going
to help convince me or anyone else either.
As for corruption, one needs to be very careful before pointing the
finger. We know that even in the Qur'an the were variances in the
recitations which were collected to form the Qur'an, and also that we
can no longer check these against each other thanks to the actions of
Caliph Uthman. Not just that; it was Caliph Uthman who decided which
versions of the recitiations were correct and which were not.
This information comes to us from your own Haadith collections - it
cannot even be said to be an anti-Muslim source.
So lets stop talk of corruption. You hold that the Qu'ran is true, and
we hold that the Bible is true. We both do this by faith, and none of
us are likely to change our minds on the matter by argument.
> > But let's leave arguments and look at facts. Thousands of
> > manuscripts of the New Testament documents have survived from the first
> > 600 years of the Christian era.
>
> And new manuscripts are being discovered. Problem is that
> your people can't add them to the sacred texts, because it would
> be an embarrassment. Talk about the Gospel of James and the
> Gospel of Mary...
The four Gospels chosen to be in the NT were chosen for very clear
reasons, and their inclusion in the Christian canon was pretty much
assured long before the first council of Nicaea. If one ignores the
whole divinity of the Qur'an idea, adding Gospels to the Bible wouldn't
be all that different from adding extra surahs to the Qur'an - what
would be the point? It is highly doubtful adding any of the
extracanonical Gospels would add anything constructive to the whole.
It's interesting to be able to refer to them from a historical POV, and
there are interesting parallels between some of the infancy Gospels in
particular, and some accounts in the Qur'an - once again a case of
confirmation or plagiarism depending on your POV.
In terms of making sense of the whole idea of the "Injeel" - for you
the "real" teaching given by Jesus and for me a fabrication in the
Qu'ran to try to propogate the myth of the universality of Islamic
monotheism - we have to remember that it is an Islamic term which
broadly covers Christian teaching and forms part of the identification
of Christians as "people of the book". In that sense it is not
dissimilar for the Islamic understanding of the Torah, which by turns
differs rather from the Judeo-Christian meaning of the word. One of the
problems is that these terms are not properly used to divide Christians
and Jews from Islam, but to exhort us to do the Right Thing - i.e. the
things we have already been taught. So when we talk about Injeel and
Torah in conversations we have to remember these are Islamic terms
which do not find full resonance in the people to whom they are
supposed to have been imparted. For we Christians understand the Gospel
as being sourced in Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, in addition
to His teaching. This is miles away from the Islamic understanding.
Similarly Jews understand the Torah as being a whole, complete, and
part of a covenant with the nation, which is also rather different
(albeit less so than with the Injeel) from the Islamic understanding of
the term.
The trouble this causes is considerable. I an inclined to put it as
slightly less confusing than the redefinitions of salvation and
righteousness used by the LTS Church. If you talk about Injeel I cannot
connect that with the Gospel as I understand it, as the two ideas are
different and actually in open conflict with each other. For if I
follow the teachings of Jesus as they have been passed down to me, I
find that I cannot accept certain teachings in the Qur'an, which makes
something of a mockery of its calling on me to follow the "Injeel". I
now know what that injunction means in real terms - a turning away from
much of the Christian Gospel and towards the more philosophically-based
Islamic understanding of God - and that is rather a larger leap than
would initially seem to be the case. So in that sense any idea that the
"Injeel" has been corrupted is, to me, irrelevant. For the Islamic
Injeel and the Christian Gospel are two entirely different things, and
part of the evidence for this is the manifold problems of attempting to
marry the two together, without rejecting one or the other wholesale,
and ending up with a unified whole.
Mike.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1132357450.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Presumably the Arabs of the time of Mohammed were using the word Injil
> derived from the Greek. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Back then and there, immediately prior to the advent of Islam, there were
effectively two empires in the Middle East, namely the Byzantine and Persian
Empires. Obviously, the Byzantine Empire spoke classical Greek, which was
the default literary language used by the clerisy (without going into the
precise detail). Hence, the Greek language was widely used in the Western
part of the Middle East, that is the major population centres, e.g.
Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and, of course, Byzantium, et al.
Secondly, if you bother to look at any recognised "Arab" history books you
will notice that written "Arab" history, more or less, coincides with the
advent of Islam and Arab imperialism.
Isn't it fairly obvious then that the term "injil" would have been a common
loan word? The real issue for subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, is would
'injil' have been used, back then and there, purely as a proper noun? In
other words, the modernistic difference between 'gospel' (i.e. an
unquestionable truth) and the 'Gospel' (i.e. the four books in the New
Testament)?
--
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
Robert
be to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures which Muhammad knew about,
perhaps from his journeys to Syria and from the Christians and Jews he
knew in Arabia.
Robert
believe the New Testament is corrupt for the reasons given.
New fragments of the Gospels keep turning up and they are not
additions to the Gospels, they are parts of the Gospels, and they
confirm the absence of corruption. You mention the Gospel of James and
of Mary; I do not know these, but I assume that like the well-known
Gospel of Thomas they are apocryphal Gospels, produced by non-Christian
Gnostics in the centuries after Jesus. They are works of fantasy and
religious imagination. Muslims make much of these, but are unacquainted
TomaszA...@lycos.com
Abdalla Alothman wrote:
> Salam,
And peace to you,
> Robert wrote:
> > Muslims believe that the New Testament, the Injil, is corrupt.
> Muslims do not believe the New Testament is the injeel.
That depends on the Muslim. Those who feel the injeel is not the Gospel
believe so for theological reasons, so there is not much to discuss.
But I encourage comparing the Annunciation -- That is, the angel
revealing to Mary birth of a Son -- between the Quran and the Gospel
according to Luke. They are remarkably similar, to the extent that you
can almost compare them verse by verse. This is only one case.
No one believes Allah would plagiarize from a bogus book, either the
Quran is not what it claims to be or the Bible contains Truth, or BOTH.
> So the holy books you hold in your hand are from Allah?
I recommend:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Bible/ibnabbas.html
...and related articles. This is generally considered an "anti Islamic"
site because of its apologetics and polemic, but I encourage you to see
the daleel yourself, facts are facts.
> You really don't need the Quran to tell you that your books
> are corrupted.
My impression always was that the ayat referring to people changing
verses was not referring to an absolute and universal example, but like
the rest of Quran, reffering to a specific example within a certain
space and time. In other words, the Quran was adressing actions of
individuals within Muhammad's place and time, it was not stating the
scripture itself was corrupted (if you have not done so, please
consider reading the hadith mentioned on the site I recommended)
The most notable case that comes to mind is that of the adulterer and
adulteress, who are caught and brought before Muhammad. Since they were
Jews, Muhammad ordered a "Rabbi" to judge them according to the
"Torah," which when he read up to the point stating they are to be
stoned, he covered it with his finger and read over it. He was found to
be twisting scripture and the couple was stoned.
Interestingly, this case shows that at least something like the Torah
existed in the Hijaz during Muhammad's time.
> And new manuscripts are being discovered. Problem is that
> your people can't add them to the sacred texts, because it would
> be an embarrassment. Talk about the Gospel of James and the
> Gospel of Mary...
Mr. Alothman is referring to Gnostic "gospels." They are by no means
new, infact; there was plenty of writing that was floating around
purporting to be genuine by various heretics. The Church however, has
always stuck by a number of books as being part of the Holy Bible.
Thus, there is no fear of embarrassment. The Church has already spoken
on these issues; these texts were never sacred and will never become
sacred.
A somewhat new and exciting area is in papyri, not manuscripts. A
papyri fragment of Matthew's gospel was discovered which some date back
to 66 A.D. Here's an article:
http://christiannewstoday.com/papyrus_reveals_gospelFS.html
Tomasz Antkowiak
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"Robert" <robe...@onetel.com> wrote:
The Jewish and Christian Scriptures (or Bibles) contain much more than
the Torah and the Gospels.
The Torah or Law of Moses is the first 5 books only of the Jewish
scriptures and the of the Christian Old Testament. The Gospels are only
the first 4 books of the Christian New Testament. The canonical
Protestant Bible (which excludes the Apocryphal Books) has 66 books in
all. Only 9 of them represent the Torah of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus:
Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers.
Gospel: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Moreover, for a Muslim, your argument that the mention of certain
scriptures in the Qur'an is a result of Muhammad's personal knowledge
gained in traveling is, to Muslims, a blasphemous statement.
The words in the Qur'an do NOT come from Muhammad (peace be on him).
They are the recitation by Muhammad of a direct Revelation from God
instilled in the Prophet's heart by the agency of the Angel Gabriel
(peace be on him).
You are of course free to believe otherwise but your belief is NOT what
Muslims believe.
Regarding the corruption of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, it is
obvious that this Qur'anic criticism is directed at three forms of
corruption: (1) corruptions in the texts themselves, which may be the
result of inadvertent errors of scribes and copyists or the result of
willful adulteration of the text, (2) the misinterpretation of the texts
(willful or not) and (3) false preaching and teaching claimed to be
based on the scriptures but that is in fact the willful distortion of
the scriptures circulated by clerics in a time when the vast majority of
people were illiterate and even those who weren't had no access to
written versions of the Scriptures. One of the reasons for the reliance
of Muslims on the oral tradition and the memorization of the Qur'an is
to make such distortions unlikely.
TomaszA...@lycos.com
hajj abujamal wrote:
> Salaam!
And peace to you,
> And they [The Gospels] most certainly do not
> contain the entirety of what Jesus 'alaihi as-salaam brought, as
> Christian scholars continue to discover, as you yourself say.
The Gospel is Jesus Christ, and no one will ever be able to fully grasp
the Mystery that is Christ Jesus. The Church has always understood that
the Gospels the Evangelists wrote down do not, and can not, contain all
there is to know about Jesus -- "If all that Christ did were to be
written down the world would not suffice" -- what the written Gospels
contain is all that we need to know for *salvation.*
> Two books might help you:
Have you read these books? It would be interesting to hear your own
opinion.
> Muhammad in the Bible, written at the beginning of the Twentieth
> Century by the former Bishop Benjamin Kaldani, a papal emissary and
> student at the Vatican before being appointed to his bishopric; and
I did some research on his author and although he is probably a real
convert, there is no evidence he was a bishop. In fact, from what I
read, he converted at the age of 33...an incredibly young age to become
bishop. The author of an article I read further mentions that the
"Hierarchia Catholica Medii et Recentioris Aevi" which contains all the
bishops in that time period has no mention of a "Benjamin" or "Keldani"
anywhere.
A lengthy article for those who are interested:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Hoaxes/keldani.html
[snip]
> Muslims are far more familiar with
> Christian Scripture than Christians are. For some, that's why they
> are now muslim.
That's an outrageous statement. Most Muslims consider reading
non-Islamic scripture as either haram or makrooh to the least. And for
those who read the New Testament, and understand, I can't fathom how
they could reconcile the New Testament with Quranic claims. There is
one point which stands as a serious strike to Islamic claims of
continuity and truthfulness.
As mentioned elsewhere, the Crucifixion is something even the heretics
and anti-Christians testified to. The only person who doubted it was
Muhammad, and why is that?
Let us begin with the striking fact that Muhammad hears of the
Crucifixion not through Christians but through Jews. "The Jews say
Jesus was crucified...nay! he was neither crucified nor killed..." The
Jews were using it as a mockery against someone Muhammad regarded as a
genuine Prophet. But Muhammad never discovered the significance of the
Crucifixion and taken out of its perspective, the Crucifixion is
nothing more than a barbaric act. To Muhammad's mind it would be
impossible for a prophet to suffer under such humiliating and painful
conditions, so the only solution is Allah raising Isa before he was
harmed. This has lead to some preposterous claims of substitutions on
the Cross, and even disturbing suggestions of Divine deception.
I'm convinced Muhammad did not discover true Christianity and that his
ignorance led him to make such errors.
> was-salaam,
Peace
Tomasz Antkowiak
Mike
...
> > You mention the Gospel of James and of Mary; I
> > do not know these, but I assume ...
>
> What you do not know and assume is painfully evident in your posts.
>
> > Muslims make much of these, but are unacquainted with
> > the Scripture scholarship needed to assess them.
>
> Two books might help you:
>
> Muhammad in the Bible, written at the beginning of the Twentieth
> Century by the former Bishop Benjamin Kaldani, a papal emissary and
> student at the Vatican before being appointed to his bishopric; and
The only thing this tells me is that our esteemed Bishop didn't
understand his own Christian faith before he converted to Islam. To
whit:
"The trinitarian branch of the Christian Church, for about seventeen
centuries, has exhausted all the brains of her saints and philosophers
to define the Essence and the Person of the Deity; and what have they
invented? All that which Athanasiuses, Augustines and Aquinases have
imposed upon the Christians "under the pain of eternal damnation" to
believe in a God who is "the third of three"! Allah, in His Holy Quran,
condemns this belief in these solemn words:- "Because the unbelivers
are those who say: 'Allah is one of three.' There is but One God. If
they do not desist in what they say, a painful punishment will afflict
those of them that disbelieve." (Quran Ch.5 v73). "
This shows a clear confusion in the writer's mind - Christians, as we
all now know, do not worship one God of three, but one God manifest in
three persons. Kaldini has made the common error of connecting Quran
5:73 with trinitarian Christianity, despite the fact that if you do so
then it clearly proves the Qur'an is wrong.
A common mistake, and sadly this book is full of them. I recommend
looking elsewhere.
He has also mistaken the primary reason for the introduction of
Trinitarian theology in the first place - to avoid the polytheism of
Arius and his followers. So rather than promoting polytheism, the
Trinity doctrine was set out to avoid it.
> The Mysteries of Jesus, written at the beginning of the
> Twenty-First Century by Ruqauyyah Waris Maqsood, a leading British
> religious scholar whose life-long studies in Christianity led her to
> accept Islam.
This is an improvement on Kaldini, but is still full of the same
lackadaisical approach to scripture.
> I will not trouble you with the innumerable books written between
> those two by now-former Christian scholars.
Thank you for that.
> In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
Well, the guys above didn't either. So you're recommending two books
which are full of mistakes to a guy you claim is ignorant. Not really
helpful, is it?
> Muslims are far more familiar with Christian Scripture than Christians are.
Hajj, do you really believe this?
Most Muslims have scarcely heard of the Bible, much less read any of
it. As it is, for most Muslims the Bible is irrelevant to their faith.
Yet you believe Muslims understand Christian scripture better than
those for whom it is their life-blood (as the Quran is yours)? Surely
it is disingenuous at best to make a claim of this sort.
Children from Muslim families learn the Quran from an early age.
Christians (believe it or not) do the same.
It occurs to me that Robert might not be the only one who knows little
of which he speaks.
It also occurs to me that few Muslims here or elsewhere understand
Biblical theology and interpretation to even refer to the Bible without
falling down some gaping logical holes. Fortunately we have been spared
this folly on SRI for some time.
As for the various noncanonical Gospels, these were kept outside the
canon with good reason. Some (such as the Gospel of Mary or the
Apocryphon of James) are so clearly Gnostic in content that their
exclusion occurred early on. Many others merely reiterated teachings
given in the 4 Gospels, and yet without the narrative of Jesus' life to
frame them. But of course, it makes more sense for Muslims to ignore
these things just as long as it improves the strength of their
argument.
> For some, that's why they are now muslim.
Maybe; but for me studying Islam and the Qur'an is only confirming my
Christian stance. We each choose our own paths.
Mike.
Robert
I am prevented by the rules of this forum from demonstrating this.
You sneer at my alleged ignorance and mistakes, when what would be to
the point would be to demonstrate them; there would be some profit in
that. You do not contest my belief that the 'Gospels' of James and Mary
are Gnostic pseudo-gospels, but merely imply that it is baseless
ignorance.
You do not demonstrate or claim that the work of your two alleged
converts to Islam (we are familiar with hoaxes), Benjamini Kaldani and
Ruqauyyah Maqsood, are competent scripture scholars. Muslim scholars
notably fail to contribute to the peer-group assessed international
academic journals, and so cannot be taken seriously.
You say I don't know what I'm talking about. That's just abuse:
demonstrate it.
Your statement that Muslims are far more familiar with the Christian
Scriptures than Christians are is simply outrageous bluff.
Abdalla Alothman
> Well, some don't and some do.
They are wrong. The Quran does not mention anything about the NT
and those who supposedly wrote it.
> The Qur'an claims they are, and yet provides zero proof.
The Quran also claims that the Messenger 'Eesa (Jesus) existed; he
was a Messenger, and so on. The Quran doesn't provide proof for that
as well. You should know that we believe in the Messenger 'Eesa, not
because your books say so, it's because the Quran says so.
Moreover, providing proof is not necessary, because it is in your own
books. Look, I pointed to two messages: One that shows that adultery
is permitted in christianity, and the other that clearly tests the
faith of
the christian. If you or Robert cannot pass the faith test given to you
in your own books, you have no solid grounds in order to defend
your religion.
I mean Jesus clearly told the christians that if their faith is as big
as a mustard seed they can move mountains and curse fig trees.
If they can't do that, they have no faith, period.
> Indeed, on one
> score (the death of Jesus by crucifixion) the Qur'an stands pretty much
> alone in its insistence that it is right where almost everyone else has
> concluded that the Biblical account is reliable. The upshot is that you
> believe that the NT is corrupted because the Qur'an claims it is so.
There were numerous statements given to us by the Creator in the
Quran which are ALL true. So, when the Quran denies the crucifixion,
we would believe it as well.
> Since I don't believe in the Qur'an as you do, do you really expect me
> to accept that as proof?
I simply don't care if you or Robert believe in what we believe or not.
However, when a Christian attacks my religion, I will attack his or
her religion. It's best to follow the advise given to you and us in the
Quran: Follow your religion, and we follow ours. But trust me, there
must be a christian who will come and show his hate towards Islam
and Muslims. You know why? Because the Quran says that the Jews
and the christians will not be pleased with Islam. If the christian
doesn't show his or her hate, the Quran will not be true. :-)
> Rubbishing the Bible and Christian belief in general isn't really going
> to help convince me or anyone else either.
It's action and reaction. Robert fires his attacks, and I will fire
back.
If he doesn't attack, I will go back to my business.
> As for corruption, one needs to be very careful before pointing the
> finger. We know that even in the Qur'an the were variances in the
> recitations which were collected to form the Qur'an,
Those variations you are talking about are still available. They
are variations in recitations, not variations in the content of the
Quran.
There is a huge recitation database over there, a lot of them
show different recitations. If you know Arabic, don't miss Mishari
Al-Effasi's recitation of Surat Maryam. It's very nice.
Since I do not see any hostile remarks from you, I will not hurt
your feelings and attack your religion by pointing out the differences
in your book, or discussing any matters related to your book.
> and also that we
> can no longer check these against each other thanks to the actions of
> Caliph Uthman. Not just that; it was Caliph Uthman who decided which
> versions of the recitiations were correct and which were not.
You're totally mixed up. 'Uthman bin 'Affaan did not approve any
recitations, he approved individual copies.
> So lets stop talk of corruption. You hold that the Qu'ran is true, and
> we hold that the Bible is true. We both do this by faith, and none of
> us are likely to change our minds on the matter by argument.
I agree with you on this, but I doubt Robert will agree with us. And
so as long as Robert wishes to point his finger at us, insha-Allah,
I will point my fingers at him.
Wishing you and your family peace and good health.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Your account of the New Testament is mistaken in elementary ways, but
> I am prevented by the rules of this forum from demonstrating this.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Paraphrasing, Robert style, your account of the Qur'an is mistaken in
elementary ways.
<snip> ...
> You sneer at my alleged ignorance and mistakes, when what would be to
> the point would be to demonstrate them; there would be some profit in
> that.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Paraphrasing, Robert style, you sneer at Islam and Muslims, when what would
be more to the point would be a demonstration that your crooked thinking by
"tricks of suggestion" [Thouless, et al] would somehow profitably mislead
the faithful.
<snip> ...
> ... Muslim scholars
> notably fail to contribute to the peer-group assessed international
> academic journals, and so cannot be taken seriously.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Paraphrasing, Robert style, you do not demonstrate your claim to be a
competent Islamic scriptural scholar (we are familiar with these hoaxes) in
SRI. Backwoods zealots, purporting to be scholars by association, notably
fail to contribute to peer-group any assessed international academic
journals, and so cannot be taken seriously.
So tell us Robert, what are the, as yet unidentified, "international
academic journals" in which you have written articles? Which academic
"peer-group" do you belong? And Robert says my writing is "obscure", which
makes me think that he's never read any so-called "international academic
journals", which are notoriously dense. Which raises the question,
paraphrasing, can he be taken seriously?
But, then again, I do not pretend to be a scholar or intellectual that
meaningfully contributes to such august journals.
--
Peace
--
In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the
learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no
longer exists." [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"Abdalla Alothman" <abdalla...@myway.com> wrote:
> So, when the Quran denies the crucifixion, we would believe it as well.
alssalaamu 3alaykum waraHmatu -llaah wabrakaatuhu,
While today's Muslims generally believe that Jesus did not suffer the
indignity of the cross and did not die there, in earlier times, Muslims
had a more nuanced and less dogmatic view of the Qur'anic decription.
Those who are so sure in their own minds about the DETAILS of what took
place seem to overlook the plain words of the Qur'an:
Those are so adamantly give their interpretation (whatever it may be)
seem to overlook the conclusion of the Qur'anic account:
"Those who differ therein [over the details of what happened] are full
of doubt, without knowlege, and only have opinions. But they did not
kill him. God raised him up to himself and God is exalted in power and
wise." (4:158)
Even Christians, who declare that "he was crucified under Pontius
Pilate, dead and buried" also declare that "Jesus lives" and that "he
will come again in glory". Even Christians teach that what took place on
Good Friday was not definitive. And shortly thereafter, while some of
the Jews were boasting that they had killed Jesus, the Christians knew
that he was alive. Later they believed they witnessed his ascension into
heaven. The killing of Jesus by the Jews and Romans, no matter how
successful if appeared to the onlookers, did not "take"; it failed at
least in the sense that it was undone by God.
Early Muslims were not so rigid and dogmatic in their understanding of
the Qur'anic account and they were not entirely in agreement
about whether or not Jesus (peace be on him) actually hung on the cross,
and if he did, what happened to him there. Furthermore, the level of
importance of the cruxifixion event is much lower for Muslims than for
Christians because of major theological differences over the nature and
role of Jesus.
As to the crucifixion event itself, the Qur'an clearly states that
there is confusion about the details.
Some of the Jews incurred God's wrath because (among other acts):
"They said 'We killed the Messiah, Jesus Son of Mary, God's prophet'.
But they did not kill him--did not crucify him--though it appeared
so to them. Those who differ therein are full of doubt, without
knowlege, and only have opinions. But they did not kill him. God raised
him up to himself and God is exalted in power and wise." (4:157-158)
What we know is that the Jews (with the complicity of the Roman
occupiers) had Jesus sentenced to die by crucifixion. Afterwards, the
Jews (and the Romans) claimed that the sentence had been duly carried
out and that Jesus was dead. The Qur'an tells us that the attempt to
kill Jesus failed and that God raised him up to Him, leaving the
witnesses with the false impression that they had succeeded. For all
the other details of exactly how this all transpired, we have only
doubts, conjectures and opinions. We simply do not know.
Among Muslims today, the accepted theory is that another person was
substitued for Jesus and that Jesus was never even placed on the cross.
But that was not the universal opinion of early Muslims.
The usual meaning of "to crucify" (like that of "to hang" and "to
electrocute" is to put to death by means of the cross (or rope or
electric chair). On rare ocassions men have survived ATTEMPTS to hang
them or to electrocute them (and probably to crucify them). That is,
they were subjected to the usual execution protocol but survived. It is
an imprecision of language if we say of a man who survived a hanging
attempt that "he was hanged (but survived)". The more correct expression
is "he survived an attempted hanging". In the normal course of events
"being crucified" (or "hanged" or "electrocuted") does not mean simply
to spend some time on the cross (or suspended from a rope or attached to
an electric chair); it means to die by that means. If the person does
not die, he has not, strictly speaking, been crucified (hanged or
electrocuted). The Qur'anic passage "They did not kill him--did not
crucify him" would thus be a figure of literary style, a pleonasm, used
for emphasis, just as we might say (emphatically) of someone accused of
giving false testimony: "No, he did perjure himself--did not lie; he
told the truth." In that example, we understand that "perjure" and "lie"
have the same meaning. One word is the usual, ordinary word and the
other is a technical word for the same thing but in the context of
giving testimony under oath.
Did it "appear to them", the witnesses, ("shubbiha lahum") that Jesus
had been killed (more precisely killed by crucifixion, i.e., crucified)
because another had been substituted for him or because God had raised
him up to him (right away or, as Christians believe, after the body had
been taken down from the cross and entombed)? The Qur'anic account does
not answer this question.
All that is important for Muslims is that the enemies of Jesus could
not (lacking God's permission) put him to death and that God raised him
up, more or less immediately, so that Jesus, unlike the rest of
us, did not have to wait for the general resurrection of the dead.
There are some who suggest, on the basis of a Qur'anic passage, that
ALL who are martyred in God's cause are thus raised up.
"Do not think that those killed in God's cause are dead. They live,
finding their sustenance in the Presence of their Lord." (3:169) "...No,
they are alive though you do not realize it." (2:154)
Even in the case of "ordinary" martyrs in God's cause, Muslims believe
that their physical death is only an appearance and that they, unlike
the rest of us, do not have to await the general resurrection of the
dead but are immediately raised up to God. Christians have a similar
belief about their Saints.
Some of the early Muslim writers endorse the substitution theory and
put the ascension of Jesus at the time of the crucifixion event (or
immediately preceding it). Others believe that Jesus was in fact put on
the cross, appeared to die, was taken down and entombed but in fact was
not dead (at least not dead in a definitive way) and was later raised
up by God, either soon after the crucifixion event (the ressurection,
Easter) or after some time (the ascension event according to
Christians). Some embrace the thinking of the Nestorians (a Christian
group eventually declared to be heretics). The Nestorians were dualists
who argued that Jesus in his flesh and blood died on the cross, but
that Jesus the Word of God (logos) did not die and ascended. For them,
physical death was an appearance in the world of time and space and
concerned only the physical being; the soul or spirit could not be
killed and its destruction or preservation was in the hands of God.
For Christians, the dogma of bloody sacrifice and vicarious atonement
for sin requires believing that Jesus was in fact dead when entombed.
Then, his ressurection was a resuscitation to life for a short period
during which he appeared to his disciples and finally the actual
ascension of Jesus to God occurred 40 days later. It is that
understanding which made it possible for Christians to develop the very
un-Jewish idea of human sacrifice as a propitiation for sin and an
efficacious atonement or appeasement of God's wrath. It is a doctrine
that arises from the Gentile faction in the post-Apostolic Church, not
from the indigenous and essentially Jewish group who made up the
primitive Church.
The suggestion that God had a Son in any other sense than the symbolic
sense found in Jewish scripture is totally unacceptable to Muslims (and
Jews). The suggestion that God would require the human sacrifice of the
humanity to whom Mary gave birth is contrary to the example given in the
story of Abraham (peace be on him). In the end, God does not require
Abraham to fulful his obedient acceptance of God's orders and a ram is
substitued for the boy. From that time on, there was never any
suggestion in Judaism that human sacrifice might in any form be pleasing
to God. Instead, the animal sacrifice was practiced.
The early Christians (the non-Jewish ones especially) quickly decided
that animal sacrifice was not effective, that the sacrifice of the
passover lamb and other animal sacrifices were not sufficient to erase
their guilt. So they rejected (or rather adapted) the sacrifice of
animals on the altar of the temple and developed a very complex
symbolism and imagery of Jesus as the new (and human!) sacrifice. They
sang (and still sing) the paschal antiphon, "Christ our Passover is
sacrificed; let us keep the feast." The blood of a real lamb, which was
sufficient to keep God from killing the first born Jews among the
Egyptian slaves when he passed over the land and took the sons of the
Egyptian masters, is for Chrisians no longer effective. The body and
blood of the lamb on the altar of the temple were replaced by the Body
and Blood of Jesus on the altar of the Cross: the ultimate human
sacrifice, described by them as "a full, perfect and sufficient
sarifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world".
Since Muslims reject the vicarious atonement, it really doesn't matter
what the actual chain of event was or who was in fact on the cross. What
matters to us is that Jesus was condemned to die; an attempt was made to
kill him; God somehow thwarted the attempt and raised Jesus up to him.
There is simply no need for Muslims to go further and make dogmatic
statements about details that the Qur'an itself says are a matter of
dispute.
The idea that God would require the sacrifice of a just and righteous
human being as a pre-condition to showing his Divine mercy to all
mankind is absolutely and totally rejected by Muslims.
For us, the unrighteous among the Jews were the enemies of Jesus and
his prophetic ministry. They enlisted the help of the Roman occupier to
get rid of Jesus. The Roman Governer, Pontius Pilatus, acting as the
agent of the Emperor Augustus Caesar and thus as the supreme court in
occupied Judea, after reviewing the claims made by the Jews and faced
with the inability of Rome's local puppet, King Herod, to settle the
matter, rejected all the charges brought against Jesus. However the
Jewish establishment with the help of organized demonstrators in
Pilate's courtyard convinced Pilate that he had to do something to
avoid a riot (an intifada, if you will) in occupied Judea (Palestine).
Bowing to public pressure, he found a way to make a judicial
substitution. Instead of crucifying a popular subversive named
Barabbas, the governor took advantage of the Roman custom of a passover
amnesty by releasing Barabbas and crucifying Jesus in his place.
The substitution of Jesus for Barabbas by the Roman authorities is the
only substitution that we know anything about. As to what actually
happened when the Romans tried to carried out the death sentence against
Jesus, we only know two things: (1) The Jews believed they had
succeeded and boasted about it and (2) Jesus was raised up by God and
either in a special way or in the same way as other martyrs in God's
cause did not die, notwithstanding the appearances otherwise. Everything
else (as the Qur'an plainly states) is conjecture.
"Those who differ therein [over the details of what happened] are full
of doubt, without knowlege, and only have opinions. But they did not
kill him. God raised him up to himself and God is exalted in power and
wise." (4:158)
Christians and Muslims have important disagreements over the nature of
Jesus and the significance of the crucifixion event. However, in spite
of those disagreements, both Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus
was raised up (ascended) to God and is alive today in Heaven and they
also share the belief that at the end time, Jesus will come again and
live among men until the final judgment.
While Muslims do not believe that Jesus (peace be on him) was in any way
divine or a modal hypostasis of the Eternal and Unitary Godhead, they do
accord him the rank of Prophet along with Abraham, Moses and Muhammad
(peace be on them all) and they accord him a status that is not shared
by any of the others.
Abraham, Moses, Muhammad and all the other Prophets of God (except
Jesus) are dead and buried, gone back to dust. Only Jesus is now alive.
The others must await the general resurrection. Ibn Arabi makes an
interesting distinction between the "limited" sainthood of Muhammad and
the "universal" sainthood of Jesus. In the _Futahat_, ibn Arabi writes:
"The Seal of the Saints (Muhammad) is unique in all the world. By him,
Allah put the final seal on Muslim holiness and there will never be
among Muslim saints anyone greater than Muhammad. However, there is
another seal, by which Allah put the final seal on all holiness in the
world since Adam until the last Saint who will live. That other seal is
Jesus and he is the Seal of Universal Holiness. ...Know this beyond all
doubt: Jesus will descend to earth and be our judge...."
Hallaj says, in the same vein: "
When Jesus comes again, Allah will assemmble the sanctified souls. There
will be a throne on earth for Jesus and also a thorne for him in heaven.
Allah will give his Book to the Herald Angel and he will give it to
Jesus, saying: 'Shine forth in Glory, in the name of the Eternal King!'"
And Sharani goes on: "
When Jesus comes again, at the end of time...the believers will gather
around him and proclaim him to be judge over them, because there will be
no one else (on earth) as qualified as Jesus to be their judge."
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> It's difficult to see why a word meaning messenger in Greek should be
> applied to a book.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
A Greek bearing gifts, perhaps! Paraphrasing, as the so-called Greek maxim
goes: 'if you don't like the message kill the messenger', or words to that
effect. Isn't that what the Romans did to Jesus? Even Muslims and the Qur'an
doesn't contradict that recognised fact.
<snip> ...
> One reason why Muslims believe the New Testament is corrupt is that
> it contains no reference to Muhammad. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Can you cite which authoritative Muslim source or international academic
journal gave you this rather perverse idea?
--
Peace
--
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Abdalla Alothman
TomaszA...@lycos.com wrote:
> That depends on the Muslim. Those who feel the injeel is not the Gospel
> believe so for theological reasons, so there is not much to discuss.
I agree. It's best for both Muslims and Christians to enjoy their
beliefs without attacking each other. At the end, both parties will be
judged.
> But I encourage comparing the Annunciation -- That is, the angel
> revealing to Mary birth of a Son -- between the Quran and the Gospel
> according to Luke. They are remarkably similar, to the extent that you
> can almost compare them verse by verse. This is only one case.
There is a major difference between the two. Consider the following
two ayaat from Surat Aal 'Imraan:
3:46. "He will speak to the people in the cradle and in manhood, and
he will be one of the righteous."
"in manhood" is a translation for the Arabic word Kahl, which
literally means a person over 30 years of age. It's a pointer to the
next time the Messenger 'Eesa will come back.
3:48. "And He (Allāh) will teach him ['Iesa (Jesus)] the Book and
Al-Hikmah (i.e. the Sunnah, the faultless speech of the Prophets,
wisdom, etc.), (and) the Taurāt (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)."
We will talk about "The Book" when we reach the article you pointed us
to from answering-islam. "Al-Hikmah" (lit. Wisdom) has been explained
by numerous mufasireen as the Sunnah. The Sunnah of the Prophet
Muhammad salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam. How did the Quran scholars
reach that fact? From the Quran itself:
62:2. He it is Who sent among the unlettered ones a Messenger
(Muhammad SAW) from among themselves, reciting to them His Verses,
purifying them (from the filth of disbelief and polytheism), and
teaching them the Book (this Qur'ān, Islāmic laws and
Islāmic
jurisprudence) and Al-Hikmah (As-Sunnah: legal ways, orders, acts of
worship, etc. of Prophet Muhammad SAW). And verily, they had been
before in mainfest error;
See also surat Aal 'Imraan aya 164 (3:164)
Maryam 'alayha asalaam was informed that her son will be knowledgable
in the Book (which we will discuss later) and the Sunnah. Whether she
understood it to be the Sunnah of the Messenger Muhammad (s) or not,
cannot be confirmed by myself.
> I recommend:
> http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Bible/ibnabbas.html
>
> ...and related articles. This is generally considered an "anti Islamic"
> site because of its apologetics and polemic, but I encourage you to see
> the daleel yourself, facts are facts.
There is a problem with this article. I had a discussion with the
founder (who might be the author of the article) of the web site on
this newsgroup regarding the same issue, but I sensed dishonesty from
him when what was given to him conflicted with his agenda.
The Quran mentions three classes of books.
1. The Book that contain the messages sent by the Creator to human
beings.
These are individual books like attawraat, al-injeel, al-quraan,
azzaboor, and so on. There is no need to prove that. These books are
contained in one book that is within the "hands" of the Creator:
35:31. And what We have inspired in you (O Muhammad SAW), of the Book
(the Qur'ān), it is the (very) truth [that you (Muhammad SAW) and your
followers must act on its instructions], confirming that which was
(revealed) before it. Verily! Allāh is indeed AllAware, and
AllSeer
of His slaves.
5:46. And in their footsteps, We sent 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam
(Mary), confirming the Taurāt (Torah) that had come before him, and We
gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and
confirmation of the Taurāt (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance
and an admonition for Al-Muttaqūn (the pious - see V.2:2).
"confirming that which was revealed before it" is a translation to the
Arabic phrase "muSadiqan lima bayna yadayhi." Bayna yadayhi = what's
between the Creator's hands, not what's in between my hand and yours,
or what was in the hands of Muslims and Christians centuries ago.
Bayna yadayhi (Between Allah's (tt) hands) is repeated twice in the
second aaya. Also note that the Injeel we believe in is a book just
like the Tawraat. It was given to the Messenger 'Eesa. It is not a
book written about 'Eesa and what he did and said.
2. The other Book, is what is termed Umm Al-Kitaab. The Mother of the
Books.
This book contains all the holy books. It also includes which leaf on
which tree in which location will fall tomorrow. Who will be born and
who will die in the next five minutes. etc.
6:38. There is not a moving (living) creature on earth, nor a bird
that flies with its two wings, but are communities like you. We have
neglected nothing in the Book, then unto their Lord they (all) shall
be gathered.
3. The third type are copies of books which humans hold in their
hands. This includes the tablets that were given to the Messenger
Musa, the Injeel that was given to Jesus (not what Luke, Mark, John,
and Matthew wrote), and so on. It does not include the Quran, however,
because the Quran does not have any physical dimenssion. The Quran is
a recital, not a written book.
Now, when the author of the article you posted referrs to Ibn Abaas,
Ibn Abbas talks about the first class of "The Book." The author of the
article knows that very well (because I had a public and a private
discussion with him) and he just went silent.
Of course, nobody can change the book that is with Allah (tt), but
they will change the books that were given to them. No need to go to
Hadeeth to prove this is true. This can be proven from the Quran.
Allah (tt) says in Surat Al-Tawba:
9:34. O you who believe! Verily, there are many of the (Jewish) rabbis
and the (Christian) monks who devour the wealth of mankind in
falsehood, and hinder (them) from the Way of Allāh (i.e.
Allāh's
Religion of Islāmic Monotheism). And those who hoard up gold and
silver [Al-Kanz: the money, the Zakāt of which has not been paid], and
spend it not in the Way of Allāh, -announce unto them a painful
torment.
This is the description of the Rabbis and the Priests in the Quran.
Those people were given a task:
5:44. Verily, We did send down the Taurāt (Torah) [to Mūsa
(Moses)],
therein was guidance and light, by which the Prophets, who submitted
themselves to Allāh's Will, judged the Jews. And the rabbis and the
priests [too judged the Jews by the Taurāt (Torah) after those
Prophets] for to them was entrusted the protection of Allāh's Book,
and they were witnesses thereto. Therefore fear not men but fear Me (O
Jews) and sell not My Verses for a miserable price. And whosoever does
not judge by what Allāh has revealed, such are the
Kāfirūn
(i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allāh's
Laws).
Allah (tt) also says in Surat Al-Jumu'ah:
62:5. The likeness of those who were entrusted with the (obligation of
the) Taurāt (Torah) (i.e. to obey its commandments and to practise its
legal laws), but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is as
the likeness of a donkey who carries huge burdens of books (but
understands nothing from them). How bad is the example (or the
likeness) of people who deny the Ayāt (proofs, evidences, verses,
signs, revelations, etc.) of Allāh. And Allāh guides not the
people
who are Zālimūn (polytheists, wrong-doers, disbelievers, etc.).
When it comes to the Christians:
1. The Messenger whom they follow (who is a god and / or son of god)
did not come with a new religion. He was a follower of the religion
started by the Messenger Musa.
2. Those who claim to follow 'Eesa, should keep up the laws 'Eesa
adhered to. The Messenger 'Eesa did not eat the pig, for example. In
such societies, nobody eats an animal that is also used for insulting.
TaHreef, in general, means changing the meaning, or adding or deleting
to the words sent by Allah. When it comes to the current Injeel, it is
a set of three books that do not fit the description given to us in
the Quran: A book sent by Allah to one of His Messengers. What we have
are books written centuries ago by normal human beings (not prophets)
about Jesus. Here, they did indeed "change the meaning" of the
book. They made their own books and called it the Injeel. They also
changed a lot of meanings. For example, they describe the crucifixion
as "love."
Allah (tt) says:
3:71. O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): "Why do you
interfuse truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?"
The problem with the Gospels is that they do not match the description
given to us in the Quran. Would the Christians (not necessarily the
ones who have been living in the past few centuries, but the ones who
lived hundreds of centuries ago) hide the truth? The Quran says yes.
At the end, the Quran tells us:
18:29. And say: "The truth is from your Lord." Then whosoever wills,
let him believe, and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve....
So everybody is free to believe or disbelieve in whatever he or she
wants.
Robert
clear: he points to a message (where is it?) which he claims shows that
Christianity permits adultery. This is an outrageous untruth.
I could explain the saying of Jesus's about faith moving mountains,
but I am prevented by the rules of this forum.
If you do not expect us to believe your evidence and arguments, why
do you bother producing them? Discussion implies a joint commitment to
truth.
You are explicit: you do not intend to arrive at truth, you simply
wish to attack.
How do you know that the variations in the recitations out of which
the Koran was formed were not variations in content?
By "recitations" I meant transcriptions of recitations. My point
remains: there were variant Korans.
Pointing a finger at Chrisianity does not refute points made about
Islam.
derrick_a...@yahoo.com
Salaams and Guten Tag!
Interesting. Recently I've been pondering on how the Injil (NT) is
allegedly "corrupted." Upon close scrutiny one is coerced to
believe there lays ambiguity. Is the NT a corrupted version of the
Qu'ran? Is the NT fraught with historical, geographical as well as
grammatical errors? Or is the NT an amalgam of both? It is remarkably
clear as to how the 'corruption' point can easily become an
equivocal, rhetorical maneuver in Christian-Muslim dialogues.
In my mind, the NT is historically inaccurate-but such inaccuracy is
understandable in the light of recent scholarship. Written at the bare
minimum of forty years after Jesus' departure it is no surprise that
the NT might contain 'some' errors. However, a more plausible
rendition would indicate that the NT authors weren't interested in
constructing a historical biography of their religious founder. No,
their concerns were of particular theological persuasions; hence the
absence of, say, the resurrection story in Mark. With that in mind, it
becomes all the more clear to see the aberrations in the NT as glosses
of inaccuracy, a common move in theologia.
My reservations aside, Muslim apologists are rather silent on what
corruption would imply in the Qu'ran. I would like to read more
comments on this, any takers?
Wa'alaikum Salaam
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
California State University
Abdalla Alothman
Asalamu alaikum wa rahmatullaah wa barakatuh.
Insha-Allah you are in good health.
To address your points very quickly:
The transliterated aaya from surat alnisaa looks like:
wa ma qataloohu
wa ma salaboohu
both verbs : qatl-killing + hu (pronoun referring to the Messenger
Eesa, in this case, in other cases, some people call Allah (tt) using
a pronoun!!) and salb-crucify + hu are negated with the "letter"
ma. And both negations are linked with wa. It would be interesting to
know why did Allah negate with MA, instead of LAM, or LA from an
eloquence (balaagha) point of view. He (tt) could have said, "wa lam
yaqtuluuhu wa lam yaSlibuuhu."
shubbiha lahum. Shubbiha, or al-tashabuh (likeness) can only be
applied between objects, it does not fit or apply to events (i.e., the
event of the crucifixion appeared to be true.) Shabah appears in the
Quran in reference to ayaat (minhu ayaatun mutashabihaat) in surat aal
imraan; cows, hearts, and fruits in surat albaqara; more fruits and
trees and so on in surat al-an'aam; creation in surat alra'd. All are
objects, not events.
Discarding the "wording" in the aaya cannot take place. Allah (tt)
said that He sent down the Quran in a "clear Arabic tongue."
> The usual meaning of "to crucify" (like that of "to hang" and "to
> electrocute" is to put to death by means of the cross (or rope or
> electric chair). On rare ocassions men have survived ATTEMPTS to
> hang them or to electrocute them (and probably to crucify
> them). That is, they were subjected to the usual execution protocol
> but survived.
No attempts succeeded because Allah (tt) says in surat Aal Imran:
3:54: wa makaruu wa makara Allahu wallahu khayru almaakireen.
There was a plan by the unbelievers, and there was another plan taking
place by Allah. I would believe that Allah's plan would supercede and
precede the plan of the unbelievers.
> Did it "appear to them", the witnesses, ("shubbiha lahum") that Jesus
> had been killed (more precisely killed by crucifixion, i.e., crucified)
> because another had been substituted for him or because God had raised
> him up to him (right away or, as Christians believe, after the body had
> been taken down from the cross and entombed)? The Qur'anic account does
> not answer this question.
"it" in reference to an event, you mean? If so, shubbiha would be the
wrong word to use. Other words such as badaa or khuyyila would be
more appropriate.
Thus, the exception (wa lakin) can only be related to 'Eesa. Different
scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah disagreed on who was substituted, but this
is what people like Brother Abu Jamal and Brother Hamid Aziz describe
as conjecture. Some Christians (who claim they are Essenes) say that
Barabbas was the substitute. That person's name is Jesus son of the
Father. It's also not my business, to be honest with you.
Those who said 'Eesa was substituted with another person (regardless
of their varying opinions regarding the identity of this person) did
not say so just like that. They had mastery in tafseer, balaagha, and
grammar. They knew that it would make no sense to use shubbiha to to
compare the likeness of two events (one that happened, and one that
"appeared" to have happened) because it is bad Arabic.
It can't be that the Speaker (Allah) is so bold to negate the action,
but He negated it by making it appear to be true--an un-daring
way. The triumph would be meaningless--there would be no triumph just
a mere rescue of a servant. However, if we assume an enemy of Allah
was substituted, and the Jews killed someone in their team, the joke
would be on them.
An event cannot be duplicated with the words given to us in the aaya.
What happened exactly, is not my business. It's the christians'
business. All what I was given is that two actions were negated.
Neither the killing happened nor the placement on a cross.
Allah (tt) says:
37:171-173. And, verily, Our Word has gone forth of old for Our
slaves, the Messengers, That they verily would be made triumphant.
And that Our hosts, they verily would be the victors.
Note that Allah (tt) did not say 'ibaadina al-anbiyaa (the prophets),
because He (tt) already told us that the Jews killed their prophets.
He (tt) chose mursaleen or messengers. Allah (tt) says that 'Eesa is a
Messenger (wa rasulan ila bani israa-eel).
If you see the series of stories in the Sura above and in Surat
al-anbiyaa, Saad, and even NuuH, you would see that Allah (tt) always
protected His Messengers and made them prevail at the end.
Allah (tt) says in surat Ibraheem:
14:47. So think not that Allâh will fail to keep His Promise to His
Messengers. Certainly, Allâh is All-Mighty, - All-Able of Retribution.
Claiming that the unbelievers managed to get hold of the Messenger
'Eesa, they managed to do xyz (spitting, taking off his clothes,
slapping, etc. ) until they fixed him on top of a cross is humiliation
(to the Christians, this is somehow interpreted as "love") which
conflicts with the aaya in surat aal 'imraan: Wa wajeehan fi aldunya
wal aakhira...:
3:45. (Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allâh
gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. 'Iesa
(Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the
Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in HONOUR in
this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near
to Allâh."
Wajeehan is someone who is like an aristocrat, someone who is
handsome, with intensive honor, not someone who would be humiliated by
his enemies and the enemies of Allah (tt). Someone who is a wajeeh,
cannot be subdued. Not only it would be hard to fix him on a cross or
tree, it would be hard to handcuff him because Allah (tt) willed him
to be a wajeeh.
In the christian gospels (which I read and studied but do not believe
are from Allah), their author John explains how "Jesus" was paraying
to the "Father" and how he put his head down asking the Father to
protect him. If this was true, and in addition to what I have from the
Quran, I would believe that Allah (tt) indeed rescued His
messenger. Because, if we say that 'Eesa was only crucified, but did
not die on the cross, then Allah (tt) did not save His messenger from
the humiliation that took place before the crucifixion (which I do not
believe it took place at all).
> "Do not think that those killed in God's cause are dead. They live,
> finding their sustenance in the Presence of their Lord." (3:169)
> "...No, they are alive though you do not realize it." (2:154)
True. Wa la taH-sabbanna allatheena qutiluu fi sabeelillaahi amwaat.
However, the qatl/killing has been clearly negated in surat alnisaa.
So it does not fit the possibility that Jesus died, but he is alive
because he "was killed" in the way of Allah.
What you refer to as a substitution theory is the closest and probably
the only "theory" that would pass a grammatical examination.
Wishing you and your family peace and good health. Wa jazakum Allahu
kayr wa hadana wa hadakum ila ma yuHibu wa yardha.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
TomaszA...@lycos.com
Anjum wrote:
> In any case, what is "true Christianity" anyway?
That question could reach such a depth that a book would be necessary
to answer it. But for me, I start with the idea that if Jesus was true
there must be a real historical connection between me and Him, and for
me that's the Church. Which Church? The Church that was there from the
beginning and bears the four marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
For me, she is non other than the Catholic church.
> So what form of Christianity was being practiced in Arabia at the time
> of the Prophet?
I'm not sure it deserves to even be called Christianity. Lets take the
Quran's statement, "Say not three...Allah, Jesus, Mary." It's obvious
"Three" is referring to the trinity, now who on earth believes Mary is
part of the trinity? We could say that this is referring to the fact
that Mary is venerated as the "Mother of God," but this only
demonstrates an ignorance towards the Trinity. "Mother of God" does not
mean she is God! One could also say that there actually were a group of
"Christians" who believed Mary was part of the trinity. I would think
such individuals were not real "Christians" per se, but individuals who
followed a mixture of various beliefs. Lastly, we could say that the
verse testifies to Muhammad's own ignorance, and so we would not take
him as a prophet.
Tomasz Antkowiak
hajj abujamal
Mike wrote:
> This still begs the question as to why Abraham was
> initially asked to go to the mountain with his son
> in order to sacrifice his son.
He wasn't. He saw in a dream that he was sacrificing his only son
Isma'il, and VOWED to sacrifice him. He was acting on his own belief
that the dream was an instruction.
> If this sort of thing is so out of kilter with God's
> plan then it seems odd to me that Abraham would even
> have been asked to do such a thing in the first place,
> with or without the substitutionary provision of a ram.
The ram was provided so Abraham could fulfill his vow. Muslims
continue to re-enact/commemorate that sacrifice every year at the end
of the Hajj.
> I would be interested to know what your (and other Muslims')
> view of the Christian perspective on Mosaic Law is.
It appears that Pauline Christians consider the mythical
crucifiction to have "fulfilled" the Mosaic Law, nullilfying it with
the "Good News" that everyone who believes as Paul set forth is
"forgiven." Paul appears to have taught that the Law was a curse
rather than a means of salvation for the Children of Israel. The
"Christian perspective on Mosaic Law" looks pretty confused and
contradictory to muslims.
> ... each covenant God makes with men (Abrahamic, Noachide,
> Mosaic, Christian etc.) is shown to be eternal and unchanging
> - rather than change an existing covenant, God provides a
> new one to supplement those already in existence.
Noah was given a Law applicable to all living creatures including
men and jinn. In the Torah, which was given exclusively to the
Children of Israel, there is a mention of this, although it does not
articulate much of what was actually given to Noah. The Torah also
speaks of a Promise, although again, much of what was Promised to Noah
is not articulated in the Torah. Part of what was Promised was a
Covenant to be given to all humankind for their salvation. The Law
given to Noah remains in force for all those who have not adopted a
later Covenant.
Abraham was given a Promise of that same Covenant, which would be
given to all humanity by a Messenger sent among the children of
Isma'il (Ishmael), and in addition was given a second Promise of a
second Covenant that would precede the first, *before* the final
Covenant was delivered, and be exclusively for some children of Ishaq
(Isaac). The Children of Israel were chosen to receive this precursor
Covenant.
Moses was given that Covenant exclusively for the children of
Israel, including a Law for their salvation, which they chose to
adopt. They promised to show the nations of mankind the benefit of
making a Covenant with God, and, at the call of the Messiah of Israel,
the way to reach the Messenger of the Covenant, that Messenger's name,
lineage, place, and coming. They further promised that when that
Messenger came, they would follow him and aid him, and many of them
did just that.
Jesus was that Messiah of Israel, and he announced the name of the
Messenger who would bring the Covenant promised to all humanity. He
did not bring a new Law or Covenant, but explicitly affirmed that the
Mosaic Law and Covenant continued in force for Israel. Many of his
followers were also waiting in Biblical Tema when the Messenger came.
Paul, after spending most of his life attempting to suppress the
Good News and eliminate Jesus, claimed that Jesus was the Messenger of
the Covenant for all humanity, conflating the two ~ the Messiah of
Israel and the Messenger of the Covenant ~ and did NOT announce the
name of the Messenger, his lineage, place, or coming, instead
spreading the lie that Jesus was accursed of the Law, proven by the
claim of crucifixion, and was himself the means of salvation, with a
"new Covenant" nullifying the Mosaic Law entirely and replacing it
with the mystery of vicarious atonement by divine incarnation. The
doctrine says, essentially, that God commits suicide in order to save
mankind. How Pauline Christians believe this is a complete mystery.
The Messenger came exactly as prophesied in Scripture and by
Jesus, and fulfilled all those prophecies to the letter, transforming
the Promised Land and making all things new, establishing a "new
Jerusalem" or direction of prayer and camp of the saints, and
delivering the means of salvation, a Law and a Covenant, to the
nations. After a thousand years, that millennial kingdom collapsed
into dust, but the Law and Covenant remain intact and complete.
Stay tuned ~ people of Paul's ilk ~ suppressors of the real Good
News ~ have been hard at work in America for four centuries.
> Peace indeed and blessings to you and yours,
> Mike.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
derrick_a...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Salaams and Guten Tag!
>
wa3alaykumu -lssalaam and Good Day,
> Interesting. Recently I've been pondering on how the Injil (NT) is
> allegedly "corrupted." Upon close scrutiny one is coerced to
> believe there lays ambiguity. Is the NT a corrupted version of the
> Qu'ran? Is the NT fraught with historical, geographical as well as
> grammatical errors? Or is the NT an amalgam of both? It is remarkably
> clear as to how the 'corruption' point can easily become an
> equivocal, rhetorical maneuver in Christian-Muslim dialogues.
Muslims believe that God has revealed in a physical and temporal form by
his "Book" to certain of his Prophets by direct revelation through
angelic agency. The Prophets received the Divine Revelation in their
hearts and then taught it to their respective peoples.
We believe that God gave the Mushaf (scrolls) to Abraham (peace be on
him); the Torah (law) to Moses (peace be on him), the Zabur (pslams) to
David (peace be on him), the Injil (evangel or gospel) to Jesus (peace
be on him) and the Qur'an (recitation) to Muhammad (peace be on him).
We believe that taday, only the Qur'an is still in available to us in
its unaltered and original form.
The Mushaf of Abraham has been completely lost, both in its written form
and its orally tranmitted form. Thus, we know nothing about it.
The Torah as taught by Moses is no longer available in its original form
but subsists in an incomplete and partial form in the current Jewish
Torah, which is also the first five books of the Christain Bible.
The Psalms are also partially preserved in the Jewish and Christian
scriptures although the exising text is obviously far removed from the
original.
The Gospel received by Jesus is only available partially in the four
gospel accounts found in the Christian Bible and attributed to Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John. They are thought to be later efforts to reduce to
written form several oral traditions that existed in regional Chruches.
The Qur'an is a complete and unaltered version in written form of the
Revelation from God that Muhammad recited to his followers during his
lifetime.
When we say that the Torah and Gospel have been corrupted, we may be
referring to several forms of corruption.
First we must openly say that much of what is in the current Jewish and
Christian scriptures is from the original revelations received by Jesus
and Moses. However, there are additions, omissions and distortions. Some
of them are "innocent" errors of copyists, who inadvertently miscopied
the works that they used as the basis for their work. Some of them are
direct corruptions of the text that resulted from the copyist's desire
to mould the text in a way to better conform to official doctrines.
However, the greatest corruption of the Torah and the Gospel is NOT the
distortions introduced into the text (whether by error or design) but is
the result of false teachings by the clergy. Before the invention of the
printing press and the generalization of literacy, ordinary people only
knew about the Torah and the Gospel through the teaching and preaching
of their religious leaders.
For example, although Jesus is called "Son of God" in the Gospel
versions, there is nothing in them to prove the Church doctrine of
actual divine filiation. The ancient Jews use the title Son of God as an
honorific for some of their kings and prophets and NEVER imagined any
actual divine filiation. Even in the Gospel accounts received into the
Canon of Scripture by the Church, there is no declaration that Jesus has
a divine nature is a modal or hypostatic manifestation of the Unitary
Godhead. Yet, the Chruch Councils corrupted the original Gospel of Jesus
and misinterpreted for their own ends the second-hand gospel versions
they stills use to proclaim that Jesus is God and that God's Unitary
Being is known to mankind through three hypostases (persons).
Did the Crurch fathers come to their doctrinal conclusions and write
their Creeds with the intention of falsifying the Gospel of Jesus or did
the majority of them at the time simply misunderstand their own religion
because of the influence of their own Greco-Roman culture? Either way,
the original Gospel was corrupted and anyone who relies on the existing
Gospel accounts interpreted according to orthodox Christian doctrine
will have a corrupted understanding of the Revelation received by Jesus.
>
> In my mind, the NT is historically inaccurate-but such inaccuracy is
> understandable in the light of recent scholarship. Written at the bare
> minimum of forty years after Jesus' departure it is no surprise that
> the NT might contain 'some' errors. However, a more plausible
> rendition would indicate that the NT authors weren't interested in
> constructing a historical biography of their religious founder. No,
> their concerns were of particular theological persuasions; hence the
> absence of, say, the resurrection story in Mark. With that in mind, it
> becomes all the more clear to see the aberrations in the NT as glosses
> of inaccuracy, a common move in theologia.
>
Regardless of the intention of the Evangelists or the intention of those
who later interpreted their writings and edicted the Church's official
doctrines, the Gospel accounts now existing and the understanding of
them by Christians is not in conformity with the original Gospel
revealed to Jesus and taught by him to his follows. Today, there are
even prominent Christian scholars who call into question some of their
own church's teachings.
Any scholarly edition of the gospel books will show in its notes many
places where there is evidence of changes. Furthermore, the Muslim claim
that the Torah of the Jews has been corrupted is a claim found in the
Jewish Bible itself, in the Book of Jeremiah, who says:
"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us'? But
behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." (Jeremiah
8:8, quoted from the New American Standard Bible)
Here the Prophet Jeremiah, a Jew, is scolding other Jews and charging
that their corrupt scribes have made the Law of the Lord (that is the
Torah) into a lie by their lying pen (that is the pen they used to
change the verses).
Whether Jeremiah means that the scribes altered the Torah itself or that
they misinterpreted it in their commentaries, the result for the people
who followed their teachings is the same: a corrupted understanding of
the Torah.
According to the gospel accounts, Jesus, in his day, also had little
respect for the scribes (and pharisees). He frequently called them
hypocrites and accused them of hardening the Law (Torah) and distorting
its message. Of them he said:
"You are like snakes! You are like a collection of dangerous snakes!
You will not escape Gods punishment in hell." (Matthew 23:33)
> My reservations aside, Muslim apologists are rather silent on what
> corruption would imply in the Qu'ran. I would like to read more
> comments on this, any takers?
>
Well, I have explained how I understand the question.
G.Waleed
Robert wrote:
> It's difficult to see why a word meaning messenger in Greek should be
> applied to a book.
>
Disengenuous, at best.
The word-root for message / messenger certainly is applicable.
Those familiar with research (by Christian scholars) into the sources
of the Gospels should know about "the Q document".
Mike
Hope you and yours are well.
hajj abujamal wrote:
> Salaam!
>
> Mike wrote:
>
> > This still begs the question as to why Abraham was
> > initially asked to go to the mountain with his son
> > in order to sacrifice his son.
>
> He wasn't. He saw in a dream that he was sacrificing his only son
> Isma'il, and VOWED to sacrifice him. He was acting on his own belief
> that the dream was an instruction.
Not that this will make much difference to you:
Gen 22:1-2: After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him,
"Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I. He said, "Take your son, your only
son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him
there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall
tell you."
Could you provide the Surah so we can compare the two accounts
(notwithstanding the issue over which son was involved)?
...
> The ram was provided so Abraham could fulfill his vow. Muslims
> continue to re-enact/commemorate that sacrifice every year at the end
> of the Hajj.
I wonder - do all Muslims share this view, namely that Abraham was
mistaken in his belief that God had called him to sacrifice his son? If
so, why should God then treat Abraham with honour if his actions had
not been by divine request in the first place? Does God reward
ignorance and self-delusion?
> > I would be interested to know what your (and other Muslims')
> > view of the Christian perspective on Mosaic Law is.
>
> It appears that Pauline Christians consider the mythical
> crucifiction to have "fulfilled" the Mosaic Law, nullilfying it with
> the "Good News" that everyone who believes as Paul set forth is
> "forgiven." Paul appears to have taught that the Law was a curse
> rather than a means of salvation for the Children of Israel. The
> "Christian perspective on Mosaic Law" looks pretty confused and
> contradictory to muslims.
I am given to wonder if the above is a fair precis of the Muslim view.
For the Christian view is clarified in Acts 14-15, where the early
Christians began sharing the Gospel with non-Jews. There the view is
taken that Mosaic Law cannot apply to Gentiles since they were never
part of that covenant, and that to insist that Gentiles become Judaised
prior to becoming Christians was an unnecessary and over-onerous burden
to place on them.
If you ask a Jew whether the Law applies to Gentiles, you are likely to
get the reply that the Noachide laws apply, but Mosaic Law does not.
That position does not change within the Christian view.
Does this position change under Islam? My suspicion is that it does.
> > ... each covenant God makes with men (Abrahamic, Noachide,
> > Mosaic, Christian etc.) is shown to be eternal and unchanging
> > - rather than change an existing covenant, God provides a
> > new one to supplement those already in existence.
> ...The Torah also
> speaks of a Promise, although again, much of what was Promised to Noah
> is not articulated in the Torah. Part of what was Promised was a
> Covenant to be given to all humankind for their salvation.
For Christians, this is the New Covenant spoken of by Jesus. Do Muslims
recognise this, or know of another covenant which has fulfilled this?
> The Law
> given to Noah remains in force for all those who have not adopted a
> later Covenant.
We agree at least on that.
> Abraham was given a Promise of that same Covenant, which would be
> given to all humanity by a Messenger sent among the children of
> Isma'il (Ishmael), and in addition was given a second Promise of a
> second Covenant that would precede the first, *before* the final
> Covenant was delivered, and be exclusively for some children of Ishaq
> (Isaac). The Children of Israel were chosen to receive this precursor
> Covenant.
Can you tell me where the Qur'an refers to this covenant? I am unaware
of the Qur'an treating itself as part of a covenant as such. Indeed,
the concept of "covenant" as I have read in the Qu'ran applies either
to the Mosaic covenant given to Israel, or to a more generic "promise",
the terms of which do not seem to be specifically spelled out in a
single place. If such an agreement were made between Allah and the
earliest (post Muhammad) Muslims, is this documented in the Qur'an. If
it is, I have yet to find it.
...
> Jesus was that Messiah of Israel, and he announced the name of the
> Messenger who would bring the Covenant promised to all humanity. He
> did not bring a new Law or Covenant,
I beg to differ there - Luke 22:20 has Jesus insitituting that very
covenant. Does the Qur'an explicitly state that he didn't?
<snip defamation of Paul>
> How Pauline Christians believe this is a complete mystery.
No more of a mystery than of someone believing that God would dictate a
book the likes of the Qur'an to a single human being via an Angel.
> The Messenger came exactly as prophesied in Scripture
... only if you distort that scripture and/or take it out of context,
of course...
> and by Jesus,
... documented in a book which a priori identifies Jesus as divine...
> and fulfilled all those prophecies to the letter, transforming
> the Promised Land and making all things new, establishing a "new
> Jerusalem" or direction of prayer and camp of the saints, and
> delivering the means of salvation, a Law and a Covenant, to the
> nations.
The question there is whether this is "the" means of salvation. Surely
Christians have likewise a means of salvation, although we differ
somewhat on how this is worked out.
> After a thousand years, that millennial kingdom collapsed
> into dust, but the Law and Covenant remain intact and complete.
Some would say the "kingdom" in question collapsed rather earlier than
that. Others like I question the very nature of that kingdom. But
certainly it is interesting to read the "broad sweep" of your vision of
the workings of Islam. I just wonder how universally this vision is
held in the Ummah.
> Stay tuned ~ people of Paul's ilk ~ suppressors of the real Good
> News ~ have been hard at work in America for four centuries.
I'm not overly worried about America, although I do wonder precisely
what you mean by the above. I live in the U.K., and us Christians have
been here getting on for two millenia.
Mike.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip>
> The definition of the Canon did not take place by Imperial Roman
> decree; the canonical scriptures were defined by the Church Council,
> confirming what had long been accepted.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What are altruistic subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, to make from this
apologetic propaganda? Is this Robert's unbiased, detached and disinterested
view or is it purely a disguised apologetic defence of the Church's
(Romanism)
doctrine?
Any Muslim with an elementary knowledge of the historical "Bible" know that
the "canonical scriptures" of the Church include the Apocrypha (i.e. 14
books of the Old Testament included in the Vulgate but omitted in Jewish and
Protestant versions of the Bible).
But why does Robert fail to mention this? Is this artful omission "detached
and disinterested" or meant to mislead some Muslims into believing that
there is one unified "Bible" for all Christians that can be relatively
compared to the unity of the Qur'an in Islam?
Robert how many other additional "Gospels" are there in the other four
ancient Churches, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople? Do you
know? Robert does the ancient Coptic Church accept the "canonical scriptures
defined by the Church Council" in Rome? Why do you persist in thinking
Muslims are unaware of these "Bible" paradoxes? A discerning Muslim might
well ask what is the "Bible" when confused Christians can't decide that
simple question for themselves.
<snip> ...
> The different "Gospels" were not from an early period, and were not
> Christian, but usually Gnostic, as is patent. The famous Gospel of
> Barnabas, of which Muslims make so, much is a forgery.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Muslims constantly ask what is a Christian when there are so many
conflicting responses from the denominationally biased definitions presented
by themselves? Perhaps, Robert can also explain to subscribers, Muslim or
otherwise, which other "Gospels" readily accepted by other Churches, as
"canonical", are forgeries? Wouldn't some Christians include the Apocrypha
in their response?
Aren't these facts not sufficient "evidence and reason" to question the
"Corruption of the Gospels" by the Christians themselves? Why do Muslims
need to do anymore?
Does Robert "challenge" Islam because of these established historical
"Bible" paradoxes? I wonder why? What "interest" is being intentionally
vindicated by this fallacious "challenge" other than creating added
confusion in the Islamic community about perfidious Christian ethics?
But I'm biased of course.
Mike
...
> For Christians, the dogma of bloody sacrifice and vicarious atonement
> for sin requires believing that Jesus was in fact dead when entombed.
Indeed. This is a major bone of contention, since the Qur'anic denial
of the sacrifice of Jesus is in turns a denial of major parts of
Christian faith and teaching. Take away the death and resurrection of
Jesus, and there is little point in being a Christian - one would be
better off becoming Judaised so as to receive the benefit of the Mosaic
covenant, or (as I believe was intended to be the result of the
Qur'an's denial) abandoning Christianity for Islam. This one bone of
contention has fuelled more argument between Muslim and Christian than
any other.
> Then, his ressurection was a resuscitation to life for a short period
> during which he appeared to his disciples and finally the actual
> ascension of Jesus to God occurred 40 days later. It is that
> understanding which made it possible for Christians to develop the very
> un-Jewish idea of human sacrifice as a propitiation for sin and an
> efficacious atonement or appeasement of God's wrath.
The "un-Jewish" idea of a life for a life (the whole basis of the
atonement sacrifice) is found both in Mosaic Law and prior to that in
the life of Abraham.
> It is a doctrine
> that arises from the Gentile faction in the post-Apostolic Church, not
> from the indigenous and essentially Jewish group who made up the
> primitive Church.
I must confess I am a little surprised at this level of supposition,
since AFAICT no evidence exists to support it. For example, 1 Peter
letter is full of references to both sacrifice and resurrection. Now, I
understand that Muslims regard Paul's letters with suspicion, but I was
unaware that 1 Peter was so scorned as well. Indeed, my understanding
is that 1 Peter is thought to be geniunely authored by Peter, albeit
through a scribe. In that, its source is hardly post-Apostolic or from
the "Gentile faction".
> The suggestion that God had a Son in any other sense than the symbolic
> sense found in Jewish scripture is totally unacceptable to Muslims (and
> Jews). The suggestion that God would require the human sacrifice of the
> humanity to whom Mary gave birth is contrary to the example given in the
> story of Abraham (peace be on him). In the end, God does not require
> Abraham to fulful his obedient acceptance of God's orders and a ram is
> substitued for the boy. From that time on, there was never any
> suggestion in Judaism that human sacrifice might in any form be pleasing
> to God. Instead, the animal sacrifice was practiced.
This still begs the question as to why Abraham was initially asked to
go to the mountain with his son in order to sacrifice his son. If this
sort of thing is so out of kilter with God's plan then it seems odd to
me that Abraham would even have been asked to do such a thing in the
first place, with or without the substitutionary provision of a ram.
> The early Christians (the non-Jewish ones especially) quickly decided
> that animal sacrifice was not effective, that the sacrifice of the
> passover lamb and other animal sacrifices were not sufficient to erase
> their guilt. So they rejected (or rather adapted) the sacrifice of
> animals on the altar of the temple and developed a very complex
> symbolism and imagery of Jesus as the new (and human!) sacrifice. They
> sang (and still sing) the paschal antiphon, "Christ our Passover is
> sacrificed; let us keep the feast." The blood of a real lamb, which was
> sufficient to keep God from killing the first born Jews among the
> Egyptian slaves when he passed over the land and took the sons of the
> Egyptian masters, is for Chrisians no longer effective. The body and
> blood of the lamb on the altar of the temple were replaced by the Body
> and Blood of Jesus on the altar of the Cross: the ultimate human
> sacrifice, described by them as "a full, perfect and sufficient
> sarifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world".
Surely this is a little wide of the mark?
I would be interested to know what your (and other Muslims') view of
the Christian perspective on Mosaic Law is. For substitutionary
sacrifice forms a part of the Mosaic covenant, and that covenant is
provided for and within the tribe of Israel. Extending that covenant to
apply to Gentiles would surely be a usurpation of God's authority. As
it is, the "New Covenant" started by Jesus is universal, and this was
shown to be the case in the early church. But the Mosaic covenant still
only operates within Israel. In this way, each covenant God makes with
men (Abrahamic, Noachide, Mosaic, Christian etc.) is shown to be
eternal and unchanging - rather than change an existing covenant, God
provides a new one to supplement those already in existence.
...
> There is simply no need for Muslims to go further and make dogmatic
> statements about details that the Qur'an itself says are a matter of
> dispute.
>
> The idea that God would require the sacrifice of a just and righteous
> human being as a pre-condition to showing his Divine mercy to all
> mankind is absolutely and totally rejected by Muslims.
Hmm.
I hope I haven't read this correctly, as it seems you're saying on the
one hand that Jesus' crucifixion is a matter of dispute, and then going
on to make a dogmatic statement as to why it couldn't happen. Could you
provide me with a reference where the Qur'an says that God would not
allow a righteous man to die in this manner, either as a condition of
grace or otherwise?
...
> Abraham, Moses, Muhammad and all the other Prophets of God (except
> Jesus) are dead and buried, gone back to dust. Only Jesus is now alive.
What about Elijah? I thought he too was spared death.
> Peace to all who seek God's face.
Peace indeed and blessings to you and yours,
Mike.
TomaszA...@lycos.com
> Asalamu alaikum (peace)
And peace to you,
> There is a major difference between the two. Consider the following
> two ayaat from Surat Aal 'Imraan:
There are some differences but I was referring to the Annunciation.
Compare Surah Maryam verses 1-19 and Luke 1: 5-38. The similarities are
incredible. So how is it that an illiterate man could reproduce a
portion of the Bible? You could say he was inspired but that would give
validity to the Bible and Muslims generally see it as corrupt. Plus, it
seems odd than an inspired message would lack so much originality, many
verses in Quran and Hadith have can be found nearly verbatim in the
Bible, although they're not always used the same way. A more likely
explanation is that Muhammad learned these things, not by reading but
by listening. Islamic sources document Muhammad making trips to Syria
even as a young boy and he certainly encountered Christians. As a
merchant he had many opportunities to speak with people of various
faiths, perhaps even entering their places of worship. Now, his
understanding of these various faiths would be incomplete, so this
would explain why Quran does not address significant core beliefs of
Christianity and why we find such blunders as Mary being part of the
Trinity and Christ never being crucified. I think it's obvious Muhammad
didn't understand either the trinity or the significance of the
crucifixion.
As for accounts of Christ's childhood in the Quran, like him talking in
a crib and giving life to clay birds, I have heard these can be found
in Egyptian apocryphal material.
> Wishing you and your family peace and good health.
Thank you, and peace and blessings to you and your family.
Tomasz Antkowiak
Abdalla Alothman
Robert wrote:
> Abdalla produced an obscure and confused posting, but one point is
> clear: he points to a message (where is it?)
The URL was given, it's not my problem if you don't know how to click
on a link. Here is what we have previously posted:
Go and sin no more! Does that sound familiar to you? Read how it is
your religion that permits illegal sexual relationships:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/41c9b990ee9472f8
All what Robert has to do is point and click, or copy and paste.
> which he claims shows that
> Christianity permits adultery. This is an outrageous untruth.
Look, the issue only needs simple logic.
What is the penalty in adultery in your holy book? If there is no
penalty,
there is no crime. The only penalty you have is "Go and sin no more."
Even that is not practiced in modern Christian societies.
You can do all the mocking that you want, but at the end a fact is a
fact.
A crime without a penalty is not a crime. Let me confuse you a bit. In
your old testament the penalty was stoning, but apparently it was
abrogated not by Allah, not by a prophet, not by a messenger, but by
christians. Obviously, you don't like to hear about abrogation, but it
is
all in your bible.
> I could explain the saying of Jesus's about faith moving mountains,
> but I am prevented by the rules of this forum.
No need to explain. If it is a metaphore of some kind, this makes all
your
holy book a complete metaphore. Go to the message I pointed you to.
Your human god tells those whom you got your religion from: "I tell you
the truth! If your faith is that of a mustard seed, you can do such and
such."
Your book says Jesus was talking about "TRUTH," not metaphores that
need explanations from Robert. As a proof, he literally cursed a fig
tree.
If Robert can't preform such feats, he is an unbeliever according to
his
book. So much for miracles.
> If you do not expect us to believe your evidence and arguments, why
> do you bother producing them? Discussion implies a joint commitment to
> truth.
I'll wait for you to apply that to yourself.
> You are explicit: you do not intend to arrive at truth, you simply
> wish to attack.
So what are you doing attacking Islam in this newsgroup? Did
Abdalla took the trouble to go to christian newsgroup to attack
them, or is Robert attacking Muslims in a newsgroup "about Islam?"
> How do you know that the variations in the recitations out of which
> the Koran was formed were not variations in content?
Because I have the necessary background. On the other hand, you
don't even know Arabic, all what you know is how to parrot what
others have said.
The various qiraa-aat of the Quran are publicly available for Muslims
to
listen to, read, and enjoy. No Muslim can say these are variant Korans,
but we say those are various ways to read the Quran. Others who insist
on something that does not exist, are as good as those who are blowing
a punctured trumpet.
Also, and by the way, regarding your claims of deception and so on, you
should see what your people do over here:
http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue1/contextu.htm
See how lies are taught to Christians. It's this type of dishonesty
that
causes Muslims in small villages to kill your people. The problem is
not
with the Christian minorities in small Muslim villages, it's when your
people start visiting those villages, massacres occur on innocent
Christians.
It would be nice if you and your likes would mind their own business,
but
the problem is that you can't. Allah (tt) tells us in the Quran:
2:120. Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you...
And you have to prove over and over again that the Quran is always
true.
If your likes disappear, the aaya above would be suspicious.
> By "recitations" I meant transcriptions of recitations. My point
> remains: there were variant Korans.
We keep telling you that the variations is in the recitation (they are
called
qiraa-aat, not quraanaat), and you keep saying variant Korans. Allah
(tt)
tells us in surat al-a'raaf:
7:175-176. And recite (O Muhammad SAW) to them the story of him to
whom We gave Our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs,
revelations,
etc.), but he threw them away, so Shaitân (Satan) followed him up, and
he became of those who went astray. And had We willed, We would surely
have elevated him therewith but he clung to the earth and followed his
own
vain desire. So his description is the description of a dog: if you
drive him
away, he lolls his tongue out, or if you leave him alone, he (still)
lolls his
tongue out. Such is the description of the people who reject Our Ayât
(proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.). So
relate the
stories, perhaps they may reflect.
> Pointing a finger at Chrisianity does not refute points made about
> Islam.
That's when you make a point in the first place.
Abdalla Alothman
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Abdalla produced an obscure and confused posting, but one point is
> clear: he points to a message (where is it?) which he claims shows that
> Christianity permits adultery. This is an outrageous untruth.
Comment:-
Do subscribers notice the subtle crooked thinking shift here? The sudden
change from biblical exegesis in the OT to NT - Christianity! This message,
"where is it?", well Robert it's in the OT (as you well know). Just visit
this search link (719,000 hits) to discover the "truth":-
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=adultery&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=biblical
You constantly criticising other subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, to do
their 'scholarly' research and provide, what you typically call, "evidence
and reason"; well aren't these rational search results sufficient to
demonstrate this altruistic purpose on a peer-to-peer basis?
<snip> ...
> I could explain the saying of Jesus's about faith moving mountains,
> but I am prevented by the rules of this forum.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Yes, I'm sure you could. Consistently elsewhere you are criticising the
Qur'an and holding up the Bible as its rational alternative. However, when
the Bible is put under a "challenge" by Muslims you artfully shift the focus
to Jesus (pbuh).
I can understand "faith moving mountains" but if you substitute "belief" in
the same phrase would it mean the same thing? Isn't this inconsistent with
your 'tricks of suggestion' in other posts?
For argument, doesn't the Bible countenance divorce, so why are Catholics
against it? Is this then not a revealed truth in the Bible? If so, is it
then rational to 'infallibly' proscribe it?
<snip> ...
> If you do not expect us to believe your evidence and arguments, why
> do you bother producing them? Discussion implies a joint commitment to
> truth.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Well, following this altruistic sentiment in this particular "discussion";
do you in turn, believe the indubitable "evidence and arguments" produced?
Is there a implied "joint commitment to truth" in your mind or will you
sacrifice principle to interest?
<snip> ...
> You are explicit: you do not intend to arrive at truth, you simply
> wish to attack. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Truth is a fact that can be verified, so can you provide subscribers, Muslim
or otherwise, with any hard evidence that any of your many 'ideological'
posts are not either an explicit or implicit attack on Muslims and Islam?
When you oppugn Islam it's called a "challenge", when Muslims justifiably
question your findings or motives, it's an "attack", how come?
--
Peace
--
An ideology is a body of widely held but false beliefs that has the effect
of making practice and institution that is not legitimate seem so. [T.
Eagleton - "Ideology- An Introduction"]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Robert
believe the New Testament is corrupt because it contains no reference
to Muhammad. I don't possess a library of Islamica; the statement is,
however, a commonplace and the issue of the Old Testament's and the New
Testament's witness or non-witness to Muhammad has been debated between
Christians and Muslims since the earliest days.
Robert
is disproved by the fact that variant Korans existed from the beginning
and that one was chosen, with no reasons given, by Uthman. Also
epigraphical and numismatic evidence shows that the text of the Koran
took time to stabilize.
There are only four places in the New Testament where the reading is
uncertain; none of them has any bearing on Christian teaching.
Please establish how false teaching by the Christian clergy has
corrupted the Gospel. What was their motive?
The Sonship of Jesus is manifest in the Gospels: Jesus constantly
prays to and refers to His Father. That the ancient Jews never imagined
a divine filiation is neither here not there: revelation can't be fully
anticipated. Jesus's divine nature *is* attested in the Gospels: He
says "before Abraham I AM", the final clause referring to God's
self-revelation to Moses. Jesus also says "The Father and I are one."
The question arises, one what? and the answer is, one God.
You give no substantial grounds for your attack on the
Judeo-Christian Scriptures for it is based, not on evidence, but on
your orthodox Muslim faith.
Mike
...
> Go and sin no more! Does that sound familiar to you? Read how it is
> your religion that permits illegal sexual relationships:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/41c9b990ee9472f8
Do you expect us to believe this drivel?
The point made is not about whether sin is sin, but rather about how
one must be when one judges another. As Jesus said, "Judge not, lest ye
be judged". This is not to say that there is no penalty for sin, but
that there is also mercy.
Irrespective of how riled Robert has made you feel, there is no need to
insult the intelligence and good name of Christians. The society we
live in is all too secularised already; spreading lies about those who
also believe in the one God, and whom are committed to living righteous
lives seems pointless and rather stupid to me.
> > which he claims shows that
> > Christianity permits adultery. This is an outrageous untruth.
>
> Look, the issue only needs simple logic.
No. It needs a clear head and understanding.
> What is the penalty in adultery in your holy book? If there is no
> penalty,
> there is no crime. The only penalty you have is "Go and sin no more."
> Even that is not practiced in modern Christian societies.
>
> You can do all the mocking that you want, but at the end a fact is a fact.
> A crime without a penalty is not a crime.
This is the very accusation I level at Muslims who decry the concept of
substitutionary sacrifice. For the penalty of sin is death. It has
always been so. Yet I have yet to hear of one Muslim who will
acknowledge this and admit the need for sacrifice for the remission /
removal of sin penalty.
> Let me confuse you a bit. In
> your old testament the penalty was stoning, but apparently it was
> abrogated not by Allah, not by a prophet, not by a messenger, but by
> christians. Obviously, you don't like to hear about abrogation, but it
> is all in your bible.
Show me the abrogation then. The woman was not brought to Jesus so she
could be punished. She was brought to Jesus so that the crowd could
test Him. Did Jesus disagree with the sentence of stoning? No. Did he
stop the crowd from stoning her? No. He merely pointed out the
possibility that there were those amongst them who we as equally guilty
as she was, and that if they were to pass judgement on her they would
likewise bring God's judgement on themselves. THAT is the reason why
the woman was not stoned. Abrogation has nothing to do with it.
...
> > You are explicit: you do not intend to arrive at truth, you simply
> > wish to attack.
>
> So what are you doing attacking Islam in this newsgroup? Did
> Abdalla took the trouble to go to christian newsgroup to attack
> them, or is Robert attacking Muslims in a newsgroup "about Islam?"
Is Abdalla insulting other Christians who genuinely post here in the
process? I fear so.
...
> Also, and by the way, regarding your claims of deception and so on, you
> should see what your people do over here:
>
> http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue1/contextu.htm
>
> See how lies are taught to Christians. It's this type of dishonesty
> that causes Muslims in small villages to kill your people. The problem is
> not with the Christian minorities in small Muslim villages, it's when your
> people start visiting those villages, massacres occur on innocent
> Christians.
I'm not quite sure how to respond to this.
I can understand people being riled when lies are spread about what
they believe. Indeed, there has been a history of this sort of activity
between Christians and Muslims over the centuries, and from both sides.
But to blame someone else for the murder of innocents beggars belief.
The problem *is* then with the Muslims in those communities, not the
Christian minorities, and not the "missionaries" you are referring to.
It's the sort of violent response that propogates the myth that all
Muslims are intolerant and bloodthirsty savages.
Your description is also indicative of the malaise which results in any
condemnations on the part of the Islamic community of terrorist acts to
be met with disbelief and suspicion on behalf of the majority
non-Muslim populations in which they live. It is simply inappropriate
and unwise to even step down that path.
Mike.
Mike
> Abdelkarim Benoit Evans wrote:
> > Here the Prophet Jeremiah, a Jew, ...
...
...
> So, Abdelkarim, it is erroneous to propagate the view that Prophet
> Jeremiah was a Jew. He, like all other prophets and messengers of God,
> was a muslim.
Woah there!
It is indeed true that Abraham was not a Jew - the nation of Israel had
not been formed then. Yet he was the father of the Jews through Isaac.
What we do know, however, is that Jeremiah was of Jewish descent, and
that he worshipped the same God as the Jews around him. In that sense
at least he was Jewish. Whether you regard him as a Muslim in addition
to all this is up to you. But to claim Jeremiah was not Jewish is to
deny the obvious fact of his parentage and clanship.
Is there some rule whereby someone cannot be regarded as both Jewish
and a Muslim?
Mike.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"Mike" <hu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > The idea that God would require the sacrifice of a just and righteous
> > human being as a pre-condition to showing his Divine mercy to all
> > mankind is absolutely and totally rejected by Muslims.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I hope I haven't read this correctly, as it seems you're saying on the
> one hand that Jesus' crucifixion is a matter of dispute, and then going
> on to make a dogmatic statement as to why it couldn't happen. Could you
> provide me with a reference where the Qur'an says that God would not
> allow a righteous man to die in this manner, either as a condition of
> grace or otherwise?
No, that is not exactly what I have said.
Muslims generally, today, believe that Jesus (peace be on him) was not
crucified (put to death by crucifixion) and indeed that he was not even
placed on the cross but that his crucifixion was an "appearance" to
those present, either an illusion or the result of another man being
substituted for Jesus. However, in the early days of Islam, some
scholars believed that Jesus was indeed placed one the cross but that
his soul was raised up to God before he could suffer and die.
Regardless of the interpretation given the crucifixion event, ALL
Muslims are agreed that God did NOT use Jesus as a propitiatory
sacrifice for the sins of all mankind. All Muslims are agreed that Jesus
was not a human sin offering that replaced the animal sin offerings of
the Jews.
I said (see above) that God would not "require" a human sacrifice as a
vicarious propitiation for sin. It is you (see above) who misinterprets
my statement, replacing "requires" with "allows". Through our God-given
free will, God "allows" us to do many things that he does not and would
not "require" to be done. If in fact Jesus was placed on the cross and
suffered to any extent the indignities of that punishment, it was not
because God "required" it but because God "allowed" to Romans and the
Jewish authorities to do so.
The sacrifice of the son of Abraham (peace be on them both) never took
place because God did not "require" it. Abraham was tested to see if he
was a true Muslim (on who submits entirely to God). Both Abraham and his
son willingly obeyed the command of God by going to the place of
sacrifice and preparing to carry out the sacrifice. By doing so, they
demonstrated the subordination of their wills to the will of God.
Therefore, God did not "require" them to continue and indeed, God
intervened by sending his angel to stay Abraham's hand and show him the
ram that was to be substituted. Thereafter, in Judaism, there was never
any form of human sacrifice but animal sacrifice was practised.
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Robert
is a sin not a crime and the penalty lies with God.
The issue of abrogation has been sufficiently discussed elsewhere.
I do expect my arguments to be attended to.
This newsgroup is not a Muslim monopoly; its equally for Muslims and
non-Muslims.
Your link to a missionary website (unreadable) doesn't seem to
establish anything except that you have violent objections to the
Christian religion being spread. Prove your implicit charge that
missionaries are teaching lies.
Variations in the Koran: Uthman faced a situation in which different
Korans existed - written Korans. He called them in, chose one, and
destroyed the rest.
I am minding my own business: I am perfectly free to contribute to
this forum and I have made it my business to study Islam. In the west
we are free to criticize Islam and discuss it. Why should this make you
angry?
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> ... I don't possess a library of Islamica; the statement is,
> however, a commonplace ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
The "commonplace" is what all urban myths and legends, Muslim or otherwise,
are all about, are you suggesting that we put all our intellectual energy
into debating and challenging such frequently misleading fables? If you
don't have any credible Islamic facts to debate why don't you just remain
silent? Isn't this the only prudent, if not intelligent, option?
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot explain
to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"Anjum" <anj...@msn.com> wrote:
> Abdelkarim Benoit Evans wrote:
> > Here the Prophet Jeremiah, a Jew, ...
>
(...)
>
> So, Abdelkarim, it is erroneous to propagate the view that Prophet
> Jeremiah was a Jew. He, like all other prophets and messengers of God,
> was a muslim.
Your point that all God's prophets are Muslims regardless of the
religion their target audience is well taken, and already well known to
me. However, I was, in the context of the previous message, pointing out
that Jeremiah, whom the Jews take to be a prophet from God, taught them
that the Torah had been corrupted.
I have no personal opinion as to whether the Jews are correct in
believing that Jeremiah was sent to them by God. He is not one of the
prophets named in the Qur'an but the Qur'an tells us that God sent many
prophets who are not named in Qur'an.
Therefore the the prophethood of Jeremiah is a question that is outside
the scope of Islamic doctrine.
hajj abujamal
Mike at soc.religion.islam:
Although it appears to me that you merely wish to argue and
contend, I have chosen to reply as if you were a younger member of my
(muslim) community, for three reasons: (1) muslims who are neither of
the parties of contention nor of the hypocrites will read my reply,
quite possibly grasp what I'm saying, and be better able to explain to
other People of the Book how they had been deceived and show them the
truth that is in the Scriptures; (2) a fascination with Islam,
combined with a resistance to Islam, is often seen in people who do
not yet know themselves as muslim; and (3) writing once more some of
the history of the world of mankind as revealed to us from ALLAH by
His Messenger Ibn 'Abdullah Muhammad sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam gets
more concise and coherent every time I start typing.
Then to continue, you wrote:
>>> This still begs the question as to why Abraham was initially asked
>>> to go to the mountain with his son in order to sacrifice his son.
I had answered:
>> He wasn't. He saw in a dream that he was sacrificing his only son
>> Isma'il, and VOWED to sacrifice him. He was acting on his own
>> belief that the dream was an instruction.
You replied:
> Not that this will make much difference to you:
> Gen 22:1-2: After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him,
> "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I. He said, "Take your son, your
> only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and
> offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of
> which I shall tell you."
Isaac was never Abraham's only son. This fact alone proves that
this verse is falsified, as Jeremiah mentioned to the Children of
Israel at 8:8. The Lie (that universal salvation comes in Israel)
would have it otherwise, and this verse is part and parcel of The Lie.
Abraham's sacrifice took place in what is known in the Bible as
Kedar, where it has been and is remembered by the people who have
lived there ever since, where Abraham established the family of
Isma'il. It's history known to one fifth of the human population.
In chronological order:
Abraham 'alaihi as-salaam asked God for an heir from his own
loins; God gave him Isma'il (Ishmael 'alaihi as-salaam); Abraham saw
himself in a dream sacrificing Isma'il and vowed to fulfill his dream;
God gave Abraham a ram to sacrifice in Isma'il's place, Promised
Abraham that salvation for all humanity would come among his
descendants, and instituted circumcision; Abraham and Isma'il were
circumcised, along with every male in Abraham's household.
Then Ishaq (Isaac 'alaihi as-salaam) was born and circumcised;
Abraham asked God for something for Ishaq comparable to what He had
Promised Abraham for Isma'il; God gave Abraham a Promise that among
the descendants of Ishaq, He would establish a Covenant uniquely and
exclusively for them, and would send among them a Messiah who would
name the Messenger of Promise who would come among the descendants of
Isma'il with the universal Covenant for all humanity.
Then God raised up Moses 'alaihi as-salaam to establish His
Covenant with the Children of Isra'il 'alaihi as-salaam; told the
Children of Isra'il that He would raise up a messenger "like Moses"
from among their brethren (the children of Isma'il); and sent Jesus
'alaihi as-salaam to name that messenger and announce the Good News of
his imminent arrival.
Paul then spread the false "Good News" that Jesus was that
messenger "like Moses."
Then God sent Muhammad sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam to all
humanity with the universal Covenant, exactly and precisely as
Scripture and Jesus prophesied ~ by name, lineage, place of arrival,
place of migration, first major battle, descent of a "new Jerusalem"
toward which the faithful face in prayer (see
http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/fawariq.htm#37b ), and ritual practices.
> Could you provide the Surah so we can compare the two accounts
> (notwithstanding the issue over which son was involved)?
You can find it. Abraham asked for an heir, Isma'il was born,
Abraham made his sacrifice, the Covenant was given, circumcision was
instituted, and THEN Ishaq was born (after which Isma'il was no longer
Abraham's "only son").
>> The ram was provided so Abraham could fulfill his vow.
>> Muslims continue to re-enact/commemorate that
>> sacrifice every year at the end of the Hajj.
> I wonder - do all Muslims share this view, namely that Abraham
> was mistaken in his belief that God had called him to sacrifice
> his son?
Well, obviously, since God prevented it.
> If so, why should God then treat Abraham with honour if his actions
> had not been by divine request in the first place? Does God reward
> ignorance and self-delusion?
Actions are judged by intention, and Abraham was not able to carry
out the act that he had intended to do as obedience to what he thought
God had "asked him to do" by means of that dream.
God has obviously honored Abraham, and all three of the faiths of
Abraham say he is honored for this willingness to sacrifice his only
son ~ are you in the habit of questioning God's judgments in such matters?
>>> I would be interested to know what your (and other Muslims')
>>> view of the Christian perspective on Mosaic Law is.
>> It appears that Pauline Christians consider the mythical
>> crucifiction to have "fulfilled" the Mosaic Law, nullilfying it
>> with the "Good News" that everyone who believes as Paul set forth
>> is "forgiven." Paul appears to have taught that the Law was a
>> curse rather than a means of salvation for the Children of Israel.
>> The "Christian perspective on Mosaic Law" looks pretty confused and
>> contradictory to muslims.
> I am given to wonder if the above is
> a fair precis of the Muslim view.
That's the view that anyone can get from most Pauline Christians
who are actually familiar with the New Testament. However ...
You did not ask for "the Muslim view" but for "your (and other
Muslims') view." Since the question was not originally directed to
me, I am one of those "other muslims" with a view.
Most muslims have virtually no view at all of "the Christian
perspective on Mosaic Law" because it is of no particular interest, is
not in any way necessary to the practice of Islam, and is obviously,
at a glance, not remotely consonant with Mosaic Law, but flies in the
face of Mosaic Law as a clear denial of the Unity and Singularity of
God and His Law given to Moses. That's entirely sufficient for most
muslims and they look no further and have no interest in looking any
further at what was given only and exclusively to the Children of
Israel and what they did with it.
"The muslim view" of this is explicitly identified in the Qur'an
as that of those who used to read the Jewish/Christian Scripture ~
that is, former Jews and Christians familiar with Scripture who
accepted Islam and are muslim. That's the view I've given you above
of what *appears* in the world today as Pauline Christianity.
> For the Christian view is clarified in Acts 14-15, where the early
> Christians began sharing the Gospel with non-Jews. There the view is
> taken that Mosaic Law cannot apply to Gentiles since they were never
> part of that covenant, and that to insist that Gentiles become
> Judaised prior to becoming Christians was an unnecessary and
> over-onerous burden to place on them.
Once again I'll give you the "muslim view" as that view is defined
in the Qur'an ~ from a muslim who was formerly of the People of the Book:
Jesus' Good News consisted of the following:
The universal Covenant Promised in Abraham will be sent down (1)
after Jesus had left (2) to another people (than the Children of
Israel), (3) who will bear its fruits, (4) in the place and among the
people identified clearly by the Law and the Prophets in the
Scriptures that Jesus' disciples knew very well, (5) establishing a
new Kingdom of God that would transform the Holy Land entirely.
(He was *not* talking about Rome, Greece and Europe, which never
were and are not part of the Promised Land. See
http://www.muslimamerica.net/gr/promised.gif for a map of the Promised
Land, or http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/muqatta.htm to see it in the
context of Scripture and history.)
Now in case you hadn't noticed, that's exactly what happened six
centuries later *in* the Promised Land. Among the lesser "fruits"
have been hospitals, inoculation, pharmacology, surveying, astral
navigation, spherical trigonometry and integral calculus,
redistribution of commonwealth, institutionalized universal charity,
the rule of law and access to justice, federalism, individual property
rights, accountability of sovereigns, pluralism, and liberty. (Islam
has no eminent domain, sovereign immunity, or "bar" between the
parties and an adjudicator.)
The Mosaic Law, more correctly known as the Sinai Covenant ~ a
"bargain with God" undertaken by the Children of Israel at the hand of
Moses at Sinai, was exclusively for the Children of Israel and for no
other people, ever, excepting only those who joined theselves and
their descendants into Israel. It was not a Covenant for the people
TO WHOM the Good News was to be delivered, unless they chose to join
the Children according to the Law, in which case they could share in
delivering the Good News *and* deriving the benefit of fulfilling that
part of the Sinai Covenant. However, to realize the benefit of the
Good News (receiving it, not delivering it), they did not need to
enter into the Sinai Covenant, but merely to abandon manifest
wrongdoing, to have faith that the universal Covenant would come, and
to intend to join in it when it did: that would constitute "keeping
faith" sufficiently to eventually enter that then-future Kingdom.
"Becoming Christian" departed from the Sinai Covenant not "a jot or a
tittle" ~ it was fulfillment of Israel's part of the bargain ~ until
the universal Covenant, sent down by the messenger "like Moses," to "a
people who will bear its fruits," as *still* described by Scripture,
would allow the Children of Israel to completely fulfill their Sinai
Covenant by accepting it as a complete abrogation of the Mosaic Law
that had only applied to them.
> If you ask a Jew whether the Law applies to Gentiles, you are likely
> to get the reply that the Noachide laws apply, but Mosaic Law does
> not. That position does not change within the Christian view.
> Does this position change under Islam? My suspicion is that it does.
The Sinai Covenant and its included Mosaic Law never applied to
anyone but the Children of Israel. The Sinai Covenant provided for
delivery of the Good News to the goyim that the universal Covenant
(that *anyone* could enter) would be coming next. Otherwise it had
nothing to do with the goyim beyond remaining separate from them and,
when necessary, defending Israel against them.
The Children of Israel promised to deliver the Good News. Those
who followed and obeyed Jesus were fulfilling their promise. The
Sinai Covenant could not be accepted piecemeal, dividing up the
various promises (to keep the Law, to deliver the Good News, to follow
the Messenger, ...), but only in its entirety, by joining the Children
of Israel. And until the universal Covenant was sent down and
accepted, the Noahide Law applied to others.
>>> ... each covenant God makes with men (Abrahamic, Noachide,
>>> Mosaic, Christian etc.) is shown to be eternal and unchanging
>>> - rather than change an existing covenant, God provides a
>>> new one to supplement those already in existence.
>> ...The Torah also speaks of a Promise, although again, much
>> of what was Promised to Noah is not articulated in the Torah.
>> Part of what was Promised was a Covenant to be given to all
>> humankind for their salvation.
> For Christians, this is the New Covenant spoken of by
> Jesus. Do Muslims recognise this, or know of another
> covenant which has fulfilled this?
Certainly. But Jesus was not speaking of what you received from
Paul as that "New Covenant." Jesus explicitly said he was not
bringing that new Covenant, and warned against those who would come
after him saying that *he* had been that messenger "like Moses."
>> The Law given to Noah remains in force for all
>> those who have not adopted a later Covenant.
> We agree at least on that.
One would be well-advised to take careful note of just who he's
making a bargain with and to be quite certain that it's with God and
not just an impostor promising a free lunch.
>> Abraham was given a Promise of that same Covenant, which would be
>> given to all humanity by a Messenger sent among the children of
>> Isma'il (Ishmael), and in addition was given a second Promise of a
>> second Covenant that would precede the first, *before* the final
>> Covenant was delivered, and be exclusively for some children of
>> Ishaq (Isaac). The Children of Israel were chosen to receive this
>> precursor Covenant.
> Can you tell me where the Qur'an refers to this covenant? I am
> unaware of the Qur'an treating itself as part of a covenant as such.
> Indeed, the concept of "covenant" as I have read in the Qu'ran
> applies either to the Mosaic covenant given to Israel, or to a more
> generic "promise", the terms of which do not seem to be specifically
> spelled out in a single place. If such an agreement were made
> between Allah and the earliest (post Muhammad) Muslims, is this
> documented in the Qur'an. If it is, I have yet to find it.
"Surely ALLAH has bought from the Faithful their lives and their
property ~ theirs is the Garden. They fight in ALLAH's Way so they
slay and are slain. It is a Promise which is binding on Him in the
Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an."
You can find the rest.
>> Jesus was that Messiah of Israel, and he announced the name of the
>> Messenger who would bring the Covenant promised to all humanity.
>> He did not bring a new Law or Covenant,
> I beg to differ there - Luke 22:20 has Jesus instituting that
> very covenant. Does the Qur'an explicitly state that he didn't?
You need not beg to differ, you're free to be as deceived as you
wish, without anyone's permission. God permits it.
And yes, the Qur'an does state that he didn't bring any "New
Covenant." You can find it. It quotes Jesus as saying he was "a
*verifier* of what was before me of the Torah and I allow you part of
that which was forbidden to you." Spreading the Good News was
forbidden *until* his arrival as the Messiah. This was not a "New
Covenant" but a verification and continuation of the Sinai Covenant,
as Jesus himself is reported in your Scripture to have said, "one jot
or one tittle shall in no way pass from the Law till all be
fulfilled." I hardly need to mention that Pauline Christians are
still waiting for the "Kingdom of God" fulfillment.
>> [Pauline doctrine] says, essentially, that God commite suicide in
>> order to save mankind. How Pauline Christians believe this is a
>> complete mystery.
> No more of a mystery than of someone believing that God would
> dictate a book the likes of the Qur'an to a single human being
> via an Angel.
Scripture says that's exactly what happens: "I will put My words
in his mouth." That's what happened. I've never read anywhere in
Scripture that God said "I have to kill Myself in order to forgive
you." Quite the opposite, in fact.
>> The Messenger came exactly as prophesied in Scripture
> ... only if you distort that scripture and/or take
> it out of context, of course...
Anyone familiar with muslim history can find that history in
Scripture without any difficulty at all. It's very explicit and needs
no distortion whatever, or taking anything out of context. Here is
one such passage which is, all by itself, its entire context:
"The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was
thirsty; they met with their bread him that fled. For they fled from
the swords, from the drawn sword, and from the bent bow, and from the
grievousness of war. For thus has the Lord said unto me, Within a
year, according to the years of an hireling, and all the glory of
Kedar shall fail; and the residue of the number of archers, the mighty
men of Kedar, shall be diminished, for the Lord God of Israel has
spoken it."
That's exactly what happened, to the letter; and en route from
Kedar to Tema, he spend three full days and three full nights in the
belly of the earth, exactly ~ to the letter ~ as Jesus foretold.
>> and fulfilled all those prophecies to the letter, transforming
>> the Promised Land and making all things new, establishing a "new
>> Jerusalem" or direction of prayer and camp of the saints, and
>> delivering the means of salvation, a Law and a Covenant, to the
>> nations.
> The question there is whether this is "the" means of salvation.
> Surely Christians have likewise a means of salvation, although
> we differ somewhat on how this is worked out.
Obviously not, because God says explicitly in the Qur'an:
"Surely those who keep faith, and those who are Jews, and the
Christians, and the Sabians, whoever keeps faith with ALLAH and the
Last Day and does good, they have their reward with their Lord, and
there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve."
And He says every nation has received a prophet, so there are more
ways of salvation. The Qur'an, or Islam, is the means of salvation
sent down for *all* humanity as Promised in Abraham. Whether you
accept it or not is entirely up to you, nobody's going to come shove
it down your throat.
>> After a thousand years, that millennial kingdom collapsed
>> into dust, but the Law and Covenant remain intact and complete.
> Some would say the "kingdom" in question collapsed rather earlier
> than that. Others like I question the very nature of that kingdom.
> But certainly it is interesting to read the "broad sweep" of your
> vision of the workings of Islam. I just wonder how universally
> this vision is held in the Ummah.
Muslim Spain was replaced by The Inquisition around the beginning
of the Sixteenth Century, although the rule of Islam persisted in the
Holy Land for some time after that (that's where the Jews of Spain who
didn't pretend to become Catholics went).
Of course, the muslims of the terminally collapsed millennial
muslim world are still waiting for Islam to be "taken up" and the
words evaporate off the pages of their copies of the Qur'an. The
colonial period of Europe and the defeat of the muslim armies and the
collapse of the Ottoman Empire apparently haven't registered with them
yet.
>> Stay tuned ~ people of Paul's ilk ~ suppressors of the real Good
>> News ~ have been hard at work in America for four centuries.
> I'm not overly worried about America, although I do wonder precisely
> what you mean by the above. I live in the U.K., and us Christians
> have been here getting on for two millennia.
And quite a few of your countrymen are finally getting the Good News.
Robert
Jesus, Mary" is simply rejecting the notion that Mary was divine" is to
subvert all reasonable discussion. There's nothing more to be said.
Robert
Just to give a link to half a dozen internet articles does not amount
to an argument. You can find odd-balls who will maintain the most
absurd positions. No disinterested person will conclude that
Christianity permits adultery.
Your analysis of my "crooked thinking" fails to match the quote.
Your question about divorce shows you fail to understand the
relation between Old Testament Judaism and Christianity. Divorce was
tolerated under the old Jewish Law, but forbidden by Jesus.
I am all in favour of disinterested discussion.
It is patent that I attack Islam where I find it irrational. However
I do not attack Islam in emotive terms and I do not use mockery and
abuse. I try to appeal to reason.
ntus...@gmail.com
designed to promote our idealogical views on how best to live and
create differences between us. I am a human being. I am a Muslim. I am
a Sunni. I am a Hanafi. I am an American. I am a Pakistani. I am a
Caucasian. I am a Punjabi. I am a Lahori. I am a Californian. I am a
Bostonian. Where do I stop?
I doubt in the afterlife, God will make a distinction between who
called himself a Jew or Muslim or Christian or for the sake of some
controversy a Hindu or Buddhist. We can all give ourselves an
affiliation. I can say I am a Muslim. However, unless I adhere to the
traditions of Islam, I doubt it will be enough for God that I can call
myself a Muslim. The term "islam" means "submission to the will of
God." It is an act and one who performs the act is referred to as a
Muslim.
So any one regardless of their belief is a muslim, contigent upon his
submission to the will of God. The prophets of the holy texts did
submit themselves to God. Today, most believers are believers by name
only. Most of us are ready to affiliate with one faith or another yet
we forget to do what the faith calls for.
Life to me has a purpose and that is to seek knowledge of and
understand the world around you (the search of knowledge is an act of
prayer). In the process, do good to your fellow men and help those in
need (charity). Abstain from what is forbidden and rein in your inner
desires. Struggle for freedom, equality, an fraternity. Overcome your
inner fears and weaknesses by making God the only object of fear.
I think if we follow these basics, we wouldn't have to worry about the
faith of the fellow next to us.
-Nadeem
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> ... That the Koran is available in its original form ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
The original form of the Qur'an was transmitted orally and, as such, can
never be "available" in the material sense being described. The 'oral'
tradition is quite commonplace in antiquity both in a religious and
philosophical context. For example, can anyone provide any "original"
documentary evidence of written works actually authored by Jesus (pbuh),
Homer or Socrates?
<snip> ...
> is disproved by the fact that variant Korans existed from the beginning
> and that one was chosen, ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Is there a hard copy or copies of any of these "variant" Qur'ans as is being
"asserted"? Without any hard evidence the forensic proof or disproof of
their existence is a questionable speculative conjecture or, as in your case
wishful thinking. What reasons are needed to be given against hearsay [i.e.
gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of
mouth]?
<snip> ...
> Also epigraphical and numismatic evidence shows that the text of the Koran
> took time to stabilize.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
The mere existence of ancient artefacts is only "evidence" of their own
existence and not that "the text of the Qur'an took time to stabilise".
Although, in some doubting minds, it might create that pre-conceived
impression. Would graffiti suffice as epigraphical evidence in your mind?
<snip> ...
> There are only four places in the New Testament where the reading is
> uncertain; none of them has any bearing on Christian teaching.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Why do you expect Muslims to explain Christian teaching to yourself? Are you
so 'intellectually' lazy that you can't do your own independent research?
However, since you are confused about the facts of your own religion, these
links might give you some relevant, unbiased Christian, answers:-
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/gen_cont.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
>From an altruistic Muslim perspective, are you now prepared to concede that
there are more than "four places of uncertainty" in the New Testament?
<snip> ...
> Please establish how false teaching by the Christian clergy has
> corrupted the Gospel. ...What was their motive?
<snip> ...
Comment:-
>From a disinterested Muslim perspective, don't these links (68,100 hits) not
"establish", incontrovertibly, false teachings by the clergy?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=catholicism+%22false+doctrines%22&btnG=Search
<snip> ...
> What was their motive? ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Could it be self-interest and ecclesiastical power? The "First Estate" in
historical jargon of the 'Ancient Regime'?
<snip> ...
> You give no substantial grounds for your attack on the
> Judeo-Christian Scriptures for it is based, not on evidence, but on
> your orthodox Muslim faith.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Being a biased learner, aren't these evidential links sufficient and
substantial grounds for speculatively "challenging" (attack, [sic])
Judeo-Christian Scriptures, that aren't solely Islamic in orientation?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Judeo-Christian+Scriptures%22&btnG=Search
--
Peace
--
In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the
learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no
longer exists.
[Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Uncle_Sinbad
I have to disagree with you and take side with the interpretation that
Abdilkareem gives when he interpretates: "shubuha lahum". It can be
interpretated as:
* "he appeared so to them" or
* "it appeared so to them"
Shabir Ally in a debate with Mike Licona on the ressurection (Did Jesus
rise from the dead" points to a classical mufassir (Tafsir-Ul-Qur'an
by Abdul Majid Daryabadi) who gave good reasons why we should prefer
the second interpretation: "IT appeared so to them".
Because if it was a "he" who appeared so to them, who is the "he"? It
can not be Jesus otherwise you get "Jesus("he") appeared like Jesus
wich would be foolish.
It can not be another person because if "he" refered to another person
the Quran had to identify this other person. You can nowhere in the
Quran find a name of this other person nor a description of him.
Everywhere on the Quran where a "he" is used the Quran gives a name or
a description of who is spoken of.
For these reasons it's more reasonable to believe that "shubaha lahum"
is better translated as "IT appeared so to them" so refering to the
event of jesus being killed of crucified wich is mentioned in the verse
before it.
A modern mufassir Muhammed Asad wrote about this verse:
"Thus, the Qur'an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of
Jesus. There exist, among Muslims, many FANCIFUL LEGENDS telling us
that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely
resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who
was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these LEGENDS
finds the slightest support in the Qur'an or in authentic Traditions,
and the stories produced in this connection by the classical
commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than
confused attempts at "harmonizing" the Qur'anic statement that Jesus
was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his
crucifixion. The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly
explained in the Qur'anic phrase wa-sakin shubbiha lahum, which I
render as "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so" -
implying that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a
legend had somehow grown up (possibly under the then-powerful influence
of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in
order to atone for the "original sin" with which mankind is allegedly
burdened; and this legend became so firmly established among the
latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to
believe it - albeit in a derogatory sense (for crucifixion was, in
those times, a heinous form of death-penalty reserved for the lowest of
criminals). This, to my mind, is the only satisfactory explanation of
the phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, the more so as the expression
shubbiha li is idiomatically synonymous with khuyyila li, "[a thing]
became a fancied image to me", i.e., "in my mind" - in other words,
"[it] seemed to me" (see Qamas, art. khayala, as well as Lane II, 833,
and IV, 1500). (p. 134, fn. 171, online source; capital and underlined
emphasis ours)
So to conclude:
*not all (classical) mufassirun believed the "shubiha lahum" refered to
another person, there was atleast one who believed it refered to the
event.
* There are good reasons to believe it refers to the event and is thus
best translated as "It appeared so to them". Therefor the theory that
Jesus was crucified and survived the cross is something that could have
happened without contradicting the Quranic account. But Allah knows
best and as Abdelkrim says there is no reason for muslims to break
their heads on that.
Wa-Salaam,
Kamal
hajj abujamal
Uncle_Sinbad wrote:
> I have to disagree with you and take side with
> the interpretation that Abdulkareem gives when
> he interprets: "shubuha lahum".
> It can be interpretated as:
> * "he appeared so to them" or
> * "it appeared so to them"
The phrase is "shubbiha lahum" and contains no direct object of
the verb "shubbiha" (root sh-b-h, not sh-b) to support the
construction that one thing was "made to seem like" another thing. In
other words it does not say "shubbihaha," which would make the verb
transitive ~ something done to an object, whether "he" or "it," as in
"it was made to look like *it*" ("[what didn't happen] was made to
seem like [a crucifixion] to them). ALLAH did not deceive them, they
deceived themselves.
"[One thing] appeared like [another thing] to them" is not
supported by the words ALLAH used in the Ayat until the word
"shubbiha" is misconstrued to mean something it clearly does not say ~
exclusively "for the sake of argument" over this non-event or "for the
sake of interpretation" of it, both of which are proscribed by Q3:6.
Where else in the Arabic language do you find "shubbiha" used to mean
something like this?
I have elsewhere shown that the verb shubbiha means "obscured" ~
that something is obscured ~ and that this is well-known to be the
intransitive branch of meanings on that root sh-b-h. This is the
condition of this mythical "crucifixion" as shown by other Ayats,
which label what the Christians "are on" as "pursuit of speculation"
and as "not a thing" (i.e., nonexistent, "laa shay'in").
It is clear that there was no such event whatsoever that involved
'Isa bin Maryam 'alaihi as-salaam in any way; that the accounts in
Pauline literature (which modern research is showing were widely
unknown in Palestine for at least the first century and a half) are
made up stories intended by the corrupt of Temple Israel to discredit
Jesus; and that as ALLAH says clearly in His Book, they neither killed
him nor crucified him as they then had claimed. It did not "seem like
it" at all ~ it never happened, and the entirety of the myth is
obscure to them.
The "interpreters" of this Ayat are saying something akin to
"There was never any Minotaur, Cyclops, or Medusa, but it was made to
seem like it." ALLAH does not provide such fictions, He allows people
to make them up on their own. The Pauline "crucifixion" is completely
mythological, and Paulines who believe it happened do so entirely on
the basis of illogical belief with absolutely no evidence whatever,
only stories told a century later by people demonstrably intent on
subverting the prophetic mission of 'Isa bin Maryam and annihilating
his unitarian Torah-keeping faithful followers.
The "Ten Persecutions" of the early histories were carried out by
ten Roman emperors against unitarian, Torah-keeping, followers of
Jesus, the "faithful remnant" of Israel spreading the real "Good
News," until Constantine, and again after him the Trinitarians sought
to annihilate the unitarians until the muslims destroyed the attacking
legions and liberated Palestine from the Roman occupation.
That is the meaning of "shubbiha lahum" ~ "it is obscure to them."
This is a plain Arabic meaning of the word "shubbiha," and to say
"it appeared so" merely fuels the pursuit of speculation about
something ALLAH says is "not a thing." ALLAH ta'ala has condemned the
pursuit of speculation and the prophet sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam
has warned us against hypothetical conjecture. The words of the
Qur'an thus cannot be intended to support either pursuit of
speculation or hypothetical conjecture, as "it seemed like it" would.
This construction of the term "shubbiha" was invented during the
Abbasid era on the sole basis of a report attributed to Ibn Abbas radi
ALLAHU anhu which related a story from an unknown Christian convert to
Islam who had said that some people in Palestine had believed Judas
Iscariot had been made to look like Jesus, with the face of Jesus and
the body of Judas. That's the speculative basis of this speculative
"interpretation" of this grammatically unsustainable construction of
the phrase "shubbiha lahum."
Nothing of the kind happened, as ALLAH says.
We now return you to the pseudo-scholarly quibbling and bickering
and posturing of the speculators and hypothe-seers and uncertain.
> Wa-Salaam,
> Kamal
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> That Christianity permits adultery remains an outrageous untruth. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Come on Robert, no more double standards, you persistently condemn Islam and
Muslims for what is written in the Qur'an and yet when the same critical
manoeuvres are used to 'challenge' Christianity you cry foul. "Outrageous
untruth" sounds extremely hollow from someone who constantly repeats such
fictions about other peoples earnest faith in such a recidivist fashion.
Although, I must admit that your circuitous mind picked up on something I
didn't even mention in my post, i.e. "adultery". Thanks! :-)
But it is the 'truth' because it's countenanced in the Bible? See these
search links(379,000 hits):-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=adultery+verses+%22bible+%22&btnG=Search
<snip> ...
> Just to give a link to half a dozen internet articles does not amount
> to an argument. ... You can find odd-balls who will maintain the most
> absurd positions. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
When does a link containing (719,000 hits) become a "half-dozen internet
articles"? Is this another crooked 'argument tactic often used by
Christians'? Don't you want to face up to the 'truth' that is reality?
Does the slavish adoption of ibn Warraq's odd-ball anti-Islamic propaganda
now "amount to an absurd argument" in your mind?
<snip> ...
> ... No disinterested person will conclude that
> Christianity permits adultery.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Isn't divorce "adultery" according to Catholic dogma? Would disaffected
Catholic divorcees exclaim they were being adulterous in the eyes God or
just the Church? But all Muslims are "disinterested" observers when it comes
to verbal acrobatics over such inconsistencies and contradictions in the
Bible. Haven't you learnt that in SRI yet?
<snip> ...
> Your analysis of my "crooked thinking" fails to match the quote.
<snip> ...
Comment - Tongue-in-cheek:-
Is that an obscurantist riposte to the previously mentioned enumerate
elision? ;-)
<snip> ...
> Your question about divorce shows you fail to understand the
> relation between Old Testament Judaism and Christianity. Divorce was
> tolerated under the old Jewish Law, but forbidden by Jesus.
<snip>...
Comment:-
Try explaining that inconclusive understanding to a die-hard non-Catholic or
Protestant theologian and not to "disinterested" Muslims in SRI? Isn't
"divorce" a common and legitimate practice amongst Christians, regardless of
what you say is countenanced in the Bible? Did you know that most Muslims
find this hypocrisy quite amusing?
As an aside, didn't Saint Augustine have son by his concubine? Does this
mean, according to your controversial polemic, that he was a "rapist"? If
so, why did the infallible Church confer sainthood on him? Does this mean
that the Church then condones and sanctions "rape", as you mistakenly say
that Islam does? See this search link (350 hits) for the 'scholarly'
evidence:-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=concubine++%22saint+augustine%22&btnG=Search
--
Peace
--
Negative findings are sometimes as important as positive ones, since they
cut down the total universe of ignorance. [F. N. Kerlinger]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Abdalla Alothman
hajj abujamal wrote:
> as-salaamu 'alaikum!
Wa alaikum asalam wa rahmatullaah :)
> "[One thing] appeared like [another thing] to them" is not
> supported by the words ALLAH used in the Ayat until the word
> "shubbiha" is misconstrued to mean something it clearly does not say ~
> exclusively "for the sake of argument" over this non-event or "for the
> sake of interpretation" of it, both of which are proscribed by Q3:6.
You mean 3:7.
Mutashabih does not mean obscure, it means "mentioning the
same story using different presepctives..." diffirent words, and
so on.
An example is Albaqara:85, on one hand, and Al-a'raaf: 161.
The brief definition and the examples are from Al-Itqaan fi 'uloom
al-quraan by Shaikh Jalaludeen al-SiyooTi, Voume 2, page 995.
al-ayaat al-mutashaabiha are not obscure ayaat, they are ayaat
that are alike (and they are not repeated ayaat, like the aya in
surat alqamar: "walaqad yasarna alqur-aana lith-thikri fahal min
muddakir" which appears a number of times in the same sura).
> Where else in the Arabic language do you find "shubbiha" used to mean
> something like this?
Consider:
2:70. They said, "Call upon your Lord for us to make plain
to us what it is. Verily to us all cows are alike, And surely,
if Allâh wills, we will be guided."
The cows are the objects that looked alike to the people
of Musa (a).
There is a basic concept in grammar called attashbeeh
wal-isti'aara, by the way. It's a highly regarded concept in
balaagha where the user of the language makes tashbeeh
(makes one thing similar to another.) Among the letters of
tashbeeh is "k" as a prefix. tashbeeh means making one
thing like another:
14:18. The parable of those who disbelieve in their Lord is
that their works are as ashes, on which the wind blows
furiously on a stormy day, they shall not be able to get
aught of what they have earned. That is the straying, far
away (from the Right Path).
In the aaya above a "similarity" is made between those who
disbelieve and ashes. The "ka" is prefixed to the Arabic equivalent
of "Ashes" (ramad, becomes karamad). This is called tashbeeh
in grammar.
This is just to show how the word is frequently used in Arabic
to draw similarities between objects (or subjects). It only shows
that even in Arabic grammar shbh is used to to draw similarities
between two things.
Wishing you and your family peace and good health.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Abdalla Alothman
> Salaam Abdalla Alothman,
Wa alaikum asalam wa rahmatullaah wa barakatuh.
> I have to disagree with you and take side with the interpretation that
> Abdilkareem gives when he interpretates: "shubuha lahum". It can be
> interpretated as:
That's fine. We're simply sharing opinions. However, the
phrase is "Shubbiha lahum" not "Shubuha lahum."
> * "he appeared so to them" or
> * "it appeared so to them"
>
> Shabir Ally in a debate with Mike Licona on the ressurection (Did Jesus
> rise from the dead" points to a classical mufassir (Tafsir-Ul-Qur'an
> by Abdul Majid Daryabadi) who gave good reasons why we should prefer
> the second interpretation: "IT appeared so to them".
1. I don't know how is Abdul Majid Daryabadi. He might be well known,
but unfortunately, I don't know him and never heard of him.
2. Shabir Ali has a good reputation debating Christians and debunking
their lies against Islam as I heard. However, I don't know if he has a
mastery in the Tongue of the Quran.
Notable contemporary scholars who knew the Tongue of the Quran, like
Ibn Katheer, Ibn Tayymiya, Azzumukhshari (A master in the language),
and many others adopted the substitution possibility. Their adoption
did not come from nowhere, but by having a solid understanding of the
language; such mufassireen are not "better" than other "thinkers" but
they simply have the required edge.
> Because if it was a "he" who appeared so to them, who is the "he"? It
> can not be Jesus otherwise you get "Jesus("he") appeared like Jesus
> wich would be foolish.
Dear Brother, sorry. But I really can't grasp what you are trying
to convey. It will help if you follow a more systmatic approach by
establishing a complete grammatical structure. This is done by
grammatically parsing the aaya, and then try any logical analysis
that you wish.
The invitation to grammatically parse the aaya, is not only to
you, but to the other honorable brothers who got engaged in
this discussion. A good aid will be any of the books that deal
with i'raab alqur-aan alkareem. Once tha aaya is parsed, and
the logical analysis is applied, we will then see what conflicts
in eloquence (balaagha) we will have. We will then understand
why notable mufasireen did not buy relating shubbiha to an
event.
I say that shubbiha cannot be grammatically related to an
event, anyone who claims otherwise is free to provide a
sound grammatical parsing of the aaya from any of the
abundant sources and discuss each construct in terms of
grammar and eloquence concepts.
All I know is that nobody interpreted the aaya as "it appeared"
except Yusuf Ali and those who followed him and scholars who
do not have a mastery in the tongue of the Quran (that doesn't
discredit them, by the way because they were subjects to heavy
colonialization by Christians).
Appeared = Badaa or lubbisa, but not shubbiha.
> It can not be another person because if "he" refered to another person
> the Quran had to identify this other person.
Following up on this argument will lead to conjecture. To make it
clear, I don't know who was substituted. If it was important, the
Quran would have mentioned it. Allah (tt) doesn't have to mention
it if He (tt) doesn't want to. The Quran is not about the Messenger
'Eesa (a).
> You can nowhere in the
> Quran find a name of this other person nor a description of him.
So what, if I may ask?
> A modern mufassir Muhammed Asad wrote about this verse:
He is a translator not a muffassir. Scholars have agreed that
mastering the tongue of the Quran, the grammar of the Arabic
language, sarf, balaagha and so on are primary requirements
in a muffassir. See Al-Itqaan fi 'uloom al-quraan by Jalaaludeen
Al-Siyooti. There is a huge list of requirements for a mufassir
to the extent that the learning phase starts at early childhood.
Note to other brothers: basic grammar is not sufficient, knowledge
of sarf, balaagha, and other more important issues which some
of our brothers, and myself, did not seem to master or know of.
The reason why I am pointing others to look at what the
contemporary mufasireen said has nothing to do with "Arabic
Imperialism" or such tasteless claims. I am pointing to those
works because those people knew the language at its best.
> "Thus, the Qur'an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of
> Jesus. There exist, among Muslims, many FANCIFUL LEGENDS telling us
> that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely
> resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who
> was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these LEGENDS
I guess the so called legends are "fanciful" because some people
were trying to guess the substitute. This might be ijtihaad or
conjecture. A lot of those who guessed clearly informed their
readers that they were giving possibilities (e.g., Ibn Katheer).
Among the contemporary scholars who did not guess the
substitute, but confirmed the substitution possibility is Shaykh
Al-Islaam Ibn Tayymiya (See aljawaab alSaHeeH liman baddala
deena almaseeH. Volume 4, page 34.) In this same volume, on
page 28, Ibn Tayymiya explains the significance why some people
would like to believe that almaseeH was possibly crucified. He
refutes this claim in one sentence.
When it comes to the contemporary mufssireen, it is nice to
appreciate that they had a mastery in the language before
they started tafseer.
> So to conclude:
> *not all (classical) mufassirun believed the "shubiha lahum" refered to
> another person, there was atleast one who believed it refered to the
> event.
Like who, if I may ask? Muhammad Asad is not a contemporary
scholar.
> * There are good reasons to believe it refers to the event and is thus
> best translated as "It appeared so to them".
We mentioned several ayaat that contradict those "good" reasons,
such as locating the triumph.
> Therefor the theory that
> Jesus was crucified and survived the cross is something that could have
> happened without contradicting the Quranic account.
My dear Brother, please pay attention. Allah clearly says Wa ma
Salaboohu, wa ma qataloohu. Tell me why the crucifixion might
have occurred, while the killing did not occur? Both qatl and salb
are preceeded with the negation: wa ma. Please address this issue
by using basic grammar rules known in the Arabic language.
In addition, the crucifixion clearly contradicts the ayaa in surat
aal 'imraan where Allah refers to the messenger 'Eesa as: "wa
wajeehan fi adunya wal aakhira." You can't insult, humiliate a
person described by Allah as a wajeeh.
The possibility that shubbiha refers to the event is possible, but it
will not pass the grammatical tests even if Yusuf Ali, Shabir Ali, or
other brothers fight for it. This is the reason why the notable
mufasireen of Islam discarded relating Shubbiha with the event.
The possibility that the Messenger 'Eesa was crucified cannot pass
in any way, because it has been clearly negated with "wa ma."
Wa ma Salaboohu, what else could be clearer than that? Besids,
nobody can crucify a person Allah (tt) described as a wajeeh, how
then would Allah (tt) make the whole world believe that a person
whom He (tt) referred to as a wajeeh -- how could He (tt) then let
others believe that He (tt) allowed him to be crucified by his enemies
and the enemies of Allah (tt)? Crucifxion is a penalty that includes
various punishments:
1. Physical pain.
2. The criminal becomes an example to the whole society.
3. The criminal is humiliated in front of the masses.
If all that happened to 'Eesa, Allah (tt) could have said that he is
Salih
and muqarrab without mentioning wajeeh.
> But Allah knows best and as Abdelkrim says there is no reason
> for muslims to break their heads on that.
I agree with you and Abdilkareem. As I said, whoever was substituted
the Christians' business, not mine. However, claiming that the
Messenger 'Eesa was crucified and claiming such thing is confirmed
in the Quran is false.
Wishing you and your family peace and good health.
> Wa-Salaam,
Wa alaikum asalam,
Abdalla Alothman
TomaszA...@lycos.com
Abdelkarim introduced issues which are worthy of address by someone
more knowledgably than myself but I feel for the time being some
mention must be made.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans wrote:
[snip]
> It is a doctrine
> that arises from the Gentile faction in the post-Apostolic Church, not
> from the indigenous and essentially Jewish group who made up the
> primitive Church.
Abdelkarim is mistaken; this is a belief which goes back to the
earliest material, the writings of St. Paul. Muslims think of St. Paul
as a corruptor, may God guide them, but St. Paul was accepted by
Christ's Apostles. Infact, there is plenty of non-canonical materials,
such as the letters of Ignatius and St. Clement's letter to the
Corinthians that mention St. Paul and St. Peter preaching together (St.
Peter being a leading figure of the Church and Apostle of Christ) If
St. Paul preached something radically different would the Apostles have
anything to do with him?
It would be like me saying that real Islam died out with the
Khajirites, and that Muslims are following a fake islam that stems from
the Murtad Ali. Surely this is outrageous and ridiculous, since the
Khajirites went against the main body of companions. The *same* way
some heretical groups went against St. Paul even though the main body
of Jesus' Apostles and disciples accepted him.
So who is Abdelkarim referring to? I imagine he is referring to the
Ebionites and Nazarenes. They were, however, an extreme branch of
Judiazing-Christians who rejected Jesus' virgin birth. Surely these are
not the true Christians Muslims refer to.
I'll stop here for now.
Tomasz Antkowiak
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"Robert" <robe...@onetel.com> wrote:
> You merely assert. That the Koran is available in its original form
> is disproved by the fact that variant Korans existed from the beginning
> and that one was chosen, with no reasons given, by Uthman.
While this is not the place to engage in long detailed discussions of
variations in Christian Scripture and in the Qur'an, it is important for
people (like you) who make sweeping statements about both to be reminded
of the facts and perhaps become aware of your need to study more
carefully both your own and Islam's Scripture.
The Uthmanic recension was NOT a matter of simply picking one book from
among a number of competitors. During the reign of Uthman, no complete
copies of the Qur'an existed and only a few manuscripts, each containing
some but not all of the Qur'an were available. The main source for the
Uthmanic recension was the oral tradition, in particular the traditions
of the Companions of the Prophet (God be pleased with them and bestow
his blessings on him).
By comparison, the Christian gospel accounts were written years after
the ascension of Jesus (peace be on him) by men who were NOT (in spite
of their names) among the direct apostles of Jesus and who could not
transmit directly what he taught.
> Also
> epigraphical and numismatic evidence shows that the text of the Koran
> took time to stabilize.
I presume you are using "epigraphical" here in the sense of ancient
engraved inscriptions (rather than a quotation put at the beginning of a
literary work or one of its chapters to indicate a theme). At least,
that's what the word generally means. Perhaps you could enlighten us.
"Numismatic" means related to the study or collection of coins, paper
money, tokens and medals. I would be very interested to know what light
the study of ancient money sheds on the compilation of the Qur'an!
> There are only four places in the New Testament where the reading is
> uncertain; none of them has any bearing on Christian teaching.
When you decide to throw stones at another's dwelling, you should be
careful that you do not yourself live in a glass house. A cursory look
at any scholarly edition of the New Testament shows MANY uncertainties
and variations.
For example, Jesus asks Peter who he (Jesus) is. According to Matthew
16:16, Jesus answers, "You are the Messiah, the son of the living God."
Some ancient manuscripts do NOT have "the son of the living God". The
decision of the compilers to put the longer version in the Canon of
Scripture has a direct bearing on the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus
since he does not in any place make any direct assertion that he is
divine. Even the variant reading puts the assertion in the mouth of
Peter, who is not necessarily right. Jesus praises Peter's answer and
uses it as a basis for declaring Peter to the rock on which the Church
will be built--not a bad interpretation if you favour the organization
of a major institution like the monolithic Catholic Church that emerged
under Constantine.
There are many other passages which have important variant readings:
The Doxology of the Lord's Prayer is omitted in the oldest copies of
Matt.vi.13;
Several copies omit Matt.xvi.2, 3 altogether;
A long additional passage is sometimes found after Matt.xx.28;
The last twelve verses of St. Mark are omitted altogether by the two
oldest copies of the original Greek;
One very ancient authority inserts an additional incident after Luke
vi.4;
The same manuscript alters the account of the institution of the Lord's
Supper in Luke xxii.19, 20, and omits altogether Peter's visit to the
sepulchre in xxiv.12, and several other details of the Resurrection;
The version of the Lord's Prayer in Luke xi.2-4 is much abbreviated in
many copies;
All the best authorities omit the incident of the woman taken in
adultery in vii.53-viii.11.
The last variation is particularly important. In this very forum a few
days ago the far-fetched claim was made that Jesus approved of adultery
because he saved a woman from stoning. In fact, there is some doubt
among Christian scholars as to whether that incident every happened,
which casts doubt on the entire body of moral doctrine deduced from it.
> Please establish how false teaching by the Christian clergy has
> corrupted the Gospel. What was their motive?
There are two kinds of false teaching. One is based result of a willfull
falsification of Scripture made to further some objective or to support
some teaching. The other is the willfull interpretation of Scripture to
arrive at some desired result--such as the doctrine of the Trinity.
Sometimes, the latter is "innocent" in that the person does not
consciously realize what he is doing and sometimes, it is willful.
> The Sonship of Jesus is manifest in the Gospels: Jesus constantly
> prays to and refers to His Father.
Jesus does not directly teach that he is divine. He constantly refers to
himself as the "Son of Man" (i.e. Adam), which in fact is noting more
than a periphrase of modesty often used in Aramaic to avoid saying "I".
Jesus calls God "father" but in the Lord's prayer he tells his followers
that they should ALL call God "father".
> That the ancient Jews never imagined
> a divine filiation is neither here not there: revelation can't be fully
> anticipated.
Perhaps not. But if that is so, it is strange that Jesus would not have
made his teaching about his own nature crystal clear for those who would
otherwise NEVER have imagined such a possibility.
> Jesus's divine nature *is* attested in the Gospels: He
> says "before Abraham I AM", the final clause referring to God's
> self-revelation to Moses. Jesus also says "The Father and I are one."
> The question arises, one what? and the answer is, one God.
One might just as well point out that the variations in scripture make
one or two indirect assertions very shaky proof. One might also point
out that to the extent that ALL the prophets sent by God are
commissioned to reveal God's teachings, then in a metaphorical sense,
"the Father and I are one" could mean that when someone heard Jesus's
teaching, it was as if he had heard the Revelation directly from God.
> You give no substantial grounds for your attack on the
> Judeo-Christian Scriptures for it is based, not on evidence, but on
> your orthodox Muslim faith.
The human mind is not a sponge. Instead of simply soaking up and
spitting out things you have read and heard elsewhere, you should try to
use your God-given faculty of critical thinking to study and UNDERSTAND
through an effort of intellectual synthesis all the claims and facts
that are available--both pro and con.
Furthermore, the real criticism that Muslims have of Christian doctrine
is NOT based primarily on the integrity (or non-integrity) of the
Christian Scriptures. We recognize that a great deal of Christian
scripture, in particular the Gospel accounts, are reflections of what
Jesus brought. Our main criticism is over how Paul of Tarsus and later
the organized Church through its general councils and prominent pastors,
used, misused and often ignored Christian Scripture to promulgate dogma
and doctrine that cannot be proved by the Christian Scriptures taken as
a whole and studied in the light of the huge number of variant readings.
Mike
> Salaam!
>
> Mike at soc.religion.islam:
>
> Although it appears to me that you merely wish to argue and
> contend, I have chosen to reply as if you were a younger member of my
> (muslim) community, for three reasons: (1) muslims who are neither of
> the parties of contention nor of the hypocrites will read my reply,
> quite possibly grasp what I'm saying, and be better able to explain to
> other People of the Book how they had been deceived and show them the
> truth that is in the Scriptures; (2) a fascination with Islam,
> combined with a resistance to Islam, is often seen in people who do
> not yet know themselves as muslim; and (3) writing once more some of
> the history of the world of mankind as revealed to us from ALLAH by
> His Messenger Ibn 'Abdullah Muhammad sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam gets
> more concise and coherent every time I start typing.
I feel priviledged that you have chosen this path.
It is inevitable that we should disagree on matters of faith, and
please understand that any opposition I give on this thread is not a
simple attempt to refute Islam or belittle your beliefs. It is just
that I have a number of concerns with the premises and techniques used
to arrive at some of your conclusions. The parts where we disagree -
the nature of Jesus in particular - I have tried to leave for now. The
matter at hand, rather, is one of how scripture is used and whether
particular usage affords anything of real value.
> Then to continue, you wrote:
>
...
> > Not that this will make much difference to you:
> > Gen 22:1-2: After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him,
> > "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I. He said, "Take your son, your
> > only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and
> > offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of
> > which I shall tell you."
>
> Isaac was never Abraham's only son. This fact alone proves that
> this verse is falsified, as Jeremiah mentioned to the Children of
> Israel at 8:8.
We have been over this before, Hajj, and did not come to any agreement
on it. The Biblical record is that Ismael was Abraham's child by his
egyptian slave, and Isaac was his son by his wife. Now, it may be that
Islamic practice is now that both women would be treated as wives, and
both sons would be given equivalent standings. But this was not the
case then, regardless of whether you are skeptical of the Biblical
account or not.
As it was, at the time of Gen 22:1-2, Hagar and Ishmael had been sent
away to live elsewhere - Isaac was the only son Abraham had with him.
In that sense the passage is not in error; you are intentionally
finding fault with it in the hope of strengthening your belief in your
conspiracy theories.
> The Lie (that universal salvation comes in Israel)
> would have it otherwise, and this verse is part and parcel of The Lie.
The Lie, as you call it, is a fabrication on your part. Jeremiah 8:8
refers to the twisting of the Law as given in Deuteronomy so that it
becomes an end in itself, rather as part of devotion to God. What the
verse does *not* say is that the histories (Genesis, Exodus) have been
corrupted. Jeremiah is silent on that.
Universal salvation comes through a number of people and tribes -
firstly through Noah, then Abraham, and then through Israel. We have
the records of these things to show for it. The claim of salvation
through the Ishmaelites does not become apparent until Muhammad. What
had God been doing for all those millenia among the Ishmaelites? We
simply have not heard. There is no record of this whatsoever. Nothing
is preserved.
Perhaps because nothing *did* happen. Perhaps because salvation was
actually through Israel after all.
I do appreciate you sharing your vision of Ishmaelite history, but that
was not the point.
The point was that Abraham, whether through a dream (Qur'anic account)
or by direct divine command (Biblical account) believed he should take
his son Ishmael (Qur'an) or Isaac (Bible) to Kedar and sacrifice him.
There are two possibilities here:
1. Abraham was correct in his belief he had been called to sacrifice
his son, and his actions reflected his faith in God. For his obedience
God rewards him with the promise of becoming the father of nations.
2. Abraham was incorrect, and thereby presumptive in his belief. He did
not need to sacrifice his son, and the call was delusional. If this
were the case, why should God reward him? What had he done right in
threatening to sacrifice his son, that he should receive a reward from
the Almighty?
It doesn't take a lot of thought for me to plump with #1 and reject #2.
Therefore I conclude that the concept of sacrificing a son is not
anathema to God, although in this case God provides a ram as
substitution for Ishmael/Isaac, this does form the basic premise for
substitutionary sacrifice.
...
> Then God raised up Moses 'alaihi as-salaam to establish His
> Covenant with the Children of Isra'il 'alaihi as-salaam; told the
> Children of Isra'il that He would raise up a messenger "like Moses"
> from among their brethren (the children of Isma'il); and sent Jesus
> 'alaihi as-salaam to name that messenger and announce the Good News of
> his imminent arrival.
>
> Paul then spread the false "Good News" that Jesus was that
> messenger "like Moses."
Where did Paul say this? Paul acclaims Jesus as the Messiah, and goes
further to name Him as the Son of God.
In fairness all the disciples were guilty on that score. Why pick on
Paul?
> > I wonder - do all Muslims share this view, namely that Abraham
> > was mistaken in his belief that God had called him to sacrifice
> > his son?
>
> Well, obviously, since God prevented it.
It is not so obvious. God prevented it, but that does not mean God did
not first send Abraham out to make the sacrifice, as I have shown
above.
> > If so, why should God then treat Abraham with honour if his actions
> > had not been by divine request in the first place? Does God reward
> > ignorance and self-delusion?
>
> Actions are judged by intention, and Abraham was not able to carry
> out the act that he had intended to do as obedience to what he thought
> God had "asked him to do" by means of that dream.
Not so.
Our intentions are only part of the equation. It is true that we are to
serve God faithfully and cheerfully, but if we do the wrong thing with
the "right" intentions, it is still doing the wrong thing.
Or are you saying that God rewards delusion?
> God has obviously honored Abraham, and all three of the faiths of
> Abraham say he is honored for this willingness to sacrifice his only
> son ~ are you in the habit of questioning God's judgments in such matters?
Not me. God does as He wills. I just believe that God asked Abraham to
offer up the life of his son, and was rewarded for his obedience, not
for his "good intentions". This is the account I have, and I see no
reason to doubt it. Why do you?
> >>> I would be interested to know what your (and other Muslims')
> >>> view of the Christian perspective on Mosaic Law is.
>
> >> It appears that Pauline Christians consider the mythical
> >> crucifiction to have "fulfilled" the Mosaic Law, nullilfying it
> >> with the "Good News" that everyone who believes as Paul set forth
> >> is "forgiven." Paul appears to have taught that the Law was a
> >> curse rather than a means of salvation for the Children of Israel.
Have you tried living by the rules of the Mosaic covenant? I presume
not. They're pretty exacting, even to a Muslim. The realisation Paul
had was that no-one was actually capable of living a blameless life
according the Mosaic covenant, as the rules as handed to his
contemporary Jews were nigh-on impossible to adhere to at all times. In
that, yes, Paul paints the Law as being a burden on Israel, but he also
points out that it also is the means by which we can tell what
righteousness is about.
...
> Most muslims have virtually no view at all of "the Christian
> perspective on Mosaic Law" because it is of no particular interest, is
> not in any way necessary to the practice of Islam, and is obviously,
> at a glance, not remotely consonant with Mosaic Law, but flies in the
> face of Mosaic Law as a clear denial of the Unity and Singularity of
> God and His Law given to Moses.
I wonder why you say this, since you say later:
"The Mosaic Law, more correctly known as the Sinai Covenant ~ a
"bargain with God" undertaken by the Children of Israel at the hand of
Moses at Sinai, was exclusively for the Children of Israel and for no
other people, ever, excepting only those who joined theselves and their
descendants into Israel."
In that, the Christian view of the Law is consistent with yours -
Mosaic Law does not and can not apply to non-Jews, and as such adhering
to Mosaic Law does not benefit the non-Jewish Christian or Muslim as
the promises given alongside the Law do not extend to the non-Jewish
Christian or Muslim. In that, the Christian view of the Law neither
denies the unity or singularity of God or His Law.
There is the erroneous accusation by Muslims that we Christians deny
the singularity of God, but this finds its source not in our attitude
towards the Law, but in our attitude to the Messiah.
...
> "The muslim view" of this is explicitly identified in the Qur'an
> as that of those who used to read the Jewish/Christian Scripture ~
> that is, former Jews and Christians familiar with Scripture who
> accepted Islam and are muslim. That's the view I've given you above
> of what *appears* in the world today as Pauline Christianity.
That view I've already shown to be in error.
> > For the Christian view is clarified in Acts 14-15, where the early
> > Christians began sharing the Gospel with non-Jews. There the view is
> > taken that Mosaic Law cannot apply to Gentiles since they were never
> > part of that covenant, and that to insist that Gentiles become
> > Judaised prior to becoming Christians was an unnecessary and
> > over-onerous burden to place on them.
>
> Once again I'll give you the "muslim view" as that view is defined
> in the Qur'an ~ from a muslim who was formerly of the People of the Book:
So you don't agree with the above?
It appears as though you do, at least in part.
As for the rest of the "muslim view" you present, I have to offer my
thanks but say that I find little pre-Quranic evidence for its basic
premises.
> Jesus' Good News consisted of the following:
>
> The universal Covenant Promised in Abraham will be sent down (1)
> after Jesus had left (2) to another people (than the Children of
> Israel), (3) who will bear its fruits, (4) in the place and among the
> people identified clearly by the Law and the Prophets in the
> Scriptures that Jesus' disciples knew very well, (5) establishing a
> new Kingdom of God that would transform the Holy Land entirely.
(1) is given to us in John's Gospel which (as I've repeatedly stated)
assumes Jesus is divine in direct contradiction to the Qur'an.
Therefore I have to say I find using some of its passages out of
context - which Muslims repeatedly do - as evidence for a messenger who
contradicts the very book which supposedly foretold his coming as
little short of laughable.
(2) applies to *all* people, not just "another" people.
(3) the fruits of the universal covenant are not spelled out anywhere
that I've found, except that God's Law is written on men's hearts. In
that, the fruits could be said to apply to Christians as opposed to
Muslims.
(4) the place is Israel, and in 1st century palestine the Sinai
peninsula does not form part of Israel.
(5) the establishment of the kingdom is repeatedly stated by Jesus as
having already begun during His ministry. In that, the kingdom of which
He spoke could not possibly refer to Muhammad's time, but rather 600
years earlier. In terms of transforming the Holy Land, both
Christianity and Islam transformed the political and religious face of
the area.
So in the face of your initial remarks, point (1) is simply too
incongruous to be believable, (2) and (4) are too broad to exclusively
point to Islam, (3) is inconclusive, and (5) rules out Islam
completely.
This is not to say that I don't recognise that you sincerely believe
these things. But your faith is not predicated on the above, but rather
in your faith in the message recited by Muhammad. It is a direct result
of that. The problem comes with how that message attempts to draw from
previous traditions and faiths, in that the methods it uses seem to me
to be, by turns, either ambiguous or just plain wrong.
> Now in case you hadn't noticed, that's exactly what happened six
> centuries later *in* the Promised Land. Among the lesser "fruits"
> have been hospitals, inoculation, pharmacology, surveying, astral
> navigation, spherical trigonometry and integral calculus,
> redistribution of commonwealth, institutionalized universal charity,
> the rule of law and access to justice, federalism, individual property
> rights, accountability of sovereigns, pluralism, and liberty. (Islam
> has no eminent domain, sovereign immunity, or "bar" between the
> parties and an adjudicator.)
The fruits of blessing are rarely referred to in such terms in
scripture, and while the flowering of the early Islamic state did
promote much in the way of positive human endeavour and achievement,
these things are found in other societies as well. No; if I were to
look for "fruit", I would be looking for the fruit identified in the
NT: Love, peace, patience, joy, kindness, gentleness, and self-control.
These things are not shown in history books, or readily remembered by
men. But they make more of a positive difference to life than any of
the many human discoveries of the last millenium.
...
> > For Christians, this is the New Covenant spoken of by
> > Jesus. Do Muslims recognise this, or know of another
> > covenant which has fulfilled this?
>
> Certainly. But Jesus was not speaking of what you received from
> Paul as that "New Covenant." Jesus explicitly said he was not
> bringing that new Covenant, and warned against those who would come
> after him saying that *he* had been that messenger "like Moses."
How so? I've already given the verse where Jesus institutes the New
Covenant. In terms of Moses, I am a loss to find the passage where
Jesus refers to Moses in the terms you mention.
> >> The Law given to Noah remains in force for all
> >> those who have not adopted a later Covenant.
>
> > We agree at least on that.
>
> One would be well-advised to take careful note of just who he's
> making a bargain with and to be quite certain that it's with God and
> not just an impostor promising a free lunch.
???
> >> Abraham was given a Promise of that same Covenant, which would be
> >> given to all humanity by a Messenger...
> > Can you tell me where the Qur'an refers to this covenant?
> "Surely ALLAH has bought from the Faithful their lives and their
> property ~ theirs is the Garden. They fight in ALLAH's Way so they
> slay and are slain. It is a Promise which is binding on Him in the
> Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an."
So the Qur'an places itself as part of the previous covenants, rather
than a separate covenant in its own right.
Or have I misread the passage?
> You can find the rest.
>
> >> Jesus was that Messiah of Israel, and he announced the name of the
> >> Messenger who would bring the Covenant promised to all humanity.
> >> He did not bring a new Law or Covenant,
>
> > I beg to differ there - Luke 22:20 has Jesus instituting that
> > very covenant. Does the Qur'an explicitly state that he didn't?
>
> You need not beg to differ, you're free to be as deceived as you
> wish, without anyone's permission. God permits it.
So you're saying that Luke 22:20 is wrong. Just as John 1 is wrong, and
the rest of the Bible is wrong *except* where it agrees with the
Qur'an.
True?
BUT
if you believe that, then the Bible is worthless to you. It confirms
nothing apart from your own beliefs which you find elsewhere. It has
about as much theological impact as the Wind in the Willows. Yet you
take quite a lot of your covenant chronology from the Bible, twisting
this part and another part to make the whole fit. If the Bible is
corrupt, you cannot tell which parts are corrupt and therefore should
not be using to form any part of your worldview.
Still, you are free to indulge in self-delusion if you wish. The
problem is that you will be quite incapable of tellling whether you are
deluded or not, whether your worldview is flawed in ways you cannot
possibly imagine.
> And yes, the Qur'an does state that he didn't bring any "New
> Covenant." You can find it. It quotes Jesus as saying he was "a
> *verifier* of what was before me of the Torah and I allow you part of
> that which was forbidden to you." Spreading the Good News was
> forbidden *until* his arrival as the Messiah. This was not a "New
> Covenant" but a verification and continuation of the Sinai Covenant,
> as Jesus himself is reported in your Scripture to have said, "one jot
> or one tittle shall in no way pass from the Law till all be
> fulfilled." I hardly need to mention that Pauline Christians are
> still waiting for the "Kingdom of God" fulfillment.
Nope. The Kingdom of God has already arrived. It arrived 600 years
before Muhammad: Matt 12:28, Mark 1:15, Mark 9:1, Mark 12:34, Luke
9:27, Luke 10: 8-11, Luke 11:20, Luke 17:21, John 3: 1-5.
Since the Kingdom arrived in Jesus' day, how can the nation formed by
Muhammad be that Kingdom? How?
> Scripture says that's exactly what happens: "I will put My words
> in his mouth." That's what happened. I've never read anywhere in
> Scripture that God said "I have to kill Myself in order to forgive
> you." Quite the opposite, in fact.
It is written in scripture you regard as flawed, marred, and
theologically worthless. That is why you will not believe it or
recognise it.
> Muslim Spain was replaced by The Inquisition around the beginning
> of the Sixteenth Century, although the rule of Islam persisted in the
> Holy Land for some time after that (that's where the Jews of Spain who
> didn't pretend to become Catholics went).
It is true that the history of Spain is riven through with tragedy. But
the ruin of the Spanish Caliphate (if Caliphate it indeed was) was
wrought not by Christian arms, but by Christian unity in the face of
Muslim division. The Inquisition which followed was primarily directed
at achieving political unity within Spain; something even the Muslims
had found difficult to achieve and impossible to maintain. This does
not mean that evil was not committed under the Inquisition's banner.
But it was primarily a political tool legitimised by a religious title.
> > I'm not overly worried about America, although I do wonder precisely
> > what you mean by the above. I live in the U.K., and us Christians
> > have been here getting on for two millennia.
>
> And quite a few of your countrymen are finally getting the Good News.
I'm not seeing an outpouring of Muslim conversions here; quite the
reverse in fact. The U.K. is heavily secularised, and few faith
communities are finding it easy even to maintain their communities
effectively. It is interesting and rather saddening to note that some
Islamic communities have resorted to blaming Christians for the decline
in their numbers. What is happening is that our media is becoming
increasingly antagonistic towards religion as a whole, and it seems
bent at times to marginalise or belittle those of us with a faith in
the one God. This is being borne out in the distressing changes in
attitudes and legislation that have been occurring over the last few
decades.
In all this the characterisation imposed upon the various faith
communities is quite distinct, and the two communities at the sharp end
seem to be Christians and Muslims.
Mike.
hajj abujamal
Note to SRI moderators: This discusses Scripture in the light of
Islam, showing Scripture's relevance to Islam. Please note that it is
a central tenet of Islam that Islam was not "new" but had been sent
down with every previous prophet. Scripture is another proof that
this is true.
Mike wrote at soc.religion.islam:
> I have a number of concerns with the premises and techniques
> used to arrive at some of your conclusions ... how scripture
> is used and whether [your] usage affords anything of real value.
I use the word "Scripture" to refer to the Hebrew and Aramaic
Revelations given to Moses, the prophets of Israel, and Jesus,
'alaihim as-salaam, wherever they may be found, including the Tanach
and the Bibles of the various churches including the Ethiopic, and to
a lesser degree the Kebra Nagast and various other preserved remnants,
all of which have depended on men for their preservation. While
English translations may be serviceable for preliminary study, they do
not contain the full substance of what is in the Latin Vulgate, which
in turn does not contain the full substance of the Greek Septuagint,
which does not contain what is in the Masoretic Hebrew.
This distinguishes Scripture from the Qur'an, or Recitation, which
has been preserved intact by God, and is merely covered over with
priestly glosses, technical constructions of terms that are not
supported by the mathematical grammar of the Arabic language, and
"interpretations" alleged to rest on political histories. Our task,
in America, has been and continues to be prying off a 1400-year
encrustation and hearing the Recitation that is distinguishable from
the voices of the parties of contention. Again, while English
translations may be serviceable for preliminary study, they do not
contain the full substance of what is in the Recitation itself.
Probably we can more or less agree thus far. At this point,
however, we might diverge:
First, Hebrew and Aramaic are subsets of Arabic. The vocabulary
and grammar are virtually identical, although Arabic, with six more
letters than Hebrew, has a more extensive vocabulary. Thus Arabic can
contain the entirety of Scripture without distortion or loss,
excepting terms that have mutually exclusive meanings in the two
tongues ~ such as "hemed" (Hebrew "covet") and "hamad" (Arabic
"commend"). This also makes Scripture more plain and clear, causing
stylistic differences ~ particularly the differences between God's
styles of expression and those of men ~ to stand out in bold relief.
A lot of what is considered Scripture is clearly not Revelation, but
expressions of men who have been inspired.
Second, Scripture states its purpose at Deuteronomy 31:16, thus ...
16. And the Lord said to Moses, Here! You will lie down with your
fathers and they will rebel, this people, and they will live
licentiously in support of gods unknown to the world which insinuate
toward what is among them; and they will break My Covenant that I made
with them. ...
19. Then surely write for yourselves this song and teach it to
the children of Israel; and put it in their mouths that this song may
be for Me a witness against the children of Israel.
So one of the ways I "use" Scripture is as it is explicitly
intended to be used ~ as a witness against the children of Israel.
Another is to see what it actually says about what God promised to
Abraham 'alaihi as-salaam, His friend.
>>> Not that this will make much difference to you: (Gen 22:1-2)
>> Isaac was never Abraham's only son.
> The Biblical record is that Ismael was Abraham's child by his
> egyptian slave, and Isaac was his son by his wife.
That's incorrect. Hagar, daughter of Pharoah, was given by
Pharoah to Sarah, not Abraham. Scripture clearly says that Sarah gave
Hagar to Abraham as a wife (Genesis 16:3), and that she was Abraham's
wife, not his slave. Isma'il was God's answer to Abraham's prayer to
have an heir from his own loins. Read Genesis 16:10, where she is
given the same promise that Abraham was given at Genesis 13:16 ~
descendants beyond counting. Abraham later married a third wife,
Keturah, by whom he had six more sons (Genesis 25:1-2). Then he was
buried by "his sons Isaac and Ishmael" at Genesis 25:9, and the
Bible's account of Isma'il continues at Genesis 25:12 with "Now these
are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son."
Isaac, in other words, was never Abraham's "only son" according to
Scripture. And Isma'il is consistently referred to in Scripture as
Abraham's son.
Moreover, the promise given to Abraham at Genesis 13:15, "For all
the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed
forever," has been fulfilled for the last two or three thousand years
by the children of Isma'il, who have never yet been driven out of the
Promised Land, excepting a few in 1948 from a miniscule part of the
Promised Land ~ see http://www.muslimamerica.net/gr/promised.gif for a
man of the Promised Land.
> Now, it may be that Islamic practice is now that both women would
> be treated as wives, and both sons would be given equivalent
> standings. But this was not the case then, regardless of whether
> you are skeptical of the Biblical account or not.
Again you are incorrect. The Semitic practice was that the
firstborn son inherited the mantle, the youngest inherited the hearth
and tent; and men often had two or more wives, all bearing heirs.
Hagar was Abraham's wife just as much as all four wives of Jacob were
Jacob's wives. Scripture refutes your contention, it does not support
it at all. Islam diminished the number of wives a man could have, it
did not increase it.
> As it was, at the time of Gen 22:1-2, Hagar and Ishmael had been
> sent away to live elsewhere - Isaac was the only son Abraham had
> with him.
This is again incorrect according to Scripture. According to
Scripture, Hagar fled from Sarah but the angel sent her back (Genesis
16:6-15); later, according to Genesis 21, after Isaac was born (making
Isma'il at least 14), Abraham "sent" Hagar and Isma'il into the
wilderness of Paran, where God gave them a well ~ a significant asset
in that region. Later, when Abraham died, Isaac and Isma'il buried
him. In all these instances, Scripture calls Isma'il Abraham's son.
What Scripture does not record (today) is that Abraham spent the
rest of his life between Palestine and Paran ~ six months in the north
with Sarah and Isaac, six months in the south with Hagar and Isma'il.
This is remembered by the vastly overwhelming majority of Abraham's
children, the descendants of Isma'il, who have possessed the Promised
Land ever since, as God promised Abraham and Hagar. Scripture has
only the history preserved by the scribes of Israel.
> In that sense the passage is not in error; you are
> intentionally finding fault with it in the hope of
> strengthening your belief in your conspiracy theories.
This is a hilarious insult. It really makes you look silly. What
I have recounted above is plainly recorded in Scripture, which you
mistakenly claim supports your contention that Isaac was Abraham's
only son. I will agree that a conspiracy developed among the children
of Israel to break Abraham's Covenant with God, just as Moses said
would happen. But it is hardly "finding fault" to recount exactly
what Scripture says and consider it true.
>> The Lie (that universal salvation comes in Israel) would have
>> it otherwise, and this verse is part and parcel of The Lie.
> The Lie, as you call it, is a fabrication on your part.
No, it's the fabrication you believe in.
> Jeremiah 8:8 refers to the twisting of the Law as given in
> Deuteronomy so that it becomes an end in itself, rather as
> part of devotion to God. What the verse does *not* say is
> that the histories (Genesis, Exodus) have been corrupted.
> Jeremiah is silent on that.
The Soncino (recognized authoritative Jewish) translation of
Jeremiah 8:8 says exactly that:
"How can you say, We are wise, and the Torah of the Lord is with
us? Behold, certainly the pen wrote lies; the scribes made it into a
lie."
I translate it differently ~ the word at the end, translated by
the Soncino as "a lie," has the definite article in the original Hebrew:
"How can you say 'We are wise and the Way of the Lord is with us'?
Surely the lying pen of the scribes has changed it to The Lie."
> Universal salvation comes through a number of people and tribes
> - firstly through Noah, then Abraham, and then through Israel.
Scripturally wrong again. The chain is Noah, Abraham, Shiloh.
Moses, David, Solomon, the prophets of Israel, and Jesus were a
unique, exclusive Covenant given to Abraham for Isaac, and were for no
one else. See Deuteronomy 5:2-3, which say (from the Soncino):
"2. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3. The
Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, who are all
of us here alive this day."
And in the Bible, Shiloh never comes. In Israel, he is named.
That was what they promised at Sinai, and their eternal distinction:
they pointed humanity toward salvation as sent down with Shiloh.
> We have the records of these things to show for it.
We have more records. All you have is Paul.
> The claim of salvation through the Ishmaelites
> does not become apparent until Muhammad.
It's all the way through Scripture. Until Jesus came, it was kept
so secret that the only people who could look at it were the priests
and scribes. To speak of it to anyone other than an Israeli was a
capital crime. In Jesus' time, the leaders of Temple Israel had made
it a capital crime to even recite the prophecies, so that Jesus had to
speak in parables to avoid their traps. When they asked him for a
sign, he gave them one that had not been previously revealed ~ that
Muhammad sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam fulfilled to the letter ~ and
avoided their trap. But the prophecies are still there today in
Scripture, or at least enough of them for those with eyes to see.
> What had God been doing for all those millenia among the
> Ishmaelites? We simply have not heard. There is no record
> of this whatsoever. Nothing is preserved.
The Promised Land remains in their hands.
It's no surprise that you haven't heard of it, though. Until
about twenty years ago, "the Arabs" and "the muslims" were a rag-tag
bunch of dusty desert dwellers who never amounted to anything. Today
we know they erected a shining civilization, a federal republic based
on human liberty that encompassed the entire Promised Land and a
thousand miles in every direction except what was left in Europe of
the Holy Roman Empire during Europe's Dark Ages, and today make up one
fifth of the human race. A lot of history ~ about a thousand years of
it ~ was mysteriously left out of the textbooks we read in public school.
> Perhaps because nothing *did* happen. Perhaps because
> salvation was actually through Israel after all.
What happened? The children of Isma'il populated the entirety of
the Promised Land. The Messiah came. He was betrayed after he had
gone, and said to be someone he wasn't. Then the Messenger like Moses
came and the entire Promised Land was transformed in the space of a
single generation. The Millennial Kingdom persisted for a thousand
years, delivering the foundations of modern civilization and modern
science ~ including federalism, liberty, and the scientific method,
just to start a very long and well-known list. Then it collapsed,
with the children of Isma'il still in possession of the Promised Land
as God promised to Abraham.
Meanwhile, what you call "salvation" gave us the Dark Ages, the
Crusades, the Inquisition, more or less continuous wars, universal
tyranny supported by a mystery religion, and lately, about four
centuries of colonialism favoring European elites. That's what has
come through Israel.
It's just history. And it looks like the worst is yet to come.
> I do appreciate you sharing your vision of Ishmaelite history, but
> that was not the point. The point was that Abraham, whether through
> a dream (Qur'anic account) or by direct divine command (Biblical
> account) believed he should take his son Ishmael (Qur'an) or Isaac
> (Bible) to Kedar and sacrifice him.
Kedar was one of the sons of Isma'il. The sacrifice led
immediately to the Covenant of Circumcision when Isma'il was thirteen,
before Isaac was born and long before Kedar was even conceived.
That's utterly clear even in Scripture. Do the math.
Someone else should tell the story, someone more articulate with a
more gracious manner, and this Thread lacks the sublime majesty which
is that story's character ~ to relate it in the middle of this rehash
of Israel's base and treacherous rebellion against God would demean
it, in my opinion. Do the math and maybe you'll develop a desire to
hear the real story instead of the myth that supports The Lie.
Compare this:
"And We called out to him saying O Abraham, you have indeed
fulfilled the vision. Thus do We reward the doers of good. Surely
this is a manifest trial. And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice.
And We granted him among the later generations, 'Peace be to
Abraham!' Thus do We reward the doers of good. Surely he was one of
Our faithful servants. And We gave him the good news of Isaac, a
prophet, a righteous one. And We blessed him and Isaac. And of their
offspring some are doers of good, but some are clearly unjust to
themselves."
With this:
"These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai,
bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. Hagar represents Sinai,
a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she
is in slavery along with her children. But the Jerusalem above is
freeborn, and she is our mother.
"But what does the scripture say? "Drive out the slave woman and
her son! For the son of the slave woman shall not share the
inheritance with the son of the freeborn. Therefore, brothers, we are
children not of the slave woman but of the freeborn woman."
I think you'll find a discussion of slavery elsewhere in this
forum, although I don't recall seeing Paul's attitude mentioned in it.
> God prevented it, but that does not mean God did not first send
> Abraham out to make the sacrifice, as I have shown above.
People don't even have dreams unless God allows them.
>> Actions are judged by intention ...
> Not so. Our intentions are only part of the equation. It is true
> that we are to serve God faithfully and cheerfully, but if we do the
> wrong thing with the "right" intentions, it is still doing the wrong
> thing. Or are you saying that God rewards delusion?
Doing something is usually the result of intending to do that
thing. "Suicide bombers" intend to kill themselves, irrespective of
what else they may intend by doing that. God prevented Abraham from
doing what he intended.
>> God has obviously honored Abraham, and all three of the faiths of
>> Abraham say he is honored for this willingness to sacrifice his
>> only son ~ are you in the habit of questioning God's judgments in
>> such matters?
> Not me. God does as He wills. I just believe that God asked Abraham
> to offer up the life of his son, and was rewarded for his obedience,
> not for his "good intentions". This is the account I have, and I see
> no reason to doubt it. Why do you?
Because we have the account of the actual event ~ God obviously
wished that Abraham would form the intention to be obedient in this,
which Abraham did.
> There is the erroneous accusation by Muslims that we Christians
> deny the singularity of God, but this finds its source not in our
> attitude towards the Law, but in our attitude to the Messiah.
In other words, it's not erroneous. How "you Christians" can
think that kind of convoluted self-contradiction is rational thought
is a complete mystery.
> So the Qur'an places itself as part of the previous covenants,
> rather than a separate covenant in its own right. Or have I
> misread the passage?
Islam offers the Covenant to all humanity, as promised to Noah,
with whom God made a Covenant (Genesis 6:18), and Abraham, with whom
God made a Covenant, and Moses, with whom God made a Covenant with the
Children of Israel. The Qur'an is that Covenant ~ it includes and
ratifies all the previous Covenants, not vice versa. Keeping the
universal Covenant (i.e., making that bargain with God) includes
honoring the previous Covenants by respecting the right of those who
entered into them to keep their Covenant (i.e., to keep their bargain
with God).
> So you're saying that ... the Bible is wrong
> *except* where it agrees with the Qur'an.
Precisely.
> if you believe that, then the Bible is worthless to you.
It is a witness against the Children of Israel. That's "worth"
beyond measure for anyone who loves God.
> It confirms nothing apart from your
> own beliefs which you find elsewhere.
No ~ what I find elsewhere confirms most of Scripture and
illuminates what it does not confirm.
> It has about as much theological impact as the Wind in the Willows.
The Qur'an tells me quite a bit about The Book and quite a bit
about the People of the Book. When I look at Scripture, I find that
the Qur'an is factually accurate in everything it says about it.
Revisiting Scripture, after decades of living in the world it
foretells, gives me considerable insight into the sorry condition of
the human population and the hellish world you people live in. It
otherwise has little or no impact on what I believe.
> Yet you take quite a lot of your covenant chronology from the Bible,
> twisting this part and another part to make the whole fit. If the
> Bible is corrupt, you cannot tell which parts are corrupt and
> therefore should not be using to form any part of your worldview.
Scripture is a worldview. I thank God that I no longer live in
it. It's like the difference between walking through a sunlit meadow
filled with flowers growing around fruit trees and stumbling around in
a cave full of cobwebs lit by fireflies. With the light of the
Qur'an, I can see the cobwebs, fireflies, holes in the floor, and
stalctites. I really pity those without eyes to see.
> Still, you are free to indulge in self-delusion if you wish.
> The problem is that you will be quite incapable of tellling
> whether you are deluded or not, whether your worldview is
> flawed in ways you cannot possibly imagine.
<smile> Listen to yourself. I didn't expect this to get comical.
I have snipped a great deal that consisted almost entirely of
disputes you have that are of no particular consequence to muslims.
Discussing them with you would be an exercise in pure vanity, my
purpose here is merely to set forth a long view of the one Plan of the
One God as it can be seen and verified in Scripture and history.
The Qur'an tells us to look at those who have passed away, at
their traces in the world. It turns out, on examination, to be quite
coherent, rather simple, and completely consistent with what the
Qur'an says we'll find.
I'm just drawing a few pointers and outlines, with Scripture as a
witness against the Children of Israel and otherwise as a map to
Islam. Countless Jews and Christians have found their way through the
maze that the scribes and pharisees made of it before Jesus came, and
I am indebted to many of them for understanding that I had never so
much as imagined I could have drawn from it.
I was blind to it. What saddens me is that so many are blinded
*by* it. I'd really like to see an end to the Dark Ages of Europe.
> What is happening is that our media is becoming increasingly
> antagonistic towards religion as a whole, and it seems bent at
> times to marginalise or belittle those of us with a faith in
> the one God. This is being borne out in the distressing changes in
> attitudes and legislation that have been occurring over the last few
> decades. In all this the characterisation imposed upon the various
> faith communities is quite distinct, and the two communities at the
> sharp end seem to be Christians and Muslims.
Since the death of Solomon 'alaihi as-salaam, their aim has been
to pit the Christians against the muslims and to destroy both. Those
with a unique and exclusive Covenant ~ except a very few ~ have long
since concluded that no one else can have any Covenant that is not
subordinate to theirs. The last thing they want is that anyone should
receive the Good News that Jesus brought.
That's why they sent Paul to Damascus.
But in the end, at the point of complete victory, they fail.
We just might live to see it. But it's not pretty.
Saqib Virk
>
> One reason why Muslims believe the New Testament is corrupt is that
> it contains no reference to Muhammad.
SV
Corrupt is such a harsh word.
In the NT Jesus clearly tells his followers that they do not have the
strength to bear all that needs to be taught and that another would come who
would teach more. Undoubtedly that "other" is Muhammad who came to teach
that which Jesus could not. Of course you will deny your own scripture,
choosing to walk in darkness.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
hajj abujamal
Abdalla Alothman wrote:
> You mean 3:7.
Shukran. In most of the translations I have, it's 7, and 6 only
in one or two. I have not found consistency in numbering the Ayats,
and do not recall ever seeing any hadith or other authority for how
they are numbered ~ do you know of any, or is this a (useful) innovation?
> Consider:
> 2:70. They said, "Call upon your Lord for us to make plain
> to us what it is. Verily to us all cows are alike, And surely,
> if Allâh wills, we will be guided."
> The cows are the objects that looked alike to the people
> of Musa (a).
"tashaabaha" is clearly on the shabaha stem of the root, the sixth
(tafa'aala) form of the verb, "to resemble one another, be similar to
one another." The sixth form of the verb is collectively reflexive,
viz. "they seem like each other."
I do not expect, Habeebi, to persuade you in this. I believe
we've had this discussion before. I assure you, though, that there
was nothing that could have been "made to seem like it" in the myth
we're discussing ~ the claim of Temple Israel to have crucified the
Messiah 'alaihi as-salaam. The story is made up out of their failed
ambitions alone as is purely disinformation intended to discredit
'Isa. Had they snatched some poor slave off the street and beaten him
to an unrecognizable bloody pulp and hung him up on a stake, it would
still be true that there was nothing at all behind this myth they
spread with Paul ~ nothing but their deception. They never laid a
hand on 'Isa 'alaihi as-salaam.
> There is a basic concept in grammar called attashbeeh
> wal-isti'aara, by the way. It's a highly regarded concept in
> balaagha where the user of the language makes tashbeeh
> (makes one thing similar to another).
Tashbeeh, plural tashbeehat or tashaabih, is again on the shabaha
stem of the root, the active verb. Shubbiha is the second form, the
fa''ala form of the shubiha stem of the root, the passive verb
indicated by the dhamma, meaning "to be doubtful, dubious, uncertain,
obscure."
> 14:18. The parable of those who disbelieve in their Lord is
> that their works are as ashes, on which the wind blows
> furiously on a stormy day, they shall not be able to get
> aught of what they have earned. That is the straying, far
> away (from the Right Path).
> In the aaya above a "similarity" is made between those who
> disbelieve and ashes. The "ka" is prefixed to the Arabic equivalent
> of "Ashes" (ramad, becomes karamad). This is called tashbeeh
> in grammar.
That's what the literary device is called, but no word on the root
sh-b-h appears in Q14:18.
> This is just to show how the word is frequently used in Arabic
> to draw similarities between objects (or subjects). It only shows
> that even in Arabic grammar shbh is used to to draw similarities
> between two things.
That's not in question at all ~ the shahaba stem is the active
verb, and every form of the verb on that stem, transitive or
intransitive, deals with making one thing similar to another,
resemblance of one thing to another, comparing one thing with another,
and so on. But every form of the verb on the passive shubiha stem
denotes obscurity, doubt, vagueness, uncertainty, and suspicion.
The only place these two distinguishable active and passive
meanings of the verb converge is in the ifta'ala or 8th form, where we
find the verbal noun ishtibaah, meaning "resemblance, similarity,
likeness; dubiousness, doubtfulness, obscurity, inscrutability; doubt,
misgiving, suspicion."
Which is what we have here. According to the Constantine canon,
the apostles fled and had no way of knowing what happened after they
were separated from Jesus. All of the early monotheistic Christian
sources discovered in the last century or so lack any reference at all
to anything resembling a crucifiction event, and the story comes into
the modern canon with writings that cannot be sourced backward earlier
than the beginning of the second century after the supposed event and
cannot be authenticated.
Pauline Christians believe the myth, and have spent the better
part of two thousand years trying to find some rational basis for
their belief, and have found absolutely nothing. They can't find
anything supported by any kind of physical evidence to give substance
to their speculations, and as ALLAH says in His Book, they but pursue
speculation and their entire belief structure is based on laa shay'in
~ not a thing, a nothing. They can't see it: it's obscure to them.
There is not the least thing that could be said to "seem like it."
Only the false claim that Jesus could not have been the Messiah
because they had him crucified. Pure deception and nothing else.
> Wishing you and your family peace and good health.
And yours! Come to America so we can at least drink coffee
together while we argue!
> Salam,
> Abdalla Alothman
Abdalla Alothman
> as-salaamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuhu!
Wa alaikum asalam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh.
> Shukran. In most of the translations I have, it's 7, and 6 only
> in one or two. I have not found consistency in numbering the Ayats,
> and do not recall ever seeing any hadith or other authority for how
> they are numbered ~ do you know of any, or is this a (useful) innovation?
I have no idea. If we follow that the Basmala is aya #1, the
aya you referred to it would be aya 8, and you would be
having aya 7. Probably the alif lam meem hasn't been
counted as an aya all by itself.
> I do not expect, Habeebi, to persuade you in this. I believe
> we've had this discussion before. I assure you, though, that there
> was nothing that could have been "made to seem like it" in the myth
> we're discussing ~ the claim of Temple Israel to have crucified the
> Messiah 'alaihi as-salaam.
I would like to make it clear for the reader that the opinion
above is an opinion that Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Tayymiya
supports and used in the reference I previously mentioned.
> That's what the literary device is called, but no word on the root
> sh-b-h appears in Q14:18.
Yes. I used the aya just to give an example of at-tashbeeh
from a grammatical point of view. The aaya doesn't have
shbh, its just an example of how tashbeeh (the eloquence
concept) is used in Arabic.
> Which is what we have here. According to the Constantine canon,
> the apostles fled and had no way of knowing what happened after they
> were separated from Jesus.
This is also what Ibn Tayymiya says. The event by itself cannot
be taken because all those who were trustworthy could not have
been present. The only ones left are the ones who made up the
story, and they are the enemies of Allah.
Actually, all the so called Bible Witnesses are discarded by Ibn
Tayymiya. The Christians use the Centurion as an important
witness, but to Ibn Tayymiya, the Centurion is nothing more
than an unbeliever; so his testimony is absolutely worthless.
In Islam, an unbeliever's testimony or opinion cannot be taken
to establish a pillar in belief.
Same goes to Paul who permitted lying on different occasions.
Whatever he says after approving lying (Acts, Galatians,
Corinthians) is an excuse in Islam to count him as a false
witness. Not only is his testimony not taken, but if he was
around during the Islamic state, he would have been lashed
in public.
> Pauline Christians believe the myth, and have spent the better
> part of two thousand years trying to find some rational basis for
> their belief, and have found absolutely nothing.
It might be that those who will massacre the Jews in the next
round (Sura 17) might be the (dead again?) Christians after
the truth is given to them directly from 'Eesa, after they
discover how they were fooled for ages.
> Only the false claim that Jesus could not have been the Messiah
> because they had him crucified. Pure deception and nothing else.
What I can't understand is that how some of the brothers
imagine that the Messenger 'Eesa was crucified when the
relevant aaya clearly negates crucifixion and murder. Why
do they believe he wasn't murdered, but they believe he
was crucified and managed to survive? I mean both actions
in the aaya are constrained with the same negation.
I don't think such ideas are coming from the Qadiyaniya only.
Do you have any input on that, please?
> And yours! Come to America so we can at least drink coffee
> together while we argue!
I've tried your coffee for five years in your state (the richest
experience in my life). You should come to Kuwait and try
my mother's coffee and enjoy the way it is served.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
hajj abujamal <mus...@muslimamerica.net> wrote:
> Abdalla Alothman wrote:
>
> > You mean 3:7.
>
> Shukran. In most of the translations I have, it's 7, and 6 only
> in one or two. I have not found consistency in numbering the Ayats,
> and do not recall ever seeing any hadith or other authority for how
> they are numbered ~ do you know of any, or is this a (useful) innovation?
The numbering of the ayats is NOT part of the established Qur'anic
recension and there are several different numberings. Furthermore,
sometimes, where an ayat's number differs by one in two different
editions, it is because one of the two numbers the sura's opening
bismillah and the other does not.
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
.
Robert
Amid your obscure and grammatically incoherent outpourings a few things
are clear: 1) you consider an unbeliever's testimony to be worthless,
in other words only Muslims are honest and other people are
out-and-out-liars on any topic. 2) "Whatever [St Paul] says after
approving lying ... is an excuse in Islam to count him a false
witness." First of all, establish that St Paul approves lying; give the
Biblical references that show this. Secondly, you imply that Muslims
are not willing to examine impartially whether a person is telling the
truth, they will accept excuses to impugn him.3) You believe that liars
should be publically flogged. In that case, Who would escape whipping?
(Shakespeare).
As regards the Christian project of finding a rational basis of
Christian belief, they have an excellent record. Christianity has
undergone 200 years of intense critical scrutiny and remains unbowed.
Critical scrutiny of Islam is forbidden by severe laws in Muslim
countries; the clerics are afraid that if rational scrutiny of the
Koran and Islamic history is permitted, Islam will collapse. Even
without that, it is collapsing - in violence and carnage.
But I repeat, give the Biblical references for St Paul's permission
of lying, but note the rules of this forum (written by whom? - a
Muslim?) will not allow me to expose your lies - that would be
off-topic.
hajj abujamal
Mike wrote:
> I'm unconvinced.
This is an outcome that the Qur'an says can be anticipated.
Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to delineate some
history consistent with reason. Hopefully some reader will benefit.
Mike
> I use the word "Scripture" to refer to the Hebrew and Aramaic
> Revelations given to Moses, the prophets of Israel, and Jesus,
> 'alaihim as-salaam, wherever they may be found
...
> This distinguishes Scripture from the Qur'an, or Recitation, which
> has been preserved intact by God, and is merely covered over with
> priestly glosses, technical constructions of terms that are not
> supported by the mathematical grammar of the Arabic language, and
> "interpretations" alleged to rest on political histories.
Well, from my POV I use "scripture" to encompass both what you call
"scripture" and the Qur'an since scripture merely means "what is
written", and these are after all books which are now found in written
form. So, with apologies, I will use my more inclusive term for the
purposes of this post unless I clarify otherwise.
As you know I do not place the same emphasis on the Qur'an as you do.
> First, Hebrew and Aramaic are subsets of Arabic. The vocabulary
> and grammar are virtually identical, although Arabic, with six more
> letters than Hebrew, has a more extensive vocabulary. Thus Arabic can
> contain the entirety of Scripture without distortion or loss...
> A lot of what is considered Scripture is clearly not Revelation, but
> expressions of men who have been inspired.
While it is fairly obvious that reading scripture in the original
language is preferable to a translation, it is by no means obvious that
Arabic can be regarded as encompassing Hebrew and Aramaic.
It is true that Arabic has a wider vocabulary, and that much of that
which is written in Hebrew and Aramaic can be expressed in close or
equivalent terms in Arabic. What can easily be lost, however, is the
manner in which usage and inflection changes over the centuries. What
is also true is that Arabic suffers from the same problems with
transmission in its written form as Hebrew, in that the introduction of
vowel lettering is spasmodic until fairly recently, and thereby the
actual sounds white are the equivalent of the written language have to
be inferred rather than be read explicitly.
Another problem is that Arabic suffers from being ambiguous in meaning
to an extent which is possibly only exceeded by English.
> 16. And the Lord said to Moses...
> 19. Then surely write for yourselves this song and teach it to
> the children of Israel; and put it in their mouths that this song may
> be for Me a witness against the children of Israel.
>
> So one of the ways I "use" Scripture is as it is explicitly
> intended to be used ~ as a witness against the children of Israel.
I am a little confused. Verse 19 does not apply to all scripture - just
the song Moses wrote (vv22) and gave to the children of Israel. So why
do you substitute the whole of Biblical scripture with this single
song? Surely you can't have missed the context of the passage?
As it is the Bible records the failiures and triumphs of Israel. The
Qur'an seems only to imply their failures. I wonder why. But the
purpose of scripture is not as you describe, although you obviously
choose to treat it as such. Is it not the case that parts of the Qur'an
form a witness against the children of Israel, and you have then taken
this and extended it to apply to Biblical scripture as well?
> Another is to see what it actually says about what God promised to
> Abraham 'alaihi as-salaam, His friend.
This is but a tiny propotion of Biblical scripture. The Bible contains
more than just those passages and themes which are found in the Qur'an.
It occurs to me that a better use of the Bible by Muslims would be to
read what it says in all places, including those parts such as Ruth and
Esther which are not covered by the Qur'an.
> >>> Not that this will make much difference to you: (Gen 22:1-2)
> >> Isaac was never Abraham's only son.
> > The Biblical record is that Ismael was Abraham's child by his
> > egyptian slave, and Isaac was his son by his wife.
>
> That's incorrect. Hagar, daughter of Pharoah,
Hagar was Egyptian, and a maid to Sar'ai. I don't see any reference to
her being Pharoah's daughter. Indeed, it would be thoroughly demeaning
for Pharoah's daughter to be Sar'ai's maidservant. Is she mentioned in
the Qur'an? If so, by which name (so I can find the references for
myself)?
> was given by Pharoah to Sarah, not Abraham.
As I said above, clearly a demeaning position for a royal daughter.
> Scripture clearly says that Sarah gave
> Hagar to Abraham as a wife (Genesis 16:3), and that she was Abraham's
> wife, not his slave.
She was Sarah's maidservant.
> Isma'il was God's answer to Abraham's prayer to
> have an heir from his own loins.
Actually, this is not strictly true, at least in the Biblical account.
We know there is a discrepancy between this and the Qur'an's account,
but the tenure of the Biblical account is as follows:
Isma'il was born as a result of Abraham and Sarah deciding that God
would not give then a son unless they took the matter into their own
hands. God was always going to give a child to Abraham and Sarah, and
this indeed happened. The interim actions of Abraham and Sarah, in
agreeing to try to have children *for Sarah* by Hagar can be seen as a
breach of trust in God, and indeed this is the interpretation I favour.
But this does not mean God does not operate in the midst of our
rebellion; he blesses Hagar, who is clearly in conflict with her
mistress, as the situation is not entirely of her making.
All this seems to be in harmony with the Qur'an's account, with the
exception of Gen 17:18-21, where God is recorded as placing his favour
with Isaac over Isma'il.
What is more revealing to me is that where the Qu'ran refers to a
promised son of Abraham or covenant with Abraham's son, it refers to
Isaac, not Isma'il. Odd.
> Read Genesis 16:10, where she is
> given the same promise that Abraham was given at Genesis 13:16 ~
...
> Isaac, in other words, was never Abraham's "only son" according to
> Scripture. And Isma'il is consistently referred to in Scripture as
> Abraham's son.
This is, presumably, that same scripture you believe is corrupted... So
which bit is wrong? Just the bits you want to be wrong, or the whole
lot of it?
The case of Isma'il is clear in those scriptures, and those scriptures
place Isaac, not Isma'il at the sacrifice, and have Isaac, not Isma'il
as the beneficiary of the coming covenant. Isaac, not Isma'il, is to be
given the birthright (and this is indeed what happens), and this is
explicitly commanded by God in the face tribal tradition. All this is
disputed by yourself owing to what you read in the Qur'an.
Given that all the above are so clearly unreliable according to Islamic
sources, just how reliable can we say the rest of it is? The answer has
to be that none of it can be regarded as reliable, and thereby it makes
no sense to refer to it at all. Indeed, if Genesis 17 is so clearly
wrong, how can we do anything else but discard the entire account, from
Gen 11 onwards? Anything we find which seems to be in line with it
cannot be regarded as much better than coincidence.
> > Now, it may be that Islamic practice is now that both women would
> > be treated as wives, and both sons would be given equivalent
> > standings. But this was not the case then, regardless of whether
> > you are skeptical of the Biblical account or not.
>
> Again you are incorrect. The Semitic practice was that the
> firstborn son inherited the mantle, the youngest inherited the hearth
> and tent;
The issue here is twofold. Firstly, the Genesis account has God's
specific instructions on the matter - Isaac is to inherit over his
half-brother, since Isaac is the culmination of God's promise, rather
than Isma'il. The second is that inhertance in this particular case is
immaterial; We do not have a contemporary record whereby God institutes
rules for inheritance in those days, but rather cases where he uses
what already seems in place or makes exceptions to it - the most
obvious of which are Isaac over Isma'il and Jacob over Esau.
Does the Qur'an relate the institution of inheritance law for sons, and
backdate this to imply that the rules were in place in Abraham's time?
> and men often had two or more wives, all bearing heirs.
> Hagar was Abraham's wife just as much as all four wives of Jacob were
> Jacob's wives. Scripture refutes your contention, it does not support
> it at all.
WRONG! Scripture - Biblical scripture that is - confirms what I said.
God gave direct edict over who was to inherit, who was to receive the
covenant, and who was to depart from Abraham's side. Islamic scripture,
and only Islamic scripture (which you do not name as scripture but
"recitiation") contradicts this account.
> Islam diminished the number of wives a man could have, it did not increase it.
Irrelevant in this case. The dispute here is over two women and their
sons, not 5.
> > As it was, at the time of Gen 22:1-2, Hagar and Ishmael had been
> > sent away to live elsewhere - Isaac was the only son Abraham had
> > with him.
>
> This is again incorrect according to Scripture. According to
> Scripture, Hagar fled from Sarah but the angel sent her back (Genesis
> 16:6-15); later, according to Genesis 21, after Isaac was born (making
> Isma'il at least 14), Abraham "sent" Hagar and Isma'il into the
> wilderness of Paran, where God gave them a well ~ a significant asset
> in that region. Later, when Abraham died, Isaac and Isma'il buried
> him. In all these instances, Scripture calls Isma'il Abraham's son.
Looking at the Qur'an's account of Hagar and Isma'il, two things are
apparent:
1. Hagar is never mentioned.
2. When Abraham's wife is mentioned, the only person mentioned is
Sarah.
Surely if Hagar was the mother of the Arab nation and the mother of the
heir of Abraham, it would be fitting for the Qur'an to mention her
name. Yet it does not. Indeed, we hear from the Haadith (Ibn Sa'd,
Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol.1) that Hagar *was* Abraham's servant -
"Then he called Hagar who was the most trustworthy of his servants, and
he bestowed her (Hagar) on her (Sarah) and gave her clothes..."
So which account is more trustworthy? The Haadith or your own take on
marriage practice in Islam?
Ibn Sa'd goes on: "Sarah made a gift of her to Ibrahim who cohabited
with her and she bore Ismail who was the eldest of his children."
Nowhere there is there mention of marriage or Hagar becoming Sarah's
equal. Indeed, the Biblical account makes it clear the two were never
treated as equal. In those days "take as a wife" was synonymous with
having sex with someone. It did not necessarily imply anything more.
Therefore the appropriate title for Hagar is Abraham's concubine; her
son Isma'il would never have been treated as a legitimate son and heir,
and so the Biblical account naming Isaac is quite consistent.
> What Scripture does not record (today) is that Abraham spent the
> rest of his life between Palestine and Paran ~ six months in the north
> with Sarah and Isaac, six months in the south with Hagar and Isma'il.
You have no proof that it ever did. We do know that Hagar and Isma'il
were sent away twice; the first as a result of Hagar's contemptuous
attitude towards her mistress Sarah, and secondly as Sarah feared her
(legitimate) son's inheritance may be taken by her servant's son.
What we do know is that after the children grew up, some reconciliation
occurred, and at the end of Abraham's life, possibly after Hagar
herself had died - as she is not mentioned - Isaac and Isma'il were
together to bury their father.
> This is remembered by the vastly overwhelming majority of Abraham's
> children, the descendants of Isma'il, who have possessed the Promised
> Land ever since, as God promised Abraham and Hagar.
Remembered in what form? Was it written down anywhere?
> Scripture has only the history preserved by the scribes of Israel.
So the answer is no, then. It could easily be a fabrication on the part
of the "Isma'ilites"/Arabs. It would have to be part of an oral
tradition, after all, and thereby no more reliable than the earliest
Biblical sources...
> > In that sense the passage is not in error; you are
> > intentionally finding fault with it in the hope of
> > strengthening your belief in your conspiracy theories.
>
> This is a hilarious insult.
It was not intended to be insulting, but rather a warning against
over-egging your argument. It is true the Qur'an accuses the Jews of
meddling with scripture, but in the absence of any specific cases, we
have to be careful not to assume it's wrong where it can be interpreted
in such a way so as still to be in line with the Qur'an. Get that wrong
and you end up with nothing more than conspiracy theories - which is
where I believe you are coming from.
> It really makes you look silly.
As silly as I would look if I claimed Hagar was an egyptian princess,
when in fact she was nothing more than a maidservant?
> What
> I have recounted above is plainly recorded in Scripture, which you
> mistakenly claim supports your contention that Isaac was Abraham's
> only son.
I have shown from the Haadith that your position is suspect, and indeed
erroneous in places. The plain recording of scripture stands.
> I will agree that a conspiracy developed among the children
> of Israel to break Abraham's Covenant with God, just as Moses said
> would happen. But it is hardly "finding fault" to recount exactly
> what Scripture says and consider it true.
If you want to recount exactly what Scripture says, then do so without
presupposing it to be wrong. You have found fault with the Biblical
account so that you can explain away the variances between that and
your interpretation of the Qur'an. I say there is another
interpretation of the Qur'an whereby the Biblical account is not flawed
in the way you have supposed, and that your interpretation *must* give
way to scripture lest you fall into delusion and error.
...
> Scripturally wrong again. The chain is Noah, Abraham, Shiloh.
> Moses, David, Solomon, the prophets of Israel, and Jesus were a
> unique, exclusive Covenant given to Abraham for Isaac, and were for no
> one else. See Deuteronomy 5:2-3, which say (from the Soncino):
Which part of the Mosaic covenant is universal?
Which covenant given to David or Solomon applies to the Gentiles? What
part were David/Solomon/Israel supposed to fulfil as their part of the
covenant?
No; I believe I am scripturally correct. We're talking divine
covenants, of which these are the main four - Noachide, Abramic,
Mosaic, Messainic. Whereas the prophets, David and Solomon were all
inspired, God gave no covenants with the people then, although he gave
insight through the prophets as to what was to come.
Shiloh is less certain. I know the Baha'is have some reference to
Shiloh being a sign of Baha'ullah. But I don't know too much about
that. What I do know is that the Ark was kept at Shiloh prior to its
installation at Jerusalem.
> "2. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3. The
> Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, who are all
> of us here alive this day."
>
> And in the Bible, Shiloh never comes. In Israel, he is named.
Where does this come from? Where does Shiloh become transformed from
the resting-place of the Ark to some prophetic person? No doubt it is
Gen 49:10, which is widely believed - even among some Jews - to refer
to the Messiah. In that, we know who Shiloh is - it is Jesus.
If you believe Shiloh is someone else, I would be interested to learn
who you believe it is.
As it is, the foretelling of Shiloh is not a covenant. There is no
agreement involved - it is a revelation.
> > We have the records of these things to show for it.
>
> We have more records. All you have is Paul.
The story of God's intervention with man is not just related by Paul.
We do have the Torah; there are references to the covenant in the
Histories, and we have a summary given by St. Peter in Acts 2. You have
the Qur'an and Haadith, part of which contradicts your views on Hagar,
and which overall leaves sufficient gaps in its explanations to leave
difficult questions which have found different answers amongst Muslims
over the following centuries.
> > The claim of salvation through the Ishmaelites
> > does not become apparent until Muhammad.
>
> It's all the way through Scripture.
Really? Where are the Ishmaelites explicitly referred to other than in
Genesis? We have some references to people who were Ishmaelites, one
potential reference in Judith, and then silence until 600CE. All we can
derive from this where they lived, that they used to wear earrings and
that some of them were merchants trading with egypt and dealing in
slaves. None of the passages show any of God's dealings with them, and
none of their own documents - if documents they ever had - have
survived.
> Until Jesus came, it was kept
> so secret that the only people who could look at it were the priests
> and scribes.
So secret that it has to be eked out using supposition, poor
scholarship, open bias, and selective editing.
Sorry, but I'm unconvinced. It's the same method that's we've seen used
by Mormons and JWs. It means you can pretty much believe anything you
like, and justify it by taking selective parts of scripture which agree
with your POV.
THAT is the problem I have with your use of the Bible. It has no effect
on your opinions or faith. You simply won't let it have any effect. Yet
if I decide to treat the Qur'an in the same way - believing what it
says with the exception of any passages which I disagree with - then
you would say my approach is flawed, and that I am deceived. Is this
not the approach used by the deluded souls who resort to killing
innocents in the name of Islam?
> > What had God been doing for all those millenia among the
> > Ishmaelites? We simply have not heard. There is no record
> > of this whatsoever. Nothing is preserved.
>
> The Promised Land remains in their hands.
So what? No word of God's work among the Ishmaelites is given between
the death of Abraham and the coming of Jesus. We always knew the sons
of Abraham would be in the Middle East; that as much fulfils the
Biblical prophecy and God's promise to Abraham.
As for the omission of Islamic culture and discovery from
European/Western history lessons, this is now being rectified. But it
doesn't mean I'm unaware of it.
...
> Someone else should tell the story, someone more articulate with a
> more gracious manner, and this Thread lacks the sublime majesty which
> is that story's character ~ to relate it in the middle of this rehash
> of Israel's base and treacherous rebellion against God would demean
> it, in my opinion. Do the math and maybe you'll develop a desire to
> hear the real story instead of the myth that supports The Lie.
I read the accounts, and come to my own conclusion, no doubt coloured
by my unwillingness to blindly accept the Qur'an's account and reject
all others.
> > God prevented it, but that does not mean God did not first send
> > Abraham out to make the sacrifice, as I have shown above.
>
> People don't even have dreams unless God allows them.
So in other words Abraham went out to offer his son as a sacrifice
because God had requested it. Which IIRC is where we came in.
> > Not me. God does as He wills. I just believe that God asked Abraham
> > to offer up the life of his son, and was rewarded for his obedience,
> > not for his "good intentions". This is the account I have, and I see
> > no reason to doubt it. Why do you?
>
> Because we have the account of the actual event ~ God obviously
> wished that Abraham would form the intention to be obedient in this,
> which Abraham did.
Hang on.
The account I have is as I stated. You say you disbelieve this, as you
"have the account of the actual event". Presumably by this you mean the
Qur'anic account. If this is the case, then I cannot see what the
problem is, notwithstanding the disagreement about which son was
involved.
> > There is the erroneous accusation by Muslims that we Christians
> > deny the singularity of God, but this finds its source not in our
> > attitude towards the Law, but in our attitude to the Messiah.
>
> In other words, it's not erroneous.
It's erroneous - just as erroneous as saying that we worship Mary as
God, or that the Trinity doctrine is God, Jesus, and Mary. It is a
misrepresentation of what we believe. After all, Muslims are free to
define what they believe. The same is true for Christians. We believe
in ONE - yes, ONE God. We are not polytheists, and nor do we deny that
God is one. To suggest we do is not unlike the other recent false
accusation recently made on SRI against Christians - namely that
Christianity permits adultery. What benefit is it to the Ummah if
people spread lies about non-Muslims? All you end up is with groups of
Muslims who are ready to defame Christians and Christianity, and do so
in ignorance. Will God truly reward these people?
> Islam offers the Covenant to all humanity, as promised to Noah,
> with whom God made a Covenant (Genesis 6:18), and Abraham, with whom
> God made a Covenant, and Moses, with whom God made a Covenant with the
> Children of Israel. The Qur'an is that Covenant ~ it includes and
> ratifies all the previous Covenants, not vice versa.
This is a change in perspective to what went before. For before each
covenant has been separate, and each has built upon the ones preceding
it without disrupting anything. Now you are saying that these covenants
are all one?
Sorry, but that sounds rather odd.
> Keeping the
> universal Covenant (i.e., making that bargain with God) includes
> honoring the previous Covenants by respecting the right of those who
> entered into them to keep their Covenant (i.e., to keep their bargain
> with God).
If that is the case, it may be interesting to note that many Muslims
seem to be reluctant to allow Christians to do just that.
> > So you're saying that ... the Bible is wrong
> > *except* where it agrees with the Qur'an.
>
> Precisely.
>
> > if you believe that, then the Bible is worthless to you.
>
> It is a witness against the Children of Israel. That's "worth" beyond measure for anyone who loves God.
I've shown above that the verse you're using for this is poorly chosen
and badly out of context. The Bible *is* a witness against Israel, but
it is more than that - it is a blessing, instruction, and promise too.
But you will not see this, and the way in which you use it makes it
worthless to you.
> > It confirms nothing apart from your
> > own beliefs which you find elsewhere.
>
> No ~ what I find elsewhere confirms most of Scripture and
> illuminates what it does not confirm.
Illuminates = contradicts / replaces.
Hmm.
> > It has about as much theological impact as the Wind in the Willows.
>
> The Qur'an tells me quite a bit about The Book and quite a bit
> about the People of the Book.
This is not strictly true. It tells you about the people of the book
and what they believe which Muslims don't believe. It doesn't actually
say a lot about the book itself. Merely that it was given by God to the
Jews and Christians. What it actually contains seems to be moot or
implicit.
> When I look at Scripture, I find
... take on faith...
> that the Qur'an is factually accurate in everything it says about it.
> Revisiting Scripture, after decades of living in the world it
> foretells, gives me considerable insight into the sorry condition of
> the human population and the hellish world you people live in. It
> otherwise has little or no impact on what I believe.
Thank you for making my point.
Scripture is worthless if it has no impact. You will not allow
non-Qur'anic scripture to affect your life, there is no point in you
referring to it at all.
For this reason I will be forced to remind you of the worthlessness of
any argument you make where you make reference to non-Islamic
scripture. For you don't really believe in any of it, so using it to
further your belief system is little short of hypocritical.
> > Yet you take quite a lot of your covenant chronology from the Bible,
> > twisting this part and another part to make the whole fit. If the
> > Bible is corrupt, you cannot tell which parts are corrupt and
> > therefore should not be using to form any part of your worldview.
>
> Scripture is a worldview.
Nope. Scripture is a resource. Whether you are willing to use this
resource to learn and improve your life is up to you. You have clearly
chosen not to.
...
> Since the death of Solomon 'alaihi as-salaam, their aim has been
> to pit the Christians against the muslims and to destroy both.
Um... no Christians until 500+ years after Solomon...
> Those
> with a unique and exclusive Covenant ~ except a very few ~ have long
> since concluded that no one else can have any Covenant that is not
> subordinate to theirs. The last thing they want is that anyone should
> receive the Good News that Jesus brought.
That's a little unfair - it is your perspective. But there are those
among the Jews who wait patiently for the Messiah, even now.
> That's why they sent Paul to Damascus.
They failed there, then.
Paul's conversion to Christianity must go down as one of the most
astonishing turns of events in the early Church. For without Paul's
intervention - and totally discounting claims that he distorted the
message for the moment - the impact the early Church had on the 1st
century would have been far less effective. As for *why* the Jews sent
Paul to Damascus, I would guess you're about to go off on another
conspiracy theory about intentional distortion or whatever.
Don't bother. It won't hold any water with me, or I suspect many people
here. You may regard Paul as a pariah to Islam, but he was at least
clear and sincere in his convictions, and willing to lay his life down
for what he believed.
Mike.
Altway
Someone wrote:-
"According to the Bible the covenant made with Abraham passed to his only
son Isaac and his descendants. Therefore, it passed through David to Jesus
and his followers. It did not pass to Ishmael and his descendant Muhammad."
Comment:-
The covenant made with Abraham passed to both Isaac and Ishmael and Ishmael
was his eldest son. Isaac was never the only son of Abraham. The Bible
appears to have been corrupted. The covenant made through Moses applied only
to the Israelites, the descendants of Isaac. What the OT says is:-
"And Sarah Abraham's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abraham
had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan and gave her to her husband
Abraham to be his WIFE" Genesis 16:3
"And Hagar bare Abram a son and Abram called his son's name which Hagar
bare, Ishmael." Genesis 16:15
"And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him (Abraham) in the cave of
Machpela." Genesis 25:9
When Sarah asked Abraham to cast out Hagar and her son (Genesis 21:10-11)
the OT reports "the thing was very grievous in Abram's sight because of his
son".
It cannot be argued that Ishmael was not Abraham's son, specially as a
promise and a covenant was made by God with him. As the NT tells us that the
two wives of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar have symbolic meanings. (Galatians
4:22-25) As the OT tells us that Sarah was jealous of Hagar because of her
son (Genesis 21:9-10), whom she wanted to cut off from the inheritance she
persuaded Abraham to banish Hagar and Ishmael. This can be interpreted as
meaning that the descendants of Abraham through Sarah, the Israelites did
banish the descendants of Abraham through Hagar from their community and
scriptures. It can be further interpreted as meaning that the religion of
the Israelites was in a sense elitist or that the Israelites had a special
mission for a time - they were the priesthood to mankind. But the time for
the universal Religion for humanity was yet to come. This would be brought
by a Prophet like Moses from among the brethren of the Israelites
(Deuteronomy 18:15,18); in other words, from among the descendants of
Ishmael. This Prophet is described as follows:-
" (God said) I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like
unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them
all that I shall command him." Deuteronomy 18:18
Compare this to the prediction by Jesus which is similar to the above and,
as Jesus makes it, cannot apply to Jesus:-
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all
truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that
shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me:
for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that
the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and
shall show it unto you." John 16:12-15
This can be easily be seen as referring to Muhammad (saw).
The NT also tells us that Jesus came only for the children of Israel and not
a title of the Mosaic law was to be abolished.
"But he (Jesus) answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of
the house of Israel." Matthew 15:24
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come
to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever
therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men
so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever
shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven." Matthew 5:18-19
And we read:-
"And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall
sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But
the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 8:11-12
Abdalla Alothman
Robert wrote:
> I reply to Abdalla Alothman Dec 8th.
>
> Amid your obscure and grammatically incoherent outpourings a few things
> are clear
The person who was addressed is an American Muslim
and a dear brother who replied to my points without facing
any problems. On the other hand, you:
1. Will tend to directly discredit the people who come with opinions
contrary to yours. "If I can't beat the idea, i should attack the
person presenting the idea." It's simply because you have nothing
worthy.
2. You shouldn't evaluate what I presented because you don't know
anything about the Arabic language and its grammar. You should track
an anti-Islamic web site and ask for help. Of course you could learn
directly from the source, but that wouldn't make you the Robert we
know. :)
3. You are also fragile when it comes to debates because you tend
to judge your performance, where that should be left to the reader.
So in a nutshell, you don't know how to tailor a debate; you are
source-bankrupt (your sources, as we have seen are parrotted
from others), and you do not have the necessary background
in the subjects you wish to debate.
It's why I, and others as I assume, do not wish to interact with
you. It's not because, as you say, "My arguments are forceful."
No. Your arguments are cheap, silly, and have been refuted
over the years if you care to look at the newsgroup archives.
> 1) you consider an unbeliever's testimony to be worthless,
> in other words only Muslims are honest and other people are
> out-and-out-liars on any topic.
We wonder who is incoherent here. We said that the
unbeliever's testimony should not be used to establish a
pillar in beliefs.
As we can see, Robert is overloading my statements.
First, we nowhere said that only the Muslims' testimony
should be taken. Because, as a Muslim, I know that there
is a heavy science in Islam that checks the validity of narrators
in Islam. Numerous Muslims have been declared unworthy in
this science ('ilm at-tajreeH). And this science was established
when Robert's people were living in what they call their
"dark ages" but obviously Robert has no idea how Hadeeth
is verified.
> 2) "Whatever [St Paul] says after
> approving lying ... is an excuse in Islam to count him a false
> witness." First of all, establish that St Paul approves lying; give the
> Biblical references that show this.
See 1 Corinthians 9:19-25. It gives clear permission to lie.
To the jews, Paul becomes a jew. To the gentiles, he becomes
a gentile. To the weak, he becomes a weak. Why? So he can
"win" more followers. This is deception at its best.
What does the above teach modern Christians? See
yourself how Christians missionaries lie to Muslims:
http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue1/contextu.htm
> 3) You believe that liars
False witnesses, not liars. Obviously you intervened in a topic
that you do not know of. As brother Abujamal told you: You are
simply not prepared to exert 1% of your grudge.
> As regards the Christian project of finding a rational basis of
> Christian belief, they have an excellent record.
I will not go through that again, because it's a personal preference.
Some people wish to believe that god became a human and died
for their sins. Others believe this a hilarious belief. I don't care
what others believe. This is what Islam taught me.
> Critical scrutiny of Islam is forbidden by severe laws in Muslim
> countries; the clerics are afraid that if rational scrutiny of the
> Koran and Islamic history is permitted, Islam will collapse. Even
> without that, it is collapsing - in violence and carnage.
It's because we hold the Messengers (all of them) and the
Message we received dearly. In your societies, it is okay to
release a movie where a man and a woman beneath the sheet
say (OH Jesus! Oh God!) To us, this type of disrespect is not
accepted.
To us, people who make fun of the Messengers (including Jesus)
will be punished. In your societies, it is fine.
Moreover, what you provide is far from being productive. The
proof for that is apparent throughout the replies given to you
by others.
Unlike what Yudith claims, you are far from being a questioner
because a questioner asks a question and takes the answer. In
your case, you just want to make sure that your false claims live.
At the end, these false claims live alright, but only in your
perverted imagination since you are the player and the referree
at the same time. Perhaps this is due to some childhood problems
that you had or any other reason, and all what we can do is advise
you to get help.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1134188513.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Salaam Abdalla,
I agree with your post, both in its civilsed content and manner of response.
What it brought to mind, a eerie deja vu, is that discerning subscribers,
Muslim or otherwise, would probably describe the anti-Islamic bombast being
produced by Robert, and his ilk, is *inquisitorial pontificating* and not
civilised debate at all.
The definitions being:- "inquisitorial" - especially indicating a form of
prosecution in which proceedings are pre-ordained and the accused is
questioned by a prosecutor who acts also as the judge; and obtuse
"pontificating" - writing in a dogmatic and pompous manner.
But, as you correctly say, it's the recipients in the audience that make
these critical decisions, not the authors (or wannabe opinion leaders)
themselves, as the implicit wisdom in the signature below signifies.
--
Peace
--
A leader is best
When people barely knows that he exists
Not so good when people obey and acclaim him
Worst when they despise him
[Lao-Tzu "The Way of Life"]
Zuiko Azumazi.
azu...@hotmail.com
Mike
> Salaam!
>
> Mike wrote:
>
> > I'm unconvinced.
>
> This is an outcome that the Qur'an says can be anticipated.
Hajj, The problem is not as the Qur'an states - that I am
pathologically opposed to submission to God. The problem is exactly as
I stated:
> "So secret that it [your idea of Jesus' Good News]
> has to be eked out using supposition, poor
> scholarship, open bias, and selective editing.
As I stated earlier,
>.. It's the same method that's we've seen used
> by Mormons and JWs. It means you can pretty much believe anything you
> like, and justify it by taking selective parts of scripture which agree
> with your POV.
Something tells me the Qur'an is not about allowing people to just
believe what they want to. It tells us to test what we read.
Constantly. I would expect more from a devotee of such a book to have
to resort to the methods I have noted in order to prove their point.
I might add that the issue here started being about whether God would
support the idea of substitutionary sacrifice. I believe I have cast
sufficient doubt over your blanket rejection of any such idea to at
least show there is room for the possibility.
> Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to delineate some
> history consistent with reason. Hopefully some reader will benefit.
Thank you for listing your view of history. It is good for things like
this to be stated clearly, and I can see where you're coming from with
much greater understanding. It is something which is all too absent
from discussions between Muslims and Christians.
Blessings to you and yours,
Mike.
hajj abujamal
Mike wrote:
> It means you can pretty much believe anything you
> like, and justify it by taking selective parts of
> scripture which agree with your POV. ... I would
> expect more from a devotee of such a book to have
> to resort to the methods I have noted in order to
> prove their point.
Your mistake is thinking I have some point to "prove" as if this
discussion were some manner of contest, that we might need to do
something like that, which we have not. There is no contest. I
inform you of what Scripture says, which is contrary to what people
sometimes imagine it says, that you are required to ignore or explain
away in order to believe as you do.
There is no contest between a clear reading of plain words of
common meaning, and setting aside reason to pursue mystery,
specifically the mystery of how someone could be a father to two sons
and one of them be his "only" son, or how Abraham could enter into a
Covenant with ALLAH regarding a son he didn't even know would later be
born rather than regarding the adolescent son recently beneath his blade.
"Picking and choosing" absolutely clear statements bears no
resemblance to contorting the plain meaning of words such as "only" to
impute that Ishaq was Abraham's only "legitimate" son (which is what
Paulines do), or that the chronological sequence of birth (of Isma'il)
to sacrifice to Covenant to circumcision to birth (of Ishaq) somehow
runs backwards.
The Promise of a Covenant for all humanity is articulated quite
plainly in the Scripture that was kept secret ~ it was kept secret for
exactly that reason, that it was plainly articulated: the Children of
Israel were chosen to be the exclusive bearers of the Good News that
it was coming, they alone received the prophecies concerning Kedar and
Tema and he "toward whom the goyim seek." "When Shiloh comes" did not
become a colloquialism by random chance, it has been the climax of the
Biblical story since the time of Noah ~ the end of successive ages of
darkness wherein only the Children of Israel were light-bearers, and
the dawn of a new Day described in abundance in Scripture.
But in the Bible, Shiloh never comes. What comes instead is
endless expectation while suffering in the dark under the "guidance"
and spiritual dominion of the Children of Israel, rather than of God.
> I might add that the issue here started being about whether God
> would support the idea of substitutionary sacrifice. I believe
> I have cast sufficient doubt over your blanket rejection of any
> such idea to at least show there is room for the possibility.
What "blanket rejection"? God substituted a ram for Abraham's
vowed sacrifice of Isma'il. That's what the Qur'an says quite
plainly. You can look in Scripture for God's rejection of Cain's
sacrifice and of the "redemptive" sacrifices invented by the rabbis.
>> Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to delineate
>> some history consistent with reason. Hopefully some reader
>> will benefit.
> Thank you for listing your view of history. It is good for
> things like this to be stated clearly, and I can see where
> you're coming from with much greater understanding. It is
> something which is all too absent from discussions between
> Muslims and Christians.
Muslims of the terminally collapsed millennial muslim world have
long been deprived of our common heritage in Scripture, largely by
reason of the war against Islam plotted by the corrupt of Temple
Israel just after the death of Solomon. The consequent isolation of
European (Pauline) Christians from the manifest fulfillment of their
Scriptural prophecies also deprived the muslims of the knowledge of
what is, even today, in Scripture, that the Children of Israel had
promised to use to show people the way to Islam.
I am, actually, quite torn between two tasks: rendering the
Qur'an into American idiomatic English, which surpasses all extant
English "translations" and is sorely needed, and stepping through the
Scriptural prophecies about the Messenger of Promise, the early
history of the muslims, and the detailed descriptions of our ritual
practices, which occur in nearly every book of the Bible.
'Abdul-Ahad Dawud rahmatullahi 'alaihi did some seminal work on
the latter at the turn of the Twentieth Century; Ahmad Deedat
rahmatullahi 'alaihi spent most of his life showing Pauline Christians
what their Scripture says, and I believe there is someone carrying on
that contentious work; and our sister Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood has
written an excellent exposition of the confused and conflicting
accounts extant in the first century after Jesus.
But I have seen no indication that any contemporary muslim writer
grasps the nature and compass of the deliberate plan of the corrupt of
Temple Israel to subvert the Good News with a mystery doctrine that
pits Pauline Christians against muslims. It is chillingly obvious in
what we have received of Scripture, but muslims as a rule do not read
Scripture since we already have what Scripture awaits "when Shiloh
comes." I have excerpted from Scripture and summarized, here and
elsewhere, an overview; I understand that it is difficult for some
people to grasp the sheer enormity of the treachery of Israel against God.
So I am somewhat conflicted as to which task is more pressing. It
is sure that the muslims need the latter more than the former, and it
is the deceived of Pauline Christianity who need it most.
But what is sometimes frustrating is ALLAH's Word "It is the same
to them whether you warn them or you do not warn them, they will not
believe." As you show, His Word is true. So unravelling the myths of
Scripture sometimes seems a fool's errand.
The upshot is that I do not serve your devotions, you do not serve
my devotions; I will not serve your devotions, and you do not serve my
devotions ~ you have your conviction, I have mine.
I accept that, and have no ambition or expectation of changing it.
> Blessings to you and yours,
> Mike.
was-salaam,
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> "Abdalla Alothman" <abdalla...@myway.com> wrote in message
> news:1134188513.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Salaam Abdalla,
>
> I agree with your post, both in its civilsed content and manner of response.
> What it brought to mind, a eerie deja vu, is that discerning subscribers,
> Muslim or otherwise, would probably describe the anti-Islamic bombast being
> produced by Robert, and his ilk, is *inquisitorial pontificating* and not
> civilised debate at all.
I believe you have missed the point, Zuiko.
SRI is treated by some Muslims here as a kind of "Islamic space", where
undue or irreverent criticism of Islam is both unwelcome and
unnecessary. Likewise there are those among us non-Muslims who would
like to believe that our presence here is at least acknowledged in the
way Muslims refer to them as non-Muslims.
I can understand the annoyance of Abdalla and otherse at Robert's
recent posts, but there is no reason to impugn the integrity of someone
like St Paul with silly allegations of sanctioning lying and the like.
Such allegations have undesirable effects:
1. they bring the likes of Robert into a fray which could otherwise
have been avoided.
2. they confirm all the more to the likes of me that many Muslims have
simply no idea about Christian belief whatsoever.
3. they perpetuate an atmosphere in which it seems acceptable to
belittle the beliefs and traditions of non-Muslims. Now, I know I am
not a Muslim, but I am reminded that this sort of behaviour is rightly
condemned in the Qur'an as all it will lead to is people thinking the
worse of each other, and going away with a poor view of Islam and
Muslims.
I could easily take Abdalla (and anyone else for that matter) to task
for these sorts of silly comments, but that would be to discuss
Christian belief on this Islamic board - not admissable. In that, the
moderation policy of SRI makes the provision of a balanced view on
things like this all the more difficult to achieve, which is
unfortunate. To a degree it would not surprise me if there are Muslims
here who purposefully take full advantage of this flaw.
In terms of whether someone wants to debate Islam on this board, post a
criticism of Islam, the Qur'an, Muhammad, the Haadith, modern Muslim
practice or whatever, there simply is no means to bar debate, be it
with a learned critic or a bull-in-a-china-shop novice. Nor does
communication here *have* to be debate. Nor does it have to be entirely
correct - we all make mistakes at various times, and it may be that
over time people who are seen as a "pain" come to some understanding at
least of the Islamic position on a number of topics. I know I have
benefitted greatly in terms of understanding Muslim perspectives, and I
am indebted to those here who have patiently taken the time to clarify
matters.
Mike.
Abdalla Alothman
Mike wrote:
> SRI is treated by some Muslims here as a kind of "Islamic space", where
> undue or irreverent criticism of Islam is both unwelcome and
> unnecessary.
As you know there is constructive criticism and fruitless
(destructive) criticism.
I didn't take the time to find any of the Muslim brothers who object
discussing content that contains any constructive criticism. Before
criticizing any issue related to Islam, the critic should have at least
some understanding of what she or he wish to discuss.
However, some people are neither interested in providing
constructive criticism, nor are they well educated in what
they wish to discuss.
Wishing you and your family peace and good health.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1134397473.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> I believe you have missed the point, Zuiko.
> SRI is treated by some Muslims here as a kind of "Islamic space", where
> undue or irreverent criticism of Islam is both unwelcome and unnecessary.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What point have I missed? How often do I use inclusive phrases like "Islam
or otherwise" or "Muslim or Otherwise"? Is that a sign of restrictive or
exclusive "Islamic space", in your opinion?
The "undue" (i.e. not appropriate or proper (or even legitimate) in the
circumstances) and, the "irreverent" (i.e. showing lack of due respect or
veneration), are possibly out of place in most religious newsgroups, Islamic
or otherwise, wouldn't you agree?
How do you view the 'criticism' object, when surreptitious 'crooked
thinking' tricks are being unethically and "corruptly" employed, under these
broad-brush headings in SRI:-
Emotional meanings.
Prejudice and pre-conceptions
Logical fallacies.
Definition difficulties.
Words and facts.
Habits of thought.
Tricks of suggestion.
False analogies.
Are these the acute points that I have been missing?
Is agitprop legitimate criticism in you book? If not, as an altruistic
non-Muslim subscriber, why aren't you criticising the corruptive antics and
'crooked thinking' tricks being frequently used in SRI by some other
non-Muslims subscribers? Isn't this elision missing the point?
hajj abujamal
Mike wrote ...
> SRI is treated by some Muslims here as a kind of "Islamic
> space", where undue or irreverent criticism of Islam is
> both unwelcome and unnecessary.
Undue and irreverent criticism of Judaism, Christianity, Islam,
any prophet, faith in general, or any religious luminary who
exemplified or articulated what ALLAH sent down on Adam, Noah,
Abraham, Moses, Dawud, Sulimon, Jesus or Muhammad 'alaihim as-salaam,
will always be unwelcome and is certainly unnecessary in any
discussion forum populated by the faithful of any faith. That is a
given, and the keywords are "undue" and "irreverent." None of this
will receive a welcome reception.
How in the world could you expect otherwise?
Perhaps you will seek to focus on comments made here about Paul,
claiming some kind of "double standard"; but looking at Paul IN THE
LIGHT OF ISLAM there is much to condemn. Someone who pretends to be
what he is not, as Paul by his own testimony did, in order to "win"
people to a doctrine of abrogating the Law that Jesus affirmed,
calling people to worship Jesus as a god, and substituting a complete
fraud for the Good News that Jesus called upon the Children of Israel
to deliver, provides ample cause for criticism that is neither "undue"
nor "irreverent."
This is soc.religion.islam, not alt.religion.false, and you can
expect to find views drawn from the religion of Islam, articulated by
people whose faith is Islam. This includes views of other religions,
other religious communities, and other religious figures, from the
perspective of Islam.
"Undue" and "irreverent" contention is tolerated. For some muslim
readers, it's a kind of entertainment, an opportunity to engage in
some kind of verbal "battle" for the "hearts and minds" of readers or
to score some kind of "victory" ~ as if salvation lay in their hands
or Islam was in need of some kind of "defense" against nonsense and
fables. For some, it is an opportunity to hone literary skills in
articulating decisive, inconterstible, and absolutely certain
refutations of certain falsities. This is to be expected in any kind
of discussion forum, although most Web discussion forums exercise
considerably more suppression of such contention than does this one.
But for most readers of the newsgroup, undue and irreverent
contention is not welcome. It is merely tedious and boring. And it
is certainly not necessary.
We have no particular affection for babylon or those who babble
on. It's hardly rational to expect otherwise.
Mike
> Salaam!
Peace to you, Hajj.
> ...That is a
> given, and the keywords are "undue" and "irreverent." None of this
> will receive a welcome reception.
>
> How in the world could you expect otherwise?
I'm not saying that his sort of thing being unwelcome is surprising.
What I'm saying is that it is all very well to expect polity and
reverence towards those things which are held dear by Muslims on this
board, and quite another for Muslims to feel they do not need to
observe the same protocols when dealing with those things believed by
non-Muslims.
In short, don't dish it out if you can't take it.
> Perhaps you will seek to focus on comments made here about Paul,
> claiming some kind of "double standard"; but looking at Paul IN THE
> LIGHT OF ISLAM there is much to condemn.
Islam has much to condemn of many Christians, particularly in relation
to how we view Jesus. But accusing St. Paul of condoning lying is a
ludicrous slur. Indeed, the overall Islamic focus on St. Paul as public
enemy no. 1 is pushing what we know of the early church over the cliff
and into the realms of fantasy. For there is ample evidence that his
perspective on the divine nature of Jesus was not an invention on his
part, but rather something which had been handed on to him from other
Christians. Indeed, belief in a divine Jesus was endemic, if not
entirely universal, in the early Church. We see evidence of this in
many documents, most notably the Gospel of John which you seem quite
willing to quote from as evidence for your prophet.
> Someone who pretends to be
> what he is not, as Paul by his own testimony did, in order to "win"
> people to a doctrine of abrogating the Law that Jesus affirmed,
> calling people to worship Jesus as a god, and substituting a complete
> fraud for the Good News that Jesus called upon the Children of Israel
> to deliver, provides ample cause for criticism that is neither "undue"
> nor "irreverent."
The passage in question is being grossly misrepresented in order to
substantiate the claim of wilful deceit. It is of the same order as
accusing the Qu'ran of condoning wholesale slaughter.
1 Cor 9: 18-23 "What then is my reward? Just this: that in my preaching
I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right
in the gospel. For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a
slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew,
in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the
law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those
under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law
-- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that
I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I
might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might
by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I
may share in its blessings. "
What Paul is saying is that he does nothing to alienate those he is
talking to. He treats Jews as Jews - he was one, after all. In his
dealings with them he is aware of their sensibilities when doing so.
When he is talking to Gentiles, he does the same. When he speaks to the
weak, he does so by coming alongside them, rather than ignoring their
plight. It is a case of identifying with people. It is a stretch, not
to say a gross misrepresentation, to say that this implies deceit. Is
it not true that you believe that all Christians who seek to guide
people to becoming Christians operate deceitfully? If so, then why pick
on Paul?
This is the same Paul writing in Eph 4: 22-27: "Put off your old nature
which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through
deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on
the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness
and holiness. Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak
the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. Be
angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and
give no opportunity to the devil. "
Does this sound like someone who condones deceit and lying?
...
> But for most readers of the newsgroup, undue and irreverent
> contention is not welcome. It is merely tedious and boring. And it
> is certainly not necessary.
As is, IMHO, references to "Pauline Christians" - as if I follow Paul
or anyone else apart from Christ - and these silly allegations about
Paul which are, let's be honest, not exactly relevant to Islam, and
which probably fall foul of the Qur'an's encouragement to treat the
faith of others with respect.
This is not a closed forum, which is something I count among its major
strengths. So you cannot expect to say things which are bound to offend
non-Christians here and expect no sort of negative feedback.
Mike.
Saqib Virk
>
> This still begs the question as to why Abraham was initially asked to
> go to the mountain with his son in order to sacrifice his son.
SV
Man should be ready to sacrifice himself and all his personal interests and
inclinations for the sake of God. That is the path of righteousness.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Saqib Virk
>
> Maybe; but for me studying Islam and the Qur'an is only confirming my
> Christian stance. We each choose our own paths.
SV
That is such an unfathomable statement I can only say that some people are
so happy with fantasy that they choose it over reality. The fundamental
belief of Christianity is so ludicrous I am always put off balance to
discover otherwise sane people who accept it.
God, in His infinite wisdom, created us with the capacity to sin and knowing
full well that we would sin He created no mechanism through which we could
free ourselves of that sin. Forgiveness is apparently impossible and God has
to send everyone to hell to burn forever because we are all sinners. What a
dilemma. God loves us everyone so whatever is He to do to rectify the
situation? Perhaps He has a Son, who is Himself, to send to earth. There God
would be delivered as a baby, presumably have his diaper changed until he
was old enough to be potty trained and then when he grew up He would wander
around for a couple of decades or so before delivering a few sermons and
then have Himself killed. He had to have Himself killed to wash away the sin
of those who are just dim-witted enough to accept such a ludicrous scheme.
Being God, He didn't actually die but those who accept His "death and
sacrifice" are ushered into His good graces and blessed with the Holy Spirit
though it seems to do them no good at all and they go on sinning the same as
before. However, those sins are not held against them since they believe God
killed Himself for their sake. Its enough to make one want to praise Jesus
and weep tears of joy, is it not?
The Bible may not be corrupt or at the very least not as corrupt as some
Muslims are apt to argue but the Christian understanding of the Bible is
sheer corruption of Jesus' teaching.
What does Islam say? Man must strive towards God but we know that though man
may reach upwards it will only be to stumble back because Man is weak and:
"Surely the soul is prone to enjoin evil..." [Quran 12:53]
When a person with a conscience sins he will feel guilty and be repentant.
All of us are, to varying degrees, disgusted or disheartened by our own
behavior and are repentant. A person can not achieve "goodness" on his own
and, as the Christian is so fond of pointing out, it is only through the
grace of God that man overcomes sin. A person who strives towards God and
keeps failing will obviously be repentant and suffer due to his weakness
which keeps him from his goal. A person may repent, time and time again and
may even despair of improvement. The cumulative effect of a persons striving
and failing and feeling the pangs of conscience is that God takes mercy on
such a person and strengthens him with the "Holy Spirit" to lift him above
his weakness.
"As for such, He has written faith upon their hearts and has strengthened
them with a Spirit from Him, and He will bring them into Gardens underneath
which rivers flow, wherein they will abide. Allah is well pleased with them,
and they are well pleased with Him." [Quran 58:22]
The question should be, how do we receive this gift from God? What path or
actions should we undertake so that we may have faith inscribed in our
hearts? Certainly God would tell us how we may reach this stage? What path
should we travel? The straight path is that we should be wholly devoted to
God and engage all of our faculties in 'ibadat'(worship). For the Muslim
that path is outlined and detailed by the religion of Islam.
"Show us the straight path, The path of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy
Grace," [Quran 1:7]
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Colin
>
> "Mike" <hu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1132679727.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Maybe; but for me studying Islam and the Qur'an is only confirming my
>> Christian stance. We each choose our own paths.
>
> SV
> That is such an unfathomable statement I can only say that some people are
> so happy with fantasy that they choose it over reality. The fundamental
> belief of Christianity is so ludicrous I am always put off balance to
> discover otherwise sane people who accept it.
>
People don't choose fantasy because they prefer it over reality, nor are
they insane if they choose one religion over another. In fact I think
people don't "choose" to believe anything. If God put a gun to my head and
said "If you choose to believe that the sky is green you can come to
heaven", I wouldn't be able to do it. With regard to religion, people are
strongly affected by the family and society in which they were brought up,
which is why most Christians come from Christian families, most Muslims
come from Muslim families and so on. People don't (as a general rule) grow
up not belonging to any religion and then choose one later in life after
objectively examining the evidence for and against each.
Christianity is just as ludicrous to you as Islam is to Christians. A
Christian or any non-Muslim could make a strong case that the Koran is not
the word of God. A good example of a rational, objective criticism of
Islam is Ibn Warraq's book, "Why I'm not a Muslim". Warraq points out
clear contradictions and logical absurdities in the Koran, and shows that
the moral teachings and example set by Muhammed are lacking, especially by
today's standard.
Saqib Virk
"Colin" <no...@wc.funnel.revenuedirect.com.akadns.net> wrote in message
news:vBlAf.18017$vH5.8...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> Christianity is just as ludicrous to you as Islam is to Christians. A
> Christian or any non-Muslim could make a strong case that the Koran is not
> the word of God.
SV
That may or may not be true but if we examine the fundamental belief of both
religions, as I attempted in the post you are responding to, we have to
dismiss Christianity as fantasy. The Christian imagines God created man in
such a way as to take on "debts" against God who is incapable of forgivenss
and man is condemned to eternal suffering. To clear those debts God Himself
came to earth and had Himself killed by men. Problem solved, eh? Are sane
people to accept this?
> A good example of a rational, objective criticism of
> Islam is Ibn Warraq's book, "Why I'm not a Muslim".
SV
It is a poor book about Islam. Much like the book by Ali Dashti, it has
found favor with anti-Islam types who are willing to overlook the ignorance,
illogic and dishonesty contained therein. A good review of the book can be
found here:
http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/text/warraq.htm
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Colin
>
> "Colin" <no...@wc.funnel.revenuedirect.com.akadns.net> wrote in message
> news:vBlAf.18017$vH5.8...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>
>> Christianity is just as ludicrous to you as Islam is to Christians. A
>> Christian or any non-Muslim could make a strong case that the Koran is
>> not the word of God.
>
> SV
> That may or may not be true but if we examine the fundamental belief of
> both religions, as I attempted in the post you are responding to, we have
> to dismiss Christianity as fantasy. The Christian imagines God created man
> in such a way as to take on "debts" against God who is incapable of
> forgivenss and man is condemned to eternal suffering. To clear those debts
> God Himself came to earth and had Himself killed by men. Problem solved,
> eh? Are sane people to accept this?
After examining the fundamental beliefs of both religions, I dismissed both
as fantasy. But I have the advantage that I grew up in a non-religous
family and society and thus am able to assess the different religions with
an open mind. Sane people certainly do accept Christianity just as sane
people accept Islam. A person's religion isn't a function of his
intelligence but of his upbringing. Thus the both the Islamic and
Christian Gods send people to hell on a completely arbitrary basis - the
family/society that you are born into determines whether you end up in
heaven or hell.
> SV
> It is a poor book about Islam. Much like the book by Ali Dashti, it has
> found favor with anti-Islam types who are willing to overlook the
> ignorance, illogic and dishonesty contained therein. A good review of the
> book can be found here:
>
> http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/text/warraq.htm
>
Warraq doesn't come across as being ignorant, illogical, nor dishonest.
Even your reviewer concedes that "... Warraq's book is tough. Frankly, few
Muslims would be able to respond to the material he presents."
Zuiko Azumazi
news:vBlAf.18017$vH5.8...@news.xtra.co.nz...
<snip>
> People don't choose fantasy because they prefer it over reality, nor are
> they insane if they choose one religion over another. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
As an observation, what about those vociferous evangelical antagonists who
vehemently suggest they have, unnamed and unspecified, so-called Muslim
"friends" who fully support their position outside of SRI? Would you deem
this as being a "fantasy" and, ipso facto, a thorough distortion of reality?
Would people with that form of delusion mean that were in fact insane? Could
that imaginary preference then coherently help in choosing one religion over
another, Islam or otherwise?
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot explain
to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Colin <no...@wc.funnel.revenuedirect.com.akadns.net> wrote:
> Christianity is just as ludicrous to you as Islam is to Christians.
Generally, Islam is condidered "ludicrous" by Christians. Indeed, except
for certain Christian sects found primarily in North America, the
overwhelming majority of Christians around the world regard Islam with a
certain esteem--or at least the religious authorities to whom they look
for guidance hold Islam in esteem. This is certainly true of the church
representing the majority of the world's Christians, the Roman Catholic
Church, which says in its catechism:
"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. The plan of salvation
also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place
amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of
Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God,
mankind's judge on the last day."
Source: <http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#III>
That teaching was proclaimed during the Vatican II Council in the 1960s
after the bishops present accepted it by a vote of 2,151 for and only 5
against. That's as strong as the votes in early times that proclaimed
the doctrines of Christ's divinity and the Trinity.
That same Council also declared the following:
"The Church regards with respect the Muslims, who worship the One,
Living, Subsistent, Merciful, Almighty God who created the heavens and
the earth, who spoke to men. They strive to submit wholeheartedly to
God's commandments...even as Abraham submitted himself to God, whose
obedience is often recalled in the Islamic religion. Although they do
not recognize Jesus as God, they do venerate him as a prophet and they
honour his virgin mother, Mary.... They await the Day of Judgment, when
God will reward all those risen from the dead. They hold in high regard
the moral life and worship God,particularly by prayer, charity and
fasting."
Furthermore, the United Church of Canada, the second largest Christian
denomination in Canada after the Roman Catholics certainly does not
consider Islam or its prophet Muhammad to be "ludicrous". The UCC
resulted from a merger of Methodists, Congregationalists and most
Presbyterians in 1925.
The United Church of Canada is inviting its congregations to consider a
study document and will recommend to its General Council that the
Chruch affirm the prophetic witness of Muhammad.
A member of the Church's governing board has said, "We cannot say that
Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, that would make us Muslims and
were not. But we can speak with utmost respect about Muhammad speaking
to the world, and the justice and mercy and compassion of God through
the Qur'an."
Saqib Virk
>
> After examining the fundamental beliefs of both religions, I dismissed
> both
> as fantasy.
SV
What faith do you accept or are you undecided?
> But I have the advantage that I grew up in a non-religous
> family and society and thus am able to assess the different religions with
> an open mind.
SV
I have the advanage of growing up in a religous family in a secular society.
Does that not put me in a better position than you?
> Thus the both the Islamic and
> Christian Gods send people to hell on a completely arbitrary basis
SV
I suppose if one were ignorant of the effects of smoking one might argue
smokers get lung cancer for mysterious or arbitrary reasons.
>> http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/text/warraq.htm
>>
>
> Warraq doesn't come across as being ignorant, illogical, nor dishonest.
> Even your reviewer concedes that "... Warraq's book is tough. Frankly, few
> Muslims would be able to respond to the material he presents."
SV
It is true that the average Muslim would have a great deal of trouble trying
to deal with Warraq's book. Most Muslims are not Islamic scholars. However,
I see you did not read the whole review so let me post a few quotes:
"Warraq is quite confused in his thinking and in his argumentation."
"It is unfortunate that in this day and age such overtly bigoted, ignorant,
and intellectually dishonest books are still being written and published."
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Denis Giron
Saqib Virk wrote in message news:daudnXVZBO4...@rcn.net
> In the NT Jesus clearly tells his followers that they do not have
> the strength to bear all that needs to be taught and that another
> would come who would teach more. Undoubtedly that "other" is
> Muhammad who came to teach that which Jesus could not. Of
> course you will deny your own scripture, choosing to walk in
> darkness.
I assume you are alluding to the verses in John which speak of the
Comforter. Actually, I think it is far from obvious that this is a
reference to Muhammad. Christians who disagree with your exegesis are
not exactly denying their own scriptures. Most Christians think it is a
reference to the Holy Spirit (with good reason!), while at least one
cult here in New York (the Israelite Church of God and Jesus Christ)
thinks it is a reference to their own High Priest:
http://www.theholyconceptionunit.org/main/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=1018
More humorous, this same group claims they have challenged anyone to
prove them wrong, and, further, that for the last 30 years no one has
been able to do so.
Whatever the case, I think it takes a bit of a leap in logic to think
the author of the relevant passage in John (or Jesus, assuming the
relevant passage reflects historical reality) had Muhammad in mind when
he wrote/spoke of the Comforter. But then, perhaps I'm missing
something? Would you like to present an actual argument for why people
should believe the relevant passage is referring to Muhammad?
Denis Giron
Saqib Virk wrote:
>
> That may or may not be true but if we examine the fundamental belief of both
> religions, as I attempted in the post you are responding to, we have to
> dismiss Christianity as fantasy. The Christian imagines God created man in
> such a way as to take on "debts" against God who is incapable of forgivenss
> and man is condemned to eternal suffering. To clear those debts God Himself
> came to earth and had Himself killed by men. Problem solved, eh? Are sane
> people to accept this?
The above is an example of what might be called the sophomoric appeal
to personal incredulity. Of course, it is not an actual argument, as it
does not actually demonstrate that Christianity is false. The above is
similar to arguments less mature atheists use against theism in general
(e.g. George Carlin saying that theists *actually believe* that there
is some invisible man in the sky ticking off their good and bad deeds,
or George Smith writing that that it is silly to think that despite the
fact that there is an entire universe to observe, God is most concerned
with a bunch of shaven chimps on a tiny blue sphere in some backwater
galaxy who consider the entire universe to be the stage for a cosmic
play with themselves cast in the central role, et cetera).
What is Saqib's argument? Christian doctrines seem silly to Saqib Virk,
therefore they are false? Isn't that analogous to an argument along the
lines of Islamic doctrines seem silly to Joe Shmo, therefore Islam is
false? For further example, imagine the hypothetical Joe Shmo offering
childish rhetorical questions along the lines of "do you really think
Muhammad had a flying horsey? do you really think `Eesa was born of a
virgin? do you really think an infinitely intelligent and merciful
being would concern himself with destroying those who didnt acknowledge
his supremacy or mutter the right creedal proclamation?" et cetera...
Regardless, the fact is that sane people *DO* accept Christianity as
true, and some of those sane people are quite brilliant to boot. The
same can be said regarding Islam.
Moving on, regarding Ibn Warraq's first book, Saqib wrote:
> A good review of the book can be found here:
>
> http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/text/warraq.htm
Do you want to discuss this review in more detail? For now, I will
simply note that I have great admiration for Jeremiah McAuliffe. I like
him a lot. But with all due respect to him, I personally do not
consider this to be any sort of devastating critique of Warraq's book.
The attempts at psychoanalysis were particularly hard to take as a
serious argument (though on Jeremiah's behalf I would note that the
relevant review is nine years old).
Mind you, I'm not saying that Warraq's first book is above and beyond
criticism. On the contrary, I think if a person spent a week reading
the book and simultaneously browsing Dr. Saifullah's Islamic site,
they'd have enough ammo to cast doubt on significant portions of the
book (or at least invoke further discussion which the book by itself
does not prepare a person for).
What you should have done was invite Colin to inform you as to which
portions of the book he finds particularly devastating, and then move
on from there. However, since you have decided to take the role of
declaring the book in toto to be "poor," I tempted to ask if you've
actually read the book, and if you could list which parts you consider
particularly poor (and why!).
Saqib Virk
"Denis Giron" <denis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138222655....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Whatever the case, I think it takes a bit of a leap in logic to think
> the author of the relevant passage in John (or Jesus, assuming the
> relevant passage reflects historical reality) had Muhammad in mind when
> he wrote/spoke of the Comforter. But then, perhaps I'm missing
> something?
SV
John 14-16 speaks of the Comforter whom Christians believe is the Holy
Spirit. Muslims are apt to argue the passages are a prophecy concerning
Muhammad. You are likely as aware of the arguments on both sides as I am. It
has been discussed at least a few times on SRI. Jesus states that *another"
Comforter would come right after he tells the disciples that he himself is
leaving. The Comforter would teach those things Jesus could not; teachings
the followers of Jesus could not bear. He would not speak of his own
authority but would speak only what he heard from God. He would glorify
Jesus, lead the world to the truth and be with the world forever.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Saqib Virk
>
>> To clear those debts God Himself came to earth and had Himself killed
>> by men. Problem solved, eh? Are sane people to accept this?
>
> The above is an example of what might be called the sophomoric appeal
> to personal incredulity. Of course, it is not an actual argument, as it
> does not actually demonstrate that Christianity is false.
SV
It is not an argument or proof. I merely stated the central and perhaps only
tenant of Christianity in plain language. Without the emotional language
often used by Christians it certainly sounds unreasonable. Consider it one
Muslim's short commentary on the one and only Christian belief, "God so
loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son." In the Quran the belief is
called a monstrous lie.
> Moving on, regarding Ibn Warraq's first book,
<snip>
> I tempted to ask if you've
> actually read the book, and if you could list which parts you consider
> particularly poor (and why!).
SV
I read much of the book about 8 years ago and remember little more than the
author earning my contempt. Sorry if, as I assume, he is a personal friend
of yours. His childish understanding of Islam made me wonder if he actually
believed the things he wrote. One example comes to mind; he claimed Muslims
insist on the physical resurrection of the body. Then he argued that some
people are cremated or their bodies are destroyed and even those who undergo
normal burial eventually decompose. He then states the Muslims will get
around this problem by saying "God can re-create the bodies". He then states
the new body would be a clone and it would not be right to punish or reward
the clone based on the actions of the original. He then asks what would
happen if someone has a heart transplant... that now the person cannot be
physically restored... that it will be a clone with a different heart
altogether. This he considers a great argument against his own demented
notion of the Islamic concept of the day of judgment.
Ha ha ha!! Have you ever heard anything more inane? Whoops, there I go again
with my sophomoric appeals to personal incredulity.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk