40 replies to this topic

[Gypsy]

~Ruqaya, on 07 August 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

I once read or heard someone say something like 'a truth is a truth, until people start to organise it, and then it becomes a lie', and to an extent this has historically been the problem with organised religion

Yes, you can find such sayings about organized religion. You can't help but agree with them when you looked at all the violence and horror perpetrated and backed by the Christian Church (Crusade, Witch burning, The tortures, The Inquisition). And the only reason they were able to do that was when they became too powerful (organized).

JawzofDETH, on 07 August 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

Well I don't know what to tell you then, these are direct parallels that CANNOT be found in any other religious denomination; I stand by that, if you have proof to the contrary I am open to hearing it.

Don't really have anything handy at the moment that's very specific to your example.

But it's not very unusual to see parallels being drawn between religions/sects. I was reading something a while back about Islam being a copy-cat religion.

Quote

They consider Islam a copy-cat religion by claiming that the Prophet of Islam created his religion from a hybrid of other religions, such as, the pagan belief in Arabia, Christianity and Judaism and other Mythical beliefs which was common to the region at the time.


The evidence that are usually provided by the Westerners or Orientalist are generally very speculative.

• 
  They claim that the Prophet of Islam was a tradesman, so he must have known people of other religions. He must have learn from them before setting up this new religion in Arabia
  
• 
  Secondly, they claim that since many Jews used to live in Arabia, then the Prophet must have learned from them by observing and then incorporating it in his religious belief
  
• 
  They then claim that the Prophet of Islam must have met some of the Zorastrians living in the area at the time. They talk about Zorastrians influence on Islam by looking at some of Islamic beliefs and speculating on its origin.

more
http://researchintoo...ing-lately.html

[Khadim uz Zahra]

Ya Bano e Muhtaram, Ya Bano e Buzurg e Shiachat, Her Highness Gypsy, my post was after his very first post and, as was obvious, he was trying to show that the Saducees are Shias, Pharisees Sunnis, the others are some of the other Islamic sects today and he was talking about how the structure of the Saducees was very similar to the Shias. He has, in his following posts, already said all of that, and that was where he was getting at with his first post. Now, I haven't read much after that and there too much of deep Jewish terminology and beliefs he is talking about that I just don't know enough about so I am getting confused now.

[JawzofDETH]

Khadim uz Zahra, on 08 August 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

Now, I haven't read much after that and there too much of deep Jewish terminology and beliefs he is talking about that I just don't know enough about so I am getting confused now.

AlhamdulIllah, thanks for telling me this.
Will try to keep it simple,
Was-Salaam

hameedeh, on 07 August 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

The Bible Dictionary that I looked at said the Sadducees did not believe in Resurrection and they denied the existence of Angels.

http://rapturebooks....?DICT=Sadducees

Yes sister, if you see the original post I noted:
Some believed in Angels, the soul & ressurection and some didn't.
See:

(Mentions it at 7m:00s)

This is one of the sources I made a note of that showed conflicting views,
If you like I'll try to find you the others,
Was-Salaam

Edited by JawzofDETH, 08 August 2012 - 09:49 AM.

[JawzofDETH]

Remember too when using the Christian sources, the context of ressurection may pertain to Christian
doctrine of Jesus's ressurection and not ressurection before judgement. Christian sources may have
Christian sensibilities attached to them

--

Theres this other group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii
They kind of remind me of the Hashashiyyin

Was-Salaam

Edited by JawzofDETH, 08 August 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[hameedeh]

Interesting! Please continue, Jawz.

[JawzofDETH]

hameedeh, on 08 August 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Interesting! Please continue, Jawz.

Salaam,

Thank you and before proceeding, just to provide you with an addition article to substantiate :

An acknowledgement about sources on the topic :

"Not a single undoubted writing of an acknowledged Sadducee has come down to us, so that for acquaintance with their opinions we are mainly dependent on their antagonists."

- McClintock d Strong, Grand Rapids: , p. 235.

Quote

Jewish Sects (VD: Sadducees- Doctrine and End
Fred A. Shewmaker
Evansville, Indiana

I hesitate to use the word superstitious, but it is probably the best single word that can be used to describe the Pharisaic concept of the providence of God. The Sadducees in no way shared such a view. Josephus wrote, "They take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power so that we are ourselves the cause of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly."1 They "seemed to have believed that God is not concerned with human affairs."2 They "rejected the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, the immortality of the soul, and the existence of angels and ministering Spirits."3 With these tenants of their doctrine before us, let us begin an examination of each one separately.

In that all allow that the Sadducees believed the Pentateuch, it becomes very difficult to think that they totally rejected the very idea of angels. In this I do not seek to ignore or reject any of Acts 23. My effort here is to understand this passage in the light of the fact that the Sadducees accepted, yea honored, the Pentateuch. The Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word translated angel in Acts 23:8 appears over 20 times in the Pentateuch. In article III it was pointed out that the Pharisaic concept of the function of angels and ministering spirits was erroneous. Acts 23 in the light of the reverence the Sadducees had for the Pentateuch appears to be a consideration of the differences that existed between the Pharisees and the Sadducees regarding the function of angels and ministering spirits rather than a statement that one believed that such existed while the other did not believe that such existed. The function attributed to them by the Pharisees is shown to be that of constantly directing the actions of men (verse 9). After much study and consideration I am forced to conclude and cautiously suggest that it was this function which the Pharisees attributed to angels and ministering spirits that Luke had under consideration when he wrote, "The Sadducees say that there is no angel, nor spirit" (Acts 23:8).

It is my firm conviction that angels exist, that they functioned on occasion to direct the actions of certain men (both during the historical period recorded in the Pentateuch and during the life of the apostles), but I am ready to contend with those today who would and sometimes do say, "but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God" (Acts 23:9). It seems entirely possible that this is the position held by the Sadducees in their day even though angels and ministering spirits still functioned occasionally to direct a man's actions. While the Pharisees credited the angels and ministering spirits with too much activity in directing the actions of men, the Sadducees rejected their activity in this area altogether. Thus I cannot accept, without qualifications, the statement of Pfeiffer that the Sadducees "rejected the existence of angels and ministering spirits."

Regarding the resurrection of the body Josephus wrote, "They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades."4 "The doctrine of the Sadducees is this: that souls die with the bodies."5

However, it must be remembered that Josephus was himself a Pharisee and -may have failed to be completely objective in his writings concerning the Sadducees. "It cannot be supposed that if the Sadducees had actually denied the immortality of the soul, so vital a point would be passed over in silence by the Talmudic doctors, when unimportant differences are minutely specified."6 Geikie wrote, "As to world to come, they left it doubtful, maintaining... that it could not be proved from the Books of Moses."7 Jesus took away this contention of the Sadducees when he answered their question about the woman who had been wife to seven husbands -- "In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the Seven:" (Mau. 22:28).

Jesus answered their question by saying, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage . . ." (Matt. 22:29-30). I do not know where in the Old Testament this information is to be found. Jesus did not actually say that this information was in the scriptures. He merely answered the question that to the minds of the Sadducees posed a dilemma if there is to be a resurrection. With this answer Jesus was telling them that the supposed problem they posed was nonexistent. Thus their question carried no weight as an argument against the resurrection. The error of the Sadducees resulting from their "not knowing the scriptures" related to the fact that the scriptures touch on the matter of the resurrection. Jesus said, "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matt. 22:31-32). This the Sadducees had overlooked with regard to its application to the resurrection. They, no doubt, knew the words recorded in what we call Exodus 3-6 but knowing the words was not the same as knowing the meaning.

When Jesus was tried and crucified, it was the Sadducees who took the lead in opposing him and demanding that he be crucified. During my study for this series of articles I read a statement that the Sadducees were not once mentioned in the gospel of John. It may be just as well that I failed to make a note so that I could document that statement because it is not altogether accurate. It is true that the word Sadducee(s) is not found in John's gospel. However, it was shown in the first article of this series that the term chief priest has reference to those connected with the party of the Sadducees. The party is referred to in John by the designation chief priests 10 times. This designation appears 5 times in chapters 18 and 19 which record the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, our Lord.
The Sadducees were the chief antagonists of the early church (Acts 4 and 5).
With the destruction of the Temple in A.D 70, the activities of the Sadducees ended.

Footnotes
1 F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 360 (B. XIII, Ch. X, Sec. 6).
2. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical World, (Grand Rapids: 1966), p. 327.
3. Ibid, p. 326.
4. F. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 617 (B. 11, Ch. V111, See. 14).
5. F. Josephus, Antiquities, p. 484 (B. XVIII, Ch. 1, See. 4).
6. McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, (Grand Rapids: 1970), Vol. IX, p. 236.
7. Cunniniham Geikie, The Life and Work of Christ, (New York & London: 1920), Vol. 1, p. 213.
TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 11, pp. 5-7
January 20, 1972

Source : http://www.truthmaga...6/TM016165.html

Some comments:

- As we can see, and as you rightly noted : There is a general impression among both Christian and Jewish sources regarding the Sudducee beliefs. I spoke about the Christian sources earlier...

- We should also carefully note that in the case of the Jewish sources, we mostly have Jospephus to rely on, and he was a Pharisee. Now imagine the context if perchance the parallels I am drawing hold any validity whatsoever; this is like a sunni writing an explanaition of Shi'ite beliefs, lore and practises; we know by our own unique history and experiences this is not likely to be an impartial nor accurate undertaking.

- There is a concern I have is that is if we don't give every sect we observe here the understanding it's due, drawing at the very least from our considerable experience with sectarian strife, we will indeed do a disservice to their retelling.

Was-Salaam

Edited by JawzofDETH, 11 August 2012 - 08:53 PM.

[Seif]

Very interesting topic, please keep us informed about any new discoveries.

Ws

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

Salamalaikum

Bro jawz;  shouldn't we stop parallels at the stage where they waited for mohamnad mustafa saww and we waited for qaim e aale Mohammad Mustafa a.s.

I think Jewish history is irrelevant after rasool Allah saww as they cease to exist as a religion due to denial of rasool alag saww. I hope u got me

[JawzofDETH]

siraatoaliyinhaqqun, on 12 August 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

Salamalaikum

Bro jawz;  shouldn't we stop parallels at the stage where they waited for mohamnad mustafa saww and we waited for qaim e aale Mohammad Mustafa a.s.

I think Jewish history is irrelevant after rasool Allah saww as they cease to exist as a religion due to denial of rasool alag saww. I hope u got me

That's why we are not making parallels after RasulAllah ,
Please show me a little courtesy -by reading before dismissing,
Was-Salaam

[muslimunity1]

Aslamalaykum,

@Jawz

Quote

Sorry, I have not come across anything like this.

Just to give you an update brother, I found the narrations that I was looking for.

Hazrat Musa a.s wife went to war with his successor Yusha ibn Nun riding on a Giraffe, the narration also states two hypocrites from the the communtiy of Musa a.s conspired with his wife and revolted against the caliph of the time.

SubhanAllah see how history repeats itself, I've just given you the gist of the narration, there are much more similarities.

[JawzofDETH]

Interesting.

Will also be posting something I saved earlier, didn't have any internet for a week,
Was-Salaam

[rotten_coconut]

Bro JawzofDETH,

1. About Prophet Musa and Harun , I'd suggest you to be careful before drawing parallel on their roles according to Islam vs Judaism. In Tanakh, you will see that it's like the Jewish community at the time of Musa and shortly afterwards, they had dual leadership: one as the ruler, one as the priest. For example: Mosheh (as ruler) and Aharon (as priest). Afterwards, Yehoshua` (as ruler) and El`azar (as priest). One can argue that Harun was never meant to replace Musa since he has different function.

2. About the idea of dual Messiah, Essenes community had this idea for 1 kingly Messiah and 1 priestly Messiah. It's quite interesting since remember that the Jewish community are waiting for 3 individuals: "Eliyah", "The Prophet", and "The Messiah". I have my own speculation in this matter:
1. "The Prophet" is RasuluLLAH (saww) just as mentioned in Deuteronomy, this is the prophet from the brother of Bani Israil (i.e. Bani Isma`il) who had similarity to Musa , i.e. a lawgiver.
2. "The Messiah" -> if we take the Essenes interpretation, one of the possibility of priestly Messiah is Prophet `Isa and the kingly Messiah is Imam Mahdi .
3. "Eliyah" -> Jewish community is waiting for the actual Prophet Eliyah to come back prior to the coming of the Messiah, but Christians and (some) Muslimin interpreted this as different individuals such as Prophet Yahya or Imam `Ali . In my opinion, let's look at As-Saffat:130 where Eliyah (or Ilyas) is addressed in plural form "Ilyasin" (at least according to the majority of the qira'at), there can be multiple individuals that can be identified as Eliyah. Perhaps, as mentioned in the Bible, this is more keen to a role than a name to indicate a role that "make a way or support or help an important person such as the Prophet or the Messiah"

[JawzofDETH]

I've been busy with house renovs for a month now, but I'm back now...

[JawzofDETH]

rotten_coconut, on 31 August 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

Bro JawzofDETH,

1. About Prophet Musa and Harun , I'd suggest you to be careful before drawing parallel on their roles according to Islam vs Judaism. In Tanakh, you will see that it's like the Jewish community at the time of Musa and shortly afterwards, they had dual leadership: one as the ruler, one as the priest. For example: Mosheh (as ruler) and Aharon (as priest). Afterwards, Yehoshua` (as ruler) and El`azar (as priest). One can argue that Harun was never meant to replace Musa since he has different function.

Salaam Bro, Thank you for your post:
Perhaps we need to re-evaluate what was intended the purpose of these parallels.

- We are NOT intending to make things fit where they don't.
You say their roles were different from a Jewish perspective. Let's accept that for now.

- We are not intending to compare religious values and beliefs vis-a-vis; Judaism vs Islam.
Where Islam has a point of view in contradiction with Judaism, the Jewish viewpoint becomes less relevant;
The Islamic standpoint always takes precendence. To this end we know from Islamic tradition that not only
was Harun a Wazir, but also a Nabi , he was also 'put in-charge' of the people albeit in a temporary capacity.
So we can say that any rigidity in the Jewish perception is more or less overidden by these evidences.
I think you'll agree this puts a question mark as to what Yusha's rank/ role was at the time,
let us for the time being be content to say that there doesn't appear to be absolutes.

- We can not be expected to understand perfectly (in the 21st century) all the complexities of ranks/ relationships between the prophets / Rasuls , kohens, kings/ rulers, messiahs, etc. of the children of Israel. I think you'll agree.
That being said, this point you have raised is a pivotally important one at the least to see a possible glimpse of how the perceptions of Jews of that time may have influenced their treatment of these esteemed personalities.

rotten_coconut, on 31 August 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

2. About the idea of dual Messiah, Essenes community had this idea for 1 kingly Messiah and 1 priestly Messiah. It's quite interesting since remember that the Jewish community are waiting for 3 individuals: "Eliyah", "The Prophet", and "The Messiah". I have my own speculation in this matter:
1. "The Prophet" is RasuluLLAH (saww) just as mentioned in Deuteronomy, this is the prophet from the brother of Bani Israil (i.e. Bani Isma`il) who had similarity to Musa , i.e. a lawgiver.
2. "The Messiah" -> if we take the Essenes interpretation, one of the possibility of priestly Messiah is Prophet `Isa and the kingly Messiah is Imam Mahdi .
3. "Eliyah" -> Jewish community is waiting for the actual Prophet Eliyah to come back prior to the coming of the Messiah, but Christians and (some) Muslimin interpreted this as different individuals such as Prophet Yahya or Imam `Ali . In my opinion, let's look at As-Saffat:130 where Eliyah (or Ilyas) is addressed in plural form "Ilyasin" (at least according to the majority of the qira'at), there can be multiple individuals that can be identified as Eliyah. Perhaps, as mentioned in the Bible, this is more keen to a role than a name to indicate a role that "make a way or support or help an important person such as the Prophet or the Messiah"

This is very intruiging. I think if memory serves- there is similar mention of the 3 awaited in the prophecies of
John The Batists (Yahyah ), but I'll have to locate that as I cannot confirm it, don't quote me.

Was-Salaam

[JawzofDETH]

Salaam,


So my brothers and sisters,

Time to start explaining a few things I did...

You may remember I wrote a section in the very first post called:
Notes: (Ignore for now)
Now if we include Aaron then we come to Zadok as 13, but Aaron died during the life of Moses, so Moses passed the Priesthood directly to his nephews Ithamar and Eleazar. If we leave off Ithamar completely as the Jews do, then again Zadok is the 12th. For argument of reverse engineering using what we know of our own history, I will not discount Ithamar as a high priest for now... ... I'll explain in a moment.

You may notice, I mentioned a list of 12 names.
Unlike Judaism I started with Ithamar instead of Aharon
Now the notes explain why I did what I did, but that's not the whole story.

Aside from the fact that Musa passed the leadership on directly his nephews,
We know that Haroon was not merely a CohelGadol but also a Nabi .

Do you remember?

"Your position to me is like the position of Harun to Musa, except that there will be no prophet after me." - Rasulallah

The other similarities in mission was that Haroon  as the Qur'aan tells us was more aiding in the mission of Musa  deliverance of the Torah 'sharing his task' (20:32) and speaking for Musa as Aaron  was eloquent. In the same way Imam Ali delivered the Surah at Hajj, wrote for the holy prophet , and no doubt "Nahjul-Balaghah."

This is important when we remember as the hadith goes that Imaam Ali  mission after RasulAllah was to struggle with the interpretation of the message as the holy Prophet struggled with it's deliverance in his lifetime.

Likewise when it comes to the sanctity of the bloodlines. Both the children of Harun Ithamar and Eleazar are considered Kohanim, like both decendants of Hasan and Husayn are considered Syeds.

Ithamar was the younger brother of Eleazar. But yet was an important figure in terms of tabernacle rights. Jews don't seem to regard Ithamar as a priest, yet his sons 'inherit' priesthood. This is puzzling.
Especially seeing that the verse says: "And Aaron and his sons I will sanctify to serve me." (Exodus)

I made mention of reverse engineering, bare with me on this one, here's a theory based on our own experiences of history:
Notice how some Sunnis and many Isma'ilis not holding much respect for Imaam Hasan ;
yet the Isma'ilis generally say any Syed can be appointed, or some sunnis whom say Imaam Mahdi will be Hasani.
Hmm... ...perhaps in lew of the fact that the Jews that survive today hail from the 'Sunni' sect of their time,
the story may have gone that way?

I'll stop here and ask, did anyone give any thought to question of what happened to the Suduccees?
Was-Salaam

[CLynn]

I'm not wishing to derail this thread, but this also, I believe is instructive and enlightening, and in line with the point of this thread... guidance for the future... learn from mistakes of the past.

http://historymedren.../darklegacy.htm

It is a fairly short reading.