Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
salman

Why is Jesus called the Messiah?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

salaam,

just thought i'd mention that the thread-starter, salman, is indeed a muslim. he's a friend of mine who i met at my university. his family is shia too, and my parents know his. we've lived in the same city for most of our lives.

i think the confusion regarding this arose because of the 19 questions that salman posed in the second half of his first post, and some of the other questions in the following posts, in which he has used sunni sources as evidence. and using sunni ahadith as evidence when discussing with shias would be very strange coming from a person who claims to have debated with wahhabis regarding shi'ism. but it's true, he (salman) is a born shia (syed) who's been a practicing muslim for a long time now, and he has debated with wahhabis a lot as well. so it was pretty strange of him (understatement) to use sunni references in his posts. i think he's just very excited at the moment and didn't feel like refining his arguments for a shia audience.

salman, hopefully you haven't told your parents about your current set of beliefs yet, as that wouldn't be a very smart thing to do :mellow:. just take some more time and make sure you aren't going to change your opinions again anytime soon before doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salman to me sounds like the echo of 49:14:

The dwellers of the desert say: We believe. Say: You believe not, but say, We submit; and faith has not yet entered into your hearts. And if you obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not diminish aught of your deeds. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Edited by Areef Hamdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BISMILLAH

Thank you very much everybody for replying. This is really spicing up my

summer. Things were going slow after the soccer world cup finished.

I don't know how long I'll be paying attention to this thread....probably as long as

I can muster up all the replies I can get. I still remember how I was introduced

to this website. I was at "fyst"'s place and he went up on this site. I told

him that chat forums are the last place you'd ever wanna go to learn information.

He said "that's true!". I asked him then "Why are u on it?". "By this you can

know contemporary shia mentality." he repied........ How true!!

Brothers the purpose of these posts is just to know u all!! Not to know anything about

Islam or Christianity. When I was learning Christianity...I read the bible along

with commentary books along with watching bible study shows of pastors. Same goes

while learning shia/sunni ideology. To learn about a faith it's best to learn it

from those who practice it.

If I ever wanted to get answers I wouldn't have come here, would I? I'm just gathering

everyone's replies.....so keep'em coming. Just wanted to know the common awareness amongst shias...and am impressed. Why do u think I end my posts by asking questions?

Now to the more mundane things in life.....

oldsword81......You mentioned about All messengers being sinless. I use to believe that until I was countered with other evidence - albeit might not be authentic to u - which made me re-asses my beliefs.

Didn't u read my 1st post? Don't take offece to what I wrote. Keep a cool head. I've pasted it below for your convenience

The Qur'an says about God,

"There is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees" (Surah 42:11).

As for Christ, it goes without saying that He is matchless. He was born from a virgin without a man. He was the only One described as 'God's Word and a Spirit from Him'. He was the only One over whom Satan did not have any authority. He was the only One who had divine characteristics. Also out of all the people who have had a miraculous entry into this world, he was the only one to have a miraculous exit. Also in Chapter 28 (Qasas) Moses asks forgiveness for his faults, in chapter 38 (as-Sad) we see David and Solomon asking forgiveness for their faults, in chapter 47 verse 19 and and chapter 48 verse 2 Mohammed sins had to be forgiven. Also in "The Quran: When was it Compiled?" (http://www.shirazi.org.uk/the%20quran%20when%20was%20it.pdf) by Ayotllah shirazi on page 11 that Mohammed sins had to be forgiven. That means Mohammed to was Guilty of Sin if Allah wouldn't forgive him. However, no where can I find that Jesus ever sinned!! After all this should come as no surprise, since he wasn't from Adam unlike EVERYONE else!! Remember in Surah 4 verse 171...Allah says Jesus was spirit proceeding from HIM!!

you said "I also don't understand your theory as to why people didn't believe in the Imamat." Yes...it's just a proposition...I still need to re-assess my beliefs. Ignore me until further notice!! :-)

Areef Hamdi......wow you are antagonisitc towards me aren't u? Surely you wouldn't expect that from a partisan of Ali. Remember....Mohammed or Ali or Jesus will be who they were. Just because I have a different opinion doesn't mean I'm right. I never said I was

a scholor. Let's start with u.

You mentioned "Ayatullah Khamenei forbade using the word father". No offence but this same man endorses the concept of Wilayat-e-faqih and wali-il-amr. Something which I don't accept. What are your views on his confrontation with Ayatollah Montazeri? May I ask you to read his book "The Memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri" ? If I have to side with Jesus or Khaameni, I guess I prefer Jesus and think of Allah as my Heavenly Father waiting for his follower that is on a moving walkway by grace towards HIM and NOT as a physical father.

Now let's get to the Quran. I said there were three views I ever encountered on the quran. Read my 2nd post

1) The Sunni view that it came through the order of compilation of Usman

2) The rejected Quran of Ali http://www.irib.ir/Special/imam%20ali/html...by_imam_ali.htm

3) The "wishful thinking" view of hardliners like Ayatollah Shirazi http://www.shirazi.org.uk/the%20quran%20when%20was%20it.pdf

Your view is a little different from the shia belief "Two such copies of the copied text of the original Qur’an authenticated by the Prophet are present to this day, one at the museum in Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union and the other at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey." http://www.islam101.com/quran/preservedQ.htm by Dr Zakir Naik.

My verdict still holds!! It's a copy which came into being during usman's reign!! Can you show me through carbon testing that it dates back before the prophet's death? Or before Abu-bakr's death? Remember "the first caliph of Islam ordered that the Qur’an be copied from the various different materials on to a common material and place, which was in the shape of sheets. These were tied with strings so that nothing of the compilation was lost." I wonder where did this abu-bakr compilation go?

You mentioned the watchtower...the Jehovah witness hub. True...they have their differences. I still need to study them. I use to blindly run to their sites to defend my muslim view when arguing with trinitarians but never actually read all of their works and do unbiased research. I hope you had a different approach. But let me ask you? If they uploaded anything against Islam would u accpet it? I don't think you would.

You mentioned Matthew (10:32) , Mark (13:32) & John (5:37). True...the father is greater than him. When did I say I never accepted that? You speak the same language of those who have been attacking christian beliefs from the time of Ibn Hazm. Ahmed Deedat thrived on such verses and so does my ex-hero Zakir Naik. These are wide-spread among sites like www.answering-christianity.com Your gonna go in circles with this may I suggest www.***.org.uk I don't endorse these two sites...they both like misquoting like you.

You mentioned Mark 16:9-20 were not credible. What about the ending of Luke, don't they puuprt the same message? Any disagreement there too? Did u forget that John7:53 - 8:11 don't appear in early manuscripts? but you still resorted to them in order to refute me.

YOu said........."Did you forget about the Adulteress who was to be stoned to death? Was

there a great March of Roman soldiers to prevent this "murder" from taking place? Obviously, as can be seen testified in the gospels the JEWS implemented capital punishment per their LAW, history books affirm this as well. So try again..."

First of all did u turn a blind eye to John 8:6 ? They were trying to trap him!!

Secondly if you ever studied roman and jewish history you would have known that crucifixion was a "ROMAN" form of punishment. That's why the jews couldn't crucify him. Did u forget that night courts were illegal?

Let's see if your misquoted claim holds...

Read Mark 14:48-49

God's questions always expose a person's true thoughts, and if the rabble had taken the moment to think, they would have realized the inconsistency of their actions. But they were so fixated in their determination to do away with christ, even another encounter with the miraculous power of this man didn't deter them the last bit.

Fearing for their lives, the disciples fled into the night. Read Mark 14:50 & John 18:12

One can hardly read this without feeling some sense of incongruity. Jesus was only one individual. The detachment sent to arrest him would have numbered between 300 and 600 soldiers. In addition, there were Jewish officials, priests and servants. It was an overkill for sure, but you can't help wondering if deep down inside they felt a poverty of power. They rushed Jesus & bound him. Satan must have chortled with delight.

Read Mark 14:53

Temple courts were not held at night. The fact that the Sanhedrin, consisting of 71 men, could be assembled so quickly tells u something about the plot. Their willingness to convene in the middle of the night reveals even more. What they were doing was strictly illegal according to their own law. Even for those not familiar with the judicial system of that day, the irregularities of the trial are painfully obvious. No matter. Forget

the rules. They wanted Jesus dead.

Read Mark 14:55-64

The High Priest, Caiaphas, knew exactly what Jesus had said. Blasphemy was anything that was considered injurious to God's character. However, neither Caiaphas nor the other Jewish leaders believed him. So they condemned him to die. But there was a problem: the Sanhedrin did not have the authority to pass a death sentence; only the Romans could do that. BECAUSE NIGHT COURTS WERE ILLEGAL, the Sanhedrin met agian just after sunrise to go through the legal motions of trying Jesus. He must have been exhausted. He hadn't slept all night, and they had given him a severe beating just to make sure he knew who was in control.

Read Luke 23:1

Pontius Pilate, governor of judea, had all the authority of imperial Rome behind him. Since in the most cases the Jewish courts could not impose the death penalty, they needed Roman sanction. Pilate was their man. The temple leaders knew he was weak-kneed, so

a little persuading was in order.

Read Luke 23:2

Jesus had NEVER prohibited his followers from paying taxes. In fact, Jesus had said quite the opposite. This was a deliberate lie. Read Matthew 22:15-22 But with so many legalites having already been ignored, who was keeping track? On the other hand, it was true that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah! Read Luke 23:3 and John 18:36 Jesus' reign began in the heart. He had no political ambitions. Read John 18:37-38

People still ask the same question today. But pilate was in no mood for listening; he didn't even wait for the answer. Read John 18:38 Pilate mistrusted the priests. As Roman governor, he knew he was hated by the jews, and he had reasons to believe that the priests did not have have Ceasar's best interests in mind. The Sanhedrin must have some other motive for wanting Jesus dead.

Read Luke 23:4-7 Pilate had the authority to hear Jesus' case, but the situation was getting uncomfortable. Jesus was being accused of inciting the people to insurrection. How would he explain to his superiors in Rome if Jesus did provoke a riot? It would be easier to dump the whole sorry mess in Herod's lap. Besides, Herod was no friend of his, so Pilate passed the buck.

Herod Antipas was a son of Herod the Great. As a puppet of Rome, he had been given jurisdiction over Jesus' home province of Galilee. He had traveled to Jerusalem for the yearly Passover festivities. Read Luke 23:8-9

Jesus knew that Herod had no interest in determining the truth. He only wished to be entertained by a miracle, showing his flagrant disrespect for Jesus' character. Jesus didn't indulge Herod. Instead, he remained quiet. Read Luke 23:10-12

Since his arrest, Jesus had been in five court sessions: three jewish and two Roman. The sixth trial would be his last. By this time, word had spread throughout the city. No longer were the High Priest and Sanhedrin the only ones accusing Jesus. They had been joined by a fickle multitude, who only a few days before had shouted, "Hossana" but now vehemently roared, "Crucify Him!" Pilate was in a dilemma. The more he dealt with Jesus, the more convinced he was that there was something uncommon about this man! Read Luke 23:13-16

Neither Herod nor Pilate could find Jesus guilty of anything deserving the death penalty. Indeed,it seemed no one could accuse him of any crime.

I'm sure you know the rest of the story...

You accuse me of not having faith, well brother I'm just happy your not the one that's going to Judge me in my next life. I still however will pray for you in unconditional love like christ.

Fyst...."salman, hopefully you haven't told your parents about your current set of beliefs yet, as that wouldn't be a very smart thing to do. just take some more time and make sure you aren't going to change your opinions again anytime soon before doing so."

Thank you very much for your kind words and support. You don't know how painful it is for me to sleep at night - I'm always contemplating and praying - to God for guidance. This has been one of the most difficult moments in my life. I'm at war with my ownself. Fyst...you understand I'm an impartial reader and as an impartial reader I shall die. You have to understand..are you a shia because you were born in a shia family or is it because of sincere research of faiths you have encoutered? This doesn't apply to fyst but also to everyone reading this post. My parents have been very supportive of me and know what are my thoughts. They are well aware that only - shear evidence - could have a changed a boisterous and vociferous individual as myself. What are my beliefs? I don't know yet. What I know will take years to re-assess. Maybe even a life-time. I read works of so many famous muslim scholors and use to use their arguments while refuting christians. Only when I sincerely analayzed the bible message and historical texts I realized that they too misquoted. I still follow the Islamic rulings, Salaat, Saum, Zakat, etc. But know by accepting christ in your heart as the atonement offering and a spirit proceeding from HIM, I don't have to loose my Islamic way of living and beliefs. I still revere Mohammed and his ahlul-bayt. I don't have to go to church...No!! You see I follow the Shariah not because it makes me righteous or is the atonement....no for three major reasons I said in my 2nd post...

1) It's provides a way of living so societies can co-exist & thrive.

2) You undestand what is God like...you can recognize him but you can't know him. Ponder over his commands.

3) You realize that the inherent corruption will get us one way or another because of which we are sinners. It's more like a mirror and thermometer. It might increase our fellowship with god but not our relationship.

I have as a matter if ihtiyaat - until further notice - have accepted Jesus Crucified and ressurected. Only until I get to the bottom of this inconsistency of the bible with the Quranic message. No offence but from my experience I don't trust many muslim scholors anymore. They've let me down by misquoting.

My parents know about my beliefs totally and have been very supportive. They were the first ones I told and surely I couldn't have asked god for better parents.

With prayers for everyone's success and well-being,

Salman

P.S. - Do u think it's possble that the only reason Imam Mehdi doesn't re-appear is because maybe we are ready for him, but not for ready he who will be accompanying him? i.e. Jesus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salman first before I write out my rebuttal, I'll like to point something out which is incorrect on your part:

Did u forget that John7:53 - 8:11 don't appear in early manuscripts? but you still resorted to them in order to refute me.

Last time I checked I didn't refer to those passages but referred to John 5:37, nice try at your attempt to draw up a strawman though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salman, from what I read of your reply, you just went on a tangent of useless arguments.

The affair is quite clear, the indictment for Jesus (as) was relative to political sedition. This is why the cross was resorted to and your right it is used by the Roman's for crimes against Roman Law. The charge of "blashempy" is only processed through the Jews own system and has no dealing with Roman Institutions. So the Jews with ease STONED those who spoke blashemphy as can be seen in John 10:31-33:

31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" 33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

As can be clearly seen if the gospel accounts were accurate and the main charge of his indictment was blashemphy then there wouldn't have been need to have him crucified, they could have just stoned him and got it over with WITHOUT ANY INTEFERENCE FROM THE ROMAN OFFICIALS.

Also about your comments about Ayatullah Khamenei (qas) that is off topic, and nothing but a red herring on your part. Show us from any Islamic source justification for the usage of "FATHER" for the Almighty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember Ali Zaki provided me the followinglink "http://alislam.org/jesus_shiite_narrations/" I once remember reading in "The gospel of shia of ali" about 2 years back that Imam Ali said "Jesus is my brother in heaven". He obviously too accepted christ as his lord and saviour because of which he considered himself to be included in the family of god.

If you believe that Imam Ali (as) accepted Jesus (as) as his savior and Lord, you are not even a Muslim, let alone a Shia. Either you are a deceiving agent or a deviant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick note areef...you tried refting me with the "adulteress" issue. That appears between John 7:53 - 8:11

Cyan...."No. Imam Ali didn't belive that either." True the context is different. I just wanted to show how bad misquoting can be.

Areef....let me ask you this. Let's consider your point. Do you really think the jews would wanna kill Jesus themselves without Roman force? I mean this guy performed many miracles in front of many people, bringing the dead to life, healing the sick, providing large amounts of food from little sustenance etc. Obviously, if I wanted to kill Jesus I would resort to the stronger authorities. I mean consider the havoc the jews would have bought upon themselves. This guy had won the hearts of many. But the jews must have known that his entourage can be of no match for the Roman force which is why most people turned their backs upon him. Consider this along with my previous points.

Blessings,

S

P.S. - I'm not saying everthing I tell u is authentic. I'm trying to be pragmatic here.

And about John 10......that was before the Triumphal Entry!! consider the masses!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's get to Kadhim. I asked why was Jesus sentenced to crucifixion. The members of the Sanhedrin were looking for an excuse to kill him. But had no proof against him. Afterall Jesus challenged people if they could prove him of a single sin. The gospels tell us he was sentenced to crucifxion. Why? For blasphemy. Blasphemy for what? Read Matthew 26:63 , Mark 14:61 , Luke 22:70, John 19:7.

A lot of political dissidents are killed with the publically stated reason being "blasphemy" or some secular equivalent. I welcome you to do some more study into the history of political dissidents and the tactics used to neutralize their efforts. But that is for you to do. It is not for me to spoon feed you. You are making a lot of demands on people to read what you tell them to read, so I think it's only fair you take some of the burden upon yourself to understand what we are saying.

Why do you believe he was sentenced to crucifixion? What excuse did they find against him because of which they were justified according to the law?

I already answered that question, I believe. He was targetted for execution because as the self-proclaimed rightful heir to the throne of Israel, he was a political threat to Rome. The official authorites of the Jews were intimately connected to the ruling authorities. (a tactic the Jewish people used, and use, to great success -- see the OT accounts of Jospeh establishing influence in Egypt, and accounts of Daniel and Queen Esther with the Persians.)

As a result, the mainstream Jewish authorities, consisting largely of the Saduccees, who were allied most closely with the Roman authorities and the economic and political elite amongst the Jews, feared losing out on the gravy train that they received for selling out their people and keeping them docile and subdued against the Romans. (Please see the history of the times, which were very turbulent with many violent resistance/liberation movements operating, e.g. the Zealots (Simon/Peter was a former member) and the Sicarii (Judas a former member)) Jesus included former revolutionaries in his closest disciples and in his encounters explicitly challenged the authoriy of the community leaders. Jesus opposed their moral and political corruption and stood up for the oppressed masses. (See acounts of those who followed him and his cleansing of the temple.) They realized Jesus wanted to lead a reform and revolutionary movement and that they would fall from power. Their fates were tied to seeing the status quo stay in place. And this is why they worked with the Romans.

The Romans feared making a political martyr out of Jesus, so they sought a way to kill him, and sully his reputation with his people at the same time. The Romans directed the Jewish authorities to seek religious arguments against him, to show that he was a "blasphemer" worthy of death and unworthy of being the Messiah. It is an almost eternal tactic to try to undermine political dissidents by blackening their reputation.

Read deeply about history and reflect, and you will understand the situation quite clearly I think.

I saw your exchange above with Areef Hamdi, and would echo much of what he said, if not the asntogonistic way he said it. You suggested that the Jewish authorities used the Roman authorities as a tool to carry out executions for blasphemy. But I would suggest that you've got it backwards. Who had more power, the Romans, or the Jewish authorities? In situations where there is a power imbalance, who is usually the user and manipulator? The stronger or the weaker? Who has the leverage? I would argue then that it was the Romans who initiated the push for execution, on political grounds, with the Jewish authorities collaborating to protect themselves.

You mentioned that the Talmud mentions other prophets after Abraham not from the line of Isaac. Tell me, were those mentioned Nabis or Rasools? My question still holds! Name me the Rasools that were sent after Isaac until Jesus. Don't name me Nabi's.....but Rasools!! Every Rasool is a nabi but not every Nabi is a rasool. That's what I read in Aqa Mehdi Pooya/ Mir Mohammed ali's tafsir available on www.al-islam.org However there is an exception. Gabreal was mentioned atleast once as a rasool in the Quran. However to know of some Rasools after Isaac and before Jesus, read surah al Maryam.

The Talmud mentions the existence of prophets and messengers to peoples over the earth. If you want more details, please consult a rabbi. The member Maimonides here you might question by PM. He is Jewish, and know some references likely you can refer to.

You mentioned inconsistencies in Genesis...can u share them with me. I hope these aren't what the Ayatollahs have showed you or messed up sites like www.answering-christianity.com

The following is a good example I once read from a web-site and saved it as a word file. I fell to laughter as I read how they misquoted the bible.

**************************

Question: I am a Muslim and I have a friend who is a new Muslim. He wanted to know the name of Abraham’s sacrificed son. The Bible says it was Isaac (sws). Is this true ?

Answer: Without doubt, the son offered for sacrifice by Abraham (sws) was Ishmael (sws). The Qur’an bears reference to this established historical fact in the following words:

And he [—Abraham—] said [after being saved from the fire]: ‘Verily, I am going to my Lord. He will guide me!’ ‘My Lord! Grant me (offspring) from the righteous.’ So We gave him glad tidings of a forbearing boy. And, when he [his son] was old enough to walk with him, he said: ‘O my son! I have been seeing in a dream that I am offering you in sacrifice [to Allah]. So look what you think!’ He said: ‘O my father! Do that which you are commanded, Insha Allah, you shall find me of the patient. Then, when they had both submitted themselves [to the will of Allah], and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead, We called out to him: ‘O Abraham! You have made the dream a reality’. Verily, thus do We reward the good-doers. Verily, that indeed was a manifest trial. And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice [a ram]; And We left for him [a goodly remembrance] among the later generations. Peace be upon Abraham! Thus indeed do We reward the good-doers. Verily, he was one of Our believing slaves. And We gave him the glad tidings of Isaac – a Prophet from the righteous. (37:99-112)

The underlined portion of the passage clearly shows that glad tidings of the birth of Isaac (sws) were given to Abraham (sws) after he had already offered his first born son for sacrifice. In other words, the italicized verse: ‘So We gave him the glad tidings of a forbearing boy’, and all that has been narrated after this verse refer to Ishmael (sws).

As far as the Bible is concerned, it, as your friend has pointed out, does mention a different story: In one of the most blatant examples of interpolation, the Jews have inserted the name of Isaac (sws) in place of Ishmael (sws) to cut off the relationship of Muhammad (sws) with Arabia and his great ancestor Abraham (sws).

However, in spite of this tampering, the Bible contains passages which still point to Ishmael (sws) as the son offered for sacrifice1. The passage which mentions the incident of sacrifice in the Bible reads:

Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, ‘Abraham!’ ‘Here I am,’ he replied. Then God said, ‘Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.’ Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, ‘Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.’ Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, ‘Father?’ Yes, my son?’ Abraham replied. ‘The fire and wood are here,’ Isaac said, ‘but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?’ Abraham answered, ‘God Himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.’ And the two of them went on together. When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, ‘Abraham! Abraham!’ ‘Here I am’ ‘he replied. ‘Do not lay a hand on the boy,’ he said. ‘Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.’ Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, ‘On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.’ The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, ‘I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.’ (Genesis 22:1-18)

It follows from the underlined portion that Abraham (sws) was asked to sacrifice his only son which means that at that time he had no other son. The fact that this could only be Ishmael (sws) is evident from the following two passages of the Bible:

Abraham was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael. (Genesis, 16:16)

Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. (Genesis, 21:5)

It is evident from these verses that Ishmael (sws) was fourteen years old at the birth of Isaac (sws), and must have been offered for sacrifice before Isaac (sws) was born because Abraham (sws) had been asked to sacrifice his only son; after Isaac’s birth of course the words ‘your only son’ would be totally inappropriate and against reality.

In the light of this evidence, it is obvious that the word Isaac mentioned in the passage above (indicated by the underlined portion) was inserted in place of Ishmael (sws).

***************************

Obviously this person couldn't recall Genesis 17 & Galatians 4 & 5

I form my understandings of the Bible from having read and carefully studied the book in its entirety. I have several Bibles and study them on a regular basis, looking into various passages and chapters on the average at least once a week. I am currently involved in a self-directed program of study into the Bible and key Christian sources and writers to better understand the Christian religion to faciliate better, more quality inter-faith dialogue.

The verse cited is only one of the indications that there has been tampering. Others are evident on any sort of remotely careful reading of Genesis. I don't have time to quote you chapter and verse, but see the description of Hajr and Ismail leaving for Arabia, where it describes the (supposedly 14 year old) Ismail being carried on Hajars shoulder. Also see the passage where she is in Arabia and out of water, where it says she "set Ismail down under a bush" and went to search. Set him down? Sounds like an infant to me. A 14 year old Hebrew male 4000 years ago was a MAN, who would be expected to go search for his mother, or at least with her.

Note that the Islamic account says Ismail was a baby when this "hijra" happened.

I will also note that Muslim critics of this account do not need to show that Genesis 100% consistently says in a clear-cut way that it was actually Ismail sacrificed, and it is ridiculous for you to expect them to. If you do, you have obviously misread what they are trying to say. Obviously, the Jews and Christians would not have concluded it was Isaac for so many years if it unmistakenly said Ismail. But what Muslims like myself can demonstrate clearly is that within the existing account, there are anomalies that point toward a different story, one in which Ismail was a baby when sent away, in agreement with the Islamic story. I don;t need to give proof, I only need to show reasonable doubt.

When I cited 1 corinthians 9:19-27. I never said that it allows one to lie. What I meant that some chistian deviants misuse those verses to make their acts seem right. I don't endorse such acts.

Good. But why do you think these Christian deviants exist? They accepted Jesus as their saviour, didn't they? Why hasn't the spirit entered them to purify their hearts?

You don't accept the Mohammedan trinity....what are your thoughts to John 1:14 ? How do you feel when you read the following verses in the Quran 29:50 & 10:31 alongwith 3:49 & 5:110?

There is no "Muhammadan trinity." I see you haven't responded to me pointing out that you have mischaracterized the Christian trinity, i.e. Father, Word, Spirit.

John 1 is a deeply complex chapter. The precise metaphysical meanings of "the Word becoming flesh" are not lightly reached, nor should such passages be taken in a literal manner.

You asked of the meaning of the messiah. True..it does mean "the annointed one". But lets draw an Islamic line here. You first of all want me to go see a Rabbi to ask him the meaning of the word messiah. It's no surprise that he will downplay the meaning of the word messiah. After all does he accept the gospel unlike the Quran which makes it mandatory to believe in? Maybe I should ask him why I shouldn't accept Jesus either?

Why shouldn't I ask him why do you say the Torah is NOT corrupted? You'd accept his reasoning on the word Messiah but not others to pertaining to different topics. Tell me does the Quran call David the Messiah? Nope, it mentions Messiah about 10 times for Al Maseeh Isa ibn Maryam. Why don't shias ask sunnis for the meaning of Maula or ul'il-amr? Because it doesn't befit their stance!!

Regarding why you should visit a rabbi, it is because a rabbi will have a better understanding, actually knowing the Hebrew language of the old Jewish scriptures, unlike your Christian missionary friends, and will have a better understanding of how the word Messiah was used in the Tanakh, and in the secondary oral scriptures, as well as what the Jews at the time of Jesus were expecting in a Messiah, and what were understood at the time by scholars as "Messianic prohecies."

You might wanna say that the word messiah means "the annointed one". If thats what it entirely meant & hence what Jesus said, I don't think the High Priests would have sentenced him to crucifixion for Blasphemy.

See above.

Which gospels do you think the Quran is talking about in 5:47 , 5:48 , 5:66 , 5:68? You might wanna mention that it's the Gospel of Barnabas. However know that it's earliest manuscripts are dated back to the 14th century and calls Mohammed the messiah and NOT "Ahmed" as does the Quran 61:6

I suggest that if you want to have productive discussion with me, that you not pigeonhole me and assume what I believe.

The Injeel/evangelion/Gospel is not Barnabus. It is not the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It is not the Gospels of Thomas, or Mary, or Phillip, or Infancy Gospel Thomas or Infancy Gospel James, though all these, some of them with more truth and accuracy likely than others, give slices of the injeel, which is not contained in any physical book, and was not, ever. Jesus was a walking, talking manifestation of the Word of God, in much the same way that Imam Ali (as) stated at the battle of Siffeen that "I am the living Qu'ran." That is, every word and action of Jesus was part of the injeel and together form this book. Existing "Gospels" are "Readers Digest" summaries.

wa salaam

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salman,

I will say that I find your posts interesting, but frustrating. I can understand to a large extent where you're coming from in that I have also been spending a great deal of time over the past years studying the Bible and Christianity to better understand how to make productive dialogue between the two faiths' practitioners, and also how to synthesize where possible the two beliefs and show, where possible that supposed disagreements or inconsistencies are actually just mutual misunderstandings of scriptures.

My researches probably came from a slightly different perspective, as I am a convert from a nominally Christian family, and looked into it, to a certain extent, to better understand the roots of the culture from which I hailed, and ultimately, to figure out better how to fuse that culture with that of Islam. I also have been somewhat, though to a much lesser extent that you, unsettled by the experience, because I am finding a number of my evolving opinions well outside the mainstream opinion of scholars. But since scholars are fallible human beings, I don't have a big existential problem about that.

I don't question my Islam, but I do doubt that it is the only path to salvation. This is based on my intuition and my heart's voice, and also on Qu'ranic verses that seem to support pluralism. I think many Christians and some Jews are also on a path that leads to God. Hell, probably many Buddhists and even some Hindus too. I have also realized that Muslims do need to spend a lot more time studying the Bible if they want to discourse usefully and productively with Christians. I have realized that much of the literature that is written by Muslims to debate with Christians is of poor or terrible quality, at least when it comes to critiquing Christian beilefs. I plan to write some books if God allows me the time and energy as my research becomes more complete to remedy this problem. I have also realized, through reading the Bible more and talking with Christians that they are much much much closer to Muslims than is commonly acknowledged. I think a mistake is made by many Muslims as thinking that the Trinity is the key difference between the two religions, or a key one. However, I also think that this is because the vast majority of Christians simply don't have a strong understanding of the concept, and can't explain it. You yourself make a few mistakes in your understanding; for a classical understanding, I refer you to Cardinal Nicholas de Cusa's de Pace Fidei (On the Peace of Faith) or Saint Augustine's City of God. I think, however, that ultimately, Christians make a mistake in identifying the Word of God with the uncreated eternal Wisdom of God. To use the Muslim perspective, the Words of God are created because they are the projections and translations of the infinitude of God's eternal Wisdom into the finiteness of human language. If the Trinity was described as Father (unity of God), Wisdom, and Spirit, then I would see no inconsistency inherently with Tawheed. I think the real difference with Christians is the issue of how salvation is won. I still don't buy the Christian picture on that and think the Islamic explanation is more consistent with the Mercy of God. In find, as I said, that you are misrepresenting the Islamic picture of salvation.

Good journeys,

Kadhim (Cyril)

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Areef....let me ask you this. Let's consider your point. Do you really think the jews would wanna kill Jesus themselves without Roman force? I mean this guy performed many miracles in front of many people, bringing the dead to life, healing the sick, providing large amounts of food from little sustenance etc. Obviously, if I wanted to kill Jesus I would resort to the stronger authorities. I mean consider the havoc the jews would have bought upon themselves. This guy had won the hearts of many. But the jews must have known that his entourage can be of no match for the Roman force which is why most people turned their backs upon him. Consider this along with my previous points.

The Jews can kill someone and be done with them without resource to Rome as long as it conformed to Mosaic Law. They did not need the sanction of Rome to carry out this verdict. Per the Reading of the Gospels in the passages I gave you the reasons for which Christ (as) was indicted by Rome were for:

  • Failure to Pay tribute
  • Proclamation of a Kingdom (Zealot philosophy)

This led to Political Sedition and thus the Roman authorities sought to stamp out Christ (as) but Allah (swt) saved him from their hands.

The miracles of Christ (as) were not deemed credible and according to Biblical records his following was small. It is known clearly that most of the miracles attributed to him are exaggerated as in John saying it will fill numerous books(John 21:25). The miracles were relative to a metaphorical interpreation. Causing the dead hearts to revive, opening the blind hearts to spiritual truth, healing the sick in spirit of their amoral ways and providing truth, for man lives not by word alone but by every word of God (Mt 4:4). Doing supernatural fits are meaningless for even Christ (as) found admitting in the Gospel record:

He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. Mt 12:39

Also can you substanciate for me from Jewish records that it was implausible for the Sanhendren to gather together at night?

(salam)

Edited by Areef Hamdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.S. - I'm not saying everthing I tell u is authentic. I'm trying to be pragmatic here.

You're using a lot of terms I'm not familiar with. You're posting on a Christian/Shia forum and yet you have left this Christian behind. If the opportunity arises in the future, I'd appreciate it if you translated some of your terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BISMILLAH

Salaam to all my readers. May the Grace of Allah be upon you all.

Kadhim I'm pleased to hear with what you had to say. You said "because I am finding a number of my evolving opinions well outside the mainstream opinion of scholars. But since scholars are fallible human beings, I don't have a big existential problem about that." That's true...I feel the same way. May be that's why the hidden Imam re-appear.

I too believe that Islam is not the only way to salvation. Do you know why?

Let me give you two scenerios. If your well vesred with shia literature you'll know

that God will decide through Imam Ali who goes to heaven or hell. That is Imam Ali will be judging. The christian view is that God will be judging through Jesus. However BOTH (Jesus and Ali) are prudent individuals. When they'll assess each person's case - in a way befits god - they would know the sincerity of each one's actions. So u c what I'm trying to say....it doesn't matter if you were christian, jew, or muslim. These judges have great intellect and will be able to judge our sincereity NOT who or what prophet we follwed. Which is why I don't believe there is only ONE way to salvation.

You spoke about my mis-interpretation of the "Trinity" True...there is one god no matter what you call him - Allah , Elohim, Jehovah, Yahweh etc. Everything other than him was a creation. Angels, humans, the Holy Spirit. Just as god would use his angels to speak to prophets I do believe that God used the Holy Spirit to make everything in a way that befits god's understanding. Finite minds cannot understand the infinite. However that Holy Spirit became flesh into a being called Jesus. Both of these entities were servants to God. However since Jesus was blessed with the Holy spirit, Jesus was not god but godly. He just had a much more powerful connection with the lord. Just when I say Jesus was seated at the right hand of god....I mean god will judge through him. For e.g. in Shia Literature in the Prophet's ascension to heaven God spoke to Mohammed in the face and body of

Imam Ali because he was the closest to the prophet's heart. In the same way I believe that still jesus is a servant of God just like the holy spirit. But god will administer through him. It's like he's god's vicegerent and deputation to humans. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear before....you could have just asked. These are my personal beliefs which I don't impose on anyone. This sort of trinity I believe in and ponder over. You spoke about salvation...no offence but the whole concept of blood sacrifice all the way from Abel & Cane is too overwhelming for me to ignore.

You made some good headway in to Genesis account...but let's leave that since it's off topic. But however I read Hagar put Ishmael under a bush but never carrying him. I believe you cited Genesis 21:14 He set the food and water on her shoulders.

However I see your point of the 14 year old....thanks.

I will answer your's and areef's views together.

Areef....may be you never read my post deeply. John 10 occured before Jesus' triumphal entry (John 12). Now a great no. joined up and cheered for Jesus. The jews must have known that his entourage can be of no match for the Roman force. which is why most people turned their backs upon him when confronted with the romans. This is still apparent today. Before Hitler managed to screw the Jews in the holocaust. Why doesn't

now anyone wipe out Israel? Simple....because of America's backing!! Sameway Jesus in John 12 had people at his side. The Jews had no choice but to lean on the romans. You said they could of stoned Jesus before for blasphemy if they wanted to. Why didn't they? Read John 10:34-42

I don't know why you only pick those verses in the bible that befit your stance. People like you make my faith in Jesus stronger. It helps me realize how satan is constantly at war with him.

You say he failed to pay tribute to Ceasar....dead wrong!! Jesus had said quite the opposite. This was a deliberate lie. Read Matthew 22:15-22

Proclomation of a Kingdom......that's true. He always kept on telling people the Kingdom of Heaven is now at hand.

You said "Also can you substanciate for me from Jewish records that it was implausible for the Sanhendren to gather together at night?" I'm right now not in Canada but away in the Middle East. When I'm back in Canada I'll provide you with references since most of my

resources aren't presently with me.

Now this was funny........."The miracles of Christ were not deemed credible and according to Biblical records his following was small. It is known clearly that most of the miracles attributed to him are exaggerated as in John saying it will fill numerous books(John 21:25). The miracles were relative to a metaphorical interpreation. Causing the dead hearts to revive, opening the blind hearts to spiritual truth, healing the sick in spirit of their amoral ways and providing truth, for man lives not by word alone but by every word of God (Mt 4:4)."

I wonder if you've ever read the Quran....

[10:31] Say: Who gives you sustenance from the heaven and the earth? Or Who controls the hearing and the sight? And Who brings forth the living from the dead, and brings forth the dead from the living? And Who regulates the affairs? Then they will say: Allah. Say then: Will you not then guard (against evil)?

[3:49] And (make him) a messenger to the children of Israel: That I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I determine for you out of dust like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird with Allah's permission and I heal the blind and the leprous, and bring the dead to life with Allah's permission and I inform you of what you should eat and what you should store in your houses; most surely there is a sign in this for you, if you are believers.

[5:110] When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and I when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.

You've obviously been a bit too involved with gnostic literature

You ranted further...."Doing supernatural fits are meaningless for even Christ found admitting in the Gospel record:

He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But NONE will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. Mt 12:39"

Did u turn a BLIND eye to Matthew 12:38? The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were asking a sign!!! Jesus had already done many more miracles before and after them. But his sign of Jonah was especially dedicated to the unbending bigots like the pharisees. This obviously impressed some of the ignorant. READ Matthew 27:54 This was THE SIGN for them...only Allah knows if they regretted in their hearts.

Jesus knew...that was the best miracle...coming back to life!!

You had the audacity to say "...The miracles of Christ were not deemed credible and according to Biblical records...."

Kadhim further denies....."The Injeel/evangelion/Gospel is not Barnabus. It is not the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It is not the Gospels of Thomas, or Mary, or Phillip, or Infancy Gospel Thomas or Infancy Gospel James, though all these, some of them with more truth and accuracy likely than others, give slices of the injeel, which is not contained in any physical book, and was not, ever. Jesus was a walking, talking

manifestation of the Word of God, in much the same way that Imam Ali stated at the battle of Siffeen that "I am the living Qu'ran." That is, every word and action of Jesus was part of the injeel and together form this book. Existing "Gospels" are "Readers Digest"

summaries."

Let's see......

[5:47] Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed THEREIN. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

[5:48] And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever SCRIPTURE was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.

[5:66] If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.

[5:68] Say O People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance) till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto you from your Lord. That which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) from thy Lord is certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many of them. But grieve not for the disbelieving folk.

These verses make it emphatically clear that Mohammed was purporting towards written material present in his time. The injeel was not Jesus. If it was Jesus, Moahmmed would have been seen as a sham because Jesus had already disappeared before Mohammed. Which books are these that Mohammed endorses? Just imagine Mohammed gets a revelation and then tells his 42 scribes to write this down. This must have then been narrated to the masses. Yet no one asks which gospels is he talking about?!?! How blind are you guys? Which other books is he refferring? Mohammed is telling the Christians of his time to refer to the Gospels!!

Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi, in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch.XIV, p.74 reports from Mu'affaq Bin Ahmad Khawarizmi and Sheikhu'l-Islam Hamwaini reports from Abu Sa'id Buhturi that he (Abu Sa'id) said: "I saw Ali on the pulpit while he was putting on the Holy Prophet's mantle, sword and the turban. He uncovered his chest and said: 'Ask me anything you like, before I die, because my breast contains great wisdom. This is my stomach which is a storehouse of knowledge. This is the saliva of the Holy Prophet; this is what the Holy Prophet has fed me as grain. I swear by Allah that if a carpet is spread and I sit on it, verily, I will instruct the follower of the Torah, according to the Torah. I will instruct the followers of the GOSPELS according to the GOSPELS, until both the Torah and the Gospels are made to speak and bear witness to the following: Ali has spoken the truth and the verdict that he has given is according to what has been revealed in us. When you recite the Book you don't understand this much.'"

Which Gospels is Ali endorsing? No one asks him? Which ones were corrupt? What did ali and Mohammed say?

Areef......even the Jehovah witness' endorse the four gospels in the new Testament!! Tell me which gospels is Mohammed endorsing? Did they get corrupted after Mohammed's time? Yet history doesn't record it. You might quote other gospels...but all speak about Jesus' crucifixion except for Barnabas found in the 14th Century...much after Mohammed. Maybe you might wanna read my 2nd post on this thread, it's about contradictions in the Bible.

You can beat your whole head around this one...the fact of the matter is many Aytollahs have given flimsical arguments. The most ludicrous I ever came across was Ayatollah Tabatabai who uses - on his site al-mizan.org - verses from Galatians 1:6-10 to prove there were other gospels. Little did he realize - if only he had read further - that this other gospel being preached was Christ crucified and ressurrected with the observance

of the Jewish Law and NOT the muslim concept of the injeel. You say that the Romans killed Jesus because of political reasons. In which Gospel was this that Mohammed approved?

People just love misquoting don't they!!

Al-Sayyid ibn Tawus, may Allah have mercy on him, said: I read in the Gospel that Jesus ('a) said: "I tell you, do not worry about what you will eat or what you will drink or with what you will clothe your bodies. Is not the soul more excellent than food, and the body more excellent than clothes? Look at the birds of the air, they neither sow nor reap nor store away, yet your heavenly Lord provides for them. Are you not more excellent than they'? Who among you by worrying can add a single measure to his stature'? Then why do you worry about your clothes?'' (Bihar al-anwar, xiv, 317)

Al-Sayyid ibn Tawus, may God have mercy on him, said: "I read in the Gospel that Jesus ('a) said: 'Who among you gives his son a stone when he asks for bread? Or who hands out a snake when asked for a cloak? If despite the fact that your evil is well-known you give good gifts to your sons, then it is more fitting that your Lord should give good things to one who asks." (Bihar al-anwar, xiv, 318; Sa'd al-su'ud, 56)

Sound like Matthew huh?!?!

I encourage you guys to get a hold of Bihar Al-Anwar and start reading it...may take you forever..it has 110 volumes...I still have a long way to go.

Kadhim said about christian deviants..."Good. But why do you think these Christian deviants exist? They accepted Jesus as their saviour, didn't they? Why hasn't the spirit entered them to purify their hearts?" May I suggest Hebrews 6:4-6 and Romans 7:7-25

I can't tell you about others but I can tell you about myself. Before accepting Christ's sacrifice as my atonement I had no idea what the love of god was. I knew what was the fear and wrath of Allah. I had no idea about the love of God. Now I know why he is called the Most Merciful and Most Gracious!

Kadhim said "I plan to write some books if God allows me the time and energy as my research becomes more complete to remedy this problem."

May I suggest Dr.Nabeel T.Jabbour. He's a christian with a PhD in Islam who has written some really good books both to help christians understand muslims better and vice-versa.

You can google him up. He happens to be a friend of mine and works for the navigators full time.

Greetings on the auspicious birthday of the Shi'ite Imam,

Salman (Victorious in Christ)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say he failed to pay tribute to Ceasar....dead wrong!! Jesus had said quite the opposite. This was a deliberate lie. Read Matthew 22:15-22

The charge leveled against him was not for paying tribute, remember Luke 23:1-6? So no one lied, its just you can't read.

This is Political Sedition, what do you think happens to a person who refuses to pay their taxes in their countries? Do they get a pat on the back or some time in prison?

Now about your analogy with Israel and America. Israel can single handlely defeat the majority of the Arab run countries no problem. Their military poweress is superior to those of the Arabs, the backing of America is not needed. Your argument only persumes that Israel is a puppet of the US, lol. The Arabs are unable to unite because of their own inner malice and amoral ways.

The Jews gave up Christ (as) to the Romans to be indicted for Political sedition. They could have stoned him for blashemphy but the charges of Blashemephy didn't hold weight against him. Thus, they didn't stone him. Otherwise this alleaged entoruage of people wouldn't have abandoned him and allowed him to be brought before the Sanhendren in which the Gospel accounts testify that he was condemned (Matthew 26:57-68). How come the entoruage asked to have the criminal released? (Mt 27:21)

As is clearly seen the "many people" supporting Jesus (as) were nothing but a feeble force who couldn't match anyone.

I don't know why you only pick those verses in the bible that befit your stance. People like you make my faith in Jesus stronger. It helps me realize how satan is constantly at war with him.

I havn't misquoted, if you want to believe in the Pagan Mystery Religion aka Christianity. You can do so.

Now let me ask you this what proof do you have to substanciate that the Gospel record is even accurate?

The rest of your words bore me, but about the miracles those are all metaphorical for what benefit it is to cure a blind eye when the heart is still dark? The fashioning of the bird to life is indicative of the human being who is fashioned by the teachings of the Prophet and then given life through his teachings to evolve into a new enlighted state.

You should read this book, it is very insightful on the subject:

http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/m%26c/mc.shtml

I can't tell you about others but I can tell you about myself. Before accepting Christ's sacrifice as my atonement I had no idea what the love of god was. I knew what was the fear and wrath of Allah. I had no idea about the love of God. Now I know why he is called the Most Merciful and Most Gracious!

Thus the truth comes out, I told you people this person wasn't a Muslim.

Read this, I found it enlightening:

http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mga/4q/qa1.shtml

http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mga/4q/qa3.shtml

Hit me up after your done with the links.

(salam)

Edited by Areef Hamdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BISMILLAH

No offense areef. You might think I'm not a muslim. I hope I am, and my Lord - who judges me - knows better You can believe whatever you want. I guess just because I believe christ was crucified - and also believe in mohammed and the Quran while practicing muslim laws - makes me a non-muslim to you. I'll still pray to Allah for you.

I'll give your stuff a read but I guess they're written by Ahmedi muslim scholors so I'll have to treat their works with care.

You asked me about the illegal Sanhedrin meeting. I was lucky enough to find John McArthur's works online.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2389.htm

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2390.htm

blessings & may god's grace be with you,

Salman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a miraculous entry into this world, he was the only one to have a miraculous exit. Also in Chapter 28 (Qasas) Moses asks forgiveness for

Imam Mehdi had a pretty nice escape too. I would say that's miraculous! Since when does miracles stand to determine if one Prophet is better than the other? Not very fair.

his faults, in chapter 38 (as-Sad) we see David and Solomon asking forgiveness for their faults, in chapter 47 verse 19 and and chapter 48

sins or faults? different things. i will check my Quran when i get home, inshallah.

verse 2 Mohammed sins had to be forgiven. Also in "The Quran: When was it Compiled?" (http://www.shirazi.org.uk/the%20quran%20when%20was%20it.pdf) by Ayotllah shirazi on page 11 that Mohammed sins had to be forgiven. That means Mohammed to was Guilty of Sin if Allah wouldn't forgive him.

I'm not a person who is in authority to do tafsir, but to me Allah SWT is asking him a question as to why he is crying. in a way, it's also for us. the Quran is not just private moments between Allah and the Prophet..the Quran is for US. So Allah asking him why he was crying when he was nearing death, was a way to reassure the followers of Allah (the Muslims) that they had nothing to fear, not even the tribulations of Judgement Day (as mentioned in the next verse).

The Prophets did not commit sin. If they did, how could any person feel comfortable following them? I wouldn't. If a Prophet who was sending the words of God made a mistake, how could we ever trust their word? Would we ever know what was truth or a mistake? no. The Prophets had to be purified by Allah SWT. There is no other way for people to be guided. It's just common sense. Think of how horrible it would be if the Prophet made a mistake or made a sin.... the number of people who would be affected would be tremendous. He would be accountable for billions of people following the wrong thing. Allah SWT would not bestow such a heavy burden to just an ordinary fellow...and all the Messengers had this burden..not just Jesus. Every Messenger was laughed at and scoffed at. Imagine they did commit sins! It would have been a disaster! And look at the reprocussions of those who believe this to be true.... they make the excuse that 'well prophets also commited adultery..so why can't I?' this is totally false.

However, no where can I find that Jesus ever sinned!! After all this should come as no surprise, since he wasn't from Adam unlike EVERYONE else!! Remember in Surah 4 verse 171...Allah says Jesus was spirit proceeding from HIM!!

Did you ever hear Mary sinning? We also believe Mary was sinless. There are some forms of Christianity who also believe this as wel... I think maybe Catholics? So then I guess Jesus wasn't the only one in Christianity to be sinless!!

a miraculous entry into this world, he was the only one to have a miraculous exit. Also in Chapter 28 (Qasas) Moses asks forgiveness for
Edited by oldsword81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No offense areef. You might think I'm not a muslim. I hope I am, and my Lord - who judges me - knows better You can believe whatever you want. I guess just because I believe christ was crucified - and also believe in mohammed and the Quran while practicing muslim laws - makes me a non-muslim to you. I'll still pray to Allah for you.

The following is what takes you out of the Pale of Islam:

I can't tell you about others but I can tell you about myself. Before accepting Christ's sacrifice as my atonement I had no idea what the love of god was. I knew what was the fear and wrath of Allah. I had no idea about the love of God. Now I know why he is called the Most Merciful and Most Gracious!

Muslims do not believe in:

  1. Atonement of Christ (as) on the cross
  2. that Allah (swt) does not give expression to His Love
  3. that Allah (swt) only expresses His Fear and Wrath

You say you had no idea of the Love of God this de facto disqualifies from being a Muslim, for a Muslim is cognitive of the Love of God and its expression.

I'll give your stuff a read but I guess they're written by Ahmedi muslim scholors so I'll have to treat their works with care.

We're being open minded right? So Ahmadi or not doesn't matter for a person who can think outside the box.

I'll check out your link,

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salman,

The sacrificial system of the OT is a major part of the Scripture and I believe it as it is written, and it is with this understanding that I read and continue to reread the Quran. From Abraham down to Moses they sacrificed wherever they stopped. Later they established the daily temple sacrifices. --- Certainly it is too significant to be ignored.

There is mention of OT sacrifice in the Quran, in fact Surah 2 is named from the story of the 'yellow heifer' (67-71), which God instructed Moses to have the offenders offer for their disobedience in worshipping the golden calf and breaking the Sabbath.

The yellow heifer compares to the unblemished heifer of Numbers 19.

The story starts in verse 2:63 and the sacrifice was made in 71,

71. 'Moses answered: Lo! He saith: Verily she is a cow unyolked; she plougheth not the soil nor watereth the earth; whole and without mark. They said: now thou bringest the truth. So they sacrificed her, though almost they did not.

(It continues)

72. ‘And remember when ye slew a man and disagreed concerning it and God brought forth that which you were hiding.’

73. ‘And We said: SMITE HIM WITH SOME OF IT. THUS GOD BRINGETH THE DEAD TO LIFE and showeth you His portents so that you may understand.’

2:73 in other versions say,

Yusuf Ali, ‘So We said strike the body with a piece of the heifer.’

Shakir, ‘So We said strike the dead body with part of the sacrificed cow.’

Sher Ali, ‘Then We said, compare this incident with some other similar ones and you will discover the truth.’

It was impossible to ‘strike’ the body of Jesus with a piece of a heifer that was sacrificed some 1400 years earlier, but it was possible to ‘compare’ this incident with the other.

To apply, or compare the special sacrifice from Numbers of an unblemished heifer that died to provide the ashes for sprinkling that was used to purify the people, with a special sacrifice of the perfect Man, Jesus. --- He died also, but He rose again from the dead.

The rest of the verse says, ‘Thus God brings the dead to life.’ (The resurrection).

‘And shows you His portents that you may understand’ (The victory over death).

Maulvi Muhammad Ali says in his translation this refers to the martyrdom of Christ.

4:158 says, ‘But God took him up unto Himself.’ (The ascension). --- ‘God was ever Mighty, Wise.’

2:74 says, ‘Then even after that your hearts were hardened and became as rocks, or worse than rocks for hardness.

Though the Jews had all the 'portents' or proofs they needed, their hearts were hardened to the point of devising lies to carry on the deception.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kadhim further denies....."The Injeel/evangelion/Gospel is not Barnabus. It is not the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It is not the Gospels of Thomas, or Mary, or Phillip, or Infancy Gospel Thomas or Infancy Gospel James, though all these, some of them with more truth and accuracy likely than others, give slices of the injeel, which is not contained in any physical book, and was not, ever. Jesus was a walking, talking

manifestation of the Word of God, in much the same way that Imam Ali stated at the battle of Siffeen that "I am the living Qu'ran." That is, every word and action of Jesus was part of the injeel and together form this book. Existing "Gospels" are "Readers Digest"

summaries."

Let's see......

[5:47] Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed THEREIN. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

[5:48] And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever SCRIPTURE was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.

[5:66] If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.

[5:68] Say O People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance) till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto you from your Lord. That which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) from thy Lord is certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many of them. But grieve not for the disbelieving folk.

These verses make it emphatically clear that Mohammed was purporting towards written material present in his time. The injeel was not Jesus. If it was Jesus, Moahmmed would have been seen as a sham because Jesus had already disappeared before Mohammed. Which books are these that Mohammed endorses? Just imagine Mohammed gets a revelation and then tells his 42 scribes to write this down. This must have then been narrated to the masses. Yet no one asks which gospels is he talking about?!?! How blind are you guys? Which other books is he refferring? Mohammed is telling the Christians of his time to refer to the Gospels!!

I don't think you can conclude from the Qu'ran verses above that it is claimed that the four canonical Gospels = the Gospel. Like I said, if Jesus (as) was a manifestation of the Word of God, then it is reasonable to conclude that not he himself, but his words and actions, were the Gospel. The Gospel in its entirety, or close to it was only really encountered by those who accompanied him, and then only those who listened and watched with a pure heart. Those of us who did not live at his time have to rely on second hand reports, as Jesus did not write books down to leave himself. Now no human written book can contain the entirety of the actions and speech of Jesus. So that is why I say any one book is only a slice of the Gospel. The Christians recognize this too; that is why they include four different accounts. I would go beyond this to include other accounts of a non-canonical nature, but in any case, I think you see my point. The Gospel doesn't fit in any finite set of books, but certain books approximate well to the real story. How much each account is correct, and which accounts are correct is a difficult one. But you can't say that the four Gospels in the Bible are 100% all correct, because they disagree in certain small details in such a way that all versions cannot all be correct. But I am willing to entertain that a very large proportion of the canonical Gospels are authentic and correct, though they leave out a lot of details filled in by other non-canon accounts, such as the back story of Mary and the childhood of JEsus. I recommend the Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas for your research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BISMILLAH

I finally found the Sanhedrin regulations in the Talmud. Read Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:1

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...sanhedrin4.html

Capital cases could only legally be tried in the daytime.

Waiting for more responses on the Injeel and Torah Mohammed endorsed,

Salman

P.S - The clues to cracking this paradox lies in the works of Ibn Hazm

www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html

www.***.org.uk/Responses/Saifullah/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salaam,

just wanted to reply to a few points.

that Mohammed sins had to be forgiven. That means Mohammed to was Guilty of Sin if Allah wouldn't forgive him.

incorrect. infact even tark-al-awla was not possible for the 14 ma'soo'meen. you have misinterpreted the verses of the qur'an that ostensibly ask prophet muhammad (pbuh) to ask for forgiveness. remember that often when Allah is speaking to our prophet (pbuh) the reference is actually to the muslims in general. for example, take the verses:

[17:23] And your Lord has commanded that you shall not serve (any) but Him, and goodness to your parents. If either or both of them reach old age with you, say not to them (so much as) "Ugh" nor chide them, and speak to them a generous word.

[17:24] And make yourself submissively gentle to them with compassion, and say: O my Lord! have compassion on them, as they brought me up (when I was) little.

now, in these verses Allah is instructing the Prophet (pbuh) on how to deal with his parents, but it is well known that both his father and mother had died while he was still young. so for whom are these instructions then? these are for the muslim ummah. so similarly when Allah apparently asks the Prophet to seek forgiveness for his sins, the reference is to the muslim ummah, even though the person being spoken to is the prophet (pbuh).

However, no where can I find that Jesus ever sinned!!

you can't find any reference to the "sins" of prophets Lut, Haroon, Khidr, etc. (as) either. doesn't mean anything.

After all this should come as no surprise, since he wasn't from Adam unlike EVERYONE else!! Remember in Surah 4 verse 171...Allah says Jesus was spirit proceeding from HIM!!

his mother was from Adam (as). and just because prophet Isa has in him the spirit proceding from Allah doesn't make him "sin"less. remember that prophet Adam (as) was described as possessing the spirit of Allah HIMSELF (15:29), but he still "sinned" (i.e., comitted tark-al-awla). so if a prophet possessing Allah's rooh can make mistakes, then surely the prophet possessing rooh al qudus can as well.

He was born from a virgin without a man.

prophet Adam (as) tops that.

He was the only One described as 'God's Word and a Spirit from Him'.

other prophets have titles that Prophet Isa (as) doesn't. for example, prophet Ibrahim (as) is khalee-lillaah.

He was the only One over whom Satan did not have any authority.

wrong.

[15:29] He said: My Lord! because Thou hast made life evil to me, I will certainly make (evil) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate

[15:40] Except Thy servants from among them, the devoted ones.

He was the only One who had divine characteristics.

wrong. all of creation, even satan, has divine characteristics.

Also out of all the people who have had a miraculous entry into this world, he was the only one to have a miraculous exit.

wrong. so does Imam Mahdi (as).

Fyst...."salman, hopefully you haven't told your parents about your current set of beliefs yet, as that wouldn't be a very smart thing to do. just take some more time and make sure you aren't going to change your opinions again anytime soon before doing so."

Thank you very much for your kind words and support. You don't know how painful it is for me to sleep at night - I'm always contemplating and praying - to God for guidance. This has been one of the most difficult moments in my life.

okay, so you told your parents. that's still cool, but atleast try to keep it secret from public. remember that you are in UAE, and i can't be sure, but i suspect that if the government finds out about your beliefs, then your punishment will be death. or worse, deportation to pakistan.

Fyst...you understand I'm an impartial reader and as an impartial reader I shall die.

bro, you may read impartially, but you sure don't interpret impartially. when you want to believe something, you just stick to your belief regardless of the evidence. you tried for more than an hour to convince me that the qur'an and the bible are compatible with each other in the issue of Prophet Isa's supposed crucifixion. and that clearly is a gross misinterpretation of the qur'anic text.

P.S. - Do u think it's possble that the only reason Imam Mehdi doesn't re-appear is because maybe we are ready for him, but not for ready he who will be accompanying him? i.e. Jesus

i doubt it. it's not just that there is no mention of preparing for the return of Prophet Isa (as) in islamic scriptures, i haven't even read anything about preparing for the return from christian sources. christian sources don't even accept the concept of a Mahdi different from prophet Isa (as), so this point is moot.

I wonder if you've ever read the Quran....

[10:31] Say: Who gives you sustenance from the heaven and the earth? Or Who controls the hearing and the sight? And Who brings forth the living from the dead, and brings forth the dead from the living? And Who regulates the affairs? Then they will say: Allah. Say then: Will you not then guard (against evil)?

[3:49] And (make him) a messenger to the children of Israel: That I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I determine for you out of dust like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird with Allah's permission and I heal the blind and the leprous, and bring the dead to life with Allah's permission and I inform you of what you should eat and what you should store in your houses; most surely there is a sign in this for you, if you are believers.

[5:110] When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and I when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.

again a very bad interpretation of the qur'anic verses. just because prophet Isa healed, and brought the dead to life, and "determined" a bird, and Allah has been given these attributes in the qur'an, doesn't imply the equation of Allah and Prophet Isa. nor does it imply the sharing of the attribute. for example, Allah calls himself Raziq, but none of us have ever obtained our rizq directly from Allah. infact, even animals are the raziq of their young ones. this doesn't mean that Allah's attributes are shared with animals. it just tells us that Allah lets creation possess His attributes, but with His permission! this is what i meant by all of creation having "divine characteristics" in a part of my reply above.

These verses make it emphatically clear that Mohammed was purporting towards written material present in his time.

.

.

.

Mohammed is telling the Christians of his time to refer to the Gospels!!

.

.

.

In which Gospel was this that Mohammed approved?

wrong interpretation again. asking someone to refer to some material for guidance does not imply approval of said material.

for example, shias ask sunnis to refer to their own collections of ahadith about ghadeer, praise of ahlulbayt, rank of imam Ali (as) in order to convince them about the validity of the shia faith. this does not mean that the shia approve of the sunni ahadith collection. it just means that even their own works are sufficient ("sufficient" being the key word here) to show them the truth. in a similar manner, when in the qur'an or ahadith, the christians or jews are asked to refer to their scriptures, this is not an act of approval of these scriptures. no verse in the qur'an, nor any sound hadith has ever approved of the earlier scriptures.

anyway, that's it for now. we can discuss in detail when you come over.

salaam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BISMILLAH

No offense areef. You might think I'm not a muslim. I hope I am, and my Lord - who judges me - knows better You can believe whatever you want. I guess just because I believe christ was crucified - and also believe in mohammed and the Quran while practicing muslim laws - makes me a non-muslim to you.

Of all the things that you could reject about Islam, why reject the clear and explicit verse of the Holy Quran which states..." but they killed him not!" 4:157

So Prophet Jesus (as) was NOT killed according to the Quran. For you to believe this demonstrates that you DO NOT believe that the Holy Quran is from God (in it's entirity). If you do not believe this, then THE ENTIRE QURAN (in your mind) is just another book on the shelf, like the Oxford-English dictonary or the Reader's Digest.

The basis of Islam is the Quran, and if there is a SINGLE ERROR in the Quran, then Islam is not a divinely inspired religion (unless you believe either the Allah (swa) makes mistakes (astafirAllah!) or the the Prophet Mohammad erred in conveying the message. The Quran SPECIFICALLY says that it contains no errors, that the Prophet did not err in conveying it to the people, and that Allah (swa) HIMSELF will assure that it is not changed or altered.

So if you believe that Prophet Jesus (as) WAS killed, then you have (within that belief) accepted MANY things which contradict the BASIC, FUNDEMENTAL teachings of the Holy Quran and the Prophet Mohammad (as).

Edited by Ali Zaki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BISMILLAH

Salaam,

Not to go off-topic but to reply to some points,

Fyst says "infact even tark-al-awla was not possible for the 14 ma'soo'meen"

I wonder why Ayatollah shirazi says the opposite on (http://www.shirazi.org.uk/the%20quran%20when%20was%20it.pdf) by Ayotllah shirazi on page 11 that Mohammed sins had to be forgiven.

Fyst says "you can't find any reference to the "sins" of prophets Lut, Haroon, Khidr, etc. either. doesn't mean anything."

You obviously didn't get my point did you. Just as Imam Ali would incessantly ask people to ask him anything because he was the gate to the city of knowledge so did Jesus claim to be without sin. He actually asked people to ask to prove him of a single sin. Read the gospels

Fyst says "his mother was from Adam . and just because prophet Isa has in him the spirit proceding from Allah doesn't make him "sin"less. remember that prophet Adam was described as possessing the spirit of Allah HIMSELF (15:29), but he still "sinned" (i.e., comitted tark-al-awla). so if a prophet possessing Allah's rooh can make mistakes, then surely the prophet possessing rooh al qudus can as well."

Adam sinned because he gave in to the temptations of Satan. Did Jesus? May be you forgot what happened when he was being tempted by Satan in the middle of the desert.

Fyst says "prophet Adam tops that." No offense but Adam had to beg Allah for forgiveness of his faults...Read Surah Al-Baqarah

Fyst says "other prophets have titles that Prophet Isa doesn't. for example, prophet Ibrahim is khalee-lillaah."

May I present what Ayatollah Shirazi's dept. had to say in reply to a questions I asked. (I'll show you the copy once I'm over at your place)

I'll paste the text below.

Why has the term 'messiah' been only specifically used for Propet

Jesus(AS) by the glorious Quran?

Every prophet used to be known by a title

representing one of his qualities, and Jesus was known

by this particular quality. This does not mean that

Jesus did not have other qualities, or that other

prophets did not have this particular quality. For

example the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and

his pure family, was known as Rasulollah, meaning the

Messenger of Allah, but this does not mean other

prophets were not messengers of Allah.

You oppose Shirazi when you say "other prophets have titles that Prophet Isa doesn't"

Fyst says "[15:29] He said: My Lord! because Thou hast made life evil to me, I will certainly make (evil) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate

[15:40] Except Thy servants from among them, the devoted ones."

Note the word "Deviate" Just because I sin or fault in my actions sometimes does not mean I have deviated!! These can also include those whom Allah forgive of their faults.

Fyst says "wrong. all of creation, even satan, has divine characteristics."

We're talking about human flesh here.

Fyst says "wrong. so does Imam Mahdi"

No offense but Imam Mehdi didn't have a miraculous birth. He (according to ithna ashari texts) had a miraculous exit from this world. Assuming that to be true he still hasn't had a miraculous entry - yet. Mind you all muslims would agree on Jesus' miraculous exit and entry but would all muslims on Mohammed ibn Hassan Askari's miraculous exit (The ithna ashari Mehdi) and pending entry?

Fyst says "christian sources don't even accept the concept of a Mahdi different from prophet Isa , so this point is moot." That's true....but they believe in two witness' to come down before Jesus comes to Judge. This subject has been of much debate. You can see it's basis in the book of Revelations. According to some....Elijah will be sent to the Jews and Enoch to the Gentiles.

Fyst says "it just tells us that Allah lets creation possess His attributes, but with His permission! this is what i meant by all of creation having "divine characteristics" in a part of my reply above." I know Jesus was a servant to God. The subject of the debate was whether his miracles were physical or spiritual as clamied by Ahmedi's.

Fyst says "wrong interpretation again. asking someone to refer to some material for guidance does not imply approval of said material.

for example, shias ask sunnis to refer to their own collections of ahadith about ghadeer, praise of ahlulbayt, rank of imam Ali in order to convince them about the validity of the shia faith. this does not mean that the shia approve of the sunni ahadith collection. it just means that even their own works are sufficient ("sufficient" being the key word here) to show them the truth. in a similar manner, when in the qur'an or ahadith, the christians or jews are asked to refer to their scriptures, this is not an act of approval of these scriptures. no verse in the qur'an, nor any sound hadith has ever approved of the earlier scriptures."

You have a very different view from most scholors.

Ponder over verses 26:196 , 10:94 along with the Story of Abdullah bin Salam & 5:68 , 6:34 , 18:27 , 6:115 , 10:64

However, Mohammed and his ahlul-bayt, had one major difference and that was the concept of the trinity. Read 4:171 & 5:73 in the Quran. This is evident - as a result of 3:61 -in the event of Mubahila.

Checkout http://www.ezsoftech.com/islamic/mubahila.asp

The ahlul-bayt always OBJECTED to only one of the christian teachings in their debate. "SON OF GOD" But let's understand the trinity the Quran doesn't agree with. Read 5:116 in the Quran. The pagan christian arabs had a tradition of keeping three idols symbolizing that Christ was conceived from God through Mary. They puported mary as god's wife. They believed in the trinity of Jesus, Marry & the Father.

Keep in mind the topic of debate between the Ahlul-bayt and the christians of Najran. Did they argue of Jesus being the prophecised sin offering? Did they argue that he was NOT placed at the right hand of God? Did they argue he was NOT raised back up alive? Did they say he was NOT prophecised in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53? (Note: The dead sea scrolls were proven through carbon testing that those "FOUND" manuscripts were dated back to 1 B.C.)

They only argued on the Pagan Idea of trinity!!

Just to refresh your memory as to what I wrote....

[5:47] Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed THEREIN. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

[5:48] And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever SCRIPTURE was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.

[5:66] If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.

[5:68] Say O People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance) till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto you from your Lord. That which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) from thy Lord is certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many of them. But grieve not for the disbelieving folk.

These verses make it emphatically clear that Mohammed was purporting towards written material present in his time. The injeel was not Jesus. If it was Jesus, Moahmmed would have been seen as a sham because Jesus had already disappeared before Mohammed. Which books are these that Mohammed endorses? Just imagine Mohammed gets a revelation and then tells his 42 scribes to write this down. This must have then been narrated to the masses. Yet no one asks which gospels is he talking about?!?! How blind are you guys? Which other books is he refferring? Mohammed is telling the Christians of his time to refer to the Gospels!!

Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi, in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch.XIV, p.74 reports from Mu'affaq Bin Ahmad Khawarizmi and Sheikhu'l-Islam Hamwaini reports from Abu Sa'id Buhturi that he (Abu Sa'id) said: "I saw Ali on the pulpit while he was putting on the Holy Prophet's mantle, sword and the turban. He uncovered his chest and said: 'Ask me anything you like, before I die, because my breast contains great wisdom. This is my stomach which is a storehouse of knowledge. This is the saliva of the Holy Prophet; this is what the Holy Prophet has fed me as grain. I swear by Allah that if a carpet is spread and I sit on it, verily, I will instruct the follower of the Torah, according to the Torah. I will instruct the followers of the GOSPELS according to the GOSPELS, until both the Torah and the Gospels are made to speak and bear witness to the following: Ali has spoken the truth and the verdict that he has given is according to what has been revealed in us. When you recite the Book you don't understand this much.'"

Which Gospels is Ali endorsing? No one asks him? Which ones were corrupt? What did ali and Mohammed say?

Areef......even the Jehovah witness' endorse the four gospels in the new Testament!! Tell me which gospels is Mohammed endorsing? Did they get corrupted after Mohammed's time? Yet history doesn't record it. You might quote other gospels...but all speak about Jesus' crucifixion except for Barnabas found in the 14th Century...much after Mohammed. Maybe you might wanna read my 2nd post on this thread, it's about contradictions in the Bible.

You can beat your whole head around this one...the fact of the matter is many Aytollahs have given flimsical arguments. The most ludicrous I ever came across was Ayatollah Tabatabai who uses - on his site al-mizan.org - verses from Galatians 1:6-10 to prove there were other gospels. Little did he realize - if only he had read further - that this other gospel being preached was Christ crucified and ressurrected with the observance

of the Jewish Law and NOT the muslim concept of the injeel. You say that the Romans killed Jesus because of political reasons. In which Gospel was this that Mohammed approved?

People just love misquoting don't they!!

Al-Sayyid ibn Tawus, may Allah have mercy on him, said: I read in the Gospel that Jesus ('a) said: "I tell you, do not worry about what you will eat or what you will drink or with what you will clothe your bodies. Is not the soul more excellent than food, and the body more excellent than clothes? Look at the birds of the air, they neither sow nor reap nor store away, yet your heavenly Lord provides for them. Are you not more excellent than they'? Who among you by worrying can add a single measure to his stature'? Then why do you worry about your clothes?'' (Bihar al-anwar, xiv, 317)

Al-Sayyid ibn Tawus, may God have mercy on him, said: "I read in the Gospel that Jesus ('a) said: 'Who among you gives his son a stone when he asks for bread? Or who hands out a snake when asked for a cloak? If despite the fact that your evil is well-known you give good gifts to your sons, then it is more fitting that your Lord should give good things to one who asks." (Bihar al-anwar, xiv, 318; Sa'd al-su'ud, 56)

Sound to me they were reading the Gospel of Matthew.

Let's say if your claim is correct. Atleast Mohammed could have told which books or Gospels were correct? Which one's were corrupted? Which verses he agreed with? Which he didn't? Remember what he says in 5:68? Ofcourse if the gospels were corrupted long before Mohammed's time, he wouldn't tell me to follow all of it. You can run in circles in this forever. I remember confronting an aalim with this verse. He claimed that according to the tafseer he read I remember he was quoting from a persian text.

I'm pretty sure it was Ayatollah Tabatabai's al-mizan. The aalim - I asked - told me these referred to other uncorrupted gospels in Mohammed's time. Actually almost every scholor has a different view. You know I think Mohammed & his 12 successors could have made life much easier for the whole muslim ummah if they could just tell us which Gospels were right and which weren't. Don't forget about their entourage.....you think they were never asked such question? I wonder why their answers weren't documented. Btw, the Quran has a very unique claim. It actually says Jesus was given the gospel. Alot of Scholors interpret this differently. I liked my post's reader "Kadhim"'s view alot. However what do you believe fyst? Do you believe that the gospel was an uncorrupted book? Please provide some historical references next time when giving in your claim. (Dates of manuscripts would be nice)

Ali zaki did you forget what I said in my first post about Jesus being killed? I'll paste it again "Also in the quran verse 157 of sura Nisa'ah can be interpreted in many different ways. It is true...they (the Jews) did not kill him neither crucified him....because the Romans did. Also it was made to appear to them. How do we know that he didn't die and hence wasn't crucifed ? That's because he appeared again on Sunday Morning!!"

That Quranic verse can be interpreted in a number of ways. Whether it's divinly inspired or not is a debate by itself. However everyone can ATLEAST consent ananimously that it's poetry.

Brother Fyst you have to understand. I just didn't change my beliefs overnight but by asking Scholors and Aalims questions and then analyzing their "different" claims. To me they just don't only hold up (according to historically recorded data), but contradict each other. You probably remember how ardently I would argue with Mormons when defending my Shia beliefs earlier on this year. I have already referred to Scholors. Right now I'm just creating an awareness. Don't think I've left Islam yet. A wise man once said "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water"

If all u would like to see me attain salvation then please could you all atleast do me a favour? Do you any of you know a contemporary Christian Scholor who later on converted to Shi'ism and attained atleast the rank of an a'alim. I would love to meet up with him. I've already tried those that didn't accept Shi'ism. For e.g. Yusuf Estes. He unfortunately misquotes too.

O Mighty God save me from your followers,

Salman

BTW - Fyst, I forgot to tell you one thing. I received a fatwa from Ayatollah Sistani's dept. They DON'T believe that the Quran placed in Imam Reza Museum, Mashad was written by Imam Ali. He actually believes there exists no copy written by any of the 12 Imams as opposed to claims held by Shirazi and Fadhlullah. I will let you have a copy of the fatwa once I'm over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That Quranic verse can be interpreted in a number of ways. Whether it's divinly inspired or not is a debate by itself. However everyone can ATLEAST consent ananimously that it's poetry.

If you claim to be a Muslim and believe that it's DEBATABLE whether or not the Quran is divinely inspired, then you're claim rings hollow. Muslims may disagree about the MEANING of a ayat, no Muslim claims that it's debateable whether or not the Quran is divinely inspired.

Also, you're argument is lifted directly from Christian fundi sites, and they (like you, aparently) like to "pick and choose" verses from the Quran which support their strange theories rather then taking each verse of the Quran in the context of THE QURAN AS A WHOLE ( something they can't do due to lack of a general understanding of it's teachings) and without reliance upon hadith or scholarly exegesis.

So you're methodology is fundementally flawed, and you're argument is DEPENDENT upon doubt and idle speculation (you're theory is like a person who was in an accident saying "it's my car's fault,not mine, because my car didn't stop fast enough) and you seem to lack a basic knowledge of what Muslim scholars have to say on the subject. The Quran is not a book that can be understood (in a scholarly way) without a large amount of pre-requisite knowledge that you seem to lack. If you lack this basic, pre-requisite knowledge and yet are attempting to challenge well-established and fundemental

assumptions by Muslim scholars then it's kind of like trying to disprove the theory of relativity without a basic knowledge of physics. Good luck!

" Allah added after "they did not kill him" the words, "nor did they crucify him" to make the meaning utmost clear. Then He says explicitly that 'Isa (a.s.) did not die on their hands, neither by crucifixion nor in any other way."

SOURCE: http://www.almizan.org/Tafseer/Volume9/9Nisaa12.asp

The word THEY does not refer only to the Jews (although they are the one's that BRAGGED about killing him), it means his enemies IN GENERAL (which includes the Romans and Jews).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BISMILLAH

\

I wonder why Ayatollah shirazi says the opposite on (http://www.shirazi.org.uk/the%20quran%20when%20was%20it.pdf) by Ayotllah shirazi on page 11 that Mohammed sins had to be forgiven.

Okay, I looked up the Surah An-Nasr that is referenced in the link you provided. According to my Quran, this verse was revealed after the bloodless capture of Mecca. when the Prophet (pbuh) recited it to his uncle Abbas, Abbas started to cry because it predicted that the Prophet (pbuh) will die soon.

The line reads: Celebrate then the praise of thy Lord, and seek thou His protection, for verily He is Oft-turning (merciful).

This verse is clearly for every Muslim. That instead of being so sad about dying and leaving this world, we should be happy that seeking the Lord's protection will deliver us from punishment (God's Merciful).

In contrast, what you are referencing on Shirazi's book is when the Prophet was speaking to others who were questioning him as to why he was crying. The Prophet knew that he was going to die soon and the others were wondering why he was crying sins he had no sins. He said he wasn't crying because of that but because of all the difficulties that come AFTER death. Even for a Prophet, the questioning on the daying of Judgement will be intense...so imagine for us! He is trying to tell the people this...that's it's not a piece of cake!

So what you are showing is not proving that the Prophet sinned. It actually has nothing to do with his sinning...it has to do with the afterlife.

You obviously didn't get my point did you. Just as Imam Ali would incessantly ask people to ask him anything because he was the gate to the city of knowledge so did Jesus claim to be without sin. He actually asked people to ask to prove him of a single sin. Read the gospels

We believe that NO Messenger/Prophet has sinned. What is written in the Bible about the prophets committing adultery or incest, etc. to us is incorrect and a corruption caused by man. this was done deliberately so human beings don't have to feel so bad about sinning..since prophets did them too! this is completely against the beliefs held by Muslims.

No one is saying that Jesus committed sin...we are saying that NO Prophet committed sins. This is a critical belief and what sets us apart from Jews and Christians..as well as other sects of Islam (some muslims believe that Prophets made mistakes and could have sinned...Shias do not).

Adam sinned because he gave in to the temptations of Satan.

That's if you believe eating from the tree was a sin. The verse in theQuran says:

002.035 We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."

Allah SWT is not saying it is haraam to eat from the tree...he is telling Adam to not go near the tree, and if he does he will harm himself. He is giving him a fair warning...but not a ruling.

The sin idea is from the Christian perspective, not the Muslim.

Fyst says "prophet Adam tops that." No offense but Adam had to beg Allah for forgiveness of his faults...Read Surah Al-Baqarah

Please cite the verse. I believe I know which you are referring to, but I want to make sure before I say anything... Thanks.

You oppose Shirazi when you say "other prophets have titles that Prophet Isa doesn't"

I don't see where you are getting this from... every Prophet had a title based on his qualities. so each one will be different... Prophet Jesus (pbuh) had a title that other didn't...and vice versa. how is this in opposition to what Shirazi said?

Note the word "Deviate" Just because I sin or fault in my actions sometimes does not mean I have deviated!! These can also include those whom Allah forgive of their faults.

Yes. it's the intention that matters...and only Allah SWT knows the intentions.

No offense but Imam Mehdi didn't have a miraculous birth. He (according to ithna ashari texts) had a miraculous exit from this world.

You never answered my question as to since when does miracles make one prophet better than the other? I don't get this entry/exit business... every Prophet had his own role/duty. Some were given the ability to perform miracles and other didn't. It depended upon what the people they were preaching to needed...and Allah SWT knew what they needed.

The subject of the debate was whether his miracles were physical or spiritual as clamied by Ahmedi's.

Miracles are bestowed to the Prophets by God.

Yet no one asks which gospels is he talking about?!?! How blind are you guys? Which other books is he refferring? Mohammed is telling the Christians of his time to refer to the Gospels!!

The verses you referred to all say that the Quran confirms the scriptures before it. yes, we know that. However, this does not say that the interpretation of those scriptures are correct. the way people try to interepret the Bible, by taking things out of context to twist the meaning around and make 'prophecies' come true etc is completely false.

Why would the Prophet be preaching to Christians to refer to their Gospels? this makes no sense. the people the Prophet was preaching to were pagans, they didn't even believe in Christianity...nor did they believe in one God.

What God is saying the Quran, is that He has sent messages to others, Jews and Christians before...which we know...how? By the existence of the Gospels. Just because they were changed by men over time, doesn't mean that God didn't send them messages to begin with. No one argues that. The only thing that we argue is that the messages in the Gospels were touched by men...they were changed. However, you can still get the OVERALL message..which is obviously to believe in God. In the Gospels, it doesn't say not to believe in God. Even Christians, when they read their Bible, will never see jesus saying "don't believe in God..only believe in me."

Which Gospels is Ali endorsing? No one asks him? Which ones were corrupt? What did ali and Mohammed say?

I don't understand. Everyone knows what Gospels Imam Ali is referring to! This had nothing to do with corruption of the books....why would anyone ask him! you are taking quotes out of context and trying to make it sound different. this is wrong.

Basically, whatever doesn't match the God's WORDS (read: Quran) is corrupt.

People just love misquoting don't they!!

That's pretty ironic. lol. you quote things that have nothing to do with your arguments to make them sound like they are backing you up! lol

Sound to me they were reading the Gospel of Matthew
.

Big whoopidity doo! There are tons of passages in teh Gospel that correspond with Islam...guess why...bc they are from the SAME message! No one is arguing that! ahhhhh!!!

Let's say if your claim is correct. Atleast Mohammed could have told which books or Gospels were correct? Which one's were corrupted? Which verses he agreed with? Which he didn't? Remember what he says in 5:68?

Why should he!?! If you believe that theQuran is God's literal Word, even a child would be able to tell what doesn't agree and what does agree with God!

Ofcourse if the gospels were corrupted long before Mohammed's time, he wouldn't tell me to follow all of it.

Follow it or refer to it? Why would a person who has received God's WORDS follow anything else?

I liked my post's reader "Kadhim"'s view alot. However what do you believe fyst? Do you believe that the gospel was an uncorrupted book? Please provide some historical references next time when giving in your claim. (Dates of manuscripts would be nice)

there are also Christians out there that believe Jesus was given a book... I dont remember what thread it was on..but it's somewhere in shiachat....

Ali zaki did you forget what I said in my first post about Jesus being killed? I'll paste it again "Also in the quran verse 157 of sura Nisa'ah can be interpreted in many different ways. It is true...they (the Jews) did not kill him neither crucified him....because the Romans did. Also it was made to appear to them. How do we know that he didn't die and hence wasn't crucifed ? That's because he appeared again on Sunday Morning!!"

the "They" the Quran is referring to is anyone who was boasting that they killed Jesus. It's not necessarily ONLY the Jews.

It was made to appear so could also be interpreted that the writers of the Gospel could have made the whole thing up so that it appeared to them that it really happened.

Appearing again on Sunday morning could also be interepreted that Jesus wasn't killed but raised by Allah to another place... he could possibly make himself appear to certain people if he wanted...just like Imam Mehdi (as) does during his present occultation.

If all u would like to see me attain salvation then please could you all atleast do me a favour? Do you any of you know a contemporary Christian Scholor who later on converted to Shi'ism and attained atleast the rank of an a'alim. I would love to meet up with him. I've already tried those that didn't accept Shi'ism. For e.g. Yusuf Estes. He unfortunately misquotes too.

http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/

May Allah SWT guide you as you seek the Truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Once again, lnternet usage, access, and ownership responsibilities are under review. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/backlash-building-over-plan-gut-net-neutrality-n823436  For the 200+ page Federal Communications document see: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf  A lot of this revolves around "service providers". Question: can service providers deny access, say to SC ?    
    • Divorce » Khula' divorce or Talaqul Khula' 2537. The divorce of a wife who develops an aversion from husband and hates him, and surrenders to him her Mahr or some of her property so that he may divorce her, is called Khula' Divorce. The hatred must have reached a proportion where she would not allow him conjugal rights.

      2538. If the husband himself wishes to pronounce the formula of Khula' divorce and his wife's name is, say, Fatima, he should say after receiving the property: "Zawjati Fatimatu Khala'tuha 'ala ma bazalat" and should also say as a recommended precaution: "Hiya Taliq" i.e. "I have given Khula' divorce to my wife Fatima in lieu of what she has given me, and she is free'. And if the wife is identified, it is not necessary to mention her name in Talaqul Khula' and also in Mubarat Divorce.

      2539. If a woman appoints a person as her representative to surrender her Mahr to her husband, and the husband, too, appoints the same person as his representative to divorce his wife, and if, for instance, the name of the husband is Muhammad and the name of the wife is Fatima, the representative will pronounce the formula of divorce thus: "An muwakkilati Fatimah bazalat mahraha li muwakkili Muhammad li Yakhla'aha 'alayh". Then he says immediately: "Zawjatu muwakkili khala'tuha 'ala ma bazalat hiya Taliq".
      And if a woman appoints a person as her representative to give something other than Mahr to her husband, so that he may divorce her, the representative should utter the name of that thing instead of the word "Mahraha" (her Mahr). For example, if the woman gives $500 he should say: bazalat khamsa mi'ati Dollar".   https://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2361/
    • http://www.muslimpro.com/?date=&convention=Jafari&asrjuristic=Standard you can select other method of calculation based on your region & school of thought http://www.azangoo.com/DefaultLang.aspx its based on Jafari school of thought. for both of them you can find their apps on googleplay & appstore
    • https://www.waterstones.com/book/islamic-belief-system/mohammad-ali-shomali/9781904934233 the book is available on waterstones site but as i see the other site out of a copy   https://www.al-islam.org/media/islamic-belief-system-session-1 on this site is availabe as videos
×