Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
salman

Why is Jesus called the Messiah?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

okay salman, i'll be replying to one point at a time, to keep the discussion focussed.

you said:

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.

you are wrong. ayatullah shirazi never said any such thing. you have misinterpreted the hadith that he has quoted, and are now implying that he believes that Prophet muhammad (pbuh) sinned. this is the relevant section of the hadith on that page:

"He was then asked: ‘Oh Messenger of Allah, do you weep over death when Allah has forgiven all your sins both past and future?’"

you have wrongly assumed here that this hadith implies that the prophet (pbuh) had sinned. this declaration of Allah was revealed to the prophet (pbuh) to console him over his excessive concern about the afterlife. read this hadith narrated by Shaykh Sudooq:

One day the Prophet (S) of God was seated when Gabriel came into his presence, with a sad face and changed complexion. The Prophet (S) asked as to why he was looking so sad and grieved. Gabriel answered, `O Muhammad (S), why should I be not grieved, while today I saw the bellows of hell being set in. The Prophet (S) asked him what the bellows of hell were. Gabriel told him that it referred to the hell-fire which according to the Commandments of God Almighty was ablaze for one thousand years. After it became red hot He ordered it to burn for another one thousand years till it was white-hot. Then He commanded it to burn for one thousand years more till it turned black. Now that it was black and dark, if a slice of seventy cubits of it was to drop on this world, verily its heat would be sufficient to melt the whole world into fluid. If a single drop of its Zaqqum (an infernal tree, mentioned in the Quran proverbial for its extreme bitterness) and dari (something in hell more bitter than aloe, more fetid than carrion, and hotter than fire, which will be the food of the condemned) trickles down in the water reservoirs of the earth, everybody therein would die due to its stench. Thereupon the Prophet (S) wept and Gabriel also wept with him. On seeing this, God sent His angel, who came to them and said that God sent salams to them along with the message that He exempted them both from the committing of sins and the consequent punishments.

http://al-islam.org/fortyhadith/1.htm

you see in this hadith the prophet AND angel Gabriel are consoled, and are promised that they will not have to face any punishments. but it is a well known fact that angels do NOT sin. so why did Allah send this declaration to both the prophet and Gabriel, when Gabriel can neither sin, nor will he be tried on the day of judgment nor punished or rewarded?

the answer is that Allah revealed this to them not because they had sinned, rather as a consolation for their concern and grief.

similarly, Allah's revelation to prophet Muhammad (pbuh) the He had forgiven all his past and future sins was NOT because the phophet had sinned. rather it was to console him from his concern of the afterlife, and show his rank to the muslim ummah.

so it was wrong of you to interpret the hadith by assuming that the prophet (pbuh) had sinned. no scholar in islamic history has held this belief. ayatullah shirazi doesn't either. you can send an e-mail to his office for confirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BISMILLAH

Salaam Brother Ali Zaki. Thank you for your reply.

You said.."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!"

Anaylayze what the Prophet says in his reply

He was then asked: ‘Oh Messenger

of Allah, do you weep over death when Allah has forgiven all your

sins both past and future?’ The Prophet (S) said: ‘But what of the

terror of the questioning and what of the confines of the grave and the

darkness of the tomb, and the resurrection and the other fearsome

things?

He never objected to "Allah has forgiven all your sins both past and future" Again your free to interpret this as you want. Sunni's have a different view on the Prophets fallibility.

Fyst says "that He exempted them both from the committing of sins and the consequent punishments." quoting from sheikh sudooq's hadith's.

If they both are exempted then why "Allah has forgiven all your sins both past and future" There's difference between Forgiving and Consoling. If Mohammed had never ever sinned in the least the reply be "You have never commited sins both past and future". Wasn't adam forgiven AFTER he commited a sin? Didn't moses, david & solomon ask for forgiveness AFTER they sinned?

However I doubt both hadith's, Shirazi's and Sudooq's. (Quoting me shia hadith's isn't useful. I still accept Islam but am cautious on shia aqa'aed until further notice)

"no scholar in islamic history has held this belief."

Remember fyst about our dialougue on Fadhlullah. You clearly said his aqa'aed are different.

You said..."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)."

Again...this is the Shia view. The Sunni view is more conforming to the scrptures. They might not believe that they could commit big sins but small ones were possible.

What's your views on Moses' fault in Surah al-qasas and David's and Solomon's in surah al-sad?

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

They are 2:37 and 7:23

You asked " 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 had a title that other didn't...and vice versa. how is this in opposition to what Shirazi said?"

I don't think you understood "fyst"'s allegation, read his post and then my reply.

You asked "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."

True...it proves nothing except for one thing. Jesus was unique in this respect.

You asked "Why would the Prophet be preaching to Christians to refer to their Gospels?" May I remind you 61:6 and 7:157. I'm not going to paste my arguments all over again. Read them again & think. He was also addressing the Christians. Remember surah al-imran along the verses of Mubahila in 3:61?

You said "Everyone knows what Gospels Imam Ali is referring to!" Please tell me.....

Why do you think initially the Christians gave Muslims refuge but later on refused to believe which led to the Mubahila? If they had believed in Mohammed's message they would have paid their taxes before the debate.

I said "Sounds to me they were reading the Gospel of Matthew" Refer to the two hadith's I provided from Bihar al-anwar. They actually said "...I read in the Gospel.."

If it is corrupted ponder on verse 5:68 along with my other arguments.

you asked "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!"

Some christians and Jews never embraced Mohammed message. Refer especially to the Dialougues the Imams had with Christians. They are well documents in Al-Kafi. I read them in 2001. So my memory is a little fuzzy....but they actually thought their followers how to argue with christians. They ONLY tried disproving the SON OF GOD issue.

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

Read all the four translations of 5:47 & 5:68 by shakir, yousuf ali, pickthall & Dr. Mohammed Taqi-ud-deen Al-Hilali and Dr.Mohammed Muhsin Khan

You said "there are also Christians out there that believe Jesus was given a book" Could you please cite me some Historical recordings? My knowledge might be too trivial.

You said ""They" the Quran is referring to is anyone who was boasting that they killed Jesus" The Romans didn't have much to boast about. Remember what pilate said "I am innocent of this man's death."

You said "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."

The gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke were written between 50 - 70 A.D. John about the 90's. The "made it to appear to them" would mean atleast 30 years from Jesus' crucifixion.

Also "made to appear to them" refers to those who crucified him and NOT his disciples.

You said "just like Imam Mehdi does during his present occultation." How many Muslims in the world will vouch for that claim? I wonder why he used the words "Mushaheda" (to see) in his Tauqi (will) found in Behar al Anwar. He claimed all those who would see him before his coming would be liars. However, the Mullahs I spoke to this about said that it referred to those who claimed to see the hidden imam immediately after his major occultation.

You gave me the following link "http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/" But what did I ask? 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.

There are 100's of sites out there about people converting from one faith to the other.

Listen up Brother Ali Zaki, I really appreciate your feedback. I'm in serious need of Scholors to address my concerns. I've tried the ones in the Mousque's and other Mujtahids. Which is why I need a contemporary Christian Scholor who later on converted to Shi'ism and attained atleast the rank of an a'alim so I can meet up with him FACE TO FACE.

Off to fajr prayers,

Salman

P.S. Have you read the bible and studied the history of it's manuscripts and compilation? I'm currently conducting a study on them. If Mohammed wanted other christians, jews, pagans to "refer" to ancient scriptures (present in Mohammed's time) that would of jeapordized his stance. Do you know why? Because a huge chunk of the books in the bible say quite the opposite of what is thought in the Shia Fundamentals (Aqa'aed). Why do you think most christian scholors don't convert to Shi'ism but rather opt for other Islamic sects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they both are exempted then why "Allah has forgiven all your sins both past and future" There's difference between Forgiving and Consoling. If Mohammed had never ever sinned in the least the reply be "You have never commited sins both past and future".

like i told you in my previous post, both the declarations by Allah regarding the exemption and the forgiveness from sins of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) were statements of consolation. neither imply that the prophet had sinned.

i already showed you that this interpretation is valid in light of the hadith that states the exemption from sin and punishment for Gabriel. it is agreed that Gabriel, being an angel, could not sin. and neither could he be punished, as angels are not going to be tried on the day of judgment. only humans and jinns would be. so by your interpretation it is understood that Gabriel must have also sinned and was liable to the punishment of hell because of which Allah revealed to him the news that he was exempted from this. but this obviously is a wrong interpretation since Gabriel could not sin. but from this hadith we see that Gabriel (as) was also in grief after seeing the intensity of Hell. so Allah sent down the angel with the news of this exemption from sin and punishment for him, along with the prophet (pbuh), not because there was any chance of his sinning, but to console him.

similarly, any declaration about Allah about the forgiveness of sins of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) are only for the purpose of consolation. it is wrong to assume from these statements that the prophet must have sinned, and thus Allah decided to forgive him. in other words, the statement "Allah has forgiven all your sins both past and future" does not imply that the prophet (pbuh) had sinned.

Wasn't adam forgiven AFTER he commited a sin?

correct. if we assume "sin" to mean tark-al-awla here.

Didn't moses, david & solomon ask for forgiveness AFTER they sinned?

same as above.

However I doubt both hadith's, Shirazi's and Sudooq's. (Quoting me shia hadith's isn't useful. I still accept Islam but am cautious on shia aqa'aed until further notice)

well, both those ahadith are authentic according to the shia system. whether you accept them as such or not is irrelevant since, no offence, but you really aren't an authority in this field.

"no scholar in islamic history has held this belief."

Remember fyst about our dialougue on Fadhlullah. You clearly said his aqa'aed are different.

yes, i remember. but that is totally irrelevant here since sayyid Fadhlullah also agrees that the prophet couldn't sin. he only accepts that the prophet could make mistakes in matters not related to religion. this is very different from sinning.

so i repeat: no scholar in islamic history has held the belief that the prophet could sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2) Do any authentic Hadith's exist that say Jesus was not the Messiah (The annointed one)?

Please provide authentic Hadith.

3) Do any authentic Hadith's exist that say Jesus was not the promised lamb of God ?

Please provide authentic Hadith.

4) Do any authentic Hadith's exist that say Jesus was not the promised redeemer of Sin ?

Please provide authentic Hadith.

Dont get the concept of the Messiah in Judaism and Christianity mixed.

"In Judaism, the Messiah (מָשִׁיחַ Standard Hebrew Mašíaḥ, Tiberian Hebrew Māšîªḥ, Aramaic משיחא) initially meant any person who was anointed by a prophet of God."

Cyrus the Great of Persia was called The Messiah in the Bible.

So your whole argument if flawed. You are confusing the concept of the Messiah confused across three major religions.

5) Do any authentic Hadith's exist that say Jesus (Ruh-Allah) was not the person God was going to sacrifice as Abraham was going to sacrifice his son?

You keep asking to PROVE a NEGATIVE. Are you serious?

Is there anything in the Bible that says that says "The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) was not going to be the last Prophet of Allah (SWT) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BISMILLAH

Fyst said "...but from this hadith we see that Gabriel was also in grief after seeing the intensity of Hell. so Allah sent down the angel with the news of this exemption from sin and punishment for him, along with the prophet , not because there was any chance of his sinning, but to console him."

Don't you believe fyst that Gabriel would reveal the Wahi to Mohammed? Didn't Gabriel know verses such as 46:18 and 55:39 amongst others? He obviously had to reveal such verses to other Prophets that preceded Mohammed.

Gabriel already knew according to the revelations that he wasn't going to be questioned which is why it seems irrational you say " Gabriel was also in grief after seeing the intensity of Hell. so Allah sent down the angel with the news of this exemption from sin and punishment for him"

To me this hadith seems a forgery.

If he grieved.....he didn't fully trust in verses such as 46:18 and 55:39 amongst others

fyst said "....correct. if we assume "sin" to mean tark-al-awla here."

fyst also said about Fadhlullah "....he only accepts that the prophet could make mistakes in matters not related to religion. this is very different from sinning."

I don't know what's your definition of Sin. Let's assume it's what ever way you wanna define it. Can you prove Jesus of a single mistake and NOT a sin as you define it?

Mind you I have a fatwa I received from Sistani's dept regarding verses of Surah al-Naas and Falaq.

He said..."In some traditions, it is mentioned that Lubaid bin Asam, a Jew played magic on the Prophet (pbuh) and then these two chapters were revealed to abort the magic. He sent Ali to abort it."

You can have a copy of this fatwa too once I'm over.

You say "so i repeat: no scholar in islamic history has held the belief that the prophet could sin." Sorry, but Sistani and Fadhlullah do claim that Mohammed could exhibit mistakes in atleast in his behaviour.

Jesus on the other hand would cast out evil spirits. They were actually scared of him. Read the gosepls.

Salaam Br. Shahrukh...

You need to read all of my posts....by going back to repeat my arguments I'm gonna be wasting my time and yours.

Br Ali Zaki....I forgot to re-mention something, considering what you had to say about the Disciples. Assuming your claim about the disciples corrupting the texts - along with my other arguments I posted - what do you think about verses 5:111-113 and 61:14?

May Allah's mercy be upon you all,

Salman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bro, what exactly are you implying? is there a possibility of the gospel of judas being part of Injeel? :unsure:

To the first, I think it's clear enough. To the second question, no, you can't draw that conclusion from what I said. If you somehow concluded that I think anything ever written on the subject of Jesus is 100% true,you need to read again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BISMILLAH

He never objected to "Allah has forgiven all your sins both past and future" Again your free to interpret this as you want. Sunni's have a different view on the Prophets fallibility.

I stand by this being an example for everyone else...not the Prophet himself.

If they both are exempted then why "Allah has forgiven all your sins both past and future" There's difference between Forgiving and Consoling. If Mohammed had never ever sinned in the least the reply be "You have never commited sins both past and future". Wasn't adam forgiven AFTER he commited a sin? Didn't moses, david & solomon ask for forgiveness AFTER they sinned?

even though Prophets were sinless, they are not perfect like Allah (obviously). For a Prophet to repent is a sign of humbleness and a way for them to show Allah SWT that they are serving Him.

Again...this is the Shia view. The Sunni view is more conforming to the scrptures. They might not believe that they could commit big sins but small ones were possible.

What's your views on Moses' fault in Surah al-qasas and David's and Solomon's in surah al-sad?

I dont see where Moses sinned.

What exactly was David's sin? He asked for a woman that rejected his brother? how is this a sin? when you read the verse, Allah says'And David perceived that We had tried him, so he asked for forgiveness.'. David thought he did something wrong, but he really didnt in God's eyes. God 'forgave' him because anytime a person repents, God will have Mercy on him.

I dont see where Solomon sinned either... making a lapse in judgement is not a sin.

They are 2:37 and 7:23

This is talking about Adam receiving a specific prayer from Allah SWT after eating from the tree. Eating from the tree, as I already had stated was not haraam. Allah swt advised him not go to near the tree, but Shaitan brought him the fruit to eat. Right after that, verse 2:36, you see Allah SWT told Adam to get down...the commentator in my Quran says that this refers to Adams new state....the change from an easy life to one of struggle (the word is Ihbitu). This also is the anser for 7:23; in which a change in state occurs....

True...it proves nothing except for one thing. Jesus was unique in this respect.

Every Prophet is unique...doesn't mean that Jesus was the son of God or God, as Christianity says.

You asked "Why would the Prophet be preaching to Christians to refer to their Gospels?" May I remind you 61:6 and 7:157.

Allah is saying that it's not a surprise that the Prophet has come...it was prophecised in the OT . But that is to prove that the Prophet is not a fake... this doesnt say that the people have to follow the Gospels to be Muslim.

You said "Everyone knows what Gospels Imam Ali is referring to!" Please tell me.....

In that context, everyone knew that Imam Ali was referring to the Bible. That's it... you made it sound as if it was something that we now don't know that the Gospels were referred to...we know that.

Why do you think initially the Christians gave Muslims refuge but later on refused to believe which led to the Mubahila? If they had believed in Mohammed's message they would have paid their taxes before the debate.

I dont know what you are talking about refusing refuge. It was early on that the new Muslims asked for refuge in Ethiopia by the Christian priest. That was over and done with by the time the Mubahila happened. The Mubahila happened when a group of Christians were debating the Prophet. The debate was going no where and so God intervened and that's when the Mubahila happened.

What taxes did they have to pay? I know that there was a tax, but these Christians were visitors from present-day Yemen. They didn't have taxes to pay, they were just debated with the Prophet when they visited Medina.

If it is corrupted ponder on verse 5:68 along with my other arguments.

It's not that the entire Bible is completely corrupted. The problem with the Bible is that it is not the word of God; especially concerning the NT, which is a bunch of letters and other papers written by men; men who didn't even know Jesus (pbuh). So with that, there will always be doubt that the book has not been changed. The overall message of believing in God is of course in there.... this is what's important and why we should 'refer' to it... but bc of the human hands we will not 'follow' it.

Some christians and Jews never embraced Mohammed message. Refer especially to the Dialougues the Imams had with Christians. They are well documents in Al-Kafi. I read them in 2001. So my memory is a little fuzzy....but they actually thought their followers how to argue with christians. They ONLY tried disproving the SON OF GOD issue.

So what? Not everyone is going to change their religion. Even when the plain truth is given to people they will not see it. That doesn't mean that the message wasnt true...

Believing that God has a son is against the basic tenent of Islam..and thus will be the focus of a debate. I see nothing wrong with it. Once you get passed that, then you move on.

Read all the four translations of 5:47 & 5:68 by shakir, yousuf ali, pickthall & Dr. Mohammed Taqi-ud-deen Al-Hilali and Dr.Mohammed Muhsin Khan

This is still telling the Christians and Jews to look into their own sources as a way to see the prophecy of the Prophet.

Could you please cite me some Historical recordings? My knowledge might be too trivial.

i would have to look it up..i heard it here on shiachat....so i'm not sure how accurate that is... i thought it was interesting when i read it though...

The gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke were written between 50 - 70 A.D. John about the 90's.

How do I know if the writers didn't make up the whole crucifixion and saving of humanity as a way to get people to convert to their religion? it was a heck of a lot easier for the gentiles to accept a person sacrificing their life than it was to convert to judaism with all its rules. the 'made to appear so' can be that the people who received the preachings, who had not seen the crucifixion and were not witnesses to Jesus' preachings, were made to believe this really happened. Tell me where Jesus said that his death would save his followers from hell?

You said "just like Imam Mehdi does during his present occultation." How many Muslims in the world will vouch for that claim?

don't know any numbers. but i would say that's a matter of faith.

I wonder why he used the words "Mushaheda" (to see) in his Tauqi (will) found in Behar al Anwar. He claimed all those who would see him before his coming would be liars. However, the Mullahs I spoke to this about said that it referred to those who claimed to see the hidden imam immediately after his major occultation.

could be.

But what did I ask? 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.

yea sorry.. i thought that site had something about a priest who converted. i know i have it somewhere. i remember a website that had something like that. sorry about giving you the wrong site.

Listen up Brother Ali Zaki, I really appreciate your feedback.

Welcome. I hope you do find your answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fyst said "...but from this hadith we see that Gabriel was also in grief after seeing the intensity of Hell. so Allah sent down the angel with the news of this exemption from sin and punishment for him, along with the prophet , not because there was any chance of his sinning, but to console him."

Don't you believe fyst that Gabriel would reveal the Wahi to Mohammed? Didn't Gabriel know verses such as 46:18 and 55:39 amongst others? He obviously had to reveal such verses to other Prophets that preceded Mohammed.

Gabriel already knew according to the revelations that he wasn't going to be questioned which is why it seems irrational you say " Gabriel was also in grief after seeing the intensity of Hell. so Allah sent down the angel with the news of this exemption from sin and punishment for him"

To me this hadith seems a forgery.

bro, read the paragraph preceding the hadith. it states:

I quote this tradition with reference to a chain of great Imamiyyah scholars, all of whom are considered as authentic narrators of hadith. Hence, if you are a true believer, you should have faith in the following tradition.

there is no doubt about the authenticity of this hadith.

fyst said "....correct. if we assume "sin" to mean tark-al-awla here."

fyst also said about Fadhlullah "....he only accepts that the prophet could make mistakes in matters not related to religion. this is very different from sinning."

I don't know what's your definition of Sin. Let's assume it's what ever way you wanna define it. Can you prove Jesus of a single mistake and NOT a sin as you define it?

no, i have not yet come across any instance of Prophet Isa committing tark-al-awla in islamic scriptures. but as i mentioned earlier, i haven't come across any such instance for Prophets Lut, Khidr, Haroon (as) either. it doesn't mean that they all didn't commit any tark-al-awla. it just that there is no record of this.

Mind you I have a fatwa I received from Sistani's dept regarding verses of Surah al-Naas and Falaq.

He said..."In some traditions, it is mentioned that Lubaid bin Asam, a Jew played magic on the Prophet (pbuh) and then these two chapters were revealed to abort the magic. He sent Ali to abort it."

You can have a copy of this fatwa too once I'm over.

those ahadith are inauthentic in light of rational, qur'anic and traditional evidence. i have the audio lecture in which this is explained in complete detail. you can listen to it once you're over.

Sorry, but Sistani and Fadhlullah do claim that Mohammed could exhibit mistakes in atleast in his behaviour.

Sayyid Fadhlullah claims so. not Ayatullah Sistani. but not even sayyid Fadhlullah claims that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ever sinned. like i've told you already, no islamic scholar in history has made this claim.

Jesus on the other hand would cast out evil spirits. They were actually scared of him. Read the gosepls.

bro, you can't use the gospels as evidence when discussing with muslims. it's like using the sunni sahah sittah when debating with shias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BISMILLAH

May Allah's blessings and mercy be upon you all,

Areef Hamdi......I'm surprised you still keep me in mind, I thought I wasn't too "muslim" enough for you. Unfortunately there is a proxy firewall here in the middle east which is why I can't seem to view them. That's the problem here in the middle east.

Your restricted from visiting sites. www.aaiil.org is a famous Ahmedi site.

When I'm back in Canada I'll read them. However after I read something

new I choose not to argue over it. Rather I'll ponder and meet up with Ahmedi Scholors so they can elucidate me on the matter pertaining to our discussion. You see it's not about me trying to refute you, but rather it's up to each one us to continue on our inward journey and eradicate our ignorance the sameway I mentioned about the illegality of the Sanhedrin meeting at night in the Talmud (read the 2nd page of this thread - I posted the source in the Talmud in Tractate Sanhedrin). But no offense...I have fatwas from Ayatollah Sistani and Ayatollah Saafi stating Jesus' miracles were physical. Since you like conforming with Fatwa's of Mujathid's for e.g. Ayatollah Khaameni's of not addressing god as a Heavenly Father you'll agree with Sistani's and Saafi's of Jesus' miracles being physical. After I've read your material I'll consult with ALL the grand Ayatollah's offices too including key Sunni Mufti's just to know their response and then try to make sense out of it all. We're being open-minded aren't we?

Oldsword81.....

You said "I stand by this being an example for everyone else...not the Prophet himself." Your entitled to your own opinion.

For Moses' Sin, Read 28:15-22

Also what do you think of his impatience with Khizr?

As per David's sin/mistake/fault...etc. Read 38:24-26

Remember David only listened to one of the brother's story. Note: Not the other brother's too!! He should have listened to both before passing his edict in 38:24

As per Solomon, read 38:32-36

Ponder over "And he said: Lo! I have preferred the good things (of the world) to the remembrance of my Lord; till they were taken out of sight behind the curtain."

Why do you think the Lord then placed a "Jasad" on his throne?

As per Adam,

YUSUFALI: They said: "Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: If thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall certainly be lost."

PICKTHAL: They said: Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If thou forgive us not and have not mercy on us, surely we are of the lost!

SHAKIR: They said: Our Lord! We have been unjust to ourselves, and if Thou forgive us not, and have (not) mercy on us, we shall certainly be of the losers.

I think it's crystal clear they wronged themselves thanks to satan!!

you said "In that context, everyone knew that Imam Ali was referring to the Bible. That's it... you made it sound as if it was something that we now don't know that the Gospels were referred to...we know that."

you said "It's not that the entire Bible is completely corrupted. The problem with the Bible is that it is not the word of God; especially concerning the NT, which is a bunch of letters and other papers written by men; men who didn't even know Jesus . So with that, there will always be doubt that the book has not been changed. The overall message of believing in God is of course in there.... this is what's important and why we should 'refer' to it... but bc of the human hands we will not 'follow' it."

What's your view on the compilation of the Quran? I've already posted this issue many times....What yours? I don't say the bible is 100% authentic (however it's contents is too well documented interms of historical and cultural recordings found outside christianity) & neither is the Quran. I believe that some type interpolation has been done in the Quran as well. I don't believe it has all the revelations of Mohammed. Read my previous posts on the different views how it was compiled and which original manuscrpits are available and which aren't...I'm not gonna waste my time and yours by pasting it all over again, if you wanna answer me back then please stop passing cursory glances over my posts but read ALL of them.

You said " dont know what you are talking about refusing refuge. It was early on that the new Muslims asked for refuge in Ethiopia by the Christian priest. That was over and done with by the time the Mubahila happened. The Mubahila happened when a group of Christians were debating the Prophet. The debate was going no where and so God intervened and that's when the Mubahila happened."

That doesn't answer my question "Why do you think initially the Christians (Ethipoia) gave Muslims refuge (on hearing about their beliefs) but later on (after much time had elapsed as you said) (the people of Hijaz) refused to believe (in Mohammed's message) which led to the Mubahila?"

Mind you Abdul Haris Ibne Alqama, the Grand Bishop of Najran, was the official representative of the Roman Church in the Hijaz. You think the Ethiopian refuge could have been given without the consent of the Roman Catholic church?

You said "How do I know if the writers didn't make up the whole crucifixion and saving of humanity as a way to get people to convert to their religion? it was a heck of a lot easier for the gentiles to accept a person sacrificing their life than it was to convert to judaism with all its rules. the 'made to appear so' can be that the people who received the preachings, who had not seen the crucifixion and were not witnesses to Jesus' preachings, were made to believe this really happened. Tell me where Jesus said that his death would save his followers from hell?"

Are you oblivious of the fact that these people had left Jesus at his time of need but later on went about preaching the "Good News" to everyone facing much slaughter and persecution and hence, death? Something must have happened to them which made them radical about Jesus and then face the "persecution" they were once scared of and because of which left Jesus. What happened? What made them change their views?

Did the disciples corrupt Jesus' message or Allah bewitched them as punishment? Ponder on 5:111-113 and 61:14 and focus on tafsir of these verses...

You asked "Tell me where Jesus said that his death would save his followers from hell?" Read Luke 24:45-49

You said "This is still telling the Christians and Jews to look into their own sources as a way to see the prophecy of the Prophet."

No it says you have NOTHING till you follow the torah, the injeel and now what has been sent down...

You obviously aren't aware of what the Gospel was and is according to most Islamic Scholors. If Mohammed would have asked people "to refer" to his message (to validate atleast the ithna ashari theology) that would have Jeopardized his stance. Do you know why? Because the bible teaches quite the opposite. And a large chunk of it too... Didn't you read my second post...it's a summary of the bible's message. Take a year off and read the bible...note the trend of Lamb sacrifices all the way from Abel & Cane all the way to how a Lamb opens the seven seals in the book of Revelations. Ponder over it.... with the following

verses in mind since it will tell you why there were so many lamb sacrifices....

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. (Leviticus 17:11)

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Hebrews 9:22)

Due to the disparity of the bible's message (in contrast to Mohammeds) Muslim scholors (MOST IF NOT ALL) have different views about the scriptures Mohammed is referring too..

1) It could be that Mohammed endorsed the present-day books in the bible OR

2) The books Mohammed was referring to were currupted after his death OR

3) There were other UNCORRUPTED books Mohammed was alluding to..

I've been ranting about these verses in Surah Al-Maidah for about a week now. It's not my Job to force you to believe in something. I leave it up to you to do your research by consulting with scholors. I already stated the example of Ayatollah Tabtaba'ai that vouches for the 3rd view.

Now let's get to fyst...

Fyst said about the Sudooq hadith "I quote this tradition with reference to a chain of great Imamiyyah scholars, all of whom are considered as authentic narrators of hadith. Hence, if you are a true believer, you should have faith in the following tradition."

First of all I already told you I have left the Shia fundamentals of belief until I finish re-assessing my beliefs...

Don't you believe fyst that Gabriel would reveal the Revelations to Mohammed? Didn't Gabriel know verses such as 46:18 and 55:39 amongst others? He obviously had to reveal such verses to other Prophets that preceded Mohammed.

Gabriel already knew according to the revelations that he wasn't going to be questioned which is why it seems irrational you say " Gabriel was also in grief after seeing the intensity of Hell. so Allah sent down the angel with the news of this exemption from sin and punishment for him"

Have you forgotten the origin of the Dua'e Kumayl? on http://www.duas.org/kumayl.htm

Imam Ali said-"Whosoever keeps awake in devoutness on this night and recites the Du'a of Prophet Khizr, undoubtedly that person's supplication will be responded to and granted. When the assembly at the Mosque had dispersed, Kumayl called at the house where Imam Ali was staying, and requested him to acquaint him with Prophet Khizr's "Du'a". Imam Ali asked Kumayl to sit down, record and memorise the "Du'a" which Imam Ali dictated to Kumayl.

Since your an ardent follower of the Imamiyah beliefs what do you think about the following sentence in the Supplication,

"...Thou hast sworn to fill the hell with the disbelievers from amongst the jinns and mankind together and to place forever Thy enemies therein.."

If Khizr knew only Jinn and Men can go to hell and hence NOT Angels you don't think Gabriel knew that? Khizr made appearence during the time of Moses about 2100 years before Mohammed. Are you telling me for 2100 years Gabriel wasn't aware that the Angels don't go to hell and was told during the time of Mohammed?

Btw, Khizr wasn't a Prophet as you said, he was one of god's chosen ones like Luqma'an.

Fyst said "Sayyid Fadhlullah claims so. not Ayatullah Sistani. but not even sayyid Fadhlullah claims that prophet Muhammad ever sinned."

I don't think you see what the issue is here and hence don't understand what the gospel (in essence) is. Why do you think the Quran incessantly enunciates the fall of Adam and Satan. Ponder what is it's significance!! THREE (Adam, Eve & Satan) were banished out from god's kingdom.

What's the signifiance of this Sin/Tarq al awla/Fault/What ever you wanna call it...

Keep in mind what Ayatollah Shirazi says about Adam's sin on http://www.shirazi.org.uk/adam.htm

"In the teachings of Islam, or Rasulollah (S) we find many moral and ethical issues one is recommended to do. These are not Waajib - not for an ordinary mortal - but in the realm of trying to achieve high moral standards, one must adhere to such those teachings to an extent that they become Waajib for him. For example, it is recommended that one should not eat while walking in the street. Now this may not be so bad for an ordinary person, but it certainly would look bad for a Grand Ayatollah to eat his sandwiches while walking the streets of the city - in a way he would have committed an ethical 'sin' - he did not do the recommended or the desired thing. In the same way Prophet Adam (AS) did something that was recommended and desired to refrain from."

Now let's proceed further...www.al-islam.org/nahjul/191.htm

According to Imam Ali, Prior to the Fall, Satan had worshipped god for 6000 years!! That's alot of time and worship!!

But look what happened!! Just by ONE fault - not bowing down to Adam because of pride - he was banished from God's Kingdom.

Look at Adam and Eve - just by giving into Satan's temptation ONCE - they commited a fault/sin/tarq-al-awla/whatever you wanna call it...and hence they were thrown down to this place where we now reside.

Can't you learn from these 2 stories? No person, no matter how good his works were, even if he commits a fault/sin/tarq al awla/whatever you wanna call it, is good enough!!

Which is why you read in the book of James in the New Testament "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." James (2:10)

This is what you have to understand!! Why do you think Jesus would challenge people to prove him of a sin/fault/tarq-al-awla/whatever you wanna call it?

Jesus never stumbeled and hence; the Quran gives the answer....He was given the Gospel, a.k.a the "Good News"

Read Roman 3 & 4 , Hebrews 11

Fyst you say I can't use the Gospels against the Muslims.

What's your view Fyst? Do you believe the Gospel to be an UNCORRUPTED book given to Jesus?Or do you believe the Good/Great News was about the Vicegerency of Imam Ali as purported by Aqa Mehdi pooya & Mir Mohammed ali on their tafsir of Surah 78 (an-Naba)?

Knowing Christ and Making him known,

Salman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BISMILLAH

Oldsword81.....

You said "I stand by this being an example for everyone else...not the Prophet himself." Your entitled to your own opinion.

For Moses' Sin, Read 28:15-22

I do not have my Quran in front of me, but if it is the time when he killed a man, that was an accident. Allah SWT knows the intention of a person, and he knows he did not kill on purpose.

Also what do you think of his impatience with Khizr?

Is impatience a sin, haraam?

As per David's sin/mistake/fault...etc. Read 38:24-26

Remember David only listened to one of the brother's story. Note: Not the other brother's too!! He should have listened to both before passing his edict in 38:24

this is not a sin.

As per Solomon, read 38:32-36

Ponder over "And he said: Lo! I have preferred the good things (of the world) to the remembrance of my Lord; till they were taken out of sight behind the curtain."

I honestly do not have the answer to this, and I know someone who has been studying tafsir for a very long time; Inshallah he will help us to understand. I think it's important to always remember that even though things for us that seem very insignificant and not even a sin, for a Prophet who is at a higher standard then us, he will find it to be much more significant and will fall on his knees in repentance over anything he does. This is the sign of a person who is closest to Allah SWT...who is always aware of what he is doing and says. A lot of times it seems that they don't even need to do the repenting, and Allah SWT even says so but of course He will forgive them.

I think it's crystal clear they wronged themselves thanks to satan!!

wronged themselves bc they didn't follow Allah's advice...but it was not haram, it was not a sin.

What's your view on the compilation of the Quran?

the compilation of the Quran was started since the Prophet began receiving the revelations. Every year the angel Gabriel would come down to speak to the Prophet and make sure the verses were correct. The entire Quran was also revealed to the Prophet in one whole giant bunch on the night of Power. So the Quran was in the Prophet's heart from beginning to end from the very beginning. Also, Allah SWT was not stupid to leave the Quran in the hands of ordinary men. He had appointed the Imams for this reason. I believe Imam Ali, with the help of Allah SWT, compiled the Quran.

\if you wanna answer me back then please stop passing cursory glances over my posts but read ALL of them.

sorry, i dont have time to go through every single post as yours are not the only ones i read. i do admit i glanced through the beginning posts bc of lack of time. but inshallah I will try to go back. you'll have to ask my husband to give me more time to read! i doubt that will happen!! i'm sorry if my responses are not good enough for you and if you don't want me to write i will stop. I thought i would just help a brother out.

That doesn't answer my question "Why do you think initially the Christians (Ethipoia) gave Muslims refuge (on hearing about their beliefs) but later on (after much time had elapsed as you said) (the people of Hijaz) refused to believe (in Mohammed's message) which led to the Mubahila?"

Probably because they saw the Muslims as a threat. In the beginning they were a small group of people being persecuted. But after, they had grown and were more organized and the religion continued to flourish. whenever a group like that appears, people will get scared that they will have influence over their own communities. i think this is common sense. besides, why doesn't everyone convert to Islam? some people just do not see what others see. it is not their destiny.

Mind you Abdul Haris Ibne Alqama, the Grand Bishop of Najran, was the official representative of the Roman Church in the Hijaz. You think the Ethiopian refuge could have been given without the consent of the Roman Catholic church?

again, they were not a threat at the time, so why not?

Are you oblivious of the fact that these people had left Jesus at his time of need but later on went about preaching the "Good News" to everyone facing much slaughter and persecution and hence, death? Something must have happened to them which made them radical about Jesus and then face the "persecution" they were once scared of and because of which left Jesus. What happened? What made them change their views?

why did not every person who followed Jesus' teachings believed in his resurrection as a way to salvation? there were so many different sects of Christianity. why wasn't there just one?

what's the best way to get people on your side when you are being persecuted? imagine the impact of saying that there is a free entry into paradise if you believe in one thing... if they die, they won't care. but they will spread the message. this was a great and effective way to spread their message and give them authority after their leader was 'killed'.

Did the disciples corrupt Jesus' message or Allah bewitched them as punishment? Ponder on 5:111-113 and 61:14 and focus on tafsir of these verses...

Jesus' message was corrupted. A lot of the things that are in Christianity wasn't even what Jesus said. I was Catholic and I never understood where so many aspects of the religion came from bc i never read them in teh Bible.

You asked "Tell me where Jesus said that his death would save his followers from hell?" Read Luke 24:45-49

I've gone through all of this before with teh Christians on this site.

No it says you have NOTHING till you follow the torah, the injeel and now what has been sent down...

You obviously aren't aware of what the Gospel was and is according to most Islamic Scholors. If Mohammed would have asked people "to refer" to his message (to validate atleast the ithna ashari theology) that would have Jeopardized his stance. Do you know why? Because the bible teaches quite the opposite.

No, on the contrary, I know what the Gospel was/is, and that is why I don't follow it. The Bible teaches the opposite because it is not the Word of God. If the Quran came down as the exact same thing as teh Bible, people would have thought Mohammad just copied. This to me, that there are differences, shows that God wanted us to know the Truth. To not follow what some random men decided for me to follow.

And a large chunk of it too... Didn't you read my second post...it's a summary of the bible's message. Take a year off and read the bible...note the trend of Lamb sacrifices all the way from Abel & Cane all the way to how a Lamb opens the seven seals in the book of Revelations. Ponder over it.... with the following

verses in mind since it will tell you why there were so many lamb sacrifices....

I dont need to take a year off to read the Bible. I already did. The lamb sacrifices are just taht. Muslims also sacrifice lambs to this day. So what? To make sacrifices is a good thing. But to tell me that a human/God-man had to die for MY sins, I'm sorry, I won't believe it. That is not Justice to me. Justice is something foreign in Christianity, in my opinion.

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Hebrews 9:22)

Like I said, if a Muslim does something wrong, they can sacrifice a certain number of animals and give the meat to the poor, or they can sacrifice money directly, or go sacrifice time to help the needy. Sacrifices are important in Islam too. It's not just in the OT. The only difference is that in Christianity, which Judaism completely disagrees with, is the sacrifice of a HUMAN being (or a diety) for the atonement of sins of ALL humanity. This is not in the Torah. This is an innovated belief by men to try to get people to follow their ways and to gain power and authority.

I've been ranting about these verses in Surah Al-Maidah for about a week now. It's not my Job to force you to believe in something. I leave it up to you to do your research by consulting with scholors. I already stated the example of Ayatollah Tabtaba'ai that vouches for the 3rd view.

Because I have had grown up Catholic, and I have went to CCD and have read the Bible on my own volition, I have come to see the human errors and the human innovations in the religion. This is my belief and I feel Allah SWT guided me directly to Him by way of His WORDS...the Holy Quran. NOthing can beat it. Nothing.

Edited by oldsword81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BISMILLAH

Salaam Sister Oldsowrd81,

This post is dedicated especially for you. You said "sorry, i dont have time to go through every single post as yours are not the only ones i read. i do admit i glanced through the beginning posts bc of lack of time. but inshallah I will try to go back. you'll have to ask my husband to give me more time to read! i doubt that will happen!! i'm sorry if my responses are not good enough for you and if you don't want me to write i will stop. I thought i would just help a brother out."

Do me a favour, read ALL of my posts. It's okay if you reply once a month, but atleast I won't have to repeat my arguments.

Regarding the Sin issue just read my last post fully and completely and the message I left for brother "fyst" to undertand what bothers me about this sin/fault/whatever you wanna call it.

You said "I honestly do not have the answer to this, and I know someone who has been studying tafsir for a very long time;"

Don't worry oldsword81, I've been involved in comparative religion for over six years now. I've tried out most of the tafsirs of sunni & shia.

As per my argument on the compilation of the quran just read all of my posts.

You said "again, they were not a threat at the time, so why not?" Hello, these Muslims thought that Christ was NOT crucified and Mary had nothing to do with divinity?!?!

You said "why did not every person who followed Jesus' teachings believed in his resurrection as a way to salvation? there were so many different sects of Christianity. why wasn't there just one?"

After Mohammed's death we had shia'at-ul-ali and shia'at-ul-abu bakr......this split later on grew.

Look what I said..."Did the disciples corrupt Jesus' message or Allah bewitched them as punishment? Ponder on 5:111-113 and 61:14 and focus on tafsir of these verses..."

you replied "Jesus' message was corrupted. A lot of the things that are in Christianity wasn't even what Jesus said. I was Catholic and I never understood where so many aspects of the religion came from bc i never read them in teh Bible."

I agree with you, they changed the sabbath which is why I don't agree with the catholic church. To me this is just one of the fulfillment of the prophecies in Revelations. Remember the beast of the Sea and the Dragon that fell to earth and what followed?

BTW, have you read the "Cathecism of the Catholic Church"? It's pretty neat. However most of it's rules are made by men. This is one of the major sources of deviation in all sects and Religions. I am a shi'ite, but not presently. I spent considerable amount of years on the study of my faith's religion. It still seems shaky to me. However I still believe that Ali had the best claim to Successorship. However I do advise you to study the cause of differences between ithna ashari's and bohri's and Ismaili's (Aga Khan). Then you'll see what I see.

You said "No, on the contrary, I know what the Gospel was/is, and that is why I don't follow it. The Bible teaches the opposite because it is not the Word of God. If the Quran came down as the exact same thing as teh Bible, people would have thought Mohammad just copied. This to me, that there are differences, shows that God wanted us to know the Truth. To not follow what some random men decided for me to follow."

Read the books of Pseudepigraphy. http://www.pseudepigrapha.com You'll see some of the exact quotations from books Mohammed is referring to. Compare the message. His message also has strikingly exact similarities with what is found in the book of Yasna of the Zorastrians. Compare the quotations of these books with that of the Quran.

you said "Because I have had grown up Catholic, and I have went to CCD and have read the Bible on my own volition, I have come to see the human errors and the human innovations in the religion. This is my belief and I feel Allah SWT guided me directly to Him by way of His WORDS...the Holy Quran. NOthing can beat it. Nothing."

Your obviously being emotional. It's one of the first phases of being unshackled. I know, I went threw it. Remember "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water". Let me describe it to you metaphorically. Take an orange & wrap sheets of paper around it. Each time you get unshackled, the wrapping comes off. This continues until your left with orange itself and think your work is done. However alot of people forget one thing. You have to peel of the orange too....and there you have Jesus and the Gospel.

I would like to leave you with some words of advice,

Consider the MSS'.

John Rylan written in 90 AD, present available MSS is about 130AD

Bodmer Papyrus written in 90 AD, present available MSS is about 150-200AD

Chester Beatty written in 60 AD, present available MSS is about 80-200AD

Codex Vaticanus written in 60-90 AD, present available MSS is about 325AD

Codex Sinaiticus written in 60-90 AD, present available MSS is about 350AD

NOTE: All before Mohammed's time.

Ceasar wrote in 50 BC, his earliest copies are of 900 AD

Plato wrote in 350 BC, his earliest copies are of 900 AD

Aristotle wrote in 300 BC, his earliest copies are of 1100 AD

Thucydides wrote in 400 BC, his earliest copies are of 900 AD

Herodotus wrote in 400 BC, his earliest copies are of 900 AD

Sophocies wrote in 400 BC, his earliest copies are of 1000 AD

Tacitus wrote in 100 AD, his earliest copies are of 1100 AD

Pliny wrote in 100 AD, his earliest copies are of 850 AD

Consider the time span and hence; you'll see my point. To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no other documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.

With continuing success on your Journey with Islam,

Salman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Salman,

You have gone WAY, WAY, off the orignal topic. There are many points of disagreement between MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS, and they cannot all be covered in one thread.

If you want to defend the reliability and authenticity of the NEW TESTAMENT please start a new thread. If this thread doesn't come back on topic it will be closed and edited.

Of course, this topic has been discussed before,

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=85803

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=83957

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=81140

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=80653

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=80238

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22505

etc. etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam Brothers & Sisters,

Mind you, I don't say the bible is 100% authentic. I've said this many a time. It's more like a History book.

Sister Oldsword81....I had already come across this site (the true religion) in the past. I'm looking for scholorly converts to the ithna'a ashari sect. There are many muslims who have converted to christiandom too...

http://www.muslimjourneytohope.com/

http://bibleandquran.org/

http://www.the-good-way.com/

http://www.injil.org/

http://www.islamreview.com/

http://www.aboutisa.com/

www.isaalmasih.net

http://www.isaislam.org/

***.org.uk/Testimonies/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conve...to_Christianity

plus many jews out there that have accepted Jesus as the messiah....

for e.g. http://www.sidroth.org

Let me know if you need more resources...

With prayers for your success and well being,

Salman

P.S - Having converts from one faith to another in no big deal.....is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillah,

Okay Brother Ali Zaki I see your point. You may now close this thread for good. I'll start another one later pertaining to a different topic.

Sister Oldsword81.....I'm happy to hear that your a convert to Islam.

I still believe you can be a muslim and still believe in christ's atonement.

I guess my views are more of a Messianic Muslim, http://www.isaislam.org/

I would like to leave you with the words of Quran Translator (M.H.Shakir) - whose translation most shias refer to - of Ayat 5:117

SHAKIR: I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things.

May Allah bless you all,

Salman

P.S. - Guess who said those words according to the Quran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to leave you with the words of Quran Translator (M.H.Shakir) - whose translation most shias refer to - of Ayat 5:117

SHAKIR: I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things.

May Allah bless you all,

Salman

P.S. - Guess who said those words according to the Quran?

This verse explicitly refers to the Day of Judgement, an event in the future, upon which all humans will have died in their mortal bodies. Irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. You can argue that Jesus has already died, but not based on that verse. That verse says that in the future Jesus's death will have already happened. Doesn't mean it's already happened NOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

I would like to leave you with the words of Quran Translator (M.H.Shakir) - whose translation most shias refer to - of Ayat 5:117

SHAKIR: I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things.

May Allah bless you all,

Salam Salman,

If you look at the verse right before this one, number 116, you will see that it is saying "when God WILL say O' Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say.... he WILL say in reply..."

This is talkkng about the future.

Also, the word Shakir translates as 'die' does not mean 'death'. The word is tawaffaitani, which means 'taken away to myself'. the same word, tawafa, is used in 6:60 to describe how the soul is 'taken away' while the person is sleeping. it can be inferred as death, but it does not literally mean death. it means to take away. so the context is very important.

I would also like to give you the tafsir, based on my friend's father, who is well-known for tafsir (his name is Ali Khalfan, you can look him up), on the topic of Solomon's 'sins'.

First, according to the Qur’an, Allah tried all the Prophets because they were our examples. So the aim of the trying them was to show us how the Prophets behaved during difficulties, etc and Allah expects us to follow them.

Second, when a Prophet is repenting or asking for forgiveness is does not mean that he committed a mistake or a sin because the words “repentance†(at-Tawba) and “istighfar†(forgiveness) have a very comprehensive meaning. Let me explain:

The verse in question is in surah 38, verse 32.

The Shia translation is as follows:

Then he said: Surely I preferred the good things to the remembrance of my Lord-- until the sun set and time for Asr prayer was over, (he said): (38:32)

This verse should be read with the preceding and following in order to understand its true connotation:

And We gave to Dawood Sulaiman, most excellent the servant! Surely he was frequent in returning (to Allah). (38:30)

When there were brought to him in the evening (horses) still when standing, swift when running (38:31)

Bring them back to me; so he began to slash (their) legs and necks. (38:32)

Now, the understanding of these verses is as follows:

While inspecting his thorough bred (khayr) horses Sulayman realized that the sun had set. Dhikr does not refer to compulsory prayers, because a prophet would not be forgetful of such prayers. This is evident in many verses and also the statement “Surely he was frequent in returning†in verse 38:30. Dhikr should therefore be normal remembrance of Allah.. Some commentators say an (in verse 32) means "due to" or "with a view to" because the horses were purchased for jihad in the cause of Allah.

In verse 33 mas-ha means "to rub" or "to pass hand over". Like all lovers of horses, and particularly because they were to be used in the cause of Allah, he patted them on their necks and passed his hand over their forelegs and was satisfied with having them, not as vanities but as a lover of good (khayr). His review of horses was interrupted by his evening devotion, but he resumed it after performing his devotion. The clause, “and time for Asr prayer was over†does not imply that he missed his Asr prayer. It means when the Asr prayer was over, he continued admiring the horses.

According to the Qur'an, repentance means wanting to return from a far away station or from the pit of unhappiness due to a sinful act to the proximity of the Lord or the station of happiness. By the same token, forgiving a servant means returning him to the station of happiness. However, proximity or nearness and remoteness are relative terms. In other words, within the circle of nearness, it is quite possible that some positions would be remoter than the others. In this way, "repentance" may be used for even those good sinless servants who are nearer to Allah, when they rise to a station that is even higher and nearer than their previous place. This is the phenomenon seen in many verses. In this case, forgiving or returning to, a sinless servant means elevating him to a higher station than before. In the case of Adam (a.s.), if his repentance was due to a mistake or sin, then how come he was not returned to the Garden?

The word “istighfar†comes from the root word “ghafara†which means “a covering†or “protectionâ€. When a sinner commits a sin and asks for forgiveness, istighfar would mean to cover his mistake or sin. In the case of the Prophets, when they asked for forgiveness, it means they were asking Allah to continue to “protect†them. Thus the word has to be explained according to the context of the verse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bismillah,

Okay Brother Ali Zaki I see your point. You may now close this thread for good. I'll start another one later pertaining to a different topic.

Dear Sir,

F.Y.I., no need to say the above. As the moderator, I will make the decision when to close a topic without waiting for the approval or consent of the o.p.

Based on the links you posted ( http://www.muslimjourneytohope.com/ , etc...) I am certainly NOT looking forward to your future topics (unless you start being a little more honest about yourself, i.e., not claiming to be a Muslim). I'm always amazed by Evangelical CHRISTIANS such as yourself who think we are so "unintelligent" (I wanted to use a different word) that we would actually take the time to read such shameless and vacuous propoganda. Of course some of us may read it for entertainment and amusement... :P

After reading your posts, I have much MORE respect for members like Javy, sunshine, etc. who are at least HONEST about what they believe. Lying will get you NOWHERE fast on this site.

Edited by Ali Zaki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BISMILLAH

No offense Ali Zaki,

I guess your life has never exposed you to Messianic Muslims like me before.

By saying "I'm always amazed by Evangelical CHRISTIANS such as yourself who think we are so "unintelligent" (I wanted to use a different word) that we would actually take the time to read such shameless and vacuous propoganda."

No offense but Don't Judge me otherwise you will be Judged. Jesus was rejected in his time so I'm not surprised if the same happens to his followers.

You said "Of course some of us may read it for entertainment and amusement... ", Who is this "us"? I see if your not gonna take me seriously then maybe I should not waste my time. Actually I guess this will be my last post.

You will come to know me soon and will get the opportunity of being exposed to me outisde this website medium - inshallah with Allah's grace - once I start my Ministry later on in my life. I still have a LONG LONG way to go.

As a promise, I won't change my first name Salman. In that way you'll know I wasn't an "EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN". However I do promise of taking my arguments to a whole new level.

If my beliefs are false then may Allah guide me,

Salman

P.S - for 3:55 , Shakir interpreted "And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed. "

for 61:14, Shakir interpreted "O you who believe! be helpers (in the cause) of Allah, as~ Isa son of Marium said to (his) disciples: Who are my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the cause) of Allah. So a party of the children of Israel believed and another party disbelieved; then We aided those who believed against their enemy, and they became uppermost."

A Muslim may wish to argue that these verses refer to Muhammad and the Muslims as those who truly believe in Christ and dominate till the Resurrection Day. This explanation fails to resolve the issue. The passages do not say that Christ's followers would only prevail from the time of Muhammad's advent, but from the time that Christ was taken to God and unto the Day of Resurrection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salman the arguments you bring forward have as much substance as a needle which is put in the water. Now how much water is left on the needle when pulled out? Well, that is how much ground your fallacious arguments have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salman the arguments you bring forward have as much substance as a needle which is put in the water. Now how much water is left on the needle when pulled out? Well, that is how much ground your fallacious arguments have.

If you float a needle on water it will show you the poles (compass). Then you can find your direction.

A little humor.

I am afraid he probably left. I really enjoyed this thread and was learning much. But as most threads more questions.

Hope I am wrong and he returns.

Edited by ShortOfDeeds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry for the delay in replying. salman, just ignore Ali Zaki. if you have any moderation request, then just let me know and i'll contact someone appropriate for it.

Fyst said about the Sudooq hadith "I quote this tradition with reference to a chain of great Imamiyyah scholars, all of whom are considered as authentic narrators of hadith. Hence, if you are a true believer, you should have faith in the following tradition."

First of all I already told you I have left the Shia fundamentals of belief until I finish re-assessing my beliefs...

it doesn't matter what you believe here. i was presenting the shia interpretation. you claimed that the hadith implies that the prophet had sinned. i'm just showing you that this was an invalid interpretation according to shia aqaed. if you don't want to believe it, then it's up to you. but you can't tell us that according to SHIA beliefs the prophet sinned as well. infact, you can email the office of ayatullah shirazi yourself asking if it is possible for prophet muhammad (pbuh) to sin, and they'll tell you the same thing that i've been saying. that assuming so from that hadith is misinterpreting it.

Don't you believe fyst that Gabriel would reveal the Revelations to Mohammed? Didn't Gabriel know verses such as 46:18 and 55:39 amongst others? He obviously had to reveal such verses to other Prophets that preceded Mohammed.

Gabriel already knew according to the revelations that he wasn't going to be questioned which is why it seems irrational you say " Gabriel was also in grief after seeing the intensity of Hell. so Allah sent down the angel with the news of this exemption from sin and punishment for him"

of course gabriel knew about all the verses. he has always been the messenger between Allah and the prophets. but he knew that the final authority lies solely in the hands of Allah. no one can claim that "i have not sinned, so God does not have the ability to throw me into Hell." ultimately the fate of a person rests in the hands of Allah regardless of his actions. good actions do not force Allah to send a person to heaven, nor do evil actions force Allah to send him to hell. Allah is never "forced" to act in a certain manner. so the fear of hell is always there, regardless of whether a person has sinned or not. this is why even gabriel felt grief upon hearing the description of hell.

Btw, Khizr wasn't a Prophet as you said, he was one of god's chosen ones like Luqma'an.

bro, so much for your "impartial" reading. you just quoted that statement from Imam Ali (as) about dua-e-kumayl that goes, "Whosoever keeps awake in devoutness on this night and recites the Du'a of Prophet Khizr, undoubtedly that person's . . . ." and right after that you say that he isn't a prophet. :D

anyway, the issue about Khizr being a prophet or not is not clear. while most scholars agree that Luqman was not a prophet, they claim that Khizr was. for example, in hayatul qulub, allamah baqir al majlisi states:

Authentic narrators mention that al-Khidr was a Mursal Messenger. Allah had appointed him over a community and he was calling them towards Tawheed (Monotheism) and inviting them to Prophets and divine books. His miracle was such that whenever he sat on earth that piece of earth became green and grass grew on it. If he sat on a wooden plank or inclined over a dry piece of wood that wood would also become green and leaves would sprout from it as well as buds. That is why he was called al-Khidr (green).
Fyst said "Sayyid Fadhlullah claims so. not Ayatullah Sistani. but not even sayyid Fadhlullah claims that prophet Muhammad ever sinned."

I don't think you see what the issue is here and hence don't understand what the gospel (in essence) is.

no, don't change the topic! you said that ayatullah sistani has also said that prophet muhammad (pbuh) could make mistakes. tell me where has he said so!

But look what happened!! Just by ONE fault - not bowing down to Adam because of pride - he was banished from God's Kingdom.

it wasn't just "one" fault. this fault was the culmination of the inner vice of pride in satan. pride is not just "one fault", it is a disease of the soul. that one instance of satan's disobedience was simply the manifestation of this inner vice of satan. but even after this first disobedience, Allah gave satan the opportunity to bow to Adam (as) again. but he still refused, which is why he was cast out. it wasn't just one sin, it was an entire vice which removed him thus.

Look at Adam and Eve - just by giving into Satan's temptation ONCE - they commited a fault/sin/tarq-al-awla/whatever you wanna call it...and hence they were thrown down to this place where we now reside.

they were meant for the earth. even if they had not comitted any faults, they would (or atleast Adam (as) would) have been sent to earth nevertheless. don't forget the verse of the qur'an that says:

[2:30] Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." . . . .

see, he was meant for the earth!

Why do you think Jesus would challenge people to prove him of a sin/fault/tarq-al-awla/whatever you wanna call it?

i haven't read of any such event in islamic sources (the gospels don't count).

Fyst you say I can't use the Gospels against the Muslims.

What's your view Fyst? Do you believe the Gospel to be an UNCORRUPTED book given to Jesus?

it wasn't a "book" per se, as in papers and all. but, yes, it was a revelation from Allah.

Or do you believe the Good/Great News was about the Vicegerency of Imam Ali as purported by Aqa Mehdi pooya & Mir Mohammed ali on their tafsir of Surah 78 (an-Naba)?

man, you're confused. surah an-Naba speaks of "naba-il-azeem". but some how you are misinterpreting that to be the "good news" that was given to prophet Isa (as). where in the quran do you read that prophet Isa (as) was given the naba-il-azeem???

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!

    • 9867 Oooops The Pentagon has snooped at least 1.8 BBillion social media posts. Who has time to process them all, much less read and understand them all. http://fortune.com/2017/11/20/pentagon-amazon-web-services-facebook-twitter/  Oh, well. Korr-up-ed biG Muther Guv-ern-mint = mint rice (Korr is a brand name) Mint Rice has wasted time and money again. Question: How many social media posts and Amazon orders do you think occurs in North Korea (DPRK).
    • Let's ask Mr. Science/Ms. Nature . At what age you have designed their physical bodies to start getting attracted to each other for procreation?
    • At one of these meeting, is it possible to ask, listen beloved friends, I have a question. This verse in the quran, النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَىٰ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ ۖ  [Shakir 33:6] The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves, 
      [Pickthal 33:6] The Prophet is closer to the believers than their selves,
      [Yusufali 33:6] The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, What is your understanding, since we are gathered here for a Unity meeting, lets really unite and learn from each other. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) used it, as a question at Ghadir Khum and asked  "Then the Messenger of Allah continued: "Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?"   People cried and answered: "Yes, O' Messenger of God." "For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), 'Ali is his Leader (mawla)." No Muslim disagrees till this point?  So, this should be a easy thing for you, only thing you are asking,  in which capacity do you see the Prophet Muhammad( peace be upon him and his progeny) as Mawla?  What is your understanding of " Greater Right " or as per the verse 33:6 "greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves, " You are only reciting the Qur'an and asking for their valued opinion and understanding.  Why would this not be possible? 
    • بسمه تعالى السلام عليكم What’s the علة of praying with a louder voice during Fajr, Maghrib and Isha, and a lower during Thuhr and Asr?
    • Alaikas Salaam brother,  Namaz means Salaat.  You can list all the words you didn't understood InshaAllah we'll reply. 
×