/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Please explain the sacrificial system



rpwelton
11-12-2008, 12:03 AM
One of the major arguments holding up the Christian viewpoint of Jesus (as) dying for our sins is that in the Old Testament, animals were sacrificed when people committed sins.

For Christians: Can you please point out which passages describe this sacrificial system in the Old Testament? Also, were these done for every sin, or just for some sins?

For Muslims: Does Islam believe that this system did in fact exist, and that people didn't have to repent, but merely they sacrificed an animal?

It seems that if no repentance at all were to take place, and instead people just sacrificed animals, there would be an awful lot of dead animals lying around. Also, from what I have read, this was introduced at the time of Moses. This leads me to believe that before Moses, this system did not exist.

Therefore, how did God forgive their sins before this system existed? If they simply repented and God forgave them, then why the need for sacrifices later on?

I believe that God is consistent, and in order for Christianity to be true, it has to show that throughout human history, there has always been something to absorb the sins of man, whether it be an animal or another man (ie, Jesus (as)).
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
doorster
11-14-2008, 08:58 PM
Isaiah
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...aiah%201:11-18

Proverbs
http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?&v...=Proverbs+16:6

Micah
http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=micah+6:7-8

which is contradicted by Hoshea 6:6. For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Hoshea 14:2-3:
2 Take words with you and return to the LORD.
Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips.3 Assyria cannot save us; we will not mount war-horses. We will never again say 'Our gods' to what our own hands have made, for in you the fatherless find compassion."

Proverbs 21:3
To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
Reply

Keltoi
11-14-2008, 09:19 PM
Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 35 He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the lamb of the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the Lordby fire. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven. Leviticus 4:35

However, God was not pleased with Israel:
'What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me? Says Yahveh. I have had enough of Burnt Offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle. I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats. When you come to appear before Me, who requires of you this trampling of My Courts? Bring your worthless offerings no longer. Incense is an abomination to Me. New Moon and Sabbath, the calling of assemblies, I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly. I hate your New Moon Festivals and your appointed Feasts. They have become a burden to Me. I am weary of bearing them. So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My Eyes from you. Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean. Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil. Learn to do good; seek justice. Reprove the ruthless. Defend the orphan. Plead for the widow.' (Is. 1:11-17)

It wasn't the sacrifice that angered the Lord, but the hypocrisy of those who sacrificed repeatedly and continued to sin.

'Alas, sinful nation! People weighed down with iniquity! Offspring of evildoers! Sons who act corruptly! They have abandoned Yahveh! They have despised the Holy One of Israel. They have turned away from Him.' (Is. 1:4)

The point being that sacrifice, as God instructed, does achieve atonement for sin. It is our sin nature that animal sacrifice could not correct. The blood of Jesus Christ accomplished this.
Reply

mkh4JC
11-15-2008, 01:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
One of the major arguments holding up the Christian viewpoint of Jesus (as) dying for our sins is that in the Old Testament, animals were sacrificed when people committed sins.

For Christians: Can you please point out which passages describe this sacrificial system in the Old Testament? Also, were these done for every sin, or just for some sins?

For Muslims: Does Islam believe that this system did in fact exist, and that people didn't have to repent, but merely they sacrificed an animal?

It seems that if no repentance at all were to take place, and instead people just sacrificed animals, there would be an awful lot of dead animals lying around. Also, from what I have read, this was introduced at the time of Moses. This leads me to believe that before Moses, this system did not exist.

Therefore, how did God forgive their sins before this system existed? If they simply repented and God forgave them, then why the need for sacrifices later on?

I believe that God is consistent, and in order for Christianity to be true, it has to show that throughout human history, there has always been something to absorb the sins of man, whether it be an animal or another man (ie, Jesus (as)).
Well, it was God himself who introduced the concept of blood sacrifice for the remission of sins to mankind. This can be seen as far back as Cain and Abel's offerrings, as evidenced here:

'And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering.

But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.' Genesis 4: 3-5.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
doorster
11-15-2008, 02:38 AM
@keltoi, fedos et al

what are the following verses talking about?
Hoshea 6:6. For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Hoshea 14:2-3:
2 Take words with you and return to the LORD.
Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips.
3 Assyria cannot save us; we will not mount war-horses. We will never again say 'Our gods' to what our own hands have made, for in you the fatherless find compassion."

Proverbs 21:3
To do justice and judgement is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

more to follow later (unless they disable my posting ability too)
Reply

mkh4JC
11-15-2008, 07:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
@keltoi, fedos et al

what are the following verses talking about?
Hoshea 6:6. For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Hoshea 14:2-3:
2 Take words with you and return to the LORD.
Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips.
3 Assyria cannot save us; we will not mount war-horses. We will never again say 'Our gods' to what our own hands have made, for in you the fatherless find compassion."

Proverbs 21:3
To do justice and judgement is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

more to follow later (unless they disable my posting ability too)
I think Keltoi answered this when he said the following:

It wasn't the sacrifice that angered the Lord, but the hypocrisy of those who sacrificed repeatedly and continued to sin.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
11-16-2008, 05:01 PM
if in a sacrifice you have to lose or give up something, what did Jesus (in Christianity) give up if he was God?

God owns everything and cannot die, what did he lose for "us"?

Thanks in advance!:)
Reply

Keltoi
11-16-2008, 09:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
if in a sacrifice you have to lose or give up something, what did Jesus (in Christianity) give up if he was God?

God owns everything and cannot die, what did he lose for "us"?

Thanks in advance!:)
It isn't what he lost, although He did die, but its about what He took upon Himself.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
11-16-2008, 09:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
It isn't what he lost, although He did die, but its about what He took upon Himself.
Thankyou for the reply!

So do are you saying that he didnt sacrifice anything? I was asking this in relation tot he title of "lamb of god", barring my confusion about how God could be a lamb for himself, you are saying that it the ACT that is important right?

OK, about the act then. I went to a catholic junior highschool so I am extremely fuzzy about this stuff so bear with me please :-[.

These is a rough breakdown about my thoughts on the system, and I appreciate your input

1. God didnt sacrifice anything but its the act that counts?

But then he isnt the Lamb of God because that would entail a sacrifice or losing something while you said that Jesus or God didnt actually lose anything.

2. The act of taking upon the sins of the world.

God has been Forgiving the sins of mankind, why the new twist on forgiveness?

You must agree that humans and God are two different entities. Our sins are our own problem that God warned us about, under threat of his wrath. Now CHristian doctrine teaches that God TOOK our sins upon himself. But want God FORGIVING sins before the coming of Jesus?

What I am essentially trying to convey is my confusion in trying to understand the doctrine that states God told us not to do sins and when we did he God absolved them without any sacricfice, God sent Jesus (or himself), so that Jesus (or Himself) could take up our sins to save us from his own wrath?


May Allah guide us.
Reply

Keltoi
11-17-2008, 01:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Thankyou for the reply!

So do are you saying that he didnt sacrifice anything? I was asking this in relation tot he title of "lamb of god", barring my confusion about how God could be a lamb for himself, you are saying that it the ACT that is important right?
Yes, He sacrificed His life. What I was attempting to explain is that what is even more important than His death is what that death accomplished.


format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
1. God didnt sacrifice anything but its the act that counts?

But then he isnt the Lamb of God because that would entail a sacrifice or losing something while you said that Jesus or God didnt actually lose anything.
Christ is called the Lamb of God because His sacrifice was a perfect and final sacrifice. It must be understood what Christ was and is, which is God manifest in the flesh. It is that flesh that experienced death. Some suggest that Christ in the flesh also experienced separation from God, although that isn't accepted by all.

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
2. The act of taking upon the sins of the world.

God has been Forgiving the sins of mankind, why the new twist on forgiveness?

You must agree that humans and God are two different entities. Our sins are our own problem that God warned us about, under threat of his wrath. Now CHristian doctrine teaches that God TOOK our sins upon himself. But want God FORGIVING sins before the coming of Jesus?
It is important to understand that in Christian theology Christ's death benefited all people, those that died 1,000 years ago and those that will die in the future. There is a little confusion, unfortunately, about what happens upon death in terms of Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine does not actually suggest that upon death we automatically go to Heaven or Hell. We all await the Second Coming. That is the ultimate and final judgement. That judgement will be passed on those that died 10,000 years ago and on those that died in 2008.

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
What I am essentially trying to convey is my confusion in trying to understand the doctrine that states God told us not to do sins and when we did he God absolved them without any sacricfice, God sent Jesus (or himself), so that Jesus (or Himself) could take up our sins to save us from his own wrath?
If I understand your question you are asking why God would grant us a path to salvation by taking the sins of the world upon Himself?

There could be a novel written to explain this concept, but I will try to boil it down to simple terms.

God is a God of justice. There is sin and there is consequences for those sins. As Christians, we do not believe God simply decides who goes to Hell or who goes to Heaven. There is a system in place. "The wages of sin is death". That system included the substitution of sinless flesh and blood(animals) to replace the deserved human death for those sins. To clarify, "death" isn't necessarily referring to physical death, but spiritual death. This system given to Moses was intended as a foreshadowing of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. This is an example of God's mercy. As a God of justice, the system, or the Law, must remain. Unfortunately, human beings will still sin. Sacrificing animals as a substitution is instant atonement, but not eternal atonement. Jesus Christ, as the Lamb of God, granted that eternal atonement. There is no need to look for other substitutions. Christ was that substitution. Christ was that substitution because he was flesh and blood, spiritually perfect, stainless, etc. He was something that no human being could hope to achieve on their own.

Hope that makes some sense.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
11-17-2008, 02:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Yes, He sacrificed His life. What I was attempting to explain is that what is even more important than His death is what that death accomplished.



Christ is called the Lamb of God because His sacrifice was a perfect and final sacrifice. It must be understood what Christ was and is, which is God manifest in the flesh. It is that flesh that experienced death. Some suggest that Christ in the flesh also experienced separation from God, although that isn't accepted by all.


It is important to understand that in Christian theology Christ's death benefited all people, those that died 1,000 years ago and those that will die in the future. There is a little confusion, unfortunately, about what happens upon death in terms of Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine does not actually suggest that upon death we automatically go to Heaven or Hell. We all await the Second Coming. That is the ultimate and final judgement. That judgement will be passed on those that died 10,000 years ago and on those that died in 2008.



If I understand your question you are asking why God would grant us a path to salvation by taking the sins of the world upon Himself?

There could be a novel written to explain this concept, but I will try to boil it down to simple terms.

God is a God of justice. There is sin and there is consequences for those sins. As Christians, we do not believe God simply decides who goes to Hell or who goes to Heaven. There is a system in place. "The wages of sin is death". That system included the substitution of sinless flesh and blood(animals) to replace the deserved human death for those sins. To clarify, "death" isn't necessarily referring to physical death, but spiritual death. This system given to Moses was intended as a foreshadowing of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. This is an example of God's mercy. As a God of justice, the system, or the Law, must remain. Unfortunately, human beings will still sin. Sacrificing animals as a substitution is instant atonement, but not eternal atonement. Jesus Christ, as the Lamb of God, granted that eternal atonement. There is no need to look for other substitutions. Christ was that substitution. Christ was that substitution because he was flesh and blood, spiritually perfect, stainless, etc. He was something that no human being could hope to achieve on their own.

Hope that makes some sense.
Thankyou for that response :D

THough, the question that came up immediately was at the very first part of your last paragraph. What do you mean God doesn't just decide who goes to heaven and hell? He is the one to whom we have to present ourselves to on Judgement day.

Why do disagree with my view that he is God, he alone can forgive us without going through an elaborate sacrifice system. If he wanted to forgive, he just does it. You explanation rested on this first statement. But I can't see the CHristian reasoning behind this.

May Allah guide us both.
Reply

Keltoi
11-17-2008, 05:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Thankyou for that response :D

THough, the question that came up immediately was at the very first part of your last paragraph. What do you mean God doesn't just decide who goes to heaven and hell? He is the one to whom we have to present ourselves to on Judgement day.

Why do disagree with my view that he is God, he alone can forgive us without going through an elaborate sacrifice system. If he wanted to forgive, he just does it. You explanation rested on this first statement. But I can't see the CHristian reasoning behind this.

May Allah guide us both.
Because, from the Christian standpoint, God is not capricious. Sin is sin. If you sin you are deserving of punishment. Period. That is the issue. God doesn't condemn one person for a sin and forgive another for that same sin. Does that make sense? Nothing we do here on earth can "earn" our salvation and forgiveness. We were doomed to reap the wages of death. However, through Christ that redemption was achieved. We will sin, as we always do. However as Christians we believe that accepting Christ into your heart and bearing the fruit of that faith is the one and only path to salvation. You must acknowlege that sacrifice to earn the benefits of it.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
11-17-2008, 06:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Because, from the Christian standpoint, God is not capricious. Sin is sin. If you sin you are deserving of punishment. Period. That is the issue. God doesn't condemn one person for a sin and forgive another for that same sin. Does that make sense? Nothing we do here on earth can "earn" our salvation and forgiveness. We were doomed to reap the wages of death. However, through Christ that redemption was achieved. We will sin, as we always do. However as Christians we believe that accepting Christ into your heart and bearing the fruit of that faith is the one and only path to salvation. You must acknowlege that sacrifice to earn the benefits of it.
Ok wait hold on.


Capricious??

Capricious: determined by chance or impulse or whim rather than by necessity or reason

Are you really saying that God forgiving those who he deems are worth it and who have repented by their actions and heart is capricious? There certainly is a system, like you said, but we believe it to be individual repentance.



You keep throwing that word around but I feel that you are using it inappropritely. God, unlike humans, knows what is really going on. He cannot be described as erratic or whimsical because whatever he does he does it in the fairest and most just way possible.

In Islamic theology, God does not accept the sacrafice of another to absolve your own sins. How does THAT make sense? I sin but that guy died for me so I dont have sin??? I commit a sin but my brother gets punsihed for it??


If God forgives a person, it is because either that person deserved it. THat person could have repented for it, acknowleged it was wrong, learned from theior mistakes or whatever. WHy wouldnt God have mercy on them??


Why should I benefit from someone else's actions if I am STILL SINNING? Why would God NOT forgive you when you repent, but FORGIVE you WHEN someone ELSE is punished???

That is not CAPRICE, that is MERCY. Youa re forgiven due to Gods mercy who forgives those that he Knows, as an omnipotent being, deserved forgiveness.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-17-2008, 07:20 PM
While Christ's death did take away the sins of the world, he didn't die as a fulfillment of the sacrificial system. Rather that sacrficial system was a typology of Christ's death. And even more to the point than the sacrificial system, was the sacrifice of Abraham's son. Why did Abraham offer up his son, what was the purpose for that sacrfice -- to show obedience. This is what the first Adam lacked, and what the second Adam offers. And for those who trust in Christ, his offering of himself imputes his own righteousness to others. I don't understand any more about how or why this is so than Abraham did, I just trust in what God says and submit myself to its truth.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
11-17-2008, 07:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
While Christ's death did take away the sins of the world, he didn't die as a fulfillment of the sacrificial system. Rather that sacrficial system was a typology of Christ's death. And even more to the point than the sacrificial system, was the sacrifice of Abraham's son. Why did Abraham offer up his son, what was the purpose for that sacrfice -- to show obedience. This is what the first Adam lacked, and what the second Adam offers. And for those who trust in Christ, his offering of himself imputes his own righteousness to others. I don't understand any more about how or why this is so than Abraham did, I just trust in what God says and submit myself to its truth.

Abrahams sacrafice was a loyalty test to God, not an absolvation of his sins?
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-17-2008, 07:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Abrahams sacrafice was a loyalty test to God, not an absolvation of his sins?
I think that is what I just said.
Reply

rpwelton
11-17-2008, 08:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Abrahams sacrafice was a loyalty test to God, not an absolvation of his sins?
That's correct. Allah SWT tested Abraham by saying to him that he must sacrifice his son Ishmael. Abraham agreed without hesitation, as did Ishmael. It was only when the blade of the knife was just striking Ishmael's throat that Allah SWT replaced his son with a ram, which was sacrificed instead. Abraham had ultimate trust in Allah SWT, and this is only one of many acts which he performed that demonstrated this.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
11-18-2008, 03:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I think that is what I just said.
Sorry I misunderstood. Just clarifying.


ANyways, I dont understand your relation of Abrahams near sacrifice to your belief about Jesus' sacrifice.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-19-2008, 02:20 AM
The sacrifice of Abraham's son is a foreshadowing of Jesus' own sacrifice. We are told that no one took his life from him, that he laid it down of his own free will. He did this because it is what his father asked of him. So, as Abraham and his son were obedient, so too was Jesus. However, unlike Abraham's offering which was a personal manifestation of obedience have effect only on his own life, Jesus' obedience as the 2nd Adam has the effect of negating the disobedience of the 1st Adam. In other words, neither Abraham and his son's offering nor Jesus' sacrfice is as much about the sacrificial system as it is about obedience to God. This doesn't mean that Jesus' death doesn't also have other ramifications beyond mere obedience, but obedience is even more important to understanding it than is seeing it as connected with the sacrficial system. Though of course, after it, there would be no need for the sacrificial system any more, for nothing better could be offered than Jesus' perfect offering of obedience, even unto death.
Reply

Eric H
11-19-2008, 08:40 PM
Greetings and peace be with you rpwelton;
Therefore, how did God forgive their sins before this system existed? If they simply repented and God forgave them, then why the need for sacrifices later on?
Would it be safe to say that God had a plan before the creation of the universe began. If this is so, would it make sense that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was planned before creation began. This would mean that the sacrifice to forgive all sins was in place before the creation of the Prophet Adam, and hence would cover all people from the beginiong.

In the spirit of searching for a loving and forgiving God

Eric
Reply

Follower
11-28-2008, 03:05 PM
Why a sacrifice is needed. GOD is just. If He were not just He would just say ok I forgive you. When a sin is done we owe GOD. There must be a payment for the debt. The animal sacrifices were instituted. Man was still sinning while performing the animal sacrifices in hypocrisy. Leave man out of the equation for the perfect MAN Jesus to give up His life for us.

There was a separation of Jesus from GOD- Jesus went to the spirits/souls in prison [hell] and preached to them.
Reply

Follower
11-28-2008, 03:07 PM
?"Abraham by saying to him that he must sacrifice his son Ishmael"?

Please list the verse where that is stated in the Quran.

Thanks.
Reply

doorster
11-28-2008, 04:04 PM
?"Abraham by saying to him that he must sacrifice his son Ishmael"?
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...sacrifice.html

No name is mentioned but it would be illogical to suggest that it was Hazrat Isaac Alehi salam

37:100. "O My Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"
37:101. so we gave Him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
37:102. then, when (the son) reached (the age of) work with him, He said: "O My son! I see in vision that I offer you in sacrifice: Now see what your view is!" (The son) said: "O My father! Do as you art commanded: you will find me patient, if Allah so wills!"
37:103. so when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah, and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead for sacrifice),
37:104. we called out to Him "O Ibrahim!
37:105. "you have already fulfilled the vision!" - Thus indeed we do reward those who do right.
37:106. For this was obviously a test
37:107. and we ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice;
37:108. and we left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times;
37:109. "Peace and salutation to Ibrahim!"

News of Hazrat Isaac Alehi salam

37:110. Thus indeed we do reward those who do right.
37:111. For He was one of our believing servants.
37:112. And we gave Him the good news of Isaac - a prophet, - one of the Righteous.
37:113. We Blessed Him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (Some) that do right, and (Some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...sacrifice.html
Reply

Follower
11-28-2008, 06:18 PM
According to :

010.094
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
PICKTHAL: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
SHAKIR: But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.

If you do not know for certain and since his name is not mentioned you do not know who he is in the Quran you must ask those that read the Holy Bible.
Reply

doorster
11-28-2008, 06:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
According to :

010.094
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
PICKTHAL: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
SHAKIR: But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.

If you do not know for certain and since his name is not mentioned you do not know who he is in the Quran you must ask those that read the Holy Bible.
it seems that you are hell-bent on appointing yourself a teacher here and since I am not getting any help or permission (to post as I see the need) from any mods, I have no choice but to quit.

happy preachings
bye!
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-28-2008, 10:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Why a sacrifice is needed. GOD is just. If He were not just He would just say ok I forgive you.
I'm surprised that no Muslim has followed up on this yet. So, on their behalf, I will ask. You seem to be implying that it would not be just for God to simply say, "OK, I forgive you." Why not? Why is it more just to forgive us sinners based on a vicarious sacrifice by an innocent indiividual than it would be to just outright forgive those who were truly penitent?
Reply

جوري
11-29-2008, 06:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
?"Abraham by saying to him that he must sacrifice his son Ishmael"?

Please list the verse where that is stated in the Quran.

Thanks.
Sara was barren and she threw Hagar out of jealousy, Abraham (PBUH) took her to what is modern day Saudi Arabia (the site where the pilgrimage is) which is where he was tested.

Your bible lied to you no matter how you slice it
' and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son' 11:17-19

Ishmael was Abraham's first born, and when time of the sacrifice was in fact his ONLY SON... why do you think it would even matter with Issac? the whole point of a painful sacrifice is that, there would be much to lose? -- Abraham's wife was barren and after a long wait, he was given a son.. logic would dictate that it would be more painful to lose a son if you simply had one after much desire and suffering and a long time in the making to come about? It wouldn't matter so much if you had an heir and a spare?
further logic dictates as per your own bible
1- if he had an only son, the son would be Ishmae?l
2- if Issac were born then he wouldn't say his 'only begotten son' now would he-- he would be his second begotten?
see my subsequent post on more quotes from your bible!

simple logic can be applied here, so you can sort it out for yourself!

Think a little instead of being a 'follower' it might actually do you some good!


cheers
Reply

جوري
11-29-2008, 06:42 PM
Just as an addendum to the above per your bible

Was the first born son of Abraham (Ishmael) and his descendants included in God's covenant and promise? A few verses from the Bible may help shed some light on this question;

1) Genesis 12:2-3 speaks of God's promise to Abraham and his descendants before any child was born to him.

2) Genesis 17:4 reiterates God's promise after the birth of Ishmael and before the birth of Isaac.

3) In Genesis, ch. 21. Isaac is specifically blessed but Ishmael was also specifically blessed and promised by God to become "a great nation" especially in Genesis 21:13, 18.

4) According to Deuteronomy 21:15-17 the traditional rights and privileges of the first born son are not to be affected by the social status of his mother (being a "free" woman such as Sarah, Isaac's mother, or a "Bondwoman" such as Hagar, Ishmael's mother). This is only consistent with the moral and humanitarian principles of all revealed faiths.

5) The full legitimacy of Ishmael as Abraham's son and "seed" and the full legitimacy of his mother, Hagar, as Abraham's wife are clearly stated in Genesis 21:13 and 16:3.


so you can't throw Ishmael out when it suits you and get him back in the game when it suits you.. ''JOB" from your bible if you believe him a holy prophet was a direct descendant from the Ishmael branch of the family not Issac' ..

so sad how you have to tweak and tweak to make some sense of your religion in light of Islam-- or even in light of history, in light of laws of inheritance or to reconcile against its own contents ---
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-29-2008, 10:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Sara was barren and she threw Hagar out of jealousy, Abraham (PBUH) took her to what is modern day Saudi Arabia (the site where the pilgrimage is) which is where he was tested.

Your bible lied to you no matter how you slice it
' and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son' 11:17-19

Ishmael was his first born, and when time of the sacrifice was in fact his ONLY SON...
so bible lied to you as usual
logic dictates--
1- if he had an only son, the son would be Ishmael
2- if Issac were born then he wouldn't say his only begotten son, now would he?

simply logic can be applied here, so you can sort it out for yourself!


cheers
You didn't quote the whole of the passage you cited:
Hebrews 11
17By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 19Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
You often tell us Christians not to speak about what we don't know in Islam, you might want to consider the same with respect to how you address Christianity and the Bible. The I believe it is safe to say that the author of Hebrews is well aware that Abraham had two sons, not one. You are correct that simple logic would tell you that 1 son Ishmael and 1 son Isaac make two sons, not one. So, he must mean something different by this particular turn of a phrase "one and only son" than in what it seems to say at first glance. And the key word in question "μονογενη" (monogene) carries with it the idea of uniqueness. Isaac was unique in that it was he (not Ishmael) who was the child of the promise, the son of barren Sara, who the Lord would cause to conceive and give Abraham a son in his old age. And sadly, because of Sarah's jealousy, Ishmael was no longer a part of his life by the time Genesis reports that God told Abraham to offer the his son as a sacrifice, so both Genesis and Hebrews agree that at the time of the sacrifice Abraham only his son Isaac in his camp:
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." (Genesis 22:2)
I know the Qur'an differs in the telling of this story. But simply telling me that the Qur'an says different is not sufficient to convince me that the Biblical version of the story is in error.


As for your addendum, God makes it pretty clear as through whom he will accomplish the promise of Genesis 12, he mentions the individuals concerned by name:[quote]Genesis 17
18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"

19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."[/quiote]
Ishmael isn't ignored or dismissed, but he isn't the one through whom God intends to accomplish what God intends to accomplish for Abraham. God clearly intends to make his everlasting covenant with Isaac, not Ishmael. (At least as far as Genesis is concerned.)


''JOB" from your bible if you believe him a holy prophet was a direct descendant from the Ishmael branch of the family not the Issac.
I found this an interesting comment. I had not heard this before. Indeed, many Biblical scholars suggest either that Job is a mythological figure (at least those who are not Biblical literalists do), or (from those who believe he was a real person) that he lived before Abraham. What is your source for saying that he is a descendant of Ishmael?
Reply

Follower
11-29-2008, 10:59 PM
Abraham was married to Sarah when the promise was first made to him by GOD. GOD didn't give Hagar to Abraham to have a son with Sarah did. Sarah' pregnancy was a miracle, a gift from GOD, Hagar's was normal and a result of Sarah not trusting GOD.

011.071
YUSUFALI: And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.
PICKTHAL: And his wife, standing by laughed when We gave her good tidings (of the birth) of Isaac, and, after Isaac, of Jacob.
SHAKIR: And his wife was standing (by), so she laughed, then We gave her the good news of Ishaq and after Ishaq of (a son's son) Yaqoub.

011.072
YUSUFALI: She said: "Alas for me! shall I bear a child, seeing I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a wonderful thing!"
PICKTHAL: She said: Oh woe is me! Shall I bear a child when I am an old woman, and this my husband is an old man? Lo! this is a strange thing!
SHAKIR: She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing.

011.073
YUSUFALI: They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you, o ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory!"
PICKTHAL: They said: Wonderest thou at the commandment of Allah? The mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you, O people of the house! Lo! He is Owner of Praise, Owner of Glory!
SHAKIR: They said: Do you wonder at Allah's bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious.

037.112
YUSUFALI: And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
PICKTHAL: And we gave him tidings of the birth of Isaac, a prophet of the righteous.
SHAKIR: And We gave him the good news of Ishaq, a prophet among the good ones.

037.113
YUSUFALI: We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.
PICKTHAL: And We blessed him and Isaac. And of their seed are some who do good, and some who plainly wrong themselves.
SHAKIR: And We showered Our blessings on him and on Ishaq; and of their offspring are the doers of good, and (also) those who are clearly unjust to their own souls.

Abraham and Sarah are buried together in Machpelah.
Genesis 25
10the field Abraham had bought from the Hittites. There Abraham was buried with his wife Sarah.

Anyone know where Hagar is buried?

A bank lends money to someone. The loan become due but the original person can not repay the debt. The bank has to have the money replaced so it can continue to function. His friend says I have the money I will pay the debt for you. The bank accepts the payment by the friend.

Sin causes a debt that must be paid.
Reply

جوري
11-29-2008, 11:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You didn't quote the whole of the passage you cited:

I have decided to delete my quote by quote rebuttal to you with my two subsequent posts, which will include all from ancient Hebrew laws of inheritance to Jeremiah 8:8 to step by step day o sacrifice biblical quotes on the day of much more than sufficient!

cheers
Reply

جوري
11-29-2008, 11:21 PM
The covenant

Did God's Covenant With Abraham Include Ishmael?

Many Christians believe that God's covenant with Abraham (pbuh) excludes his son Ishmael (pbuh). The importance of this is that Ishmael (pbuh) is the ancestor of the Arabs, and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). They believe that the covenant was made only with his son Isaac (pbuh) and his descendants, the Jews. They often argue that Ishmael was an illegitimate son, thus excluding him from the covenant. Let us review the available evidence in order to test this assertion:

Was Ishmael (pbuh) an illegitimate son to Abraham (pbuh)? Well, in order for a child to be illegitimate, his parents must not have been husband a wife at the time he was conceived. So, where Abraham and Hagar (pbut) married at the time they conceived Ishmael (pbuh)? Let us see what the Bible says:

Genesis 16:3 "And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. "

According to the Bible, Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham as a wife (pbut). The next verse proves that they were married before they conceived Ishmael (pbuh):

Genesis 16:4 "And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. "

So according to the Bible, Ishmael (pbuh) is a legitimate son of Abraham (pbuh). Now with this in mind, let us move on. In the next chapter of Genesis, we find promise from God to Abraham (pbuh):

Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. (8) And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

The above verse tells us that God's covenant is with the seed of Abraham (pbuh). Is Ishmael (pbuh) the seed of Abraham (pbuh)? Let's go back to the book of Genesis to find out:

Genesis 21:13 "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. "

God's covenant is to be given through circumcision, as we come to understand in Genesis 17:10-13:

Genesis 17:10 "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. (11) And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. (12) And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. (13) He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. "

Immediately after, Abraham (pbuh) quickly circumcises himself and his son Ishmael (pbuh). This establishes God's covenant with Ishmael, father to the Arabs. The Interpreter's Bible (p. 16) states the following:

"This was His own sign and seal that Israel was a chosen people. Through it a man's life was linked with great fellowship whose dignity was its high consciousness that it must fulfill the purpose of God."

Circumcision is practiced by Muslims throughout the world to this day.



To summarize, the Bible tells us that Ishmael (pbuh) was indeed a legitimate child to Abraham and Hagar (pbut). Also, we find out that the covenant was between God, and Abraham (pbuh) and his seed. Genesis 23:13 clearly shows that Ishmael (pbuh) is considered Abrahams (pbuh) seed. Finally, the book of Genesis tells us that the covenant is given through circumcision, and Abraham (pbuh) quickly circumcised himself and his son Ishmael (pbuh), thus establishing the covenant with Ishmael (pbuh).



We know from above that Ishmael (pbuh) was Abraham's (pbuh) seed. Some may claim that being his "seed" is not equal to being his "son". Well, let us see what the Bible says:


Genesis 17:23 "And Abraham took Ishmael his son"

Genesis 25:8 "Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. (9) And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre;"


The Above verse shows that Ishmael (pbuh) was his son till the day Abraham (pbuh) died. Also, the status of Hagar has no affect on the inheritance of Ishmael (pbut) according to the law.

Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: (16) Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: (17) But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

Before Isaac (pbuh) was born, God repeats his promise to Abraham (pbuh) to bless the entire earth through his progeny.

Genesis 17:4 "As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations."

Genesis 21:13 "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed."


It is important to note that verses such as those in Genesis 17:21 and Genesis 21:21 do not exclude Ishmael, they just merely concentrate on Isaac (pbuh) since he'd already done the same to Ishmael (pbuh) before the birth of Isaac (pbuh). If one says "I love my children", then says "I love my younger son," that does not mean that he doesn't love is elder son.


I hope that sums it up for you Gene according to the bible itself not the Quran so we are not wasting each others time with opinions!
Reply

جوري
11-29-2008, 11:33 PM
By: Abdul-Rahman (Brent) Klimaszewski
( a new convert to Islam)











1) First, let us look at Genesis 16:3, “So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 16:3)” Clearly this tells us Abraham (PBUH) Married Hagar.







2) Next let us analysis at why and what age Allah (SWT) commanded Abraham (PBUH) to take Ishmael and Hagar to settle in Arabia (Paran)



“Was Ishmael and Hagar sent to the desert before or after the birth of Isaac? If we were to accept the Biblical version, we would encounter a number of inconsistencies and contradictions. It is clear from the story in Gen. 21:14-19 that Ishmael was a little baby at that time. For example according to Gen. 16:16 Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born. And according to Gen. 21:5 Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born. It follows that Ishmael was already fourteen years old when his younger brother Isaac was born. According to Gen. 21:8-19 the incident took place after Isaac was weaned. Biblical scholars tell us the child was probably weaned at about the age of three. Thus, it follows that when Hagar and Ishmael were taken away Ishmael was a full-grown teenager, seventeen years old. However, the profile of Ishmael in Gen 21:14-19 is a small baby and not a full-grown teenager. Why?

Genesis 21:14-21

14 Early next morning Abraham took some food and a full water-skin and gave them to Hagar. He set the child on her shoulder and sent her away, and she wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba. 15 When the water in the skin was finished, she thrust the child under a bush, 16 then went and sat down some way off, about a bowshot distant. How can I watch the child die? she said, and sat there, weeping bitterly. 17 God heard the child crying, and the angel of God called from heaven to Hagar, What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid: God has heard the child crying where you laid him. 18 Go, lift the child and hold him in your arms, because I shall make of him a great nation. 19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well full of water; she went to it, filled the water-skin, and gave the child a drink. 20 God was with the child as he grew up. He lived in the wilderness of Paran and became an archer; 21 and his mother got him a wife from Egypt. (The Revised English Bible)

1st) First, the original Hebrew for Gen. 21:14 is " and put the bread and water on her shoulder AND the boy." Anyone fluent in Hebrew can confirm this! This reading is still rendered in the Revised English Bible; however, other Bible publishers possibly aware of the discrepancy decided to translate the verse slightly different; however, we can see their trick! How would a mother carry a seventeen-year-old teenager on her shoulder? Certainly he was probably strong enough to carry his mother. Ishmael must have been a baby!

2nd) Second, in Gen 21:15 we are told that Hagar put the child under one of the bushes. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!

3rd) Third, in Gen 21:16 we are told that Hagar sat away so she did not have to see the child die before her eyes. Is this the profile of a husky seventeen-year-old teenager who probably was capable of being worried about his mother dying before his eyes? Or is it obviously a profile of a small helpless baby? Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!

4th) According to Gen 21:17-18, the angels told Hagar lift the child and hold him in your arms. Is a seventeen-year-old man the object of being lifted up and held in one's arms by a woman while CRYING? Or is it the reference of a small child. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!

5th) According to Gen 21:19 we are told that Hagar filled the bottle with water and gave the child a drink. One would expect a seventeen year old to bring water to his mother instead. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!

6th) According to Gen 21:14 Abraham puts the food and water on Hagar's shoulder. Why doesn't the strong husky seventeen-year old Ishmael offer to carry the food and water? Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!

7th) According to Gen 21:20-21?? Ishmael grew up, became an archer and got married. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!



The above analysis leads to the inevitable conclusion that while the Bible contains some truths as explained earlier, there is also evidence of human additions, deletions and interpolations which only a subsequent authentic revelation could clear. The Islamic version of the story is fully consistent and coherent from A to Z; Ishmael was a baby and Isaac was not born yet when this incident took place. This proves that the real reason behind their settlement in Arabia (Paran) was not the dictation, jealousy, ego or sense of racial superiority on the part of Sarah. It was rather God's plan, pure and simple!” (From: http://www.why-christians-convert-to...om/nice201.htm).

Of course let us remember the Corrupted bibles own statement; “ ‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

As we can clearly see the Jews tampered with their scripture, and some of the jewish scribes were obviously racist towards Ishmael and believe the jews were the only true human beings (just like the racist zionist jews of today) although we ALL come from the SAME person, Adam!



3) Proof that Ishmael (PBUH) was the child who was to be sacrificed by Abraham (PBUH).

“SACRIFICE OF ABRAHAM'S ONLY SON: ISHMAEL OR ISAAC?”


“The following quotes are taken from the Bible.

The Bible Genesis 22:2

"Take now your son, your only son, whom you love,_______, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains".

The Bible Genesis 22:12

"Since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."



The important question is who was this only son of Abraham that was offered for sacrifice? Ishmael the eldest son or Isaac the second son? The Bible writers have placed the name of Isaac in the blank space above. Muslims believe Ishmael was around thirteen years old when Abraham was asked to sacrifice him. In both the above quotations the Lord uses the word your only son. Obviously, the logical answer is that the incident must have taken place before the birth of Isaac, the second son of Abraham. So, what could be the reason that the name of Isaac appears in the blank space, as the only son of Abraham? Bible scholars explain that anomaly by putting forward the following two arguments.

The first argument is that after the birth of Isaac, Ishmael lost his status of being a son of Abraham, since he was not born of a wife of Abraham but born to a handmaid of Abraham's wife. However, this argument is false because Hagar was a wife of Abraham otherwise the Lord would not have used the word wife in the following verse.

Genesis 16:3 So after Abraham had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.

Moreover, Jews and Christians contend that only Isaac, the one that was born to Sarai was a son. However the biblical passage below tells us that Ishmael never lost his status as a son, not even after the birth of Isaac. If Ishmael had lost the status, the Lord would not have used the word sons in the following verse.

Genesis 25:9 Then his sons Isaac and Ishmael, buried him (Abraham) in the cave of Machpelah.

A second argument presented is that because Ishmael was born to a handmaid he would qualify as a seed or a descendant of Abraham, but not as a son. This argument is nullified because prevailing Nuzi Laws of marriage (exhibit A) tell us that such marriage contracts were legal in the days of Abraham and the child born of a handmaid or slave-girl would have the same status as one born to the wife, even if the wife had a child of her own later. There can be no doubt concerning the validity of the Nuzi laws of marriage. For example, when one traces the maternal side of the children of Israel, Genesis tells us that Jacob (later called Israel Gen 32:28) had four wives. He married Leah (Gen 29:22-23), Rachel (Gen 29:28), a slave-girl Bilhah (Gen 30:4), and another slave-girl Zilpah (Gen 30:9). From these four wives came the twelve Children of Israel: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, Naptali, Gad and Asher (Gen 35:23-26 & 1 Chronicles 2:1-2). All twelve of these children make up the Israelites and are all referred as a combined group, see (Exodus 1:1-9). Four of the twelve children (Gad, Dan, Naphtali and Asher) were sons of the slave-girls. Thus, it follows that about one third of all Israelis are children of slave-girls! Will a third of all Jews stand up and say they are illegitimate? Moreover, further evidence that the Bible clearly includes the slave-children as part of the combined group of Israelis is the Bible's tracking of their genealogy in (1 Chronicles 5:18; 1 Chronicles 7:12, 13, 30). Moreover, we are told that the children of Asher were leading princes.

1 Chronicles 7:40 "All these were descendants of Asher, heads of families, picked men of ability, leading princes."

Consequently, the entire Abrahamic family tree is tracked in 1 Chronicles, including Abraham's children from his first wife Hagar (1 Chronicles 1:29), his second wife Sarah (1 Chronicles 1:34) and his third wife Keturah (1 Chronicles 1:32 - see family tree at main web page).

Moreover, there is a very similar incident in the Bible (Ruth 1-4). In this story a child born to a handmaid is indeed recognized as a son. For example, Boaz, a landowner of Bethlehem, meets a handmaid named Ruth (Ruth 3:9) and marries her. Ruth was a young widow and a handmaid of Moabite descent (Ruth 1:4); the Moabite people were descendants of an act of incest by Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19:36-37). Boaz and Ruth latter had a son named Obed. Later on, Obed became the founder of the royal line of Israel (Ruth 4:17-22), an ancestor of both king David and of the great prophet Jesus. If the son of a maidservant of questionable heritage could have the honor of being the progenitor and forbearer of the most important lines of descent for both Jews and Christians, then why cannot Ishmael, a son of a handmaid, be offered by his father for a burnt offering as his only son? Moreover, this argument cannot be correct because if it were, Sarah would have never said. (Gen 16:2) The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her. Abraham agreed. It is certain that Sarah and Abraham knew the law and did not want to waste their time during their old age building an illegitimate family that would serve them no good!

So, is it out of tribal rivalry that the descendants of Isaac (Jews) are concealing these facts and depriving the preeminence due to the descendants of Ishmael (Arabs)? In Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading Ishmael it is written:

"It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who was bound (sacrificed), but they concealed this out of jealousy. (All this, From: http://www.why-christians-convert-to...ice201.htm)”.
Reply

Follower
11-29-2008, 11:33 PM
Isaac' birth was the miracle a gift from GOD. Ishmael's was normal a gift from Sarah.
Reply

جوري
11-29-2008, 11:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Isaac' birth was the miracle a gift from GOD. Ishmael's was normal a gift from Sarah.
Do you have something of substance to impart? scriptural?
I am starting to be annoyed with your nonsense..

any birth is a miracle from God, or did they not teach you in bible thumping camp that humans can't create anything ex nihilo?

Ancient Hebrew laws of inheritance as per Torah is Quoted above, so unless you are abrogating it on divine authority, stop wasting my time and everyone else's on bull!

cheers
Reply

Follower
11-29-2008, 11:53 PM
Genesis 17
17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?" 18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"

19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."

Even the Quran more then just a normal pregnancy.

011.071
YUSUFALI: And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.
PICKTHAL: And his wife, standing by laughed when We gave her good tidings (of the birth) of Isaac, and, after Isaac, of Jacob.
SHAKIR: And his wife was standing (by), so she laughed, then We gave her the good news of Ishaq and after Ishaq of (a son's son) Yaqoub.

011.072
YUSUFALI: She said: "Alas for me! shall I bear a child, seeing I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a wonderful thing!"
PICKTHAL: She said: Oh woe is me! Shall I bear a child when I am an old woman, and this my husband is an old man? Lo! this is a strange thing!
SHAKIR: She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing.

011.073
YUSUFALI: They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you, o ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory!"
PICKTHAL: They said: Wonderest thou at the commandment of Allah? The mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you, O people of the house! Lo! He is Owner of Praise, Owner of Glory!
SHAKIR: They said: Do you wonder at Allah's bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious.

037.112
YUSUFALI: And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
PICKTHAL: And we gave him tidings of the birth of Isaac, a prophet of the righteous.
SHAKIR: And We gave him the good news of Ishaq, a prophet among the good ones.

037.113
YUSUFALI: We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.
PICKTHAL: And We blessed him and Isaac. And of their seed are some who do good, and some who plainly wrong themselves.
SHAKIR: And We showered Our blessings on him and on Ishaq; and of their offspring are the doers of good, and (also) those who are clearly unjust to their own souls.
Reply

جوري
11-29-2008, 11:59 PM
What are you trying to establish with your use of the Quran that Issac was born and that he is beloved? we already know that.. unlike Christians and Jews, Muslims don't malign the characters of messengers to loan Islam credence.. in fact I'll go on further to quote you the entire sura of Yousef (Joseph) to prove that Issac existed and was/is beloved...

perhaps you care otherwise to wrap this for us to make some sense?

THE TWELFTH SURAH

YUSUF (JOSEPH)

MECCA PERIOD

ACCORDING to all the authoritative sources, this surah was revealed in its entirety in Mecca, almost immediately after the preceding one. The contention of some of the early commentators that the first three verses were revealed at Medina is, in the words of Suyuti, "entirely baseless and cannot be seriously considered".

The story of the Prophet Joseph, as narrated in the Qur'an, agrees in the main, but not completely, with the Biblical version (Genesis xxxvii and xxxix-xlvi); the more important differences between the two accounts are pointed out in my notes. But what distinguishes the Qur'anic treatment of the story in a deeper sense is its spiritual tenor: contrary to the Bible, in which the life of Joseph is presented as a romantic account of the envy to which his youthful innocence is first exposed, of the vicissitudes which he subsequently suffers, and, finally, of his worldly triumph over his brothers, the Qur'an uses it primarily as an illustration of God's unfathomable direction of men's affairs -an echo of the statement that "it may well be that you hate a thing the while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing the while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know'.' (2: 216). The whole of this surah might be described as a series of variations on the theme "judgment [as to what is to happen] rests with none but God", explicitly enunciated only in verse 67, but running like an unspoken leitmotif throughout the story of Joseph.

IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE MOST GRACIOUS, THE DISPENSER OF GRACE:

(1) Alif. Lam. Rd.'

THESE ARE MESSAGES of a revelation clear in itself and clearly showing the truth :2 (2) behold, We have bestowed it from on high as a discourse in the Arabic tongue, so that you might encompass it with your reason.'

(3) In the measure that We reveal" this Qur'an unto

thee, [O Prophet,] We explain it to thee in the best



1 See Appendix II.

2 The participial adjective mubin may denote an attribute of the noun which it qualifies ("clear", "manifest", "obvious", etc.) as well as its function ("making clear" or "manifesting", i.e., the truth), either of which meanings is dictated by its context. In the consensus of authoritative opinion, both these meanings are comprised in the above instance; consequently, a compound phrase is necessary in order to render the term appropriately.

3 This, according to Zamakhshari, is the meaning of la'allakum ta'gilun in the above context. Although they were in the first instance addressed to the Arabian contemporaries of the Prophet, these two verses apply to all people, whatever their origin, who understand the Arabic language. They are meant to impress upon everyone who listens to or reads the Qur'an that its appeal is directed, primarily, to man's reason, and that "feeling" alone can never provide a sufficient basis of faith. (See also 13 : 37 and 14: 4, as well as the corresponding notes.)

4 Or: "By Our having revealed".



SURAH 12

JOSEPH

possible way,' seeing that ere this thou wert indeed among those who are unaware [of what revelation is].'

(4) LO!' Thus spoke Joseph unto his father: "O my father! Behold, I saw [in a dream] eleven stars, as well as the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate themselves before me!"

(5) [Jacob] replied: "O my dear son!$ Do not relate thy dream to thy brothers lest [out of envy] they devise an evil scheme against thee; verily, Satan is man's open foe!9 (6) For, [as thou hast been shown in thy dream,] even thus will thy Sustainer elect thee, and will impart unto thee some understanding of the inner meaning of happenings,'° and will bestow the















If 4sA Z

5 Lit., "with the best explanation (ahsan al-igtisds)". This rendering is very close to the interpretation given by Zamakhshari: "We set forth this Qur'an unto thee in the best way in which it could be set forth." According to Razi, it may safely be assumed that the adjective "best" refers not to the contents of "that which is set forth--i.e., the particular story narrated in this surah -but rather to the manner in which the Qur'an (or this particular surah) is set forth: and herein he agrees with Zamakhshari. It should be borne in mind that the verb gassa (the infinitive nouns of which are qasas and igtisas) signifies, primarily, "he followed step by step" or "by degrees", and, subsequently, "he related [a piece of news or a story] as though he followed its traces": hence, "he expounded [it] gradually" or "he explained [it]" (cf. Lane VII, 2526, quoting the Qdmas and the Tai al= Aras with specific reference to the above verse). If, on the other hand, the infinitive noun gasas is regarded as synonymous, in this context, with gissah ("story" or "narrative"), the above sentence might be rendered as "We narrate unto thee the best of narratives", i.e., the subsequent story of Joseph. In my opinion, however, the rendering "We explain it [i.e., the Qur'an] in the best possible way" is preferable inasmuch as it fully coincides with the two opening verses of this surah, which state, in effect, that the Qur'an is selfexplanatory.

6 At this point in his commentary, Razi draws the reader's attention to 42: 52 - "thou didst not know what revelation is, nor what faith [implies]": a passage similar in purport to the closing words of the above verse; hence my addition, between brackets, of the phrase "of what revelation is".

7 The particle idh is usually a time-reference, and can in most cases be translated as "when". Occasionally, however, it is used as a corroborative particle meant to draw the reader's (or hearer's) attention to the sudden occurrence of a thing (MughnF, Qdmas, Tdj al= Aras), or-as is often the case in the Qur'an-to a turn in the discourse: and in such instances it is suitably rendered as "lo" or "now".

8 See surah 11, note 65.

9 As in the Biblical account of Joseph's story, the Qur'an shows that Jacob did not fail to understand the meaning of his son's dream-vision of future greatness, with the eleven stars symbolizing his brothers, and the sun and the moon his parents. But whereas the Bible quotes the father as "rebuking" his son (Genesis xxxvii, 10) in the obvious assumption that the dream was an outcome of wishful thinking, the Qur'an makes it clear that Jacob - who was himself a prophet - at once realized its prophetic quality and its deeper implications.

10 Lit., "sayings". or "tidings" (ahddith). Most of the commentators assume that this refers specifically to Joseph's future ability to interpret dreams; but Razi points out that in this context the term hadfth (of which ahadith is the plural) may be synonymous with hadith ("something that newly comes into existence", i.e., "an event" or "a happening"). This is, to my mind, much more convincing than a mere reference to dream-interpretation, the more so as the term ta'wrl is often used in the Qur'an (e.g., in 3 : 7, 10: 39 or 18: 78) in the sense of "final meaning", "inner meaning" or "real meaning" of a happening or statement or thing, as distinct from its outward, prima-facie appearance. The use of the particle min ("of") before the term ta'wil indicates that absolute



full measure of His blessings upon thee and upon the House of Jacob -even as, aforetime, He bestowed it in full measure upon thy forefathers Abraham and Isaac. Verily, thy Sustainer is all-knowing, wise!"

(7) Indeed, in [the story of] Joseph and his brothers there are messages for all who search [after truth]."

(8) NOW [Joseph's brothers] spoke [thus to one another:] "Truly, Joseph and his brother [Benjamin] are dearer to our father than we, even though we are so many. 'Z Behold, our father is surely suffering from an aberration!""

(9) [Said one of them:] "Slay Joseph, or else drive him away to some [faraway] land, so that your father's regard may be for you alone: and after this is done, you will be [free to repent and to live once again as] righteous people!„"

(10) Another of them said: "Do not slay Joseph, but -rather - if you must do something - cast him into the dark depths of this well, [whence] some caravan may pick him up.""

(11) [On this they agreed; and thereupon] they spoke [thus to their father]: "O our father! Wherefore wilt thou not trust us with Joseph, seeing that we are indeed his well-wishers? (12) Let him go out with us tomorrow, that he may enjoy himself and play: and, verily, we shall guard him well!"

(13) [Jacob] answered: "Behold, it grieves me indeed [to think] that you might take him with you, for I dread lest the wolf devour him at a moment when you are heedless of him!"

(14) Said they: "Surely, if the wolf were to devour him notwithstanding that we are so many-then, behold, we ought ourselves to perish!"

(15) And so, when they went away with him, they decided to cast him into the dark depths of the well.



!00. r.:,l=houilLLl~ls'~.'„,a'c s

;.

10 Le





knowledge of what a thing or event implies rests with God alone (cf. 3 : 7 - "none save God knows its final meaning"), and that even God's elect, the prophets-albeit their vision is much wider than that of ordinary men-are granted only a partial insight into the mysteries of God's creation. 11 Lit., "those who inquire".

12 Lit., "a company" or "group". Benjamin was Joseph's full brother-both being sons of Jacob's wife Rachel-whereas the other ten were only his half-brothers.

13 Lit., "is in most obvious error".

14 The phrase interpolated by me within brackets -reflecting the unconscious irony in the attitude of Joseph's brethren-is based on the consensus of most of the classical commentators.

15 Sc., "and take him with them to a faraway land" (cf. the preceding verse). The term jubb - rendered by me as "well" - is usually applied to a desert well simply cut through the earth

or through rock and not cased with stone: the implication being that this particular well did not

contain enough water to drown Joseph, but was deep enough to hide him from sight.



12

JOSEPH

And We revealed [this] unto him: "Thou wilt yet remind them of this their deed at a time when they shall not perceive [who thou art] !"'6

(16) And at nightfall they came to their father, weeping, (17) [and] said: "O our father! Behold, we went off racing with one another, and left Joseph behind with our things; and thereupon the wolf devoured him! But [we know that] thou wouldst not believe us even though we speak the truth" - (18) and they produced his tunic with false blood upon it.

[But Jacob] exclaimed: "Nay, but it is your [own] minds that have made [so terrible] a happening seem a matter of little account to you!" But [as for myself,] patience in adversity is most goodly [in the sight of God]; and it is to God [alone] that I pray to give me strength to bear the misfortune which you have described to me."'s

(19) AND THERE CAME a caravan;'9 and they sent forth their drawer of water, and he let down his bucket into the well - [and when he saw Joseph] he exclaimed: "Oh, what a lucky find,' this boy!"

And they hid him with a view to selling him: but God had full knowledge of all that they were doing. (20) And they sold him for a paltry price - a mere few silver coins: thus low did they value him.

(21) And the man from Egypt who bought hiMZ' said to his wife: "Make his stay [with us] honourable; he may well be of use to us, or we may adopt him as

a son.

And thus We gave unto Joseph a firm place on earth; and [We did this] so that We might impart unto him some understanding of the inner meaning of happenings. For, God always prevails in whatever be His purpose: but most people know it not.













FUIa:..;,',11;Aij

14







16 See verses 89-90 of this surah.

17 Apparently Jacob did not believe the tale of the wolf but, knowing his sons' envy of Joseph, at once realized that it was they themselves who had done grievous harm to him. Nevertheless - as is evident from Jacob's expression of hope in verse 83 of this surah -he was not quite convinced that Joseph was really dead.

18 Lit., "it is to God that I turn for aid against what you are describing".

19 According. to the Bible (Genesis xxxvii, 25), they were "Ishmaelites" - i.e., Arabs - who "came from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt". (Gilead is the Biblical name for the region east of the Jordan.)

20 Lit., "O good news!"

21 The Qur'an does not mention his name or position; but a later reference to him (in verse 30 below) as al= azfz ("the great [or "mighty"] one") points to his having been a high official or a nobleman.

22 See note 10 above.



YUSUF

SCRAH

(22) And when he reached full manhood, We bestowed upon him the ability to judge [between right and wrong], as well as [innate] knowledge: for thus do We reward the doers of good.

(23) And [it so happened that] she in whose house he was living [conceived a passion for him and] sought to make him yield himself unto her; and she bolted the doors and said, "Come thou unto me!"

[But Joseph] answered: "May God preserve me! Behold, goodly has my master made my stay [in this house]! Verily, to no good end come they that do [such] wrong!"

(24) And, indeed, she desired him, and he desired her; [and he would have succumbed] had he not seen [in this temptation] an evidence of his Sustainer's truth:' thus [We willed it to be] in order that We might avert from him all evil and all deeds of abomination -for, behold, he was truly one of Our servants.'"

(25) And they both rushed to the door; and she [grasped and] rent his tunic from behind-and [lo!] they met her lord at the door!

Said she: "What ought to be the punishment of one who had evil designs on [the virtue of] thy wife - [what] but imprisonment or a [yet more] grievous chastisement?"

(26) [Joseph] exclaimed: "It was she who sought to make me yield myself unto her!"

Now one of those present, a member of her own household, suggested this: "If his tunic has been torn from the front, then she is telling the truth, and he is a liar; (27) but if his tunic has been torn from behind, then she is lying, and he is speaking the truth."

(28) And when (her husband] saw that his tunic was



.1W. .;;.lip " SIa~„, .

1 ,: i















23 The interpolated phrase "and he would have succumbed", is, according to Zamakhsharl, implied in the above sentence. In his commentary on this verse, he further points out that the moral significance of "virtue" consists in one's inner victory over a wrongful desire, and not in the absence of such a desire. Cf. the well-known saying of the Prophet, recorded, on the authority of Abu Hurayrah, by Bukharl and Muslim: "God, exalted be He, says: 'If a servant of Mine [merely] desires to do a good deed, I shall count this [desire] as a good deed; and if he does it, I shall count it tenfold. And if he desires to commit a bad deed, but does not commit it, I shall count this as a good deed, seeing that he refrained from it only for My sake..."' -i.e., in consequence of a moral consideration (which, in the present instance, is described as "an evidence of God's truth").

24 Lit., "he was among Our sincere servants".

25 Lit., "a present one (shdhid) from her household testified" - i.e., suggested a test on these lines. Here, again, the Qur'anic narrative differs from the story as told in the Bible, since according to the latter (Genesis xxxix, 19-20), the husband immediately believed the false accusation and cast Joseph into prison; the episodes related in verses 26-34 of this surah do not appear in the Biblical account.



torn from behind, he said: "Behold, this is [an instance] of your guile, O womankind! Verily, awesome is your guile! (29) [But,] Joseph, let this pass!Z6 And thou, [O wife,] ask forgiveness for thy sin-for, verily, thou hast been greatly at fault!"

(30) NOW the women of the city spoke [thus to one another]: "The wife of this nobleman is trying to induce her slave-boy to yield himself unto her! Her love for him has pierced her heart; verily, we see that she is undoubtedly suffering from an aberration!"r (31) Thereupon, when she heard of their malicious talk, she sent for them, and prepared for them a sumptuous repast, and handed each of them a knife and said [to Joseph]: "Come out and show thyself to them!"

And when the women saw him, they were greatly amazed at his beauty,' and [so flustered were they that] they cut their hands [with their knives], exclaiming, "God save us! This is no mortal man! This is nought but a noble angel!"

(32) Said she: "This, then, is he about whom you have been blaming me! And, indeed, I did try to make him yield himself unto me, but he remained chaste. Now, however, if he does not do what I bid him, he shall most certainly be imprisoned, and shall most certainly find himself among the despised!"

(33) Said he: "O my Sustainer! Prison is more desirable to me than [compliance with] what these women invite me to: for, unless Thou turn away their guile from me, I might yet yield to their allure 3' and become one of those who are unaware [of right and wrong]."

(34) And his Sustainer responded to his prayer, and freed him from the threat of their guile :32 verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing. (35) For, presently it

























-1 r-*A, ~;.Jyla.:WTi

26 Lit., "turn aside from this". According to almost all the commentators, the meaning is, "do not mention this to anyone", the implication being that the husband was prepared to forgive and forget.

27 Lit., "we see her indeed in obvious error".

28 The expression muttaka'-lit., "a place where one reclines [while eating]", i.e., a "cushioned couch" - seems to have been used here tropically to denote a "luxurious [or "sumptuous"]

repast".

29 Lit., "they deemed him [i.e., his beauty] great". 30 Lit., "become one of those who are humiliated".

31 Lit., "incline towards them"; it should, however, be borne in mind that the verb sabd combines the concepts of inclination, yearning and amorous indulgence (cf. Lane IV, 1649); hence my rendering.

32 Lit., "turned away their guile from him".



YUSUF

SURAH

occurred to the nobleman and his household 33 _ [even] after they had seen all the signs [of Joseph's innocence] - that they might as well imprison him for a time."

(36) NOW two young men happened to go to prison at the same time as Joseph.

One of them said: "Behold, I saw myself [in a dream] pressing wine."

And the other said: "Behold, I saw myself [in a dream] carrying bread on my head, and birds were eating thereof."

[And both entreated Joseph:] "Let us know the real meaning of this! Verily, we see that thou art one of those who know well [how to interpret dreams]."36

(37) [Joseph] answered: "Ere there comes unto you the meal which you are [daily] fed, I shall have informed you of the real meaning of your dreams,;' [so that you might know what is to come] before it comes unto you: for this is [part] of the knowledge which my Sustainer has imparted to me.

"Behold, I have left behind me the ways of people who do not believe in God,'s and who persistently refuse to acknowledge the truth of the life to come; (38) and I follow the creed of my forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is not conceivable that we should [be allowed to] ascribe divinity to aught beside God: this is [an outcome] of God's bounty unto us and unto all mankind" -but most people are ungrateful.

jT)L...w

Y

~,. !.h~L;4



Ar!l l:l

33 Lit., "it occurred to them".

34 Thus, according to the Qur'an, Joseph was imprisoned not because his master believed him to be guilty, but because, in his weakness, he wanted to appease his wife, "being entirely submissive to her, and behaving like a riding-camel whose reins she held in her hand" (Zamakhsharl).

35 Lit., "entered the prison with him". According to the Biblical account (not contradicted by the Qur'an), they were the King's cup-bearer and baker, both of them imprisoned for unspecified offences.

36 This is the meaning given by Baghawi, Zamakhshari and Baydawi to the expression al-muhsinfn in the above context, adopting the tropical use of the verb ahsana in the sense of "he knew [something]" or "he knew [it] well". Thus, the Qur'an indicates here in its elliptic manner that Joseph's reputation for wisdom and dream-interpretation preceded him to prison.

37 Lit., "the real meaning thereof".

38 Joseph wants to avail himself of this opportunity to guide his two fellow-prisoners towards the true faith; and so, while promising that he would explain their dreams presently, he asks them to listen first to a short discourse on the oneness of God.

39 Since God is almighty and self-sufficient, it is not for His sake that man is warned not to ascribe divine qualities to aught beside Him: the absolute condemnation of this sin is solely designed to benefit man by freeing him from all superstition, and thus enhancing his dignity as a conscious, rational being.



12

JOSEPH

(39) "O my companions in imprisonment! Which is more reasonable:' [belief in the existence of numerous divine] lords, each of them different from the other"' -or [in] the One God, who holds absolute sway over all that exists?

(40) "All that you worship instead of God is nothing but [empty] names which you have invented' - you and your forefathers- [and] for which God has bestowed no warrant from on high. Judgment [as to what is right and what is wrong] rests with God alone-[and] He has ordained that you should worship nought but Him: this is the [one] ever-true faith; but most people know it not °'

(41) "[And now,] O my companions in imprisonment, [I shall tell you the meaning of your dreams:] as for one of you two, he will [again] give his lord [the King] wine to drink; but as for the other, he will be crucified, and birds will eat off his head. [But whatever be your future,] the matter on which you have asked me to enlighten you has been decided [by God]."

(42) And [thereupon Joseph] said unto the one of the two whom he considered saved: "Mention me unto thy lord [when thou art free]!"

But Satan caused him to forget to mention [Joseph] to his lord, and so he remained in prison a few [more] years.











LA_±d4ii;'Ji,.,

















(43) AND [one day] the King said:" "Behold, I saw [in a dream] seven fat cows being devoured by seven emaciated ones, and seven green ears [of wheat] next to [seven] others that were withered. O you nobles!

40 Lit., "better", obviously in the sense of "better conforming to the demands of reason".

41 The expression mutafarrigan connotes plurality ds well as separateness-in this context, separateness in respect of qualities, functions and degrees.

42 Lit., "names which you have named" -i.e., "figments of your own imagination".

43 Cf. the last sentence of 30: 30.

44 This king seems to have been one of the six Hyksos rulers who dominated Egypt from about 1700 to 1580 B.C., after having invaded the country from the east by way of the Sinai Peninsula. The name of this dynasty, which was undoubtedly of foreign origin, is derived from the Egyptian hiq shasu or heku shoswet, meaning "rulers of nomad lands", or - according to the late Egyptian historian Manetho - "shepherd kings": all of which points to their having been Arabs who, despite

the fact that before their invasion of Egypt they were already well-established in Syria, had to a

large extent preserved their bedouin mode of life. This would explain the confidence which the king mentioned in this story was later to place in Joseph, the Hebrew, and the subsequent settlement of the latter's family (and, thus, of what in due course became the Israelite nation) in Egypt: for it must be borne in mind that the Hebrews, too, descended from one of the many bedouin tribes who some centuries earlier had migrated from the Arabian Peninsula to Mesopotamia and later to Syria (cf. sarah 7, note 48); and that the language of the Hyksos must have been very akin to Hebrew, which, after all, is but an ancient Arabian dialect.



YUSUF

SURAH

Enlighten me about [the meaning of] my dream, if you are able to interpret dreams!"

(44) They answered: "[This is one of] the most involved and confusing of dreams,' and we have no deep knowledge of the real meaning of dreams."

(45) At that, the one of the two [erstwhile prisoners] who had been saved, and [who suddenly] remembered [Joseph] after all that time,° spoke [thus]: "It is I who can inform you of the real meaning of this [dream]; so let me go [in search of

it]."47

(46) [And he went to see Joseph in the prison and said to him:] "Joseph, O thou truthful one! Enlighten us about [the meaning of a dream in which] seven fat cows were being devoured by seven emaciated ones, and seven green ears [of wheat appeared] next to [seven] others that were withered - so that I may return [with thy explanatiion] unto the people [of the court, and] that they may come to know [what'manner of man thou art]!"

(47) [Joseph] replied: "You shall sow for seven years as usual; but let all [the grain] that you harvest remain [untouched] in its ear, excepting only a little, whereof you may eat: (48) for, after that [period of seven good years] there will come seven hard [years] which will devour all that you shall have laid up for them, excepting only a little of that which you shall have kept in store. (49) And after that there will come a year in which the people will be delivered from all distress," and in which they will press [oil and wine as before]."

(50) And [as soon as Joseph's interpretation. was conveyed to him,] the King said: "Bring him before me!"

But when the [King's] messenger came unto him, [Joseph] said: "Go back to thy lord and ask him [first to find out the truth] about those women who cut their hands-for, behold, [until now it is] my Sustainer [alone who] has full knowledge of their guile!" (51) [Thereupon the King sent for those women;

4, Jr J .i . ar, f.. JJJ ADSy:Jyi+-W

s

Y 1a~4~..+~w t3 a -G C1.-,' ~..r V

y J y. i ~ SmJ 1J J



cu!~;3jiu;, i:4L~iiTs,-:J~







45 Lit., "confusing medleys (adghath) of dreams".

46 According to almost all the authorities, the noun ummah denotes here "a time" or "a long period of time".

47 The cup-bearer obviously addresses the assembly as a whole, and not the King alone: hence the plural "you".

48 Or: "will be granted rain"-depending on whether one connects the verbal form yughath with either of the infinitive nouns ghayth ("rain") or ghawth ("deliverance from distress"). Although the crops of Egypt depend entirely on the annual Nile floods, the water-level of the river is, in its turn, contingent upon the quantity of rainfall at its upper reaches.



12

JOSEPH

and when they came,] he asked: "What was it that you hoped to achieve when you sought to make Joseph yield himself unto you?"`9

The women asnwered: "God save us! We did not perceive the least evil [intention] on his part!" [And] the wife of Joseph's former master" exclaimed: "Now has the truth come to light! It was I who sought to make him yield himself unto me - whereas he, behold, was indeed speaking the truth!" (52) [When Joseph learned what had happened, he said:` "I asked for] this, so that [my former master] might know that I did not betray him behind his back ,s2 and that God does not bless with His guidance the artful schemes of those who betray their trust. (53) And yet, I am not trying to absolve myself: for, verily, man's inner self does incite [him] to evil," and saved are only they upon whom my Sustainer bestows His grace .54 Behold, my Sustainer is muchforgiving, a dispenser of grace!"

(54) And the King said: "Bring him unto me, so that I may attach him to my own person."

And when he had spoken with him, [the King] said: "Behold, [from] this day thou shalt be of high standing with us, invested with all trust!"

(55) [Joseph] replied: "Place in my charge the store-houses of the land; behold, I shall be a good and knowing keeper. ,15

















49 Evidently, the King wanted to find out whether they had previously been encouraged by Joseph, or whether he was truly innocent. The noun khatb denotes "something that one has in view" or "desires" or "seeks to obtain"; and so the expression and khatbukunna (lit., "what was it that you [really] had in view") may be suitably rendered as above.

50 Lit., "the wife of the great one (al= azrz)".

51 Some of the commentators (e.g., Ibn Kathir and, among the moderns, Rashid Rida' in Mandr XII, 323 f.) regard this and the next verse as a continuation of the woman's confession; but the great majority of the classical authorities, including Tabari, Baghawi and Zamakhsharl, attribute the speech that follows unequivocally -and, in my opinion, most convincingly-to Joseph: hence my interpolation at the beginning of this verse.

52 Lit., "in [his] absence" or "in secret" (bi'l-ghayb).

53 Lit., "is indeed wont to command [the doing of] evil"-i.e., is filled with impulses which often conflict with what the mind regards as a moral good. This is obviously a reference to the statement in verse 24 above - "she desired him, and he desired her; [and he would have succumbed,] had he not seen [in this temptation] an evidence of his Sustainer's truth" - as well as to Joseph's prayer in verse 33, "unless Thou turn away their guile from me, I might yet yield to their allure". (See also note 23 above.) Joseph's stress on the weakness inherent in human nature is a sublime expression of humility on the part of one who himself had overcome that very weakness: for, as the sequence shows, he attributes his moral victory not to himself but solely to the grace and mercy of God.

54 Lit., "except those upon whom...", etc. According to most of the commentators, the pronoun and (lit., "that which") is here synonymous with man ("he who" or "those who").

55 By making this request, Joseph wanted to assure an efficient build-up of grain reserves during the coming years of plenty, knowing well that they would be followed by seven years of scarcity.



YIJSUF

SURAH

(56) And thus We established Joseph securely in the land [of Egypt]: he had full mastery over it, [doing] whatever he willed.

[Thus do] We cause Our grace to alight upon whomever We will; and We do not fail to requite the doers of good. 16 (57) But in the eyes of those who have attained to faith and have always been conscious of Us, a reward in the life to come is a far greater good [than any reward in this world]."

(58) AND [after some years,] Joseph's brothers came [to Egypt]" and presented themselves before him: and he knew them [at once], whereas they did not recognize him.

(59) And when he had provided them with their provisions, he said: "[When you come here next,] bring unto me that brother of yours from your father's side.s9 Do you not see that I have given [you] full measure and have been the best of hosts? (60) But if you do not bring him unto me, you shall never again receive a single measure [of grain] from me, nor shall you [be allowed to] come near me!"

(61) They answered: "We shall try to persuade his father to part with him, and, verily, we shall do [our utmost]!"

(62) And [Joseph] said to his servants: "Place their merchandise' in their camel-packs, so that they may find it there when they come home, and hence be the more eager to return. -61

(63) And so, when they returned to their father, [Joseph's brothers] said: "O our father! All grain 62 is







1 .. .-.. 1 , 1,

A.. . .. r















It is obvious from the sequence that his request was granted, and that he was able to fulfil the task which he had set himself.

56 I.e., sometimes in this world as well, but invariably in the hereafter, as the sequence shows.

57 Lit., "for those who have attained to faith...", etc.

58 Le., to buy wheat from the stores which Joseph had accumulated during the seven years of plenty: for all the countries in the vicinity of Egypt were by now affected by the famine which he had predicted, and Egypt alone had a surplus, the distribution of which he supervised personally (cf. Genesis x1i, 54-57).

59 Lit., "a brother of yours from your father"-i.e., their half-brother Benjamin, who was Joseph's full brother (their mother having been Rachel, Jacob's favourite wife), whereas the other ten had different mothers. Benjamin, the youngest of Jacob's children, had not accompanied his brothers on their first journey to Egypt, but they had presumably mentioned him in the course of their conversation with Joseph.

60 I.e., the goods which they had bartered for wheat (Ibn Kathir): a very plausible explanation in view of the fact that barter was the most common form of trade in those ancient times.

61 Lit., "so that they may perceive them when they come back to their family, [and] that they may return".

62 Lit., "measure [of grain]", here used metonymically in an allusion to Joseph's words (verse 60).



[to be] withheld from us [in the future unless we bring Benjamin with us]: send, therefore, our brother with us, so that we may obtain our measure (of grain]; and, verily, we shall guard him well!"

(64) [Jacob] replied: "Shall I trust you with him in the same wayb' as I trusted you with his brother (Joseph] aforetime? [Nay,] but God's guardianship is better [than yours], for He is the most merciful of the merciful!"

(65) Thereupon, wken they opened their packs, they discovered that their merchandise had been returned to them; [and] they said: "O our father! What more could we desire? Here is our merchandise: it has been returned to us! [If thou send Benjamin with us,] we shall (again] be able to bring food for our family, and shall guard our brother [well], and receive in addition another camel-load of grain' That [which we have brought the first time] was but a scanty measure."

(66) Said [Jacob]: "I will not send him with you until you give me a solemn pledge, before God, that you will indeed bring him back unto me, unless you yourselves be encompassed [by death]!"

And when they had given him their solemn pledge, [Jacob] said: "God is witness to all that we say!" (67) And he added: "O my sons! Do not enter [the city all] by one gate, but enter by different gates. Yet [even so,] I can be of no avail whatever to you against [anything that may be willed by] God: judgment [as to what is to happen] rests with none but God. In Him have I placed my trust: for, all who have trust [in His existence] must place their trust in Him alone."

(68) But although they entered [Joseph's city] in the way their father had bidden them, this proved of no avail whatever to them against [the plan of] God6' [His request] had served only to satisfy Jacob's heartfelt desire [to protect them]:6 for, behold,


















63 Lit., "not otherwise than".

64 It would seem that Joseph used to allot to foreign buyers of grain one camel-load per person.

65 Probably in order not to attract undue attention in the foreign land and possibly fall prey to intrigues. See in this connection note 68 below.

66 Lit., "when".

67 As is shown in the sequence, they and their father were to suffer severe distress before their adventures came to a happy conclusion.

68 Lit., "it (i.e., his request that they should enter the city by different gates] had been but a desire in Jacob's heart (nafs), which he [thus] satisfied". In other words, when he gave his sons this advice, he followed only an instinctive, humanly-understandable urge, and did not really expect that any outward precaution would by itself help them: for, as he himself pointed out on



YUSUF

SORAH

thanks to what We had imparted unto him, he was indeed endowed with the knowledge [that God's will must always prevailbl; but most people know it not.

AND WHEN [the sons of Jacob] presented themselves before Joseph, he drew his brother [Benjamin] unto himself, saying [to him in secret]: "Behold, I am thy brother! So grieve thou not over their past doings!""

(70) And [later,] when he had provided them with their provisions, he placed the [King's] drinking-cup in his brother's camel-pack. And [as they were leaving the city,] a herald" called out: "O you people of the caravan! Verily, you are thieves !,,71

(71) Turning towards the herald and his companions, the brothers asked:" "What is it that you miss?"

(72) They answered: "We miss the King's goblet; and he who produces it shall receive a camel-load [of grain as reward]!"

And [the herald added:] "I pledge myself to this _ [promise]!"

(73) Said [the brothers]: "By God! Well do you know that we have not come to commit deeds of corruption in this land, and that we have not been thieving!"













parting, "judgment as to what is to happen rests with none but God". This stress on man's utter dependence on God - a fundamental tenet of Islam - explains why Jacob's advice (which in itself is not relevant to the story) has been mentioned in the above Qur'anic narrative.

69 This interpolated clause is based on Zamakhshari's interpretation of the above reference to Jacob's having been "endowed with knowledge".

70 Thus, contrary to the Biblical account, Joseph is stated here to have disclosed his identity to Benjamin long before he revealed himself to his ten half-brothers. The words "their past doings" obviously refer to their treacherous behaviour towards himself which Joseph had now presumably disclosed to Benjamin.

71 Lit., "an announcer" (mu'adhdhin) - a noun derived from the verbal form adhdhana ("he announced" or "proclaimed" or "called out publicly").

72 Commenting on this verse, Razi says: "Nowhere in the Qur'an is it stated that they made this accusation on Joseph's orders; the circumstantial evidence shows rather (al-agrab ilazahir al-hal) that they did this of their own accord: for, when they had missed the drinking-cup, [these servants of Joseph remembered that] nobody had been near it [except the sons of Jacob], and so it occurred to them that it was they who had taken it." Analogous views are also advanced by Tabari and Zamakhshari in their comments on the last words of verse 76 below. This extremely plausible explanation contrasts sharply with the Biblical account of this incident (Genesis xliv), according to which the false accusation was part of an inexplicable "stratagem" devised by Joseph. If we discard-as we must-this part of the Biblical version, it is far more logical to assume that Joseph, who had been granted by the King full authority over all that belonged to the latter (see verse 56 above), had placed the royal cup as a present in the bag of his favourite brother; and that he did this secretly, without informing his servants, because he did not want anyone, least of all his ten half-brothers, to know his predilection for Benjamin. For a further explanation of this incident and of its ethical relevance within the context of Joseph's story, see note 77 below.

73 Lit., "They said, turning towards them".









12

JOSEPH

(74) [The Egyptians] said: "But what shall be the requital of this [deed] if you are [proved to be] liars?" (75) [The brothers] replied: "Its requital? He in whose camel-pack [the cup] is found-he shall be [enslaved as] a requital thereof! Thus do we [ourselves] requite the doers of [such] wrong. 04

(76) Thereupon [they were brought before Joseph to be searched; and] he began with the bags of his half-brothers'' before the bag of his brother [Benjamin]: and in the end he brought forth the drinkingCUP'S out of his brother's bag.

In this way did We contrive for Joseph [the attainment of his heart's desire]: under the King's law, he would [otherwise] not have been able to detain his brother, had not God so willed. We do raise to [high] degrees [of knowledge] whomever We will - but above everyone who is endowed with knowledge there is One who knows all."

(77) [As soon as the cup came to light out of Benjamin's bag, the brothers] exclaimed: "If he has stolen-well, a brother of his used to steal afore_time !"'8

Thereupon Joseph said to himself, without revealing his thought to them:'9 "You are far worse in











C

;n.LLJis;: a21ej~~e'



~vy7~.1.r• lwll~L









t ~~. .a - h i el L }i.

74 Most of the commentators (relying, perhaps on Exodus xxii, 3) assume that this was the customary punishment for'theft among the ancient Hebrews. Raz1, however, suggests that this last sentence may not be a part of the brothers' answer but a confirmatory remark made by the Egyptian herald, meaning, "[In fact,] thus do we [Egyptians] requite the doers of such wrong".

75 Lit., "with their bags".

76 Lit., "he brought it out".

77 The meaning of this story is now clear: it is a further illustration of the basic doctrine that "judgment [as to what is to happen] rests with none but God" (verse 67 above). Joseph had wanted to keep Benjamin with himself, but under the law of Egypt he could not do this without the consent of his half-brothers, who were the legal guardians of their minor brother; and they -bound as they were by the solemn promise given to their father-would certainly not have agreed to Benjamin's remaining behind. The only other alternative open to Joseph was to disclose his identity to them; but since he was not yet prepared td go so far, he was obliged to allow Benjamin to depart with his brothers. The accidental discovery of his gift, entirely unexpected by Joseph (see note 72 above), changed everything: for now Benjamin appeared to be guilty of theft, and under the law of the land Joseph was entitled to claim him as his slave, and thus to keep him,in his house. The words, "In this way did We contrive (kidnd) for Joseph [the attainment of his heart's desire]", referring to the incident of the cup, indicate that its final outcome was neither planned nor even foreseen by Joseph.

78 The reference is obviously to Benjamin's full brother, Joseph. In the absence of any indication that the latter had ever before been accused of theft, it is reasonable to assume that the brothers, unaware of the fact that they were standing before Joseph, simply wanted to vilify him in order to dissociate themselves more effectively from Benjamin, who now appeared to have been convicted of theft.

79 Lit., "Joseph concealed it within himself and did not reveal it to them; he said. . .", etc. According to almost all the commentators, the pronoun "it" refers to Joseph's subsequent "saying" or, rather, thought, indicated by the verb "he said" (i.e., within himself); hence my free rendering of this phrase.



YUSUF

SURAH

this respect, and God is fully aware of what you are saying."'

(78) They said: "O thou great one! Behold, he has a father, a very old man: detain, therefore, one of us in his stead. Verily, we see that thou art a doer of good!"

(79) He answered: "May God preserve us from [the sin of] detaining any other than him with whom we have found our property-for then, behold, we would indeed be evildoers!"

(80) And so, when they lost all hope of [moving] him, they withdrew to take counsel [among themselves].

The eldest of them said: "Do you not remember" that your father has bound you by a solemn pledge before God - a9d how, before that, you had failed with regard to Joseph? Hence, I shall not depart from this land till my father gives me leave or God passes judgment in my favour:" for He is the best of all judges. (81) [And as for you others,] return to your father and say: `O our father! Behold, thy son has stolen-but we [can] bear witness to no more than what has become known to us;" and [although we gave you our pledge,] we could not guard against something that [lay hidden in the future and, hence,] was beyond the reach of our perception." (82) And ask thou in the town in which we were [at the time], and of the people of the caravan with whom we travelled hither, and [thou wilt find that] we, are indeed telling the truth!"'











4, w- h~I J, ~l





(83) [AND WHEN they returned to their father and told him what had happened,] he exclaimed: "Nay, but it is your [own] minds that have made [so terrible] a happening seem a matter of little account to you! But [as for myself,] patience in adversity is most goodly; God may well bring them all [back] unto me:" verily, He alone is all-knowing, truly wise!"

80 Lit., "of what you attribute", i.e., to Joseph and Benjamin-sc., "since you yourselves have stolen Joseph from his father".

81 Lit., "know" -but since this expression denotes here remembrance in the proper sense of the word, it can be suitably translated as above.

rather than knowledge

82 I.e., "enables me to win back my brother Benjamin".

83 I.e., the finding of the King's cup in Benjamin's bag (Baghawf and Zamakhshari).

84 Lit., "We were not guardians over that which was beyond the reach of [our] perception": i.e., "at the time when we gave you our pledge regarding Benjamin; we did not know that he would steal" (Zamakhshari).

85 I.e., Benjamin and the eldest son (who had remained in Egypt) as well as Joseph, of whose alleged death Jacob was never fully convinced (cf. note 17).



(84) But he turned away from them and said: "O woe is me for Joseph!"-and his eyes became dim" from the grief with which he was filled.

(85) Said [his sons]: "By God! Thou wilt never cease to remember ,Toseph till thou art broken in body and spirit or art dead!"

(86) He answered: "It is only to God that I complain of my deep grief and my sorrow: for I know, from God, something that you do not know.8' (87) [Hence,] O my sons, go forth and try to obtain some tidings of Joseph and his brother; and do not lose hope of God's life-giving mercy: verily, none but people who deny the truth can ever lose hope of God's life-giving mercy."

LJ-:"y~











(88) [AND THE SONS of Jacob went back to Egypt and to Joseph;] and when they presented themselves before him, they said: "O thou great one! Hardship has visited us and our folk, and so we have brought but scanty merchandise; but give us a full measure [of grain], and be charitable to us: behold, God rewards those who give in charity!"

(89) Replied he: "Do you remember" what you did to Joseph and his brother when you were still unaware [of right and wrong]?"9'

(90) They exclaimed: "Why - is it indeed thou who art Joseph?"

He answered: "I am Joseph, and this is my brother. God has indeed been gracious unto us. Verily, if

















,: i .- . •. ,'. ~ A A s,

86 Lit., "white": i.e., dim with the tears that filled them (Razi). Although Jacob was now deprived of three of his sons, his grief for Joseph was the most acute because he was the only one of the three of whom Jacob did not know whether he was dead or alive.

87 Namely, that "judgment as to what is to happen rests with none but God", and that "all who have 'trust [in His existence] must place their trust in Him alone" (verse 67): the twin ideas which underlie the whole of this siirah, and which Jacob now seeks to impress upon his sons. In addition to this, his remembrance of Joseph's prophetic dream (verse 4) and his own conviction at the time that his beloved son would be elected by God for His special grace (verse 6), fills Jacob with renewed hope that Joseph is still alive (Razi and Ibn Kathir): and this explains the directives which he gives his sons in the next sentence.

88 According to most of the commentators, especially Ibn `Abbas (as quoted by Tabari and others), the term rawh is here synonymous with rahmah ("grace" or "mercy"). Since it is linguistically related to the noun rah ("breath of life" or "spirit"), and has also the metonymic significance of "rest" (rdhah) from grief and sadness (Tdj al- Aras), the most appropriate rendering would seem to be "life-giving mercy".

89 I.e., goods which they intended to barter for grain (see note 60 above).

90 Lit., "know" (see note 81).

91 By coupling his own name with that of Benjamin he possibly hinted at his brothers' early envy and hatred of the two sons of Rachel (cf. verse 8 of this sarah and the corresponding note 12); alternatively, the mention of Benjamin may have been due to the readiness with which they accepted the "evidence" of the latter's guilt (verse 77).



YUSUF

SURAH

one is9Z conscious of Him and patient in adversitybehold, God does not fail to requite the doers of good!"

(91) [The brothers] said: "By God! Most certainly has God raised thee high above us, and we were indeed but sinners!"

(92) Said he: "No reproach shall be uttered today against you. May God forgive you your sins: for He is the most merciful of the merciful! (93) [And now] go and take this tunic of mine and lay it over my father's face, and he will recover his sight.93 And thereupon come [back] to me with all your family."

(94) AND AS SOON as the caravan [with which Jacob's sons were travelling] was on its way,94 their father said [to the people around him]: "Behold, were it not that you might consider me a dotard, [I would say that] I truly feel the breath of Joseph [in the air]!" (95) They answered: "By God! Thou art indeed still lost in thy old aberration!"

(96) But when the bearer of good tidings came [with Joseph's tunic], he laid it over his face; and he regained his sight, [and] exclaimed: "Did I not tell you, `Verily, I know, from God, something that you do not know'?"9s

(97) [His sons] answered: "O our father! Ask God to forgive us our sins, for, verily, we were sinners." (98) He said: "I shall ask my Sustainer to forgive you: He alone is truly forgiving, a true dispenser of grace!"

(99) AND WHEN they [all arrived in Egypt and] presented themselves before Joseph, he drew his parents unto himself," saying, "Enter Egypt! If God so wills, you shall be secure [from all evil]!"



l rJo'.w1=1r1: aoJ uV ~L.





















92 Lit., "whoever is...", etc.

93 Lit., "he will become seeing [again]"-i.e., "he will cease to weep for me and the dimness of his sight caused by unhappiness and constant weeping will disappear on learning that I am alive": thus may be'summed up Rfizi's explanation of the above sentence. According to him, there is no compelling reason to assume that Jacob had become really blind from grief. -The phrase "lay it over my father's face" could also be rendered as "lay it before my father", since the term wajh (lit., "face") is often used in classical Arabic to denote, metonymically, one's whole personality, or whole being. '

94 Lit., "had departed", i.e., from Egypt.

95 See verse 86 above.

96 According to the Biblical account - not contradicted by the Qur'an - Joseph's mother Rachel had died while giving birth to Benjamin. We may, therefore, assume that the "mother" implied in the term "parents" was another of Jacob's wives, who had brought up Joseph and Benjamin; this would be in consonance with the ancient Arabian custom of applying the designation "mother" to a foster-mother.



12

JOSEPH

(100) And he raised his parents to the highest place of honour;' and they [all] fell down before Him, prostrating themselves in adoration.

Thereupdn [Joseph] said: "O my father! This is the real meaning of my dream of long ago, which my Sustainer has made come true. And He was indeed good to me when He freed me from the prison, and [when] He brought you [all unto me] from the desert after Satan had sown discord between me and my brothers. Verily, my Sustainer is unfathomable in [the way He brings about] whatever He wills:" verily, He alone is all-knowing, truly wise!

(101) "O my Sustainer! Thou hast indeed bestowe4 upon me something of power,'°' and hast imparted unto me some knowledge of the inner meaning of happenings." Originator of the heavens and the earth! Thou art near unto me in this world and in the life to come: let me die as one who has surrendered himself unto Thee, and make me one with the righteous!"

(102) THIS ACCOUNT of something that was beyond the reach of thy perception We [now] reveal unto thee, [O Prophet:] for thou wert not with Joseph's brothers'°3 when they resolved upon what they were going to do and wove their schemes [against him]. (103) Yet - however strongly thou mayest desire it -most people will not believe [in this revelation], (104) although thou dost not ask of them any reward for it: it is but [God's] reminder unto all mankind. (105) But [then] -how many a sign is there in the heavens and on earth which they pass by [unthinkingly], and on which they turn their backs!





a

+y JG~1i~.Ja

















97 Lit., "onto the throne (al= arsh)", in the metaphorical sense of this word.

98 According to `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas (as quoted by Razi), the personal pronoun in "before Him" relates to God, since it is inconceivable that Joseph would have allowed his parents to prostrate themselves before himself.

99 The fulfilment of Joseph's childhood dream consisted in the high dignity with which he was now invested and in the fact that his parents and his brothers had come from Canaan to Egypt for his sake: for "no reasonable person can expect that the fulfilment of a dream should be an exact replica of the dream itself" (Razl`, alluding to the symbolic prostration of the eleven stars, the sun and the moon mentioned in verse 4 of this sarah).

100 As regards my rendering of latff as "unfathomable", see sarah 6, note 89. In the present instance, this term supplies a further accent, as it were, on the theme "judgment as to what is to happen rests with none but God" (verse 67).

101 Lit., "of dominion", indicating that absolute power and absolute dominion belong to God

alone.

102 See note 10 on verse 6 of this sarah. 103 Lit., "with them".



YUSUF

SURAH

(106) And most of them do not even believe in God without [also] ascribing divine powers to other beings beside Him. (107) Do they, then, feel free from the fear that there might fall upon them the overwhelming terror of God's chastisement, or that the Last Hour might come upon them of a sudden, without their being aware [of its approach]?

(108) Say [O Prophet]: "This is my way: Resting upon conscious insight accessible to reason, I am calling [you all] unto God'°°-1 and they who follow me."

And [say:] "Limitless is God in His glory; and I am not one of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside Him!"

(109) And [even] before thy time, We never sent [as Our apostles] any but [mortal] men, whom We inspired, [and whom We always chose] from among the people of the [very] communities [to whom the message was to be brought]. 105

Hav6, then, they [who reject this divine writ] never journeyed about the earth and beheld what happened in the end to those [deniers of the truth] who lived before them?-and [do they not know that] to those who are conscious of God the life in the hereafter is indeed better [than this world]? Will they not, then, use their reason?

(110) [All the earlier apostles had to suffer persecution for a long time;] but at last"-when those apostles had lost all hope and saw themselves branded as liars'°' - Our succour attained to them:

















104 It is impossible to render the expression `ala basirah in a more concise manner. Derived from the verb basura or basira ("he became seeing" or "he saw"), the noun basirah (as also the verb) has the abstract connotation of "seeing with one's mind": and so it signifies "the faculty of understanding based on conscious insight" as well as, tropically, "an evidence accessible to the intellect" or "verifiable by the intellect". Thus, the "call to God" enunciated by the Prophet is described here as the outcome of a conscious insight accessible to, and verifiable by, man's reason: a statement which circumscribes to perfection the Qur'anic approach to all questions of faith, ethics and morality, and is echoed many times in expressions like "so that you might use your reason" (la'allakum ta'gilan), or "will you not, then, use your reason?" (a fa-ld ta'gilan), or "so that they might understand [the truth]" (la'allahum yafgahan), or "so that you might think" (la'allakum tatafakkaran); and, finally, in the oft-repeated declaration that the message of the Qur'an as such is meant specifically "for people who think" (U-gawmin yatafakkanan).

105 This is an answer to the objection often raised by unbelievers that a mortal like themselves could not have been entrusted with God's message to man.

106 Lit., "until" (hattd). This connects with the reference to earlier apostles in the first sentence of the preceding verse: the implication being (according to Zamakhshari) that they used to suffer for a long time before they were vindicated by God.

107 Lit., "thought that they had been given the lie--i.e., either by their people, who regarded the apostles' expectation of God's succour as mere wishful thinking, or by the harsh reality which seemed to contradict those apostles' own hopes of speedy help from God (Zamakhshari). Commenting on this verse, `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas used to quote 2 : 214-"so shaken were they that



whereupon everyone whom We Milled [to be saved] was saved [and the deniers of the truth were destroyed]: for, never can Our punishment be averted from people who are lost in sin.

(111) Indeed, in the stories of these men 108 there is a lesson for those who are endowed with insight.

[As for this revelation,"] it could not possibly be a discourse invented [by man]: nay indeed,"° it is [a divine writ] confirming the truth of whatever there still remains [of earlier revelations], clearly spelling out everything,"' and [offering] guidance and grace unto people who will believe.



v 9t y.::~ >>j .~~-3,~:tal











the apostle, and the believers with him, would exclaim, 'When will God's succour come?"'(ibid.) 108 Lit., "in their stories" -i.e., the stories of the prophets.

109 I.e., the Qur'an as a whole (Baghawi and Zamakhshari). The passage that follows connects

with verses 102-105.

110 Lit., "but"-denoting here the impossibility of its having been invented by Muhammad. III I.e., everything that man may need for his spiritual welfare. See also 10:37 and the

corresponding note 60.


Any modern day Muslim FROM THE MIDDLE EAST has a more direct link to the original biblical characters than any modern day Ashkanzi Jew or European Christian...

so again, I fail to see your point?
Issac is blessed as Ishmael is blessed! as are all of God's messengers..

are we done?
Reply

Follower
11-30-2008, 12:04 AM
LOL. I never said Ishmael wasn't blessed, just that Isaac's birth was a miracle. Even more miraculous then a normal birth.
Reply

جوري
11-30-2008, 12:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
LOL. I never said Ishmael wasn't blessed, just that Isaac's birth was a miracle. Even more miraculous then a normal birth.
every Messenger's life had a miracle to it..
And I think divine law teaches us to let go of arrogance no matter who we are, as is the story of Moses (PBUH) with Al khidr-- when Moses thought he was the wisest man to live and God taught him that there is one who is even more knowledgeable than he..

How is it that prophet's can be so humble and humans so arrogant?
Adam's beginning was a miracle, so was Jesus's birth and if we search some more we also find that Zacharia (according to the Quran) also had a barren wife and desired a child (yahya) John the Baptist whom he begotten after an old age -- so I am not sure according to you, why one should weigh more than the other or why it even matters in the scheme of things?

(1) Kdf. Ha. Yd. `Ayn. Sdd.'

(2) AN ACCOUNT of the grace which thy Sustainer bestowed upon His servant Zachariah:2

(3) When he called out to his Sustainer in the secrecy of his heart,' (4) he prayed: "O my Sustainer! Feeble have become my bones, and my head glistens with grey hair. But never yet, O my Lord, has my prayer unto Thee remained unanswered.`

(5) "Now, behold, I am afraid of [what] my kinsfolk [will do] after I am gone,' for my wife has always been barren. Bestow, then, upon me, out of Thy grace, the gift of a successor (6) who will be my heir as well as an heir [to the dignity] of the House of Jacob; and make him, O my Sustainer, well-pleasing to Thee!"
7) [Thereupon the angels called out unto him:'] "O Zachariah! We bring thee the glad tiding of [the birth of] a son whose name shall be John. [And God says,] `Never have We given this name to anyone before

him.""

(8) [Zachariah] exclaimed: "O my Sustainer! How can I have a son when my wife has always been barren and I have become utterly infirm through old age?"

(9) Answered [the angel]: "Thus. it is; [but] thy 'Sustainer says, `This is easy for Me -even as I have created thee aforetime out of nothing.' "a

(10) [Zachariah] prayed: "O my Sustainer! Appoint ~a sign for me!"

Said [the angel]: "Thy sign shall be that for full three nights [and days] thou wilt not speak unto men. -9 (11) Thereupon he came out of the sanctuary unto his people and signified to them [by gestures]: "Extol His limitless glory by day and by night!"

(12) [And when the son was born and grew up,'° he was told,] "O John! Hold fast unto the divine writ with [all thy] strength!" - for We granted him wisdom "while he was yet a little boy, (13) as well as, by Our grace, [the gift of] compassion" and purity; and he vv as [always] conscious of Us (14) and full of piety towards his parents; and never was he haughty or rebellious.

(15) Hence, [God's] peace was upon him on the day when he was born, and on the day of his death, and. will be [upon him] on the day when he shall be raised to life [again].



Maybe you can tell me why Issac's birth is more special than say that of John the baptist?
Reply

Follower
11-30-2008, 02:14 PM
LOL!! We are comparing the birth of Isaac and Ihmael here no other prophets.
Reply

جوري
11-30-2008, 04:27 PM
No__ you are trying to show how 'special' Issac's birth is, and I am showing you that his can be compared to any other... the messengers lives is always filled with toil and hardship..

at this stage and in face of overwhelming biblical evidence quoted above, you are free to believe what you desire ... since everything is Christianity is already a joke from the man God to the singularity of Issac over all else.. seems you simply pick the characters you like to make it fit with your faulty logic? ...
Reply

mkh4JC
11-30-2008, 09:47 PM
I think the point Follower is trying to make is that Issac's birth came about by divine intervention. God made a promise to Abraham that he would bless him and Sarah with a child in their old and stricken age. Yes, Ishmael is Abraham's son as well, but his birth came about because Abraham was trying to accomplish God's plan of his own self (something that Christians are often admonished not to do, thinking we have God's plan for our life all figured out, or trying to make a promise or blessing of God come about of our own making, instead of waiting on the Lord to fulfill said promises). They felt that they had figured out God's plan is what I'm trying to say.

And God has blessed the Arabs, that is why they have so much oil. But in terms of salvation, it is of the Jews.
Reply

جوري
11-30-2008, 09:58 PM
What you think God's plan and what God's plan actually is, are two separate things -- I find it disturbing to say the least the lengths the majority of you would go through to loan credence to nonsense-- even using your own book.. the circuitous trail really must be tiresome for you!

but again, I say you are allowed to think and believe what you will..
the reality is we know how Allah swt has blessed Abraham's house, in the first place of worship he built to glorify him this year alone three million pilgrims from America to the china seas and every where there is in between come to worship in the house that Abraham built, some saving for twenty years to make that trip..

It has nothing to do with Arabs or oil.. so you can take your hypothesis and suppositions and do you know what with it!!

or better yet go spend on your commercial holiday observing paganism..

cheers
Reply

mkh4JC
11-30-2008, 10:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
What you think God's plan and what God's plan actually is, are two separate things-- I find it disturbing to say the least the lengths the majority of you would go through to loan credence to nonsense-- even using your own book.. the circuitous trail really must be tiresome for you!

but again, I say you are allowed to think and believe what you will..
the reality is we know how Allah swt has blessed Abraham's house, in the first place of worship he built to glorify him this year alone three million pilgrims from America to the china seas and every where there is in between come to worship in the house that Abraham built, some saving for twenty years to make that trip..

It has nothing to do with Arabs or oil.. so you can take your hypothesis and suppositions and do you know what with it!!

or better yet go spend on your commercial holiday observing paganism..

cheers


Well, I don't know what to tell you. I could quote a few scriptures explaining how when you accept Christ, he grants you power over your lifestyle as a person, no matter what kind of past you may have. I could give you my testimony, explain to you the things I used to be bound with. I could explain to you the fierce discipline and kinds of things that God has placed in my life as a result of me sinning (not continuous sinning mind you, but only when I first accepted Christ, and no, I just couldn't go ask for forgiveness and everything would be alright, like in other faiths). I could explain to you that the Christian lifestyle is not equated in any other religious form, nor can anyone who is not Christian live it, but you probably wouldn't believe me (seeing as how this is the anonymous Internet).

Suffice it to say, everyone has to come to the knowledge of who Jesus is for themselves.
Reply

جوري
11-30-2008, 10:18 PM
I don't find any of you having power of your life, rather you are reduced to pathetic ploys and attempts to get everyone to be astray right along with you.. if not experiencing a severity of religious delusions that actually prompts psychiatrists to run studies on its cause and publish --
The Protestants experienced more religious delusions than Catholics and those without religious affiliation-- from

Frequency and severity of religious delusions in Christian patients with psychosis .
Psychiatry Research , Volume 103 , Issue 1 , Pages 87 - 91
G . Getz

that I actually start to pity you -- not only are your delusions nonsensical but they don't conform to any accepted, moral/social/historical norm...
the length you'd go through to distort Islam to make sense of Christianity..

you feel you have found your forgiveness in the man/God fantasy and that your bible is unerring be my guest.. I have actually spent a large chunk of my life studying Christianity and attending christian schools that the thought of being an atheist to me is more acceptable than being christian!

all the best
Reply

mkh4JC
11-30-2008, 10:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I don't find any of you having power of your life, rather you are reduced to pathetic ploys and attempts to get everyone to be astray right along with you.. if not experiencing a severity of religious delusions that actually prompts psychiatrists to run studies on its cause and publish --
No, if you are truly Christian you do have power over your lifestyle. Scripture supports this. Everyone I know to be Christian lives their lives in victory over sin, despite oppressive pasts. And it's not a delusion to live life free from the things that previously had you bound, that's called deliverance.



format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
The Protestants experienced more religious delusions than Catholics and those without religious affiliation


Frequency and severity of religious delusions in Christian patients with psychosis .
Psychiatry Research , Volume 103 , Issue 1 , Pages 87 - 91
G . Getz

that I actually start to pity you -- not only are your delusions nonsensical but they don't confirm to any accepted, moral/social/historical norm...
the length you'd go through to distort Islam to make sense of Christianity..
Well, I've already gone over the moral issue. Quite simply, you can't live the Christian life apart from Christ. But in terms of distoring Islam, I don't think I have done that while I am here, rather, I have been trying to clear up misconceptions about Christianity and what a Christian really is.


format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
you feel you have found your forgiveness in the man/God fantasy and that your bible is unerring be my guest...]I have actually spent a large chunk of my life studying Christianity and attending christian schools that the thought of being an atheist to me is more acceptable than being christian[/B]!

all the best
Well, I don't know what to tell you. What Christian schools were you attending? Catholic? Catholicism is not Christian, and is in fact the biggest stumbling block to people accepting Christ. It's barbaric history automatically disqualifies it from being considered the true church of Christ. Catholicism has in truth left the straight and narrow a long time ago.
Reply

جوري
11-30-2008, 10:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fedos
No, if you are truly Christian you do have power over your lifestyle. Scripture supports this. Everyone I know to be Christian lives their lives in victory over sin, despite oppressive pasts. And it's not a delusion to live life free from the things that previously had you bound, that's called deliverance.
I am glad everyone you know lives in victory.. that is really relevant to our topic!

Well, I've already gone over the moral issue. Quite simply, you can't live the Christian life apart from Christ. But in terms of distoring Islam, I don't think I have done that while I am here, rather, I have been trying to clear up misconceptions about Christianity and what a Christian really is.
What misconceptions do we have about Christianity -- did you not reduce God to a man, made him leave the universe behind to die in Nazareth where he prayed to himself in the Garden of Gethsemane, forsake himself, accursed the earth he supposedly created when it didn't bear him fruit? that is the message of Christianity that is clear to us -- there is no deliverance in 'shirk'

Pickthal 18:1] Praise be to Allah Who hath revealed the Scripture unto His slave, and hath not placed therein any crookedness,
[Pickthal 18:2] (But hath made it) straight, to give warning of stern punishment from Him, and to bring unto the believers who do good works the news that theirs will be a fair reward,
[Pickthal 18:3] Wherein they will abide for ever;
[Pickthal 18:4] And to warn those who say: Allah hath chosen a son,
[Pickthal 18:5] (A thing) whereof they have no knowledge, nor (had) their fathers, Dreadful is the word that cometh out of their mouths. They speak naught but a lie.
[Pickthal 18:6] Yet it may be, if they believe not in this statement, that thou wilt torment thy soul with grief over their footsteps.
[Pickthal 18:7] Lo! We have placed all that is on the earth as an ornament thereof that We may try them: which of them is best in conduct.
[Pickthal 18:8] And lo! We shall make all that is thereon a barren mound.






Well, I don't know what to tell you. What Christian schools were you attending? Catholic? Catholicism is not Christian, and is in fact the biggest stumbling block to people accepting Christ. It's barbaric history automatically disqualifies it from being considered the true church of Christ. Catholicism has in truth left the straight and narrow a long time ago.
Glad you brought that up, since the ink hasn't dried yet on paper from your cohorts 'follower' and 'Grace' who themselves under some delusions that Christians are united and all share the same unadulterated book --

it doesn't matter to me whether you are decadent or reformed ( I am quite familiar with the difference) if anything I'd probably think the amish is the best of you, but a central theme to your religion is a man/God with a mother and another alter ego, frankly doesn't sit well with me or anything thinking discerning person.. I am not even going to touch upon the scores of errors and hypocrisy that exist within your bible.. quite simply if Christianity make you happy, then I am happy for you -- let's leave it at that!

cheers
Reply

mkh4JC
11-30-2008, 10:57 PM
Well as a final response I will say that I can't make you believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I could quote you scriptures, for example, the beginning of the Gospel of John. But like I said, everyone has to come to the knowledge of who Jesus is for themselves. All I can do as a Christian is testify to what he has done in my own life. And if you watched Christian television (like Daystar or TBN) you will see that there is far more than just my circle of friends who attest that Jesus saves sinners from their sins.
Reply

جوري
11-30-2008, 11:07 PM
Jesus is but a messenger of God -- like those who preceded him-- will descend to do the will of God restore the commandments that Christianity as a whole has made an abomination of die like men do--
'being saved' is up to God.. no one has come from death to tell us how they were saved.. one isn't saved through taking on other Gods beside God..
It comes down to belief.. and your beliefs are a bit unbelievable to me -- they defy common sense and logic and your scriptures leave very little to be desired in terms of validity ..

so we'll await the day of recompense for God to judge amongst us who was living in truth and who was living in sin!

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-01-2008, 04:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fedos
Well, I don't know what to tell you. What Christian schools were you attending? Catholic? Catholicism is not Christian, and is in fact the biggest stumbling block to people accepting Christ. It's barbaric history automatically disqualifies it from being considered the true church of Christ. Catholicism has in truth left the straight and narrow a long time ago.
Fedos, I guess you did prove Skye's point. But I would disagree with you, I believe that Catholics are just as much Christian as you or I, as they worship the same Christ that we do. I'm not saying that they have everything right, but I don't that any of us have it all right, for we all see in a glass darkly and are yet to see face to face. Only in the end will we know for sure, in the present we seek to follow as best as we can, and I believe that Catholic Christians are doing that as well.


My dear M, I admit that what you see in Fedos' post is a disunity within the Christian Church. He rejects Catholics as Christians because he sees them as having strayed from his understanding of what it means to be Christian, just as I say that the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses have strayed. Remembering those other groups, that you originally listed as Christian from your Yahoo source and that I disputed, be considered by those outside the Christian faith as Christian, would it not be just as fair for a non-Muslim to see the same thing happening with your rejection of the Ahamdi as not being truly Muslim, for they say that they are. Perhaps there is less unity in Islam than you think, just as there is apparently less in Christianity than I have hope for.
Reply

جوري
12-01-2008, 04:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
would it not be just as fair for a non-Muslim to see the same thing happening with your rejection of the Ahamdi as not being truly Muslim, for they say that they are. Perhaps there is less unity in Islam than you think, just as there is apparently less in Christianity than I have hope for.
Ahmadi faith was instituted by the British-- I think any light reading on the subject can explain that to you?
they can call themselves whatever they want-- but Islam isn't subject to reinterpretation or a reformation as is with Christianity..

you'll find that with your sects in Christianity even 'Mormonism -- your bible in whatever version and the man/God concept is central theme..

not the same with any so called new emerging group that wishes to call themselves Muslims -- there is no 'reincarnation, of Jesus and Mohammed and a Kirhsna in a little Indian boy whom the Brits thought would be ideal to further their abuse and Monopoly!

To be Muslims it is as easy as opening the Quran and reading it, and sticking to proper sunna, hence 90% of Muslims are sunni, the same today as they were centuries ago!


I assure you I didn't need Fedos to sway my opinion-- it is nice however that someone is truthful and forth coming about what I already know..



peace
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-01-2008, 04:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
you'll find that with your sects in Christianity even 'Mormonism -- your bible in whatever version and the man/God concept is central theme..
We've gone far afield from the original topic, but this is one of the reasons I disputed so many of the groups on that list you provided. While the Mormons purport to use both the Bible and their own Book of Mormon (plus a few other special revelations), some of the groups listed, like the Unification Church, have no purpose for the Bible at all, having more in common with eastern religions than with Christianity. I hope you now that I don't really hold that Ahamdi are Muslims, but most of those other groups that I culled from that Yahoo list are about a Christian as the Ahamdi are Muslim. That was my point.


To be Muslims it is as easy as opening the Quran and reading it, and sticking to proper sunna, hence 90% of Muslims are sunni, the same today as they were centuries ago!
And to be Christian is as easy as accepting that all humans were meant to live in fellowship with God, that this relationship has been broken by sin that exists in each of us, that the means for reestablishing one's broken relationship with God is found in Jesus Christ, and then placing one's faith in him to do that by virture of his death on the cross and resurrection to new life. His work, not ours, accomplishes this reconciliation and thus he becomes not just our savior. But he is more than just our savior, we must also accept him as Lord of our lives directing them to be lived in submission to God and doing good works --not to earn salvation but as an offering of thanks for that which he has accomplished in our lives. Those that promote something beyond this are passing something else off as Christianity that really isn't.


And I sincerely wish you peace as well.
Reply

Imam
12-05-2008, 03:04 PM
A strongly related topic is under discussion here.....

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...e-jesus-2.html


waiting for those who would like to join

peace
Reply

rpwelton
12-07-2008, 02:28 PM
I've been away for quite some time, so I'd like to take the time to reply to some points made on this thread. It's probably going to be a long post and I'd like to reply to almost every point made since my last post, with the exception of the Issac/Ishmael debate because I do not have proper knowledge of that.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you rpwelton;


Would it be safe to say that God had a plan before the creation of the universe began. If this is so, would it make sense that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was planned before creation began. This would mean that the sacrifice to forgive all sins was in place before the creation of the Prophet Adam, and hence would cover all people from the beginiong.


Eric
Yes, Eric, I can see how God would have a plan, and it would make sense that the people before Jesus (as) could benefit. However, there is one major flaw with this idea, and that is that the people that came before Jesus (as) obviously did not accept Jesus (as). So you run into a problem:

All people before Jesus (as) are forgiven with the blood of Jesus (as) and therefore they are allowed to enter Heaven. This of course is a problem because they did not accept Jesus (as) as their savior as people must today. So in a sense, they are getting a "free pass", whereas people living after Jesus (as) have to accept him as their savior.

I'm sure you'll probably come back and say it only applies to those who followed the animal sacrifice system to get forgiveness for their sins, but since this was an imperfect system, who gets forgiveness and who doesn't? Because in Christianity Heaven and Hell is a very black and white issue, so you either get forgiveness for all sins or not.

format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Why a sacrifice is needed. GOD is just. If He were not just He would just say ok I forgive you. When a sin is done we owe GOD. There must be a payment for the debt. The animal sacrifices were instituted. Man was still sinning while performing the animal sacrifices in hypocrisy. Leave man out of the equation for the perfect MAN Jesus to give up His life for us.

There was a separation of Jesus from GOD- Jesus went to the spirits/souls in prison [hell] and preached to them.
Again, if man was being hypocritical while performing the animal sacrifices, how can the blood of Jesus (as) cover these people? Why do they get saved when people after Jesus (as) had to be ritcheous (sp?) beings?

If they are not saved by the blood of Jesus (as), isn't that a bit unfair to say that Jesus (as) died for only the sins of those who came after him?

Also, I didn't know that Jesus (as) went to hell and preached to people there. What is the point of that? Don't you think everyone is too busy with all of the pain and suffering to hear anything he has to say? Did he actually pull people out of hell, or was he just telling them how they should have lived their lives?

format_quote Originally Posted by Follower

If you do not know for certain and since his name is not mentioned you do not know who he is in the Quran you must ask those that read the Holy Bible.
I'm going to stay out of the whole Issac/Ishmael thing because I'm not knowledgeable enough on that particular topic. I will say, however, that it's irrelavent to the topic at large, that is, why the sacrifical system existed in the Old Testament.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I'm surprised that no Muslim has followed up on this yet. So, on their behalf, I will ask. You seem to be implying that it would not be just for God to simply say, "OK, I forgive you." Why not? Why is it more just to forgive us sinners based on a vicarious sacrifice by an innocent indiividual than it would be to just outright forgive those who were truly penitent?
I'm going to put my 2 cents in here, but Grace Seeker did much of the job for me. Indeed a Muslim's position is fairly obvious: when a Christian says God is just, then we say why does an innocent person need to die for the sinners of the world?

If a criminal is convicted of a crime, the judge cannot instead substitute someone else in his place to serve the sentence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Follower

A bank lends money to someone. The loan become due but the original person can not repay the debt. The bank has to have the money replaced so it can continue to function. His friend says I have the money I will pay the debt for you. The bank accepts the payment by the friend.

Sin causes a debt that must be paid.
You are saying that the bank does not care who gives them the money, just so long as they are repaid in full, which is true. BUT, if we continue with this example, let's say hypothetically that you have the money, in which case the bank says OK and takes the repayment from you. In the Christian sense, however, you can't repay the bank. You are never able to repay the bank, only someone else has that kind of power (Jesus (as)). What kind of twisted bank only allows someone else to make your debt repayment, and not the borrower himself?

format_quote Originally Posted by Fedos
Well, I don't know what to tell you. I could quote a few scriptures explaining how when you accept Christ, he grants you power over your lifestyle as a person, no matter what kind of past you may have. I could give you my testimony, explain to you the things I used to be bound with. I could explain to you the fierce discipline and kinds of things that God has placed in my life as a result of me sinning (not continuous sinning mind you, but only when I first accepted Christ, and no, I just couldn't go ask for forgiveness and everything would be alright, like in other faiths). I could explain to you that the Christian lifestyle is not equated in any other religious form, nor can anyone who is not Christian live it, but you probably wouldn't believe me (seeing as how this is the anonymous Internet).

Suffice it to say, everyone has to come to the knowledge of who Jesus is for themselves.
This is actually a non-point, because religious people both Christian and Muslim (as well as others) will attest to their lives changing because their religion gave them power to overcome sin. It depends on the person, but very often religion causes a change within someone no matter what religion you belong to.

What exactly is the Christian lifestyle supposed to be? Can someone outline that for me? When I was a Christian it was:

1) Be a good person and do good deeds for others (not specific to Christianity)
2) Don't be a drunk (some Christians drink, some don't and the Bible doesn't tell you not to)
3) Go to Church on Sundays (and Bible studies as well)
4) Read the Bible on a regular basis

Those are the main things that I lived by when I was a Christian. If you can expound on that and enlighten me as to what other virtues Christians incorporate into their lives that would help.

If you want to talk about a disciplined life, however, let's look at what an ideal Muslim's life is supposed to be like:

1) Be a good person and do good deeds (not specific to Islam, but a part of it)
2) Pray 5 times a day
3) Do not drink alcohol at all
4) Don't eat pork
5) Fast at least 1 month a year (Ramadaan)
6) Give charity (not specific to Islam, but a mandated part of it)

There are others, but I just wanted to give you a little perspective as far as discipline goes. If you want to use the argument that Jesus (as) has changed your life because your lifestyle and discipline has changed, then we must also look at the Muslim whose life has dramatically changed from what he/she was used to.

format_quote Originally Posted by Fedos
Well, I don't know what to tell you. What Christian schools were you attending? Catholic? Catholicism is not Christian, and is in fact the biggest stumbling block to people accepting Christ. It's barbaric history automatically disqualifies it from being considered the true church of Christ. Catholicism has in truth left the straight and narrow a long time ago.
Catholics are not Christian? What? If you ignore the Catholic Church, then you Protestants do not have a right to exist, since that's where you came from. You can't simply ignore whatever part of the past does not suit you.
Reply

mkh4JC
12-07-2008, 02:51 PM
Well, I'm going to answer a few more questions that weren't applied to me as well as the ones you directed towards me.

format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton

Also, I didn't know that Jesus (as) went to hell and preached to people there. What is the point of that? Don't you think everyone is too busy with all of the pain and suffering to hear anything he has to say? Did he actually pull people out of hell, or was he just telling them how they should have lived their lives?
I'll take this on first. Here's a look at a few scriptures:


'Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.' Ephesians 4: 9-10.


'And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.' Luke 16: 19-31.

Last few scriptures is here and then I'll make my point: 'Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.' Ephesians 4: 8

And here: 'And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.' Matthew 27: 52-53.

So then hell as we know it from the Christian perspective is actually at this moment in time in the center of the Earth. But before Jesus died to save man from his sins, paradise was also in the center of the earth. There was between the two areas a great gulf fixed, so that no man could travel from here to there. When Jesus ascended, he delivered those who were in the center of the Earth who were the Lord's people out of the Earth. Some of them went on to be with the Lord in the third heaven (where God is), and some of them walked among men. Hope that answers and clears up some confusion.





format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
This is actually a non-point, because religious people both Christian and Muslim (as well as others) will attest to their lives changing because their religion gave them power to overcome sin. It depends on the person, but very often religion causes a change within someone no matter what religion you belong to.

What exactly is the Christian lifestyle supposed to be? Can someone outline that for me? When I was a Christian it was:

1) Be a good person and do good deeds for others (not specific to Christianity)
2) Don't be a drunk (some Christians drink, some don't and the Bible doesn't tell you not to)
3) Go to Church on Sundays (and Bible studies as well)
4) Read the Bible on a regular basis

Those are the main things that I lived by when I was a Christian. If you can expound on that and enlighten me as to what other virtues Christians incorporate into their lives that would help.
It is actually not a non point, as no one can live the Christian life apart from Christ. I guess the best way I can describe the Christian life to one who is not initiated is to say that we don't practice sin, we have the power to live life victorious over ALL sin. This would include even the things that sinners would seem as insignificant like lying. When scriptures say the following:

'What shall we say then? Shall we contine in sin, that grace may abound?

God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?' Romans 6: 1-2.

Or here:

'All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not, but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.' 1 John 5: 17-20.

It means exactly what it says. Jesus himself said, 'Be perfect; for your Father in heaven is perfect.' And the most perfect life you can live on this side of existance is as a Christian. With all other religious it's like, people are trying to please God and live a spiritual life in the wholly corrupted flesh, when he demands perfection. You need the Spirit of God living inside of you. Christ lived that perfect life, and when you accept him, God gives you his perfect righteousness, and grants you power over your lifestyle, so that you can live a holy, sin free life. There really is no comparison between a Christian's lifestyle and other religious lifestyles. Sure with a bit of discipline and therapy I could perhaps overcome a drug addiction. But why not come to Christ and be granted victory over that area of your life? Same with the homosexual and the lesbian. Christianity is--as I've said before--the cure for man's sinful nature.



format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
Catholics are not Christian? What? If you ignore the Catholic Church, then you Protestants do not have a right to exist, since that's where you came from. You can't simply ignore whatever part of the past does not suit you.
Catholics were killing both Jews and Bible believing Christians in that bleak history of theirs. A church who claims to be the one and only true church of Christ would not be guilty of such barabarism, therefore Catholicism is a great deception.
Reply

rpwelton
12-07-2008, 03:08 PM
OK, so if Christianity gives you victory over sin, then you must have victory over sin all of the time. For to say that you have victory sometimes and defeat sometimes would be a contradiction; this would imply that you are saved sometimes and not saved other times.

Do you really live a life without sin? Please tell me you are not so arrogant as to claim that. Everybody sins. Or is a sin while being a Christian really not a sin at all? I've never heard Christians say they live a sinless life; only that Jesus has taken away the sins they committed and those they will commit in the future.
Reply

mkh4JC
12-07-2008, 03:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rpwelton
OK, so if Christianity gives you victory over sin, then you must have victory over sin all of the time. For to say that you have victory sometimes and defeat sometimes would be a contradiction; this would imply that you are saved sometimes and not saved other times.

Do you really live a life without sin? Please tell me you are not so arrogant as to claim that. Everybody sins. Or is a sin while being a Christian really not a sin at all? I've never heard Christians say they live a sinless life; only that Jesus has taken away the sins they committed and those they will commit in the future.
Everybody does sin, but as a Christian God fully expects you NOT to sin. The sins that Christians cannot overcome are sins like being lazy, and sins of the mind, which you can't stop. I don't mean to say that you can't sin AT ALL as a Christian, because you still have free will. What I mean to say is, you don't have to sin. You have power to exercise a spiritual will which God has given you. Something like lying for example, I just don't do. Because I know that it is an offense to God, and God has wrote his commandments on my heart. I don't lie in any circumstance.

As I said, Christianity is the cure for sin nature. You can be born into this world, fall into the muck of life, experience a variety adverse lifestyles (even things like homosexuality and lesbianism) and you can accept Christ and receive a new start, you can begin to live a holy sin free life. Though of course, you still have free will, and if you DO sin then God will discipline you (this is how much the Christian God hates sin), but the point is, you don't have to sin. Those things that previously had you bound, are now things of the past.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-18-2012, 06:47 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-08-2009, 06:45 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-26-2009, 07:15 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-15-2007, 08:33 AM
  5. Replies: 75
    Last Post: 08-20-2007, 09:20 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!