Unitarian Christians

[Argamemnon]

Salam/Peace,

Can unitarian Christians who reject the trinity and believe in the oneness of God, like Muslims, be considered "Muslim"?

[transition?]

Part of being Muslims is also accepting Muhammed (saw) is a Messenger, Seal of the Prophets.
Not to mention, belief in the five pillars.

[Woodrow]

Salam/Peace,

Can unitarian Christians who reject the trinity and believe in the oneness of God, like Muslims, be considered "Muslim"?

Close, but they don't quite make it.


Although they have very similar beliefs as we have, they do not accept the Shahadah or the 5 pillars,

[Argamemnon]

Close, but they don't quite make it.


Although they have very similar beliefs as we have, they do not accept the Shahadah or the 5 pillars,

Yes, but on the other hand, they are the true people of the book; Ahl al Kitab. I also wonder how many Christians are actually unitarian, I suppose not many...

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

[Woodrow]

Yes, but on the other hand, they are the true people of the book; Ahl al Kitab. I also wonder how many Christians are actually unitarian, I suppose not many...

Would be true, if the Bible they use was the unchanged word of Allaah(swt) but that seems unlikely as they do include the New Testement, only interpret it different than other Christians. They also believe Jesus(as) is the way to heaven and do pray to him, but do not consider him to be equal to Allaah(swt)

[Yanal]

No they only complete one of five pillars, not all and a Muslim should pray five times or Is called a kaffir(non beleiver) even though you are Muslim by name . That same rule apply fir those Christians I suppose.

[rpwelton]

Actually what I find most interesting about Christianity is that the Unitarians and the Trinitarians both use the same Bible, yet both claim radically different beliefs about Jesus (as) and the concept of God.

[Argamemnon]

and a Muslim should pray five times or Is called a kaffir(non beleiver) even though you are Muslim by name.

I'm sorry brother, but that's utter nonsense (no offense). You are NOT a kafir if you believe in Allah and his messengers even if you never pray. There are a lot of Muslims who don't pray at all. I would say hundreds of millions. lol!!

[north_malaysian]

I also wonder how many Christians are actually unitarian, I suppose not many...

According to the United States Census Bureau 629,000 individuals identified themselves as Unitarian/Universalist in 2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

[Yanal]

Oh I thought that if you don't pray... Ok thanks for correcting me.

[Argamemnon]

According to the United States Census Bureau 629,000 individuals identified themselves as Unitarian/Universalist in 2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

Thanks, not many after all..

[Argamemnon]

Oh I thought that if you don't pray... Ok thanks for correcting me.

No problem :)

[rpwelton]

No they only complete one of five pillars, not all and a Muslim should pray five times or Is called a kaffir(non beleiver) even though you are Muslim by name . That same rule apply fir those Christians I suppose.

Actually, they technically only believe in half of the first pillar.

[Grace Seeker]

Actually what I find most interesting about Christianity is that the Unitarians and the Trinitarians both use the same Bible, yet both claim radically different beliefs about Jesus (as) and the concept of God.

I find it interesting that the Ahmadi use the same Qu'ran as Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, yet they have radically different beliefs regarding what it means to be Muslim.

[syilla]

how christians define the christians group that is in the right path? Can you please explain. And which is the majority group?

thanx in advance. :)

[glo]

I don't have much time, syilla, but I believe the 'Apostle's Creed' may give you a good answer.

I found this in Wikipedia:

The Apostles Creed (Symbolum Apostolorum) was developed between the second and ninth centuries. It is the most popular creed used in worship by Western Christians. Its central doctrines are those of the Trinity and God the Creator. Each of the doctrines found in this creed can be traced to statements current in the apostolic period. Since the Apostles Creed is still unaffected by the later Christological divisions, its statement of the articles of Christian faith remain largely acceptable to most Christian denominations:
* belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Holy Spirit
* the death, descent into hell, resurrection, and ascension of Christ
* the holiness of the Church and the communion of saints
* Christ's second coming, the Day of Judgement and salvation of the faithful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

Here is the Creeditself:

"I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth;

And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord;

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary;

Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into hell;

The third day he rose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead;

I believe in the Holy Ghost;

I believe in the holy catholic church; the communion of saints;

The forgiveness of sin;

The resurrection of the body;

And the life everlasting. Amen."

Hope that answers your question. Perhaps others can elaborate more.

Peace :)

[MuslimCONVERT]

I'm sorry brother, but that's utter nonsense (no offense). You are NOT a kafir if you believe in Allah and his messengers even if you never pray. There are a lot of Muslims who don't pray at all. I would say hundreds of millions. lol!!

Actually, the Prophet Muhammad [saas] said "the difference between us [the believers] and the disbeliever is Salah [5 daily prayers]. Whoever abandons this prayer, abandons his religion and becomes a disbeliever." -I'm pretty sure it's in the two Sahihs, and I know it is an authentic hadith, as I have heard many scholars use it.

The meaning of the hadith is, the person who doesn't pray because he doesn't want to, and believes that he doesn't have to [for example, he believes Allah will forgive him, so he doesn't pray even tho he is commanded, or he believes the salah is not a part of islam, or has some other problem in aqeedah] then this person is a disbeliever. -But the Muslim who believes he should pray, and feels bad for not praying, then he is still a believer, even if he doesn't pray.

Salaam

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Argamemnon;

God has to be greater than the sum of all the religions of the world put together.

Regardless of what we may believe, and regardless of how we pray, the same God hears all our prayers, we are all created by the same God.

In the spirit of praying that all people may obtain eternal salvation.

Eric

[Argamemnon]

Greetings and peace be with you Argamemnon;

God has to be greater than the sum of all the religions of the world put together.

Regardless of what we may believe, and regardless of how we pray, the same God hears all our prayers, we are all created by the same God.

In the spirit of praying that all people may obtain eternal salvation.

Eric

Greetings and peace be with you Eric,

I trust God's mercy. God knows best... :)

[Whatsthepoint]

They're not really Christians, I'm not even sure Uu should be considered a religion.
Besides, they're much to liberal to be considered Muslims.

[rpwelton]

Here's a question for the more knowledgeable Muslims on this site.

Since Unitarians in their core belief do not associate partners with Allah SWT (which is an unforgivable sin), could they eventually attain paradise?

[crayon]

[4.48] Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he devises indeed a great sin.

Hmmmm...?

[Whatsthepoint]

What's worse, atheism or polytheism?

[crayon]

^^Interesting question, i'm not too sure..

[Woodrow]

Here's a question for the more knowledgeable Muslims on this site.

Since Unitarians in their core belief do not associate partners with Allah SWT (which is an unforgivable sin), could they eventually attain paradise?

:w:

Fortunately none of us have to make that choice. All is up to Allaah(swt). We can not say for certain who will go or will not go to Jannah. But, we can be certain Allaah(swt) is fair and just and that all who he finds worthy will go to Jannah, no matter what our opinion of the person is.

[Argamemnon]

What's worse, atheism or polytheism?

It's clearly stated in the Quran that polytheism is worse. God can forgive everything except polytheism.

[Grace Seeker]

God can forgive everything except polytheism.

Interesting the way you phrased that statement. I would have thought that you would have said that God is willing to forgive everything except polytheism. But you didn't. Instead of making a statement about God's will, you made one about God's ability and said that there was something that God was unable to do. A unique view for a Muslim I should think.

[AntiKarateKid]

It's clearly stated in the Quran that polytheism is worse. God can forgive everything except polytheism.

It goes deeper than that brother. Worshipping a false god isnt the only way of associating partners with Allah. A man who belives that allt heere is is the world around him and devotes all of his time to the material world is just as bad as the man who donates all his time to a false idol.


Worship has a broader meaning. Atheism and polytheism are both evil.

[Grace Seeker]

how christians define the christians group that is in the right path? Can you please explain. And which is the majority group?

Like with pretty much everyone else, how Christians define who is and who is not on the right path is by claiming that they are and that those who disagree with them are not. There are of course groups that allow for quite a bit of latitude before declaring a person is wrong and other groups that allow for so little differnece of opinion that they think that they have heaven all to themselves.

So it is that you have groups of denominations like the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Nazarenes, Assemblies of God, Apostolic Church, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians, Reformed Churches, Salvation Army, Pentecostals, Four Square Gospel, Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, Congregationalists, Moravians, Pilgrim Holiness, Wesleyans, United Church of Christ, Church of God, Quakers, Amish, and Anglicans that pretty much see each other as all equally a part of the body of Christ even if they don't see eye to eye on all of the details of theology or practice.

Then you have the groups like the Catholics, Orthodox, and Coptics that recognize that these other groups are composed of genuine believers and followers of Jesus Christ, but they don't recognize the institutions in which they gather as being legitimate churches unless they can trace their roots by direct laying on of hands in the ordination of their clergy back to the apostles, which is something they pretty much reserve for themselves. They declare what most people would call churches to be ecclesiatical communities. (BTW, I think this if funny because ecclesiatiacal is just a fancy word meaning "church".)

And then you have groups such as the Mormons, Jehovahs' Witness, the Way International, the Moonies, and others who each think that they are the one and only group that is truly Christian and that everyone else is apostate, even if their ideas have next to nothing in common with what has been the historic teaching of Christianity for the last 2000 years.

In terms of numbers, Wikipedia provides the following membership information:

Catholicism (Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, etc) - 1116 million
Anglicans - 73 million
Eastern Orthodoxy (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Karamanli Turkish Church, etc.) - 225 million
Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Ethopian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic Church) - 72 million
Historic Protestantism (Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Quaker, etc.) - 340 million
Pentecostal Protestanism (Assemblies of God, Apostolic Church, Church of God, etc.) - 105 million
Non-trinitarian (Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc.) - 10 million


For myself, except for those that are non-trinitarian (e.g. Unitarians and JWs) or that teach the one can earn one's salvation through good works (e.g. Mormons), I would include all in the above list as Christian.

[Argamemnon]

Interesting the way you phrased that statement. I would have thought that you would have said that God is willing to forgive everything except polytheism. But you didn't. Instead of making a statement about God's will, you made one about God's ability and said that there was something that God was unable to do. A unique view for a Muslim I should think.

You are right, I should have said God is willing to forgive everything except polytheism. Also, I fully trust God's mercy. In the end He is the one who will decide whom to forgive.

[Argamemnon]

It goes deeper than that brother. Worshipping a false god isnt the only way of associating partners with Allah. A man who belives that allt heere is is the world around him and devotes all of his time to the material world is just as bad as the man who donates all his time to a false idol.


Worship has a broader meaning. Atheism and polytheism are both evil.

I didn't say atheism wasn't bad, but according to the Quran polytheism is much worse. It is very clear actually...

[glo]

I didn't say atheism wasn't bad, but according to the Quran polytheism is much worse. It is very clear actually...

Am I correct in thinking that - according to Islam - neither atheists nor polytheists would enter paradise; but also that both atheists and polytheists would be forgiven for their errors if they repented and turned to Islam?

[Argamemnon]

Am I correct in thinking that - according to Islam - neither atheists nor polytheists would enter paradise; but also that both atheists and polytheists would be forgiven for their errors if they repented and turned to Islam?

Yes.. but in the end God decides everything of course. There are also Islamic scholars who don't believe that hell is eternal for example. They say that the word eternal in the Quran means a "long time" and not literally eternal. God knows best..

[Follower]

I have a friend who attends a Unitarian Universlist Church and even people who do not believe in GOD attend the church and are members!! I guess it is the universe that they believe in!?!

[Grace Seeker]

I have a friend who attends a Unitarian Universlist Church and even people who do not believe in GOD attend the church and are members!! I guess it is the universe that they believe in!?!

Yes! I've seen that too.

It's a story I've told before, but it is true and I think it tells us a lot about the Unitarians:
In the 1970s (sorry I don't remember what year any more), at the national convention of the Unitarian Church, a resolution was proposed regarding a Unitarian statement of faith that they affirm that Unitarians believe in God. It failed. While most Unitarians do believe in God at least in some sort of way, it seems that there is not even enough consensus in what they mean by God to approve that they actually believe in him/it/her/or the idea of some divine being/essence.

From their own website, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, "Beliefs Within Our Faith":

Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that encompasses many faith traditions. Unitarian Universalists include people who identify as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and others. As there is no official Unitarian Universalist creed, Unitarian Universalists are free to search for truth on many paths.

As you can see from this, it would be hard for one to consider them Christian in the same way that other Christian groups are Christian given that they are free to seach for truth on many paths and Christians believe the Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

[anatolian]

I find it interesting that the Ahmadi use the same Qu'ran as Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, yet they have radically different beliefs regarding what it means to be Muslim.

Salam.Ahmadis differ from us on the beliefe who the Mahdi is/was an issue which is not found in Quran.But they surely differ on hadiths.

[malayloveislam]

Assalamualaikum warahmatullah,

How about those people who follows prophet Jesus (pbuh) before the Councils of Nicea? Are they too considered as Muslims? Also those in Yemen, who had been accepting the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) through a man called Faimiyyoun (Phemion)? I am confused too which of them are considered as Muslim because the Trinity teaching seems to be arise around 4th C.

I have heard that currently there is a Church called Arian Catholic trying to get the root of Christian back close to Judaism. They believe in Jesus as the key to heaven and he us a separate entity apart from God, but I am still confused with their testimony on Jesus because sometimes they said that prophet Jesus is the son of God and some of them are previously Protestants and Roman Catholics, I guess it might be metaphorical. Basically they use the same bible used by mainstream Christians, both New and Old Testaments but they blame Paul/Saul of Tarsus because of Trinitarian brought by him into Christianity.

Here is the quote from Arian Catholics main website about who is Jesus in their perspective:

“Jesus Christ” (Christ = the anointed / chosen one) was not literally the “Son of God”, but, during Jesus’ time, this title was a metaphor and was honorific of someone considered worthy of the rank of one who served God as his Son. Physically, Jesus was a human man, born of Mary and Joseph; but spiritually he was technically the son of God as his Spirit was an Archangel created and sent by God. Christ was a man to be followed not worshipped.

The Arian Catholics view about Jesus deification, slightly different from Muslim view about the crucifixion, we believe it was Judas Iscariot who had been mis-crucified while the real Jesus had been saved by God to some other place:

1. Jesus Christ, the same man who was crucified on the cross under Pontius Pilate was not the same entity that created the Universe, the earth and mankind! Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and God are not part of the same triune but are separate entities. God is the focus of all prayers and Jesus Christ himself taught us not to worship him but to worship God

2. The true Universal Christian Church is Anglican. A simple fact is that although it is believed Jesus Christ travelled to different countries, they believe Jesus might have been in England. This is their opinion, I don't know where exactly Jesus had traveled after he was saved by God from the crucifixion.

Muslims have to testify prophet Muhammad as the God messenger. Do you think people in the time where prophet Jesus (pbuh) and who had accepting his prophethood at the time testifying prophet Muhammad as God messenger too? Also those in the time of prophet Moses like Asiyyah the wife of Pharaoh and Masyittah the groomer in Pharaoh palace (may God be merciful to them)?

[Follower]

I thought everyone who submitted their lives to GOD was a muslim!?!

[Imam]

Assalamualaikum warahmatullah,

How about those people who follows prophet Jesus (pbuh) before the Councils of Nicea? Are they too considered as Muslims?

Any people (before and after the Councils of Nicea up till the time of
prophet Mohamed peace be upon him)

are considered to be believers (Muslims) as long as they:

1-kept the Torah commandments

2- never committed act of shirk (believe in trinity etc....)

3- never believed in the so called blood atonement


I don't say they had to believe that Jesus wasn't crucified.....

as any group who may have been misinformed and believed that Jesus the great prophet been killed ,and they continued to keep his teachings ,the laws,the true monotheism ..

such group could be considered as Muslims too
......

Muslims have to testify prophet Muhammad as the God messenger. Do you think people in the time where prophet Jesus (pbuh) and who had accepting his prophethood at the time testifying prophet Muhammad as God messenger too? Also those in the time of prophet Moses like Asiyyah the wife of Pharaoh and Masyittah the groomer in Pharaoh palace (may God be merciful to them)?

Excuse me ,just can't get what you mean here......

[malayloveislam]

Any people (before and after the Councils of Nicea up till the time of
prophet Mohamed peace be upon him)

are considered to be believers (Muslims) as long as they:

1-kept the Torah commandments

2- never committed act of shirk (believe in trinity etc....)

3- never believed in the so called blood atonement


I don't say they had to believe that Jesus wasn't crucified.....

as any group who may have been misinformed and believed that Jesus the great prophet been killed ,and they continued to keep his teachings ,the laws,the true monotheism ..

such group could be considered as Muslims too
......

Excuse me ,just can't get what you mean here......

Assalamualaikum warahmatullah,

Thank you very much brother Imam, now it is a bit clear to me concerning people who follow prophet Jesus (pbuh). So they are Muslims and not Christians until the Council of Nicea and after the prosecutions.

Concerning previous ahlul-kitab, like Masyittah and Asiyyah, both of them had testified that prophet Moses (pbuh) is a God messenger in the time where they lived. So is that too means that they testify prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who isn't yet send by God at that particular time?

Because we Muslims in modern era believe that it had been prophesied in Torah about prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Those Medinah Jews in the time before Hijrah too believe in prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but they had turned away knowing that he had been together with their lowly estimated Khazraj and Aus Arab tribes. Non-Muslims always talking about Islam as newly revealed bt I always think that Islam is the earliest even earlier than Hinduism because we had our root from Noah and Abraham who had been revealed with scriptures. I wonder why the previous One Universal teaching of God (Islam) had been limited in name of certain tribes or prophet names?

How about the status of Abdul Mutalib the grandfather of prophet Muhammad? I have never heard that he is honoring any idols in Kaaba. It is also said that he was practicing Haneef, the teaching of straight path inherited from prophet Ismail (pbuh) who got it straight away from his father prophet Abraham (pbuh). Some people said Abdul Mutallib is not a Muslim, and some said yes concerning his status. It is as confusing as the follower of prophet Jesus (pbuh) case too, because Abdul Mutallib lived in the period of Jahiliyya, where Arabs in Mecca who were previously Monotheists turned Polytheists after Amar Ben Luhay brought polytheism into Mecca from Syria when he dealt in business with the Phonecians. Do you have any Hadeeth about this story? I think I have heard one, if anyone happen to have it, please put it here for us to read together, including the sanad (source) and the validity of the hadeeth. Thank you in advance.

[Grace Seeker]

Assalamualaikum warahmatullah,

Thank you very much brother Imam, now it is a bit clear to me concerning people who follow prophet Jesus (pbuh). So they are Muslims and not Christians until the Council of Nicea and after the prosecutions.

Since being Muslim is one who follows Islam, which means submission to God. Wouldn't even Christains today, who submit themselves fully to God be followers of Islam in a technical sense?

And since Christian means "Christ ones" or those who belong to and follow Christ. Wouldn't all persons of all times who follow Christ be Christians? Indeed the Bible says that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians in the city of Antioch shortly after Paul and Barnabus were sent there by the rest of the Apostles, probably sometime around 35 AD.

And if Muslims believe that those who compose the churches of the world today do not really follow Christ, but that Christ taught the same Injeel that Muhammad taught, and that Muslims today are following this same message taught by all of the prophets, then as people who follow Islam, the message taught by Christ, aren't Muslims actually followers of the teachings Christ gave and therefore in a tecnical sense Christians?

Just some thoughts to send your head spinning. :D

[malayloveislam]

Assalamualaikum warahmatullah, peace be upon you and may His blessings poured upon everyone of us,

I am not really clear about Christians today because basically the teaching of previous prophet had been compiled by God and revealed again through prophet Muhammad (pbuh) after human-being had been dwelling in the age of Ignorance for a while, the basic root of the teaching is from Abraham (pbuh) in the term of Syariah (the 6 Pillars of Creed and the 5 Pillars of Islam) not from prophet Jesus (pbuh) nor prophet Moses (pbuh) in the first hand, that is why we have the ritual of Hajj or pilgrimage to Holy City Mecca, as God had assigned prophet Abraham to call all human into Islam and to perform pilgrimage in Mecca, after that his call had been echoed in Glorious Quran and recited by Muslims today. Thus, those who are Christians and Jews are categorized as Ahlul-Kitab today and not Muslim anymore, means people of the books as they followed previous teachings without testifying prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prophethood, I am still not clear anyway, hope brothers in Islam could correct me if I had stated wrong things. I won't be offended because it is the duty of every Muslims to correct and educate other Muslim brothers.

Concerning the follower of prophet Jesus (pbuh) in Antioch, I had heard about a disciple of prophet Jesus (pbuh) called Habib An-Najjar, who had died being stoned by the people of Antioch who are the Pagans. God had told us about him in Glorious Quran in Surah Yaa-Sin verses 20-29. Also in Surah Yaasin, it had been recorded that his soul wails because he could see that his people will be doomed by God forever in the hereafter. It is also recorded that his tribe had suffered a disastrous scream (God had punished them for their cruelty) and all of them died after the scream.

Do you Christians today have heard any story about this honorable person? I am not clear what particular sect that this person is following at the time he had been stoned. I guess it might be basic teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) without Trinity Doctrine yet being propagated by Alexandrius.

[Follower]

005.046
YUSUFALI: And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
PICKTHAL: And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
SHAKIR: And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).

005.047
YUSUFALI: Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
PICKTHAL: Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.
SHAKIR: And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.

[Follower]

mayaloveislam- here is the creed of the Arian Church

BELIEVE IN ONE GOD,
Creator of Heaven and earth,
And of all things visible and invisible.
And in his Spiritual Son, Jesus Christ,
Whom was born of Mary and Joseph,
Was not consubstantial nor co-eternal with God the Father almighty,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, died, and was buried.
On the third day His Spirit was resurrected.
He ascended into Heaven,
And sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty.
Whence he shall come again to judge the living and the dead,
Of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,
The communion of saints,
The forgiveness of sins,
The resurrection of the Spirit,
And life everlasting.
Amen.

[malayloveislam]

mayaloveislam- here is the creed of the Arian Church

BELIEVE IN ONE GOD,
Creator of Heaven and earth,
And of all things visible and invisible.
And in his Spiritual Son, Jesus Christ,
Whom was born of Mary and Joseph,
Was not consubstantial nor co-eternal with God the Father almighty,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, died, and was buried.
On the third day His Spirit was resurrected.
He ascended into Heaven,
And sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty.
Whence he shall come again to judge the living and the dead,
Of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,
The communion of saints,
The forgiveness of sins,
The resurrection of the Spirit,
And life everlasting.
Amen.

Thanks for sharing, I think that the Creed of One God in Arian Catholicism is the same with us Muslims. We believe that God creates Heaven and Hell and other metaphysical creations like genies (Devil is a genie not an angel, satans are non-believer genies, genies too possess religions) and angels besides physical creations like human-being and the Universe.

About prophet Jesus (pbuh) as spiritual son, I can understand the meaning for Christians. It might be metaphor for a person with the rank and knowledge to teach religion to others. But in Islam, we are forbidden to use the metaphor 'son' or 'daughter' linking human relationship to God. It is also forbidden to be used even to religious leaders because it may cause confusion to others as human-being have different level of thoughts. People might think that prophet Jesus is a begotten son of God while he is only a prophet and God messenger. For prophet Muhammad (pbuh), we have the term the one beloved by God (Habibullah) but not the son. Also for prophet Moses, the one who spoke* with God (Kalamullah), and prophet Abraham, the one who is the friend of God (Khaleelullah).

*In Islam we can't imagine how does God speak, He is not like human-being. Every wills that He do is not the same like us or anything in the Universe.

About prophet Jesus nativity, we Muslims believe that he was borned without a father, but mother Mary is still a virgin and she had been pregnant after Archangel Gabriel (he take the form of a young man) announced God order to her that she will have an intelligent infant. Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was borned under a date tree in a high place near a creek (we are not certain about the place, maybe at the foothill). (Can anyone provide Ibn Katsir interpretation of Quranic verses of Surah Maryam if they have it? Thank you).

About co-God matters, we Muslims believe prophet Jesus as a prophet of God like prophet Moses, prophet David, and prophet Muhammad (pbut). Prophet Muhammad, prophet Moses, prophet David and prophet Jesus (pbut) had been ordained as God Messenger to teach wisdom to their people and they are prophets. Prophet Muhammad's message is Universal for all the tribes and for all the period of time because he is the final prophet and God messenger. They are all not divine, only special humans revealed with prophecies through scriptures by God.

In crucifixion event, we had been told by God in Glorious Quran that Judas Iscariot had been mis-crucified, not Jesus. In an interpretation of Quranic verses (Hamka) it is said that people had mistaken crucifying Judas because he had his face resembling prophet Jesus (pbuh) face, and at the time where it is almost dark people can't see his face clearly with the fire torch.

On the matter of ascension, some Muslims believe that prophet Jesus had ascended through God will. But some believe that he had escaped after God had helped him and travels to other places, and he died like others. This is not principle in Islam. It is sufficient for us to obey the 6 Pillars of Creed and the 5 Pillars of Islam which are the basis of our religion.

About judging the sins of creations, we believe that God is the one who will judge us in the hereafter.

[Woodrow]

I thought everyone who submitted their lives to GOD was a muslim!?!

Here we can get into a technical discussion. I believe that is a true statement.

The question will arise as to who is submitting to God(swt). If a person truly submits to God(swt) he/she will be technically a Muslim. But, over all it is only Allaah(swt) alone who knows who is truly submitting to him. I would never say anybody is not Muslim, however, I will say that a person's actions are not Islamic. But, I do not feel I have the right to judge who is or is not Muslim.

[wth1257]

Salam/Peace,

Can unitarian Christians who reject the trinity and believe in the oneness of God, like Muslims, be considered "Muslim"?

As I understand it before the advent of Muhammad it was possible to be a muslim, that is to submit oneself to God's will. Muhammad's Prophethood now precludes this possability and the only muslims now are Muslims, that is individuals who have pronounced the Shahadah and affirm the oneness of Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad.

[wth1257]

I have a friend who attends a Unitarian Universlist Church and even people who do not believe in GOD attend the church and are members!! I guess it is the universe that they believe in!?!

No. "Unitarians" reject the trinity, but Unitarian Universalists are a whole different matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

[Grace Seeker]

mayaloveislam- here is the creed of the Arian Church

Follower, can your provide us with the source you used for the creed. I have also never heard of this Arian Church before, so I know nothing of their history or any of their other beliefs. But I do know who Arius is, and I know that he never founded a separate church under his own name.

In crucifixion event, we had been told by God in Glorious Quran that Judas Iscariot had been mis-crucified, not Jesus. In an interpretation of Quranic verses (Hamka) it is said that people had mistaken crucifying Judas because he had his face resembling prophet Jesus (pbuh) face, and at the time where it is almost dark people can't see his face clearly with the fire torch.

I don't think this is actually in the Qur'an. I have asked to see these verses before and no one has ever been able to point them out to me. I think this is just a particular interpretation of the Qur'an, and one that I have been told by many Muslims is not dependable, and that all that Muslims can actually be certain of is that Jesus was not actually crucified and everything beyond that is simply speculation and human traditions. (Sort of like the traditions in Christian circles that have decided that it was three maji who visited the infant Jesus when the exact number, and certainly not their names, is never revealed.) But if you can finally show these verses to me, I would be interested in knowing them.

[Grace Seeker]

Since being Muslim is one who follows Islam, which means submission to God. Wouldn't even Christains today, who submit themselves fully to God be followers of Islam in a technical sense?

And since Christian means "Christ ones" or those who belong to and follow Christ. Wouldn't all persons of all times who follow Christ be Christians? Indeed the Bible says that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians in the city of Antioch shortly after Paul and Barnabus were sent there by the rest of the Apostles, probably sometime around 35 AD.

And if Muslims believe that those who compose the churches of the world today do not really follow Christ, but that Christ taught the same Injeel that Muhammad taught, and that Muslims today are following this same message taught by all of the prophets, then as people who follow Islam, the message taught by Christ, aren't Muslims actually followers of the teachings Christ gave and therefore in a tecnical sense Christians?

Just some thoughts to send your head spinning. :D

I thought everyone who submitted their lives to GOD was a muslim!?!

Here we can get into a technical discussion. I believe that is a true statement.

The question will arise as to who is submitting to God(swt). If a person truly submits to God(swt) he/she will be technically a Muslim. But, over all it is only Allaah(swt) alone who knows who is truly submitting to him. I would never say anybody is not Muslim, however, I will say that a person's actions are not Islamic. But, I do not feel I have the right to judge who is or is not Muslim.

So, Woodrow, "technically" you agree with me?

[Woodrow]

So, Woodrow, "technically" you agree with me?

Not my fault that sometimes you are right. :D

The reality is that we agree on many things. I believe the only unresolvable conflict we have is over the nature of Isa(AS), Jesus(AS)

[malayloveislam]

I don't think this is actually in the Qur'an. I have asked to see these verses before and no one has ever been able to point them out to me. I think this is just a particular interpretation of the Qur'an, and one that I have been told by many Muslims is not dependable, and that all that Muslims can actually be certain of is that Jesus was not actually crucified and everything beyond that is simply speculation and human traditions. (Sort of like the traditions in Christian circles that have decided that it was three maji who visited the infant Jesus when the exact number, and certainly not their names, is never revealed.) But if you can finally show these verses to me, I would be interested in knowing them.

Oh yeah Grace Seeker, this is an interpretation from an Interpretation of Quran by an Indonesian Quranic Verses reasearcher, whose name is Abdul Malik Amrullah. He had listed the Israiliyyat (Israelites) myths and also had quoted from Ibnu Katsir Quranic interpretation and several other famous Quranic interpretations in Arabic in his interpretation of Quran in Malay.

I think the verse about prophet Jesus (pbuh) was not crucified is in Surah An-Nisaa (The Women Sura) verse 157. The verse did not clearly mentioned about whom had been crucified but it just stated that another person had been crucified replacing prophet Jesus (pbuh) place.

And then it had been told to us that prophet Jesus had been ascended. This is not the whole verse, I only tell you what I had remembered. It is in verse 158 Surah An-Nisaa.

Many interpretations about who had been crucified. One of them is those 12 disciples of prophet Jesus (pbuh) had decided to save their teacher and each one of them wanted to be the martyr.

Another interpretation is about a traitor, whose black sheep is known Yahuda Iskharyuthi (Judas Iscariot). This person is said to have his appearance almost resembling prophet Jesus (pbuh) and at the time where it is almost dark, was mis-caught by the Romans and other evil Jews. He was then crucified.

But in Islamic tradition about prophet Jesus (pbuh), he was not crucified but others had been crucified in his place. Some interpretation stated that he had escaped to other place through God assistance which is after his ascension.

Only God knows who was crucified in prophet Jesus place :statisfie.

[malayloveislam]

Here are the verses, I can't translate it on my own although I can do it literally. That is because I'm afraid that I will cause misunderstanding so I better find authorized translation. Reminder, they are merely translation and not equal to Quran. In my country we only recognize the translation from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and from our religious department with the translation called Ar-Rahman Leadership.

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[4:157] And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.

[4:158] Instead, GOD raised him to Him; GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.

The next verse, it is said that God will appoint prophet Jesus (pbuh) himself as the witness in the hereafter for his followers concerning his nature, his crufixion, and about what had been done to him by evil Jews who tried to kill a God messenger.

Still as Muslims, our salvation is first through witnessing with our heart and soul, orally alone or witnessed by others that God is the only One and no other than Him, and bearing witness that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is God messenger, the seal of all prophets of God and God messengers. After witnessing God as our Lord, and prophet Muhammad (pbuh), we are automatically bearing witness on all previous God messengers and God prophets, not only prophet Jesus (pbuh), but also prophet Moses (pbuh), prophet Abraham (pbuh), prophet Ismael (pbuh), and others mentioned in the previous scriptures and in the Glorious Quran.

[Grace Seeker]

Can you indicate to me, in the passage you have referenced, which portions of the verse are actual translations of the Qur'an itself, and which portions are commentary by the translator(s)?


Thanks. I'm more interested in knowing what it is that Allah is reported to have said, than what humans have inferred.

[Follower]

http://www.holy-catholic.org/

I have been told that the words in ( ) are added. If you read the whole chapter "they" are the Jews.

004.157
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
PICKTHAL: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

004.158
YUSUFALI: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
PICKTHAL: But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.
SHAKIR: Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise

[Fishman]

Unitarian Christian=/=Unitarian Universalist. UU is a modern religion (though it was probably practiced by some ancient thinkers) that is mainly about spirituality and 'being a good person'. Unitarian Christians are Christians who don't believe in the trinity.
:w:

[Follower]

http://www.yaqb.org/

Add that verse with:

003.055
YUSUFALI: Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
PICKTHAL: (And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.
SHAKIR: And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed.

Why do Muslims follow Mohammad and not Jesus?

I don't speak arabic and this is the closest I can come to that answer:

Transliteration:Waqawlihim inna qatalna almaseeha AAeesa ibna maryama rasoola Allahi wama qataloohu wama salaboohu walakin shubbiha lahum wa-inna allatheena ikhtalafoo feehi lafee shakkin minhu ma lahum bihi min AAilmin illa ittibaAAa alththanni wama qataloohu yaqeenan

Literal:And their saying: "We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son, God's messenger, and they have not killed him, and they have not crucified him/placed him on a cross, and but (it) resembled/was vague/was doubtful to them, and that those who disagreed/disputed in (about) him (are) in (E) doubt/suspicion from him, (there is) no knowledge for them with (about) him, except following the assumption , and they have not killed him surely/certainly.

When there is a question though Muslims are to seek the answer:

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.

[Grace Seeker]

Unitarian Christian=/=Unitarian Universalist. UU is a modern religion (though it was probably practiced by some ancient thinkers) that is mainly about spirituality and 'being a good person'. Unitarian Christians are Christians who don't believe in the trinity.
:w:

I'll accept that Unitarians are Christian if you'll accept that Ahmadi Muslims are Muslims who just have some different views from you, nothing so significant as to keep them from being identified as Muslim. If you won't go along with that, then understand why I object to you describing Unitarians as Christian -- they are not Christian, specifically because they reject the truth that Christians accept with regard to the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which is contained within understanding the Trinity.

[Grace Seeker]

http://www.holy-catholic.org/

I have been told that the words in ( ) are added. If you read the whole chapter "they" are the Jews.

Thanks, Follower, but I was really spefically asking malayloveislam, because he had provided the Ar-Rahman Leadership translation as that which is the only one he recognized.


For the record, I was already aware how it worked with standard English interpretations by YUSUFALI, PICKTHAL, and SHAKIR.

So, malayloveislam, maybe you could use the same format, making use of parenthesis (), to clarify which part of the passage you cited is an actual translation of the Qur'an and which part is just commentary?

[Fishman]

I'll accept that Unitarians are Christian if you'll accept that Ahmadi Muslims are Muslims who just have some different views from you, nothing so significant as to keep them from being identified as Muslim. If you won't go along with that, then understand why I object to you describing Unitarians as Christian -- they are not Christian, specifically because they reject the truth that Christians accept with regard to the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which is contained within understanding the Trinity.

:sl:
I just called them Christian on the grounds that they claim to be Christian, not because they technically are. It helped to distinguish them from the Unitarian Universalists, who are openly non-Christian.
:w:

[malayloveislam]

Do you mean Ahmadi as in Qadiani? The person who introduced this teaching is called as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from a village called Qadian borned in 1839.

He is actually from a Muslim family, and he had learned a little bit of religious study. Also he possess many diseases and curing himself with wine and opium during his life time. British Raj of India had influenced him to sell his faith for their colonial purpose and as the pay he can get worldly benefits. His teaching is not Islam anymore because he claimed himself as Jesus Christ, the Mahdi, and he claimed himself as prophet Muhammad in the same time. There is no more prophet after prophet Muhammad (pbuh), prophet Muhammad is the seal of prophets and prophet Muhammad is not the incarnation (the avatar) of prophet Jesus, Imam Mahdi, or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I guess this Mirza is a lunatic with mental disorder. He also claimed had been revealed with scripture wrote by himself called Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya.

Ahmadiyya school had been established in 1889. The basis of their faith is "loyalty toward British Raj." He had put tag "Son of the *****" on those who do not follow his teaching. They had abused the term Muslim while they are not really Muslim. They suppose to be known only as Ahmadis or Qadianis from their prophet name Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or from the place of its origin, Qadian. He died in 1908. His teaching was supported by British at the beginning and then supported by the US and other countries who treat Islam as their enemy, I am so sorry, this can't be denied, I hate to say that US or Britain treat Islam as enemy because most Muslims are taught not to hate other even non-Muslims but unfortunately history says so through colonial acts of Europeans on others. When European explorers and invaders came, we have to defend ourselves as we will not survive if we just stood still while people attacking us beside God had ordered every human-being preserving the land granted by God to them.

The teaching of Ahmadiah is fake, and not even in the fold of Islam after he had claimed himself as a prophet, and writing his own scripture. He had insulted all Muslim prophets including prophet Jesus (pbuh) and prophet Muhammad (pbuh). In Islam, prophets are human-being but they are freed from any sinful acts (Ma3soum). He claimed that prophets and God messengers too committing sins.

This is the brief history of Ahmadiah teaching establishment.

[malayloveislam]

Thanks, Follower, but I was really spefically asking malayloveislam, because he had provided the Ar-Rahman Leadership translation as that which is the only one he recognized.


For the record, I was already aware how it worked with standard English interpretations by YUSUFALI, PICKTHAL, and SHAKIR.

So, malayloveislam, maybe you could use the same format, making use of parenthesis (), to clarify which part of the passage you cited is an actual translation of the Qur'an and which part is just commentary?

Ar-Rahman Leadership translation in English isn't yet circulated widely, we have to apply it from Religious Department. I only have Malay translation of Ar-Rahman Leadership translation for this time being because Malay is my native language.

That one that I had provided is authorized translation quoted from an Islamic website. Oh, that is not me who recognize the Quranic translation but our Government, because they have standardization system. For me, I am also reading Marmaduke Pickthall and Yusuf Ali translation in English. For Malay, I read Ar-Rahman Malay version translation and also Indonesian translation provided by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Usually I don't use translations anymore after I had memorized the Suras because I had also memorized the Quranic terms in Arabic. This sometimes had dragged me to translate the verses literally and it is not appropriate for us if our target language skill is not good. Good idea and thanks, I will try to use brackets next time for commentaries.

[wth1257]

I'll accept that Unitarians are Christian if you'll accept that Ahmadi Muslims are Muslims who just have some different views from you, nothing so significant as to keep them from being identified as Muslim. If you won't go along with that, then understand why I object to you describing Unitarians as Christian -- they are not Christian, specifically because they reject the truth that Christians accept with regard to the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which is contained within understanding the Trinity.

Would you consider Origen a Christian?

[wth1257]

Do you mean Ahmadi as in Qadiani? The person who introduced this teaching is called as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from a village called Qadian borned in 1839.

He is actually from a Muslim family, and he had learned a little bit of religious study. Also he possess many diseases and curing himself with wine and opium during his life time. British Raj of India had influenced him to sell his faith for their colonial purpose and as the pay he can get worldly benefits. His teaching is not Islam anymore because he claimed himself as Jesus Christ, the Mahdi, and he claimed himself as prophet Muhammad in the same time. There is no more prophet after prophet Muhammad (pbuh), prophet Muhammad is the seal of prophets and prophet Muhammad is not the incarnation (the avatar) of prophet Jesus, Imam Mahdi, or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I guess this Mirza is a lunatic with mental disorder. He also claimed had been revealed with scripture wrote by himself called Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya.

Ahmadiyya school had been established in 1889. The basis of their faith is "loyalty toward British Raj." He had put tag "Son of the *****" on those who do not follow his teaching. They had abused the term Muslim while they are not really Muslim. They suppose to be known only as Ahmadis or Qadianis from their prophet name Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or from the place of its origin, Qadian. He died in 1908. His teaching was supported by British at the beginning and then supported by the US and other countries who treat Islam as their enemy, I am so sorry, this can't be denied, I hate to say that US or Britain treat Islam as enemy because most Muslims are taught not to hate other even non-Muslims but unfortunately history says so through colonial acts of Europeans on others. When European explorers and invaders came, we have to defend ourselves as we will not survive if we just stood still while people attacking us beside God had ordered every human-being preserving the land granted by God to them.

The teaching of Ahmadiah is fake, and not even in the fold of Islam after he had claimed himself as a prophet, and writing his own scripture. He had insulted all Muslim prophets including prophet Jesus (pbuh) and prophet Muhammad (pbuh). In Islam, prophets are human-being but they are freed from any sinful acts (Ma3soum). He claimed that prophets and God messengers too committing sins.

This is the brief history of Ahmadiah teaching establishment.

There are actually two movements of Ahmadiah. The other one was headed by Maulana Muhammad Ali who did not accecpt the Prophethood of the founder.

I found his book "The Religion of Islam" really helpfull when I first started studying Islam. I think the text itself is orthodox (like Al Azhar approved it, I think Ali kept the contraversal points out) and it really helped my understand how rich and amazing Islam is. I think the Ahmadiah movement is wrong about important things and now read more traditional writters, but I guess I have a soft spot for them because of how much he helped me, even if I think he is wrong about important things.

[wth1257]

Ar-Rahman Leadership translation in English isn't yet circulated widely, we have to apply it from Religious Department. I only have Malay translation of Ar-Rahman Leadership translation for this time being because Malay is my native language.

That one that I had provided is authorized translation quoted from an Islamic website. Oh, that is not me who recognize the Quranic translation but our Government, because they have standardization system. For me, I am also reading Marmaduke Pickthall and Yusuf Ali translation in English. For Malay, I read Ar-Rahman Malay version translation and also Indonesian translation provided by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Usually I don't use translations anymore after I had memorized the Suras because I had also memorized the Quranic terms in Arabic. This sometimes had dragged me to translate the verses literally and it is not appropriate for us if our target language skill is not good. Good idea and thanks, I will try to use brackets next time for commentaries.

wow. Are you sudying Arabic?

[malayloveislam]

There are actually two movements of Ahmadiah. The other one was headed by Maulana Muhammad Ali who did not accecpt the Prophethood of the founder.

I found his book "The Religion of Islam" really helpfull when I first started studying Islam. I think the text itself is orthodox (like Al Azhar approved it, I think Ali kept the contraversal points out) and it really helped my understand how rich and amazing Islam is. I think the Ahmadiah movement is wrong about important things and now read more traditional writters, but I guess I have a soft spot for them because of how much he helped me, even if I think he is wrong about important things.

Oh yeah, I had heard about the second group of Ahmadiah movement, they are considered as Muslim for me. I heard that Maulana Muhamamad Ali had provided a translation and commentary of Quran. Maulana Muhammad Ali had split out from the first movement. For me Qadiani of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is another religion and it is not Islam, he had established his own religion. We accept only prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the seal and automatically it is also accepting other previous prophets of God. Other people who claims to be a prophet after prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is a fake.

Yeah, basically we study Quranic and Communication Arabic here in religious schools like Roman Catholics studying Latin in their seminary or religious schools. All of Muslims around the world had actually agreed that Arabic is our International communicating language but since Muslim countries never co-operate with each other, this is impossible to be imposed. We have to recite prayers in Arabic loudly but it is permissible in our native language in silent (in heart).

As for me, I actually had the same opinion with orthodox opinions, we can't translate Quran but since Muslims are of many different ethnicities, it can't be avoided. Thus, I make efforts to memorize the Arabic Quranic verses with tight supervision of teacher. Translation comes from heart, means that I do not depend on translation because they can't fully represent the source language, confusions may arise if we are too dependant on translation instead of the original text.

[malayloveislam]

Back to the topic, are those Ebionites considered as Christians? They also had testified prophet Jesus (pbuh) as their prophet differently from other Jews. Are they too classified Unitarian Christians? Are they still exist today?

[Imam]

Wouldn't even Christains today, who submit themselves fully to God be followers of Islam in a technical sense?

Actually, Christains not submitting themselves fully to God but submitting God fully to themselves and that is why they can't be followers of Islam in any kind of sense

instead of serving God, they fancy themselves that it is God who should serve them !!

the conflict between Islam and christianity not only over the nature of God, but also over the issue of salvation .....and that makes them go the opposite direction

I don't think this is actually in the Qur'an.and one that I have been told by many Muslims is not dependable, and that all that Muslims can actually be certain of is that Jesus was not actually crucified and everything beyond that is simply speculation and human traditions.

That is true ...

take a look Bro malayloveislam at the proofs here

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...s-islam-4.html

When there is a question though Muslims are to seek the answer:

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.

your question is?

SHAKIR: And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed.
Why do Muslims follow Mohammad and not Jesus?

Surah 5 :76-79. They indeed have disbelieved who say: God is the Messiah, son of Mary.

As christians were called disbelievers in the Quran and God promised that the true followers of true the message of Jesus (true monotheism&keeping the commandments)will be above in religious statue than those who disbelieve ,then it doesn't need a scientific discovery to realize that the true followers of Jesus (and the other prophets as well eg,Abraham,Moses etc...) which the Quran refers to are
those who kept the true message of Jesus from the day his mission was terminated on earth till the arrival of the prophet who came and refreshed the message of Jesus and exposed the corruption that touched the message of Jesus......

[Grace Seeker]

Unitarian Christian=/=Unitarian Universalist. UU is a modern religion (though it was probably practiced by some ancient thinkers) that is mainly about spirituality and 'being a good person'. Unitarian Christians are Christians who don't believe in the trinity.
:w:

I'll accept that Unitarians are Christian if you'll accept that Ahmadi Muslims are Muslims who just have some different views from you, nothing so significant as to keep them from being identified as Muslim. If you won't go along with that, then understand why I object to you describing Unitarians as Christian -- they are not Christian, specifically because they reject the truth that Christians accept with regard to the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which is contained within understanding the Trinity.

:sl:
I just called them Christian on the grounds that they claim to be Christian, not because they technically are. It helped to distinguish them from the Unitarian Universalists, who are openly non-Christian.
:w:

And I understand that motive. It is the same one that leads me to call Ahmadi Muslims --on the grounds that they claim to be Muslim.

[Grace Seeker]

Do you mean Ahmadi as in Qadiani? The person who introduced this teaching is called as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from a village called Qadian borned in 1839.

He is actually from a Muslim family, and he had learned a little bit of religious study. Also he possess many diseases and curing himself with wine and opium during his life time. British Raj of India had influenced him to sell his faith for their colonial purpose and as the pay he can get worldly benefits. His teaching is not Islam anymore because he claimed himself as Jesus Christ, the Mahdi, and he claimed himself as prophet Muhammad in the same time.

What you are saying is that no matter what the Ahmadi call themselves, the reality is that they are Muslim in their own mind only. I can understand how you a Muslim who has remained faithful to the historic teachings of Islam would say that the Ahmadi have gone astray and thus do not truly represent Islamic teaching and hence are not genuine Muslims, even if they should call themselves by that name.

I feel similiarly toward Unitarians. Even if they should call themselves Christians, the reality is that they are Christian in their own mind only. As one who has remained faithful to the teachings of the historic teachings of Christianity, I would say that the Unitarians have gone and thus do not truly represent Christian teaching and hence are not genuine Christians, even if they should call themselves by that name.

Thus, my offer, that I will not refer to the Ahmadi as Muslims if you will not refer to Unitarians as Christians.

[Grace Seeker]

Would you consider Origen a Christian?

Origen, like most humans, is a mixed bag. He held a subordination view that was dangerously close to Arianism. Of course, even Arius was a Christian, at least at one point in his life. The point that Arius was trying to make -- a defence of God's incorruptibilty -- was not in itself non-Christian. The problem with Arius came when he subordinated the Son to such a degree that the Son became a creature, created by the Father and not co-eternal with him. Such a view actually resulted in a polytheism of a greater and lesser god. Christianity can have none of that, for we are not polytheistic, but believe in only one God. Now, Origen also sought to subordinate the Son to the Father, but does not appear to have done so by making two different Gods in his theology, for Origen does not claim that the Son was a created being, but that he was indeed co-eternal with the Father. Thus, it is not heretical in the same way that Arius' views were. What Origen does is differentiate within the Godhead in a way that presupposes some type subordination of the Son to the Father. There are biblical grounds for this during Jesus' earthly life and ministry, during which time Jesus did indeed submit himself as a human to the Father. But I think Origen erred in also transferring that idea to all time and eternity.

As to whether or not Origen was a Christian throughout his life, I will make use of a oft repeated phrase on this forum... God knows best.

[malayloveislam]

Your understanding about polytheism is different from Muslim, well I can understand that most Christians today consider that prophet Jesus (pbuh) as Divine. This might have something to do with Trinity concept introduced by Paulus. I am not certain about St. Barnabas (Maar Tooma), whether he too agree with the concept of Trinity.

The basis of Muslim Monotheism is only Allah as the Lord. Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is a creature, almost the same like what had been emphasized by Arius. I had read something about Arius Viz Lucian, he never claim himself as a prophet or the avatar of prophet Jesus (pbuh), other prophets, nor a Messiah like what had been done by Mirza Ghulam.

For Polytheism understanding in Islam, it is associating or attributing God with others or creatures including with prophets, angels, genies, and etc. We believe in prophet Jesus (pbuh) as a human-being, entitled by God as His prophet and a God messenger toward the Children of Israel, he is not Divine but since he is a God messenger, he is free from any sin (Ma3soom), this too applies to other prophets including our final prophet who is prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Prophet Jesus (pbuh) also may be had spread the message of Tauheed (Monotheism) to other tribes like the Samaritans like in the story of prophet Jesus (pbuh) with a Samaritan woman, sorry I can't recall the verse in New Testament but I am certain that I had read it.

I am not sure if Arius Viz Lucian assume prophet Jesus (pbuh) as a God or a Divinity. Muslims view is that prophet Jesus (pbuh) is a creature created by God the same as us today or other prophets. We view prophet Jesus as a different entity from God, he is no different from prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or prophet Moses (pbuh), he only was born without a father, and in Islam, that is among the sign of God Will and Power, He is able over things that is impossible for Human-being because He is God, of course His knowledge is beyond His creatures who are us. Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is not a god nor God for Muslims.

[malayloveislam]

Here is what I've got from Arian Catholics Homepage:

Nowhere in the Bible is there any reference to the trinity and Jesus never taught trinitarianism to his disciples! Tertullian of Carthage ((140-230 A.D.) a Roman Montanist heretic and the son of a Roman Centurion) first wrote about the Trinity at the end of the second century where he copied elements of Hindu and Greek ideologies, it was not formally introduced into Christianity until the first Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., which was overseen by Emperor Constantine I*. Its justification is loosely linked to different passages scattered between the Old and New Testaments, which only serve to play on ambiguities between different contextual styles, and then concluding that only God is capable of salvation. The concept of the Holy Spirit to be the part of a Trinity was completely unknown to Jesus and was never advocated by him. When Emperor Constantine supposedly embraced Christianity he insisted that the Christian Church adopted many changes so that the church would be familiar to the superstitious Romans, including the deification of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the polytheising of God through the Trinity. Therefore the concept of the Holy Trinity was forced upon Christianity by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and was wrong!

*Emperor Constantine I was considered to be a convert to Christianity, yet he retained his Pagan Chief Priest title of “Pontifex Maximus” and was not Baptised Christian until on his deathbed in 337 A.D.; ironically Constantine I had in fact converted to Arian Christianity and it was Eusebius the Arian Bishop of Nicomedia who baptised him. After Constantine’s death his son Constantius II, also an Arian, become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire and actually encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene creed. His advisor in these affairs was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had already at the Council of Nicaea been the head of the Arian party, who also was made bishop of Constantinople. Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene creed, especially Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius II became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed, even exiling Liberius and installing Felix II in his place as the new Patriarch of Rome.

By 364 the West had a Roman Catholic emperor in Valentinian I, and when the Catholic Theodosius I became emperor of the East (379), the second ecumenical council was convoked to reaffirm the Nicene formula, and Arianism within the empire was outlawed and driven underground. However, Ulfilas the Bishop of Dacia also known as the “Apostle of the Goths” (c. 311 - c. 382) had carried (c.340) Homoean Arianism to the Goths living in what is now Hungary and the north west Balkan Peninsula with such success that the Visigoths and other Germanic tribes became staunch Arians. Arianism was thus carried over Western Europe and into Africa. The Vandals remained Arians until their defeat by Belisarius (c.534). Among the Lombards the efforts of Gregory I (Patriarch of Rome) and the Lombard queen were successful, and Arianism disappeared there (c.650). In Burgundy the Catholic Franks broke up Arianism by conquest in the 6th century. In Spain, where the conquering Visigoths were Arians, Roman Catholicism was not established until the mid-6th century (by Recared), and Arian ideas survived openly until the eighth century.

http://www.holy-catholic.org/arian/a...ml#trinitarian

That seem like Islamic view on Trinitarianism because we Muslim consider Trinity as Polytheism. We are familiar with Dharmic faith like Hinduism in SEA. Trinity is commonly a Godhead with three different personalities. Only is that Trinity in Hinduism are represented by Shiva (Destroyer and Creating New Cosmic), Vishnu (Preserver and Loving God), and Brahma (Creator). They are One but Three, can't be substituted but three different personality, incarnating as each other. Vishnu incarnating as Rama in Ramayana. Krishna in Mahabharata. Shiva incarnating as Bhajrangi (Hanuman the Monkey) in Ramayana. Vishnu have female aspect which is Lakshmi, Shiva with female aspect Uma and Parvathi, Brahma with his female aspect Sarasvati. It is still head-cracking when we try to understand it further. Monotheism in Islam only about Allah. He is always Allah (God), not anyone else and He never incarnate himself in His slaves or creatures.

Trinity concept in Christianity is represented by Father, Jesus the Son, and Holy Spirit or maybe Theotokos for Orthodox Christians. I tried to understand them but it is also head-cracking.

[malayloveislam]

Here is what I've got from Arian Catholics Homepage:

Nowhere in the Bible is there any reference to the trinity and Jesus never taught trinitarianism to his disciples! Tertullian of Carthage ((140-230 A.D.) a Roman Montanist heretic and the son of a Roman Centurion) first wrote about the Trinity at the end of the second century where he copied elements of Hindu and Greek ideologies, it was not formally introduced into Christianity until the first Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., which was overseen by Emperor Constantine I*. Its justification is loosely linked to different passages scattered between the Old and New Testaments, which only serve to play on ambiguities between different contextual styles, and then concluding that only God is capable of salvation. The concept of the Holy Spirit to be the part of a Trinity was completely unknown to Jesus and was never advocated by him. When Emperor Constantine supposedly embraced Christianity he insisted that the Christian Church adopted many changes so that the church would be familiar to the superstitious Romans, including the deification of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the polytheising of God through the Trinity. Therefore the concept of the Holy Trinity was forced upon Christianity by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and was wrong!

*Emperor Constantine I was considered to be a convert to Christianity, yet he retained his Pagan Chief Priest title of “Pontifex Maximus” and was not Baptised Christian until on his deathbed in 337 A.D.; ironically Constantine I had in fact converted to Arian Christianity and it was Eusebius the Arian Bishop of Nicomedia who baptised him. After Constantine’s death his son Constantius II, also an Arian, become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire and actually encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene creed. His advisor in these affairs was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had already at the Council of Nicaea been the head of the Arian party, who also was made bishop of Constantinople. Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene creed, especially Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius II became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed, even exiling Liberius and installing Felix II in his place as the new Patriarch of Rome.

By 364 the West had a Roman Catholic emperor in Valentinian I, and when the Catholic Theodosius I became emperor of the East (379), the second ecumenical council was convoked to reaffirm the Nicene formula, and Arianism within the empire was outlawed and driven underground. However, Ulfilas the Bishop of Dacia also known as the “Apostle of the Goths” (c. 311 - c. 382) had carried (c.340) Homoean Arianism to the Goths living in what is now Hungary and the north west Balkan Peninsula with such success that the Visigoths and other Germanic tribes became staunch Arians. Arianism was thus carried over Western Europe and into Africa. The Vandals remained Arians until their defeat by Belisarius (c.534). Among the Lombards the efforts of Gregory I (Patriarch of Rome) and the Lombard queen were successful, and Arianism disappeared there (c.650). In Burgundy the Catholic Franks broke up Arianism by conquest in the 6th century. In Spain, where the conquering Visigoths were Arians, Roman Catholicism was not established until the mid-6th century (by Recared), and Arian ideas survived openly until the eighth century.

http://www.holy-catholic.org/arian/a...ml#trinitarian

That seem like Islamic view on Trinitarianism because we Muslim consider Trinity as Polytheism. We are familiar with Dharmic faith like Hinduism in SEA. Trinity is commonly a Godhead with three different personalities. Only is that Trinity in Hinduism are represented by Shiva (Destroyer and Creating New Cosmic), Vishnu (Preserver and Loving God), and Brahma (Creator). They are One but Three, can't be substituted but three different personality, incarnating as each other. Vishnu incarnating as Rama in Ramayana. Krishna in Mahabharata. Shiva incarnating as Bhajrangi (Hanuman the Monkey god) in Ramayana. Vishnu have female aspect which is Lakshmi, Shiva with female aspect Uma and Parvathi, Brahma with his female aspect Sarasvati. It is still head-cracking when we try to understand it further. Monotheism in Islam only about Allah. He is always Allah (God), not anyone else and He never incarnate Himself in His slaves or creatures.

Trinity concept in Christianity is represented by Father, Jesus the Son, and Holy Spirit or maybe Theotokos for Orthodox Christians. I tried to understand them but it is also head-cracking.

[malayloveislam]

Who was Arius?

Arius (256 - 336 AD) was a Libyan theologian and of Berber descent. His father’s name is given as Ammonius. He was educated in the theological school of Antioch (now Antakya) under the distinguished Greek scholar, Presbyter and non-trinitarian Lucian of Antioch. He was regarded as the founder of Arianism, although its concept was by no means new, which some Christian sects regard as a heresy and was a key issue in the early Church, leading to the formation of the heretical Nicene Creed.

At the turn of the fourth century Arius was already known to hold strong views on theology and was a close associate of Lucian and Meletius (an Egyptian schismatic against Peter I), however following reconciliation in AD 306 Arius was ordained as a Deacon by Peter I (Patriarch of Alexandria: AD 300 - 311). Further disputes led the Bishop (Peter I) to excommunicate Arius, who, however, gained the friendship of Achillas, Peter’s successor. Arius was re-instated and then ordained by Achillas (Patriarch of Alexandria 312 - 313) as the Presbyter of the district of Baucalis in Alexandria in AD 313, but when Achillas died that same year Arius was denied the Patriarchate of Alexandria (to which he aspired) by Alexander I of Alexandria (a Sebellianist heretic).

Arius’s most important work was “Thalia” (The Banquet, 323), a work comprising both prose and poetry, in which he defended his beliefs. The document was destroyed by the trinitarians and is no longer extant, and knowledge of most of Arius’s writings comes only from the works of his critics, who, in condemning him, revealed much information.

Arius continued to campaign against trinitarianism. He was excommunicated locally in 321 AD. He was declared orthodox in Asia Minor, where he had fled (323), but he was anathematised by the Council of Nicaea (324) and banished by the Roman Emperor Constantine I (325). But in the reaction after Nicaea, where Arius gained support from Clergy across all Europe especially in the east and at one point Arians outnumbered the trinitarians, he came into imperial favour. The emperor had ordered the Athanasians at Alexandria to receive him at communion when he suddenly died under suspicious circumstances immediately after having an audience with the Emperor at the imperial palace. Arians believed that Arius had been poisoned.

Arius’s legacy however has lived on in spite of its condemnation by the Council of Constantinople (381). Arianism was reinstated by Constantine I who was Baptised as an Arian Christian on his deathbed, and was supported by his son Constantius II who even raised St Felix II as the Arian bishop of Rome. The Arian controversy itself lasted for over 250 years until it was driven underground. Throughout the dark and middle ages trinitarians have brutally attempted to stamp-out Arianism, even the Spanish Inquisition could not quell Arius’s beliefs. As Roman Catholicism began to decline in central Europe, Arianism rose again, even in the Church of England! Today Arianism has returned to the fore with the Arian-Catholic Church lead by the Primus Inter Pares (First Among Equals): Rev Dr Brian B. Michael-John Mackenzie-Hanson.

Arius was recognised as a Saint and Martyr by the Arian Catholic Church on 16th June 2006, which has become his memorial day.

Arius Officially NOT a Heretic! An interesting point to note is that because Arius was officially re-instated into the Full Communion of the church before he died in 336 AD, by the Emperor of Rome, Constantine I, he officially is NOT excommunicated and therefore NOT a heretic according to the Roman Catholic church!

Arianism remained strong in Europe in spite of Roman aggression for a further 250 years and has continued to survive in the sidelines waiting for the time when Arianism can become strong again.

*Berber descent: A member of the indigenous Caucasian peoples of North Africa such as Libya, Morocco and Algeria, speaking related languages.

[Grace Seeker]

Thanks for the link to this modern-day Arian group. The first I had ever heard of them. Let me just say that I find them every bit as heretical as Arius was -- actually a tad more, if that is possible. But I am sure that as a Muslim you would love many (not all) of the things they stand for. Just as with Unitarians (in all forms) I reject that they are truly representative of Christianity. It seems like the saying: "everything old is new again," but it was false the first time and still is.

[The_Prince]

the arians should have a right to be back, they were silenced thanks to the council of nicea.

miss grace seeker, you are comitting a major fallacy, for starters Muslims are not making councils to have a set of fixed doctrines due to ahmadis, why? because their a tiny minority, arians were a very large group, there was trinitarianism, and arianism, two major schools, and then they made nicea, decided that trinity is orthodox and the way, the other is heresy and must be outlawed and banned and eventually it faded.

people, arians were not some fringe heretical group, these people were a major force in early Christianity, dont make any mistake about that!

:) and then lets not forget the lovely marcionites, muahahahahah

[Grace Seeker]

people, arians were not some fringe heretical group, these people were a major force in early Christianity, dont make any mistake about that!

:) and then lets not forget the lovely marcionites, muahahahahah

Well, the Arians were enough of a minority that they got outvoted at Nicea. (I used to have the actual count, but unfortunately don't have it at my fingertips at the moment. It was overwhelmingly against Arius.) And don't blame it on the power of Rome. Nearly all of the delegates from the eastern half of the empire were present, but from the western Roman half only three minor priests were sent to attend.

Curiously, Arianism was not as popular in Arius' lifetime, as it was later and that after the Council of Nicea, not before. But it was popular as a belief of the laity in certain parts of the eastern empire. It was never commonly held by the clergy. Those who say otherwise, need to do a little more reading in church history.

[Grace Seeker]

:exhausted

Your understanding about polytheism is different from Muslim, well I can understand that most Christians today consider that prophet Jesus (pbuh) as Divine. This might have something to do with Trinity concept introduced by Paulus.

I hear this a lot. Muslims writing that Paul introduced, even invented, the concept of Trinity. And then in the next post I will read where someone likes to point out that the word Trinity can't even be found in the Bible. These seem like contrasting views that can't both be relevant. (Notice I didn't say that they can't both be true.)

Anyway, since you assert that Paul introduce the Trinity concept, can you please identify for me where you see that he did this?

[malayloveislam]

Assalamualaikum warahmatullah and peace be upon everyone,

Well, Paulus is technically a Jew but he had Roman citizenship. He maybe had learned Greek Hellenism philosophy and the culture of the Greeks. He is not a direct disciple of prophet Jesus (pbuh), before that he had a very fierce enmity toward the honorable prophet and his teaching. He never heard the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) delivered directly from the mouth of prophet Jesus (pbuh) or meeting prophet Jesus (pbuh) face to face.

Yet, he was suddenly illuminated by revelation to embrace the teaching and he repents after he met the direct disciples of prophet Jesus (pbuh) (The Act of Apostles : 9-13). He then declares that he is among the disciples (apostles) (I Corinthian : 1, and II Corinthian : 5).

The disciples actually do not believe his repentance and the Jew community too never pay attention toward it. In the Christian scriptures, it had been stated about those disciples who spread the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) are Maar Barnaba, and Maar Petrus before Paulus.

The biography of Maar Barnaba:

The Act of Apostles (4) : 36 – 37 / (9) : 26 – 27 / (11) : 22 – 26

The biography of Maar Petrus:

2 Peter (3): 14-16 / The Act of Apostles (1): 12 – 14 / Matthew (10): 2- 4
/ Mark (3): 16 – 19 / Lucas (6): 14 – 16 / John (21): 1 – 2

Many of his teaching are contradictory to what had been preached by prophet Jesus (pbuh) himself. Gospel wasn't recorded very well but it is scattered in the form of incomplete notes and through some memories of his disciples. Although the words of God are scattered and did not compiled well, but we still can trace them because Human-being can't entirely hide His words and messages. We just have to reflect to the history-line with the help of the verses from the books that had been used by Christians in comparison with the history-line and through the help of Glorious Quran for Muslims like us.

Foreign race community around the time where Paulus and Saint Barnabas preaching the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) adore Greek gods or ancient Rome gods such as Zeus, Jupiter, Apollo, Artemis, and etc. In the epistles in NT, Paulus had admitted that he have to renovate the teaching to suit the heathen Romans and Greeks faith and culture as to make it easy for them.

He had modified the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) inherited from previous prophets who are Moses (pbuh) and prophet Abraham (pbuh) including in the term of Creed.

The Creed toward only One Allah had been modified to the Creed of Father the God, Jesus the Son, and Holy Spirit (Gabriel). They are Allah who are three and three that are actually One. The function of Jesus the Son is to salvate mankind from original sin of Adam. Lord Allah who is the Father who had begat the Son incarnate into His Son, suffering torments, descended down the purgatory and resurrected by Himself?? And He incarnates as the Archangel Gabriel to reveal, to teach, to comfort, to testify Jesus, to testify Christians/Jews are the Children or God, to inspire prophecy, to empower the believer to have victory over the flesh, and etc.

The heathen Greeks and Romans in the same time believing that their gods die because of their sins and later alive again. Paulus expressed that Jesus (pbuh) was the Son of God and in the form of the Son, He died to eliminate the sins of man-kind with the sacrifice of His blood. Non-Jew groups started to see consanguinity and large similarities between the modified version of the teaching of Jesus (pbuh) with their previous faith. They only have to exchange several denominations in their previous religion but the concept is still the same. By this way, Paulus succeed in convincing the Greeks and Romans but he can't convince the majority of Jew community to accept the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh).

It had been reported that when they arrived at Lucaonia and heal a person who suffered lame, they were rumoured as gods who had incarnated to them in the form of human. The Greeks called Maar Barnaba as Jupiter and Paulus as Mercury. And then the Greek priests who served Jupiter brought poultry and garlands to the arch doors of the town. They wanted to perform sacrifice with the civilians to their mis-assumed gods Maar Barnaba and Paulus. When those two Maar Barnaba and Paulus heard about the rumor, they immediately tear down their robes and rushing to the place of sacrifice to stop them (Acts of Apostles 14 : 15).

The reaction of the Greeks such as assuming Maar Barnaba and Paulus as their mythological gods had indicated that they were facing problems in spreading the new teaching which is weird in the eyes of the polytheist Greeks. A person who knows prophet Jesus (pbuh) will easily recognize the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) as the continuation of the teaching of prophet Moses (pbuh), they are basically the same. But for the majority of Greek idolaters, this teaching is seen as weird and new to them. Generally idolaters recognize Gods as incarnating in various forms and those forms are known as the gods.

The depiction of Jesus (pbuh) as God the Son is suitable with one of their god or maybe through this way, it is easy for them to accept the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh). Through the Trinity understanding, it is easy for them to comprehend the nature of God in their own understanding. The teaching of Jesus (pbuh), prophet Moses (pbuh), and prophet Abraham (pbuh) is actually the teaching of pure Monotheism where those various gods being eliminated, God is only God, can't be represented by anything. The heathen Greeks or Romans can't accept this basis of Creed. For a person who are as strict as Maar Barnaba and as sincere as Paulus, the task of teaching what had been taught by prophet Jesus (pbuh) in Greece will be a burden if they did not suit or bend it according to their environment.

As for Paulus, he displays the tendency to alter the teaching that he knows, as he can see the opportunity for missionary activity in Greece by first to assimilate the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) through the deification of prophet Jesus (pbuh), Jesus (pbuh) had been converted into Greek a god nature. At that time, Greece had been a part of Roman empire. Roman gods display similarities with Greek gods and Paulus had seized this opportunity to spread the teaching through the alteration way. He knows that it is not easy to convert those Roman-Greek idolaters into the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh), instead he had bending the teaching to suit the way of the Romans and Greeks.

Paulus had innovated and invent a new teaching that is suitable with the Greeks and other non-Jews creed and their way of life. Paulus too had learned about Greek culture and philosophy (Hellenism). He also aware about the Stoa school of thinking where the Universe or Nature is God for them. His persistence in harmonizing the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) with the previous creed of the heathens had made it easier for him to convert the Greco-Romans into the new religion that he had brought. Those creed of the Greco-Roman later become the basic doctrines of Christianity.

Conclusions of the teaching taught by Paulus:

1. Paulus taught that God is not One but Two, namely God the Father and God the Son represented by prophet Jesus (pbuh) (I Corinthian 1 : 3).

2. Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is equal and in fact the same entity with Him, on the other hand He is actually Allah. Although it is accepted that Paulus is not the one who concluded the doctrine of Trinity, he is actually the founder of this heresy for the doctrine to be established in the period after.

3. Prophet Jesus (pbuh) died on the crucifixion, died, and being kept in the sepulcher, resurrected in the third day of his death, ascended to the Heaven and remain at the right hand of Allah. He was crucified to eliminate the Sins of the whole man-kind, nobody spared from the Original Sin as it is inherited from Adam (pbuh).

4. Paulus are the one who taught that the Law of Torah is not valid anymore after the crucifixion event of Jesus in Golgotha. He claims that the Law of Torah is actually the source of Sins and unbearable curse (Na3uzubillah). He had stated his arrogance speech in Galatia 5 : 4.

[malayloveislam]

Not to waste the space, here is what Allah had told us in Glorious Quran about the inhabitants of the cave in Ephesus, since we had encountered about the apostles were sent to the city Ephesus in the below post, it had shown us that there are early Jesus followers, or the follower of Monotheism concept of One Allah who do not adhere to Trinity concept, they are earlier follower of Jesus (pbuh) even earlier than Paulus:

I had read somewhere, I think in an article from a magazine in my country that the Cave is in Jordan today 7km from Amman, the capital of today Jordan. Previously the area of that cave was called as Ar-Raqim by the locals, means the Record, the Carved, the Number. This word had been mentioned in Glorious Quran, some Quranic interpreter interprete the word as the name of the dog which accompanying the young men who hide in the cave and some interprete it as inscription. Allah told us about those young men in Surah Al-Kahfi verses 9-26. They are 7 young men, who had ran away from their polytheist people and family who worshiped idols. They hide in a cave and Allah had made them asleep in order to save their faith until they can't hear any voice for 309 years (lunar calender) and 300 years (Gregory calender). Muslim and Christian both are using the guidance from Glorious Quran and Bible to dig up the history. In Islam, those things of searching the location or the time of those men or any other things mentioned in Quran is not as important as adhering to the basis principal of Monotheism, where Allah is the One and the Only God, no other than Him. These stories are actually good lessons for Muslim, and the later community to defend our faith and not to associate Allah with any creature.

Muslim scholars had two hypothesis about when the event of those young men who are the first followers of Jesus (pbuh) hiding in the cave, they are not important for Muslims, we already believe in Glorious Quran, God knowledge is beyond the time boundaries:

1) This event happened during the reign of Roman Emperor, in Arabic his name is uttered as Diqyanus and in Latin it is Decius who had his control on Amman and rule over the area near Amman around 249-251 CE. Diqyanus is notorious as among those who hate the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) and he had tortured the early followers of prophet Jesus (pbuh) in his Kingdom. Those young men are not common civilians but the sons of the ministers and officials in Decius government. Those young men fell asleep in the cave once they escape from the imprisonment and they wake up again (raised) in the time of Theodocius II (reigned in 450-521 CE).

2) This event happened during the reign of Emperor Trajan (98-117 CE). He is a staunch idolater and he killed those who had opposed his faith. Historical manuscripts had indicated that he had decreed the law about his faith as official and his subjects must stick to the official religion or risked being killed. Those young men was said being raised from their long sleep in the reign of Theodocius (408-450 CE).

The controversy about the location of the Cave:

Scholars had stated that the location might be in Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia or Spain. In Turkey itself, there are 4 locations being claimed as the location where those young men fell asleep (Ephesus, Tarsus, Kahramanmaras, and Mardin). The writer of the article had the opportunity to visit 3 locations that were claimed as the place where those young men fell asleep. They are in Abu Alanda, Jordan. Ephesus, in Turkey, and Jabal Qassiyun in Syria.

The writer of the article had made conclusion from his reading and through observations that those two locations in Ephesus and Jabal Qassiyun didn't prove much that the event happened there. He refer to Glorious Quran about the nature of the cave and he said that it is resembling the cave which is in Abu Alanda, in Jordan. He said, that three things observed by him through the assistant of Quranic verse are:

1) Surah Kahfi verse 17

"And you will see the sun when it rises, leaning to the right of their cave, and when it sink, leaving them to the left, while they are in a space of the cave..." (sorry for poor translation, this is literal, please refer to authoritative translation)

2) Surah Kahfi verse 21

"Thus, (some of them) they said: build up a building above (the cave), their God knows every matters that they are going to commit. And said those who are in charge on the matter (King's representative): "we wanted to build a mosque (place of worship)."

3) Surah kahfi verse 17

"...while they are in a space of the cave..."

The cave in Abu Alanda is wide and with space, it is also not deep.

The writer said that, above the cave, there is a place of worship constructed at that time after the young men were raised up from their long sleep. He said that the place of worship is actually the place of the followers of Jesus (pbuh) pray. The place had been turned into a mosque in the reign of Umawiyah Caliphate.

Archeological artifacts in Abu Alanda Cave:

1. There is writing carved at the curval line of the door at the eastern wall of the place of worship build above the cave saying: "the mosque had been renovated in 117 H, referring to the reign of Hisyam Ben Abdul Malik Ben Marwan of Umawiyah Caliphate. This had proven that before this the mosque was previously used by the follower of Jesus (pbuh). The remaining prove that still can be seen is the Mihrab (place of facing our face when we pray) directing toward Jerusalem.

2. Khat Kufi calligraphy carved had indicated that the second mosque at the cave had been renovated in the reign of Khomarumiah Ben Ahmad Thouloun from Abbasiah Caliphate. The second mosque here refers to the mosque constructed in front of the cave after the first mosque was renovated from the previous place of worship in Umawiyah period.

3. Nawawis remaining in the cave. Nawawi in Mu'jam Wasit (page 962) means the grave of Christians or sepulcher. At the Nawawis, there is a symbol of star with eight sharp edges pointing to the period of Rome-Byzantine rule in 3rd C. According to the customs at that time, the corpse of the dead will be kept in a sepulcher. It is possible that those who had managed the corpse of those men had buried them according to their customs and way at that time.

4. The founding of fine-earthenware, silver and bronze coins, lamps from various periods (Umawiya, Abbasiah, Uthmaniyya) in the cave and the area around. It had shown that the place had been guarded since long time ago.

5. Al-Waqidi in his book Futuhat Sham had wrote that he and his friends had stop by in Ain Ma' near the cave of the young men. They took ablution, prayed, and sleep for a while before continuing their journey tomorrow to Palestine. Ain Ma' is located 70 m from the cave.

6. An olive tree grown in front of the cave since thousand years ago. The tree was dead and the cut of the tree trunk had been displayed in the mini museum in the cave.

7. The finding of skeletons in the Nawawis (sepulchers). It is said that those skeletons belong to those young men.

From the archeological artifacts, it is possible that those young men told by God to us in Surah Kahfi had been asleep in the cave of Abu Alanda in Jordan for 300 years.

In the end, Wallahu A3lam, God knows the best.

[malayloveislam]

It had been said that Maar Barnaba is the one who had accepted Paulus after a while he had repented. He had never received the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh) directly but being classified as among the apostles (disciples). But since he himself had claimed to be among the apostles of Jesus (pbuh), thus the teaching that he had taught to the Greeks and Romans too had been claimed as "God Revelation," (Galatian 1 : 11-12).

We can interprete "God Revelation" of Paulus as God the Son who Revealed it or Revealed by God the Father or revealed by both God the Son and God the Father. We Muslim only believe that Revelation is Revealed by Allah to His messengers and prophets through the emissary of Archangel Gabriel, only prophet Moses was revealed directly which only Allah knows how did they communicate, we always hold on this statement.

Prime Christians today might be interpreting God Jesus the incarnation of God the Father who revealed the scriptures. No offence, this is just a comparison through Muslim view.

Paulus admitted that the Gospel that he had taught is not the Gospel that had been brought by the apostles other than him. Paulus said in Galatians 1:6-9:

6. I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ.

8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Here, we also can see Paulus attitude who narrated the gospel which is different from those that had been narrated by the apostles. Paulus had been furious and condemning everyone who do not believe in the gospel which had been narrated and hold by him. He asked everyone to just accept what had been brought and taught by him. In Islam we call this as taqlid, means accepting without further researches. He also asked everyone to believe that he is among the apostles with the argument that his reputation is no lesser than those listed apostles other than him.

Paulus said in II Corinthian 11:4-5:

4. For he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

5. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

It had been recorded in the scripture that the apostles (disciples) are trying to avoid Paulus until one of them who is Maar Barnaba put his trust on him and protecting him. Through Maar Barnaba, Paulus was accepted by those apostles (disciples) of prophet Jesus (pbuh) and his name Saulus was changed to Paulus.

Those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, both disciples and those who came after them, in the land were: Peter the disciple and Paul with him (Paul belonged to the followers and was not a disciple) to Rome. Andrew and Matthew to the land of the cannibals; Thomas to the land of Babel, which is in the land of the east; Philip to Carthage and Africa; John to Ephesus the city of the young men of the cave; James to Jerusalem which is Aelia the city of the sanctuary; Bartholomew to Arabia which is the land of Hijaz; Simon to the land of Berbers; Judah who was not one of the disciples was put in place of Judas.

Along the journey of spreading the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh), Maar Barnaba had been accompanied by Paulus, thus his notorious reputation as the killer of the prophet followers transformed into the image of the most loyal follower of the honorable prophet (pbuh). Paulus started to use the term "slave of Jesus" and "apostle of Jesus" at the beginning of his epistles.

The nature of maar Barnaba and Paulus had been portrayed in the Acts of Apostles 13:1-2:

1. Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

In the list of prophet Jesus (pbuh) disciples, Lucas had mentioned Maar Barnaba at the first list and Saulus/Paulus at the last.

Because they had been chosen to co-operate, the apostles (disciples) scattered, and Maar Barnaba, Paulus, Marcus had traveled together to preach prophet Jesus (pbuh) teaching in Greece. James the son of Mary with Joseph her husband and Petrus was left behind to lead the followers.

In the Acts, it had been narrated that those apostles (disciples) sometimes were stoned in few places. Maar Barnaba and Paulus had both been successful in spreading the teaching of prophet Jesus (pbuh). Their reputation as the human-messenger of God (Jesus??) had been shining too.

In Surah Yaa-Sin, Allah had told us about a follower of prophet Jesus was stoned in Antioch. He died and he was called as Habib An-Najjar (Surah Yaa-Sin 36: 13-29, Juzz 22 and 23) :cry:, a very sad event. This man had begged his tribe to accept the teaching of the apostles (disciples). There are three disciples who had been in charge to teach those inhabitant of a town in Antioch (Antaqiya). Habib An-Najjar is among those who had accepted the teaching in Antioche. For me Habib An-Najjar is a Muslim not a Christian.

[malayloveislam]

Oh yeah when talking about Greeks I recall that Greeks too had entered ancient India through Alexander the Great military expansion, they might have sharing ideas in philosophy with Indians.

This had happened post-vedic time. Indian civilization had been contributed a lot to SEA, our ancestors in South East Asia had first received Brahmanism (Vedic Hinduism Cult) from India before Buddhism thrived in and then Hinduism. Only in 8th C Islam had illuminating our area. So, if you are reading the history of SEA, you can see that we have a lot of Indian influenced customs and tradition syncretised with traditional animism and shamanism.

I had remembered that I had read something about Shri Krishna Govindaswamy. He is actually a man but had been deified and Hindus claimed him as the incarnation of Vishnu Narayan. Krishna was said born by virgin Devaki and his father was said a carpenter. His birth was attended by angels, wise men, and shepherd. He was presented with gold, myrrh and frankincense. Later, he was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.

Traditional belief based on scriptural details and astrological calculations gives the date of Krishna's birth, known as Janmashtami, as either 18 or 21 July 3228 BCE. Krishna belonged to the royal family of Mathura, and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva. Mathura was the capital of the Yadavas (also called the Surasenas), to which Krishna's parents Vasudeva and Devaki belonged to. The king Kamsa, Devaki's cousin, had ascended the throne by imprisoning his father, King Ugrasena. Afraid of a prophecy that predicted his death at the hands of Devaki's eighth son, he had locked the couple into a prison cell. After killing the first six children, and Devaki's apparent miscarriage of the seventh, being transferred to Rohini as Balarama, Krishna took birth.

Krishna is from a royal descendant and he was baptized in the river Ganges. Since he is a god, he works miracles, raised the dead and healed lepers, cured deaf and the blind. Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love. He lived poor life and loved the poor. He was transfigured in front of his disciples. In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves (1200 BC). He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Krishna is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word." He is the second person of the Trinity (Trimurthi), and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father." He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. Krishna is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth.

This summary is based on details from the Mahābhārata, the Harivamsa, the Bhagavata Purana and the Vishnu Purana. The scenes from the narrative are set in north India, mostly in the present states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, Delhi and Gujarat.

Krishna is an incarnation of the second personality of Hindu Trinity who is Vishnu Narayan. Vishnu is the Lord of Love, the Preserver and his skin is dark blue. Vishnu has 10 Avatars or Incarnations (Dashavataram). I remebered I had watched a Tamil movie from India with the actor Kamal Hassan being the incarnation. I don't know if this person is a Muslim, Muslim are prohibited from playing any role as gods or divinity whether in movie, theatre, dramas, etc.

[malayloveislam]

To understand about how the philosophy of India too being shared by the Greeks and Romans, we have to understand about the invasion of Ionians and other barbarous classified tribes into India BC. Here are the proof that they had been in India.

"Yona" is a Pali word used in ancient India to designate Greek speakers. Its equivalent in Sanskrit is the word "Yavana". "Yona" and "Yavana" are both transliterations of the Greek word for "Ionians" (Homer Iāones, older *Iāwones), who were probably the first Greeks to be known in the East.

Direct identification of these words with the Greeks include:

1. The mention of the "Yona king Antiochus" in the Edicts of Ashoka (280 BCE)

2. The mention of the "Yona king Antialcidas" in the Heliodorus pillar in Vidisha (110 BCE)

3. King Menander and his bodyguard of "500 Yonas" in the Milinda Panha.

4. The description of Greek astrology and Greek terminology in the Yavanajataka ("Sayings of the Yavanas") (150 CE).

5. The mention of "Alexandria, the city of the Yonas" in the Mahavamsa, Chapter 29 (4th century CE).

Although the association with eastern Greeks seems to have been quite precise and systematic until the beginning of our era (other foreigners had their own descriptor, such as Sakas, Pahlavas, Kambojas etc...), these terms came to designate more generally "Europeans" and later "foreigners" in the following centuries.

Reference:
The shape of ancient thought. Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian philosophies, by Thomas Mc Evilly (Allworth Press, New York 2002) ISBN 1-58115-203-5

Try google up these for further details:

1. Greco-Buddhism

2. Yavana Kingdom

3. Names of the Greek

4. Kambojas

[sur]

I find it interesting that the Ahmadi use the same Qu'ran as Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, yet they have radically different beliefs regarding what it means to be Muslim.

but our concepts of divinity of GOD Almighty r same...

=========================
I'd like to contribute ti this thread:-
http://christianforums.com/showthrea...ight=unitarian
http://www.ccg.org/english/s/P268.html

[rpwelton]

From what I've read about the Ahmadis, they are sort of like the equivalent of the Mormons to Christianity.

The Ahmadis believe in prophets after Muhammad (peace be upon him) and additional revelation that they've incorporated into traditional Islamic teachings.

So in that sense, they are not the same as Unitarians being considered Christian because as far as I know, Unitarianism (maybe not the name but the general belief) existed from Day 1 of Christianity, whereas Ahmadism came about just a few centuries ago.

[sur]

:exhausted

I hear this a lot. Muslims <a onMouseOver="javascript:window.status='writing';re turn true;" onMouseOut="javascript:window.status='';return true;" href="http://dingalone.info/?v=3%2E03&ss=writing">writing</a> that Paul introduced, even invented, the concept of Trinity. And then in the next post I will read where someone likes to point out that the word Trinity can't even be found in the Bible. These seem like contrasting views that can't both be relevant. (Notice I didn't say that they can't both be true.)

Anyway, since you assert that Paul introduce the Trinity concept, can you please identify for me where you see that he did this?

most quoted verse refering to trinity in bible (1John:5:7) was an interpolation/fabrication:-
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html

*Paul admit here that he was the 1st one given "Mystery" about Jesus:-
EPH 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed......


*Other disciples who met Jesus in his life-on-earth, bitterly opposed Paul in many things who "NEVER" even met Jesus:-
Gal:2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
1COR 3:4 For while one saith, I follow Paul; and another, I follow Apollos; are ye not carnal?




*Paul did invent gospels- Did any other disciple claimed like “MY Gospel”???
ROM 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
ROM 16:25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
1COR 7:17: ….this is the rule I(Paul) lay down in all the churches

[sur]

From what I've read about the Ahmadis, they are sort of like the equivalent of the Mormons to Christianity.

The Ahmadis believe in prophets after Muhammad (peace be upon him) and additional revelation that they've incorporated into traditional Islamic teachings.

So in that sense, they are not the same as Unitarians being considered Christian because as far as I know, Unitarianism (maybe not the name but the general belief) existed from Day 1 of Christianity, whereas Ahmadism came about just a few centuries ago.

there r at least 2 main groups in Ahmadis, one take Mirza Ahmad as prophet while other group(Lahori Group) takes him as "Wali" (Saint) & not as prophet.

[جوري]

I find it interesting that the Ahmadi use the same Qu'ran as Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, yet they have radically different beliefs regarding what it means to be Muslim.

Actually they don't use the same Quran!

cheers

[جوري]

Name of Questioner

Muslimah - Indonesia

Title

Qadyaniyyah in Focus

Question

Dear scholars, As-Salaam `Alaykum
Would you please shed some light on the Ahmadiyyah or Qadyaniyyah movement? Jazakum Allah khayran.

Date

06/Jul/2002

Name of Counsellor

Islam Online Fatwa Editing Desk

Topic

Ideologies, Movements & Religions

Answer

Wa`alykum As-Salaamu Warahmatullahi Wabarakaatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear sister in Islam, thanks for showing great keenness on understanding the teachings of your religion and we pray to Allah to keep us firm on the Straight Path.

As regards the question you posed, we quote for you the fatwa issued by Islamic Fiqh Academy on Qadyaniyyah, with slight additions from other sources. It goes as follows:

Definition:

Qadyaniyyah (also known as Ahmadiyyah) is an Indian-based movement that was established under the patronage of the British colonial powers in 1900 for the aim of driving Muslims away from their religion and, most definitely, the religious duty of Jihad, which, they feared, might be used to stage rebellion against the British occupation. The mouthpiece of the movement was Religions, a magazine that was issued in English at that time.

Dogmas and Ideology:

Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the movement, began his activities as an Islamic caller to attract as many supporters as he could. Later, he claimed himself a reformer and a divinely-inspired man. Afterwards, he said that he was the awaited Mahdi. Later on, he claimed prophethood and even said that his prophethood was much better than that of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.

The followers of this group believe that Allah, Glorified be He, performs some acts befitting the mortals, like fasting, praying, sleeping, and even committing mistakes. But Allah Almighty is Far Exalted above what they say!

A Qadyani believes that his lord is English as he speaks to him in English. He also believes that Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, is not the seal of Prophets and that Allah Almighty sends new prophets according to time and need, and that Ghulam Ahmad is the greatest prophet. The followers of this sect also believe that Angel Gabriel used to come to Ghulam Ahmad and convey revelations to him. In addition, they say that the only accepted book is the book presented by Ghulam Ahmad, his words are the only accepted words and that all prophets stand under his control. Furthermore, they believe that their book, known as Al-Mubeen is a heavenly-revealed one.

They continue spreading their false ideas by saying that they have a new religion totally different from all other religions and that the companions of Ghulam Ahmad are like the Prophet’s Companions. Moreover, they say that Qadyan, their leader’s place of birth, is like, or even better than, Makkah and Madinah, so they take it as their prayer direction and a center of pilgrimage. They call for ignoring Jihad and showing complete obedience to the British empire, because it represents the ruler to whom obedience is due. To them, every Muslim is a Kafir (disbeliever) until he converts to their belief, and that anyone who marries a non-Qadyani is considered an unbeliever. They also allow wine, opium, intoxicants and drugs.

In 1914 the followers of Ghulam Ahmad were divided into two groups. The overwhelming majority of his followers belong to the first group known as Qadyanis and were headed by Bashiruddin Mahmud, the second successor of Ghulam Ahmad. The second group known as Lahori, and founded by Muhammad ‘Ali Lahori, is a minority among the followers of Ghulam Ahmad. The second group have a less striking tone of their principles by claiming that they do not believe in Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet in the real sense of the term but as Mujaddid (a renovator). However, they still believe him to be true in all other claims, which led Muslims to regard them also as outside the pale of Islam.

Qadianiyah in the Eyes of Muslims:

On the month of Rabi` Al-Awwal 1394 A.H. (April 1974 A.C.) a large conference was held in the Muslim World League headquarters in Makkah and was attended by many representatives of international Islamic organizations. The communiqué issued by this conference branded this group as Kafirs (unbelievers). It also recommended that all Muslims should stand to face this group and never deal with its members and not to bury them in Muslim cemeteries.

Moreover, Qadyaniyyah followers have good relations with Israel that helped them issue a special magazine (that stands as their mouthpiece) and many other pamphlets that are distributed all over the world.

Conclusion:

Based on the above-mentioned facts, we can say that Qadyaniyyah is a deviant group that has nothing to do with Islam. Muslims are to be aware of them especially after they have been branded as Kafirs by all scholars.


For more information, you can read the following:

- Muhammad Iqbal, Islam and Ahmadism, Lahore-Pakistan, 1976.
- Syed Abul Ala Maudoodi, The Qadiani Problem, Karachi, 1956.
- Ehsan Elahi Zaheer, Qadiyaniat: An Analytical Survey, Lahore-Pakistan, 1976.
- Mahmood A. Ghazi, Qadiani Problem and Position of the Lahori Group, Islamic Book Foundation, Islamabad, 1991.
- Bashir Ahmad, Ahamadiyya Movement: British Jewish Connections, Islamabad, 1994.

- Mane`Bin Hammad Al-Juhani, Al-Mawsu`ah Al-Muyassarah fi Al-Adyan wal Madhahib Al-Mu`asirah.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503544300


they use a modified Quran, and actually believe that Ghulam was christ re-incarnate, so perhaps they should be considered a christian sect instead, considering their conception was also at the hands of christian brits?


I'd ask the mods not to remove this post because it is the most concise and excellent explanation of the kaffir agenda against Islam

:w:

[Whatsthepoint]

...

[Grace Seeker]

Unitarianism (maybe not the name but the general belief) existed from Day 1 of Christianity, whereas Ahmadism came about just a few centuries ago.

I disagree. Unitarianism as it presently exists did not exist as a part of Christianity "from Day 1." Let us look at the first sermon given on the birthday of the Church, which was Pentecost. The sermon is given by Peter (notice, not Paul) and is recorded in the Book of Acts, chapter 2:

Acts 2

1When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?"

13Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine."

14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning! 16No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17" 'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25David said about him:
" 'I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
26Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will live in hope,
27because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
28You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.'

29"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
35until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet." '

36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Notice that Peter refers to "the Lord" as "our God" (verse 39) and also says that God has made Jesus "both Lord and Christ" (verse 36). So, the use of the term "Lord" in reference to Jesus not the equivalent of saying "sir", but of referencing Jesus as "God". This is further substantiated by the reference to the "coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord" (verse 20), a reference taken from the Tanakh that speaks of God's day breaking forth on the earth. Plus we are told that "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (verse 21). For Jesus to be not just Christ (or Messiah), but also Lord is tantamount to Peter equating Jesus with the God of the Tanakh.

To cap this off, Peter notes that the prophecy says that it is those who call on the name of the Lord (i.e. the God of the Jews) who will be saved, and when the Jews who have gathered in the Jerusalem hear his sermon the ask Peter what it is that they need to do (verse 37). But Peter's answer is not to call on the name of the Lord, but rather to "repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ" (verse 38). It is then, after they have made such an identification with Jesus (who Peter says is not just the Lord's anointed but the Lord himself), that they are to receive God's gift of the Holy Spirit in their lives.


Finally, please note that the allusions to the Holy Spirit are written as if it is God himself at work in people's lives.

These are not the views of what passes today for Unitarianism, but they are the views of the very first Christians on "Day 1"!

[Grace Seeker]

If I might go beyond "Day 1", for what purpose do you think it was that...

Saul [i.e., Paul] was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. [Or that Paul] went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way [i.e., Christianity], whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.

If the eariliest Christians were in fact good monotheistic unitarians, what objection would the Jews have had against them?

The fact is that it is a myth that the earliest Christians were Unitarians. Though later these ideas began to infiltrate the church, they were not present in the beginning.

[rpwelton]

If I might go beyond "Day 1", for what purpose do you think it was that... If the eariliest Christians were in fact good monotheistic unitarians, what objection would the Jews have had against them?

The fact is that it is a myth that the earliest Christians were Unitarians. Though later these ideas began to infiltrate the church, they were not present in the beginning.

When I say Unitarian, I basically mean believing that Jesus is only a prophet and not God incarnate. Obviously today's Unitarians do not follow the Jewish law, but their core belief of holding Jesus as a prophet goes all the way back to the foundations of Christianity.

I am going to research this further and get back to you with some evidence. However, for now I will say that there were a group of Jews that followed Jesus' brother James and they practiced strict Judaism.

[Grace Seeker]

When I say Unitarian, I basically mean believing that Jesus is only a prophet and not God incarnate. Obviously today's Unitarians do not follow the Jewish law, but their core belief of holding Jesus as a prophet goes all the way back to the foundations of Christianity.

Again, I disagree. That was not a core belief that goes back to the foundations of Christianity. Read Peter's sermon again and you won't find that view expressed there in what is the founding sermon of the Christian faith.

You might also want to check out the Didache, which was the teaching of the church, argued by some to have been in use even before the first book of what became the New Testament was written. It is the most Jewish of all Christian writings, and perhaps for this reason, while some sought to include it as part of the New Testament, it was ultimately not included as part of the canon. Nevertheless it is definitely both Christian and Trinitarian -- just check out the baptismal formula: "Concerning baptism, baptize in this way : having first rehearsed all these things, baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in living water" (The Didache, 7:1).

I am going to research this further and get back to you with some evidence. However, for now I will say that there were a group of Jews that followed Jesus' brother James and they practiced strict Judaism.

Well, as along as any group was practicing strict Judaism, then they weren't Christian. It is what you do with Jesus that delineates pure Jews from Christians-Jews.

As to James, tradition holds that the Lord had a brother named James who did become a leader of the church, based in Jerusalem, and that he was the author of the book of James in the Bible. That book is clearly the most Jewish of all of the books in the New Testament. I still see Jesus lifted up as Lord in it and then the the Lord and God being used as equivalent terms. But another thing you will want to look at in your research is that according to Galatians, the earliest book of the New Testament...

James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars [of the Church], gave me [Paul] and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me [to preach the Gospel of Jesus]. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

And we all know exactly what it was the Paul preached regarding Jesus. So, if James was in agreement with Paul regarding this, as Paul claims he was, then it seems that James was every bit as Trinitarian as Paul. And this is independently backed up in the book of Acts. James rules over the Council of Jerusalem in which Paul was brought before the Apostles for redress by elements in the Church that by then were pressing that any Gentile converts to Christianity must become Jews first in order to be considered part of the Church. After hear all sides, James makes the following decision that Gentiles should honor what are considered the Noahide commands of the Tanakh for non-Jews to be considered righteous, but that they do not have to become Jews. Further, he sends Paul and Barnabas back to out on the mission field with a letter that includes the following line: "So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 15:25-26). In other words, James is calling Jesus Lord. In the context of the book of Acts, that means that James is calling Jesus God, just as Peter had done in Acts chapter 2.

Again, I'm not saying that you don't have some who try to turn Christianity back into a unitarian religion fairly early in the life of the Church. But such views simple do NOT represent the foundational beliefs of the Church. And when they were first met, they were vigorously opposed across the board by the likes of Peter, James, and John, not to mention Paul (who was perhaps the last of that list of persons to come to the conclusion that Jesus was Lord).

[جوري]

Matthew 16:13-19 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some [say] John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He said unto them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father who is in heaven.”And I also say unto you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
However, immediately after this Peter is strongly reprimanded and called Satan.
Matthew 16:20-23 Then he charged the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ. From that time Jesus began to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, be killed, and the third day be raised up. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, “Be it far from you, Lord: this shall never be unto you.” But he turned, and said unto Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: you art a stumbling-block unto me: for you have in mind not the things of God, but the things of men.”
I believe that this latter response by Jesus was actually his response to Peter in the first quote above but the scribes placed it out of context to change the meaning.


on a seprate note.. did Jesus actually refer to peter as peter? doesn't sound like a very 'Jewish' name

cheers

[Keltoi]

Matthew 16:13-19 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some [say] John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He said unto them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father who is in heaven.”And I also say unto you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
However, immediately after this Peter is strongly reprimanded and called Satan.
Matthew 16:20-23 Then he charged the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ. From that time Jesus began to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, be killed, and the third day be raised up. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, “Be it far from you, Lord: this shall never be unto you.” But he turned, and said unto Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: you art a stumbling-block unto me: for you have in mind not the things of God, but the things of men.”
I believe that this latter response by Jesus was actually his response to Peter in the first quote above but the scribes placed it out of context to change the meaning.


on a seprate note.. did Jesus actually refer to peter as peter? doesn't sound like a very 'Jewish' name

cheers

No, Christ's response to Peter in this verse is directed at Peter's belief that Jesus would not be taken, tortured, and killed in Jerusalem.

When Christ says: "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do." He is accusing Peter of attempting to deflect Christ from His God-appointed course. Something that Satan attempted to do during the Temptation.

As for Peter's name, he was actually called Simon son of Jonah, but was given the Aramaic name Cephas by Jesus or the early Church. The name means "rock" and was translated into Greek as "Peter."

[جوري]

No, Christ's response to Peter in this verse is directed at Peter's belief that Jesus would not be taken, tortured, and killed in Jerusalem.

When Christ says: "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do." He is accusing Peter of attempting to deflect Christ from His God-appointed course. Something that Satan attempted to do during the Temptation.

Sure.. whatever tickles your fancy :)

As for Peter's name, he was actually called Simon son of Jonah, but was given the Aramaic name Cephas by Jesus or the early Church. The name means "rock" and was translated into Greek as "Peter."

I know what his real name was, it was a rhetorical questions to highlight how not just names but the religion evolves by Chinese whispers ..

petrosal indeed denotes (rock like or calcified) thanks for stating the obvious

cheers

[Keltoi]

Sure.. whatever tickles your fancy :)

...and the same would apply to your imaginative conclusion

I know what his real name was, it was a rhetorical questions to highlight how not just names but the religion evolves by Chinese whispers ..

petrosal indeed denotes (rock like or calcified) thanks for stating the obvious

cheers

Oh forgive me, I mistakenly took your question seriously.

As for the changing names, this was the Hellenistic world. The Greek language was the language of commerce and scholarship. The fact that Peter recieved a Greek name has no bearing on Christianity whatsoever...outside of your obvious need for it to be so.

[جوري]

...and the same would apply to your imaginative conclusion

A strange thing, this gift called logic & and reasonable sound judgment!

Oh forgive me, I mistakenly took your question seriously.

Judging by your constant lack of cohesion and replies that have no relevance whatsoever to the questions, I am not surprised you are unable to distinguish satire from true inquiry!

As for the changing names, this was the Hellenistic world. The Greek language was the language of commerce and scholarship. The fact that Peter recieved a Greek name has no bearing on Christianity whatsoever...outside of your obvious need for it to be so.

Again, whatever tickles your fancy.. If you'll make Gods of men divide them by three, with alter egos and mothers and the anticlimax of eating sins, a name change hardly seems like the sore spot in that heap of mess...

cheers

[rpwelton]

I'm still digging further on this issue, but thought that you could clarify something for me. Peter seems a bit confused in his sermon:

22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

He clearly states that God performed miracles through Jesus and that Jesus was just a man.

Later on, of course he goes on to tell the people to ask forgiveness for their sins in the name of Jesus.

So it seems Peter can't make up his mind between Jesus being a man sent by God through whom God performed miracles, or God himself that who is able to forgive sins.

Can you clarify this matter?

[Grace Seeker]

I believe that this latter response by Jesus was actually his response to Peter in the first quote above but the scribes placed it out of context to change the meaning.


on a seprate note.. did Jesus actually refer to peter as peter? doesn't sound like a very 'Jewish' name

cheers

On what basis do you believe that the scribes changed the placement of Jesus' answer to Peter?

A strange thing, this gift called logic & and reasonable sound judgment!

Where is the evidence of logic? I see only the statement: "I believe..." with no substantiation for that particular belief even attempted.

[Grace Seeker]

I'm still digging further on this issue, but thought that you could clarify something for me. Peter seems a bit confused in his sermon:



He clearly states that God performed miracles through Jesus and that Jesus was just a man.

Later on, of course he goes on to tell the people to ask forgiveness for their sins in the name of Jesus.

So it seems Peter can't make up his mind between Jesus being a man sent by God through whom God performed miracles, or God himself that who is able to forgive sins.

Can you clarify this matter?

I think that you are right that Peter had a little trouble knowing exactly how to refer to Jesus. He had multiple things to contend with:
1) his own personal experience that was convincing him of the divine nature of Jesus,
2) that this was a new experience and a just forming belief for which he had not prior existing language, note how much he borrowed from previous scripture,
3) that those to whom he was speaking would have no context whatsoever to apply Peter's new insights to their own minds.

As a result I think that Peter spoke of Jesus as a man to the crowd because that is how they would have perceived him, based on any prior information they would have had about him. What I see Peter doing then is set up a contrast between him as the man they executed because the Jewish leaders viewed him as a blasphemer and the anointed one sent by God, hence obviously the Jewish leaders were wrong. Add to that Peter's own testimony of what God did "through" Jesus and this substantiates that Jesus is truly God's instrument. Once Peter has made the case that Jesus is acting in God's purposes, then Peter goes the next step to call people to baptism not just in God's name but specifically in Jesus' name. That is the leap he asks people to make. We are told that 3000 do. We are not told how many walked away.

If you read the preaching of the early church, the fully developed Christology that we have in the Church today was not something that was present on day 1. I didn't mean to imply that in my earlier statements. I do believe that belief in Jesus as God come amongst us was present from the beginning, but exactly what that all meant I think took time for them to ponder upon. And in fact we are still pondering.

[جوري]

On what basis do you believe that the scribes changed the placement of Jesus' answer to Peter?


Where is the evidence of logic? I see only the statement: "I believe..." with no substantiation for that particular belief even attempted.

1-The 3 different answers that Peter gave to the identical question by Jesus in the 3 Gospels is enough of an indicator that it is not an actual response?
2- There is not a greater question in the whole NT than, “What is the nature of Jesus?” and yet the answer was not important enough for the 3 authors to agree on Peter’s response. If this is the “Good News” that Jesus is the Christ, or Savior, of God then why would Jesus “charged the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.” Rather if that was the “Good News” then wouldn’t Jesus command the disciples to go into the farthest stretches of the world and tell all men that he was “the Christ”, or Savior?
3- “get thee behind me Satan” immediately after Peter’s response, the “tell no man that he was the Christ” quote now makes perfect sense and you don’t have to make up a convoluted illogical reason

It is called deductive reasoning.. rather than legions of nonsense, the most obvious answer, is usually the correct one!

cheers