Which religion is closest to Islam?

[abdmez]

This has been troubling me, as I am not sure which religion is closer to Islam. What do you all think and explain why:

Which religion do you believe is closest to Islam?

Christianity

Believes that Jesus Christ is God, as the "son" part of the Trinity of the "father, son and ghost". They state that they believe in the one God, Allah that Islam and Judaism do, and that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and that he will finish the Messianic requirements in a "second coming". They believe that the laws of the "Old Testament" or "Hebrew Tanakh" are no longer commanded, because acceptance of Jesus is the way to heaven and Jesus died for everyones sins on the cross.

Judaism

Judaism believes in pure monotheism, and have just about the same laws that the Quran teaches. Pork, Male-Female interaction is not allowed by Traditional Jews who follow their scriptures. Jews must pray 3 times a day, and from Friday night sundown, until Saturday night sundown, they may not turn on or off a light (example: a light on must stay on) and use other machines that they believe "violates the sabbath" because of the prohibition of working and kindling fire found in the Torah along with other restrictions. Judaism however rejects Jesus and believes he was a false prophet. They still are waiting for the Messiah to come.

[Pk_#2]

other: none!

[IbnAbdulHakim]

in all honesty, christianity is way to distorted to be compared to islam, and i dont know nothing about judaism but honestly i heard the rabi's aint suppose 2 spread the religion... whats that all about :S :S :?

[abdmez]

in all honesty, christianity is way to distorted to be compared to islam, and i dont know nothing about judaism but honestly i heard the rabi's aint suppose 2 spread the religion... whats that all about :S :S :?

Well according to what I have heard, they believe non-Jews can go to heaven, and therefore converting to Judaism is discouraged.

other: none!

That makes no sense at all. There obviously must be a religion that is the closest to Islam in beliefs.

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

[ManchesterFolk]

I would have to say Judaism by just how similar laws are. Of course Jews do not hold that Jesus is anything more than a false prophet, there diatary, social, and praying laws (including washing before prayers) are very very similar.

Jedi.

It is a growing religion in the UK.

For example this post by a "Jedi":

I am a Jedi (not in the 'got a light saber' kind of way). I just follow the teachings of the Jedi masters. Now I know Yoda is not real but he is as real to me as Jesus, Yoda just lived and died long before the earth cooled. (LOL) Seriously, the base of the Jedi religion is FEAR. Understand the Jedi are not all good there is the Darth, they use fear for personal gain, the Jedi remove fear for clarity. I have not found one religion that can argue the simple teachings of the Jedi! Two main things that help me answer all of life's questions: 'Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to sorrow. Try not! Do, or do not. There is no try!'

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/105/story_10570_5.html

[snakelegs]

i voted judaism tho there are, of course important differences since judaism doesn't recognise anything in the "new testament" and doesn't proclaim to be the One True Religion, without which you go to hell as christianity does.
like islam, it is an entire way of life, with a vast body of law and many of the laws are similar.
like islam, you can spend your lifetime learning and you get food for the intellect as well as food for the spirit.

[thirdwatch512]

judaism, easily. a muslim could go to israel and not even have to look to see what food is haram or halal, because almost all kosher food is halal.

judaism and islam have quite a lot in common.. although judaism is more liberal. :) still though, both religions are very very similar.

also, islam is close to the baha'i faith in the sense that both religions fast(although at different times), and they both prohibit drinking and gambling, and they both believe mohammad as a messenger.

[ManchesterFolk]

although judaism is more liberal.

Depends what Jewish area you are in. Let me tell you the ultra-orthodox in Israel that do not work and spend 20 hours a day studying Talmud and Torah are as fanatic as they come. Yet they are so consumed with studying, they really never leave there learning areas and are not violent.

[Talha777]

I voted that Christians are probably the closest in terms of beliefs and idealogy to Islam. First of all, the Holy Quran confirms that:

Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. (Al-Maidah 5:82)

So the Holy Quran has mentioned that religious Christians at least are less materialistic. If you read the Gospels, you will see there is a strong theme of social teaching and Jesus Christ (alaihi salam) favoring the meek and the poor, just like the Holy Prophet (salallahu alaihi wa salam) who prayed to Allah to keep him poor throughout his life. Christianity is also not a nationalistic religion like Hinduism or Judaism, so Christians are usually not "proud" of their ethnic heritage, they don't boast about being Brahmins or descendants of Abraham (alaihi salam). Hence the Holy Quran has mentioned that for the most part they are not arrogant.

Next the teachings of Christianity are more closer to Islam than any other religion. The concepts of Heaven and Hell, resurrection, predestination (taqdir), existence of Angels, the Christhood of Jesus (alaihi salam), virgin birth of Jesus (alaihi salam), etc., are exclusively shared by Islam and Christianity. Also, both Islam and Christianity are missionary religions, so this source of rivalry is in fact something that they share as common ground ironically. Muslims and Christians also generally but not entirely have similar eschatological beliefs, such as the second coming of Jesus (alaihi salam), the anti-Christ, tribulations, etc. However, Muslims believe that Christians will accept Masih ad-Dajjal (Anti-Christ) thinking that he is their Jesus Christ, while Muslims will know better, and accept the real Jesus (alaihi salam) when he descends from the sky.

There are many more commonalities, but basically this is how Christianity is closest in terms of beliefs to Islam. Some people may object and say that the Jews are closer because they don't believe in trinity and they are monotheistic. While they may not believe in trinity, contemporary Jewish beliefs, especially those inspired by Kabbalah, are filled with shirk. Even the Holy Quran has mentioned how they elevate their Prophets to a godlike status, in particular, Prophet Ezra (alaihi salam):

The Jews call 'Uzair [Ezra] a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (At-Tauba 9:30)

So this is just my humble opinion, you can agree or disagree with it, it really doesn't matter, only Islam is acceptable to Allah, and everything else is manifest falsehood:

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah) never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). (Al-Imran 3:85)

[Woodrow]

:sl:

Before answering we need to understand the question. The question is asking:


Which religion is closest to Islam?

It is not asking:

Which religion uses the same religious texts as Islam.

Which religion is equal to Islam.

Which religion can substitute for Islam.

Now for sake of argument let us substitute Taoism for Judaism. The question now becomes "Which religion is closest to Islam Taoism or Christianity?"
I doubt it anyone would have any difficulty in seeing that Christianity has more features that are similar to Islam, than Taoism has.

So when we nail it down to being a choice being Judaism or Christianity. Let us look at the beliefs of both. They both have the same roots and both share the same texts up to the NT. Then the differences become noticed.

So it is with Islam. The things we can see in Judaism we can also see as being part of Christianity. However Christianity goes further and at least acknowledges the Virgin Birth of Isa(as).

The we also have what is in the Qur'an as mentioned by Brother Talha777

Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. (Al-Maidah 5:82)

so now what is the question? It has been answered, It should be obvious that Christianity is closer to Islam than Judaism is.

[arabiyyah]

Christianity believes heaven and hell is based on accpetance of a man who they believe to be a god. Judaism is monotheistic, and they believe the following of laws are the determining factor on your destination on the afterlife.

[Talha777]

Quote:
Even the Holy Quran has mentioned how they elevate their Prophets to a godlike status, in particular, Prophet Ezra (alaihi salam):

The Jews call 'Uzair [Ezra] a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (At-Tauba 9:30)

Lol! Find me one Jew who does that!

According to the mufasireen (commentators of the Holy Quran), it was the Jews of Arabia (not all Jews) who believed that Ezra (alaihi salam) was a son of God. One of the reasons they rejected the Holy Prophet (salallahu alaihi wa salam) is because he did not share this belief of theirs.

[arabiyyah]

so now what is the question? It has been answered, It should be obvious that Christianity is closer to Islam than Judaism is.

Could the Quran be refering to early christians, or is it refering to the christians who believe in the trinity however???

[north_malaysian]

Judaism... because I'm not comfortable with Christianity...

[*noor]

assalaamu alaikum

to the person who said that judaism is close to Islam, i would have to disagree. The biggest difference that I noticed is that Islam is a religion for everyone whereas Jews are "Jewish-born" and its rare to find jews that were not "Jewish born." Even though they are similar in that they both don't eat pork, there are vast differences in the food....for example, jews don't use the same utensils to prepare dairy and meat....they need to use separate utensils including pots, pans etc. Islam on the other hand says nothing about that. Also, alcohol is not allowed in Islam whereas it is in Judaism.

[*noor]

Judaism... because I'm not comfortable with Christianity...

your comfort with a religion doesn't necessarily make it any more similar to Islam.

[north_malaysian]

your comfort with a religion doesn't necessarily make it any more similar to Islam.

We are not talking of similarity, but closer to Islam...

[*noor]

We are not talking of similarity, but closer to Islam...

well it doesn't necessarily make it closer either.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Well I think there should have been an option as both, because in some ways, Christianity is similar and other ways Judaism is similar. But I chose Judaism, because its more monothiestic and thats really important.

[north_malaysian]

well it doesn't necessarily make it closer either.

So dont answer the question then... as it as what in your opinion the closest religion to Islam...

Yes .. Islam is a seperate religion from Judaism, with millions of differences, but still of zillions of religions around I still find it closest to Islam.

For example, lime and lemon are two different fruits, but to compare it to other fruits they're closer...

[thirdwatch512]

assalaamu alaikum

to the person who said that judaism is close to Islam, i would have to disagree. The biggest difference that I noticed is that Islam is a religion for everyone whereas Jews are "Jewish-born" and its rare to find jews that were not "Jewish born." Even though they are similar in that they both don't eat pork, there are vast differences in the food....for example, jews don't use the same utensils to prepare dairy and meat....they need to use separate utensils including pots, pans etc. Islam on the other hand says nothing about that. Also, alcohol is not allowed in Islam whereas it is in Judaism.

haha yeah, alcohol is a very major jewish custom, especially during dinner time.

now in terms of converts to judaism.. i think that that's a fault of jews and not judaism in general. ruth was a convert, and a VERY important person of the Bible.

also though, jews don't see a need for people to convert like let's say christians do. most christians believe that only christians will go to heaven.. so they do everything they can to get people to convert. jews on the other hand believe nothing of the sort.. jews believe that anyone can go to heaven. also with jews, the jews are asked to follow the 613 mitzvot laws, whereas the gentiles (non jews) are asked to follow the 7 noahtide laws. so when you convert, you have a lot of baggage that goes with it.


as for jews and pots and pans... hah yeah, judaism has a very strict law for foods. it's crazy lol. but at the same time it really helped the people at that time, because a lot of things were dirty and such, and although kosher was strict it was a very healthy thing to obide at that time (and even nowdays.)

[abdulhakim55]

judaism is closer, and it is not even close! christianity believes that jesus = Allah! Who could ever say that a religion that believes in only one God, Allah is not as close to Islam as a religion that has a trinity belief like christians do!!!

[AbuAbdallah]

I'm going to have to say neither. Both Christians and Jews will be in the Hell-fire, and Hell is no where close to Heaven in any sense of the word.

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

i picked other, as in whatever the Prophet Abraham/Ibrahim(as) was following! :happy:

:w:

[Skillganon]

I agree. Neither christian or Judaism.

Say: This is my way: I call to Allah, I and those who follow me being certain, and glory be to Allah, and I am not one of the polytheists.(12:108)

[Idris]

None are close to Islam. Anyways what is the point of this question?
Don't kill your brain cells thinking about this. Use your time wisely.

[Count DeSheep]

None are close to Islam. Anyways what is the point of this question?
Don't kill your brain cells thinking about this. Use your time wisely.

What? I thought Muhammad (pbuh) himself said that Muslims should look as Christians as the next best thing to a Muslim. Not those exact words, but it was a long time ago that I read this. AND it was on this forum. Maybe I'm mistaken, though. If anyone has the Quran verses this is in, please post them. If I can find them online, I will post them myself.

[Talha777]

What? I thought Muhammad (pbuh) himself said that Muslims should look as Christians as the next best thing to a Muslim. Not those exact words, but it was a long time ago that I read this. AND it was on this forum. Maybe I'm mistaken, though. If anyone has the Quran verses this is in, please post them. If I can find them online, I will post them myself.

I have already quoted that verse on the thread:

Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. (Al-Maidah 5:82)

[Grace Seeker]

I said that Judaism is closer to Islam.


I think this is so because Judaism and Islam are both religions where the essence of practicing the faith is in the behaviors and rituals that one keeps. While the key facets of Christianity have to do with living in a certain type of relationship. All three have elements of both, but the way Muslims are under obligation with respect to the 5 pillars seems to me to be more similar to how Jews understand the keeping of the Torah than to the Christian's concept of placing one's faith in Jesus work, not one's own practices.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

Believe it or not, but Christianity and Judaism are very similar to Islam, in terms of the mindset one needs - complete devotion/submission to God.

In terms of the physical/tangible aspects, Judaism is probably the closest e.g. the beards, the caps (taupees) etc. The way I see these three religions is like branches of the same tree.

If you look closely at the fundementals of all religions you will find they are all the same or very similar.

[rebelishaulman]

I would be inclined to think the Sikh's are the closest...

[north_malaysian]

I would be inclined to think the Sikh's are the closest...

I think the mandean/sabaean (followers of John the Baptist) might be closer too..

[ABWAN]

Taking into account the fact that the jews denied the prophethood of Jesus, I would consider the earliest christians (gnostics) to be the ones very close to islam in terms of belief of whatever was revealed up to that point of time. The same would apply to the immediate followers of Moses and all the other prophets.

[Sinner]

I would say Mormonism is the closest to Islam. Not by belief, but by the similarities between the claims of their founders, Joseph Smith and Muhammad.

[Grace Seeker]

Taking into account the fact that the jews denied the prophethood of Jesus, I would consider the earliest christians (gnostics) to be the ones very close to islam in terms of belief of whatever was revealed up to that point of time. The same would apply to the immediate followers of Moses and all the other prophets.

Aaargh! I know I'm off topic, but...

The earliest Christians opposed gnosticism; they were NOT practiioners of it. I cite First John as an example; it was a polemic against gnostic tendancies that were beginning to sneek into the church. So, some later Christians did develop gnostic leaning tendancies, but NOT the earliest Christians.

[Keltoi]

Aaargh! I know I'm off topic, but...

The earliest Christians opposed gnosticism; they were NOT practiioners of it. I cite First John as an example; it was a polemic against gnostic tendancies that were beginning to sneek into the church. So, some later Christians did develop gnostic leaning tendancies, but NOT the earliest Christians.

I've mentioned this before too, but I think to Muslims it is important to "prove" that early Christians didn't believe in a Trinity.

[Sinner]

I would consider the earliest christians (gnostics) to be the ones very close to islam

The gnostics, were heretics, using faked Gospel-like literature to fool Christians into their belief systems. Gnostic stories concerning Jesus did find their way into the Quran however.

[جوري]

A little history on what happened before things got out of hand!

Barnabas was a Jew born in Cyrus. His name was Joses, and due to his devotion to the cause of Jesus, the other apostles had given him the surname of Barnabas; this term is variously translated as "Son of Consolation" or "Son of Exhortation".

He was a successful preacher with a magnetic personality. Any one tormented by the clash of creeds found solace and peace in his company. His eminence as a man who had been close to Jesus had made him a prominent member of the small group of disciples in Jerusalem who had gathered together after the disappearance of Jesus. They observed the Law of the Prophets, which Jesus had come, "not to destroy but, to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17). They continued to live as Jews and practiced what Jesus had taught them. That Christianity could ever be regarded as a new religion did not occur to any of them. They were devout and practicing Jews distinguished from their neighbours only by their faith in the message of Jesus.

In the beginning they did not organise themselves as a separate sect and did not have a synagogue of their own. There was nothing in the message of Jesus, as understood by them, to necessitate a break with Judaism. However, they incurred the enmity of the vested interests among the Jewish higher echelon. The conflict between the Jews and the followers of Jesus was started by the Jews because they felt that the Christians would undermine their authority.

ACTS 12: 25
"And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark."

ACTS 13: 1 and 2
"Now there was 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 tetrach, and Saul. "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.

ACTS 14:11 to 15
"And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia. The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. "And they called Barnabas Jupiter, and Paul Mercurius. "Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.

"Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out.

"And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are thereon."

The gulf progressively began to widen. During the siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Christians left the city; and refused to take part in the Bar Coachaba rebellion in 132 A.D. These two events brought to the surface the difference between the Christians and the Jews.

The question of the origin of Jesus, his nature and relation to God, which later became so important, was not raised among these early disciples. That Jesus was a man supernaturally endowed by God was accepted without question. Nothing in the words of Jesus or the events in his life led them to modify this view. According to Aristides, one of the earliest apologists, the worship of the early Christians was more purely monotheistic even than of the Jews.

With the conversion of Paul a new period opened in Christian Theology. Paul's theology was based on his personal experience interpreted in the light of contemporary Greek thought. The theory of redemption was the child of his brain, a belief entirely unknown to the disciples of Jesus. Paul's theory involved the deification of Jesus.

The Pauline period in the history of the Christian Church saw a change of scene and principles. In place of the disciples, who had sat at the feet of Jesus, a new figure, who had not known Jesus, had come to the forefront. In place of Palestine, the Roman Empire became the scene of Christian activity. Instead of being a mere sect of Judaism, Christianity not only became independent of Judaism but also became independent of Jesus himself.

Paul was a Jewish inhabitant of Tarsus. He had spent a long time in Rome and was a Roman citizen. He realised the strong hold which the Roman religion had on the masses. The intellectuals were under the influence of Plato and Aristotle. Paul seems to have felt that it would not be possible to convert the masses in the Roman Empire without making mutual adjustments. But his practical wisdom was not acceptable to those who had seen and heard Jesus. However, in spite of their difference, they decided to work together for the common cause.

As recorded in the Acts, Barnabas represented those who had become personal disciples of Jesus, and Paul co-operated with them for some time. But finally they fell out. Paul wanted to give up the Commandments given through Moses about things to eat; he wanted to give up the Commandment given through Abraham regarding circumcision. Barnabas and the other personal disciples disagreed. The following sentences in the Acts give a hint of the rift:

"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." "When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputations with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question" (Acts 14:1 and 2).

After this rift, there was a parting of the ways. In the Acts, Barnabas disappears after the rift, because the recording of the acts of the Apostles was done by the followers of Paul. Because of Paul's compromise with Roman beliefs and legends, Pauline Christians grew in number and grew in strength. A stage was later reached when kings were used as pawns to further the ends of the Church.

The followers of Barnabas never developed a central organization. Yet due to the devotion of their leaders their number increased very fast. These Christians incurred the wrath of the Church and systematic effort was made to destroy them and to obliterate all traces of their existence including books and churches. The lesson of history, however, is that it is very difficult to destroy faith by force. Their lack of organization became a source of strength because it was not so easy to pick them up one by one.

Modern research has brought to light odd facts about these Christians. They are like the crests of waves and looking at them one can visualise a whole body of ocean not yet visible.

We notice that up to the 4th century A.D. there existed a sect known as Hypisistarians who refused to worship God as father. They revered Him as an All Mighty Ruler of the world, He was the Highest of all and no one was equal to Him. Paul of Samasata was a Bishop of Antioch. He was of the view that Christ was not God but a man and a prophet. He differed only in degree from prophets who came before him and that God could not have become man substantially.

Then we come across another Bishop of Antioch viz Lucian. As a Bishop his reputation for sanctity was not less than his fame as a scholar. He came down strongly against the belief of Trinity. He deleted all mention of Trinity from the Bible as he believed it to be a later interpolation not found in the earlier Gospels. He was martyred in 312 A.D.

Next we come to the famous disciple of Lucian viz Arius (250-336 A.D.) He was a Libyan by birth. Peter Bishop of Alexandria ordained him a Deacon but later excommunicated him. Achilles the successor of Peter again ordained Arius as priest. Alexander the next Bishop of Alexandria once again excommunicated him. Arius however had gathered such a large following that he became a headache for the Church. If kept out of Church he could be a great danger to her but he could not be accommodated within the Church as he wanted to establish the unity and simplicity of the Eternal God. He believed that how so ever much Christ may surpass other created beings he himself was not of the same substance as God. He was as human being as any other man. The teaching of Arius spread like wild fire and shook the very foundation of the Pauline Church. The controversy that was simmering for three hundred years suddenly became a conflagration. No man dared to oppose the organized Church but Arius did, and remained a headache for her whether he was ordained a priest or was excommunicated. During this time two events changed the history of Europe.

Emperor Constantine brought a greater part of Europe under his rule and secondly he began to support the Christians without accepting Christianity. To the soldier prince the different creeds within the Christian faith were very confusing. In the Imperial Palace itself the controversy was raging not less fiercely. It appears that perhaps the Queen Mother was inclined towards Pauline Christianity while his sister Princess Constantina was a disciple of Arius. The Emperor was wavering between the two faiths. As an administrator he was interested only in uniting all the Christians within one Church.

It was at this time that the conflict between Arius and Bishop Alexander became so widespread and so violent that it became a law and order problem. So the Emperor anxious to maintain peace in the newly unified Europe had to intervene.

In 325 A.D. a meeting of all denominations of Christianity was called at Nicea (Now Isnik, a village). Bishop Alexander was not able to attend the conference and he deputed his lieutenant Athanasius, who subsequently succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria.

The conference had many prolonged sessions. Emperor Constantine could not grasp the full implications of the ecclesiastical confrontation, but he was very clear in his mind that for maintaining peace in his realm the support and cooperation of the Church was necessary. Accordingly he threw his weight behind Athanasius and banished Arius from the realm. Thus the belief of Trinity became the official religion of the empire. Fearful massacre of Christians who did not believe in Trinity followed. It became a penal offense to possess a Bible not authorized by the Church and according to some estimates as many as 270 different versions of the Bible were burnt. Princess Constantina was not happy at the turn of events. The Emperor ultimately was persuaded to accept the faith of the men he killed. The result was that Arius was called back in 346. The day Arius was scheduled to visit the Cathedral of Constantinople in triumph, he died suddenly. The Church called it a miracle. The Emperor knew it was a murder. He banished Athanasius and two other Bishops. The Emperor then formally accepted Christianity and was baptized by an Arian Bishop. Thus Monotheism became the official religion. Constantine died in 337. The next Emperor Constantanius also accepted the faith of Arius. In 341 a conference was held in Antioch and Monotheism was accepted as a correct interpretation of Christian faith. This view was confirmed by another Council held in Sirmium in 351. As a result Arianism was accepted by an overwhelming majority of Christians. St. Jerome wrote in 359 that 'the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian'.

In this context the next important figure is that of Pope Honorius. A contemporary of Prophet Mohammed (peace be on him) he saw the rising tide of Islam whose tenets very much resembled those of Arius. As the mutual killings of Christians was still fresh in his memory he perhaps thought of finding a via media between Islam and Christianity. In his letters he began to support the doctrine of 'one mind', because if God has three independent minds the result would be chaos. The logical conclusion pointed to the belief in the existence of one God. This doctrine was not officially challenged for about half a century. Pope Honorius died in October 638. In 680, i.e. 42 years after his death, a council was held in Constantinople where Pope Honorius was anathematized. This event is unique in the history of Papacy when a Pope was denounced by a succeeding Pope and the Church.

The next two personalities of this faith that deserve mention were members of the same family. L. F. M. Sozzini (1525- 1565) was native of Siena. In 1547 he came under the influence of Camillo a Sicilian mystic. His fame spread in Switzerland He challenged Calvin on the doctrine of Trinity. He amplified the doctrine of Arius, denied the divinity of Christ and repudiated the doctrine of original sin and atonement. The object of adoration according to him could only be the one and only one God. He was followed by his nephew F. P. Sozzini (1539- 1604). In 1562 he published a work on St. John's Gospel denying the divinity of Jesus. In 1578 he went to Klausonburg in Transylvania whose ruler John Sigisumud was against the doctrine of Trinity. Here Bishop Francis David (1510-1579) was fiercely anti-Trinitarian. This led to the formation of a sect known as Racovian Catechism. It derives its name from Racow in Poland. This city became the stronghold of the faith of Arius.

Among the present-day Christians a large number of men and women still believe in one God. They are not always vocal. Due to the crushing power of the Churches they cannot express themselves and there is not much communication between them.

In the end it will be of interest to quote Athanasius the champion of Trinity. He says that whenever he forced his understanding to meditate on the divinity of Jesus his toilsome and unavailing efforts recoil on themselves, that the more he wrote the less capable was he of expressing his thoughts. At another place he pronounces his creed as:- There are not three but "ONE

[Keltoi]

See what I mean?

[جوري]

I am glad to have made you "right" for the day MR. Keltoi
Be that as it may... History is history... and religion is religion...... if one influenced the other in a way that isn't compatible with how you practice, then what can I say except--You should follow your version what you conceive to be true of the events.

Each soul is held in pledge of its own deeds. And contrary to what you say, I have no need to prove anything. It really is inconsequential to how I practice or what I believe. I just like people to back up their whims with historical evidence, instead of speaking from the rear on whom they consider a heretic but not provide a clear proof of why or how!-----
peace!

[Keltoi]

I am glad to have made you "right" for the day MR. Keltoi
Be that as it may... History is history... and religion is religion...... if one influenced the other in a way that isn't compatible with how you practice, then what can I say except--You should follow your version what you conceive to be true of the events.

Each soul is held in pledge of its own deeds. And contrary to what you say, I have no need to prove anything. It really is inconsequential to how I practice or what I believe. I just like people to back up their whims with historical evidence, instead of speaking from the rear on whom they consider a heretic but not provide a clear proof of why or how!-----
peace!

Perhaps that is your "history", but I'm not going to hijack the thread in order to counter your post as it has been explored in deph in other threads.

[جوري]

indeed... However there is no my history or your history unless we are talking about the personal affairs of ones life! There is a sequence of events as they happened independent of what is compatible with how you practice...
There is nothing more on this I wish to impart, and I know how you enjoy having the last word so don't let my disinterest at this stage deter you!
peace!

[Grace Seeker]

A little history on what happened before things got out of hand!

All I said was that the early Christians were not gnostics. Actually, I think your post supports that thesis. The early Christians were all Jews and Jews also were never gnostics.

So, to get back to the topic of the thread, if in Abwan's view it is the gnostic Christians who are closest to Islam, then it would be some of the later Christians (of the 2nd and 3rd century), not the earliest Christians (of the 1st century) that he wants to reference. And if what he meant was that it was those Christians that were the earliest (and then closest to the time of Christ) that would be the closest to Islam, then all I was saying is that they are not gnostic. Indeed, other than their views regarding Jesus, they would hardly be discernable from any other Jewish assembly for the first decade or so.

[جوري]

Dear Grace Seeker:
it wasn't your post that I was commenting on or even Keltoi's for that matter!

[Malaikah]

also, islam is close to the baha'i faith in the sense that both religions fast(although at different times), and they both prohibit drinking and gambling, and they both believe mohammad as a messenger.

Slight correction- the baha'i faith is close to Islam. And it should be, it actually started as a sect of Islam and then somehow became its own religion.

[north_malaysian]

All I said was that the early Christians were not gnostics..

Actually for us, the early christians were Muslims.... :D

[Grace Seeker]

Actually for us, the early christians were Muslims.... :D

Yes, by your understanding. But it didn't take long before they were corrupt.:omg:

If we are to believe Peter's sermon in the book of Acts, it was nearly immediate. Already within weeks of the "supposed" cruciFICTION, Peter is telling the story as if it were fact. And not only that, but Peter is encouraging other Jews to go so far as to worship Jesus, and the other disciples are all going along with it. In fact, at this time, Paul would be the only one who was even close to practicing Islam, as he wanted to have those Jesus worshipping Christians arrested for blasphemy.

[Khalid1402]

:sl:

I think, if the Christians were to adhere to their Bible in the way we adhere to the Holy Qur'an, there would be many many similarities, more than any other religion. A friend of mine once told me if a devoted Christian were to read his Bible in Hebrew and Aramaic (the Old Testament and Psalms) and then the New Testament in Greek, he would likely see how the Truth of Christianity only points towards the Final Message which is Islam :Alhumdill

:salamext:

[Sinner]

Actually for us, the early christians were Muslims.

I have heard this many times. What historical evidence is there from the first century is there to support this claim?

[wilberhum]

Actually for us, the early christians were Muslims.... :D

Maybe Christians think Muslims are really Christians in denial. :?

[Yanal]

i think christinanity becuz they have almost same stuff as islam




Wa Salaam

[Yanal]

sorry if i spelled chrisitinanity wrong

[Yanal]

nvm i spelled it corectly sorry again for disturbing this thread once again

[north_malaysian]

I have heard this many times. What historical evidence is there from the first century is there to support this claim?

Adam and Eve were Muslims, Abraham was a Muslim, Jesus is a Muslim.....

[Sinner]

Adam and Eve were Muslims, Abraham was a Muslim, Jesus is a Muslim.....

Without historical evidence to support such claims, all I see is statements based on wishful thinking. I could just as well say, without having to provide any evidence, that Adam and Eve came from Mars, that Abraham was a Martian as well as Jesus.

[جوري]

To be Muslim to is to submit yourself to (G-D)... all who do fully are Muslims......
sure you can say they are from MARS or Venus or Jupiter... in a few days I might even see new evidence on fox stating that all the above parties had nothing to do with the middle east but have all in fact have come from France or Belgium... and they are about to release them from their tombs... hmmmmmmmmn---who cares really? the sequel and prequel to the Da Vinci code ....

Their will, their heart , their deeds and most importantly their souls don't lie with you... They lie with the creator!

peace!

[north_malaysian]

To be Muslim to is to submit yourself to (G-D)... all who do fully are Muslims

:D

The term "Muslim" is applicable to all from Adam & Eve's time till today. Even Non Muslims were Muslims before they're born.

[Khalid1402]

:sl: brothers and sisters

Hello Sinner,

All the Prophets, from Adam to Muhammad, peace be upon them all, were upright Muslims for many reasons.

First and foremost they worshipped and submitted themselves fully to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and no one else. Secondly, they taught the people they were sent to worship no one except Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, and many of them (the Messengers, peace be upon them) taught the revelations of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala as they were revealed by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala (for example: Musa alaihis salam, taught the Tawrat, Dawud alaihis salam, taught the Zabur, Isa alaihis salam taught the Injil, and finally, Muhammad salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam taught the Qur'an, which is the final and eternal Word of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala).

Many of these Prophets, peace be upon them, performed beautiful miracles, but only by the Divine Will of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, and all of the Prophets and Messengers, peace be upon them all, were outstanding people, unshakable in Iman, and fearful of nothing and no one except Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala as Allah Subhanahu wa Wa'ala is to be feared.

I hope this helps, but insha Allah I do recommend you do more study about the Deen of Islam, and, insha Allah, it will all make sense to you soon enough. :sunny:

May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala guide us all and keep us on His path, the Only Path, Ameen.

[Grace Seeker]

:D

The term "Muslim" is applicable to all from Adam & Eve's time till today. Even Non Muslims were Muslims before they're born.

This is a statement of Islamic faith. It may be true (I'm sure you think it is); it may not be true (I know many who would not think it true of them). But neither position can be tested to be verified.

What Sinner is asking is, apart from a statement of faith, what evidence (again that is not faith based) is there to show that the early Christians were Muslim.

When in another thread I said that I was a follower of Islam because I submit to Allah, others said that I was not because of certain evidences that they want to see that they assumed they would not see in me. So, you have the testimony of the Qu'ran and/or the hadiths regarding these beliefs that Adam, that Abraham, that the early Christians were all followers of Islam, because by your belief system they had to have been. But beyond the Qu'ran and the hadiths, beyond your belief system, what evidences do you see by which one would make that judgment?

Put it another way, any non-Muslim that understands the basic teachings of Islam can see in a true follower of Islam evidences in their very behaviors that would convict them of being a Muslim if it were against the law. What evidence would a non-Muslim prosecuter be able to find to present to a non-Muslim jury to convict Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the early Christians of being followers of Islam?

[Woodrow]

Grace seeker nice statement:

Put it another way, any non-Muslim that understands the basic teachings of Islam can see in a true follower of Islam evidences in their very behaviors that would convict them of being a Muslim if it were against the law. What evidence would a non-Muslim prosecuter be able to find to present to a non-Muslim jury to convict Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the early Christians of being followers of Islam?

For a criminal conviction it takes evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. so to convict a person of being a Muslim you would need to show that the person believes in a sufficient amount of the following that when presented with the evidence there is no way they can honestly claim not to be a Muslim.

Believe in One God(swt) the same God(swt) as believed by Abraham(PBUH) and all of the Prophets(PBUT).

Believe in the Angels and all the Prophets (PBUT)

Believe in giving to charity

Believe in a day of Judgement

Believe in a resurection to eternal life in Either Heaven or Hell.


You know if you keep saying things like that you just might be convicted. Now, how are we going to get you to say the Shahadah?

[Grace Seeker]

Grace seeker nice statement:

You know if you keep saying things like that you just might be convicted. Now, how are we going to get you to say the Shahadah?

LOL.

Well, to start with, you will have to tell me what the Shahadah is; this is a new term for me.


If I were to make a guess, though, I think there are several stumbling blocks, a few of them pretty big.
First, though you might get me to say that Muhammad (pbuh) was a prophet of God, I can't say that he was THE prophet of God. I think you would agree that is a pretty big one as far as Islam is concerned.
The second is even bigger for me, as I believe in the incarnation, atoning death, and resurrection of Jesus and this is categorically denied by the Qu'ran, it would be an outright denial of my faith to accept its teachings as true.

Now, I might be able to believe in the five things you list if we used your understanding of the word "belief", and my understanding of the word "prophets", but not if it is the other way around.

[جوري]

The prophet?

آمَنَ الرَّسُولُ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مِن رَّبِّهِ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ كُلٌّ آمَنَ بِاللّهِ وَمَلآئِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ لاَ نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّن
رُّسُلِهِ وَقَالُواْ سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا غُفْرَانَكَ رَبَّنَا وَإِلَيْكَ الْمَصِيرُ {285}

[Pickthal 2:285] The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between any of His messengers - and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.

[Woodrow]

LOL.

Well, to start with, you will have to tell me what the Shahadah is; this is a new term for me.

That is our statement of faith.

"There is no God, except for Allah(swt) and Muhammad was his Messinger.

If I were to make a guess, though, I think there are several stumbling blocks, a few of them pretty big.

I will agree with that. I really only see a few differences. But, as you said they are big enough to keep us seperate.

First, though you might get me to say that Muhammad (pbuh) was a prophet of God, I can't say that he was THE prophet of God. I think you would agree that is a pretty big one as far as Islam is concerned.

I doubt if that is as big as you suspect. All of the Prophets are equal. Tjhink in terms of the line of Prohets(PBUT) as being a train. Each of the cars being a seperate Prophet(PBUT) and Muhammad

is the caboose. Looking down the track we can see that a long line of Prophets(PBUT) have passed by. But Muhammad

is the only one we can still see clearly.

The second is even bigger for me, as I believe in the incarnation, atoning death, and resurrection of Jesus and this is categorically denied by the Qu'ran, it would be an outright denial of my faith to accept its teachings as true.

That is the only real stumbling block. However, that is a totally different debate and it has been debated many times on this forum. No need in hijacking this thread. We both know where there are existing threads that discuss that issue.

Now, I might be able to believe in the five things you list if we used your understanding of the word "belief", and my understanding of the word "prophets", but not if it is the other way around.

I believe we agree on those five things and see them the same.

[Grace Seeker]

Now, I might be able to believe in the five things you list if we used your understanding of the word "belief", and my understanding of the word "prophets", but not if it is the other way around.

I believe we agree on those five things and see them the same.

Well to hijack the thread a little bit -- though it sort of relates to what I think keeps Christianity from being as close to Islam as perhaps other religions might be.

The way it seems to me that most Muslims on this board use the term "belief" it has to do with accepting certain things as true. It has to do with knowledge and understanding of sets of concepts regarding God. That is NOT what I mean by belief in the Christian context.

For me, as a Christian, belief is a synonym for trust. I don't believe in Jesus because I accept the doctrine of the incarnation or hold the sacrificial atonement to be true. I do do those things, but that is not what belief is. For me belief is trusting that Jesus can actually make a difference in my life by advocating for me with God the Father so that I might be accepted by God, not in my own futile and failed attempts at righteousness. (No matter how much I do in the way of good works vs sin I still fall short of God's glory.) But rather that God the Father will accept me by virture of the relationship I have with him through Jesus. I believe (i.e. trust) that Jesus righteousness will be imputed to me and thus I will find favor with God the Father because of that relationship and for no other reason. If I have falsely put my trust in Jesus to accomplish this for me, then I am both doomed and ****ed.

And for this same reason I cannot believe (i.e. trust) in the work of any man, be it Abraham, Moses, or any of the other great personages that were on your list (including the angels or any prophet, even Muhammad). Nor can I believe (trust) in works of charity or any doctrine. I believe (trust) only in Christ and his work.

[Malaikah]

What evidence would a non-Muslim prosecuter be able to find to present to a non-Muslim jury to convict Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the early Christians of being followers of Islam?

We have no actual 'proof' that most of these people even existed, other than what our religion teaches us, I guess expect for Jesus and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) because they are relatively more modern... Belief in the other prophets is based on trust in the authority who told us about them, i.e. Muhammad pbuh... and we can only know of them based on what Muhammad confirmed about them (and what is in the Quran, of course, but this goes back to the authority of Muhammad anyway).

[Sinner]

All the evidence from the first century to the first half of the second, indicates that the first Christians did not hold to Islamic beliefs about Jesus. This would include the various writtings in the New Testament, writings by the earliest church fathers, some of which were disciples of the Apostles, statements by Roman historians of what the Christians believed and inscriptions found on coffins from the Holy Land dating to the first half of the first century.

"During the fall of 1945, Dr. Eleazar Sukenik of Hebrew University investigated another first century Jewish catacomb at the southem end of the Kidron Valley on the road to Bethlehem. He found several ossuaries with the sign of the cross, Greek inscriptions, a coin minted in A.D. 41 for King Herod Agrippa 1, proving the tomb was sealed by A.D. 42. Professor Sukenik concluded that the ossuaries "contain almost the whole dictionary of names in the New Testament.

One coffin had a surprising dedication in Greek to "Jesus" followed by the exclamation "Y'ho," meaning "Jehovah" or "the Lord." The inscription reads: "[To] Jesus, the Lord." In light of the A.D. 42 date for the sealing of this tomb, the presence of this dedication to "Jesus, the Lord" attests to the acceptance by Christians of Jesus Christ as God within ten years of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Christian theologian Professor Alexander Hopkins commented on this significant inscription as follows: "The inscription which was hidden for almost 2,000 years and inscribed at least two decades before any part of the New Testament was written. . . bears a personal testimony of faith ... a message from the past with a very modem meaning for the present."

Several years ago they found another Jewish Christian ossuary in Jerusalem that contained the inscription "Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene." The Gospel of Mark refers to this person as follows, "Now they compelled a certain man, Simon a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus, as he was coming out of the country and passing by, to bear his cross" (Mark 15:21)."

http://www.raptureme.com/terry/james27.html

[ABDUL HAQ]

Muslims Should Come Closer To Islam:)

[MustafaMc]

A little history on what happened before things got out of hand! ...

I was impressed with the detail of your research. I have copied it to a Word document for later reference if that is OK with you.

[MustafaMc]

On the face of it seems that the Jewish religion is closer to Islam - regarding purer Monotheism and the various religous requirements. However, when one looks deeper, the mercy and humility expressed by true Christians along with their striving for the hereafter is more similar to Islam. Christianity is similar to Islam in the sense of witnessing to others and to show them the Truth as they believe it to be. My understanding of Judaism is that they view themselves as "God's chosen people" and that there is no need to convert the "Gentiles".

I would have to agree with the posts by Brs. Woodrow and Talha777 that Christianity is closer to Islam. Another thing to remember is the Abyssinian king who protected the Muslim immigrants who came to his country during the early persecutions in Mecca. The Meccans who came to forcibly take the Muslims back to Mecca cited the Muslim belief regarding Prophet Jesus (pbuh) not being the Son of God as the reason that the king should side with them. When the Muslims recited the Quran (Surah 19 - Mary) regarding beliefs about Mary and Jesus, the king was moved to tears and protected the Muslims. Contrast this to the machinations by the Jewish tribes (Banu Quraizah) in siding with the Quaraysh during the Battle of the Trench and their attempts on the Prophet's (pbuh) life.

[MustafaMc]

For me, as a Christian, belief is a synonym for trust. ... For me belief is trusting that Jesus can actually make a difference in my life by advocating for me with God the Father so that I might be accepted by God, not in my own futile and failed attempts at righteousness. ... I believe (i.e. trust) that Jesus righteousness will be imputed to me and thus I will find favor with God the Father because of that relationship and for no other reason.

It seems to me what you are defining here is "Faith". See Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is assurance of [things] hoped for, a conviction of things not seen." Romans 3:28 "We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.' and Galatians 2:16 "...yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

According to Webster's dictionary, faith is:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value or trustworthiness of a person, idea or thing.
2. Belief not based on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing.

Christians put their faith in Jesus and rely upon his righteousness and sacrifice on the cross for their salvation. However, Muslims believe that Jesus (pbuh) will disassociate from those who worship him instead of Allah.

Quran 5:116-118 After reminding him of these favors, Allah will say: "O Isa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Marry), Did you ever say to the people, "worship me and my mother as gods beside Allah?" He will answer: "Glory to You! How could I say what I had no right to say? If I had ever said so, you would have certainly known it. You know what is in my heart, but I know not what is in Yours; for You have full knowledge of all the unseen. I never said anything other than what You commanded me to say, that is to worship Allah, Who is my Rabb and your Rabb. I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them; but when You called me off, You were the Watcher over them and You are a Witness to everything. If You punish them, they surely are Your servants; and if You forgive them, You are Mighty, Wise."

In stark contrast Muslims put their faith directly in the Mercy of Allah for their forgiveness and salvation from the fire. We have the hope of forgiveness, but unlike Christians I don't have the assurance of salvation because Judgment Day may show that my testimony was hollow and that my life was hypocritical.

You may find it odd that, if you were to ask me, "If you were to die tonight, where would you go - heaven or hell?" or "Are you saved?" I would have to say, "I don't know, but I have the hope of salvation." The Quran repeatedly promises salvation for those who believe and do good works, but who on earth can judge his own faith as sincere and his good deeds as being done with the right intentions - much less anyone else? Only Allah knows where we will end up according to His Divine Preordainment, or Qadar - a fundamental Islamic Article of Faith.

[Alexius]

I truly believe that Christianity (specifically Arianism) is the closest to Islam.
I'm not sure I buy the claim that all prophets from Adam to Mohammad were Muslims, though. To put it bluntly, only after Mohammad could one actually become a Muslim by recitation of the Shahada (?): "There is no god but God, and Mohammad is His Prophet..." If I'm correct, one must recite this to become a Muslim, for it states what is believed, and Mohammad was unknown to the prophets before him...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:-[

[Woodrow]

I truly believe that Christianity (specifically Arianism) is the closest to Islam.
I'm not sure I buy the claim that all prophets from Adam to Mohammad were Muslims, though. To put it bluntly, only after Mohammad could one actually become a Muslim by recitation of the Shahada (?): "There is no god but God, and Mohammad is His Prophet..." If I'm correct, one must recite this to become a Muslim, for it states what is believed, and Mohammad was unknown to the prophets before him...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:-[

Peace Alexius,

That is the Shahadah in it's present form. Actually that is not the only form of the Shahadah that is acceptable. Although it is the simplest and most common form.

In the past there would have been other acceptable means of acknowledging the oneness of Allah(swt) and the acceptance of Prophets(PBUT)

The Shahadah as we now know it, would have been unneeded. Since most of the original truth that was revealed in the Tauret and Injil has been lost, we have no way of knowing in what manner the Shahadah existed prior to Muhammad.

[north_malaysian]

we have no way of knowing in what manner the Shahadah existed prior to Muhammad.

When I heard the story of the Ashabul kahfi (Seven Sleepers), it's being said that when they woke up from the sleep hundreds of years later and went to the city, they were shocked to see "There is no God but Allah, and Jesus is the Messenger of Allah" inscriptions... but I dont know how truth is those inscriptions were... Allah Alem..

I've read from Indonesian Wikipedia that many Acehnese kids were named as Maksalmina (after one of the sleepers... Maximilian?)

[mariam.]

I think that Christianity is the closest religion to Islam.

" Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognize the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses.

"What cause can we have not to believe in Allah and the truth which has come to us, seeing that we long for our Lord to admit us to the company of the righteous?"

And for this their prayer hath Allah rewarded them with Gardens, with rivers flowing underneath,- their eternal home. Such is the recompense of those who do good.

But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs,- they shall be companions of Hell-fire. " (5:82-86)

peace

[islamic]

There is no such thing as Christianity, there is no such thing as Judaism!
the ONLY RELIGION toward Allah is ISLAM.

[ahsan28]

There is no such thing as Christianity, there is no such thing as Judaism!
the ONLY RELIGION toward Allah is ISLAM.

In a sense you are correct cz faith of all the prophets was the same, it was only the methodology, which might have experienced changes, which we may call as shariah. To the best of our knowledge, only two shariah are existing, one with the Jews and the other is with the Muslims. The Bible given to the Jesus( Peace on him) didn't contain shariah, since Jesus was sent to revive the same shariah of the Moses (peace on him).

Talking purely from the shariah point of view, Judaism happens to be closer to Islam than Christianity.

[guyabano]

There is no such thing as Christianity, there is no such thing as Judaism!
the ONLY RELIGION toward Allah is ISLAM.

Try to convince christians, which still respresent the biggest religion on this planet. :D

[ahsan28]

Try to convince christians, which still respresent the biggest religion on this planet. :D

It takes time to cover six centuries gap :D

[Grace Seeker]

There is no such thing as Christianity, there is no such thing as Judaism!
the ONLY RELIGION toward Allah is ISLAM.

Might those be two different statements?

It is one thing to believe, as you apparently do, that Islam is the only true religion. It is quite another to say that there are no other religions except Islam.


There are indeed people who worship rocks and trees; these people are called animists. There are people who worship Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. these people are called Christians. You don't have to believe that Jesus should be worshipped any more than you believe that rocks and trees should be worshipped, but I do think (unless you just wish to deny reality) you have to admit that such religions do actually exist.

[islamic]

In a sense you are correct cz faith of all the prophets was the same, it was only the methodology, which might have experienced changes, which we may call as shariah. To the best of our knowledge, only two shariah are existing, one with the Jews and the other is with the Muslims. The Bible given to the Jesus( Peace on him) didn't contain shariah, since Jesus was sent to revive the same shariah of the Moses (peace on him).

Talking purely from the shariah point of view, Judaism happens to be closer to Islam than Christianity.

brother, great commentary!! thank you.
I AGREE WITH YOU 100%.

Try to convince christians, which still respresent the biggest religion on this planet. :D

Hm, don't you think this what have you said is Exaggerating?

[islamic]

Grace Seeker, Jesus NEVER HEARD the word Christianity, he NEVER CALLED anyone CHRISTIAN, he never heard the word CHRIST, he also never heard the world JESUS!!!
If you see JEsus now, walking on this earth and ask him: "o Jesus, what is your religion?" WHAT HE WILL ANSWER YOU? Will he say : "christianity?"
NO, he will say: "my religion is totally submission to Allah will", with other words, he will say: "my religion is ISLAM (totally submission to Allah will)".
Neither JEsus preached christianity, neather Moses preached Judaism, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHRISTIANITY, and there is NO SUCH THING AS JUDAISM.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Try to convince christians, which still respresent the biggest religion on this planet. :D

i was wondering whats greater?

the number of muslims by faith (and not name) or the number christians by faith (and not name)

what do you think? :)

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker, Jesus NEVER HEARD the word Christianity, he NEVER CALLED anyone CHRISTIAN, he never heard the word CHRIST, he also never heard the world JESUS!!!
If you see JEsus now, walking on this earth and ask him: "o Jesus, what is your religion?" WHAT HE WILL ANSWER YOU? Will he say : "christianity?"
NO, he will say: "my religion is totally submission to Allah will", with other words, he will say: "my religion is ISLAM (totally submission to Allah will)".
Neither JEsus preached christianity, neather Moses preached Judaism, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHRISTIANITY, and there is NO SUCH THING AS JUDAISM.

You miss my point completely.

You are stating that there is no such religion called Christianity. You are stating that there is no religion accept Islam.

I am saying that there is a big difference between saying that Islam is the only religion that is true. (If you believe that, I'm not interested in this forum in challenging you on that point. I'm willing to live by the forum's rules on that. Besides you are certainly entitled to your opion.) However, to say that other religions do not exist is to simply close your eyes to reality.

There are other religions in the world besides Islam. You may be of the opinion that these other religions are wrong, worship things other than the truth, etc. But that doesn't mean that they cease to exist just because they are (in your eyes) wrong.

Buddhism (IMO) is wrong, but I still recognize it as a religion. The same of Janism, Confucianism, Animism, Zorastrianism, and many others.

And you may think that Christianity is wrong. You may think that Jesus himself would not recognize it. You certainly are correct in saying that Jesus wouldn't even recognize the term "Christianity". You might even be correct that if one were to ask Jesus what is the religion that he followed he might say Islam (though I highly doubt it) -- here's the thing that you seem to miss, all of that is completely irrelevant to whether or not a religion commonly known as Christianity exists or not. It does. And I know that it does because I for one am a practicioner of it. That you don't think it is true, or that you don't think that it is something that Jesus would approve of, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is actually practiced. That it is practiced is what makes it existent, to say otherwise is to speak utter nonsense.

Oh, and even if Moses would reject what we call Judaism today, that doesn't mean that Judaism doesn't exist either. That you are wanting to speak against it means that either there is something that does exist that you are wanting to speak against. Or you are a madman attacking something that doesn't even exist.

[Amadeus85]

i was wondering whats greater?

the number of muslims by faith (and not name) or the number christians by faith (and not name)

what do you think? :)

It would be interesting, assuming that there are so many muslims who follow islam, because they have no chance to leave it, because it is forbidden in muslim countries. :rolleyes:

[sevgi]

i voted judaism...only coz of the issues we have with monotheism..and the bible..and the current stance of religious practices...

peace.

[guyabano]

i was wondering whats greater?

the number of muslims by faith (and not name) or the number christians by faith (and not name)

what do you think? :)

Well, I'm not so sure neither. A lot of people call themselves muslims, but they aren't. Same for Christians. I really would like to see some numbers of young muslims (specially those who learn to live in the west) following really Islam, pray 5 times a day, refrain to drink alcohol, etc....

[Isambard]

Judaism may appear closer to islam on the surface, but I think there are some fundamental differences between the two that make it an apple and an orange.

That said, I think Gnostics were the closest to Islam. They had similar (if not identical) mythology, share in the dualism, were a lot more strict about what they did and had all sorts of laws and rituals etc.

[Haidar_Abbas]

:sl:

Islam is Islam nothing is equal or even close to it

:D :sl:

[glo]

I said that Judaism is closer to Islam.


I think this is so because Judaism and Islam are both religions where the essence of practicing the faith is in the behaviors and rituals that one keeps. While the key facets of Christianity have to do with living in a certain type of relationship. All three have elements of both, but the way Muslims are under obligation with respect to the 5 pillars seems to me to be more similar to how Jews understand the keeping of the Torah than to the Christian's concept of placing one's faith in Jesus work, not one's own practices.

I agree with Grace Seeker.

There are many similarities and differences between the three Abrahamic faiths, but this particular one seems to be at the core of them and it separates Christianity from Islam and Judaism:

Jews and Muslims believe that they can only gain God's favour and reward by obeying his laws.

Christians believe that they can never be 'good enough' to be worthy of God's favours based on their behaviour alone, and that they require God's grace and mercy to do so.

On a very personal level, of course it is my wish to please God by living as a 'good' person and by obeying him.
But I find that on my own I can only ever be as 'good' a person as is humanly possible.
Even being 'good' has its own traps and pitfalls - for example the risk of starting to feel proud about one's achievements and 'goodness', feeling self-righteous, and ... often following on from that ... feeling judgmental of others and their behaviours.

I feel that I am closest to God and most able to do his will when I realise in my own heart my own failings and faults, and cry out to him for help.
It's when I realise that I cannot do it in my own strength and that I need God's spirit to work in me, that I find myself acting in ways beyond my own human nature and desire.

In some strange way, the less I try to be 'good' and the more I seek God instead, the more I let him work good through me. (If that makes sense to anybody)

Peace

[ahsan28]

It would be interesting, assuming that there are so many muslims who follow islam, because they have no chance to leave it, because it is forbidden in muslim countries. :rolleyes:

Or assuming that practising christians may be lesser in number cz of the growing secularism in their communities :D

[glo]

Can we refrain from using this thread to attack each others faiths, please?

I find these 'My-religion-is-better-than-yours-posts' very unhelpful ...
We may not agree with each others beliefs, but perhaps we can all practice a little tolerance - please????
(Especially, perhaps, with Ramadan about to start)

Thanks, guys. :)

Peace

[Protected_Diamond]

None. Islam is unique and different from all religions. You can say it has similarities but i wouldn't like to compare it with other religions because, Islam is unique and complete.

[Grace Seeker]

Or assuming that practising christians may be lesser in number cz of the growing secularism in their communities :D

Oh, I agree, I think this is a very big issue in many supposedly "Christian" countries.


Would I be correct in assuming this also something of an issue among Muslims in those countries that are at predominately "Muslim" by culture?

[MustafaMc]

Grace Seeker, Jesus NEVER HEARD the word Christianity, he NEVER CALLED anyone CHRISTIAN, he never heard the word CHRIST, he also never heard the world JESUS!!!
If you see JEsus now, walking on this earth and ask him: "o Jesus, what is your religion?" WHAT HE WILL ANSWER YOU? Will he say : "christianity?"
NO, he will say: "my religion is totally submission to Allah will", with other words, he will say: "my religion is ISLAM (totally submission to Allah will)".
Neither JEsus preached christianity, neather Moses preached Judaism, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHRISTIANITY, and there is NO SUCH THING AS JUDAISM.

I agree with Grace Seeker that there are other religions besides Islam. Just remember the ending of Surah Al-Kafirun - "lakoon deen ukum wa liyah deen" - "For you, your religion and for me, my religion." We may believe that Islam is the only religion acceptable to Allah because it says as much in the Quran, but the Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God and it says, "No one comes to the Father except through the Son." I assure you that there are a lot of Christians, Jews and others who sincerely believe they have the true religion and that they are on the straight path.

Let us remember as Ramadan starts, as Glo has stated to the effect, "Tolerance is a good thing to be encouraged."

[Md Mashud]

Erm, if you had to pick on (being between Christianity vs Judaism) it would be Judaism on the monotheistic reasons (I would say Christianity, to nonchristians atleast, isn't very monotheistic). Meh :skeleton:

[MustafaMc]

Erm, if you had to pick on (being between Christianity vs Judaism) it would be Judaism on the monotheistic reasons (I would say Christianity, to nonchristians atleast, isn't very monotheistic). Meh :skeleton:

I agree with you on this point regarding the religions in and of themselves; however, the Quran reminds us that the true Christians are closer to us in humility and in piety. (Sorry, but I am traveling and can't look up the exact wording.)

Except for my wife, all members of our near and distant families are Christians. I feel a kindred spirit with the most sincere among them as I do some Christians on this forum.

[Md Mashud]

I am not denying that - Quran however did not state Christianity as a religion - today - is more like Islam then Judaism, that verse is talking about characteristics/manners of Christians.

[MustafaMc]

I am not denying that - Quran however did not state Christianity as a religion - today - is more like Islam then Judaism, that verse is talking about characteristics/manners of Christians.

Yes, we are saying the same thing.

[ahsan28]

Would I be correct in assuming this also something of an issue among Muslims in those countries that are at predominately "Muslim" by culture?

Why not, issues are everywhere, we are all humans and fallible mortals :D

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Christians believe that they can never be 'good enough' to be worthy of God's favours based on their behaviour alone, and that they require God's grace and mercy to do so.

Peace Glo :D ,

interesting you mention this because there is a very well known islamic teaching (i forget if its in the hadith or quran :hiding: but it is 150% authentic i assure you !) that there was once a man who worshipped Allah for 500 years at a mountain obeying his laws and sticking to his commands. However when his time for death came he asked that Allah take him to Heaven for his good deeds, so Allah braught the scale, put all of his good deeds on one side, and then put only the favour of eye sight on the other, and the favour of eyesight outweighed his good deeds greatly! So then the man got extremely scared and begged Allah to take him to jannah due to Allahs mercy, so Allah embraced the worshipper in his mercy and allowed him into heaven. You see the worshipper was ignorant of the fact that Allah sent him food for 500 years, caused a stream to flow in the mountain to feed him water for 500 years, gave him a beautiful serene place of worship for 500 years...

This teaches the muslims that islam certainly understands that without the mercy of God, we can never achieve any good in the hereafter, but at the same time we should be grateful slaves of Allah, and obeying his every command to the best of our abilities is a part of that gratitude :).

On a very personal level, of course it is my wish to please God by living as a 'good' person and by obeying him.
But I find that on my own I can only ever be as 'good' a person as is humanly possible.
Even being 'good' has its own traps and pitfalls - for example the risk of starting to feel proud about one's achievements and 'goodness', feeling self-righteous, and ... often following on from that ... feeling judgmental of others and their behaviours.

lol Glo, If the muslims didnt understand such feelings and werent prepared for it then the society of the muslims today would have been in utter decay (lol no rhyme intended). You see islam also has the same worries for all these issues, and we prepare for it via teachings of islam. Islam not only brings us awareness of the problems but also teaches us the cures and preventions Alhamdulillah :).

In some strange way, the less I try to be 'good' and the more I seek God instead, the more I let him work good through me. (If that makes sense to anybody)

Peace

thats why we constantly pray to God, without praying to him how can we expect to have the tawfeeq (good fortune) to do good? :) But islam teaches us to ALWAYS STRIVE to do good, we must never stop. The moment we stop we allow an opening for shaytaan, a well known saying of our prophet sallallahi alaihi wasallaam is that "the shaytaan makes work for idle hands". so we must both pray and strive

[Fishman]

:sl:
I don't think any of the main Monotheistic religions are closer than eachother.

Christianity: They are, like Islam, a religion that places great importance on a key holy figure. They are also a missionary faith and have a similar concept of Heaven and Hell to Muslims. However, they also believe in the holy trinity, which is clearly and repeatedly condemned by the Quran.

Judaism: Jews are monistic monotheists like Muslims, and, like Muslims, place a lot of emphisis on rituals and rules as well as spirituallity and theology. However, they reject some Prophets and have some different theological and spiritual beliefs to Muslims. They also had political difficulties involving the first Muslims, and today they also have major political divides, in a strange repetition of history.

Sikhism: Very similar to Islam in that they believe in one almighty God who can do whatsoever he wishes, with no divisions or trinity. However, other beliefs are very different to Islam. Don't really know much about them though...
:w:

[north_malaysian]

Sikhism: Very similar to Islam in that they believe in one almighty God who can do whatsoever he wishes, with no divisions or trinity. However, other beliefs are very different to Islam. Don't really know much about them though...
:w:

Sikhism, Baha'i, Qadiani evolved from Islam... of course those religions have many similarities with Islam.... so those religions are not eligible to be religions closest to Islam...

[Fishman]

Sikhism, Baha'i, Qadiani evolved from Islam... of course those religions have many similarities with Islam.... so those religions are not eligible to be religions closest to Islam...

:sl:
I don't think Sikhism evolved from Islam in the same way as the Baha'i and the Qadiani (who actually claim to be Muslims, not a separate religion). It does have elements of Islam in it, but it also has a lot of Hindu beliefs as well, such as in reincarnation. They also don't believe in rituals, which is also a major difference...
:w:

[north_malaysian]

:sl:
I don't think Sikhism evolved from Islam in the same way as the Baha'i and the Qadiani (who actually claim to be Muslims, not a separate religion). It does have elements of Islam in it, but it also has a lot of Hindu beliefs as well, such as in reincarnation. They also don't believe in rituals, which is also a major difference...
:w:

OK... Sikhism might not evolved from Islam, but it took many things from Islam...

And there are zillions of religions or cults that have elements of Islam in it...

But.. if you wanna say , Sikhism somehow or rather is closest to Islam.. I'm cool with that...

I prefer to compare Islam with religions before it ... or any religions that have nothing to do with it... thus I felt Judaism is closer to Islam...

But there is no religion as similar as Islam.

Islam is the highest...and there is no religion higher than it...ok:D

[chosen]

I THINK THE ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS A VERY INTERESTINGONE...however i only read a few of the answers..i was very dismayed to read that the christian religion is "very warped"...If you do not agree with my faith that is your choice..I do not believe in Islam but would never insult your religion by calling it warped..please this is suppose to be a place of respectful dialoge..can we keep it that way..

as for me I feel the christian faith is closer, based of the common belief in Jesus..even though we have different opinions about who jesus was..we both agree he was messiah..the jewish people missed the boat that sailed 2000 years ago..they are still awaiting messiah..while christians and jews are awaiting the second comming of jesus

[chosen]

im sorry...i have to correct my last post....it is christians and muslims that are awaiting the second comming of jesus....:embarrass:embarrass

[shev]

well when u look at the general ethical rules of the religions, all of them have the similar lines. ex. lying,stealing,violating,killing are forbidden. I think it is the most important fact. Other behaviours could have been changed because of habits, traditions and expediency

[chosen]

yes but even atheist believe that lying cheating and stealing are wrong...buddist and hindues also are agianst things such as these...these are not religious rights and wrongs so much as they are moral rights and wrongs....I think this is a very important conversation to have...so many times we focus on our differences...while I believe if we focus on our commonalities it will breed more respect and tolerance between religions

[------]

:salamext:

I chose 'other' - coz Islam is unique :D Alhamdulillaah

[YusufNoor]

I THINK THE ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS A VERY INTERESTINGONE...however i only read a few of the answers..i was very dismayed to read that the christian religion is "very warped"...If you do not agree with my faith that is your choice..I do not believe in Islam but would never insult your religion by calling it warped..please this is suppose to be a place of respectful dialoge..can we keep it that way..

as for me I feel the christian faith is closer, based of the common belief in Jesus..even though we have different opinions about who jesus was..we both agree he was messiah..the jewish people missed the boat that sailed 2000 years ago..they are still awaiting messiah..while christians and jews are awaiting the second comming of jesus

:sl:

Peace be upon those that follow the guidance:

could you please explain the difference between "respectful dialogue" and saying that the Jews "missed the boat" is? :crickey: actually, it's a rhetiorical question...

Islam is a return to the Religion of Abraham, the original poster didn't leave alot of choices and seeing as how this gets "resurrected" [:uuh:] every now and then...

i recall a quote somewhere that says something to the effect: Islam is a Wonderful Religion just waiting for adherents and Christians are "wonderful adherents" waiting for a Religion. (before you get all mad, from a Muslim perspective, ESPECIALLY those born into Islam, the making of Partners with Allah Subhannahu Wa Ta'Aala is just absurd and violates the VERY PREMISS of Islam, "there is no God but Allah". don't take so personally when Muslims who aren't personally exposed to Christianity say things in disgust or contempt. that's what they really think)

anyway back to the quote, i heard a great Kutbah by the son of the Imam at one of the local Masjids. he posed the question, "what would happen if the government told all the Muslims to get out of the country. then, that same government told all the Christians to get out...
what would happen? the people would actually miss the Christians! why, they have schools and detox centers and food banks and shelters for battered women, etc.(in other words, they HELP people) as for the Muslims, no one would know/or care about their departure...(and yes, his father mildly rebuked him as soon as he was done)

so while the concepts of worship is Islam resemble those of Judaism, quite strikingly, the question of "am i my brothers keeper" seems to get overlooked. IF Muslims could abide by the Qur'an and the Sunnah, then you would have the most perfect blend of the 2 "other choices." by that i mean, stickng to Islamic Monotheism and never coming close to shirk, but then "adopting" the somewhat more selfless approach to helping others that alot of Christians follow (AND is actually an Islamic ideal!). we would then more closely resemble the Sahabah and Taabaeen.

not only that, but maybe we'd be more tolerant of the other 2 "Abrahamic" faiths.

OK, so it sounds like a old man rambling ...:-[

:w:

[shev]

:salamext:

I chose 'other' - coz Islam is unique :D Alhamdulillaah

so there should be another opsion for you e)none of them..... :)

[Grace Seeker]

i recall a quote somewhere that says something to the effect: Islam is a Wonderful Religion just waiting for adherents and Christians are "wonderful adherents" waiting for a Religion. (before you get all mad, from a Muslim perspective, ESPECIALLY those born into Islam, the making of Partners with Allah Subhannahu Wa Ta'Aala is just absurd and violates the VERY PREMISS of Islam, "there is no God but Allah". don't take so personally when Muslims who aren't personally exposed to Christianity say things in disgust or contempt. that's what they really think)

:w:

OK. First, I acknowledge that it is important not to take every comment personally. People are just sharing their own particular views, and I'll leave most of it at that.

I actually laughed at what you said about:
"Islam is a Wonderful Religion just waiting for adherents and Christians are "wonderful adherents" waiting for a Religion."
It made me think of something I heard on the radio yesterday, (I hope I can get this right.) It was a commercial in which you hear a man calling out for help, appartently about to drown in the ocean. On shore is another man, yelling out instructions on how to swim:

Man on shore: Move your arms.
Man drowning: Help!
Man on shore: No, not over your head. More like a windmill.
Man drowning: Help! Somebody save me! I don't know how to swim.
Announcer: Religion. In the end, even the best religion is nothing more than shouting swimming instructions to a drowning man.
Man on shore: Maybe you should try dog paddling. That's it.
Man drowning: Help! I can't make it. I'm going to die.
Woman: Look! Who is that? Someone's jumped into the ocean and pulled the man to safety. He actually risked his own to save that man's life.
Man on shore: Well, I think me telling him to dog paddle helped some.
Announcer: Jesus Christ didn't come to give us religion, but to bring salvation for all who are dying apart from him.

So, I suspect you're right. Islam is a wonderful religion, and is in a way that Christianity does not intend to be. Judaism and Islam are similar in that both are religions giving instructions on how to live in order to save ourselves. Christianity is about introducing the individual to the person of Jesus who himself acts to save us because we can't save ourselves.

Now, to laugh a little at Christianity too, the tag on the end of the commercial was an invitation to attend a local church on Sunday. We're also pretty good at making Christianity into a religion ourselves, whether we should or not is discussion for another thread.

[Jayda]

hola,

i think it is closest to judaism and probably intentionally so. there are some things in common with Christianity, like the belief in an afterlife. but (aside from doctrinal differences) it's more semitic, legalistic and less theosophic than Christianity which makes it closer to judaism in my mind.

que Dios te bendiga

[chosen]

I meant no disrespect when I said Jews had missed the boat when it comes to messiah..I have a great deal of respect for religious jews..the same respect that I have for religious muslims..we all have different beliefs..jews just do not believe that Jesus was messiah..but they do have a true love of god...

[BlackMamba]

Hold on, is Judaism really pure monotheism because in surah Atouba chapter 9 verse 30 it says that the Jews call Uzair the son of Allah. Is this true? and doesnt that make them on the same level as Christians??

[truemuslim]

OTHER:....hmmm.................................... ..............ISLAM............ALONE

[BlackMamba]

Grace seeker, i wish other Christians were more like you. A lot of them are so racist and mean to Muslims. On youtube if you go to any Muslim or anti-muslim video, the comments are filled with hatred. And the scary thing is that the people commenting are the same people
I interact with everyday at school and at work.

[snakelegs]

Hold on, is Judaism really pure monotheism because in surah Atouba chapter 9 verse 30 it says that the Jews call Uzair the son of Allah. Is this true? and doesnt that make them on the same level as Christians??

how can you ask that, since it is written in the qur'an?
jews of course, would strongly disagree.

[One Man Army]

quik off topic question. i just read above that muslims and christians await the second coming of Jesus Christ. do they believe him to take birth once again, or will the come in their form as before?

[Grace Seeker]

quik off topic question. i just read above that muslims and christians await the second coming of Jesus Christ. do they believe him to take birth once again, or will the come in their form as before?

I think I know the Muslim answer to this question as well, but since there are plenty of actual Muslims here, will let them speak for themselves. As far as the Christian answer, the main passage that sets this forth is...

Acts 1
6So when they [the disciples] met together, they asked him [Jesus], "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

These are events that took place after Jesus' resurrection.

Other passages that speak to it are:

1 Thessalonians 4
15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Revelation 1:7
Look, he [Jesus] is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

[Jayda]

Hold on, is Judaism really pure monotheism because in surah Atouba chapter 9 verse 30 it says that the Jews call Uzair the son of Allah. Is this true? and doesnt that make them on the same level as Christians??

no it's patently false. at no time in the history of judaism have they considered ezra the son of God... it's not in the torah, talmud or mishrash nor anywhere in their history

[thirdwatch512]

Hold on, is Judaism really pure monotheism because in surah Atouba chapter 9 verse 30 it says that the Jews call Uzair the son of Allah. Is this true? and doesnt that make them on the same level as Christians??

Absolutely false. Nowhere in any Jewish texts, whether it be the 14 volume Mishnah Torah, or the 22 volume Talmud, or just the Tanach in general.. Nowhere is Ezra called the "Son of God." Maimonides never claimed such, Abraham ibn ezra never claimed such, Rashi never claimed such, Josephus never did.. It is absolutely absent in Jewish texts. The 7 volume "Legends of the Jews" does not say it.. Never is it mentioned! It is purely a Qu'ranic statement that any Jews will tell you is totally wrong.

[- Qatada -]

:sl:
I responded to this issue in the thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...an-friend.html

Again,

Muhammad Asad is a jew who converted to Islam and this is what he says about this verse:

This statement is connected with the preceding verse, which speaks of the erring followers of earlier revelation. The charge of shirk ("the ascribing of divinity [or "divine qualities"] to aught beside God") is levelled against both the Jews and the Christians in amplification, as it were, of the statement that they "do not follow the religion of truth [which God has enjoined upon them]".

As regards the belief attributed to the Jews that Ezra (or, in the Arabicized form of this name, `Uzayr) was "God's son", it is to be noted that almost all classical commentators of the Qur'an agree in that only the Jews of Arabia, and not all Jews, have been thus accused. (According to a Tradition on the authority of Ibn `Abbas - quoted by Tabari in his commentary on this verse - some of the Jews of Medina once said to Muhammad, "How could we follow thee when thou hast forsaken our giblah and dost not consider Ezra a son of God?") On the other hand, Ezra occupies a unique position in the esteem of all Jews, and has always been praised by them in the most extravagant terms. It was he who restored and codified the Torah after it had been lost during the Babylonian Exile, and "edited" it in more or less the form which it has today; and thus "he promoted the establishment of an exclusive, legalistic type of religion that became dominant in later Judaism" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1963, vol. IX, p. 15). Ever since then he has been venerated to such a degree that his verdicts on the Law of Moses have come to be regarded by the Talmudists as being practically equivalent to the Law itself: which, in Qur'anic ideology, amounts to the unforgivable sin of shirk, inasmuch as it implies the elevation of a human being to the status of a quasi-divine law-giver and the blasphemous attribution to him - albeit metaphorically - of the quality of "sonship" in relation to God. Cf. in this connection Exodus iv, 22-23 ("Israel is My son") or Jeremiah xxxi, 9 ("I am a father to Israel"): expressions to which, because of their idolatrous implications, the Qur'dn takes strong exception. (Asad, Message of the Qur'an)

More info here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...rnal/ezra.html

...the quote that I gave from Muhammad Asad, a former Jew himself, who pointed out that, as mentioned in At-Tabari's tafsir, some Jews came to the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and said, "How can we follow you when you do not believe Uzayr is the son of God?". Notice that the Qur'an doesn't say that the Jews believe Uzayr is the son of God, but the Qur'an is very precise in saying that the Jews say Uzayr is the son of God. Thus, it cannot be a contradiction in any way since the Qur'an is only responding to the verbal proclamation of a group of Jews!



Also interesting is Dr. Muhammad Mohar Ali's comments on this issue:

Of course there is no evidence in the extant Old Testament about it; but the Qur'an was not referring to what is written in the Old Testament about 'Uzayr but to the belief and assertion of some of the Jews of the time who regarded 'Uzayr as the son of God. In fact the 'ayah in question, 9:30, starts with the expression: "And the Jews say". The commentator Al-Baydawi, to whome Watt refers a number of times in his book, (fn. Watt, Muhammad's Mecca, 108, note 2 to Chapter 1 and notes 2 and 10 to Chapter III) makes it clear with reference to this 'ayah that because the Old Testament was given its present form by 'Uzayr, many of the Jews of the time considered him a "son of God" and that specifically at Madina there was a group of Jews who held that belief. Al-Baydawi futher points out that the 'ayah in question was read out and recited as usual but no Madinan Jew came forward with a contradiction (fn.Al-Baydawi, Tafsir, I, second Egyptian impression, 1968, p. 412). It is to be noted that this 'ayah is unanimously regarded as Madinan. Hence the silence of the Jews of the place on the matter is suggestive enough, particularly as they were avowed critics of the Prophet.
Not only Al-Baydawi but also other commentators mention that the 'ayah refers to the views of a particular group of the Jews. For instance, Al-Tabari bives a number of reports together with their chains of narrators specifically mentioning the leading Jews of Madina who considered Uzayr a son of God. The most prominent of those Jews were Finhas, Sullam ibn Mishkam, Nu'man ibn Awfa, Sha's ibn Qays and Malik ibn al-Sayf (fn. Al-Tabari, Tafsir, XIV, 201-204). Similarly, Al-Qurtubi mentions the same fact and the same names adding that the expression "the Jews" occuring at the beginning of the 'ayah means "some particular Jews", just as the expression "people told them" (qala lahum al-nas) means not all the people of the world but some particular people. He further says that the Jewish sect who held that 'Uzayr was God's son had become extinct by his (Al-Qurtubi's) time (fn. Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir, Pt. VIII, 116-117). (Muhammad Mohar Ali, The Qur'an and the Orientalists, Jam'iyat 'Ihyaa' Minhaaj Al-Sunnah 2004, p. 66)

So as for what he quotes,

Notice the words "proposed" and "assumption". There are no records from any Jewish community that believed Ezra was the Son of God!

First of all, this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium which we can refute with the expression, "absence of proof is not proof of absence". In other words, just because we don't have Judaic records that shows that Jews believed this, does not prove that no Jews ever believed this!

Secondly, as was previously mentioned, there are specific historical narrations related by Qur'anic commentators like Al-Baydawi and At-Tabari which state the names of specific Jewish leaders who came forward to the Muslims and said "We cannot believe you since you do not accept Uzayr as the son of God". And notice that the Qur'an doesn't say that the Jews believed Uzayr was the son of God, it says quite clearly that they said he was the son of God. So, the Qur'an was responding to an explicit proclamation of the Jews. Either the Jews were intentionally lying, or they actually believed what they said - but in any event the Qur'an can't be wrong since the Jews of Madinah actually said this.

:w

Guest wrote:

Take a look at the context, if that Sura says that Jews at "ONE POINT" believed that Ezra was the Son of God, then Christians at "ONE POINT" believed that Jesus was the Son of God.

Yes, it does not speak about the beliefs of anyone - it says the Jews SAY, i.e. it was responding to a verbal statement made by the Jews of Madinah.


http://www.islamicboard.com/304721-post23.html

[Jayda]

hola,

first off, he's a jewish convert. ergo we cannot trust him.

second, that's REALLY stretching...

que Dios te bendiga

[snakelegs]

there may have been a group of jews in madinah that said that, but it is not from mainstream judaism. ezra was very important figure, but never called "son of god".
as for the charges of shirk, a jew could look at islam and accuse muslims of worshipping the prophet because they follow his sunnah - would that make it true? no.
anyway, since this is in the qur'an, there is little to be done about it except to point out that it is not from judaism.
jews see themselves as fiercely monotheistic as muslims.

[- Qatada -]

hola,

first off, he's a jewish convert. ergo we cannot trust him.

second, that's REALLY stretching...

que Dios te bendiga

It's a history lesson. :) Imam Al-Tabari compiled a history book, it had narrations of the Jews who lived in the Arabian Peninsula. He did the research and found the answer. You'll find nowhere in the Qur'an where it's mentioned that the Jews said they believe that Ezra is the son of God, and this is what is mentioned in Al-Tabari's collection of narrations.

If you don't want to believe in it, then you don't have to. But we have a science of hadith as you may know of, so it's truthful.

[Jayda]

It's a history lesson. :) Imam Al-Tabari compiled a history book, it had narrations of the Jews who lived in the Arabian Peninsula. He did the research and found the answer. You'll find nowhere in the Qur'an where it's mentioned that the Jews said they believe that Ezra is the son of God, and this is what is mentioned in Al-Tabari's collection of narrations.

If you don't want to believe in it, then you don't have to. But we have a science of hadith as you may know of, so it's truthful.

again, from a muslim author, ergo it's not truthful.

[- Qatada -]

again, from a muslim author, ergo it's not truthful.

Sure, don't accept any muslim historian at all. I don't mind. That's upto you. Atleast our Islamic history is much more authentically documented than any other nations in the world.



Regards.

[Jayda]

Sure, don't accept any muslim historian at all. I don't mind. That's upto you. Atleast our Islamic history is much more authentically documented than any other nations in the world.



Regards.

well since you're not going to ask. i'm trying to demonstrate the futility of ipse dixit, relying on the person rather than the evidence as you did when you provided an islamic explanation from the mouth of a real, live, authentic Jew several minutes ago.

a jew 2000 years later telling me something tabari wrote in defense of his prophet is no different than tabari himself telling me and it's simply not evidence, it's restating an assertion.

nothing you've shown us above deviates from reliance on that simple logical fallacy... rather than providing evidence that the Jews ever considered Ezra the Son of God, you have simply restated the accusation and made vague references to how they may have committed blasphemy because some of them consider him a really important figure in judaism... and also maybe it was just the jews in mecca... so put it all together and it all makes sense! oh and by the way, i'm not saying this... my jewish friend over here is the one who said it.

where do you find the word's as in the quran 'Ezra is the Son of God' ? the connection is so self evident in Christianity it would be blasphemy for me to say 'the Messiah is not the Son of God' the quran is absolutely correct... it's evidence against the Jews and Ezra not even remotely so.

a healthy sense of islamic superiority is not going to convince anyone

que Dios te bendiga

[guyabano]

Sure, don't accept any muslim historian at all. I don't mind. That's upto you. Atleast our Islamic history is much more authentically documented than any other nations in the world.



Regards.

errmmm, pardon me, but chinese History is more than 5000 years old, so far, Taoism and Buddhism are much more older than Islam. :uhwhat

[- Qatada -]

errmmm, pardon me, but chinese History is more than 5000 years old, so far, Taoism and Buddhism are much more older than Islam. :uhwhat

Erm, i said authentically documented. :) Look into its sciences.

[Jayda]

Erm, i said authentically documented. :) Look into its sciences.

...do you have any idea how subjective that is?

[- Qatada -]

well since you're not going to ask. i'm trying to demonstrate the futility of ipse dixit, relying on the person rather than the evidence as you did when you provided an islamic explanation from the mouth of a real, live, authentic Jew several minutes ago.

a jew 2000 years later telling me something tabari wrote in defense of his prophet is no different than tabari himself telling me and it's simply not evidence, it's restating an assertion.

nothing you've shown us above deviates from reliance on that simple logical fallacy... rather than providing evidence that the Jews ever considered Ezra the Son of God, you have simply restated the accusation and made vague references to how they may have committed blasphemy because some of them consider him a really important figure in judaism... and also maybe it was just the jews in mecca... so put it all together and it all makes sense! oh and by the way, i'm not saying this... my jewish friend over here is the one who said it.

where do you find the word's as in the quran 'Ezra is the Son of God' ? the connection is so self evident in Christianity it would be blasphemy for me to say 'the Messiah is not the Son of God' the quran is absolutely correct... it's evidence against the Jews and Ezra not even remotely so.

a healthy sense of islamic superiority is not going to convince anyone

que Dios te bendiga

Jayda, this is when i'll explain to you what the Islamic history sciences are. Their not like the basic history books which have a mention of how the author views history. Guyabano, this might come in useful for you too.


What happens is this;

There is one man, for example - Tom.


Tom is living in the presence of some people. He knows the customs of the people living in his town.

Tom tells his student (Jerry) that the people in his town used to say "Hooray" whenever they got happy.


Tom - Jerry [are in the chain.]


Jerry records this information and tells his students (including a student called Bob) in his religious talks that he heard from Tom (his teacher) that the people said hooray whenever they were happy.



Tom - Jerry - Bob [are in the chain.]


Bob tells his student (William) in a religious talk the same story.


Tom - Jerry - Bob - William.



Rob is a historian. He doesn't write history himself, he merely records it. He hears from William that this is what he heard from William, and he mentions all the people in the chain all the way uptill Tom.



Then the narrators in the chain are studied for their trustworthiness, the strength of their memory, and whether they had lied or decieved others in their lives [during their lives, there would be biographers who would record the lives of the narrators.]


If the chain is authentic, with all the narrators trustworthy - it's like Rob heard it directly off Tom. So it is an authentic narration.

This is exactly how Imam Al-Tabari collected history. Our Islamic history is recorded this way, since over 1400years ago. Imam Al Tabari didn't live too long ago after the Prophet, so maybe about 7 people might have been in his chains of narrations in his history collection. :)





Regards.

[Jayda]

Jayda, this is when i'll explain to you what the Islamic history sciences are. Their not like the basic history books which have a mention of how the author views history. Guyabano, this might come in useful for you too.


What happens is this;

There is one man, for example - Tom.


Tom is living in the presence of some people. He knows the customs of the people living in his town.

Tom tells his student (Jerry) that the people in his town used to say "Hooray" whenever they got happy.


Tom - Jerry [are in the chain.]


Jerry records this information and tells his students (including a student called Bob) in his religious talks that he heard from Tom (his teacher) that the people said hooray whenever they were happy.



Tom - Jerry - Bob [are in the chain.]


Bob tells his student (William) in a religious talk the same story.


Tom - Jerry - Bob - William.



Rob is a historian. He doesn't write history himself, he merely records it. He hears from William that this is what he heard from William, and he mentions all the people in the chain all the way uptill Tom.



Then the narrators in the chain are studied for their trustworthiness, the strength of their memory, and whether they had lied or decieved others in their lives [during their lives, there would be biographers who would record the lives of the narrators.]


If the chain is authentic, with all the narrators trustworthy - it's like Rob heard it directly off Tom. So it is an authentic narration.

This is exactly how Imam Al-Tabari collected history. Our Islamic history is recorded this way, since over 1400years ago. Imam Al Tabari didn't live too long ago, so maybe about 7 people might have been in his chains of narrations in his history collection :)





Regards.

si,

and that is a lovely explanation of isnad. the problem is 2000 years later when better more empiracle sciences strongly contradict tribal methods of recording information we are confronted with questions. "who was Tom?" "can anyone proove Tom and his 'friends' existed?" "how do we know what Tom said matches what was reported, what was reported, what was reported, what was reported Tom said 80 years after?"

and when you start to ask those questions alongside the undeniable fact that our modern, more sophistocated techniques totally contradict what Tom theoretically said... then our questions (above) turn into explanations. "well maybe they don't match up because Tom didn't exist, lets see if we can independently verify this guy's existance" "maybe they don't match because people warped what Tom said each time they presented it"

either way... at the end of this, my accusation of bad evidence is against Tom himself. in this case Tom is a devout muslim who tells us that Jewish people were approaching His prophet and doing something that substantiates an accusation in his holy book that runs contrary to everything Jews believe. and since Tom doesn't have any friends to corroborate this it makes it the word of one, heavily biased man living over 1000 years ago against the entire documented history of a 5000 year old religion.

that's why it's not convincing.

que Dios te bendiga

[- Qatada -]

Muhammad Asad never made up any narrations, he simply used a narration from Imam Al Tabari's history collection.

Imam Al Tabari's history book is used by many people, even by anti islamic people. Therefore, if you reject it - again, that's upto you.



That's the end of our conversation.




Peace.

[Jayda]

and perhaps that may be, but it's not the end of the conversation.

the fact remains outside of the testimony of one highly prejudiced man who may have existed about 1300 years ago, there is no indication the jews ever considered ezra the son of God, and there is every indication they would have considered such a thing blasphemy. such a blasphemy, in fact, they are on record crucifying a man for designating himself the Son of God.

que Dios te bendiga

[thirdwatch512]

Notice that the Qur'an doesn't say that the Jews believe Uzayr is the son of God, but the Qur'an is very precise in saying that the Jews say Uzayr is the son of God. Thus, it cannot be a contradiction

But the Jews do not say Ezra is the Son of God!

Islam has this belief in Tahweed, the oneness and uniqueness of God that no one can comprehend. Well, Judaism holds the same in a sense. Go all throughout the Tanach, and you see verses saying that God is all powerful and no one can comprehend is perfection, etc etc.

Jews look down upon people who call others the "son of god" jsut as much as you Muslims do.

The Rambam(one of the greatest Jewish scholars who lived in Morocco) called Muslims out on it many times, saying that Muhammad was a "meshugga" who lied about the Jews. "Meshugga" is Hebrew for madman, and at the time was one of the worse things you could call a man. This shows how much the Rambam was against Muhammad.

[The_Prince]

But the Jews do not say Ezra is the Son of God!

Islam has this belief in Tahweed, the oneness and uniqueness of God that no one can comprehend. Well, Judaism holds the same in a sense. Go all throughout the Tanach, and you see verses saying that God is all powerful and no one can comprehend is perfection, etc etc.

Jews look down upon people who call others the "son of god" jsut as much as you Muslims do.

The Rambam(one of the greatest Jewish scholars who lived in Morocco) called Muslims out on it many times, saying that Muhammad was a "meshugga" who lied about the Jews. "Meshugga" is Hebrew for madman, and at the time was one of the worse things you could call a man. This shows how much the Rambam was against Muhammad.

well it would be good if this jew could actually say what the prophet Muhammad lied about...............

if its reffering to Uzayr well this site responds to the claim:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...rnal/ezra.html

[KelleyD]

I voted other. I think' Islam has alot of similarities with Baha'is. Unity under one God seems to be the common thread running through both.

[BlackMamba]

Some Jews at the time did see Uzair as son of god. This site is where I learned that from:
http://answering-christianity.com/quran/qb005.htm

[snakelegs]

i don't think there is really a conflict here.

Notice that the Qur'an doesn't say that the Jews believe Uzayr is the son of God, but the Qur'an is very precise in saying that the Jews say Uzayr is the son of God. Thus, it cannot be a contradiction in any way since the Qur'an is only responding to the verbal proclamation of a group of Jews!

it is quite possible that some jews in madinah said that. it is still not mainstream jewish belief and in my opinion, it is incorrect to regard jews as polytheistic based on this.
jews are as fiercely monotheistic as muslims.

[thirdwatch512]

I voted other. I think' Islam has alot of similarities with Baha'is. Unity under one God seems to be the common thread running through both.

I disagree, especially concerning fiqh(Islamic Jurisprudence). For example, Baha'is have no problem with free mixing of the genders, whereas muslims(unfortunetely) have a major problem with men and women interacting. Baha'is have no problems with dogs, Muslims do. Baha'is are against homosexuality, but do not wish death. They do not believe in hell either.

Some Jews at the time did see Uzair as son of god. This site is where I learned that from:
http://answering-christianity.com/quran/qb005.htm

this site is doing nothing but speculating. They are showing an APOCRYPHAL book of the Bible(meaning one that is not even in the jewish canon), and even then they are only speculating. I have read this apocryphal book, and no where does it say Ezra is the son of God. they are only speculating that since X happened, perhaps they think Y. It is wishful thinking on their part, especially when we know that Jews have never supported the ideal of a "Son of God", especially about Ezra! ezra was merely a scribe and a leader who helped the Jews after the Babylonian exile, with Nehemiah and others.

The Qu'ran does not say "some Jews"... It leaves out the important adjective of "some!"!! Yet in surah 2:146, it says "some" when speaking about the people of the book! "The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know. " the word in arabic is "فَرِيق" which literally means "team" which in arabic is a way of saying some of them. So why is it not used when referring to the Jews and the son of God? Why does it not say "SOME Jews"("فَرِيق هَادُواْ")?? Instead it says just the noun, intending that ALL believe that. Not only that, but it also says that the Christians believe Jesus is the son of God in the same verse, which is true. So if it is saying that about Christians, then it must also be saying that about the Jews.

Error!

[Grace Seeker]

Jayda, this is when i'll explain to you what the Islamic history sciences are. Their not like the basic history books which have a mention of how the author views history. Guyabano, this might come in useful for you too.


What happens is this;

There is one man, for example - Tom.


Tom is living in the presence of some people. He knows the customs of the people living in his town.

Tom tells his student (Jerry) that the people in his town used to say "Hooray" whenever they got happy.


Tom - Jerry [are in the chain.]


Jerry records this information and tells his students (including a student called Bob) in his religious talks that he heard from Tom (his teacher) that the people said hooray whenever they were happy.



Tom - Jerry - Bob [are in the chain.]


Bob tells his student (William) in a religious talk the same story.


Tom - Jerry - Bob - William.



Rob is a historian. He doesn't write history himself, he merely records it. He hears from William that this is what he heard from William, and he mentions all the people in the chain all the way uptill Tom.



Then the narrators in the chain are studied for their trustworthiness, the strength of their memory, and whether they had lied or decieved others in their lives [during their lives, there would be biographers who would record the lives of the narrators.]


If the chain is authentic, with all the narrators trustworthy - it's like Rob heard it directly off Tom. So it is an authentic narration.

This is exactly how Imam Al-Tabari collected history. Our Islamic history is recorded this way, since over 1400years ago. Imam Al Tabari didn't live too long ago after the Prophet, so maybe about 7 people might have been in his chains of narrations in his history collection. :)





Regards.

Do you know what they call that type of "science" in a courtroom? Hearsay.

[Grace Seeker]

Some Jews at the time did see Uzair as son of god. This site is where I learned that from:
http://answering-christianity.com/quran/qb005.htm

Wow!! It's an Islamic site. Imagine that. Please find a Jewish site, and then maybe I'll accept the testimony.

[- Qatada -]

Do you know what they call that type of "science" in a courtroom? Hearsay.

Surprisingly, you don't have a history at all then. :) Nor does the nation which you live in.

[Jayda]

Surprisingly, you don't have a history at all then. :) Nor does the nation which you live in.

lol si,

but the question is whether our (internal) history is accurate. for about 200 years we were taught that we came here, peacefully settled and then the evil pagan 'injuns' started to kill us off, so we fought, won and continued expanding into the west. but in the last 50 years we've taken a look back on this, considered the native american accounts, consulted modern scientific archeological discoveries and a new picture is painted of opportunistic europeans (some of whom were good some of whom were bad) antagonizing the natives as much as they did us... and in some cases committing genocide upon them.

one cannot rely solely on their own historic record, it is inevitably filled with biases, fairytales and misinterpretations.

you face the same question... is your internal record accurate? i (and the other non muslims here) suggest that it is not... in light of everything else we know. by comparing jewish accounts of their own history, to your accounts of your own history (about jews), and by looking at what secular science has uncovered your record appears to be highly suspect - although not without its contributions to the bigger picture.

que Dios te bendiga

[- Qatada -]

Regarding the issue of the 'son of God' - let's see whether the Jews really did say son of God to anyone - according to the Old Testament.

"Sons of God" according to Judaism


In the Old Testament

In the Old Testament, the phrase "son(s) of God" has an unknown meaning: there are a number of later interpretations. Our translation most likely comes from the Septuagint, which uses the phrase "Uioi Tou Theou", "Sons of God", to translate it.[10]

• The Hebrew phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as "sons of God", is seen by some to describe angels or immensely powerful human beings. The notion of the word as describing non-divine beings most likely comes from the Targumic Aramaic translation, which uses the phrases "sons of nobles", "Bnei Ravrevaya" in its translation. See Genesis 6:2-4 and Book of Job 1:6.
• It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Psalm 82:6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" can seem to be equations). In a more specialized sense, "son of God" is a title applied only to the real king over Israel (II Samuel 7: 14, with reference to King DavidPsalm 89:27, 28). and those of his descendants who carried on his dynasty; comp.
• Israel as a people is called God's "son", using the singular form (comp. Exodus 4: 22 and Hosea 11:1).

In Judaism the term "son of God" is not used in the sense of the expected "messiah" Psalm 2 refers to Solomon as both God's messiah (an anointed king) and like a son of God.
In the Jewish literature that was not finally accepted as part of the Hebrew Bible, but that many Christians do accept as Scripture (see Deuterocanonical books, there are passages in which the title "son of God" is given to the anointed person or Messiah (see Enoch, 55:2; IV Esdras 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9). The title belongs also to any one whose piety has placed him in a filial relation to God (see Wisdom 2:13, 16, 18; 5:5, where "the sons of God" are identical with "the saints"; comp. Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] iv. 10).




It has been speculated that it was because of the frequent use of these books by the Early Christians in polemics with Jews, that the Sanhedrin at Yavneh rejected them around AD 80.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_...ing_to_Judaism

Verses such as these are so apparent and clear when pious persons are referred to as 'sons of God' and God being referred to as 'father':

King James Bible 2 Samuel 7:14

I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:



Exodus 4:22-23 (King James Version)

22And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

23And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

Therefore, according to your own beliefs - you're own christian scholars would frequently use the OT to claim exactly what i am claiming, yet you choose to deny it right now, merely because some Jews did so.

So who's to say that the Jews of Medina never took these verses and because Ezra/Uzayr was a pious man - they also labelled him as 'the son of God'?



To be honest, this is the end of the discussion - if we don't have any common ground at all, then we won't get anywhere in the discussion. If you don't accept history from anyone who doesn't belong to your religion, then that's upto you - you're basically rejecting nearly all of history.






Regards.

[- Qatada -]

Jayda, if i'm to use the logic of the people i'm debating with - then that's all hearsy. I don't accept it i'm afraid.


Do you understand what i mean now?

[Jayda]

hola,

no, i'm sorry i do not understand what you mean...

que Dios te bendiga

[Jayda]

To be honest, this is the end of the discussion - if we don't have any common ground at all, then we won't get anywhere in the discussion. If you don't accept history from anyone who doesn't belong to your religion, then that's upto you - you're basically rejecting nearly all of history.


Regards.

hola Qatada,

that's misconstruing the issue. islamic history is not necessary to accurately chronical the history of all people everywhere, but it is useful in putting together a picture of islamic history. the subject we are discussing is not islamic history, it is jewish history.

for an accurate picture we need to balance islamic history with prestanding jewish accounts of their history and religion and what secular history tells us... especially since there will be a natural bias in the islamic account to justify the quran. there will be no such bias in jewish history since it predates islam, and there will not be any bias in secular history since it has no ideological slant.

in doing so (comparing the three) jewish and secular accounts demonstrate that the jews did not apply the title 'son of God' to Ezra... only the muslim account does this. so there is a huge discrepency... that's when you need to start asking questions... why is there this discrepency? well... consider the source, a person whom we cannot independently verify, who is attempting to validate his religion, so there is a motive.

do you have any explanation for the major discrepency between what jewish history and secular history have to say on the topic... with what islamic history has to say?

this account is simply not good evidence... it's one man who may have existed 1500 years ago against the entire body of history gathered by jews about themselves, and everything secular scholars were able to gather about them.

you are the one trying to convince us... if you feel like this is hopeless then we certainly accept that you don't want to participate in the conversation, nobody is forcing you. but it is unfair to give us bad evidence and then demand that there is something wrong with us for challenging its veracity (and relevancy) and ultimately not accepting it. at least give some consideration to why we do not accept what we have read so far from you.

que Dios te bendiga

[- Qatada -]

Jayda, any history - no matter what part of the world it comes from - the people who lived in that place at that time can only discuss the issue at hand.


If you are to look into the history of China, no matter how hard someone tries - it will be nearly impossible to get a Europeans or secular persons account of what really occurred there:

1) Partly because no secular European even lived there to mention this. Since the whole issue was an issue of internal affairs.

2) If one was to use your argument that we do not accept ones authenticity due to biases or cultural influence etc. then again - this means that WE CANNOT ACCEPT ANY HISTORY WHATSOEVER? Since nearly all of history has been put forward this way. Yes, there is the help of scientific advances, yet this isn't sufficient as a means to preserve history in its totality. The story surrounding the scientific evidences is what helps these archaeologists figure out what actually happened within that location at that time period in history.

Besides, I've given you strong evidences from the OT itself. If you doubt the OT, then that is your own loss. It is clear from passages which i did quote that the pious people were referred to as 'Gods children' and this is exactly what Christianity is based on!

And similarly, it wouldn't be surprising if Jews interpreted their texts (yes, they have many sects with different interpretations also) in a way to label Uzayr/Ezra as a 'son of God' due to their utmost respect for him.




Using the points which i mentioned above, it becomes clear that the points discussed are valid. And that if you are to deny the history books which have narrations in, narrations which are supported by every narrator, along with his truthfulness etc. then we can rightly say that this did occur. If you doubt that - then yeah, we can finally conclude that you really don't have no history of your culture, your nation, nor even your religion.


If you say that the OT calls against monotheism, since it mentions 'son of God' many times - then you are in a paradox. Either you accept that son of God is mentioned in the OT, or you deny it and therefore deny your own, aswell as the Jewish scripture.






Regards.

[Grace Seeker]

My point is that you speak of a "science" of hadith. It isn't a science. There is no way to repeat the experiment and validate the results. It is history. And history is something that is always open to both interpretation and reinterpretation. One reason is that there is a lot of hearsay in history, all histories. Another is that even when dealing with concrete physical items be they shards of pottery from an archeaological dig or a letter that has been authenticated from the hand of Abraham Lincoln, that we are the ones who are assigning meaning to them and sometimes we assign those meanings incorrectly. And honest historian recognizes these weaknesses in the process, weakness which I am prepared to recognize in my interpretation of scripture, but which you do not seem to be preprared to recognize in your interpretation of passages even though you are attempting to do it in the light of a book (the Qur'an) written centuries after the fact and unrelated to the first (the Pentateuch) which you are trying to interpret.

[- Qatada -]

Quoting brother Ansar:

So as for what he quotes,

Notice the words "proposed" and "assumption". There are no records from any Jewish community that believed Ezra was the Son of God!

First of all, this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium"absence of proof is not proof of absence". In other words, which we can refute with the expression, just because we don't have Judaic records that shows that Jews believed this, does not prove that no Jews ever believed this!


Secondly, as was previously mentioned, there are specific historical narrations related by Qur'anic commentators like Al-Baydawi and At-Tabari which state the names of specific Jewish leaders who came forward to the Muslims and said "We cannot believe you since you do not accept Uzayr as the son of God". And notice that the Qur'an doesn't say that the Jews believed Uzayr was the son of God, it says quite clearly that they said he was the son of God. So, the Qur'an was responding to an explicit proclamation of the Jews. Either the Jews were intentionally lying, or they actually believed what they said - but in any event the Qur'an can't be wrong since the Jews of Madinah actually said this.

http://www.islamicboard.com/893026-post123.html

So in debate, that isn't a valid enough argument - i.e. just because it isn't in Jewish records that it never occurred. It's like atheists telling us to prove that God exists, although He does - they cannot disprove that God exists, nor can we clearly without a doubt prove to them that God exists - since we believe in Him, although we cannot see Him, and it is upto them to take them steps to accept His existence.

Therefore the lack of certain records from a certain group isn't sufficient to disprove the historical event altogether, but if you deny the event based on denying the historical sources which do mention it - then again, this does not disprove that it occurred, it only proves that you disagree with the historical records which do mention it.

[YusufNoor]

Do you know what they call that type of "science" in a courtroom? Hearsay.

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

i'm SOO GLAD that you have come to our website to learn about Islam instead of just preaching your religion!

*exits sarcasm mode*

btw, do you know what they call anonymous, undocumented letters in "Christianity?" the gospel truth!

GO FIGURE!

:w:

[Jayda]

hola Qatada,

gracias for your continued interest in this conversation

Jayda, any history - no matter what part of the world it comes from - the people who lived in that place at that time can only discuss the issue at hand.

which defeats your point... you are demanding that we place what muslims thought and recorded of jews... over what jews thought and recorded of themselves.

If you are to look into the history of China, no matter how hard someone tries - it will be nearly impossible to get a Europeans or secular persons account of what really occurred there:


[INDENT]1) Partly because no secular European even lived there to mention this. Since the whole issue was an issue of internal affairs.

very well. if we accept Chinese history without a 'fact check' from modern archaeology and from other sources (not necessarily western) then we accept as undisputed fact that after a period of ten thousand ten thousand years of rulership by primordial gods (the heavenly sovereign, the earthly sovereign and the human sovereign) a group of godmen came to rule china beginning with the 'yellow emperor' who came to power with a magic compass in 2697 and lived to 100 years before becomming immortal.

2) If one was to use your argument that we do not accept ones authenticity due to biases or cultural influence etc. then again - this means that WE CANNOT ACCEPT ANY HISTORY WHATSOEVER? Since nearly all of history has been put forward this way. Yes, there is the help of scientific advances, yet this isn't sufficient as a means to preserve history in its totality. The story surrounding the scientific evidences is what helps these archaeologists figure out what actually happened within that location at that time period in history.

you misunderstand me. we must accept that a community's biases will be a natural part of their history. that is why their history must be taken into account alongside other recorded histories and what the record we can uncover using modern techniques reveals. this provides a fuller, clearer picture devoid of some of the biases and nonsense.

Besides, I've given you strong evidences from the OT itself. If you doubt the OT, then that is your own loss. It is clear from passages which i did quote that the pious people were referred to as 'Gods children' and this is exactly what Christianity is based on!

no... you've given me your interpretation of the OT, a non Christian one, no less.

the Jews did apply the term 'Son of God' to various people in the OT, including King David... it is a variation of the term 'annointed' in that context. however it was used in an entirely different manner than the term applied to Christ (obviously, since He was tried for blasphemy). my intuition is that the quran understands the difference... and when it accused the Jews of calling Ezra 'the son of God' the author of the quran meant 'in the same sense as the Christians,' i have that intuition because the quran speaks of both in the same breath. is this not reasonable?

regardless, your quotes from the bible are irrelevant. none of them is about Jews calling prophet Ezra the Son of God. ask a jewish person why that would be peculiar... they will tell you it is because he wasn't David.

And similarly, it wouldn't be surprising if Jews interpreted their texts (yes, they have many sects with different interpretations also) in a way to label Uzayr/Ezra as a 'son of God' due to their utmost respect for him.

okay... but what surprises you or does not surprise you isn't evidence... it's restating the islamic opinion.

Using the points which i mentioned above, it becomes clear that the points discussed are valid. And that if you are to deny the history books which have narrations in, narrations which are supported by every narrator, along with his truthfulness etc. then we can rightly say that this did occur. If you doubt that - then yeah, we can finally conclude that you really don't have no history of your culture, your nation, nor even your religion.

you misunderstand my point. reread my response to your question about China and see the obvious parallel to islamic history. i'm not a nihilist, traditional cultures' histories have their place, especially when they are talking about their own culture (however in this case it is a muslims perspective of Jews, and you are disregarding the Jewish account of Jewish history).

i'm not going to accept islamic history with no strings attached simply because it's muslim. there are legitimate questions regarding the veracity of this information, in light of Jewish history and in light of what secular science has given us.

If you say that the OT calls against monotheism, since it mentions 'son of God' many times - then you are in a paradox. Either you accept that son of God is mentioned in the OT, or you deny it and therefore deny your own, aswell as the Jewish scripture.

Regards.

si, and so it does. but i have already explained the way it is used in different contexts, feel free to explore the issue further with wikipedia. the question is not whether 'people have been called Son of God' before, but whether Ezra was called 'Son of God.' specifically if he was called 'Son of God' in a blasphemous context (since it means different things in different situations). you haven't demonstrated that.

to remind you, we are talking about jewish history and not Christian theology. if you can find an example in the Bible of Ezra being called 'the Son of God' in the same sense as the NT by all means bring it to my attention.

que Dios te bendiga

[Jayda]

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

i'm SOO GLAD that you have come to our website to learn about Islam instead of just preaching your religion!

*exits sarcasm mode*

btw, do you know what they call anonymous, undocumented letters in "Christianity?" the gospel truth!

GO FIGURE!

:w:

if you are so insistent that we do not talk about christianity why provoke us with off topic conversations about apostolic letters and christian theology? the conversation is about jewish history, please join the conversation or if you wish to instigate an argument on a different matter, declare war the usual way... with an obnoxious and provocative thread title.

[snakelegs]

i can see that muslims must believe that the jews called uzair son of god - because it says so in the qur'an and the qur'an is the word of God. okay.
but what i take issue with is using that as a basis to deny that judaism is monotheistic.

[Grace Seeker]

Did you know that Muslims say that worship of Jesus is the same as worship of Allah? Sure you will no doubt call this shirk, but I can still prove this statement to be true.

See, I have some friends who are Muslims. Out of respect for them I would occassionally attend prayers at the Mosque with them. The Iman invited me to join with the men, alongside them, in the actual prayers, and I did. Later, simply as observers, they attended services with me at the church I attended. They respectfully stood and sat at times the congregation stood and sat, but they did not sing the hymns nor receive communion. We shared these experiences several times. Then on one of our last occassions to be together before I moved from the area, we attended a Christian rally in which it was a much more modern type of celebration. Interestingly they very much enjoyed the music, joined in dancing in the aisles with the other youth and when, at the end of the service, people were given the opportunity to receive a cross as part of a sending forth ceremony, they joined in that as well, both receiving and then continuing to wear the cross. I knew they had enough knowledge to understand the symbolism, and asked them about it, and here is the answer that they shared with me: "We all worship God, there is just one God whether we are Christian or Muslims, you worship Jesus and we worship Allah, but it is all the same thing."


Earlier you were strong to join Ansar Al-'Adl in making the point that

originally posted by Ansar Al-Adl
Qur'anic commentators like Al-Baydawi and At-Tabari...state the names of specific Jewish leaders who came forward to the Muslims and said "We cannot believe you since you do not accept Uzayr as the son of God". And notice that the Qur'an doesn't say that the Jews believed Uzayr was the son of God, it says quite clearly that they said he was the son of God. So, the Qur'an was responding to an explicit proclamation of the Jews. Either the Jews were intentionally lying, or they actually believed what they said - but in any event the Qur'an can't be wrong since the Jews of Madinah actually said this.

Well, if the Qur'an is not wrong since, by your assertions, there were some Jews who actually said such a thing, then I am not wrong in my statement above --declaring that Muslims say that worship of Jesus is the same as worship of Allah-- because there were some Muslims who on one occassion actually said such a thing. The thing is I know that it is not Muslim theology and that any such statement is an aberation. Therefore, I will not make such a brash statement implying that it is representative of Islam. But when your brother in Islam, Shakoor, asks a relatively simple question:

Hold on, is Judaism really pure monotheism because in surah Atouba chapter 9 verse 30 it says that the Jews call Uzair the son of Allah. Is this true? and doesnt that make them on the same level as Christians??

Rather than agree with those who previously posted that Judaism does not teach this (at least it doesn't teach this anymore than Islam teaches that worship of Allah and worship of Jesus are all the same), you respond with trying to show some event where it is reported that some Jews may have said such a thing and defend it as if it were truly representative of Jewish teaching.

Not that I expect you to care, but, in my opinion you do a disservice to Shakoor in not giving him a straight answer, and show lack of integrity in raising this issue about the supposed statements of the Jews in Madinah which is not relevant to Shakoor's overall question, especially given that Shakoor himself expressed knowledge of the surah in question has that was what motivated him to ask his question seeking for more general knowledge about Judaism to begin with.

[Jayda]

i can see that muslims must believe that the jews called uzair son of god - because it says so in the qur'an and the qur'an is the word of God. okay.
but what i take issue with is using that as a basis to deny that judaism is monotheistic.

i'm concerned that the above (bold) fates the conversation

[snakelegs]

i'm concerned that the above (bold) fates the conversation

yes, it does. because if the qur'an is the word of God, it must be the truth.
it is as simple as that. so there really isn't room for argument.
but it is still a leap from that to conclude that jews are not monotheists. this is the part i have a problem with. jews are just as strongly monotheistic as muslims.

[Jayda]

yes, it does. because if the qur'an is the word of God, it must be the truth.
it is as simple as that. so there really isn't room for argument.
but it is still a leap from that to conclude that jews are not monotheists. this is the part i have a problem with. jews are just as strongly monotheistic as muslims.

but you forget that that too (bold) is in the quran, as a natural consequence. so how can you think there shall be room for argument on what concerns you?

i think at this point it is better to assume they are just as interested in an objective vision of the world as i am... if the conversation gets nasty i will stop talking.

[snakelegs]

jayda,
i don't remember that it says jews are not monotheists in the qur'an. i have to try to find that. if you have it handy, please post.
if it does, then you're right - there is no room for argument on this one either.

[- Qatada -]

I'll quote it again:

First of all, this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium"absence of proof is not proof of absence". In other words, which we can refute with the expression, just because we don't have Judaic records that shows that Jews believed this, does not prove that no Jews ever believed this!

That's sufficient for me as an argument.

[snakelegs]

yes - you're right = 9: 30, 31
a muslim will not believe that anything in the qur'an is false.

[snakelegs]

I'll quote it again:

First of all, this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium"absence of proof is not proof of absence". In other words, which we can refute with the expression, just because we don't have Judaic records that shows that Jews believed this, does not prove that no Jews ever believed this!

That's sufficient for me as an argument.

this is true - it is not impossible that there were some jews in madinah who believed this. this does not mean that it is a jewish belief, any more than ahmadis represent mainstream islam.

[Grace Seeker]

I'll quote it again:

First of all, this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium"absence of proof is not proof of absence". In other words, which we can refute with the expression, just because we don't have Judaic records that shows that Jews believed this, does not prove that no Jews ever believed this!

That's sufficient for me as an argument.

That also allows one to make all sorts of wild statements about any group of people if they haven't taken the time to specifically provide refutations of those beliefs (however untrue of them they might be) in advance of your adovating that they might believe them. We could get back to the FSM, perhaps this would be the 100th name for Allah. After all, I've never seen it written in the Qur'an or the hadith that Allah is not also known by the name Fly Spaghetti Monster.

Operating under such a theory does nothing to enhance a search for what is and is not true.

[- Qatada -]

That also allows one to make all sorts of wild statements about any group of people if they haven't taken the time to specifically provide refutations of those beliefs (however untrue of them they might be) in advance of your adovating that they might believe them. We could get back to the FSM, perhaps this would be the 100th name for Allah. After all, I've never seen it written in the Qur'an or the hadith that Allah is not also known by the name Fly Spaghetti Monster.

And guess what Grace Seeker, you're argument falls flat on its face when we come to realise that nowhere in the Gospels does it mention clearly and explicitly that Jesus is God. :)


So please, if you believe that absence of proof [from some sources] cannot have validity, then know that you're a disbeliever in your faith. :)




Regards.

[Jayda]

I'll quote it again:

First of all, this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium"absence of proof is not proof of absence". In other words, which we can refute with the expression, just because we don't have Judaic records that shows that Jews believed this, does not prove that no Jews ever believed this!

That's sufficient for me as an argument.

except that the jewish record considers what you are decribing blasphemy. whether using the phrase 'son of God' to mean the filial son of God as was Jesus, or in the creation sense as were the angels, or in the adoptive sense as was David... these titles apply only to those people. none of them apply to Ezra, it would be blasphemy.

[Jayda]

And guess what Grace Seeker, you're argument falls flat on its face when we come to realise that nowhere in the Gospels does it mention clearly and explicitly that Jesus is God. :)


So please, if you believe that absence of proof [from some sources] cannot have validity, then know that you're a disbeliever in your faith. :)




Regards.

that's tremendously immature and disrespectful.

[- Qatada -]

that's tremendously immature and disrespectful.

Try referring to how disrespectful he was in his post, and you might come to realise why i had to say something of that sort.

We could get back to the FSM, perhaps this would be the 100th name for Allah. After all, I've never seen it written in the Qur'an or the hadith that Allah is not also known by the name Fly Spaghetti Monster.

I'm afraid that he isn't that respectful either. It would be less offensive to me if he called me a disbeliever than what he said.

[Grace Seeker]

And guess what Grace Seeker, you're argument falls flat on its face when we come to realise that nowhere in the Gospels does it mention clearly and explicitly that Jesus is God. :)


So please, if you believe that absence of proof [from some sources] cannot have validity, then know that you're a disbeliever in your faith. :)




Regards.

I believe it can be deduced from them. That is completely different than trying to assert that Judaism is NOT monotheistic because it is reported that some Jews made such and such a statment about Ezra. You don't see that idea -- accepting it for the moment, but as what I think is non-contextualized history, so that if they said such a thing they may have meant something completely different than what you have implied by it -- adopted by any other group of Jews, and you do find Jewish teaching that runs explicity counter to it. For me that is enough to deduce that it is not a statement that can be accepted as representative of Judaism.

[Whatsthepoint]

9:30 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

It seems to me the verse refers to all Jews and Christians not only those of Madinah. There is no specific reference to the Jews of Madinah and "with their mouths" can eman practically anything.

But then again, it seems strange to me that Mohammed would have ever made such a easy-checkable claim if it had been false. I would consider it very stupid and I know Mohammed wasn't a stupid man. The same goes for God of course...

[- Qatada -]

I believe it can be deduced from them. That is completely different than trying to assert that Judaism is NOT monotheistic because it is reported that some Jews made such and such a statment about Ezra. You don't see that idea -- accepting it for the moment, but as what I think is non-contextualized history, so that if they said such a thing they may have meant something completely different than what you have implied by it -- adopted by any other group of Jews, and you do find Jewish teaching that runs explicity counter to it. For me that is enough to deduce that it is not a statement that can be accepted as representative of Judaism.

I don't think you get the grasp either, there are people who are so called Muslims in the world today who do the exact same acts of the polytheists of old! This means that those who do that act, yes - they have deviated from the truth, although the truth is still remaining.


Therefore, if a Muslim worships a grave of a saint, i will say that the act is opposing the religion - it is unislamic, however, i will still criticisize the action, and the people who do that act will be responsible for it, although it may not be part of their religion.

[- Qatada -]

9:30 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

It seems to me the verse refers to all Jews and Christians not only those of Madinah. There is no specific reference to the Jews of Madinah and "with their mouths" can eman practically anything.

The verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, because they specifically stated it as mentioned in the tafsir earlier. Allah talks many times about the believers in the Qur'an, yet He is not talking about every single believer who dwells on the earth in the future also in them specific verses.


I.e:

Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error. [Qur'an 3: 164]

In This verse, the believers are mentioned. However, it is specifically referring to the companions of the Messenger of Allah.

Similarly, that verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, since it was they who said it. Those who did not say it, it is not referring to them.

[Grace Seeker]

Try referring to how disrespectful he was in his post, and you might come to realise why i had to say something of that sort.





I'm afraid that he isn't that respectful either. It would be less offensive to me if he called me a disbeliever than what he said.

Qatada, I didn't say that to be disrespectful. Indeed I changed from what I had previously mentioned because I realized what I had originally written might have been taken that way and therefore altered it to avoid that result. I apologize that is still resulted in saying something you found to be disrepectful to either you personally or your faith. It was not intended as such.

What I had intended was to merely try to follow your logic and make what I found to be obviously ludicrous statements and yet they would still be consistent with the points you were making. Perhpas that doiing so unintentionally resulted in something that was nontheless offensive illustrates why I take exception to the theory behind your argument even if the substantive points can be held as true.

[- Qatada -]

Okay, thankyou. I forgive you, and i hope you forgive me too.




Regards.

[Whatsthepoint]

The verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, because they specifically stated it as mentioned in the tafsir earlier. Allah talks many times about the believers in the Qur'an, yet He is not talking about every single believer who dwells on the earth in the future also in them specific verses.


I.e:

Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error. [Qur'an 3: 164]

In This verse, the believers are mentioned. However, it is specifically referring to the companions of the Messenger of Allah.

Similarly, that verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, since it was they who said it. Those who did not say it, it is not referring to them.

I came here a bit late. Could you post the tafsir again, please.:sunny:

3:164 clearly says Mohammed instructed etc those believers, so one can conclude taht it refers to his companions. 9:30 gives no such specification, neither does the entire surah 9. There's "with their mouths"... I'll wait for the tafsir before I make further comments...

[Grace Seeker]

The verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, because they specifically stated it as mentioned in the tafsir earlier. Allah talks many times about the believers in the Qur'an, yet He is not talking about every single believer who dwells on the earth in the future also in them specific verses.


I.e:

Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error. [Qur'an 3: 164]

In This verse, the believers are mentioned. However, it is specifically referring to the companions of the Messenger of Allah.

Similarly, that verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, since it was they who said it. Those who did not say it, it is not referring to them.

OK, then. This gets us back to my concern. Shakoor's original question was:

Hold on, is Judaism really pure monotheism because in surah Atouba chapter 9 verse 30 it says that the Jews call Uzair the son of Allah. Is this true? and doesnt that make them on the same level as Christians??

Shakoor is asking about Judaism -- the whole of the religion, not about a few specific Jews in Madinah. The answer regarding whether or not Judaism is really pure monotheism, even in light of the behavior of a few Jews in Madinah, cannot be determined by looking at those few Jews as if they were representatives of the whole of Judaism, especially when, as Ansar Al-'Adl noted, we don't find any other such comments anywhere else and "that only the Jews of Arabia, and not all Jews, have been thus accused." In looking at the Jews as a whole, rather than a select and apparently abherrant group, Judaism really is pure in its monotheism. That is the answer that Shakoor deserves.

[- Qatada -]

OK, then. This gets us back to my concern. Shakoor's original question was:

Shakoor is asking about Judaism -- the whole of the religion, not about a few specific Jews in Madinah. The answer regarding whether or not Judaism is really pure monotheism, even in light of the behavior of a few Jews in Madinah, cannot be determined by looking at those few Jews as if they were representatives of the whole of Judaism, especially when, as Ansar Al-'Adl noted, we don't find any other such comments anywhere else and "that only the Jews of Arabia, and not all Jews, have been thus accused." In looking at the Jews as a whole, rather than a select and apparently abherrant group, Judaism really is pure in its monotheism. That is the answer that Shakoor deserves.

I was giving the tafsir of the explanation of them verses, but yeah - i agree with where you're coming from.



I gota go now after the next post.




Regards.

[- Qatada -]

I came here a bit late. Could you post the tafsir again, please.:sunny:

3:164 clearly says Mohammed instructed etc those believers, so one can conclude taht it refers to his companions. 9:30 gives no such specification, neither does the entire surah 9. There's "with their mouths"... I'll wait for the tafsir before I make further comments...

I just wasn't good with giving a good example, try doing some research cuz i don't have anytime left now.


Here's the link to the tafsir of that verse:

http://www.islamicboard.com/893026-post123.html

[snakelegs]

I came here a bit late. Could you post the tafsir again, please.:sunny:

3:164 clearly says Mohammed instructed etc those believers, so one can conclude taht it refers to his companions. 9:30 gives no such specification, neither does the entire surah 9. There's "with their mouths"... I'll wait for the tafsir before I make further comments...

http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20998

[Whatsthepoint]

http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20998

This tafsir doesn't say the Jews are from Medinah, the one Qatada provided does so...

Anyways, I find it odd that the Quran itself doesn't make a clear disctinction between the Jews of Madinah and the rest of the Jews...

[snakelegs]

This tafsir doesn't say the Jews are from Medinah, the one Qatada provided does so...

Anyways, I find it odd that the Quran itself doesn't make a clear disctinction between the Jews of Madinah and the rest of the Jews...

you're right!

[Grace Seeker]

Reading it, I found this portion particularly interesting:

Imam Ahmad, At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Jarir At-Tabari recorded a Hadith via several chains of narration, from `Adi bin Hatim, may Allah be pleased with him, who became Christian during the time of Jahiliyyah.

When the call of the Messenger of Allah reached his area, `Adi ran away to Ash-Sham, and his sister and several of his people were captured.

The Messenger of Allah freed his sister and gave her gifts.

So she went to her brother and encouraged him to become Muslim and to go to the Messenger of Allah.

`Adi, who was one of the chiefs of his people (the tribe of Tai') and whose father, Hatim At-Ta'i, was known for his generosity, went to Al-Madinah.

When the people announced his arrival, `Adi went to the Messenger of Allah wearing a silver cross around his neck.

The Messenger of Allah recited this Ayah; (They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah).

`Adi commented, "I said, `They did not worship them.'''

The Prophet said, (Yes they did. They (rabbis and monks) prohibited the allowed for them (Christians and Jews) and allowed the prohibited, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them.)

So my question is this: Am I to understand from reading this that obedience is the equivalence of worship?

[thirdwatch512]

The verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, because they specifically stated it as mentioned in the tafsir earlier. Allah talks many times about the believers in the Qur'an, yet He is not talking about every single believer who dwells on the earth in the future also in them specific verses.


I.e:

Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error. [Qur'an 3: 164]

In This verse, the believers are mentioned. However, it is specifically referring to the companions of the Messenger of Allah.

Similarly, that verse is referring to the Jews of Madinah, since it was they who said it. Those who did not say it, it is not referring to them.

And I brought this up earlier, but of course you guys ignored it.

Earlier, I showed that there are verses in the Qu'ran that say SOME people of the book, or something like that. Meaning not all.

Yet this verse in qu'ran does not say "some." It leaves it out. Therefore how can we know it is speaking about just a few?

also, it says the Christians believe Jesus is the son of god.. Which they do. So why all Christians but just a few Jews?

Sorry, but you can try and twist and turn it all you want(as you have been doing by one time trying to show proof that the Jews did, and another time saying 'oh, only the Jews of medina'" but the fact is clear for me. The qu'ran says Jews think ezra is son of god. It is wrong. End of story.

[- Qatada -]

Whatsthepoint - when the Qur'an is revealed in certain situations, you refer to its context by referring to the Sunnah.


thirdwatch, here's some more examples:

They say, "If we return to Medina, surely the more honourable (element) will expel therefrom the meaner." But honour belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the Believers; but the Hypocrites know not.

63:8


And behold! The Hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease (even) say: "Allah and His Messenger promised us nothing but delusion!"

33:12

Those are just 2 examples, the second one is more apparent. It is mentioned that the hypocrites said... not every single hypocrite in the world has ever said that statement, however - we refer to the Sunnah and Seerah [biography] and figure out that it was the hypocrites who said this at the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Similarly, when Jews are mentioned - we look at the Seerah and figure out that it was the Jews of Medinah who said what they said.


Grace Seeker, obedience to someone who gives commandments which oppose the commandments of God can be a form of worship - yes. If someone says that something is permissible, which God has forbidden, then they are legislating against God - they are indirectly stating that what they have legislated is a better alternative to what God has legislated. Therefore the people who obey this legislation, believing that it is acceptable, while knowing that it is opposing what God has commanded may become disbelievers.

[MustafaMc]

Grace Seeker, obedience to someone who gives commandments which oppose the commandments of God can be a form of worship - yes. If someone says that something is permissible, which God has forbidden, then they are legislating against God - they are indirectly stating that what they have legislated is a better alternative to what God has legislated. Therefore the people who obey this legislation, believing that it is acceptable, while knowing that it is opposing what God has commanded may become disbelievers.

GraceSeeker, please, correct me if I am wrong, but I think you were implying that our following the example of Prophet Muhammad (saaws) is a form of worshiping him. The distinction is that we accept Muhammad (saaws) as a Messenger of Allah (swt) and that he merely conveyed the revelation of Allah's (swt) Will to us in the form of the Qur'an and his Sunnah. The likeness is of the People of Israel being led by Moses (as) out of Egypt with the establishment of the worship of One God. And Allah knows best.

[Whatsthepoint]

[U] thirdwatch, here's some more examples:

They say, "If we return to Medina, surely the more honourable (element) will expel therefrom the meaner." But honour belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the Believers; but the Hypocrites know not.

63:8
And behold! The Hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease (even) say: "Allah and His Messenger promised us nothing but delusion!"

33:12

Those are just 2 examples, the second one is more apparent. It is mentioned that the hypocrites said... not every single hypocrite in the world has ever said that statement, however - we refer to the Sunnah and Seerah [biography] and figure out that it was the hypocrites who said this at the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Similarly, when Jews are mentioned - we look at the Seerah and figure out that it was the Jews of Medinah who said what they said.

We can logiaclly conclude from the verses speak of the hypocrites at the time of Muhammad.
1. The first verse speaks of the people who were discussing the return to Madinah and honorable elements. Then it speaks of honour belonging to Allah, believers and Muhammad, but not the hypocrites. Who are the hypocrites? Those who were discussing honorable elements. the second aprt is a reply to their discussion.
2. The Quran was thought of/revealed at the time of the prophet. The verse speaks of people opposed to Muhammad. Past tense indicates that the they must have lived from the time Mohammed first introduced the first surah to the indroduction of the 33th surah.

Whereas we cannot conclude 9:31 speaks solely of Jews of Madinah by using only the Quran. We have to rely onto historical and other evidence. IMHO, God's book would be different. That's why I never liked the Christian way of explaining inconsistencies and mistakes in the Bible.

[- Qatada -]

Whatsthepoint, this then shows the importance of the authentic preserved Sunnah. :)

[Grace Seeker]

GraceSeeker, please, correct me if I am wrong, but I think you were implying that our following the example of Prophet Muhammad (saaws) is a form of worshiping him. The distinction is that we accept Muhammad (saaws) as a Messenger of Allah (swt) and that he merely conveyed the revelation of Allah's (swt) Will to us in the form of the Qur'an and his Sunnah. The likeness is of the People of Israel being led by Moses (as) out of Egypt with the establishment of the worship of One God. And Allah knows best.

Whatsthepoint - when the Qur'an is revealed in certain situations, you refer to its context by referring to the Sunnah.


thirdwatch, here's some more examples:

They say, "If we return to Medina, surely the more honourable (element) will expel therefrom the meaner." But honour belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the Believers; but the Hypocrites know not.

63:8


And behold! The Hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease (even) say: "Allah and His Messenger promised us nothing but delusion!"

33:12

Those are just 2 examples, the second one is more apparent. It is mentioned that the hypocrites said... not every single hypocrite in the world has ever said that statement, however - we refer to the Sunnah and Seerah [biography] and figure out that it was the hypocrites who said this at the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Similarly, when Jews are mentioned - we look at the Seerah and figure out that it was the Jews of Medinah who said what they said.


Grace Seeker, obedience to someone who gives commandments which oppose the commandments of God can be a form of worship - yes. If someone says that something is permissible, which God has forbidden, then they are legislating against God - they are indirectly stating that what they have legislated is a better alternative to what God has legislated. Therefore the people who obey this legislation, believing that it is acceptable, while knowing that it is opposing what God has commanded may become disbelievers.

My question is simple and needs to be taken just at face value. I wasn't implying anything, but seeking understanding. My operating definition of worship is different, it involves a declaration of one as worthy of honor and glory and praise, of devotion. It would be normal to expect that one would also obey persons that were worshipped, but I would not equate them for I see many who are not obedient to the God (gods) they worship in many cultures. And I see people obedient to parents and legal authorities that they do not worship. But in this passage it seemed that the act which was used to determine that folks were worshipping was their obedience. My question was to see if indeed that was a fair reading of the text.




Not that I expect you to remember this, or that you should even try, but my general approach to scripture (and I try to take this same approach to any person's scriptures, not just my own), is to first observe what it is saying. Not to interpret it or apply it, but merely to observe what it is actually saying -- rather than what I think it ought to say or want it to say or have been told by others that it says. I just try to ask basic observational questions of the text and simply observe what is being described there. Second, I then ask why it is so described. Again trying to avoid imposing an interpretation, but trying to see the connections that are inherent within the text itself.

In this case it led me to ask the question about if obedience was what determined that worship was happening? Only after I have these observations do I then begin to look for meaning or interpretation. If obedience is a measure of worship, what does this mean? What are the implications of that? But it doesn't make much sense to ask such questions until one has made constructive observations. Hence, I was still just asking for some help with my observational question.

[Woodrow]

My question is simple and needs to be taken just at face value. I wasn't implying anything, but seeking understanding. My operating definition of worship is different, it involves a declaration of one as worthy of honor and glory and praise, of devotion. It would be normal to expect that one would also obey persons that were worshipped, but I would not equate them for I see many who are not obedient to the God (gods) they worship in many cultures. And I see people obedient to parents and legal authorities that they do not worship. But in this passage it seemed that the act which was used to determine that folks were worshipping was their obedience. My question was to see if indeed that was a fair reading of the text.




Not that I expect you to remember this, or that you should even try, but my general approach to scripture (and I try to take this same approach to any person's scriptures, not just my own), is to first observe what it is saying. Not to interpret it or apply it, but merely to observe what it is actually saying -- rather than what I think it ought to say or want it to say or have been told by others that it says. I just try to ask basic observational questions of the text and simply observe what is being described there. Second, I then ask why it is so described. Again trying to avoid imposing an interpretation, but trying to see the connections that are inherent within the text itself.

In this case it led me to ask the question about if obedience was what determined that worship was happening? Only after I have these observations do I then begin to look for meaning or interpretation. If obedience is a measure of worship, what does this mean? What are the implications of that? But it doesn't make much sense to ask such questions until one has made constructive observations. Hence, I was still just asking for some help with my observational question.

Peace Gene,

Our obedience to others should be because it is obedience to God(swt) and not to the person asking for obedience.

I think the difficulty comes from a slight difference of what worship is as opposed to the non-Islamic view. The simplist way to understand it is we view every action or word as worship. so at any given moment if we are not worshiping Allaah(swt) we are giving our worship to somebody else or to an object. That may be overly simplified, but i believe it may give some insight as what we consider worship and worship to other than God(swt)

[Grace Seeker]

Peace Gene,

Our obedience to others should be because it is obedience to God(swt) and not to the person asking for obedience.

I think the difficulty comes from a slight difference of what worship is as opposed to the non-Islamic view. The simplist way to understand it is we view every action or word as worship. so at any given moment if we are not worshiping Allaah(swt) we are giving our worship to somebody else or to an object. That may be overly simplified, but i believe it may give some insight as what we consider worship and worship to other than God(swt)

OK. I get that. If one is talking in the general sense. But there are (in the over-simplified understanding you've provided) so many forms of obedience that one practices in daily life, that one could attribute much of daily life to be worship simply because we are obeying commands. For instance, is obeying stoplights worship? I don't think Muhammad meant that. And if mere obedience to people who are are leaders is meant to be understood as worship, then when Muhammad expected people to obey what he said (even though he was a messenger) he was still soliciting worship. And I don't think that is a proper understanding of what was meant by worship in Islam either. So, why apply that way of thinking to the reference to people obeying their priests? They aren't seeking worship nor are the people worshipping them any more than are those who are obedient to stoplights or the directives of Muhammad are engaged in worship.

[Woodrow]

OK. I get that. If one is talking in the general sense. But there are (in the over-simplified understanding you've provided) so many forms of obedience that one practices in daily life, that one could attribute much of daily life to be worship simply because we are obeying commands. For instance, is obeying stoplights worship? I don't think Muhammad meant that. And if mere obedience to people who are are leaders is meant to be understood as worship, then when Muhammad expected people to obey what he said (even though he was a messenger) he was still soliciting worship. And I don't think that is a proper understanding of what was meant by worship in Islam either. So, why apply that way of thinking to the reference to people obeying their priests? They aren't seeking worship nor are the people worshipping them any more than are those who are obedient to stoplights or the directives of Muhammad are engaged in worship.

Peace Gene,

As a UMC Pastor, I am quite certain you do your best to see that people are obedient to your words and not obedient to you. The problem is some people have come to worship their faith and their priests rather then worshiping God(swt). The extreme example would be in cults, to a lesser degree it can be seen in Fundamentalism and some of the Orthodox/ Catholic practices.

This is an area in which us Muslims differ from most non-Muslims. We do not have any ministers or priests. The role of the Imam is quite different although some functions are similar. We do not see the Imam as being the "leader" in the same sense many churches see their Priest, Pastor or Minister. In simplicity the Imam is just the member of the congregation who is better educated or sometimes older. He is not seen as being different from any other person in the Mosque. In fact at prayer time in the Mosque if for some reason the Imam is not present a member of the congregation can take the role of Imam. In fact the most knowledgeable would be pretty much required to do so.

I think the easiest way to explain it, is think of the reasons you are a UMC Pastor and not a Catholic Priest. This is the concept we see to some extent in many Church leaders and see the obedience as being worship.

[Jayda]

hola,

while i continue to agree with you that the similarities between islam and christianity are few and far between, i think what you said was interesting Woodrow.

one of the things that concerns me about islam is the way muslims seem to overly admire many of their religious leaders, past and present. to give you an example, i hear muslims talk about certain muezzins as though they are rockstars; that is even more pronounced with nasheed artists (consider sami yusuf); popular daee's like zakir naik and ahmed deedat are so respected it is considered an insult to islam by many to accuse them of fraudulence; and popular sheikhs (like sudais) have little followings of people who hang on their every word, i am frequently told that muslims are trying to redefine al azhar as the muslim vatican.

que Dios te bendiga

[Grace Seeker]

I want to second what Jayda said. In fact I do see Muslims lifting up their leaders and putting them on pedestals.

As for priests and ministers. Well, my understanding is that all Christian believers are priests and ministers. We each have different gifts and roles to play in the life of the church, but we are also each called to be ministers of the gospel in one form or another. In my congregation, if I am absent, another person from the congregation fills my place. This person is most commonly the lay leader or a lay speaker. Pretty much exactly what you described in terms of who would fill-in in place of the Iman.

While I admit that sometimes people will so honor leaders in the church that it borders on worship, this is evidence that things are not as they are supposed to be, not the norm. Even the ordering of worship is called "liturgy" which literally means "the work of the people". The role of the ordained clergy is merely to be raised up from among the people to focus on helping the people in their performance of worship of God. Clergy are set aside for that purpose, not to make them special, but because the function of the rest of the church is to take Christ to the world. (Sadly, somehow in people's minds this has gotten switch and too many seem to think that it is the clergy's job to go to the world and the people's job to pay them to do that. Nothing could be further from the truth.) Thus, ultimately, the function of the Iman and of the priest are more alike than you might imagine. The difference is that in most Christian communities (not all) the worship leader is a person who is not just set aside for that purpose but also makes his living at it. But the idea of it being a vocation, as in livelihood, is not integral to the concept of being a pastor or a priest, for all of us have callings (i.e. vocations) as ministers of one form or another in the Church.

[sur]

christianity in sense they believe in prophet's upto Jesus. So believe in more prophets than jews & in sense that they accept Jesus as Mesiah. & that they r more receptive to TRUTH than jews.


[Quran:2:88] They say, "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve God's Word: we need no more)." Nay, God's curse is on them for their blasphemy: Little is it they believe.

[5:82] Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

[Nasir666]

Chirstains commit Shirk and Idol worship, which are the worst sins in Islam,while jews believe in the Onesses of God which makes them more closer to islam.

[BlackMamba]

We all have to make sure that no matter how close some parts of their religions are. They are not Muslim. They hear the message of Allah and they deny it making them Kuffar. We should make a difference between the Muslims we know and the Non-Muslims we know. We should only trust the Muslims and dont trust the non-Muslims when it comes to important issues.
Take this verse into account:
5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

[krypton6]

We all have to make sure that no matter how close some parts of their religions are. They are not Muslim. They hear the message of Allah and they deny it making them Kuffar. We should make a difference between the Muslims we know and the Non-Muslims we know. We should only trust the Muslims and dont trust the non-Muslims when it comes to important issues.
Take this verse into account:
5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Nor should you take them for your enemies

[Yerpon]

[9:30] And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they![/I]

It seems to me the verse refers to all Jews and Christians not only those of Madinah. There is no specific reference to the Jews of Madinah

Note the definite article "the" (al in arabic) which refers to some particularized Jews and Christians only. So of course there are exceptions eg. the Modern Jews and the Arianist Christians. As Qatada said, the Jews it refers to are only the Jews of Medina.

[Whatsthepoint]

Note the definite article "the" (al in arabic) which refers to some particularized Jews and Christians only. So of course there are exceptions eg. the Modern Jews and the Arianist Christians. As Qatada said, the Jews it refers to are only the Jews of Medina.

How come we were discussing the issue for quite some time and pages and no one has come up with a seemingly so simple explanation...?

[Keltoi]

Note the definite article "the" (al in arabic) which refers to some particularized Jews and Christians only. So of course there are exceptions eg. the Modern Jews and the Arianist Christians. As Qatada said, the Jews it refers to are only the Jews of Medina.

Why would Arianist Christians be more to Muhammed's liking than traditional Christians? Arianists did not fully deny Christ's divinity, they simply disagreed upon his equality with the Father...making them more "polytheistic" than some have accused traditional Christianity of being.

[Grace Seeker]

Note the definite article "the" (al in arabic) which refers to some particularized Jews and Christians only. So of course there are exceptions eg. the Modern Jews and the Arianist Christians. As Qatada said, the Jews it refers to are only the Jews of Medina.

Also, there might be some confusion over the precisely what you think makes things clear. I don't know about the translation of the article, that the terminology "the Jews" when used in English could very easily refer to all Jews, and if one wanted to indicate a limited number one would say some Jews. And if one wanted to indicate a particular subset, then one would say those Jews or the Jewis in Medina. Absent the clarification, it would be most natural to understand the article to refer to all who would qualify as being Jews versus something other than Jews.

The same can be said with regard to the article "the" that is used to define the noun "Christians". For me the key is that even if the article was being used in a particularlizing way you would think that it would be used the same with for both "the Jews" and "the Christians". It doesn't follow, that the articel "the" might refer to a limit subset of Jews in Medina, and that the article "the" refers to all Christians. It is also hard to make a stretch to think that it might be referenceing Arianist Christians, a group that had ceased to exist centuries earlier. Unless you know of some small band of Arianist Christians that Muhammad would have been familiar with in the same way he was familiar with the Jews of Medina?

[Keltoi]

Also, there might be some confusion over the precisely what you think makes things clear. I don't know about the translation of the article, that the terminology "the Jews" when used in English could very easily refer to all Jews, and if one wanted to indicate a limited number one would say some Jews. And if one wanted to indicate a particular subset, then one would say those Jews or the Jewis in Medina. Absent the clarification, it would be most natural to understand the article to refer to all who would qualify as being Jews versus something other than Jews.

The same can be said with regard to the article "the" that is used to define the noun "Christians". For me the key is that even if the article was being used in a particularlizing way you would think that it would be used the same with for both "the Jews" and "the Christians". It doesn't follow, that the articel "the" might refer to a limit subset of Jews in Medina, and that the article "the" refers to all Christians. It is also hard to make a stretch to think that it might be referenceing Arianist Christians, a group that had ceased to exist centuries earlier. Unless you know of some small band of Arianist Christians that Muhammad would have been familiar with in the same way he was familiar with the Jews of Medina?

Good point about the timeline of Arianism. To my knowledge, the last vestiges of Arianism were found in some of the Germanic tribes, which were converted to Arianism by missionaries before the Council of Nicea. After these tribes were subjugated by the Franks(also Germanic but Catholic), Arianism pretty much ceased to exist. This was centuries before Muhammed's birth.

[- Qatada -]

How come we were discussing the issue for quite some time and pages and no one has come up with a seemingly so simple explanation...?

Did you know that not all christians say that Jesus son of Mary is God? Jehova's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus is God, they say he is God's creation - yet they are still grouped in the christian category. Yes, christians will differ on whether they are truly christian or not, that isn't the issue - the issue is that if someone claims to follow a religion, or if they claim to be part of a religion due to a birth right of some sort - then they will be termed as part of that religion. I.e. the example of Jehova's witnesses being Christians and Jews being Jews.


The Jews who lived in Medinah were Jewish by blood, they did many things which contradicted their religion. They fought their own brethren, they sided with the polytheists and told them that they were upon the truth (refer to the seerah, or deny it if you choose to do so) - does this mean that this is a part of mainstream Jewish beliefs? No. Indeed, without a doubt it is not the religion of Prophet Moses.



So, is it possible that the Jews could say that Uzair was the son of Allah? If they have disobeyed Allah in many matters, is it possible that they could lie about Him too? Yes. Jews are not perfect, nor is any other son of Adam. We all make mistakes, and the best of sinners are those who repent to Allah and mend their ways.



If you are to argue that the verse refers to specific Jews only, know that the verse regarding Christians saying that Jesus is the son of God or God himself is referring to specific christians only also. And i've explained that because there are exceptions to the rule, i.e. Jehova's witnesses, i wouldn't be surprised if there were many people who had similar beliefs to them in the past also.



So to say that the verse refers to all christians and specific Jews only is false, since there are christians who do not believe that Jesus is the son of God, but rather His creation. Which then refutes your claim.

[Grace Seeker]

Did you know that not all christians say that Jesus son of Mary is God? Jehova's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus is God, they say he is God's creation - yet they are still grouped in the christian category. Yes, christians will differ on whether they are truly christian or not, that isn't the issue - the issue is that if someone claims to follow a religion, or if they claim to be part of a religion due to a birth right of some sort - then they will be termed as part of that religion. I.e. the example of Jehova's witnesses being Christians and Jews being Jews.


The Jews who lived in Medinah were Jewish by blood, they did many things which contradicted their religion. They fought their own brethren, they sided with the polytheists and told them that they were upon the truth (refer to the seerah, or deny it if you choose to do so) - does this mean that this is a part of mainstream Jewish beliefs? No. Indeed, without a doubt it is not the religion of Prophet Moses.



So, is it possible that the Jews could say that Uzair was the son of Allah? If they have disobeyed Allah in many matters, is it possible that they could lie about Him too? Yes. Jews are not perfect, nor is any other son of Adam. We all make mistakes, and the best of sinners are those who repent to Allah and mend their ways.



If you are to argue that the verse refers to specific Jews only, know that the verse regarding Christians saying that Jesus is the son of God or God himself is referring to specific christians only also. And i've explained that because there are exceptions to the rule, i.e. Jehova's witnesses, i wouldn't be surprised if there were many people who had similar beliefs to them in the past also.



So to say that the verse refers to all christians and specific Jews only is false, since there are christians who do not believe that Jesus is the son of God, but rather His creation. Which then refutes your claim.

Well beyond the fact that I would not include Jehovah's Witnesses in any subset of theological beliefs that was labelled as Christian in character, I think you have the same problem as was brought up with regard to Arianism. Just as there were no Arian Christians in the 7th century for they had long since disappeared, there were also no Jehovah's Witnesses for they had not yet been created. Can you, please, tell me what group of actually Christians, living at the time and in the geographical area of Muhammad, Muhammad might have been referring to? That's a serious question because I don't know that much about the history of the people's of the Arabian peninsula in the first milenia.

[- Qatada -]

Grace Seeker, i'm not saying i know of an official group of people, i'm saying that his argument of those Jews being specific and the Christians being a general - in the verse - isn't true at all.


Rather, there are Christians today (not according to you, however according to the fact that they attribute themselves to it) who are Christians, yet they do not believe that Jesus is God, nor His son. Yet this simply means that the verse applies to those who do say that Jesus is the 'son of God.' Similarly, the verse applies to those Jews who said that Uzair was the son of God, although many other Jews do not say this.

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker, i'm not saying i know of an official group of people, i'm saying that his argument of those Jews being specific and the Christians being a general - in the verse - isn't true at all.


Rather, there are Christians today (not according to you, however according to the fact that they attribute themselves to it) who are Christians, yet they do not believe that Jesus is God, nor His son. Yet this simply means that the verse applies to those who do say that Jesus is the 'son of God.' Similarly, the verse applies to those Jews who said that Uzair was the son of God, although many other Jews do not say this.

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again, Jehovah's Witnesses are about as close to true Christianity as the Ahmadi are to true Islam.

[- Qatada -]

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again, Jehovah's Witnesses are about as close to true Christianity as the Ahmadi are to true Islam.

Ahmadi's attribute themselves to Islam, Jehova's Witnesses attribute themselves to Christianity, and those Jews which we're discussing in the thread attributed themselves to Judaism.


Do you get a grasp of what i'm saying now?

[Grace Seeker]

Ahmadi's attribute themselves to Islam, Jehova's Witnesses attribute themselves to Christianity, and those Jews which we're discussing in the thread attributed themselves to Judaism.


Do you get a grasp of what i'm saying now?

I can live with that. Can you live with my assertion that none of them are true representatives of those respective faiths?

[- Qatada -]

I can live with that. Can you live with my assertion that none of them are true representatives of those respective faiths?

According to my beliefs, it's quite clear that in some aspects - Jehova's Witness's belief about Jesus son of Mary being a creation of God is true. But many of their other beliefs i do not agree with. Yeah, i agree that the Jews at that time were not true representatives of the religion of Moses, nor are the Ahmadi's followers of Muhammad (peace be upon him.) :)



Peace.

[Omari]

,nor are the Ahmadi's followers of Muhammad (peace be upon him.) :)

I hope you are making a generalization, because some Ahmadis DO follow the ways of the Prophet of Allah [PBUH]

Peace.
Omari

[Grace Seeker]

According to my beliefs, it's quite clear that in some aspects - Jehova's Witness's belief about Jesus son of Mary being a creation of God is true.
Peace.

Certainly, according to YOUR beliefs JW beliefs regarding Jesus might be true. But I didn't asked about them being in accord with your beliefs. What I asked was if you would agree that they are NOT true representatives of Christianity. That would of course mean that if you believe that JW beliefs are true, but they don't represent Christianity, that at those points were they differed from Christianity you would probably hold Christianity to itself be false. I understand that. But again my question is not about what you think is or is not true. It is whether you can agree with my assessment that JW teachings do not truly represent the teachings of Christianity any more than Ahamdi teachings do not truly represent the teachings of Islam?

It is entirely possible the you may think that JW teachings are true or that I may think that Ahmadi teachings are true, but both issues would be irrelevant to the point in question. Even though JWs may attribute themselves to Christianity and even though Ahamdi may attribute themselves to Islam, the only point in question is whether we can concur that neither Sunni nor Shi'te Muslims feel that Ahamdi are true representatives of Islam, and can we further concur that Christians with historical and denominational roots going back farther than that 19th century do not feel JWs are true representatives of Christianity?

[Jayda]

Jehovas Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist and Mormons are not Christians.

[- Qatada -]

Sure then Grace seeker, i agree. :)


However, i'd love to know what the criterion is for the truth according to christianity.

We as muslims believe that the criterion for the saved group in Islam is those who follow the Messenger of God and the understanding of his companions - as mentioned by the Messenger himself.

What is there in Christianity as a true, clear criterion to distinguish between truth and falsehood? Especially since we know that there are many, many denominations.

[Grace Seeker]

Sure then Grace seeker, i agree. :)


However, i'd love to know what the criterion is for the truth according to christianity.

We as muslims believe that the criterion for the saved group in Islam is those who follow the Messenger of God and the understanding of his companions - as mentioned by the Messenger himself.

What is there in Christianity as a true, clear criterion to distinguish between truth and falsehood? Especially since we know that there are many, many denominations.

Well, obviously we argue amongst ourselves. Jayda would tell you that it is the teaching magesteriums of the Roman Catholic Church and that any others are in error. But even despite this what I find is that Christians are more in agreement with each other than they are in opposition. That's why you can still group Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox all together as Christians.

[Jayda]

positions do not make a person Christian... valid baptism makes a person Christian... Woodrow for example is considered a (lapsed) Christian while Qatada would not be considered a Christian.

after a person is baptised they still may not be considered members of the Church (that is called excommunication) or their theology might be considered unorthodox (that is called heresy). but they are still considered Christian by virtue of baptism.

martin luther was a Christian but he was excommunicated and heretical... as was arius. born protestants or orthodox are not considered excommunicated because they were not brought into the Church to begin with... but the errors of their beliefs make the heretical to varying degrees.

the issues of baptism, heresy and excommunication all affect our standing on judgment day.

[Grace Seeker]

What is there in Christianity as a true, clear criterion to distinguish between truth and falsehood? Especially since we know that there are many, many denominations.

positions do not make a person Christian... valid baptism makes a person Christian... Woodrow for example is considered a (lapsed) Christian while Qatada would not be considered a Christian.

after a person is baptised they still may not be considered members of the Church (that is called excommunication) or their theology might be considered unorthodox (that is called heresy). but they are still considered Christian by virtue of baptism.

martin luther was a Christian but he was excommunicated and heretical... as was arius. born protestants or orthodox are not considered excommunicated because they were not brought into the Church to begin with... but the errors of their beliefs make the heretical to varying degrees.

the issues of baptism, heresy and excommunication all affect our standing on judgment day.

As I said, we obviously argue amongst ourselves. So, for a person outside of Christendom it might be hard to say. And even for those within it, there are disagreements.

By Jayda's definition there are some folks connected to my church that were presented for baptism as infants by their parents 50 years ago and who have not been back in the church since that would be considered Christians. Yet there are others -- children presently active and involved in the life of the congregation, who believe in the historic teachings of the Christian faith, who have made personal confessions of their own faith in Christ, and regularly participate in receiving Holy Communion, but because their parents made the decision not to have them baptized until the child made this commitment for themselves -- who would not be considered Christian. So, as some of these children have approached me to schedule baptism, I suppose that on that date, though their theology won't have changed, their status in the eyes of the Catholic Church will.

Other Christians would cite making a personal confession of faith as the key to their evaluation of whether or not a person is a Christian. Such individiuals hold that if someone walks down the sawdust trail, responds to an altar call, prays a prayer asking Jesus into their heart that this person is a Christian at that point in time. For these individuals it matters not whether the person has participated in the life of the church before or not. Some people don't even seem to be concerned about whether such a person participates in the life of the church after making such a profession of faith. Though generally most who make such a commitment seek to be baptized if they have not previously been baptized, the baptism itself is not seen as the moment of becoming a Christian, rather it was when the person "accepted Christ as my personal savior" that is understood as the defining moment.

And then still other Christians look to other events as what they use as the key deciding moment. So, since we disagree amongst ourselves, it is no doubt hard for someone outside of Christianity to sense that there is any consistent oneness in the body of Christ. Yet, surprisingly, there really is. Notice that we still have no problem, even in our disagreements, with using the term Christian to describe theologies, positions, or people. We sometimes hold other people to be in error in the specifics of their definitions, but there is enough common understanding that we don't debate one another over the general use of the term. Even non-Christians seem to understand this.

So, what does this mean? For me it means that while at the edges it is hard to draw an exact line and say that this person is Christian and this person is not, and get universal agreement. That it is very easy to recognize what is at the center of Christianity. I suggest that this center is what should be the standard by which you answer your question as to what is used to distinguish truth from falsehood, or Christian from non-Christian teachings. It is sort of like asking the question "What is normal?". Is it normal to think of a family as a single mom raising children of two different fathers while living with a third man? I hope not. But I, also, don't think anyone would view it as abnormal to encounter such a "family". Yet, even if it is not abnormal, that is not what anyone would want to use as the standard by which one identified what is a family. So it is with Christianity. There are things that pass for Christian that I would not want to have people use as the standard to identify what is Christianity.

For me, the standard remains that at the heart of Christianity is belief in Jesus Christ as God incarnate, come to live among us and make God known to us, creating a new covenant by which lost human beings can be reconnected to God by grace (not a reward for something we have done), and we trust in Jesus Christ to accomplish this for us by his sacrificial and atoning death on the cross.

[rahul_89]

in all honesty for me....the Christians (nasaara) r in fact closa to us muslims....firstly bcoz they acept all the prophets unlyk the kews..and secondly bcoz Muhammad (saw) came strait afta prophet Jesus....all the Prophets r lyk brothers and to me it seems they wer very close in spreadin the religion...lemme knw if u defer...jazakallah

[someone...]

christians are closest to islam in my opinion because they believe all the prophet, but switch the words around a bit, and and they got lots of things that are the same with islam.

[Heera Singh]

christians only believe in Jesus as their saviour and proclaim him to be the last.. they don't believe in any other prophet after Jesus..

[themuffinman]

i think neither christianity of modern day and judasim is closer to islam. christianity is nothing but a glorified form of polytheism and judiasm rejected alot of gods prophets.

[Chuck]

I would say Unitarian Christianity.

[Najm]

AsSalamOAlikum WaRehmatuAllah WaBarkatuhu

Its other....its none!

Islam is perfect. Simply imperfection can never be close to perfection.

FiAmaaniAllah

[Mikayeel]

:sl:

In my eyes no religion is close to islam. Islam is far more superior than the rest.

[Grace Seeker]

I would say Unitarian Christianity.

Unitarianism is probably fairly close to certain aspects of Islam.

But to speak of Unitarian Christianity is an oxymoron, there is no such creature.

[Gia]

I'd say Judaism is closer to Islam. but Christians are closer than jews to Muslims

[BlackMamba]

I'd say what's the point of talking bout this. Inna aldeena 'indallahil Islam.

[YusufNoor]

But to speak of Unitarian Christianity is an oxymoron, there is no such creature.

apparently this is a false statement. there ARE Unitarian Christians:

What is Unitarian Christianity?
Introduction

Unitarian Christianity is, like other forms of Christianity, a religion that promotes the teachings and example of Jesus Christ as found in the New Testament.

It also strives to be a progressive, open-minded form of Christianity that encourages followers to think for themselves and remain open to new ideas - be it from new scholarship, science, philosophy, recently discovered scripture or other religions.

As a result, Unitarian Christians consider themselves to be part of the broader Liberal, Progressive and Free Christian movements found within most Western societies.

and they believe:

What does the term ‘Unitarian’ mean?

The term Unitarian was originally used to describe a Christian who believed in the unity of God rather than the trinity. Simply put, this meant the person in question denied the doctrine of the Trinity which is still upheld by the majority of churches.

The Trinity states that the Godhead can be branched into three parts – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Unitarian Christians have traditionally argued that such a position is neither rational nor supported by the Bible. Instead they have taken a position to similar to Jews, Muslims and Sikhs by insisting on a strictly monotheist vision of One God.

In addition, they contend that Jesus was created by God in the same way as any other creation. Consequently, God remains supreme with no equal. It could be argued that Unitarian Christians view Jesus in a similar (although not identical) way to how Muslims view the Prophet Mohammed, Sikhs view the Guru Nanak and Jewish people view Moses.

In recent times, the meaning of the term Unitarian has come to describe anybody who believes in One God (indeed, it is a term sometimes even used by a fundamentalist Islamic sect known as the ******s).

although, that W word might get censored.

source:

http://www.geocities.com/unitarian_c...ity/whatis.htm

to sum up, THEY EXIST! some may not like it or them, but i don't think that you can wish them away. it's amazing how Christians CAN ADD to the GODHEAD by making the Mother of Jesus[as] into a god or by "praying to Saints!, THAT's OK! BUT the second you try to get back to MONOTHEISM, outcome the denials! :rollseyes

amazing...

:w:

[justahumane]

Dr Zakir Naik makes us feel that hinduism is closest to Islam.

[peaceandlove]

:sl:

Which religion do you believe is closest to Islam?

well if you are talking about the original message of the prophets then there is no difference , the message of all the prophets is same. its people who changes the teaching of prophets. so what you currently see in Christianity or Jews is not the original message of prophets people change the teaching of their prophets according to their own wills.

This has been troubling me, as I am not sure which religion is closer to Islam. What do you all think and explain why:

Which religion do you believe is closest to Islam?

Christianity

Believes that Jesus Christ is God, as the "son" part of the Trinity of the "father, son and ghost". They state that they believe in the one God, Allah that Islam and Judaism do, and that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and that he will finish the Messianic requirements in a "second coming". They believe that the laws of the "Old Testament" or "Hebrew Tanakh" are no longer commanded, because acceptance of Jesus is the way to heaven and Jesus died for everyones sins on the cross.

Judaism

Judaism believes in pure monotheism, and have just about the same laws that the Quran teaches. Pork, Male-Female interaction is not allowed by Traditional Jews who follow their scriptures. Jews must pray 3 times a day, and from Friday night sundown, until Saturday night sundown, they may not turn on or off a light (example: a light on must stay on) and use other machines that they believe "violates the sabbath" because of the prohibition of working and kindling fire found in the Torah along with other restrictions. Judaism however rejects Jesus and believes he was a false prophet. They still are waiting for the Messiah to come.

[Grace Seeker]

apparently this is a false statement. there ARE Unitarian Christians

And your source for that was:

source:

http://www.geocities.com/unitarian_c...ity/whatis.htm

Surprise! Unitarians. Well, when I go to the Ahmadi website, here is what they say about themselves:

The Ahmadi Muslim is a Mujahid, the non-Ahmadi a Qa'id. Both are Muslims.

Source:the Official Website of the 'Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam' (Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at-e-Islam Lahore)

Using the standards that you have, of letting people define themselves, it would seem that the Ahmadi are Muslims. "Some may not like it or them, but I don't think that you can wish them away." And surely, given the standards you used to determine the validity of Unitarianism as within the framework of Christianity, you have no objections to me repeating that Ahmadi are Muslims as them saying so should be enough to make it fact.

And I know this is so, agian, because they tell me that it is:

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has prospered throughout the world in the face of all adversity. It teaches the true Islam, in all its purity.

Source: AL ISLAM, The Official Website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

[AntiKarateKid]

Dr Zakir Naik makes us feel that hinduism is closest to Islam.

It certainly is not. Make no mistake about it.

[Yanal]

Depends on what you look at in a way both religions differ and can be compared to Islam but theclosest religion I think is jeudism.

[Yanal]

Hinduism is not closely related to Islam because you have many gods. You have a different holy book. You worship your god(s) once in a week and you have different festivals.

[YusufNoor]

And your source for that was:Surprise! Unitarians. Well, when I go to the Ahmadi website, here is what they say about themselves: Source:the Official Website of the 'Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam' (Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at-e-Islam Lahore)

Using the standards that you have, of letting people define themselves, it would seem that the Ahmadi are Muslims. "Some may not like it or them, but I don't think that you can wish them away." And surely, given the standards you used to determine the validity of Unitarianism as within the framework of Christianity, you have no objections to me repeating that Ahmadi are Muslims as them saying so should be enough to make it fact.

And I know this is so, agian, because they tell me that it is: Source: AL ISLAM, The Official Website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,


you (Grace Seeker) didn't refer to the issue at hand YOUR claiming that a group of people don't exist, that is Unitarian Christians [which existed PRIOR to polytheistic Xtianity]. instead you brought up ANOTHER issue, Ahmadiyyas which:
a) we can prove they did not exist before the sect[s] were founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. you see he's claims to be a prophet, which he didn't do BEFORE that and others claim he is the Messiah, which they didn't do before that, either!

and

b) i admit they they exists, i know they are as astray as tinitarians are, but i admit they still exist!


May Allah guide your offspring to Islam!

:w:

[KashifB]

This has been troubling me, as I am not sure which religion is closer to Islam. What do you all think and explain why:

Which religion do you believe is closest to Islam?

Christianity

Believes that Jesus Christ is God, as the "son" part of the Trinity of the "father, son and ghost". They state that they believe in the one God, Allah that Islam and Judaism do, and that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and that he will finish the Messianic requirements in a "second coming". They believe that the laws of the "Old Testament" or "Hebrew Tanakh" are no longer commanded, because acceptance of Jesus is the way to heaven and Jesus died for everyones sins on the cross.

Judaism

Judaism believes in pure monotheism, and have just about the same laws that the Quran teaches. Pork, Male-Female interaction is not allowed by Traditional Jews who follow their scriptures. Jews must pray 3 times a day, and from Friday night sundown, until Saturday night sundown, they may not turn on or off a light (example: a light on must stay on) and use other machines that they believe "violates the sabbath" because of the prohibition of working and kindling fire found in the Torah along with other restrictions. Judaism however rejects Jesus and believes he was a false prophet. They still are waiting for the Messiah to come.

:sl:

I'm pretty sure I heard a lecture in which the speaker said that Jews believe that Hazrat Uzair is the son of God.

Is this Wrong?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

I'm pretty sure I heard a lecture in which the speaker said that Jews believe that Hazrat Uzair is the son of God.

Is this Wrong?

A sect of Jews did in the past. Not sure if that sect is around today.

[Grace Seeker]

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,


you (Grace Seeker) didn't refer to the issue at hand YOUR claiming that a group of people don't exist, that is Unitarian Christians [which existed PRIOR to polytheistic Xtianity]. instead you brought up ANOTHER issue, Ahmadiyyas which:
a) we can prove they did not exist before the sect[s] were founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. you see he's claims to be a prophet, which he didn't do BEFORE that and others claim he is the Messiah, which they didn't do before that, either!

and

b) i admit they they exists, i know they are as astray as tinitarians are, but i admit they still exist!

I claim that Unitarian Christianity is an oxymoron. That the two terms are mutually exclusive. Merely believing in God and accepting Christ's preaching does not a Christian make. If that is all that it takes to make a Christian, then Ghandi and Muhammed were both Christians, and I don't hear anyone making that claim.

An essential part of what it means to be a Christian is to believe in the divinity of Jesus and the atoning value of his death on the cross. Perhaps you disagree with my definition of what it takes to be a Christian. So be it. But in my opinion, use of the term Christian regarding anyone who doesn't truly believe in the efficacy of Christ's death, the reality of his resurrection, and his idenitity in the godhead -- all key components of the Apostles' Creed, the teaching of Didache, and the extant writings of the New Testament Church -- is misplaced. But that discussion really is far removed from the topic of this thread.

BTW, I didn't deny that Unitarians exist, I just deny that they are indeed Christians. You used Unitarian sources in which they claimed to be Christian as proof that they were. I simply gave you a taste of your own standard when I turned to the writings of Ahmadi and cited their claims to be Muslim. I have no doubt that they did not appear until 1889; a fact which I find irrelevant. Using your own standard, they claim that they are Muslims and that claim should be sufficient to recognize them for who they say that they are. Now, if you object to that, surely you can understand why I would object to the assertion that Unitarians are Christian simply because they say that they are.

May Allah guide your offspring to Islam!

:w:

You forget, one of my daughters is a Muslim. I don't find that threatening at all. I trust that her faith blesses her life. Whenever we are together, we keep all Islamic holy days. That includes me observing the fast of Ramadan in every detail alongside her.

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

I'm pretty sure I heard a lecture in which the speaker said that Jews believe that Hazrat Uzair is the son of God.

Is this Wrong?

A sect of Jews did in the past. Not sure if that sect is around today.

I've heard this statement made by Muslims sources, but I have never heard any Jews make such a claim. In fact, prior to coming to this board, in years of studying the Bible and both Christian and Jewish history, I had never heard it at all.

But I do recognize that the Qur'an (Shakir 9:30) says it was so. Now, if one believes it is impossible for the Qur'an to be wrong, then it must be true. If one does not have that apriori assumption, I know of no other credible source or tradition to authenticate that point of view. Because of the lack of any other sources, and because no Muslim (understandably) wants to see the Qur'an questioned, a common answer that I have found in Islam is the speculation that the Qur'anic verse in question may not be referring to all Jews, but perhaps just to some few Jews of Arabia who held idolatrous beliefs (perhaps because of contact with the mushrikeen and Christians) and the belief of Ezra as the son of god may have been one of those beliefs. I'll let you weigh all of that information for yourself.

[aamirsaab]

I've heard this statement made by Muslims sources, but I have never heard any Jews make such a claim. In fact, prior to coming to this board, in years of studying the Bible and both Christian and Jewish history, I had never heard it at all...

click me
According to that link, a certain Yemen sect of Jews (at the time of the Prophet) DID indeed believe Ezra to be the son of God. Though, you could call bias as it is an Islamic site.

(truth be told I either find an Islamic site agreeing with the above link or a Christian site disagreeing with it [the latter doesn't produce any evidence to support their case tho])

[Grace Seeker]

truth be told I either find an Islamic site agreeing with the above link or a Christian site disagreeing with it

So, if such a group did exist, what you are saying is that

1. they disappeared from history without a trace beyond the revelation of their existence to Muhammed.
2. they were heterodox in their beliefs (at least according to Jewish standards of orthodoxy).
3. they existed only for a brief period sometime after the time of Jesus and before the time of Muhammed.

BTW, I tried looking up the Hirschberg quote in an online edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, and found it to be taken from the following article on Ezra. It is interesting to read it in its entire context:

Muhammad claims (Sura 9:30) that in the opinion of the Jews, ʿUzayr (Ezra) is the son of God. These words are an enigma because no such opinion is to be found among the Jews, even though Ezra was singled out for special appreciation (see Sanh. 21b; Yev. 86b). The Muslim traditionalists attempt to explain the words of Muhammad with a Muslim legend, whose origin appears to stem from IV Ezra 14:18–19. The people of Israel sinned, they were punished by God, the Holy Ark was removed, and the Torah was forgotten. It was due, however, to Ezra's merit that his heart was filled with the Torah of God, which he taught to the people of Israel. When the Holy Ark was returned to them and they compared that which Ezra taught them with the text of the Sefer Torah in the Holy Ark, the words they found were identical. They deduced from this that Ezra was the son of Allah. Ţabarī cites another version of this legend: the Jewish scholars themselves hid the Ark, after they were beaten by the Amalekites. H.Z. Hirsch-berg proposed another assumption, based on the words of Ibn Ḥazm (I, 99), namely, that the "righteous" who live in Yemen believe that ʿUzayr was indeed the son of Allah. According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of the messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christians saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah. An allusion to the figure of Ezra as the apostle of the messiah is found in a tale which is widespread among the Jews of Yemen, according to which Ezra requested that they immigrate to Ereẓ Israel, and because they did not, he cursed them. Yemenite Jews have therefore refrained from naming their children Ezra. According to some Muslim commentators, ʿUzayr is the man who passed by the destroyed city (of Jerusalem; Sura 2:261) and did not believe that it could be rebuilt (see *Jeremiah ).

[Haïm Z'ew Hirschberg]


source: article on Ezra

[malayloveislam]

^^^

It's not Muhammad who claim that Ezra is the son of God. It is God Himself. When we mention Quranic verses we say, "God says" and when we mention Hadiths, we say, "Messenger of God says." Quran is the word of God, we do not have any doubts in Quran.

[aamirsaab]

So, if such a group did exist, what you are saying is that

1. they disappeared from history without a trace beyond the revelation of their existence to Muhammed.
2. they were heterodox in their beliefs (at least according to Jewish standards of orthodoxy).
3. they existed only for a brief period sometime after the time of Jesus and before the time of Muhammed.

...

Pretty much. Though, this is only based on what I have read so far. Regarding the article you gave me, thanks for the interesting read. I will look into this area in further detail, but it's difficult since there seems to be such polarisations in the view points I do find.

Edit: After a little more reading, I have found some interesting things. Namely, some verses in the book of Proverbs:

My son [bar], pay attention to my wisdom; lend your ear to my understanding, that you may preserve discretion, and your lips may keep knowledge. (Proverbs 7:1,2)

Source

So, one could reasonably assume that this could easily have lead some people to call Ezra (and certainly other prophets) the son of God, since the verse refers to the prophets as ''my son'' (from my understanding, this is from God's perspective, i.e: God is saying my son). Correct me at all if I am wrong though - I'm no biblical scholar and I could very well be chatting bob (I did just wake up).

Another link on the matter:
Views from some Quranic commentators are given on the matter.

[YusufNoor]

I claim that Unitarian Christianity is an oxymoron. That the two terms are mutually exclusive. Merely believing in God and accepting Christ's preaching does not a Christian make. If that is all that it takes to make a Christian, then Ghandi and Muhammed were both Christians, and I don't hear anyone making that claim.

An essential part of what it means to be a Christian is to believe in the divinity of Jesus and the atoning value of his death on the cross. Perhaps you disagree with my definition of what it takes to be a Christian. So be it. But in my opinion, use of the term Christian regarding anyone who doesn't truly believe in the efficacy of Christ's death, the reality of his resurrection, and his idenitity in the godhead -- all key components of the Apostles' Creed, the teaching of Didache, and the extant writings of the New Testament Church -- is misplaced. But that discussion really is far removed from the topic of this thread.

BTW, I didn't deny that Unitarians exist, I just deny that they are indeed Christians.

actually you wrote:But to speak of Unitarian Christianity is an oxymoron, there is no such creature

You used Unitarian sources in which they claimed to be Christian as proof that they were. I simply gave you a taste of your own standard when I turned to the writings of Ahmadi and cited their claims to be Muslim. I have no doubt that they did not appear until 1889; a fact which I find irrelevant. Using your own standard, they claim that they are Muslims and that claim should be sufficient to recognize them for who they say that they are. Now, if you object to that, surely you can understand why I would object to the assertion that Unitarians are Christian simply because they say that they are.

i absolutely disagree. "Christians" should acknowledge that the original Christians were, in fact, Unitarian and that, much like the Ahmadiyyans and the Qaddiyanis, they["Christians"] have altered their religion based on the words of men and NOT the Word of The One True God. you MAY then claim that you BELIEVE that only those who accept the manmade changes to the Religion are YOUR BRAND of "Christianity" and that you feel that True and Proper Christians [those believing in the Oneness of The One True God] are of a different religion. THAT would be correct BUT it would also be correct that the Trinitarian path is one that is astray and NOT the Original and True Christianity.


You forget, one of my daughters is a Muslim. I don't find that threatening at all. I trust that her faith blesses her life. Whenever we are together, we keep all Islamic holy days. That includes me observing the fast of Ramadan in every detail alongside her.

In Islam, ONLY your REAL father is your father.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

returning to this:

I claim that Unitarian Christianity is an oxymoron. That the two terms are mutually exclusive. Merely believing in God and accepting Christ's preaching does not a Christian make. If that is all that it takes to make a Christian, then Ghandi and Muhammed were both Christians, and I don't hear anyone making that claim.

Believing in [and obeying]God and accepting [and following]Christ's preaching doe a Christian[Hanif] make. we could say that one who properly followed Jesus/Isa, Alaihe Salaam, WAS called, in Arabic, a(n) Hanifa, as also a proper Jew was called and so in that respect the Messenger of Allah, SallaAllahu Alaihe wa Salaam WAS a(n) Hanif!

is Surah #2 Al Baqarah, we read:

135:
Muhsin Khan: And they say, "Be Jews or Christians, then you will be guided." Say (to them, O Muhammad Peace be upon him ), "Nay, (We follow) only the religion of Ibrahim (Abraham), Hanifa [Islamic Monotheism, i.e. to worship none but Allah (Alone)], and he was not of Al-Mushrikun (those who worshipped others along with Alla

the transliteration was "Ibraheema Haneefan" we now use the term Muslim, and using that term now, we could say:

Believing in [and obeying]God and accepting [and following]Adam's, Alaihe Salaam, preaching DOES a Muslim[Hanif] make!

Believing in [and obeying]God and accepting [and following]Noahs, Alaihe Salaam, preaching DOES a Muslim[Hanif] make

Believing in [and obeying]God and accepting [and following]Ibrahim, Alaihe Salaam, preaching DOES a Muslim[Hanif] make

Believing in [and obeying]God and accepting [and following]Christ's, Alaihe Salaam, preaching DOES a Muslim[Hanif] make

Believing in [and obeying]God and accepting [and following]Mohammed, Salla Allahu Alaihe wa Salaam, preaching does a Muslim[Hanif] make

the reason this ism possible is because the teachings of all those Prophets had a foundation in what we now call the 7 Noahide Laws:

1. Idolatry is forbidden. Man is commanded to believe in the One G-d alone and worship only Him.

2. Incestuous and adulterous relations are forbidden. Human beings are not sexual objects, nor is pleasure the ultimate goal of life.

3. Murder is forbidden. The life of a human being, formed in G-d's image, is sacred.

4. Cursing the name of G-d is forbidden. Besides honoring and respecting G-d, we learn from this precept that our speech must be sanctified, as that is the distinctive sign which separated man from the animals.

5. Theft is forbidden. The world is not ours to do with as we please.

6. Eating the flesh of a living animal is forbidden. This teaches us to be sensitive to cruelty to animals. (This was commanded to Noah for the first time along with the permission of eating meat. The rest were already given to Adam in the Garden of Eden.)

7. Mankind is commanded to establish courts of justice and a just social order to enforce the first six laws and enact any other useful laws or customs.

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/noahide.html

what we now call "Christians," are teeming with Idolatry in "associating partners with The One True God, and some [though STILL accepted as Christians] even make images of those "associated partners! Nowuthubillah!

additionally, most have NO LAWS pertaining to the eating of living flesh and NOW have abandoned having courts to deal with their "Shariah", [courts of justice and a just social order established in order to enforce the first six laws] and now live in "secular societies" whereby they have "freed" themselves of their responsibillty!

Furthermore the Apostles' Creed WASN'T written by the Apostles and as for the teachings of Didache:

Since it was discovered in a monastery in Constantinople and published by P. Bryennios in 1883, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles has continued to be one of the most disputed of early Christian texts. It has been depicted by scholars as anything between the original of the Apostolic Decree (c. 50 AD) and a late archaising fiction of the early third century. It bears no date itself, nor does it make reference to any datable external event, yet the picture of the Church which it presents could only be described as primitive, reaching back to the very earliest stages of the Church's order and practice in a way which largely agrees with the picture presented by the NT, while at the same time posing questions for many traditional interpretations of this first period of the Church's life.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

"Discovered" in 1883, and what date did we give to the beginnings of the Ahmadiyyan movement? 1889!

so, as we now have seen we have BOTH, [what we now call] Christianity and the Ahmadyya/Qaddiyanis who claim that Merely believing in God and accepting Christ's or any of God's Messengers preaching does not a Christian of Hanifa make! Quite a discovery!

we were warned in the Qur'an:

[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
[9.31] They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).

they take "their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah" by accepting their teachings in place of Divine Revelation. it's NOT by chance that we find NO TRINITARIAN teachings until a century after Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam, May Allah's Peace and Blessings be on the both of them, ascended into heaven!

and finally, A TRUE Christian who believed in the prior Messengers of Allah, Alaihe Salaam, WITHOUT associating partners with The One True God would, upon understanding Tawheed, accept Islam as Correct Guidance and the Proper Religion!

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

It is one thing for a Muslim to assert that, based on the teachings of the Qur'an, the original followers of Jesus were also followers of Islam. It is quite another for a Muslim to assert that they can decide who is and who is not a Christian.


But in reference to the Qur'an, what does it say: "christians say, 'The Christ is God's son'." (9:30) Unitarians don't say that, so Unitarians don't fit the definition that the Qur'an has for Christian.

Or turn again to the Qur'an:

For, never will the Jews be pleased with thee. nor yet the christians, unless thou follow their own creeds. Say: "Behold, God's guidance is the only true guidance." And, indeed, if thou shouldst follow their errant views after all the knowledge that has come unto thee. thou wouldst have none to protect thee from God, and none to bring thee succour. (2:120)

Does this not show that Christian views are errant? And yet you proclaim that the views of Unitarians are not. In fact you insist that the early followers of Jesus were both Unitarians and Muslims, if so they could not have been both Muslim and held errant views. So, since the Qur'an says that Christians hold errant views, it follows that these Unitarians you seek of (if they are indeed Muslims) cannot be and never were Christian.

[Silver]

*Post deleted.

[YusufNoor]

It is one thing for a Muslim to assert that, based on the teachings of the Qur'an, the original followers of Jesus were also followers of Islam.

my education and or research into "Christianity" preceeded my Shahaadah by DECADES.

It is quite another for a Muslim to assert that they can decide who is and who is not a Christian.

anyone may call themselves a Christian, but we are talking about religions based upon revelations from God, which you admit that present day "Christianty" is not.


But in reference to the Qur'an, what does it say: "christians say, 'The Christ is God's son'." (9:30) Unitarians don't say that, so Unitarians don't fit the definition that the Qur'an has for Christian.

as you shall see below, the 1st followers of Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam, Alaihe Salaam, were NOT Christians! and my usage of the term Unitarian is merely to differentiate those followers from the Pauline Trinitarians. i apologize if that caused some confusion.

Or turn again to the Qur'an: Does this not show that Christian views are errant? And yet you proclaim that the views of Unitarians are not. In fact you insist that the early followers of Jesus were both Unitarians and Muslims, if so they could not have been both Muslim and held errant views. So, since the Qur'an says that Christians hold errant views, it follows that these Unitarians you seek of (if they are indeed Muslims) cannot be and never were Christian.

actually i used the term Ibrahim"Hanifa" which is one that adhere's to Islamic Monotheism, i.e. to worship none but Allah (Alone)], as opposed to Al-Mushrikun, i.e. to associate partners with Allah as do Pauline Christians. Hanifa, as i stated, was the term in use BEFORE Muhammad ibn Abdullah's Salla Allahu Alaihe wa Salaam, Prophethood. NOW we use the term Muslim

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

BismiAllah ir Rahman ir Raheem,

of course the 1st followers of Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam, Alaihe Salaam, were NOT called Christians and didn't call him the son of God. at least according to the "Christians writings, it's wasn't until the people in Antioch raised Paul/Saul of Tarsis to the rank of Messenger and Prophet of God [and thus REJECTING Jesus as such] that his follower became called Christians

evidence:

25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

when we put this with this:

Galatians 2
The Council at Jerusalem
1Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.

2It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

3But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.


we see it was the followers of Paul/Saul in Antioch that were FIRST called Christian and second we that when Paul/Saul came back to Jerusalem he had to tell them "the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles" how? IN PRIVATE!

we also see that Paul Galations 2:21 is claiming Nabua, that is Prophethood, by stating "because of a revelation that I went up", and by teaching a new gospel which he had to inform the Elders of "IN PRIVATE", he is also claiming the status of Rasool, that is Messenger.

we can see from this that it is Paul/Saul's message that we now call Christian and that is INDEED the "Christianity" that the Qur'an speaks of. the original followers of Jesus were NOT in error, by following their new messenger and prophet Paul/Saul, the "Christians" fell into error.

however where i would agree with you in that as you feel that Ahmadiyyans are Muslim that what we have discovered here is the AMAZING SIMILARITY of Pauline Christians and Ahmadiyyans. if fact, i shall endeavor, In Sha'a Allah to refer to Christians as the Ahmadiyyan followers of Jesus as it is the best and most accurate description! so thank you, as that will really help people understand what present day "Christianity" really is, In Sha'a Allah!

:w:

[Follower]

I would say that most definately Christianity is most like Islam. Much of the Quran is about Jesus.

The Quran tells us that Jesus above all is unique.

He was born of a virgin.

In the Quran Jesus is pure and faultless- no other is.

Jesus is mentioned as the Messiah-Muslims have erased all the meaning of messiah from the title, but Jesus is the deliverer.

Jesus is a WORD from GOD. So was Adam but, for some reason GOD used a womb to have Jesus appear on earth.

[Grace Seeker]

we see it was the followers of Paul/Saul in Antioch that were FIRST called Christian

Look at what you yourself quoted:

25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

These aren't just the followers of Paul, but the followers of Jesus that the author of Acts is referring to.

Then also note:

Galatians 2
The Council at Jerusalem
1Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.

2It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain

3But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Paul wasn't doing this on his own, Barnabas was with him. But these are minor points.

On the major issue, am I correct in understanding that you now agree with me, Unitarians are NOT Christian if we are to use the definition of Christianity found in the Qu'ran?

we can see from this that it is Paul/Saul's message that we now call Christian and that is INDEED the "Christianity" that the Qur'an speaks of.

Hence I continue to assert that Unitarian Christianity is an oxymoron; there is no such creature, for Christians believe in what the Qur'an calls shirk and Unitarias do not. You can't be both shirk and non-shirk at the same time.