Muslims converting to Christianity

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

Some muslims were/are too proud to accept the revelation given to Bahá'u'lláh.
The same stands even today. Those who hear the Message of Bahá'í and don't accept it, are - generally speaking - arroganters.

:peace:

lol


With the name of Allah (God Almighty)



The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful


Say (O Muhammad SAW):

"O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)


Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but God,


and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God.


Then, if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims (bowing to God's Will). "

[3.64]

[Amadeus85]

The whole thing around Islam, Christianity and Judaism is very simple. These are the facts and no-, I mean nobody can deny them:

Some Jews were too proud to accept the Revelation given to Jesus (peace upon him), and some (Jews, Christians, Kuffaar, etc.) were/are too proud to accept the Revelation given to Muhammed (blessings and peace be upon him).

The same stands even today. Those who hear the Message of Islam and don't accept it, are - generally speaking - arroganters.

Yeah sure and nowadays some mormons could say that some muslims were too proud to accept the Revalation of Joseph Smith jr. You really think that the more new religion, the more true it is? You like to show your religious beliefs, so maybe i will remind you that for christians every prophets who appear after The Messiah are false, no matter muslim prophet Muhammed or mormon prophet Joseph Smith.

[Whatsthepoint]

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

http://www.-----------------------

Hmmm...:sunny:

[MadeenJibreel]

The same goes for the Quran. Nobody acn prove that it is the Word of God. You can make fancy sites about its perfection and dubious miracles but, hey, christians do the same. As I have already told you once (and Grace Seeker demonstrated on many occasions), christianity is also perfect. All so called contradictions are explained, justified. All arguments for the bible being alterted have been answered...of course, it depends on how much you believe them but it goes the same for the Quran.
Christianity? Don't think so.

In my opinion neither christianity neither silam are from God. However, all muslims and all christians "know" their religions are from God and have "lots of stuff" to prove it.


True, christianity is divided in some areas, however all christians agree on the basics.
You shouldn't apologize to me, you should apologize to Bible scholars, none of whom, I am sure, is automechanic. And if some happen to be automechanics they also hold a degree in theology (and often a second degree in phylosophy, history etc).

In fact, it's better to be an auto mechanic than some sleezy banker, rite? :okay: So there's nothing to apologize for as I respect auto mechanics more than many other kinds of jobs.

Now, back to the subject. It's true that if angels were sent down, some folks would never believe they really are angels - some folks will never believe.

PS I'm not so sure that contradictions in the Bible have been explained. Perhaps some of them were but many remain and will remain until the Judgment Day.

PS-2 not Play Station 2 :D
Christianity (or the Bible?) cannot be perfect unless you say "perfection is contradiction", then I'd agree. The Bible doesn't even have the definition of who God is. The NT I mean. And about Jesus, upon whom be peace, he never ever gave an explicit statement that he is God, that people must worship him. And pls don't start with the Abraham verse now. Many are before Abraham, upon whom be peace, was.

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

[MadeenJibreel]

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

http://www.-----------------------

Hmmm...:sunny:

An infant can claim, claim anything, yet an infant has to prove its claim. Be my guest, prove who a false prophet is. I give you a life-time.

BTW Islam also claims that there will be false prophets, actually, Muslims proved that, it's in the history, not so long ago, some false prophets even got executed.

[Amadeus85]

An infant can claim, claim anything, yet an infant has to prove its claim. Be my guest, prove who a false prophet is. I give you a life-time.

BTW Islam also claims that there will be false prophets, actually, Muslims proved that, it's in the history, not so long ago, some false prophets even got executed.

For christians everyone who comes after Christ and calls himself a prophet of God is false prophet.

[MadeenJibreel]

Why would the word Christianity appear in the Bible? That was the title accepted by the followers of Jesus Christ.

You have a proof for this? Or are you lying on them?

[MadeenJibreel]

For christians everyone who comes after Christ and calls himself a prophet of God is false prophet.

True followers of Jesus, peace upon him, were not Christians, so I kinda understand what you say.

[MadeenJibreel]

As for the translations, it doesn't matter how many languages the Bible is translated into, it is still the Bible. Of course all are encouraged to read the Bible in the original Hebrew and the Greek for the NT. Of course that requires one to learn different languages, which is why translations are needed in the first place. I suppose you would say any Qu'ran translated into English is distorted and should be ignored?, and that all converts to Islam must read the Qu'ran in Arabic before truly reading God's word? Does God only speak Arabic?

I'll leave the pope for now.
Now you tell me, if you write a book, then I somehow get it in my hands, change the contents, and publish it, it that still the same book? No, of course not. What you would probably do, you would sue me for making changes and earning money, would you now?

[Amadeus85]

True followers of Jesus, peace upon him, were not Christians, so I kinda understand what you say.

Well again you just show your point of view, and you shouldnt think that others will accept :offended:.
BTW could you give me one single proof that muslims existed before the times of muslim prophet Muhammed? Just one single please. :D

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:

where is mod ??? The thread is not even close :eek: to its original topic-Muslims converting to Christianity

[Amadeus85]

:sl:

where is mod ??? The thread is not even close :eek: to its original topic-Muslims converting to Christianity

Yes, you are right. We should get back to topic, or mod should close it.

[MadeenJibreel]

Well again you just show your point of view, and you shouldnt think that others will accept :offended:.
BTW could you give me one single proof that muslims existed before the times of muslim prophet Muhammed? Just one single please. :D

Yes, sure. First of all, you gotta know where does that word come from. It comes from Arabic word, see below.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Muslim
[Arabic muslim, one who surrenders, active participle of 'aslama, to surrender; see Islam.]

A Muslim is one who surrenders to His One and Only Creator, a Muslim is one who accepts God's Law and live his life by the way He prescribed it, etc.

By this very definition, i.e. Jesus and Moses and Abraham, ..., peace upon them all, were Muslims. Now if you don't believe me what Muslim means, then I say to you: ask the Muslims. Like if you wanna know what a Christian means, ask the Christians. I hope that's fair?

[MustafaMc]

Well again you just show your point of view, and you shouldnt think that others will accept :offended:.
BTW could you give me one single proof that muslims existed before the times of muslim prophet Muhammed? Just one single please. :D

Was Prophet Abraham (as) a Jew or a Christian? Did he follow the Law of Moses? Did he accept Jesus (as) as the Son of God and his personal saviour? No, of course he didn't.

Was he a Muslim? Didn't he submit his will to that of the One God by going to sacrifice his only son?

[MustafaMc]

For christians everyone who comes after Christ and calls himself a prophet of God is false prophet.

Perhaps, you could quote a verse or two where Jesus (as) said this.

Didn't he prophesy about the coming of the Comforter, who we Muslims believe refers to Prophet Muhammad (saaws).

[snakelegs]

here is an extract from a rather dry article on jewishencyclopediaonline

"......In order to find a precedent the Rabbis went so far as to assume that proselytes of this order were recognized in Biblical law, applying to them the term "toshab" ("sojourner," "aborigine," referring to the Canaanites; see Maimonides' explanation in "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7; see Grätz, l.c. p. 15), in connection with "ger" (see Ex. xxv. 47, where the better reading would be "we-toshab"). Another name for one of this class was "proselyte of the gate" ("ger ha-sha'ar," that is, one under Jewish civil jurisdiction; comp. Deut. v. 14, xiv. 21, referring to the stranger who had legal claims upon the generosity and protection of his Jewish neighbors). In order to be recognized as one of these the neophyte had publicly to assume, before three "ḥaberim," or men of authority, the solemn obligation not to worship idols, an obligation which involved the recognition of the seven Noachian injunctions as binding ('Ab. Zarah 64b; "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7).The application to half-converts of all the laws obligatory upon the sons of Jacob, including those that refer to the taking of interest, or to retaining their hire overnight, or to drinking wine made by non-Jews, seems to have led to discussion and dissension among the rabbinical authorities.

The more rigorous seem to have been inclined to insist upon such converts observing the entire Law, with the exception of the reservations and modifications explicitly made in their behalf. The more lenient were ready to accord them full equality with Jews as soon as they had solemnly forsworn idolatry. The "via media" was taken by those that regarded public adherence to the seven Noachian precepts as the indispensable prerequisite (Gerim iii.; 'Ab. Zarah 64b; Yer. Yeb. 8d; Grätz, l.c. pp. 19-20). The outward sign of this adherence to Judaism was the observance of the Sabbath (Grätz, l.c. pp. 20 et seq.; but comp. Ker. 8b).

thanks. i will have to wait until either rav comes back or another knowledgeable jew picks up that judaism thread again. i have never heard of this half-convert concept before, but there is a lot i don't know. :hmm:

[snakelegs]

Some Jews were too proud to accept the Revelation given to Jesus (peace upon him)

it had absolutely nothing to do with pride. jews, like muslims, would consider the trinity idolatry - you should know that.

[MadeenJibreel]

it had absolutely nothing to do with pride. jews, like muslims, would consider the trinity idolatry - you should know that.

Perhaps jealous then? Sure. Their problem was that Jesus, peace upon him, was sent to bring the good news, but also to correct the distorted belief of the Jews, who in fact distorted some of the God's Laws in order to gain earthly profit and/or to satisfy the sick desires of their souls (with matters of this life and not the next, eternal one).

So, in a few words, their problem was that God sent a messenger among them, but many didn't want eternity, there are such cases which can be proven by solely using the Bible. Not to mention that Jews even killed some of the messengers of Almighty, peace upon all those messengers.

[snakelegs]

Perhaps jealous then? Sure. Their problem was that Jesus, peace upon him, was sent to bring the good news, but also to correct the distorted belief of the Jews, who in fact distorted some of the God's Laws in order to gain earthly profit and/or to satisfy the sick desires of their souls (with matters of this life and not the next, eternal one).

So, in a few words, their problem was that God sent a messenger among them, but many didn't want eternity, there are such cases which can be proven by solely using the Bible. Not to mention that Jews even killed some of the messengers of Almighty, peace upon all those messengers.

i am not going to debate whose religion is the best. but the jews' rejection of jesus had nothing to do with pride or jealousy.
if you have a problem with jews, it's - well, your problem.
my point was just that jews would have rejected the trinity concept just as muslims (and me too) do.

[snakelegs]

by the way, i realize that you think jews and christians are wrong and that's cool, but aren't you as a muslim, supposed to deal with people of the book with respect?

[Grace Seeker]

did they not stop feeding them to lions after blending Paulism and Roman Paganism (Perhaps Romans were running out of Christians who followed mosaic laws)?:confused::hiding:

Christians (and others) were fed to the lions up through the 3rd century. Any "blending" had already begun, but of course would continue for another 200 years after that until the fall of the Roman Empire.

Persecutions were not continous and often were harsher in one province than another depending on who was governing at the time. But curiously, the harshest of all the persecutions was just before Constantine under Diocletian.

On February 24, 303, Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" was published.[2] This ordered the destruction of Christian scriptures and places of worship across the Empire, while prohibiting Christians from assembling for worship. Those that refused to surrender their sacred writings faced imprisonment and death. Later that year, after a fire in Nicomedia (possibly started by Galerius to frame the Christians) and insurrections in Syria and Armenia, Diocletian issued two further edicts, one ordering that the Christians of Nicomedia be put to torture and death as punishment for arson, the other ordering that the bishops and teachers of the churches throughout his domains be imprisoned and forced by torture to sacrifice to the gods of Roman paganism. In 304, a fourth edict made the persecution general: not merely the Christian leaders, but all Christians, were to offer sacrifices to the gods, compelled by torture if necessary.

The reasons for this persecution are unclear, but Diocletian's actions may have been based on the influence of his junior colleague Galarius (a fanatical adherent of Roman religion), Porphyry (an anti-Christian Neoplatonist philosopher), or the usual desire for political unity.

In any case, Diocletian published four edicts of 303-04. The emperor ordered the burning of Christian books and churches, but promised not to spill any blood. In actuality, the Diocletian persecution turned out to be extremely violent. This violence "did not succeed in annihilating Christianity but caused the faith of the martyrs to blaze forth instead."

The emperor ordered the doors of the Christian church at Nicomedia, the capital, to be barred, and then burnt the edifice with 600 Christians within. Many edicts were issued by him against Christians. Churches were demolished, Christian books were seized and burnt, Christians were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and killed.

According to Schaff, "Christian churches were to be burned, all copies of the Bible were to be burned; all Christians were to be deprived of public office and civil rights; and last, all, without exception, were to sacrifice to the gods upon pain of death."

A fifth edict was issued by co-regent Galerius in 308 ordering that all men, with wives, children, and servants, were to offer sacrifice to the gods, "and that all provisions in the markets should be sprinkled with sacrificial wine." As a result, Christians either had to commit apostasy or starve. Says Schaff: "All the pains, which iron and steel, fire and sword, rack and cross, wild beasts and beastly men could inflict, were employed" against the church. Executioners grew tired with all the work they had to do.

The tide finally turned in the terrible struggle between paganism and Christianity in 311 when Galerius admitted defeat in trying to bring Christians back to the pagan religions. He gave Christians permission to meet as long as they didn’t disturb the order of the state. He even requested that they pray to their God for the welfare of the state.

source: Wikipedia

Though no doubt there is always blending between religion and culture in any place (I suspect even in Arabia), as one can see, it wasn't so much that Christians became pagans, but that eventually pagan Rome surrendered to Christianity. Sadly, I think there was actually more blending after Constantine than before, as quickly many adopted Chrsitianity as their nominal religion without really becoming true disciples of Christ.

(Not sure how any of this is on topic, but this thread is wandering all over the place and I guess no one is really objecting.)

[MadeenJibreel]

i am not going to debate whose religion is the best. but the jews' rejection of jesus had nothing to do with pride or jealousy.
if you have a problem with jews, it's - well, your problem.
my point was just that jews would have rejected the trinity concept just as muslims (and me too) do.

I wasn't going into a debate on what religion is superior; there's only One True Religion as sent by Almighty. All others are product of a human mind. Jesus, peace upon him, never was a Christian, never claimed divinity, etc. he was a pure monotheist in the purest form possible.

"Jews' pride had nothing to do ..."
You don't have to agree with me, but if you read the Bible, you will see it, and feel it. I don't have a problem with Jews, perhaps they have problem with them own selves, by denying the Truth sent from Allah (swt).

> my point was just that jews would have rejected the trinity concept just as muslims
Yes, of course, agreed. Every sane person will reject the trinity, especially if you know that it originated from roman paganism. We're approaching the end of the year where millions of Christians will "celebrate" x-mas, yet another pagan holiday. And Jesus' birth had nothing to do with that day, and he had nothing to do with paganism. He was inviting the whole nation of Jews unto the belief into One True God, Who has no partners and no daughters and no sons. He surely wasn't inviting them to paganism, contrary to what Saul did.

[Grace Seeker]

The whole thing around Islam, Christianity and Judaism is very simple. These are the facts and no-, I mean nobody can deny them:

1. Jews before and at the time of Jesus (peace upon him):
They followed what was given to Moses (peace upon him), but when Allah (swt) sent Jesus (peace upon him) and gave him the Revelation, which would restore the distortions Jews had made to the Revelation given to Moses (peace upon him), some followed Jesus (peace upon him) and some didn't.

2. Christians before and at the time of Muhammed (blessings and peace be upon him):
They followed what was given to Jesus (peace upon him), but when Allah (swt) sent Muhammed (blessings and peace be upon him) and gave him the Revelation, which would be the Final Revelation and for all mankind, some followed him (blessings and peace be upon him) and some didn't. Same goes for Jews in that time. And same goes for those (a)theists, poly/multi-theists, etc.

Some Jews were too proud to accept the Revelation given to Jesus (peace upon him), and some (Jews, Christians, Kuffaar, etc.) were/are too proud to accept the Revelation given to Muhammed (blessings and peace be upon him).

The same stands even today. Those who hear the Message of Islam and don't accept it, are - generally speaking - arroganters.

I not only can deny what you present as facts, I deny that they actually are facts.

Now, why are you trying to take definitions of Islam or the Qur'an using some bad web sites, or better to say, a non-Muslim? If you want to read true explanations of the Qur'an, then take it from the Scholars of Islam, not from auto mechanics or similar, is that not fair?

Now why are you trying to take definitions of Chrsitianity or the Bible using some bad web sites, or better to say, non-Christian? I fyou want to read true explanations of the Bible, then take it from pastors, not from auto mechanics or similar, is that not fair?

[snakelegs]

[QUOTE=MadeenJibreel;856143] Jesus, peace upon him, never was a Christian, QUOTE]

with this, i can agree.

[MadeenJibreel]

by the way, i realize that you think jews and christians are wrong and that's cool, but aren't you as a muslim, supposed to deal with people of the book with respect?

Is it not respect to invite them to Truth? Is it not respect to tell them to re-think about matters like "How can Almighty have a son?", "How can He be caught in flesh?", "What justice is that if an innocent person dies for all the sins of mankind (this sounds weird at least)?", "How come some believe God is everywhere? (this raises questions like - where was He before creation of the Universe, etc.? may He forgive me, I'm only pointing out abnormal failures of average Christians mind).

Is it not respect to tell them to think twice before they say something offending against Jesus?

[MadeenJibreel]

I not only can deny what you present as facts, I deny that they actually are facts.



Now why are you trying to take definitions of Chrsitianity or the Bible using some bad web sites, or better to say, non-Christian? I fyou want to read true explanations of the Bible, then take it from pastors, not from auto mechanics or similar, is that not fair?

Tell me..you know the incident described in the Bible, when those rabis had problems with Jesus? He surely wasn't happy with what they were doing. Many facts from history point out to the bad state many Jews were in, with some of their rabis leading the squad.

About the definitions - it's enough for me to take the Bible as proof. No need to go any further.

[Grace Seeker]

For christians everyone who comes after Christ and calls himself a prophet of God is false prophet.

Not to dispute my brother in Christ (I think I know what you meant), but we must not forget that prophecy is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, there were indeed many prophets -- "In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul." (Acts 13:1) -- but there is no new final revelation as there is no need seeing as how Christ has already "finished" everything that needs to be done by his death on the cross. And denying that as having really taken place is proof enough for me of a book as not being true or from God.

[snakelegs]

Is it not respect to invite them to Truth? Is it not respect to tell them to re-think about matters like "How can Almighty have a son?", "How can He be caught in flesh?", "What justice is that if an innocent person dies for all the sins of mankind (this sounds weird at least)?", "How come some believe God is everywhere? (this raises questions like - where was He before creation of the Universe, etc.? may He forgive me, I'm only pointing out abnormal failures of average Christians mind).

Is it not respect to tell them to think twice before they say something offending against Jesus?

it is not the inviting that is the problem.
i think you need to hone your dawah skills. you do not invite people to islam by being disrespectful and alienating them.

[MadeenJibreel]

it is not the inviting that is the problem.
i think you need to hone your dawah skills. you do not invite people to islam by being disrespectful and alienating them.

I don't know how you see all of that as disrespectful, perhaps if I asked Christians something like this: "Why do you pray to Jesus, or to Mary, or to Holy Ghost, as Jesus clearly instructed to pray to God alone (BTW Jesus also prayed to God, in fact he even prostrated):"

Prayer
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

9"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us today our daily bread.
12Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.[a]' 14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Perhaps Christians here could answer that question?

[Grace Seeker]

BTW, does a word Christianity exist in the Bible?

Why would the word Christianity appear in the Bible? That was the title accepted by the followers of Jesus Christ.

You have a proof for this? Or are you lying on them?

The Christian historian Luke recorded this bit of information: "Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and 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." You can read it for yourself in a book he wrote entitled, Acts (chapter 11, verses 25 & 26).

[MadeenJibreel]

The Christian historian Luke recorded this bit of information: "Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and 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." You can read it for yourself in a book he wrote entitled, Acts (chapter 11, verses 25 & 26).

But that was way after Jesus, no? Is there any evidence that Jesus called them Christians or that they called themselves Christians while Jesus was among them?

[MadeenJibreel]

The Christian historian Luke recorded this bit of information: "Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and 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." You can read it for yourself in a book he wrote entitled, Acts (chapter 11, verses 25 & 26).

This Barnabas that you mention - is this the same person whose Gospel is rejected by the Church?

[Grace Seeker]

Didn't he prophesy about the coming of the Comforter, who we Muslims believe refers to Prophet Muhammad (saaws).

I've seen those websites that try to show this. I am yet to be convinced. What I don't understand is how everyone seems to miss, or more likely dismiss, that Jesus himself, in the very same passage identifies that the Comforter (Counselor/Helper/Advocate, whatever word you use to translate paracletos) is the Holy Spirit.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. (John 14:16-17a)

Now if it was just one verse that made that connection, maybe, maybe, I might believe that this "Spirit of truth" is something/someone different than the Holy Spirit. But it isn't just one verse. Jesus continues later in this same conversation with his disciples to make the connection yet a second time. And this time it is even more clear.

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14:26)

And the role of this counselor is completely different than what Muhammad does as well. Muhammad testifies with regard to Allah. But that is NOT the role of the counselor (the Spirit) that the Father is going to send:

When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he [that is the Counselor, the Spirit] will testify about me [Jesus]. (John 15:26)

[Grace Seeker]

This Barnabas that you mention - is this the same person whose Gospel is rejected by the Church?

No, the Barnabas that I mentioned never wrote a gospel. Someone many years later appears to have forged something and then falsely attached his name to it. The best proof of this is that the early church never even mentions a Gospel of Barnabas, not as an accepted book, not as a rejected book. Why not? Simple, because no such book was ever presented to them as no such book existed for many more hundreds of years. And I have even seen Muslim scholars admit to this.

[Grace Seeker]

But that was way after Jesus, no? Is there any evidence that Jesus called them Christians or that they called themselves Christians while Jesus was among them?

No one said that they did. In fact, if you would simply read what I gave you that Luke wrote, you would see the answer to your question. Luke said that the first time that Christians were called Christians was during the time of Paul's ministry in Antioch. Well, since Paul did not become a follower of Jesus during Jesus' earthly lifetime. It follows that the first time anyone was ever called a Christians was after Jesus was no longer among them.

The term Christian means one who belongs to Christ. It was used in Antioch to distinguish between Jews who belong to various different sects within Judaism. Those who belong to the sect that followed the teaching of Rabbi Jesus, whom they claimed to be the Christ, were called Christians because that identified to others to whom it was that they belonged and what teachings they followed.

[snakelegs]

I don't know how you see all of that as disrespectful, perhaps if I asked Christians something like this: "Why do you pray to Jesus, or to Mary, or to Holy Ghost, as Jesus clearly instructed to pray to God alone (BTW Jesus also prayed to God, in fact he even prostrated):"

Prayer
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

9"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us today our daily bread.
12Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.[a]' 14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Perhaps Christians here could answer that question?

i am not a christian so i will leave that one. (btw, i'm not a jew either, though i know a bit about it).
what i was trying to say is that it is better to share what you consider the beauty of islam than to tear down another religion, regardless of how misguided you perceive it to be.

[MadeenJibreel]

No, the Barnabas that I mentioned never wrote a gospel. Someone many years later appears to have forged something and then falsely attached his name to it. The best proof of this is that the early church never even mentions a Gospel of Barnabas, not as an accepted book, not as a rejected book. Why not? Simple, because no such book was ever presented to them as no such book existed for many more hundreds of years. And I have even seen Muslim scholars admit to this.

OK, appreciate this info. Why is it that the Church rejected so many Gospels (apocrypha)?

[MadeenJibreel]

i am not a christian so i will leave that one. (btw, i'm not a jew either, though i know a bit about it).
what i was trying to say is that it is better to share what you consider the beauty of islam than to tear down another religion, regardless of how misguided you perceive it to be.

Agree, but the subject here has a different connotation.

[barney]

Because those Gospels blew christianity out of the water.

[MadeenJibreel]

Because those Gospels blew christianity out of the water.

You mean - it didn't fit (or couldn't fit) into the context of say....trinity (and similar)?

[MadeenJibreel]

Could somebody pls post a link to apocrypha? I'd like to see what is it in those Gospels that doesn't fit into the pattern. Thanks.

[barney]

You mean - it didn't fit (or couldn't fit) into the context of say....trinity (and similar)?

Well yep, and that Jesus was not divine, just a ordinary bloke who took up preaching in his late twenties and got successful in his early thirties, untill he got too successful.

[NoName55]

Could somebody pls post a link to apocrypha? I'd like to see what is it in those Gospels that doesn't fit into the pattern. Thanks.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/index.htm

[Grace Seeker]

OK, appreciate this info. Why is it that the Church rejected so many Gospels (apocrypha)?

The church didn't reject as much as simply not accept everything that was written as gospel. And yes, I do think there is a difference between rejecting and simply not accepting.

In the life of the early church many writings were produced. Some were produced by known apostles. Others were produced by people who had been discipled by these apostles. Others still were produced by not just 2nd but 3rd and even 4th generation or farther removed Christians from the person of Jesus or the leadership of the first generation of the church. Many of these things were found to be quite helpful and circulated widely amongst the scattered Christian congregations. However, as more and more material became available, it became harder and harder for the average Christian to discern what was good devotional reading, what was good for use as a standard of rule and practice, and what was really some hair-brained writing produced by a wacko who didn't have any connection to Jesus or any of the apostles at all. So, to answer this question, different people began producing lists of the books that they considered to be profitable for use in the church, or books to be used in worship, or books to be used to teach the faith. Each person had their own standards as to what they were looking for in making their list, but it really wasn't long before in comparing those lists they church realized that they pretty much already were in agreement.

There were a few that were debated. Not everyone thought that Revelation should be included, but the belief that it was written by the Apostle John as dictated to him by Christ pretty much assured its place. Others wanted to include a book called the Shepherd of Hermas, but uncertainty over its authorship, the lateness of its writing (in the 2nd century after the death of all the apostles) and the fact that it was written as an allegory rather than an actual telling of the Christians faith resulted in a consensus that it be used more as a purely devotional book than that it should become the rule of faith and practice. For ultimately that is what the word "canon" when applied to scripture means. The canon is that body of literature which is the standard by which one's faith and the practice of that faith can be measured.

Most other books, not all of which are gospels, simply weren't even ever seriously considered, and so I can't really say they were actually rejected. But we do reject them as scripture today because the early church never accepted them as suitable to be considered the rule for faith and practice.


For more information about the Apocrypha, these links will give you some more history on it, and then give links to the actual books:
New Advent Encylcopedia and Early Christian Writings. This later link does not include all of the apocrypha because much of it is actual Jewish writings that the Jews did not include as part of their Tanakah. Plus this includes all major early Christian writings including that which is in the Bible, apocryphal Christian writings, and other Christian writings.

[Muslim Woman]

salaam/peace;

it had absolutely nothing to do with pride. jews, like muslims, would consider the trinity idolatry - you should know that.

but Jesus (p) did not teach them about Trinity.

Jews in the past were arrogant ...they killed many Prophets (pbut ) of God . It's not that Quran only says so , Jews own holy book tells u that.

[MustafaMc]

I've seen those websites that try to show this. I am yet to be convinced. What I don't understand is how everyone seems to miss, or more likely dismiss, that Jesus himself, in the very same passage identifies that the Comforter (Counselor/Helper/Advocate, whatever word you use to translate paracletos) is the Holy Spirit.

Now if it was just one verse that made that connection, maybe, maybe, I might believe that this "Spirit of truth" is something/someone different than the Holy Spirit. But it isn't just one verse. Jesus continues later in this same conversation with his disciples to make the connection yet a second time. And this time it is even more clear.

And the role of this counselor is completely different than what Muhammad does as well. Muhammad testifies with regard to Allah. But that is NOT the role of the counselor (the Spirit) that the Father is going to send:

Yes, this is the Christian point of view. When one looks at scripture through the lense of their own personal belief and bias, he interprets prophetic statements according to this background. I personally believe that the Comforter in John refers to Prophet Muhammad (saaws).

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.

When did the Holy Spirit ever speak to humankind? If the Holy Spirit did speak and if it is fully God just like Jesus (as) and the Father are fully God (Christian concept of Trinity), why would it "not speak from himself, but what things soever he shall hear"? Wouldn't the Holy Spirit know and be able to "speak from himself"?

[NoName55]

salaam/peace;




but Jesus (p) did not teach them about Trinity.

Jews in the past were arrogant ...they killed many Prophets (pbut ) of God . It's not that Quran only says so , Jews own holy book tells u that.

:sl:

To avoid charges of anti-something and discourage the idiots on the forum; can we instead say:

Israelis were of 3 types

1. Ones who did wrong
2. Ones who tried to stop wrong-doer
3. ones who neither took part in wrong doing nor did they stop the bad guys

[MadeenJibreel]

Yes, this is the Christian point of view. When one looks at scripture through the lense of their own personal belief and bias, he interprets prophetic statements according to this background. I personally believe that the Comforter in John refers to Prophet Muhammad (saaws).

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.

When did the Holy Spirit ever speak to humankind? If the Holy Spirit did speak and if it is fully God just like Jesus (as) and the Father are fully God (Christian concept of Trinity), why would it "not speak from himself, but what things soever he shall hear"? Wouldn't the Holy Spirit know and be able to "speak from himself"?

Masha'Allah :)

Awesome!

[Whatsthepoint]

Was Prophet Abraham (as) a Jew or a Christian? Did he follow the Law of Moses? Did he accept Jesus (as) as the Son of God and his personal saviour? No, of course he didn't.

Was he a Muslim? Didn't he submit his will to that of the One God by going to sacrifice his only son?

Today, the term muslims stands for people who follow Islam, the Quran etc. Moses knew nothing about the Quran, it's tachings, rules etc. He was not a Mohammedan.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Today, the term muslims stands for people who follow Islam, the Quran etc. Moses knew nothing about the Quran, it's tachings, rules etc. He was not a Mohammedan.

But the source from which Moses got his commandments is the same as where Muhammad got his commandments.

The essential principles such as worshipping One God etc stayed the same but certain rulings were adjusted to suit the people and time.

Muhammad sallallahi alaihi wasallaam came with the ruling for all of mankind till the very last day.


This is our belief! the belief of all collective muslims

[MadeenJibreel]

Today, the term muslims stands for people who follow Islam, the Quran etc. Moses knew nothing about the Quran, it's tachings, rules etc. He was not a Mohammedan.

Term "Mohammedan" is a non-Muslim invention. Muslims don't recognize nor acknowledge the term. So, let's skip that incorrect assertion.

The message of Tawrah (Revelation given to Moses, peace upon him) has the same message as the Qur'an, beginning with: There is god except Allah. Yes, sure, Moses was not a Mohammadan, he was a Muslim.

[MadeenJibreel]

To make this easier for those who don't understand how come Abraham, Moses, Jesus, ... were Muslims.

Their belief was pure monotheism, pure belief in One True Lord, Creator of all that was created, belief in other messengers of Allah, belief in the day of Judgment, belief in angels, belief in Revelations of Allah and belief in the predestination, belief in Paradise and Hell, belief in eternal life either in Paradise or Hell, belief in resurrection, etc.

These are the basics of belief. All of them, ..., Abraham, Moses, Jesus, peace upon them all, had the very same belief.

Now, the actual Law given by Allah is a different thing. Yes, the Law of Moses was different in some things than the Law given to Jesus, he was sent to correct the distortions that Jews did to the Law of Moses. The Qur'an is the final Revelation and the final Law.

So, in short - all of those messengers had identical belief, yet the Law they were given was not the same. And the difference between the Qur'an and other Revelations is that the Qur'an is and will remain the Final Law until the day of Judgment.

[Whatsthepoint]

Term "Mohammedan" is a non-Muslim invention. Muslims don't recognize nor acknowledge the term. So, let's skip that incorrect assertion.

The message of Tawrah (Revelation given to Moses, peace upon him) has the same message as the Qur'an, beginning with: There is god except Allah. Yes, sure, Moses was not a Mohammadan, he was a Muslim.

I know you don't like the term. I used it to make a distinction between muslims(those who submit themselves to the will of God - monotheists) and muslim(those who believe and follow the Quran).
I don't think the term muslim should be used for "those who submit themselves to the will of God", as it produces a lot of confusion. Either invent a new word for the muslims who follow the quran, or a new word for those who submit to the will of God.

Of course, the simialrity of some monotheistic concepts does not make all monotheists muslims. I could invent a monotheistic religion, call its followers the Bakkis (those who believe in one God) and claim Mohammad was a Bakki.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I don't think the term muslim should be used for "those who submit themselves to the will of God", as it produces a lot of confusion. .

it does?

[Whatsthepoint]

pure monotheism, pure belief in One True Lord, Creator of all that was created, belief in other messengers of Allah, belief in the day of Judgment, belief in angels, belief in Revelations of Allah and belief in the predestination, belief in Paradise and Hell, belief in eternal life either in Paradise or Hell, belief in resurrection, etc.

These are the basics of belief. All of them, ..., Abraham, Moses, Jesus, peace upon them all, had the very same belief.

Moses, as a Jew, did not believe in the Day of the judgement and predestination. He didn't even believe in hell!
Of course, muslims believe the jewish and christian religious writing were altered, and I won't argue over beliefs...
Jesus never spoke of predestiantion. It is Paul, the liar, who mentions it. Jesus does mention the elects, are those islamic?

[Whatsthepoint]

it does?

Yeah. When you say Jesus was a muslim, most people will think you are refering to the followers of the quran and the teachings of Muhammad.

[wilberhum]

If there was a religion called "god believers", could they claim everyone who ever believed in any god was a follower of there religion?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Yeah. When you say Jesus was a muslim, most people will think you are refering to the followers of the quran and the teachings of Muhammad.

lol i see, point noted


but its important that people realise a muslim is one who does indeed submit his will to God, Al-Islaam is to achieve peace via submission to the almighty.

You keep going against the allmighty how can you expect peace when peace is only within his control and distributed with his favor?

right?

i hope you know what i mean :)

[IbnAbdulHakim]

If there was a religion called "god believers", could they claim everyone who ever believed in any god was a follower of there religion?

God.. singular? not Gods.. plural?

i guess that would fit under all monotheistic worshippers, unless you want to call it "god believers" and give it a completely unrelated meaning, which has been done for many words...

[wilberhum]

God.. singular? not Gods.. plural?

i guess that would fit under all monotheistic worshippers, unless you want to call it "god believers" and give it a completely unrelated meaning, which has been done for many words...

Is that "long say" for Yes, or is it "long say" for No?

[MustafaMc]

Today, the term muslims stands for people who follow Islam, the Quran etc. Moses knew nothing about the Quran, it's tachings, rules etc. He was not a Mohammedan.

Well, yes and no. According to Wikipedia: A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Islam. The feminine form of 'Muslim' is Muslimah. Literally, the word means "one who submits to God". Since Moses (as) submitted his will to that of God to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, then he was a Muslim even though he did not know Muhammad (saaws). We Muslims refuse to accept the title of "Mohammedan" to be applied to us.

[snakelegs]

salaam/peace;




but Jesus (p) did not teach them about Trinity.

Jews in the past were arrogant ...they killed many Prophets (pbut ) of God . It's not that Quran only says so , Jews own holy book tells u that.

i can't comment on what jesus taught them, but i think you are right - that the trinity was invented long after his death. as a jew, he would've found the concept blasphemous and quite foreign.
and you have a point in the 2nd statement. in fact, this is one thing that makes the tanakh quite interesting - the way the people are portrayed - they are anything but loveable! and people do not portray themselves so unfavourably. yes, they were a rather dreadful bunch! ;D
but it makes you wonder - if they altered the tanakh, why didn't they portray themselves in a better light - obedient and chaste, pious and understanding, virtuous, long suffering and full of good deeds?
my original statement was that pride was not the reason that the jews rejected jesus.

[جوري]

I find it fresh that 15 million Jews want to tell 1.86 billion Muslims how to reform so they can better fit their definition..lol

What happened with christianity will not happen with Islam... we are not followers of Prophet Mohammed (p) or any other prophet or messenger, though we use them as a model example of how we should live life, we are ultimately followers of God, that is what it means to be Muslim..don't like it tough.. we are not here to conform ourselves to the likings of dysphoric Jews, christians or even kaffirs for that matter!

cheers!

[snakelegs]

I find it fresh that 15 million Jews want to tell 1.86 billion Muslims how to reform so they can better fit their definition..lol

What happened with christianity will not happen with Islam... we are not followers of Prophet Mohammed (p) or any other prophet or messenger, though we use them as a model example of how we should live life, we are ultimately followers of God, that is what it means to be Muslim..don't like it tough.. we are not here to conform ourselves to the likings of dysphoric Jews, christians or even kaffirs for that matter!

cheers!

was this directed at me? if so, i am utterly confused.
how did we get to 15 million jews trying to tell muslims etc etc?
personally, i am not trying to tell anybody anything or wanting muslims to conform to anybody's concept. :uhwhat

[MadeenJibreel]

I find it fresh that 15 million Jews want to tell 1.86 billion Muslims how to reform so they can better fit their definition..lol

What happened with christianity will not happen with Islam... we are not followers of Prophet Mohammed (p) or any other prophet or messenger, though we use them as a model example of how we should live life, we are ultimately followers of God, that is what it means to be Muslim..don't like it tough.. we are not here to conform ourselves to the likings of dysphoric Jews, christians or even kaffirs for that matter!

cheers!

:sl:

actually...we are followers of Resulullah (saws), direct order to obey him (saw) is in the Qur'an on many places.

[جوري]

was this directed at me? if so, i am utterly confused.
how did we get to 15 million jews trying to tell muslims etc etc?
personally, i am not trying to tell anybody anything or wanting muslims to conform to anybody's concept. :uhwhat

I wasn't addressing you snakey NO.. if I had beef I'd work it out with you directly on PM
this is for the one wanting to call us 'Mohameedans'

[جوري]

:sl:

actually...we are followers of Resulullah (saws), direct order to obey him (saw) is in the Qur'an on many places.

We are going to get lost in semantics..rather than take the circuitous, I'll say.. thank you for teaching me something new today?..
my comment however was in regard to why we aren't called 'Mohammedans' such as the followers of christ are called 'christians' ...

One leads to Allah and the other leads to man-worship!

I'll take myself out of this right about now, since I am not interested in proving other than point I have already made!


waslaam 3lykoum wr wb

[NoName55]

:sl:

actually...we are followers of Resulullah (saws), direct order to obey him (saw) is in the Qur'an on many places.

So whats the difference between Mohammedan and Muslim? (according to your logic) none!

follower of islam: A Muslim
follower of (Paulean) Christ: ?
follower of Budha: ?
and so on...

I have come across many a goofy who used same reasoning as you, when one tries to stop them from chanting Ya RasulAllah or Ya Ali madad etc.

one dam*ed slippery slope!

[MadeenJibreel]

:sl: to all Muslims here,

intermezzo: if you don't agree we must follow Rasulullah (saws) then you have a problem. Please solve it before it's too late.

And PS Following him (saws) is ordered directly by Allah (swt), we Muslims surely should know HOW to follow him - who's talking about worshiping a human astagfirullah?

[MadeenJibreel]

So whats the difference between Mohammedan and Muslim? (according to your logic) none!

follower of islam: A Muslim
follower of (Paulean) Christ: ?
follower of Budha: ?
and so on...

I have come across many a goofy who used same reasoning as you, when one tries to stop them from chanting Ya RasulAllah or Ya Ali madad etc.

one dam*ed slippery slope!

I never said Ya meded nor I will, inshaAllah.
The difference between Mohammedan and Muslim is that ALLAH (SWT) calls us Muslims, and never calls us Mohammedan. Now I hope you don't go against that?!?

And if you don't love Rasulullah (saws), then you're not a real Muslim, in fact, you gotta love him (saws) more than yourself, your mother, your father or any other human being. But loving him doesn't mean worshiping him, far away from that.

Say: "If you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you and forgive your sins." (Surah Al 'Imran: 31)

One who has taken a vow of allegiance to the Prophet (saas) has taken it to Allah (swt).
Our Lord also tells us that: "Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah." (Surat an-Nisa': 80)

You should accept whatever the Messenger gives you and abandon whatever he tells you to abandon. Have taqwa of Allah... (Surat al-Hashr: 7)

O you who believe, obey Allah, the Messenger, and those in command among you. If you disagree about something, refer it back to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best thing to do and gives the best result. (Surat an-Nisa': 59)

No, by your Lord, they are not believers until they make you their judge in the disputes that break out between them and then do not resist what you decide and submit themselves [to you] completely. (Surat an-Nisa': 65)

When Allah and His Messenger have decided something, no believing man or woman has a choice about [following or not following] it. Anyone who disobeys Allah and His Messenger is clearly misguided. (Surat al-Ahzab: 36)

But if anyone opposes the Messenger after the guidance has become clear to him, and follows a path other than that of the believers, We will hand him over to whatever he has turned to, and We will roast him in Hell. What an evil destination! (Surat an-Nisa': 115)

O you who believe, respond to Allah and to the Messenger when He calls you to what will bring you to life. Know that Allah intervenes between a person and his heart and that you will be gathered to Him. (Surat al-Anfal: 24)

[NoName55]

^^ all I can say is that you are dangerous (and take people out of context) and should be avoided (and will be avoided by me until next week)!

[MadeenJibreel]

^^ all I can say is that you are dangerous (and take people out of context) and should be avoided (and will be avoided by me until next week)!

If it's for life - no problem. It's sad that you would say that to your brother in Deen when he's only trying to help you see the Truth. Please try to learn more about this Deen, may Allah (swt) help you and give you better taqwa and adab.

And again, I'll repeat, coz it's very important that we all have this clear in our minds:

ALLAH (swt) never calls us Mohammedans - He (swt) calls us Muslims. No sane Muslim will go against that.

[Keltoi]

i can't comment on what jesus taught them, but i think you are right - that the trinity was invented long after his death. as a jew, he would've found the concept blasphemous and quite foreign.
and you have a point in the 2nd statement. in fact, this is one thing that makes the tanakh quite interesting - the way the people are portrayed - they are anything but loveable! and people do not portray themselves so unfavourably. yes, they were a rather dreadful bunch! ;D
but it makes you wonder - if they altered the tanakh, why didn't they portray themselves in a better light - obedient and chaste, pious and understanding, virtuous, long suffering and full of good deeds?
my original statement was that pride was not the reason that the jews rejected jesus.

I would have to disagree with your assessment. Of course Christ didn't call anything a "Trinity", that is a rather new term in the scheme of things. Christ did refer to The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit as being manifestations of the One God. So stating that Christ didn't teach a "Trinity" would be correct as He never used that word as far as we know, but to suggest Christ's teachings do not point to the Triune nature of God would be incorrect as well. Just my two cents worth.

[snakelegs]

I would have to disagree with your assessment. Of course Christ didn't call anything a "Trinity", that is a rather new term in the scheme of things. Christ did refer to The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit as being manifestations of the One God. So stating that Christ didn't teach a "Trinity" would be correct as He never used that word as far as we know, but to suggest Christ's teachings do not point to the Triune nature of God would be incorrect as well. Just my two cents worth.

ok. point taken, though i am surprised.
this is really over my head. i don't know much about christianity, don't really understand the trinity and have never read the NT.

[NoName55]

If it's for life - no problem. It's sad that you would say that to your brother in Deen when he's only trying to help you see the Truth. Please try to learn more about this Deen, may Allah (swt) help you and give you better taqwa and adab.

And again, I'll repeat, coz it's very important that we all have this clear in our minds:

ALLAH (swt) never calls us Mohammedans - He (swt) calls us Muslims. No sane Muslim will go against that.

I wanted to wait for a wiser brother who is away, to come back to help me with cooking your goose as I am not at all good at that on my own and will end up on the wrong side of some mod or admin.

suffice it to say that:

I am not follower of Muhammed Peace be upon him in the same sense as Christians follow Hazrat Eesa Alahi Salam or Budhists are followers of Budha as I am NOT in direct contact with him as those people were during his lifetime.

I am follower of Islam as taught by Quraan and Sunnah (I am follower of the message that he left).

[MadeenJibreel]

I wanted to wait for a wiser brother who is away, to come back to help me with cooking your goose as I am not at all good at that on my own and will end up on the wrong side of some mod or admin.

suffice it to say that:

I am not follower of Muhammed Peace be upon him in the same sense as Christians follow Hazrat Eesa Alahi Salam or Budhists are followers of Budha as I am NOT in direct contact with him as those people were during his lifetime.

I am follower of Islam as taught by Quraan and Sunnah (I am follower of the message that he left).

You know what the problem is akhi?
The problem is that I never ever mentioned "following Rasulullah (saws) like some Christians are following Isa (as)", it was you who mentioned this, I only replied. My statements on the fact that we must follow Rasulullah (saws) was very clear. Ya meded and similar was your direct response? Why? As I never ever implied such a thing.

I, alhamdulillah, am in a direct contact with Rasulullah (saws): every salawat that I say is a direct contact, every part of Sunnah that I do daily is a direct contact, every Hadith that I read is a direct contact, every Ayah that I read where Allah (swt) mentiones Rasulullah (saws) or orders something to him, or explains something to him, is a direct contact.

But that doesn't mean I say "Ya meded" or similar. Of course not.

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:

Yes, this is the Christian point of view. When one looks at scripture through the lense of their own personal belief and bias, he interprets prophetic statements according to this background.

writing from memory---Jesus (p) also said, comforter won't come till i go away...so it's better if i go etc.

Holy Spirit was always there during the time of Jesus ( p ) & before him . So , i don't understand how holy Spirit fits here. ^o)

[Muslim Woman]

Salam/peace;

....but it makes you wonder - if they altered the tanakh, why didn't they portray themselves in a better light - obedient and chaste, .

may be they wanted to show others that look , it does not matter what we do , God will always forgive us as He did in the past....may be , may be that could be the reason.

[MustafaMc]

:sl:

actually...we are followers of Resulullah (saws), direct order to obey him (saw) is in the Qur'an on many places.

I agree with you, akhi. We do in fact follow Prophet Muhammad (saaws) as our example for how to worship Allah and how to live our everyday lives. This concept is reflected in the second part of the Shahada, "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Servant and Messenger of Allah." The difference is that we Muslims do not worship Prophet Muhammad (saaws) rather we worship Allah (swt) and do not associate partners or equal with Him. The term Mohammedan implies a worship of Muhammad (saaws) rather than following him in the worship of the Creator.

According to Wikipedia: Muhammedan is a term used as both a noun and an adjective meaning belonging or relating to either the religion ofIslam or to that of the prophet Muhammad.....Muslim is more commonly used today than Moslem, and the term Mohammedan is generally considered archaic or in some cases even offensive...Still other Middle Ages European literature often referred to Muslims as "pagans", or by sobriquets such as the paynim foe. These depictions such as those in the Song of Rolaand represent Muslims worshipping Muhammad as a god, and depict them worshipping various deities in the form of "idols"....

This illustrates the monumental difference between the term Muslim and Mohammedan. I am a Muslim who follows the the Word of Allah, the Quran, and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (saaws).

[NoName55]

.....if they altered the tanakh, why didn't they portray themselves in a better light - obedient and chaste, pious and understanding, virtuous, long suffering and full of good deeds?
.....

Questions:

1. was every Jew able to read and write?
2. did every jew had access to the scrolls?
3. or was it the Rabbis who were in control of books?
4. did they read it to people word for word or read out something that was not there?

some body, any body show me where in Quraan it says that Jews changed the written Torah rather than misreading it (as I have very bad memory and also no one is around to help me me look it it up in Quraan)?

[NoName55]

@ MustafaMc

would it be a great idea if we swap kitaab-at-Tawhid with wikipedia?

saying we follow the example of is same as following the Sunnah!

trouble and slippery slope starts when we get used to saying we follow the MAN, can any one see where following the Man instead of his message took Christians to?

in some Pakistani and Indian circles it is getting so bad, that If I referred to Prophet as man, I would be lynched for blasphemy.

[barney]

I cant understand what numbers have got to do with it. Elevendy billion squillion makes no difference.
The Jews had Moses, Elija and all the others first. They are their prophets and can really do as they like with them. Their assertion is that their history books were right and the adoption of their prophets by other religions is, although flattering, wrong.

[snakelegs]

Questions:

1. was every Jew able to read and write?
2. did every jew had access to the scrolls?
3. or was it the Rabbis who were in control of books?
4. did they read it to people word for word or read out something that was not there?

some body, any body show me where in Quraan it says that Jews changed the written Torah rather than misreading it (as I have very bad memory and also no one is around to help me me look it it up in Quraan)?

i have no idea.
a quick search of usc under torah, turned up nothing about the text being changed. (i haven't much time - i'm supposed to be cleaning house, lol)
more than one muslim has said that the text of both the torah and the injil had been corrupted. maybe that is a misunderstanding? (on their part or mine - either is entirely possible)
i am thinking now that what is meant (at least re: the torah) is that the rabbis changed it through interpretation. (this is actually true = the talmud)
personally, i don't have any Position on this suject because i don't know and from my standpoint, it doesn't matter.

in some Pakistani and indian circles it is getting so bad, that If I refered to Prophet as man, I would be lynched for blasphemy.

i find that shocking!

[snakelegs]

Salam/peace;




may be they wanted to show others that look , it does not matter what we do , God will always forgive us as He did in the past....may be , may be that could be the reason.

yeah - who knows? i just always thought it was kind of interesting.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

I would have to disagree with your assessment. Of course Christ didn't call anything a "Trinity"........

glad to know that u understand it :)




Now , pl think ---no Prophet (pbut) before Jesus (p) ever taught about Trinity . No one even gave any hint of Triune God. Always they taught God is One without partner.



If Jesus (p) was always God , how come Adam , Abraham , Moses , Solomon--the most wise person ever regarding Bible (???) did not know about that ???

How come , Jesus (p) suddenly taught people about a total different matter that goes against the main concept of all major holy books ? Jesus (p) taught u , God is greater than ALL . Why u think , All excluded Jesus (p) when he himself said that My Father is greater than I.

Bible, John 14:28

[MustafaMc]

wouldn't it be a great idea if we swap kitaab at Tawhid with wikipedia?

??? I use Wikipedia as an unbiased source of information.

saying we follow the example of is same as following the Sunnah!

I believe that we agree on this point.

trouble and slippery slope starts when we get used to saying we folow the MAN, can any one see where following the Man instead of his message took Christians to?

in some Pakistani and indian circles it is getting so bad, that If I refered to Prophet as man, I would be lynched for blasphemy.

I certainly see that when one praises Muhammad (saaws) excessively that one is approaching shirk. The focus should always be on Allah (swt).

[جوري]

I cant understand what numbers have got to do with it. Elevendy billion squillion makes no difference.
The Jews had Moses, Elija and all the others first. They are their prophets and can really do as they like with them. Their assertion is that their history books were right and the adoption of their prophets by other religions is, although flattering, wrong.

perhaps you should read what the Jews did to Moses before deciding who calls it 'dibs'--

Now, now

-Muezzin

[snakelegs]

Their assertion is that their history books were right and the adoption of their prophets by other religions is, although flattering, wrong.

where did you get this info?

[جوري]

where did you get this info?

from his crypts of morgagni.. it almost becoming pustular now ^o)


peace!

[barney]

From talking to Jews! :)

I often find that these questions about "who's religion came first" are similar to Gluconeogenisis.
The vast majority of gluconeogenesis takes place in the liver and, to a smaller extent, in the cortex of kidneys. This process occurs during periods of fasting, starvation, or intense exercise and is highly endergonic. Gluconeogenesis is often associated with ketosis. :)

[snakelegs]

i'm not sure that judaism has a position on other religions adopting their prophets.
but hey, you can find jews who will say cheeseburgers are fine too.

[NoName55]

From talking to Jews! :)

I often find that these questions about "who's religion came first" are similar to Gluconeogenisis.
The vast majority of gluconeogenesis takes place in the liver and, to a smaller extent, in the cortex of kidneys. This process occurs during periods of fasting, starvation, or intense exercise and is highly endergonic. Gluconeogenesis is often associated with ketosis. :)

God bless google and wikepedia

stick in things whether they belong or not in the context of conversation!

[barney]

When lacking a Official position, you have to revert to the followers beleifs & opinions. Mormonism probably dosnt have a official position on First-Person-Shooter Computor games, but ask enough Mormons what they beleive about them, you'll get a consistent answer.

[snakelegs]

back on topic. a muslim ate a jewish cheeseburger and immediately felt pain in his kidney cortex, which led him to promptly become a christian. but then, after over excercising he realized that due to being endergonic, his judgement had become decidedly unkosher, whereupon he promptly went back to islam.
i hope this is clear now.

[جوري]

^^ ;D;D Rofl...a deus ex machina ending? I like it...
you should apply for the open mod position =)
peace!

[NoName55]

back on topic. a muslim ate a jewish cheeseburger and immediately felt pain in his kidney cortex, which led him to promptly become a christian. but then, after over excercising he realized that due to being endergonic, his judgement had become decidedly unkosher, whereupon he promptly went back to islam.
i hope this is clear now.

so that is th link, must I now apologise to the hidden sage?:okay:

[Muezzin]

I've removed posts containing personal bickering between members.

[NoName55]

You know what the problem is akhi?
The problem is that I never ever mentioned "following Rasulullah (saws) like some Christians are following Isa (as)", it was you who mentioned this, I only replied. My statements on the fact that we must follow Rasulullah (saws) was very clear. Ya meded and similar was your direct response? Why? As I never ever implied such a thing.

I, alhamdulillah, am in a direct contact with Rasulullah (saws): every salawat that I say is a direct contact, every part of Sunnah that I do daily is a direct contact, every Hadith that I read is a direct contact, every Ayah that I read where Allah (swt) mentiones Rasulullah (saws) or orders something to him, or explains something to him, is a direct contact.

But that doesn't mean I say "Ya meded" or similar. Of course not.

oh ! are we sneaky or what?

I, alhamdulillah, am in a direct contact with Rasulullah (saws):

I am Not. next thing you'll be getting instruction in your dreams!

every salawat that I say is a direct contact,

Every drood and salaam I send is taken to him by an intermediary

every part of Sunnah that I do daily is a direct contact,

then how is it that you are always misquoting? is something wrong with the connecting cord?

every Hadith that I read is a direct contact, every Ayah that I read where Allah (swt) mentiones Rasulullah (saws) or orders something to him, or explains something to him, is a direct contact.

How long have you been a muhadith? if using English mistranslations of ahaadith or pasting out of context mis-quotations of mutilated Ayahs to look better than Sr. Ambrosia is direct contact then I cant say much except to ask whether you also believe that the Prophet is "hazir & nazir" today and also whether he was flesh & blood like rest of humanity or was made of pure noor?

also do you follow or endeavour to follow every single example set by him?

[MadeenJibreel]

Sure he (saws) was flesh & blood.

The rest of your attacking I ain't gonna answer.

[NoName55]

^^ OK

Now we need brother Al-Madani to make the closing post and we are done (until the other brother comes back)

[MadeenJibreel]

^^ OK

Now we need brother Al-Madani to make the closing post and we are done (until the other brother comes back)

U cud be more polite to ur bro, no?

[NoName55]

U cud be more polite to ur bro, no?

by the same token you could have PMed Sr.Ambrosia when you believed that her post was erroneus! NO?

That is what I do when I think something is wrong with the post of someone I like, then they are able to correct it or explain why it is not wrong.

[MadeenJibreel]

by the same token you could have PMed Sr.Ambrosia when you believed that her post was erroneus! NO?

That is what I do when I think something is wrong with the post of someone I like, then they are able to correct it or explain why it is not wrong.

I don't send PMs to nobody. Especially not to a sister. PM should be disabled for that reason.

[جوري]

I apologize for causing a rift between brothers, when my intention was ONLY to correct the notion of why some are keen on calling us 'Mohammedans', my comment, wasn't directed toward any Muslim, or snakey as she had previousely thought.. I think it would have been prudent on my part to simply quote the person I intended my comments to... Although, I didn't feel like a long winded debate.. It ended up happening anyway with a different fellow.. but such posts aren't conducive to anyone learning or to fostering growth a community feel or dispelling myths as created by some non-muslims.

we are all stating the same thing, just in different style... I don't think anyone of us would waste time here, unless we felt very strongly about Islam and wanted to take part in making others understand it better.

So as was inscribed on the prophet sala Allah 3lyhi waslam' sword... speak the truth even if it be against yourself.. I say I have erred, it wasn't my intention that Muslim board members become angry with one another, least of which to defend a statement I have made. Though I still defend what I have stated, I don't think I have stated it correctly... if anyone came really close to what I have wanted to say it would be Br. Mustafa. MC... calling us Mohammedans was an orientalist dirty game, and I know many would love to bring it back..

with that, I take myself out of this debate..
Jazakoum Allah khyran

waslaam 3lykoum wr wb
M

[Umar001]

Is there any point to this thread guys?

If it's done and dusted then I'll close it.

[MadeenJibreel]

Is there any point to this thread guys?

If it's done and dusted then I'll close it.

:sl: akhi,

I suppose I'll never get to see some answers that I requested from Christians on this forum, so perhaps you can shut the thread down...

[Keltoi]

Salaam/peace;





glad to know that u understand it :)




Now , pl think ---no Prophet (pbut) before Jesus (p) ever taught about Trinity . No one even gave any hint of Triune God. Always they taught God is One without partner.



If Jesus (p) was always God , how come Adam , Abraham , Moses , Solomon--the most wise person ever regarding Bible (???) did not know about that ???

How come , Jesus (p) suddenly taught people about a total different matter that goes against the main concept of all major holy books ? Jesus (p) taught u , God is greater than ALL . Why u think , All excluded Jesus (p) when he himself said that My Father is greater than I.

Bible, John 14:28

The word "grandfather" isn't mentioned in the Bible either, yet we know that grandfathers did indeed exist. It is a matter of semantics. We could refer to "3 coexistent, co-eternal persons making up 1 God."...but it is much simpler to call it a Trinity. I'm not going to get into the Trinity argument here, but suffice to say we as Christians feel very comfortable using the word and very comfortable in the knowledge that Christ did teach that God is God, Christ Himself is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. That doesn't mean we understand it anymore than we understand anything about the nature of God.

[MadeenJibreel]

The word "grandfather" isn't mentioned in the Bible either, yet we know that grandfathers did indeed exist. It is a matter of semantics. We could refer to "3 coexistent, co-eternal persons making up 1 God."...but it is much simpler to call it a Trinity. I'm not going to get into the Trinity argument here, but suffice to say we as Christians feel very comfortable using the word and very comfortable in the knowledge that Christ did teach that God is God, Christ Himself is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. That doesn't mean we understand it anymore than we understand anything about the nature of God.

When you say "3 co-existent", you mean like "me, my wife and our child" or you mean like "you know that comparison...when a priest compares trinity to an egg (like 3 in 1))"

PS I thought Christians believe Jesus is son of God? How come he's both, God and son of God (according to the Christian faith)? Please elaborate on this.

[MadeenJibreel]

Keltoi,

pls take a look at the very verse you posted yourself in another thread:

Timothy 6:13 "I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time--He who is blessed and only Sovereign, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

Marked red is talking about God, whilst text marked blue is talking about somebody else, it's talking about Jesus. It clear as the sky with no clouds that they are not one, nor are they the same, nor are they one entity.

Agreed?

[Keltoi]

When you say "3 co-existent", you mean like "me, my wife and our child" or you mean like "you know that comparison...when a priest compares trinity to an egg (like 3 in 1))"

PS I thought Christians believe Jesus is son of God? How come he's both, God and son of God (according to the Christian faith)? Please elaborate on this.

Coexisting of the same substance...in other words the same entity manifesting in different ways.

As for the "Son of God" this is a title of nature and not of office. The sonship of Christ denotes his equality with the Father. To call Christ the Son of God is to assert his true and proper divinity. It does not mean Christ is a physical offspring of God....that would be rather blasphemous wouldn't it? It simply refers, as Christ often pointed out, His relationship with the Father...being One with the Father.

[MadeenJibreel]

Coexisting of the same substance...in other words the same entity manifesting in different ways.

As for the "Son of God" this is a title of nature and not of office. The sonship of Christ denotes his equality with the Father. To call Christ the Son of God is to assert his true and proper divinity. It does not mean Christ is a physical offspring of God....that would be rather blasphemous wouldn't it? It simply refers, as Christ often pointed out, His relationship with the Father...being One with the Father.

--> ..being One with the Father.
That's the piece where the problem is. So 3 substances, say 3 entities, yet 1 - this doesn't work. Jesus, peace upon him, is not equal to God - he (according to the Bible) said it himself. I'll post a verse for you in case you're not aware of it.
Now, either Jesus was saying the truth (I believe so 100%), that he is not equal to God (the verse uses the word Father) or he was lying (I don't think so!), and if he was lying the he is equal to God - which would confirm what you said.

Now you claimed that Jesus is equal to Father. You just contradicted Jesus (according to the Bible, if he really said those words), so it's either you not saying the truth or Jesus is not saying the truth - what do you think?

[MadeenJibreel]

>It does not mean Christ is a physical offspring of God....that would be rather blasphemous wouldn't it?

Well, Christians call Mary, peace upon her, the mother of God (Allah forgive me for quoting what they say...), so is she (according to the Christian faith) the mother of God or not? She can't be both now, so which one?

They also say "she gave birth to God's son or God himself...". I gotta ask you, are you really a Christian?

[Keltoi]

--> ..being One with the Father.
That's the piece where the problem is. So 3 substances, say 3 entities, yet 1 - this doesn't work. Jesus, peace upon him, is not equal to God - he (according to the Bible) said it himself. I'll post a verse for you in case you're not aware of it.
Now, either Jesus was saying the truth (I believe so 100%), that he is not equal to God (the verse uses the word Father) or he was lying (I don't think so!), and if he was lying the he is equal to God - which would confirm what you said.

Now you claimed that Jesus is equal to Father. You just contradicted Jesus (according to the Bible, if he really said those words), so it's either you not saying the truth or Jesus is not saying the truth - what do you think?

Jesus stated that He and the Father are One. I didn't say that, He did. As for the other verse you mentioned and the supposed contradiction, perhaps Paul would be a better authority than I.

"...being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation [He “emptied Himself”—NASB], taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2:6-8,)

Apologetics Press :: Alleged Discrepancies

In What Way was God Greater than Jesus?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
[Español]

Printer version | Email this article


According to the apostle John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1,14, emp. added). Unquestionably, this Word (God), Whom John claims became flesh, was Jesus Christ (1:17). This same apostle recorded other statements in his account of the Gospel that convey the same basic truth. He wrote how, on one occasion, Jesus told a group of hostile Jews, “I and My Father are one” (10:30). Later, he recorded how Jesus responded to Philip’s request to see God by saying, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (14:9). He even told about how Jesus accepted worship from a blind man whom He had healed (9:38; cf. Matthew 8:2). And, since only God is to be worshipped (Matthew 4:10), the implication is that Jesus believed He was God (cf. John 1:29,41,49; 20:28; Mark 14:62).

Some, however, see an inconsistency with these statements when they are placed alongside John 14:28, in which Jesus declared: “My Father is greater than I”. Allegedly, this verse (among others—cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3; Mark 13:32; Colossians 3:1) proves that Jesus and the Bible writers were contradictory in their portrayal of Jesus’ divine nature. Jesus could not be one with God and lesser than God at the same time, could He? What is the proper way to understand John 14:28?

Statements found in passages like John 14:28 (indicating that Jesus was lesser than God), or in Mark 13:32 (where Jesus made the comment that even He did not know on what day the Second Coming would be), must be understood in light of what the apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi concerning Jesus’ self-limitation during His time on Earth. Christ,

being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation [He “emptied Himself”—NASB], taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2:6-8,).

While on Earth, and in the flesh, Jesus was voluntarily in a subordinate position to the Father. Christ “emptied Himself ” (Philippians 2:7; He “made Himself nothing”—NIV). Unlike Adam and Eve, who made an attempt to seize equality with God (Genesis 3:5), Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47), humbled Himself, and obediently accepted the role of a servant. Jesus’ earthly limitations (. Mark 13:32), however, were not the consequence of a less-than-God nature; rather, they were the result of a self-imposed submission reflecting the exercise of His sovereign will. While on Earth, Jesus assumed a position of complete subjection to the Father, and exercised His divine attributes only at the Father’s bidding.

[Keltoi]

>It does not mean Christ is a physical offspring of God....that would be rather blasphemous wouldn't it?

Well, Christians call Mary, peace upon her, the mother of God (Allah forgive me for quoting what they say...), so is she (according to the Christian faith) the mother of God or not? She can't be both now, so which one?

They also say "she gave birth to God's son or God himself...". I gotta ask you, are you really a Christian?

Well, I'm not Catholic, so I do not hold the same beliefs about Mary as many Catholics do. That being said, she was indeed the mother of Jesus, although I don't think "Mother of God" is an appropriate term to use. I suppose I can see why some might, as technically she was the mother of Christ who was indeed One with God. However, I am personally uncomfortable with the Catholic understanding of Mary and her place in the context of God and Christ.

[MadeenJibreel]

Jesus stated that He and the Father are One. I didn't say that, He did. As for the other verse you mentioned and the supposed contradiction, perhaps Paul would be a better authority than I.

"...being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation [He “emptied Himself”—NASB], taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2:6-8,)

Apologetics Press :: Alleged Discrepancies

In What Way was God Greater than Jesus?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
[Español]

Printer version | Email this article


According to the apostle John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1,14, emp. added). Unquestionably, this Word (God), Whom John claims became flesh, was Jesus Christ (1:17). This same apostle recorded other statements in his account of the Gospel that convey the same basic truth. He wrote how, on one occasion, Jesus told a group of hostile Jews, “I and My Father are one” (10:30). Later, he recorded how Jesus responded to Philip’s request to see God by saying, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (14:9). He even told about how Jesus accepted worship from a blind man whom He had healed (9:38; cf. Matthew 8:2). And, since only God is to be worshipped (Matthew 4:10), the implication is that Jesus believed He was God (cf. John 1:29,41,49; 20:28; Mark 14:62).

Some, however, see an inconsistency with these statements when they are placed alongside John 14:28, in which Jesus declared: “My Father is greater than I”. Allegedly, this verse (among others—cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3; Mark 13:32; Colossians 3:1) proves that Jesus and the Bible writers were contradictory in their portrayal of Jesus’ divine nature. Jesus could not be one with God and lesser than God at the same time, could He? What is the proper way to understand John 14:28?

Statements found in passages like John 14:28 (indicating that Jesus was lesser than God), or in Mark 13:32 (where Jesus made the comment that even He did not know on what day the Second Coming would be), must be understood in light of what the apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi concerning Jesus’ self-limitation during His time on Earth. Christ,

being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation [He “emptied Himself”—NASB], taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2:6-8,).

While on Earth, and in the flesh, Jesus was voluntarily in a subordinate position to the Father. Christ “emptied Himself ” (Philippians 2:7; He “made Himself nothing”—NIV). Unlike Adam and Eve, who made an attempt to seize equality with God (Genesis 3:5), Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47), humbled Himself, and obediently accepted the role of a servant. Jesus’ earthly limitations (. Mark 13:32), however, were not the consequence of a less-than-God nature; rather, they were the result of a self-imposed submission reflecting the exercise of His sovereign will. While on Earth, Jesus assumed a position of complete subjection to the Father, and exercised His divine attributes only at the Father’s bidding.

Just one question, before I go and tackle the text you quoted.
What exactly does it mean "I and Father are one"? Do you know? (OK, more than 1 question :)
I'm not a native english speaker, but surely, that statement does not mean "I and Father are God".

God is One (I agree)
but the word One cannot mutate to word God. One in that verse can mean anything, i.e. the message I'm giving to you is the same as the One given to me by God, the path I'm on is the One God wants you to be, etc.

What do you think?

[Whatsthepoint]

Well, yes and no. According to Wikipedia: A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Islam. The feminine form of 'Muslim' is Muslimah. Literally, the word means "one who submits to God". Since Moses (as) submitted his will to that of God to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, then he was a Muslim even though he did not know Muhammad (saaws). We Muslims refuse to accept the title of "Mohammedan" to be applied to us.

Moses certainly wasn't an adherent of Islam, religion started by Mohammed. He was a jew, a monotheists, who submitted to the jewish version of god(who is a male). He did not believe in the day of teh judgement, predestination, hell and many other islamic concepts, which makes him even less muslim.
The term muslim is defined too widely, but since it's a part of your religion I won't argue any more. You can call Moses a muslim and non-muslims won't.


PS: What about Mohammedan Muslim?:)

[MadeenJibreel]

Well, I'm not Catholic, so I do not hold the same beliefs about Mary as many Catholics do. That being said, she was indeed the mother of Jesus, although I don't think "Mother of God" is an appropriate term to use. I suppose I can see why some might, as technically she was the mother of Christ who was indeed One with God. However, I am personally uncomfortable with the Catholic understanding of Mary and her place in the context of God and Christ.

A fair explanation is always appreciated.

[MadeenJibreel]

Moses certainly wasn't an adherent of Islam, religion started by Mohammed. He was a jew, a monotheists, who submitted to the jewish version of god(who is a male). He did not believe in the day of teh judgement, predestination, hell and many other islamic concepts, which makes him even less muslim.
The term muslim is defined too widely, but since it's a part of your religion I won't argue any more. You can call Moses a muslim, non-muslims won't.


PS: What about Mohammedan Muslim?:)

Where are you taking your proof from, that Moses didn't believe in the Day of Judgment, Hell, Paradise, etc.? You've got a proof for this?
And term "Mohammedan Muslim" is an insult to every Muslim, so please do not use it.

[snakelegs]

Moses certainly wasn't an adherent of Islam, religion started by Mohammed. He was a jew, a monotheists, who submitted to the jewish version of god(who is a male). He did not believe in the day of teh judgement, predestination, hell and many other islamic concepts, which makes him even less muslim.
The term muslim is defined too widely, but since it's a part of your religion I won't argue any more. You can call Moses a muslim and non-muslims won't.


PS: What about Mohammedan Muslim?:)

i don't know how you came up with the jewish version of god (who is a male)??? god has no form, how can he have gender.
mohammadan is a term used by western scholars and rejected by muslims.
it implies worship of muhammad, a man, which is definitely not accurate and would be idolatry.

[Whatsthepoint]

Where are you taking your proof from, that Moses didn't believe in the Day of Judgment, Hell, Paradise, etc.? You've got a proof for this?
And term "Mohammedan Muslim" is an insult to every Muslim, so please do not use it.

Because Jews and the Torah don't.
Ok, I won't.:)

[Whatsthepoint]

i don't know how you came up with the jewish version of god (who is a male)??? god has no form, how can he have gender.
mohammadan is a term used by western scholars and rejected by muslims.
it implies worship of muhammad, a man, which is definitely not accurate and would be idolatry.

Gramatically God is a male, and as afr as i know, before Jesus nobody discussed his sex/sexlessness...
I could be wrong.:?

[snakelegs]

Gramatically God is a male, and as afr as i know, before Jesus nobody discussed his sex/sexlessness...
I could be wrong.:?

i was talking about god - not jesus. jesus was a man, so of course he had gender.
do not confuse a grammatical term with reality. obviously words are needed to attempt to explain the inexplicable. god has no form and is invisible.
i don't know what the christian understanding is.

[Whatsthepoint]

i was talking about god - not jesus. jesus was a man, so of course he had gender.
do not confuse a grammatical term with reality. obviously words are needed to attempt to explain the inexplicable. god has no form and is invisible.
i don't know what the christian understanding is.

I wasn't talking about Jesus' gender. I said nobody before Jesus spoke of God's gender/genderlessness. Or have they?

[Whatsthepoint]

And even if the word God is masculine, that doesn't explain why God is refered to as "he". It wouldn't explain Exodus 3:14, where god says I am, where the verb be contains a Hebrew masculine verb prefix.

[Umar001]

Moses certainly wasn't an adherent of Islam, religion started by Mohammed.

I don't think anyone will argue that Moses, peace be upon him, prayed the way Muhammad was taught to pray or that Moses fasted Ramadan or that Moses read the Qur'an. (I do not think there is any writing in Islam, Qur'an and Sunnah, to suggest so)

So if you mean that Moses did not follow the Islam, the laws, that Muhammad brought than sure. But Islam in its non specific meaning, then I am sure most people will agree Moses was a Muslim. Let us reason, did Moses submit himself to Almighty God, establishing the unity of God and refusing to share any worship to anyone else other than God? Muslims, Christains and Jews will say yes. A point we all agree on. This is what Islam is! Since we all would agree then I guess that makes it easier.

He did not believe in the day of teh judgement, predestination, hell and many other islamic concepts, which makes him even less muslim.

Now this is where we disagree, you are using what as your source? From another post of yours I assume you use the Torah, but this Torah is not the Torah Moses wrote, how can you then be sure that Moses believed or did not believe in something?

If you ask me to bring evidence that it is not Moses' Torah, then I will more than happly direct you to study the text yourself, if not possible then read the writings of Biblical Scholars, some of whom claim that there are no less than 4 writers/compilers and a editor to the Torah. If that is not possible, i.e. read the writings of Biblical Scholars, then I ask to bring evidence that Moses did write the Torah, did he claims so, is it possible historically, does the writing show as such etc.

[Whatsthepoint]

I don't think anyone will argue that Moses, peace be upon him, prayed the way Muhammad was taught to pray or that Moses fasted Ramadan or that Moses read the Qur'an. (I do not think there is any writing in Islam, Qur'an and Sunnah, to suggest so)

So if you mean that Moses did not follow the Islam, the laws, that Muhammad brought than sure. But Islam in its non specific meaning, then I am sure most people will agree Moses was a Muslim. Let us reason, did Moses submit himself to Almighty God, establishing the unity of God and refusing to share any worship to anyone else other than God? Muslims, Christains and Jews will say yes. A point we all agree on. This is what Islam is! Since we all would agree then I guess that makes it easier.

Yeah, Islam and muslims are very widely defined. Every monotheist can be a muslim and not every muslim is a muslim...
But then, would Moses still be considered a muslim, if he believed there was no hell? Is it wrong for the Jews, who don't belive in hell and claim the same for Moses, to say he was not a muslim? Is it wrong for them to say Moses wasn't a muslim, because according to their faith he did not believe in the day of the Judgement?

Now this is where we disagree, you are using what as your source? From another post of yours I assume you use the Torah, but this Torah is not the Torah Moses wrote, how can you then be sure that Moses believed or did not believe in something?

If you ask me to bring evidence that it is not Moses' Torah, then I will more than happly direct you to study the text yourself, if not possible then read the writings of Biblical Scholars, some of whom claim that there are no less than 4 writers/compilers and a editor to the Torah. If that is not possible, i.e. read the writings of Biblical Scholars, then I ask to bring evidence that Moses did write the Torah, did he claims so, is it possible historically, does the writing show as such etc.

...Some of whom claim that there are no less than 4 writers/compilers and a editor to the Torah, some claim it had 5 authors...some claim he never existed! I personally think the latter are closest to the truth.
Even if 3 more people wrote the Torah, it is odd that Moses didn't say anything about the day of the judgement, hell etc in the parts he wrote.
And even if he did believe in those things and for some reason didn't write them down, it's up to muslims to prove he ahd knowledge of them. If you can't prove that clearly, it is a part of your faith. And your faith is no better than that of the Jews, who belive Moses was not a muslim.

[snakelegs]

And even if the word God is masculine, that doesn't explain why God is refered to as "he". It wouldn't explain Exodus 3:14, where god says I am, where the verb be contains a Hebrew masculine verb prefix.

yes, of course - that is known as grammar.
the most commonly used term for god is actually plural form. does this mean that jews worship many gods? no, it is a grammatical form showing respect.
again, god is formless and invisible, not some little man in the sky.
i don't know if you're familiar with j. krishnamurti but a quote from him comes to mind -"the description in not the described".

[snakelegs]

I wasn't talking about Jesus' gender. I said nobody before Jesus spoke of God's gender/genderlessness. Or have they?

i have no idea.

[MadeenJibreel]

Gramatically God is a male, and as afr as i know, before Jesus nobody discussed his sex/sexlessness...
I could be wrong.:?

True, english word God is a male, whilst arabic word ALLAAH has no gender :)
And neither you can make it "genderable" ...

[Grace Seeker]

lol i see, point noted


but its important that people realise a muslim is one who does indeed submit his will to God, Al-Islaam is to achieve peace via submission to the almighty.

You keep going against the allmighty how can you expect peace when peace is only within his control and distributed with his favor?

right?

i hope you know what i mean :)

Yes, Islam is submitting one's self to the will of God. And I agree that Jesus most certianly did. What I cannot agree is that Muhammad (I still wish peace to be upon him) in fact got the message right. When he says that that God's angel told him that Jesus never died on the cross, all I can conclude is that either Muhammad misheard or was listening to an angel who he thought was Jibreel, but really wasn't. Indeed it was being willing to submit to God that led Jesus to the cross, to deny that is to deny that Jesus was submissive. And though Jesus would not be born until generations later, I believe that the holy scriptures teach that Abraham and Moses longed for Jesus' day and were submissive to him as an act of faith. To say that they would not recognize Jesus as God is to say that they would not be submissive to God, and for Muslim today to deny that this is who Jesus is likewise is not living a life of submission to the one true God.

So, I guess it all depends not on how you define Islam (for we agree on its meaning) but on who it is that one submitts to. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Jesus none of them were submissive to God in the way that a modern day Muslim defines being submissive to Allah. If they were followers of Islam, then today's Muslim is not.

[Grace Seeker]

So whats the difference between Mohammedan and Muslim? (according to your logic) none!

follower of islam: A Muslim
follower of (Paulean) Christ: ?
follower of Budha: ?
and so on...

I have come across many a goofy who used same reasoning as you, when one tries to stop them from chanting Ya RasulAllah or Ya Ali madad etc.

one dam*ed slippery slope!

Though we read his letters, and they do inform us, Christians do not follow Paul, that is a false idea that Muslims try to foster on others, but it is just that, false. The one we follow is Jesus, the Christ, hence the name... Christ-ian.

[MadeenJibreel]

Yes, Islam is submitting one's self to the will of God. And I agree that Jesus most certianly did. What I cannot agree is that Muhammad (I still wish peace to be upon him) in fact got the message right. When he says that that God's angel told him that Jesus never died on the cross, all I can conclude is that either Muhammad misheard or was listening to an angel who he thought was Jibreel, but really wasn't. Indeed it was being willing to submit to God that led Jesus to the cross, to deny that is to deny that Jesus was submissive. And though Jesus would not be born until generations later, I believe that the holy scriptures teach that Abraham and Moses longed for Jesus' day and were submissive to him as an act of faith. To say that they would not recognize Jesus as God is to say that they would not be submissive to God, and for Muslim today to deny that this is who Jesus is likewise is not living a life of submission to the one true God.

So, I guess it all depends not on how you define Islam (for we agree on its meaning) but on who it is that one submitts to. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Jesus none of them were submissive to God in the way that a modern day Muslim defines being submissive to Allah. If they were followers of Islam, then today's Muslim is not.

It would be a good thing if you could watch these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2J2sF476ok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Hc4Ea3nTY

There's a lot more though...

[Umar001]

I don't know what happened to my reply,

Take 2

Yeah, Islam and muslims are very widely defined. Every monotheist can be a muslim and not every muslim is a muslim...
But then, would Moses still be considered a muslim, if he believed there was no hell?

Depends on his knowledge,

Is it wrong for the Jews, who don't belive in hell and claim the same for Moses, to say he was not a muslim? Is it wrong for them to say Moses wasn't a muslim, because according to their faith he did not believe in the day of the Judgement?

I would consider it wrong because we are taking our source to provide evidence for a historical personality, if we cannot provide reasonable evidence to conclude that the sources are highly probable of being accurate then it is wrong for us to say such and such a person believed such and such.

Would you think it would be right for me to say to someone, Whatsthepoint said.... if I cannot show my sources are accurate? Would that not be a form of lieing upon a person?

...Some of whom claim that there are no less than 4 writers/compilers and a editor to the Torah, some claim it had 5 authors...some claim he never existed! I personally think the latter are closest to the truth.

That's probable, we would have to look at the evidences for all positions and asses the probability of all.

Even if 3 more people wrote the Torah, it is odd that Moses didn't say anything about the day of the judgement, hell etc in the parts he wrote.

Well we would have to see which interpretation of the evidence is most probable.

The evidence you have given is that the Torah does not speak of the day of Judgement, now the next step would be to interpret this evidence, various interpretations could be given, it could be that Moses never spoke about it, or that the authors left it out deliberately, or that the sources of the authors had left it out, or that it became lost in oral tradition etc.

We would have to view which interpretation is most probable.

And even if he did believe in those things and for some reason didn't write them down, it's up to muslims to prove he ahd knowledge of them. If you can't prove that clearly, it is a part of your faith. And your faith is no better than that of the Jews, who belive Moses was not a muslim.

Yes, muslims would have to show why they believe Moses believed in any tenets. And muslims would have to show that their sources are right and justified and accurate, right?

As for your statement that our faith is no better than the faith of the Jews than thats not right, because you have to check what the faith is based on.

Theories can be put into the same categories of theories, but it does not make them all the same strength. Faith can be put in a category of faith, but it does not mean all are of the same strengths!

Eesa

[snakelegs]

Though we read his letters, and they do inform us, Christians do not follow Paul, that is a false idea that Muslims try to foster on others, but it is just that, false. The one we follow is Jesus, the Christ, hence the name... Christ-ian.

this reminds me of something i've wondered about - about what percentage of the teachings in the NT is actually jesus' words rather than what paul or others said about him?

[Whatsthepoint]

Yes, muslims would have to show why they believe Moses believed in any tenets. And muslims would have to show that their sources are right and justified and accurate, right?

Yeah...Can they?

for your statement that our faith is no better than the faith of the Jews than thats not right, because you have to check what the faith is based on.

Theories can be put into the same categories of theories, but it does not make them all the same strength. Faith can be put in a category of faith, but it does not mean all are of the same strengths!

Eesa

Well, for a Jew Judaism is the best faith, for a muslim Islam is the best faith. The same goes for most religions...To me religions are pretty much the same in terms of bestness. I like Islam for its significant amount of book-miracles, I like Christianity for its charm, personal human-God relationship and slightly less significant amount of book miracles.
Now, I don't even know what crietria can be used to detrmine the strenght/bestness/rightness of religions. Book miracles? The chram? The feeling? Why should only one religion be the right one? what if the actual god wanted to have many? Who are we, people, to know God? Etc, etc... etc?

[Whatsthepoint]

this reminds me of something i've wondered about - about what percentage of the teachings in the NT is actually jesus' words rather than what paul or others said about him?

In terms of books, 14,8%..

[snakelegs]

Now, I don't even know what crietria can be used to detrmine the strenght/bestness/rightness of religions. Book miracles? The chram? The feeling? Why should only one religion be the right one? what if the actual god wanted to have many? Who are we, people, to know God? Etc, etc... etc?

this is why some of us are agnostics.
personally, i find it quite ok to have questions without answers.

[snakelegs]

In terms of books, 14,8%..

i'm not sure if you are joking or being serious. jesus didn't write any of the books, did he?

[Whatsthepoint]

i'm not sure if you are joking or being serious. jesus didn't write any of the books, did he?

No, 4(gospels) : 27(books) = 0,148 = 14,8%:)

[MustafaMc]

Yes, Islam is submitting one's self to the will of God. And I agree that Jesus most certianly did. What I cannot agree is that Muhammad (I still wish peace to be upon him) in fact got the message right. When he says that that God's angel told him that Jesus never died on the cross, all I can conclude is that either Muhammad misheard or was listening to an angel who he thought was Jibreel, but really wasn't.

It is your choice to disbelieve the Quran and to hold on to your Christian faith; whereas, it is our choice to believe what the Quran says about the non-death of Jesus (as) as being true.

Indeed it was being willing to submit to God that led Jesus to the cross, to deny that is to deny that Jesus was submissive.

On this we agree: Jesus was submissive to the Will of God.

And though Jesus would not be born until generations later, I believe that the holy scriptures teach that Abraham and Moses longed for Jesus' day and were submissive to him as an act of faith. To say that they would not recognize Jesus as God is to say that they would not be submissive to God, and for Muslim today to deny that this is who Jesus is likewise is not living a life of submission to the one true God.

Totally lost me here. To paraphrase, "For Muslims to disbelieve that Jesus is God, is to not be submissive to the One God." :muddleheaHow can disbelieving in something that is directly contrary to the Oneness of God be an act of disobedience to Allah?

So, I guess it all depends not on how you define Islam (for we agree on its meaning) but on who it is that one submitts to. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Jesus none of them were submissive to God in the way that a modern day Muslim defines being submissive to Allah. If they were followers of Islam, then today's Muslim is not.

You are right that they did not pray 5X/day in Arabic according to the Sunnah of Muhammad (saaws), but the people that you listed submitted to the Will of Allah as it was revealed to them. As we submit to the Will of Allah as revealed in the Final Message to mankind, we become Muslims as they were during their time. The critical point is submission and obedience to the Will of Allah.

[snakelegs]

No, 4(gospels) : 27(books) = 0,148 = 14,8%:)

:muddlehea :hmm::uuh::confused:
translation - i think i'll wait for grace seeker.

[Grace Seeker]

:muddlehea :hmm::uuh::confused:
translation - i think i'll wait for grace seeker.

Only a very small portion of the New Testament are the actual words of Jesus.

Whatthepoint is right. There are 27 books in the NT. Of them 4 are called gospels. What some people mistake is to think that a gospel should be a biography of Jesus' life, or that it should be a record of Jesus' teachings. In reality neither was the purpose for writing any of the gospel accounts. If you want to try an interesting experiment, you can probably figure out for yourself what the purpse of a gospel is:

Take any one of the 4 gospels, and divide it into big broad units, like you were outlining it. What is the biggest single unit? I like to do this with the gospel of John in particular. John is 21 chapters long. It tells lots of stories about Jesus. But if you were to find where it begins to tell the story of his passion (the last week of his life on earth before his crucifixion) you will find that this starts at chapter 11. In other words, or half of the Gospel (11 of 21 chapters) is about just this one final week. While it isn't the same proportions in the other Gospels, even a cursory glace shows that they too give an inordinate amount of time to this short period of time in Jesus' life. In other words, it isn't his life and teachings that are the most important part of the story. Well, what is? Well, to me it seems obvious. What is most important to them is what they spend their time focusing on -- Jesus' death and resurrection. This is why Christians say that that more important than what Jesus said, is what Jesus did. And this is why that Paul claimed he preached nothing but Jesus, and him crucified. Because this was the most important part of the story, even before Paul became a Christian. To see that, all you have to do is look at the first sermon ever preached in the church, Peter's sermon on Pentecost, and one sees that Jesus' death was the climax of that sermon as well.

I'm not sure in terms of percentages, what the percentage of Jesus' words is to other people's. The largest number of books in the New Testament (13 out of 27) are the letters that Paul wrote to churches that he had visited, and people he had contact with.

We find Jesus either directly quoted or his words paraphrased in 8 different books. In addition to the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) there is also Acts, 1 Corinthians, 1 John, and Revelation.

[snakelegs]

thanks for your answer - interesting!

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

... I am personally uncomfortable with the Catholic understanding of Mary and her place in the context of God and Christ.

If u believe Jesus (p) is God , then why u don't feel comfortable with the term ' Mother of God ' ? She indeed gave birth to Jesus (p) ....right ???


Verses we need specially for hereafter


"Behold! the angels said: 'O Mary!


God hath chosen thee and purified thee - chosen thee above the women of all nations.

O Mary! worship thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down.'"

(Quran 3:42-43).

[Grace Seeker]

Speaking not for Keltoi, but for myself alone. I can live with the term. But I wish that Catholics didn't use it, because I think it leads to other people misunderstanding and thinking that they are really talking about God having a mother as if a progenitor. Of course, God has no progenitor. But the term "Mother of God" sounds like one. I much prefer the more technical term "theoktos" meaning "God bearer", because Mary did carry Jesus around in the womb for 9 months and in that sense bore God. But God didn't need Aary to come into being, God already existed long before Mary and in fact created her, not the other way around. And I think that the term "Mother of God" leads to confusion on that point.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

....because Mary did carry Jesus around in the womb for 9 months and in that sense bore God.int.

will u explain a little more , pl ? It's ok to say Mother Mary (p) bore God but it's confusing to say , she gave birth to God ?


Is it ok to say she gave birth to human form of God ?


Verses we need specially for hereafter



"And (remember) she who guarded her chastity. We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples (21:91).


Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him.


His mother was a woman of truth.


They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God makes His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" (5:75).

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/peace;

will u explain a little more , pl ? It's ok to say Mother Mary (p) bore God but it's confusing to say , she gave birth to God ?


Is it ok to say she gave birth to human form of God ?

It's just a personal thing. Since I know what they are "trying" to say, I can live with it. But so many others seem to read something different into what they are saying by using that term than what they really mean, I just wish that they would find a different way to say it. People end up reading something completely different than what the Catholics mean into it, and then you get statement like -- "Say...mother of God? This means God has grandfather and grandmother or...?" -- from people who don't even want to hear the answer to the question. Such question show that they not only don't understand, but the frequency with which they post them shows that they don't want to understand. It's not the Catholic's fault if people refuse to listen, but I just wish that the Catholics would find a different choice of words so that I didn't have to keep hearing the same question over and over again from people who just like to stir things up without really looking for understanding.


Yes, I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that Mary gave birth to God in human form. As long as you don't misunderstand that to imply that God was dependent on Mary for his existence. You might ask Jayda for more information on this, since she's Catholic and Catholics like to focus more on Mary than United Methodists like myself do.

[MadeenJibreel]

It's just a personal thing. Since I know what they are "trying" to say, I can live with it. But so many others seem to read something different into what they are saying by using that term than what they really mean, I just wish that they would find a different way to say it. People end up reading something completely different than what the Catholics mean into it, and then you get statement like -- "Say...mother of God? This means God has grandfather and grandmother or...?" -- from people who don't even want to hear the answer to the question. Such question show that they not only don't understand, but the frequency with which they post them shows that they don't want to understand. It's not the Catholic's fault if people refuse to listen, but I just wish that the Catholics would find a different choice of words so that I didn't have to keep hearing the same question over and over again from people who just like to stir things up without really looking for understanding.

Yes, I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that Mary gave birth to God in human form. As long as you don't misunderstand that to imply that God was dependent on Mary for his existence. You might ask Jayda for more information on this, since she's Catholic and Catholics like to focus more on Mary than United Methodists like myself do.

It's a valid question. Somebody comes to you and says, listen pal, I wanna become a Christian, but explain some thing to me before I do: Say...mother of God? What's all about that? God created Mary, yet Mary gave birth to God?

I do wanna hear the answer to all of those questions, yet you fail to provide them. All please give some more details on "God changing His form", which implies "God has a body", or "God is formed of elementary particles just like we, etc." Now that doesn't sound like God, Who created those very pieces.

PS That is...if my English is good enough for you to understand it?

[MadeenJibreel]

Or like this one: when Christians say: God is in us.
What do you mean by that? God is literally in bodies He created? In bodies who sin on a daily basis? I believe you will avoid these questions, just like the others you have no answer to.

[MustafaMc]

"Say...mother of God? This means God has grandfather and grandmother or...?"

...and how is this different from "Son of God"?

Yes, I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that Mary gave birth to God in human form. As long as you don't misunderstand that to imply that God was dependent on Mary for his existence.

Would Jesus have been born to "die on the cross" had there been no Mother Mary to give birth to him? What if both had died in childbirth? In what form was Jesus before he was born? Does he have the pre-birth form or the 30 year old human form as he now sits at the right hand of God?

[barney]

I personally have only minor problems with God coming in human form, the main one being, it's a bit easy for a standard run-of-the-mill non-divine human to claim they are God. I work in psychiatry and hear it evry day.

The bit I wonder about is, If God decided to appear in human form in order not to freak people out by appearing as a fifty headed cat or something , quite clearly supernatural, then why did he go to all the fuss and bother of being born conventionally. Why wait 27 years before jumping up and saying "Hey everyone, I'm actually God, i was just keeping me head down for a bit, but nows the time to come clean!"
Why not just appear on the mountaintops, glowing a bit and appearing simultaniously to the Israelites, The Romans , The Gauls and the Native Americans and Inuits, so that everyone got his message, was in no doubts and could get on with praising him and making the world nice.

Total Public Relations muck up.

[جوري]

as much as I have come to be annoyed with your posts, I almost choked on my food and fell of the chair reading this one. :lol:

[MadeenJibreel]

as much as I have come to be annoyed with your posts, I almost choked on my food and fell of the chair reading this one. :lol:

Me too, and I hope that some Christian will answer barney's questions! :hmm:

[YusufNoor]

First, I know of no place in the Bible where that exact phrase is used to refer to Jesus. But, perhaps you are referring to this passage:




I suspect you will consider the answer just as "messed up", but it makes perfect sense to me. (So, maybe I am messed up to, though that would be no news to my wife.)

Anyway, you must recall that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. 100% of each, possessing two natures in his one person. In his time on earth, Jesus lives a very ordinary human life. Scripture tells us in Philippians 2 that he gave up his divine perogative, the Greek behind it basically says that he "emptied himself" of his divine attributes and took on human form, humbling himself, "taking the very nature of a servant" (Phil. 2:7). This is part of what I already mentioned regarding Jesus having two natures. He didn't lose his divine nature in doing this, but he operated strictly as a human being. All the power of God that we see in Jesus' life to do miracles comes, not from his divine nature, but from the fact that he is living completely in the Father's will and is blessed by the Spirit's presence in his life. So, he prays to the Father. This is not Jesus praying to himself. Also we see that he does not have knowledge of the end times, because this is not something known to him, but is knowledge held only by the Father. I would go so far as to say that as a human being, Jesus had no special knowledge about science, history, or geography beyond that of any other 1st century Palestinian carpenter. What he did know was that he knew God. And I don't mean that he knew about God either, I mean that he knew God, had an intimate connection because he himself is part of the God-head. And that, as Muslims often misconstrue, is not an associating of partners with God. It is recognizing that, though only one being, God is a uniquely a plural-singular being.

Speaking not for Keltoi, but for myself alone. I can live with the term. But I wish that Catholics didn't use it, because I think it leads to other people misunderstanding and thinking that they are really talking about God having a mother as if a progenitor. Of course, God has no progenitor. But the term "Mother of God" sounds like one. I much prefer the more technical term "theoktos" meaning "God bearer", because Mary did carry Jesus around in the womb for 9 months and in that sense bore God. But God didn't need Aary to come into being, God already existed long before Mary and in fact created her, not the other way around. And I think that the term "Mother of God" leads to confusion on that point.

:sl:

Greetings of Peace Gene,

looking at the 2 posts above, they seem to be in contradiction. IF Jesus, being God, divested himself of ALL divine attributes, then according to this logic, Mary bore no God at all in her womb, but strictly a human being! therefore the term "mother of God should NOT be used at all! unless we are being less than frank about him "emtying himself of his divine attributes!"

THIS, you can ask your better than "average Christians" about! i'd love to hear THEIR response!!

:w:

[MadeenJibreel]

God is a uniquely a plural-singular being.

What the ....? The statement is a mess and a nonsense. The plural-singular thing (whatever that is!) cannot exist. Not in ones mind, not in reality.

[Whatsthepoint]

Me too, and I hope that some Christian will answer barney's questions! :hmm:

Why did Allah choose to reveal himself in some Godforsaken sandy peninsula just 1400 years ago? Why didn't he just open the skies and said Hey, people! Yeah, I am your God, worship me, etc, etc. It would surely make things a lot easier; all people would realize the truth, islamic state would be formed in no time, there would be virtually no disbelievers...

[Whatsthepoint]

What the ....? The statement is a mess and a nonsense. The plural-singular thing (whatever that is!) cannot exist. Not in ones mind, not in reality.

Is human logic above god?
Nevertheless, Christians do find it logical.

[Umar001]

Yeah...Can they?

Well if a Muslim can provide evidence which you both agree upon as being evidence and then show that this leaves no other probable conclusion other than his source being accurate then he/she has hit the jack pot.

Well, for a Jew Judaism is the best faith, for a muslim Islam is the best faith. The same goes for most religions...To me religions are pretty much the same in terms of bestness. I like Islam for its significant amount of book-miracles, I like Christianity for its charm, personal human-God relationship and slightly less significant amount of book miracles.
Now, I don't even know what crietria can be used to detrmine the strenght/bestness/rightness of religions. Book miracles? The chram? The feeling? Why should only one religion be the right one? what if the actual god wanted to have many? Who are we, people, to know God? Etc, etc... etc?

Wel this is where one becomes objective.

I mean those questions are interesting, we cannot comprehend God, but if we both agree to the supposition that God is Just, then we will agree that he will communicate in ways which are comprehensible and would not hold us account for matters which we did not understand.

With that said, it is then possible to provide certain criteria, right? Its a path you'd have to take. There's an article I read a while back, I'm gonna try put it up on my user page, written by an ex Christian on this topic, Two Requirements of the True Religion, To Aid Those Ready to Make a Desicion.

Eesa

[Whatsthepoint]

Well if a Muslim can provide evidence which you both agree upon as being evidence and then show that this leaves no other probable conclusion other than his source being accurate then he/she has hit the jack pot.

Are you talking about the Quran?
What I wanted is some other, reliable historical source that could prove Moses believed in islamic concepts not mentioned in the Torah. And I kinda thought you were gonna provide biblical evidence, as you always do.:sunny:

Wel this is where one becomes objective.

I mean those questions are interesting, we cannot comprehend God, but if we both agree to the supposition that God is Just, then we will agree that he will communicate in ways which are comprehensible and would not hold us account for matters which we did not understand.

With that said, it is then possible to provide certain criteria, right? Its a path you'd have to take. There's an article I read a while back, I'm gonna try put it up on my user page, written by an ex Christian on this topic, Two Requirements of the True Religion, To Aid Those Ready to Make a Desicion.

Eesa

In my opinion, god, if it exists, is not particulary just...just look at the world around you... And if it were just, in my opinion, it would reveal in a completely obvious way, in a way that would allow everyone, regardless of tehir previous religion, their psychological state, their culture, their charachter etc, to realize the "truth".

I don't find a couple of dubious verses that happen to have paralels with modern science (and are found in all sacred writings) to be eveidence of anything. Nor a few interesting number repetitions or codes, (which are found in all religions). And claims about Quran having no mistakes...I don't buy them. It has less mitakes than the Bible, which (to a non believer) only shows that Mohammed planned it carefully. That doesn't eman there are no mistakes. There are and can eb found on many sites. Sure, you explained them, interpretated them, add something about Arabic being required to understand it... Just like in Christianity. A Bible believeing christian will be able to explain and justify all suppossed contradictions and mistakes. they will use hebrew or greek. They even have evidence for creationism and against evolution...

Belief always finds a way.:peace:

PS: I'm not in the mood to argue about the Quran. And even if I did it probably woudn't change my opinion. I guess Allah sealed my heart or whatever muslims say..
However, I would appreciate your answer on the Moses question.:)

[YusufNoor]

Are you talking about the Quran?
What I wanted is some other, reliable historical source that could prove Moses believed in islamic concepts not mentioned in the Torah. And I kinda thought you were gonna provide biblical evidence, as you always do.:sunny:

In my opinion, god, if it exists, is not particulary just...just look at the world around you... And if it were just, in my opinion, it would reveal in a completely obvious way, in a way that would allow everyone, regardless of tehir previous religion, their psychological state, their culture, their charachter etc, to realize the "truth".

I don't find a couple of dubious verses that happen to have paralels with modern science (and are found in all sacred writings) to be eveidence of anything. Nor a few interesting number repetitions or codes, (which are found in all religions). And claims about Quran having no mistakes...I don't buy them. It has less mitakes than the Bible, which (to a non believer) only shows that Mohammed planned it carefully. That doesn't eman there are no mistakes. There are and can eb found on many sites. Sure, you explained them, interpretated them, add something about Arabic being required to understand it... Just like in Christianity. A Bible believeing christian will be able to explain and justify all suppossed contradictions and mistakes. they will use hebrew or greek. They even have evidence for creationism and against evolution...

Belief always finds a way.:peace:

PS: I'm not in the mood to argue about the Quran. And even if I did it probably woudn't change my opinion. I guess Allah sealed my heart or whatever muslims say..
However, I would appreciate your answer on the Moses question.:)

Why did Allah choose to reveal himself in some Godforsaken sandy peninsula just 1400 years ago? Why didn't he just open the skies and said Hey, people! Yeah, I am your God, worship me, etc, etc. It would surely make things a lot easier; all people would realize the truth, islamic state would be formed in no time, there would be virtually no disbelievers...

:sl:

looking at these 2 points, lets see what would be "logical" for Allah subhannahu wa ta' aala or not.

right now, there are more than 5 Billion people on the planet. they are born live and die at different times. how many times would "God have to say: Hey, people! Yeah, I am your God, worship me, etc, etc.???" this process would have to be repeated ad naseum in order for ALL PEOPLE to ALWAYS know!

wouldn't it make more sense to convey ALL of the MESSAGE gradually until it's finished and THEN guarantee that the ORIGINAL MESSAGE REMAINS UNCORRUPTED? BTW, Muslims USE the original Arabic Qur'an, Christians don't use the original ARAMAIC Gospel now do they. in fact their original is in Greek, even though it's possible that Jesus nevered used a single word of Greek in his life!

they say that when you pay for something you get more use out of it, if we can all SEE & HEAR God, faith wouldn't be required. today, FAITH IS REQUIRED! BUT NOT FORCED!

regarding Moses, simply compare the 10 commandements and Sharia!

:w:

[Umar001]

Are you talking about the Quran?
What I wanted is some other, reliable historical source that could prove Moses believed in islamic concepts not mentioned in the Torah. And I kinda thought you were gonna provide biblical evidence, as you always do.:sunny:

Well no, I would not believe in Moses through a historical source, but through a source which I deem to be reliable. I guess you don't, so the next step would be to agree on that, if ever possible.

In my opinion, god, if it exists, is not particulary just...just look at the world around you... And if it were just, in my opinion, it would reveal in a completely obvious way, in a way that would allow everyone, regardless of tehir previous religion, their psychological state, their culture, their charachter etc, to realize the "truth".

I want you to be objective though, what it feels like you are doing, I might be wrong, is saying that since my perception of this world is that it is unjust it indicates that God is not alive or not just.

The key part being our perception. Imagine you manufactured a new item for cleaning your teeth, it was perfect for the job. But someone came along and said, 'nah, this cannot be something designed by someone, its junk, I mean how could I use this as a door stop!'

What am trying to potray in the above example is that the second person judged the amount of work gone into to make your product through his view. His view being flawed.

We would need, being objective, to take into account different possabilities for God's plan of the earth and also take into account any information which he might have that we don't. Sometimes a family friend does something we deem stupid, but only until we are told some extra information that we realise that this friend done the right thing.

I understand your point on allowing everyone to see the truth, but what is the point in that? Let us speculate, would the point be so that they can make their desicion? I think we'd need another thread to speak on this matter.

Islam does teach we have free choice, and this is what we are to be judged upon, the choices we make within the peramaters we are given and not why we didnt make another path.

I don't find a couple of dubious verses that happen to have paralels with modern science (and are found in all sacred writings) to be eveidence of anything. Nor a few interesting number repetitions or codes, (which are found in all religions). And claims about Quran having no mistakes...I don't buy them. It has less mitakes than the Bible, which (to a non believer) only shows that Mohammed planned it carefully. That doesn't eman there are no mistakes. There are and can eb found on many sites. Sure, you explained them, interpretated them, add something about Arabic being required to understand it... Just like in Christianity. A Bible believeing christian will be able to explain and justify all suppossed contradictions and mistakes. they will use hebrew or greek. They even have evidence for creationism and against evolution...

Have you systematically looked at this, assessing all the actual evidence and then the possible interpretations of those, stacked those against the different interpretations of other evidences.

I would find a repetition in a book written before a time where such could be checked easily, which fits into the text nicely, which was not mentioned for a long time after the writing of the book (maybe indicating that people did not know about it) etc. to be pretty interesting.

But more interesting what would be the good of such a 'miracle'

Further you mention about mistakes in religions, I do agree, alot of muslims and christians talk about mistakes in each other's books, but we have to again be reasonable, interpret the evidence in the most probable way.

It takes time and sacrafise but hey it's worth it. :peace:

Belief always finds a way.:peace:

PS: I'm not in the mood to argue about the Quran. And even if I did it probably woudn't change my opinion. I guess Allah sealed my heart or whatever muslims say..
However, I would appreciate your answer on the Moses question.:)

I wouldn't argue much either, only if it felt genuine.

I hope the answer to Moses has happend? I am rather long winded sometimes.

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE]

:sl:

looking at these 2 points, lets see what would be "logical" for Allah subhannahu wa ta' aala or not.

right now, there are more than 5 Billion people on the planet. they are born live and die at different times. how many times would "God have to say: Hey, people! Yeah, I am your God, worship me, etc, etc.???" this process would have to be repeated ad naseum in order for ALL PEOPLE to ALWAYS know!

wouldn't it make more sense to convey ALL of the MESSAGE gradually until it's finished and THEN guarantee that the ORIGINAL MESSAGE REMAINS UNCORRUPTED? BTW, Muslims USE the original Arabic Qur'an, Christians don't use the original ARAMAIC Gospel now do they. in fact their original is in Greek, even though it's possible that Jesus nevered used a single word of Greek in his life!

they say that when you pay for something you get more use out of it, if we can all SEE & HEAR God, faith wouldn't be required. today, FAITH IS REQUIRED! BUT NOT FORCED!

How come muslims are so confident about "proving" Quran is the word of God?
If I were god, I'd have a constant relationship with my creation. I'd be there for everyone who needed me, I'd answer questions etc.
I don't know why God(who does not have needs) wants people's confirmation. Why does he want people to believe in some semi-convincing book...
Proving Christianity wrong does not prove Islam!

regarding Moses, simply compare the 10 commandements and Sharia!

:w:[/QUOT

Lol, I need to write this one down.:D

[MustafaMc]

I personally believe that the Comforter in John refers to Prophet Muhammad (saaws).

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.

When did the Holy Spirit ever speak to humankind? If the Holy Spirit did speak and if it is fully God just like Jesus (as) and the Father are fully God (Christian concept of Trinity), why would it "not speak from himself, but what things soever he shall hear"? Wouldn't the Holy Spirit know and be able to "speak from himself"?

Could the Spirit of Truth/Comforter/Counselor in John refer to the Angel Jibrael?

[Whatsthepoint]

I would find a repetition in a book written before a time where such could be checked easily, which fits into the text nicely, which was not mentioned for a long time after the writing of the book (maybe indicating that people did not know about it) etc. to be pretty interesting.

But more interesting what would be the good of such a 'miracle'

Further you mention about mistakes in religions, I do agree, alot of muslims and christians talk about mistakes in each other's books, but we have to again be reasonable, interpret the evidence in the most probable way.

I think the word repetition in Quran is intentional. Tree equals plant, day equals night etc etc. Mohammed probably added this as a peculiarity for devout readers or something like that . As for the actual "miracles", such as land-water ratio or the thing with human chromosomes, I think those are coincidences which are bound to be found in a book that size.
And I'm not really sure Islamic sites can be trusted. Some of them intentionally exaggerate, use false data, make up scientists and universities...they intentionaly mislead people into beliveng in yet another "miracle. I guess most schoalrs and sites are truthful, but some people don't know how to tell them apart and blindly believe them and their convinving techniques.

[Whatsthepoint]

Could the Spirit of Truth/Comforter/Counselor in John refer to the Angel Jibrael?

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! Galatians 1:8

:okay:

[snakelegs]

I think the word repetition in Quran is intentional. Tree equals plant, day equals night etc etc. Mohammed probably added this as a peculiarity for devout readers or something like that . As for the actual "miracles", such as land-water ratio or the thing with human chromosomes, I think those are coincidences which are bound to be found in a book that size.
And I'm not really sure Islamic sites can be trusted. Some of them intentionally exaggerate, use false data, make up scientists and universities...they intentionaly mislead people into beliveng in yet another "miracle. I guess most schoalrs and sites are truthful, but some people don't know how to tell them apart and blindly believe them and their convinving techniques.

muhammad didn't write the qur'an.

[Whatsthepoint]

muhammad didn't write the qur'an.

That's what they say...:D
Even if he didn't, he had people who wrote it down for him and who could read it to him, so he could perfect it.
Mohammad's illiteracy is based on a weak tradition. I think there is even evidence in the Quran/Sunnah he could read and write.

[NoName55]

muhammad didn't write the qur'an.

I seem to reacall that once there was a thread by one of LIstaff, stating that "any one misrepresnting themselves would be removed and barred from this site" or words to that effect

now look at the profile of ths person which states Way of Life: Agnostic

and all he ever does is spout from trinitarian Bible

what does it it take take to spot these inconsistencies? .........

[Whatsthepoint]

Now, now, I'm not a christian. If I were, I would never claim to be an agnsotic...that's apostacy.:muddlehea
I quote the Bible because because muslims quote it all the time...and I like annoying people - in a christian forum I quoted the Quran and its supposed miracles...got banned for it once.:shade:

[جوري]

'whatisthepoint' might be on to something that was lost to all historians through out the ages..
you know the same way 'witch doctors' have cures for diabetes, HTN and pancreatic cancer, that are lost to all the folks at Harvard med!...

I say if you have proof and not alot of bluff bring it forth-- we haven't been entertained here for a while!

cheers!

[MustafaMc]

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! Galatians 1:8

Who is to say that the "gospel" preached by Saul/Paul to which you refer was a true revelation from Allah?

Ga 1:11-12 For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through revelation of Jesus Christ.

He received this "revelation" on the road to Damascus while traveling there with the intention of arresting followers of "The Way". There is no evidence that he followed Jesus (as) to witness first hand his miracles or to listen to his sermons and parables. He did not even go to the disciples of Jesus (as) to learn of his message second hand until 3 years later.

Ga 1:15-19 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, [even] from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

[Whatsthepoint]

'whatisthepoint' might be on to something that was lost to all historians through out the ages..
you know the same way 'witch doctors' have cures for diabetes, HTN and pancreatic cancer, that are lost to all the folks at Harvard med!...

I say if you have proof and not alot of bluff bring it forth-- we haven't been entertained here for a while!

cheers!

Not all hsitorians agree on his illiteracy.
And here's the Quranic evidence, as well as evidence from islamic historians

And it's rather strange that a political and rhetorical genius as he was couldn't learn how to read and write.

[Whatsthepoint]

Who is to say that the "gospel" preached by Saul/Paul to which you refer was a true revelation from Allah?

Dunno, but for some Christians the verse in question is yet another evidence of Islam being satanically inspired and yet another evidence of the Bible successfully predicting the future...
In my opinion, it is yet another dubious verse.

[Whatsthepoint]

that used to be a trait of trolls! (and still is on sites run by adults of any faith)

Well, that is not the main reason why I qoute the Bible.
And I only qoute it in topics about christianity.

[جوري]

Not all hsitorians agree on his illiteracy.

And you can distinguish the difference between a reputable historian and a quasi intellect by way of the Daniel pipes site?
by the way who is G. Adisoma? Think I'll go with the assertion in the Quran, if for nothing else, for its historical perspective.. if I were to hold it as a history book alone, it is the oldest and holds its weight, being untampered since recorded--- over Adisoma's political analysis and page 646!

And here's the Quranic evidence, as well as evidence from islamic historians

Adisoma isn't an Islamic historian nor is quoting me page 646 of an 1967 oxford

And it's rather strange that a political and rhetorical genius as he was couldn't learn how to read and write.

'rhetorical'? It is certainly a blessing the disparity of his orphaned upbringing, his very humble life, even up to his death he had his armor pawned to a Jewish man from poverty, plus the very axiomatic difference between his spoken word (the hadiths) and that which came in the Quran, which until this day hasn't been reproduced in style, transcendence, rhyme, or meaning. His millitary genius, if anything, I say that is a testament to his prophethood not a condemnation..

cheers!

[YusufNoor]

[QUOTE=Whatsthepoint;857559]

How come muslims are so confident about "proving" Quran is the word of God?

If I were god, I'd have a constant relationship with my creation. I'd be there for everyone who needed me, I'd answer questions etc.

I don't know why God(who does not have needs) wants people's confirmation.

Why does he want people to believe in some semi-convincing book...

Proving Christianity wrong does not prove Islam!

Lol, I need to write this one down.:D

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Re: How come muslims are so confident about "proving" Quran is the word of God

grab a Qur'an with Tafseer that has a good introduction and you'll see how the Qur'an was compiled. we also have a pretty good acid test:take ALL of the "Holy" books in the entire world and toss them into the ocean and destroy all of the backup copies on pc's and such. within 2 days, and taking Hafiz that speak 8 different languages from 8 different counties, you could have an EXACT copy of the Qur'an within 2 days. this Qur'an could be verified by approximately TEN MILLION Hafiz in the world today! that's MORE than confident! regarding the Bible, you couldn't even get Christians to agree on what Books to include or even what verses of the books that they do choose to include!

re: If I were god, I'd have a constant relationship with my creation. I'd be there for everyone who needed me, I'd answer questions etc.

how would you maintain this "constant relationship?" would you have laws? how would you communicate these laws? how would you be there for "everyone that needed you?" what would you do if these people decided that they didn't want you, or care to obey you?

our Imam laid out a nice view last night, non-believers work, grab a sixpack on the way home, have sex with "someone" and go to bed. real fulfilling (and of course that's not ALL non-believers); but AS MUSLIMS, we get to start out day with, well EVERYTHING starts with BismiAllah! you pray Tahajjud at home, Insha' allah and some sunnah prayers. in a little while proceed to the Masjid to pray Fajr, the morning prayer. some stay and do Dzikr until sunrise and some pray Duha, the midmorning prayer. then we have Duhr, the afternoon prayer. as thu sun starts to lower in the sky, we have Asr prayer. just after sunset we have Maghrib prayer and before too long we have Isha prayer. now if your Iman starts to weaken, we have Ramadhan! custom made to recharge and revitalize us! and if through all this you start to accumulate some $$$, then go on Hajj!!! Alhumdulillah, it sounds like a "constant relationship to me!

re: I don't know why God(who does not have needs) wants people's confirmation.

it's not our confirmation that He's looking for. we have been granted this temporary existance in this dunya to see who will perform the best deeds and earn the most reward out of Allah subhannahu wa ta' aala's Mercy!

re: Why does he want people to believe in some semi-convincing book...

actually, unlike the angels, we have total free will. we can choose to recognize Allah Allah subhannahu wa ta' aala and to obey Him or not! no one is forcing anyone!

re: Proving Christianity wrong does not prove Islam!

some Muslims think that is how you make da'wah! but for some of us, it was how we spent our life! i only came to Islam last year but have been challenging Christianity for decades!

i hope that you don't find this annoying! :okay:

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

...and how is this different from "Son of God"?
Would Jesus have been born to "die on the cross" had there been no Mother Mary to give birth to him? What if both had died in childbirth? In what form was Jesus before he was born? Does he have the pre-birth form or the 30 year old human form as he now sits at the right hand of God?

First, let me confess that my answer is pure speculation on the pre-birth form of "God the Son". But I believe that this was spirit, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit are also spirit. There are of course theophanies in the Tanakh where God reveals himself to humankind or show himself in some way, but they are not instances where he actually embodies those manifestations. That is what is unique of Jesus. It wasn't God just putting on a human costume and walking around among us, it was God actually embodying human flesh, and being subject to all of the limitations of that flesh. Yes, I know that Muslims cannot accept this. I don't expect you to. But that is the Christian understanding. So, before God did this, Jesus (who is God incarnate) didn't exist any more than you or I do.

Now, I guess here I run into another Muslim concept, that is foreign to me, and rather new in my observations, so I may not understand exactly what Muslim mean by it well. But I guess that Muslims believe that Allah has already created every soul and keeps them with him in heaven until such time that he places them in a human being whom he creates in a woman's womb. I'm not sure I got that right. But anyway, nothing like that is part of Christian understanding. Rather, for us, the soul is created at the time that the body is created; they have the same beginning point in time. I assume that Jews have a similar view, but maybe I am wrong on that, so you may wish to ask a Jew.

So the human being Jesus did not exist prior to his conception. But God the Son did. This pre-Jesus understanding of God the Son is just one aspect of who God is and has always been. When Muslims say that Allah created the world, sent his message to Abraham, or to Moses, Christains would say that this was the same God who would later in time incarnate himself in human flesh and at birth be given the name Jesus.

The whole concept of Jesus as the son of God was not about their being a second God, but was titulature that worked and was understood in the 1st century. Today, I think we get caught in thinking genetics, which is not at all part of the picture that language was trying to paint. It was more about essence, just as we still retain language where we talk about a son being a chip off of the old block because the essence of the father is also present in the son. This gets closer to what was meant by referring to Jesus as the Son of God, than any genetic or biological understanding of that concept. And that is why I make less of Mary's role as "mother of God" than the Catholic do, though I still retain the biblical language of Jesus as God's son.

[Grace Seeker]

Could the Spirit of Truth/Comforter/Counselor in John refer to the Angel Jibrael?

NO. Again, see what Jesus has to say about this Spirit of Truth/Comforter/Counselor. Jesus say, regarding the Spirit of truth, "you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you" (John 14:17). Neither Islam nor Christianity (nor any other religion, to my knowledge) claims that any angel, let along the Angel Jibrael lives in a person. But Christianity does understand that disciples of Christ can have the Holy Spirit living within them.

[MadeenJibreel]

NO. Again, see what Jesus has to say about this Spirit of Truth/Comforter/Counselor. Jesus say, regarding the Spirit of truth, "you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you" (John 14:17). Neither Islam nor Christianity (nor any other religion, to my knowledge) claims that any angel, let along the Angel Jibrael lives in a person. But Christianity does understand that disciples of Christ can have the Holy Spirit living within them.

So, angel cannot be in a person, but alleged god can?

[Grace Seeker]

It's a valid question. Somebody comes to you and says, listen pal, I wanna become a Christian, but explain some thing to me before I do: Say...mother of God? What's all about that? God created Mary, yet Mary gave birth to God?

I do wanna hear the answer to all of those questions, yet you fail to provide them. All please give some more details on "God changing His form", which implies "God has a body", or "God is formed of elementary particles just like we, etc." Now that doesn't sound like God, Who created those very pieces.

I hope my answer to MustafaMc, above, covered what you were asking. Where it didn't I'm sure you'll have an opportunity to ask again, and I'll do the best I can at that time.

PS That is...if my English is good enough for you to understand it?

I hope you didn't take offense at my comments regarding your English. I know that there are many on this board for whom English is a 2nd, even a 3rd, language. While English is my first language, I do know the difficulties associated with learning another language first hand. And I know that sometimes things do get lost in translation because of that. I wasn't trying to put you down, but simply suggesting that we are working with multiple translations here, from the original languages to English and then from English to whatever is your mother-tongue. And in addition to language, we are also working with different cultures and periods of time. What a 17th (or even 20th) century English translator choose as an appropriate way to express something to people in his day may not be the best way to express it for you, especially if you take something literally that was meant more figurative by the author in the first place. The results can lead to misunderstandings of the concept even when you understand all the terms.

I personally have only minor problems with God coming in human form, the main one being, it's a bit easy for a standard run-of-the-mill non-divine human to claim they are God. I work in psychiatry and hear it evry day.

The bit I wonder about is, If God decided to appear in human form in order not to freak people out by appearing as a fifty headed cat or something , quite clearly supernatural, then why did he go to all the fuss and bother of being born conventionally. Why wait 27 years before jumping up and saying "Hey everyone, I'm actually God, i was just keeping me head down for a bit, but nows the time to come clean!"
Why not just appear on the mountaintops, glowing a bit and appearing simultaniously to the Israelites, The Romans , The Gauls and the Native Americans and Inuits, so that everyone got his message, was in no doubts and could get on with praising him and making the world nice.

Total Public Relations muck up.

I agree with PurestAmbrosia, you create a clever image. And really, it is a good question. Why didn't God appear in some other form? Why not just appear as a full-grown man rather than having all that "down" time involved with growing-up human? Why not make himself known to all people at one time rather than to so few and depend on them to get the word out?

Well, first, let me suggest that even in asking the question you have admit 2 things:
1) If God is God, then God could have done any of these things, or others we may not have the ability to even conceive of. And I would agree that those options did exist.
2) If God had multiple options available to him, when he finally settles on the particular option that he did use, he probably had a reason for it. I think it is incombant on us then to try to determine what God's reason was, rather than say God it would have been better if you had done XYZ.

You see, many here assume that they know God's reason in coming:
1) Muslims say that it was to get his message out.
2) Atheists and agnostics say that if God really does exist and is going to come, that they simply want God to prove himself to them.

But, what if God didn't have either of those things on his agenda? If God had a different agenda than we would create for him (and if he is God and we are not it might make sense for God to have a different agenda than we could conceive on our own), then it would also make sense for God to come differently than we would conceive of him coming.

The Christian message is NOT that God came primarily to reveal himself. Although Jesus does make God known to us, if it was only about sending a message, he could have continued to have sent prophets (as he had in the past) or used more and greater theophanies (again as he had in the past). The Christian message is that God came to reconcile the world to himself. That's Paul's language, and I know that some of you don't like Paul, so let me quote Jesus on this one: "the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost" (Luke 19:10). And while it is true that Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, it is not true that he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel. (I'll have to cover that more at some other time, but in the very same Gospel quoted by Muslims to assert that Jesus was only for the nation of Israel, we see Jesus tell the parable of the tenants and the parable of the wedding banquet that tell a very different story. Plus his most emphatic command to his disciples is the last thought Matthew leaves his readers with, that Jesus commands us to make disciples of "all nations".)

So, with the goal of reconcilation, it is not so much the message of Jesus that is important, but the work of Jesus that is significant. That work is one that is not done by a messenger, but by a very unique indvidual that could stand in the gap between God and human kind. For that one needs a God who not only looks human (ruling out that 50-headed cat), but actually shares our humanness with us And so Jesus enteres into it completely. He doesn't come just masquerading as a human being (ruling out the showing up fully formed adult from out of nowhere), he suffers through it with us. And more identification could he have with us than to enter the world exactly as we do and to face all of the issues of growing up that we do and live with all of the problems of life that we do. Jesus, scripture tells us, identifies with our weakness -- "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin" (Hebrews 4:15) -- teaching us that in our weakness we can still find God's strength to be the people God wants us to be and to become.

Yes, God wants the world to recognize him. But that would not have been enough. God wants a world that actually can belong to him, and until Jesus took care of the problem of sin, just getting the message out of his existence or how we should live would not have been enough. So, Jesus did what only God can do, he stepped in the gap between God and humanity, and then God invites us to join him in what it is that we can still do, that is to get the word out. Which, is what we are still trying to do.

[Grace Seeker]

So, angel cannot be in a person, but alleged god can?

I suppose that anything is possible with God. But neither Christian nor Muslim scriptures lend any credence to the idea that any angel was ever known to satisfy Jesus words that he used to describe this Spirit of Truth we are talking about "for he lives with you and will be in you."

Given that, the question you pose is rather moot.

[Malaikah]

NO. Again, see what Jesus has to say about this Spirit of Truth/Comforter/Counselor. Jesus say, regarding the Spirit of truth, "you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you" (John 14:17). Neither Islam nor Christianity (nor any other religion, to my knowledge) claims that any angel, let along the Angel Jibrael lives in a person. But Christianity does understand that disciples of Christ can have the Holy Spirit living within them.

We believe angels can take human form. Not sure if that is relevant, just wanted to point it out.

Man... this thread is so overgrown.:hiding:

[Grace Seeker]

We believe angels can take human form. Not sure if that is relevant, just wanted to point it out.

Man... this thread is so overgrown.:hiding:

Yes. So do we. For instance, we believe that Lot's visitors were angels. But there is a difference between saying that angels can assume a human form, and saying what Jesus said, that the Spirit of truth would live "with you and will be in you." No angel does that.

[MadeenJibreel]

I suppose that anything is possible with God. But neither Christian nor Muslim scriptures lend any credence to the idea that any angel was ever known to satisfy Jesus words that he used to describe this Spirit of Truth we are talking about "for he lives with you and will be in you."

Given that, the question you pose is rather moot.

I don't recall the Qur'an mentioning anything about "for he lives with you and will be in you". That's nonsense. If a Muslim says that, he/she is not a Muslim any more, for those words are heavy words...
But you still didn't answer my question: do Christians believe God "is everywhere"? If so, in what sense? Physical, metaphysical, spiritual, mental, whatever...? Bottom line - do God exist in things? If so, what happens to the answer to: where/how did God exist before the creation (according to Christian faith)?

[Grace Seeker]

Truly, I did answer. God exists in God's own plane of existence. He existed before time as he created time. That means that he exists outside of the dimension that you and I experience as time. Similary God exists outside of the dimensions that you and I call space and matter for he created these things as well. Once you understand that God does not exist in space, matter, or time, to speak of God existing in any dimension that we as space and time trapped beings might comprehend is ludicrous.

God is a spiritual being. God is an eternal being. God enters into our world, but is not a part of our world (except, Christians hold, in the person of Jesus Christ). As I understand it, this is also how Muslims speak of Allah. And though you may not be familiar with thinking along the lines I have described here, I do not think it is foreign to Muslim thought or theology. However, there are some differences because Muslims, though not thinking of God as being like humans, tend to think of God as actually having hands and eyes and other body parts mentioned in the Qu'ran, whereas Christians generally understand these to be figures of speech. In the resurrection from the dead, our bodies are transformed so as to be able to dwell with God as we enter into the heavenly realms.

So, yes, God is everywhere. But not with a physical body. I guess that means it is more metaphysical. But even that is a poor understanding, like a single one-dimensional point trying to understand the concept of a thee-dimensional sphere.

And, no, God does not exist in things. As I've already said, things exist in God. He is the creator of all things, and their being holds together in him. In one sense, God is always in the act of creating. I don't mean creating in the sense of making one thing today and another thing tomorrow. I mean that God is always in the process of creating and holding all things together at all times, so that if God were to quit doing so, all things would cease to exist except for God who would still be because God always is. If God were to cease his act of continuous creation nothing that now is would continue to be. We would simply be gone, and there wouldn't even be dust left to give evidence that we ever were nor a place to view the emptiness of the universe from, for the universe would be no more as well. And yet, God would still be. And would be then, as now, the totality of all that is.

[Grace Seeker]

I don't recall the Qur'an mentioning anything about "for he lives with you and will be in you". That's nonsense. If a Muslim says that, he/she is not a Muslim any more, for those words are heavy words...

I agree that those words are heavy words. And this is important in coming to an understanding of the different views that Muslims and Christians have of the Spirit. I would remind you, however, that those words are the words of Jesus. If, as you say, one who says those words is not a Muslim, then you are saying that Jesus is not a Muslim. Please note, that is your own conclusion in this matter, not something I have told you.

[MadeenJibreel]

I agree that those words are heavy words. And this is important in coming to an understanding of the different views that Muslims and Christians have of the Spirit. I would remind you, however, that those words are the words of Jesus. If, as you say, one who says those words is not a Muslim, then you are saying that Jesus is not a Muslim. Please note, that is your own conclusion in this matter, not something I have told you.

I agree, if Jesus indeed said those words, then he is not a Muslim any more. But you have to know something, Jesus, peace upon him, as we know him, Jesus as described in the Qur'an and the Sunnah could not have said those words and in fact - he never did. And yet, he was a Muslim, peace be upon him.

It's what the Bible claims - that he said those words, but that's what's written in the Book, and not what has been historically proven and the Muslims obviously don't believe he said those words.

[Grace Seeker]

I agree, if Jesus indeed said those words, then he is not a Muslim any more. But you have to know something, Jesus, peace upon him, as we know him, Jesus as described in the Qur'an and the Sunnah could not have said those words and in fact - he never did. And yet, he was a Muslim, peace be upon him.

It's what the Bible claims - that he said those words, but that's what's written in the Book, and not what has been historically proven and the Muslims obviously don't believe he said those words.

But remember, it is this same Bible that you don't trust, that earlier you were saying prophesized about the coming of Muhammad. And it is this same passage that describes the Spirit by words that you are saying that Jesus could not have said.

Muslims talk about how they honor the same Jesus we Christians worship, but the Jesus they seem to know from the Qu'ran is such a different one from the Jesus that we Christians know from the Bible that they might as well be two completely different people.

[MadeenJibreel]

But remember, it is this same Bible that you don't trust, that earlier you were saying prophesized about the coming of Muhammad. And it is this same passage that describes the Spirit by words that you are saying that Jesus could not have said.

Muslims talk about how they honor the same Jesus we Christians worship, but the Jesus they seem to know from the Qu'ran is such a different one from the Jesus that we Christians know from the Bible that they might as well be two completely different people.

There couldn't have been two Jesus. Only one. The Messenger of Allah. And there's no contradiction in what I've said: we Muslims can't say that the whole Bible is corrupted/altered, the problem is that we don't know which verses, chapters of even books have been altered. But what we do know is a fact, that based on our knowledge that Jesus was not only a Muslim but also Allah's one-before-the-final Messenger, peace upon him, that Jesus simply could not have said such words, as a Messenger of Allah cannot be a non-Muslim.

[NoName55]

But remember, it is this same Bible that you don't trust, that earlier you were saying prophesized about the coming of Muhammad. And it is this same passage that describes the Spirit by words that you are saying that Jesus could not have said.

Muslims talk about how they honor the same Jesus we Christians worship, but the Jesus they seem to know from the Qu'ran is such a different one from the Jesus that we Christians know from the Bible that they might as well be two completely different people.

touche!

but woe unto us! :(

[Grace Seeker]

There couldn't have been two Jesus. Only one.

I agree. I am just pointing out that we have two vastly different images of Jesus in mind when we talk about him.

And there's no contradiction in what I've said: we Muslims can't say that the whole Bible is corrupted/altered, the problem is that we don't know which verses, chapters of even books have been altered. But what we do know is a fact, that based on our knowledge that Jesus was not only a Muslim but also Allah's one-before-the-final Messenger, peace upon him, that Jesus simply could not have said such words, as a Messenger of Allah cannot be a non-Muslim.

I didn't say there was a contradition in what you have said. What I was pointing out was that not only do you have your own understanding of who Jesus is, but when you refer to the Bible you on the one hand claim not to trust it, but cherry pick verses that you can agree with and then try to read them in the context of Islam rather than reading them in the context of the faith in which they were written, i.e. the rest of the material that is also written along with them which you choose to reject. If there is a contradiction it is not in what you have said, rather it is in what you have read and treat as reliable and what you have read and treat as unreliable, though they come from the very same source material.

[MadeenJibreel]

I agree. I am just pointing out that we have two vastly different images of Jesus in mind when we talk about him.

I didn't say there was a contradition in what you have said. What I was pointing out was that not only do you have your own understanding of who Jesus is, but when you refer to the Bible you on the one hand claim not to trust it, but cherry pick verses that you can agree with and then try to read them in the context of Islam rather than reading them in the context of the faith in which they were written, i.e. the rest of the material that is also written along with them which you choose to reject. If there is a contradiction it is not in what you have said, rather it is in what you have read and treat as reliable and what you have read and treat as unreliable, though they come from the very same source material.

I love Jesus, peace upon him, as described in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. I however do not agree with same statements in the Bible - allegedly said by Jesus. I say allegedly, because they are in contradiction with teachings of Islam, so we cannot acept those statements nor we can attribute them to Jesus, peace upon him.

Surah/Chapter 004 - An-Nisâ. Verse 171.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three". Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

Surah/Chapter 005 - Al-Mâ'idah. Verse 116.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden.

[MustafaMc]

Truly, I did answer. God exists in God's own plane of existence. He existed before time as he created time. That means that he exists outside of the dimension that you and I experience as time. Similary God exists outside of the dimensions that you and I call space and matter for he created these things as well. Once you understand that God does not exist in space, matter, or time, to speak of God existing in any dimension that we as space and time trapped beings might comprehend is ludicrous.

First I must say this post is among the most significant that I have read on this forum. I, personally, agree with most of it as being consistent with Islam according to my limited understanding.

This very concept of Allah (swt) existing in another "plane of existence" or another dimension is why I can't accept Jesus (as) being God. How can the Eternal (As-Samad) exist in a temporal form? We believe that it does not behove the dignity of the Majestic (Al-Mutakabbir) and the Most High (Al-'Aliyy) to have the attributes of or to resemble a created human being. I also can't accept the Holy (Al-Quddoos) and the Vast, All-Embracing (Al-Wasi') as residing within less-than-holy and limited, finite humans as the "in-dwelling Holy Spirit".

God is a spiritual being. God is an eternal being. God enters into our world, but is not a part of our world (except, Christians hold, in the person of Jesus Christ). As I understand it, this is also how Muslims speak of Allah. And though you may not be familiar with thinking along the lines I have described here, I do not think it is foreign to Muslim thought or theology. However, there are some differences because Muslims, though not thinking of God as being like humans, tend to think of God as actually having hands and eyes and other body parts mentioned in the Qu'ran, whereas Christians generally understand these to be figures of speech.

Muslims don't define the attributes of Allah beyond the 99 Names of Allah of which I listed a few above. It is incorrect to say that Muslims believe that Allah has hands and eyes in the sense that we understand them as being comparable to the creation. Yet at the same time we don't say the references in the Quran are merely "figures of speech". Let's just say this is one of the mysteries that we can't comprehend this side of Judgement Day.

So, yes, God is everywhere. But not with a physical body. I guess that means it is more metaphysical. But even that is a poor understanding, like a single one-dimensional point trying to understand the concept of a thee-dimensional sphere.

Yes, our understanding is very limited. We believe that Allah is not "every where at once" except in His Knowledge.

And, no, God does not exist in things. As I've already said, things exist in God. He is the creator of all things, and their being holds together in him. In one sense, God is always in the act of creating. I don't mean creating in the sense of making one thing today and another thing tomorrow. I mean that God is always in the process of creating and holding all things together at all times, so that if God were to quit doing so, all things would cease to exist except for God who would still be because God always is. If God were to cease his act of continuous creation nothing that now is would continue to be. We would simply be gone, and there wouldn't even be dust left to give evidence that we ever were nor a place to view the emptiness of the universe from, for the universe would be no more as well. And yet, God would still be. And would be then, as now, the totality of all that is.

This is also consistent with my understanding of the Cherisher and Sustainer of the universe (Rabb-il 'Alameen).

[barney]

we Muslims can't say that the whole Bible is corrupted/altered, the problem is that we don't know which verses, chapters of even books have been altered. .

So is it Possible, IE that there is a possibility, that the Bible has been corrupted in one place only, lets say Matt 28:Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.

Perhaps this was corrupted, and the rest of it is fine! Or is a passage only considered corrupt if it causes friction with the Quran or Hadiths?

[MadeenJibreel]

So is it Possible, IE that there is a possibility, that the Bible has been corrupted in one place only, lets say Matt 28:Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.

Perhaps this was corrupted, and the rest of it is fine! Or is a passage only considered corrupt if it causes friction with the Quran or Hadiths?

No, not possible I would say...

[Grace Seeker]

First I must say this post is among the most significant that I have read on this forum. I, personally, agree with most of it as being consistent with Islam according to my limited understanding.

I consider that truly high praise. Thanks, sincerely, for the affirmation.

This very concept of Allah (swt) existing in another "plane of existence" or another dimension is why I can't accept Jesus (as) being God. How can the Eternal (As-Samad) exist in a temporal form? We believe that it does not behove the dignity of the Majestic (Al-Mutakabbir) and the Most High (Al-'Aliyy) to have the attributes of or to resemble a created human being. I also can't accept the Holy (Al-Quddoos) and the Vast, All-Embracing (Al-Wasi') as residing within less-than-holy and limited, finite humans as the "in-dwelling Holy Spirit".

I admit that it is a radical idea. And not one that I expect any person to accept based on logic. Indeed, the only reason that I can see to accept it is if, even against all logic, it were to actually happen. The testimony of those who were Jesus' disciples is that it did. And I accept their testimony. Certainly others are equally free to reject it. But I believe them to have been faithful men, not liars, and I believe that the Church has faithfully recorded and passed on to us what it received from them. So, I accept the proclamation that they made as well, that indeed Jesus Christ is God, the Son, Savior or ιχθυσ (ichthus) a Greek acronym used by the early church for Jesus.

[MustafaMc]

I admit that it is a radical idea. And not one that I expect any person to accept based on logic. Indeed, the only reason that I can see to accept it is if, even against all logic, it were to actually happen.

Yes, it is a matter of faith and what we choose to believe as true.

The testimony of those who were Jesus' disciples is that it did. And I accept their testimony. Certainly others are equally free to reject it. But I believe them to have been faithful men, not liars, and I believe that the Church has faithfully recorded and passed on to us what it received from them. So, I accept the proclamation that they made as well, that indeed Jesus Christ is God, the Son, Savior or ιχθυσ (ichthus) a Greek acronym used by the early church for Jesus.

This difference, of course, is fundamental to what makes you a Christian and me a Muslim. From my point of view, you see me as wrong (if I may presume) for the rejection and I see you as wrong (according to the Quran) for the affirmation of this very statement, but each of us will be accountable on Judgement Day for our own decisions.

Peace be upon you.

[barney]

No, not possible I would say...

For it to be not possible, the scholars must have a list of which passages were corrupted and indeed how they are corrupted. If they dont know which passages are corrupt, then they cannot say that there is corruption.

[MadeenJibreel]

For it to be not possible, the scholars must have a list of which passages were corrupted and indeed how they are corrupted. If they dont know which passages are corrupt, then they cannot say that there is corruption.

U sure about this? All the passages which with no doubt claim something else than what the Qur'an claims are corrupted/changed by man. Very simple example is the Oneness of God. Or that He has no sons. Explicit in the Qur'an.
But in the Bible, there are so many (alleged) son of God...so all those verses are not only the changed ones, but also a unimaginably big lie upon Almighty Allah.

How those passages got corrupted, it doesn't really matter.

[Grace Seeker]

Yes, it is a matter of faith and what we choose to believe as true. This difference, of course, is fundamental to what makes you a Christian and me a Muslim. From my point of view, you see me as wrong (if I may presume) for the rejection and I see you as wrong (according to the Quran) for the affirmation of this very statement, but each of us will be accountable on Judgement Day for our own decisions.

Peace be upon you.

That pretty accurately describes the dilemna/opportunity facing each and every one of us. But I want you to know that I still recognize you as my brother and love you as one whom I believe God also loves. You don't have to concur with me on that, it is simply a unilateral declaration on my part. And though I don't expect you to return to the Christian faith which you once held, I will never cease beseeching the one who is God over us all that he may still, in that last judgment you speak of, lift you up and claim you as his own for following and honoring him as best you know how.

[barney]

U sure about this? All the passages which with no doubt claim something else than what the Qur'an claims are corrupted/changed by man. Very simple example is the Oneness of God. Or that He has no sons. Explicit in the Qur'an.
But in the Bible, there are so many (alleged) son of God...so all those verses are not only the changed ones, but also a unimaginably big lie upon Almighty Allah.

How those passages got corrupted, it doesn't really matter.

Thats fantastic. But it assumes the Korans correct. :sunny:

[Woodrow]

Just my own personal feelings, but I believe it would be wonderful if more truly Islamic Muslims became officers in the USA military. There is no conflict in being a US officer and a devout Muslim. The US Officer's code of conduct, if followed, is not in conflict with Islam.

The role of an officer, if properly followed is to be responsible for the welfare, safety and behavior of not only the men under his command, but also to be certain that any combatants engaged with are not needlessly harmed, and are treated with respect, dignity and seen as soldiers and not as subhumans or criminals.

The role of a Muslim Officer would be to follow lawful, morally acceptable orders, not to improvise and fight for illegal dominance or wrongful treatment of innocents.

I believe the proper usage for Muslim Officers, would be in situations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to fight other Muslims but to, work to remove the need for fighting and to assure that the issues of combat are carried out in the intent of preventing needless death, damage or injuries and that any combat engagements are limited to only necessary means to prevent unjust aggression from either side. This would help ensure that any engagement is limited to justified reasons and not the result of religious differences.

A Muslim Officer who places Islam first and follows the Officer's code of conduct in a manner befitting of a Muslim, would save many lives on both sides and greatly reduce any combat engagements that are the result of mutual fear and/or misunderstandings.

If a US officer is properly following his training, his goal is to be a military man but not a martial man and to place the safety of all as his duty. First the safety of innocent bystanders, the safety of the men under his command and to use all means possible to prevent needless harm to the enemy combatants.

[snakelegs]

can there be "lawful, morally acceptable orders" in the context of an immoral, illegal war?

[Grace Seeker]

can there be "lawful, morally acceptable orders" in the context of an immoral, illegal war?

Sure. Most wars are immoral. Most wars are lawful only in the eyes of one side. Yet, there are many lawful and morally acceptable orders given on both sides. That's what's so sad and indefensible about war -- good people trying to do their best to do the right thing, still end up killing each other because someone got it started for the wrong reasons and the rest are not smart enough to either see the need or know how to put a stop to it.

[MadeenJibreel]

Thats fantastic. But it assumes the Korans correct. :sunny:

Assumption is yours whilst the facts are ours.

[snakelegs]

Sure. Most wars are immoral. Most wars are lawful only in the eyes of one side. Yet, there are many lawful and morally acceptable orders given on both sides. That's what's so sad and indefensible about war -- good people trying to do their best to do the right thing, still end up killing each other because someone got it started for the wrong reasons and the rest are not smart enough to either see the need or know how to put a stop to it.

if a country declares war on the basis of a lie, are any of the orders given to officers lawful and moral?
i myself do not know the answer, but it is something to think about.

[Muslim Knight]

if a country declares war on the basis of a lie, are any of the orders given to officers lawful and moral?
i myself do not know the answer, but it is something to think about.

While I may not be in total disagreement with that, I think if war is inevitable, then lessening the damage & making it more humane are the better options.

[Woodrow]

if a country declares war on the basis of a lie, are any of the orders given to officers lawful and moral?
i myself do not know the answer, but it is something to think about.

I say no. However, the larger the organization, Army, Government, whatever, the more ignorant and/or corrupt members it needs to stay in power. An influx of decent, leaders with intelligence and high concept of moral values will destroy a corrupt organization.For that reason it is essential that people with high moral values be encouraged to become our government and military leaders.

[snakelegs]

While I may not be in total disagreement with that, I think if war is inevitable, then lessening the damage & making it more humane are the better options.

you, woodrow and graceseeker make good points. it is almost always possible to make a horrible situation better on a person-to-person level. and on this level, you can make a real difference.

[snakelegs]

I say no. However, the larger the organization, Army, Government, whatever, the more ignorant and/or corrupt members it needs to stay in power. An influx of decent, leaders with intelligence and high concept of moral values will destroy a corrupt organization.For that reason it is essential that people with high moral values be encouraged to become our government and military leaders.

this is true. you've given me something to think about - thanks.

[Grace Seeker]

Let's take what I think was definitely an immoral war (but not a present one). Now the one that I think is the best illustration is the American Civil War, but not everyone on this forum would be familiar with it. So, let's try what today is called World War 2, I think most people are familiar with it.

Was it a moral war? Well, certainly when one considers how aggressive Germany, Italy, and Japan were in attacking other countries those that they attacked had a right to defend themselves. (I bring only this up, not the Nazi atrocities, because they were not known about until the end of the war, so did not factor into reasons for fighting it.) But remember it takes two to fight, so were Germany, Italy, and Japan in the right to attack. I hope the answer to that question is clearly NO. That means that it was an immoral war. But if you had lived in Germany in the 1930s you would have thought that the restrictions put on your country were themselves wrong and thus to defy them and reclaim land that was (in their mind) "rightfully German" was the just thing to do. So, in the end, where one views the question from determines where one views this as a just cause fight or not. Oppressed Germans saw it as a just cause. Attacked countries saw it as a just cause. Pretty much everyone saw it as a just casue. And yet, it was clearly an immoral war. How can that be?

So, we are engaged in an immoral war. A war of aggression. A war of huge brutality to civilians (especially in China) and what can best be described as criminal behavior (especially in Germany). And many orders were given during this war. So are any of these orders lawful and moral?

Well, first, imagine those that are trying to prevent the brutality and criminal behavior. Certainly the orders given to those officers are lawful and moral. But on top of that (thinking now of just Germany), there were hundreds of orders given about simple things: requisitioning supplies, providing medical care, moving troops from one location to another. I don't think that one could say that these things were unlawful or immoral.

But perhaps the question was not really meant to be so broad. Perhaps when snakelegs asked his question

can there be "lawful, morally acceptable orders" in the context of an immoral, illegal war?

Perhaps, snakelegs was thinking only of those orders given that involved people in the actual execution, the combat, of the war? So, again, I'll place myself in the role of a young German boy. Perhaps I am against the war. I don't understand all the things that have gone on in my country, but I have now reached an age where I am called into the service. Do I resist? Do I run? Do I allow myself to be placed in uniform? This is where the moral decision lays. Not on the battlefield. And because of the nature of war, this young German now might feel that though he is against the origins of this war that he would have no choice but to defend his country as things have gone bad for it. In his mind his goal is to stop the Allied forces from penetrating back into his homeland. Perhaps he hopes that his government will then sue for peace. Of course, that is not what happened, but he does not know the future, he only knows the present. He has to make a moral choice. And once he has made it (though I think it would have been better for him to refuse, it surely would have meant his death if he had) he is placed on the front lines and after a few months made an officer. He receives orders and is asked to give orders that involve saving as much of the men he is responsible for as possible. If he does not, there is some degree of certainty that his unit will be overrun and his men captured or killed. So he orders a retreat and to reestablish a defensive line farther back to a portion of his men, and a wheel manuever to advance on the enemy's flank to another portion thus allowing that safe retreat. And as they move on his own authority, he orders the destruction of some personal property, a farmer's barns, that could be used against him and his men.

Personally, I think all of these actions are immoral. But they are not immoral simply because they are being done by a German officer (whom I hope loses), they would be just as immoral if done by an American officer who was trying to defeat Germany. The problem is that nature of war itself is immoral even if there is "just cause" for it. As for the actions being unlawful, if one is going to accept the concept that war can be conducted according to rules, then I guess these things fit within the rules of war. So, the orders given by this young German officer fighting an immoral war are no more unlawful or immoral than any others given in any other war or on any other side.

[Amadeus85]

EDIT: Deleted Link, interesting article, but it is in violation of forum rules as it promotes a religion other than Islam
Here is good article about it.

[barney]

Theres a very true saying. History is written by the victors.

Now lets take the British Empire. In the building of the Empire, many atrocitys were carried out, both by the Redcoats and by their opponents. Were either side justified in this? No, of course not.
The empire was dissasembeled by the British, mostly peacefully. At the end of it many countries were in a better position economically, in terms of human rights and in liberty. Some were worse off, but overall the empire could be said to have had a positive effect for some.

History writes that it was merely imperialism. Today it is something that only a fringe of nationalists veiw as anything other than a shameful episode in our history.

So on balance what counts as an Immoral war? History decides.

[kelamsa]

I go to High School, and I know so many Muslims who want to convert. They don't know what Islam really is, they're just being misled by their parents teaching them culture instead of Islam. May Allah help them.

[Grace Seeker]

Thanks for bringing us back to the actual topic.



I know that anytime someone converts from one faith to another it is going to be a big issue for his/her family and others that care for the person. Even changing from protestant to Catholic or vice versa can be a big issue for some people in Christianity. I can't image what the response might be from parents, siblings, neighbors if chaning from Islam to Christianity.

My question has to do not with the response of those who know us, but from Islam itself. Is there anything within Islam that would seek to ostracize or disassociate more from a person who converted from Islam to Chrisitianity than it would a person who was born and raised a Christian to begin with?