Did Jesus Christ Claim Divinity?

[_ALI_]

DID JESUS CHRIST CLAIM DIVINITY?
One of the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity is the divinity of Jesus Christ. We Muslim respect Jesus Christ. Islam is the only non-Christian faith, which makes it an article of faith to believe in Jesus (pbuh). No Muslim is a Muslim if he does not believe in Jesus (pbuh). We believe that he was one of the mightiest Messengers of Allah (swt). We believe that he was born miraculously, without any male intervention, which many modern day Christians do not believe. We believe he was the Messiah translated Christ (pbuh). We believe that he gave life to the dead with God’s permission. We believe that he healed those born blind, and the lepers with God’s permission.
Jesus Christ (pbuh) never claimed Divinity
One may ask, if both Muslims and Christians love and respect Jesus (pbuh), where exactly is the parting of ways? The major difference between Islam and Christianity is the Christians’ insistence on the supposed divinity of Christ (pbuh). A study of the Christian scriptures reveals that Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity. In fact there is not a single unequivocal statement in the entire Bible where Jesus (pbuh) himself says, "I am God" or where he says, "worship me". In fact the Bible contains statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in which he preached quite the contrary. The following statements in the Bible are attributed to Jesus Christ (pbuh):
(i) "My Father is greater than I." [The Bible, John 14:28]
(ii) "My Father is greater than all." [The Bible, John 10:29]
(iii) "…I cast out devils by the Spirit of God…." [The Bible, Mathew 12:28]
(iv) "…I with the finger of God cast out devils…." [The Bible, Luke 11:20]
(v) "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." [The Bible, John 5:30]

The Mission of Jesus Christ (pbuh) – to Fulfill the Law
Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity for himself. He clearly announced the nature of his mission. Jesus (pbuh) was sent by God to confirm the previous Judaic law. This is clearly evident in the following statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in the Gospel of Mathew:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." [The Bible, Mathew 5:17-20]

God Sent Jesus' (pbuh)

The Bible mentions the prophetic nature of Jesus (pbuh) mission in the following verses:

(i) "… and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me."
[The Bible, John 14:24]

(ii) "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent." [The Bible, John 17:3]

4. Jesus Refuted even the Remotest Suggestion of his Divinity

Consider the following incident mentioned in the Bible:
"And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’
And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ "
[The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]
Jesus (pbuh) did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should believe in him as Almighty God or worship him as God, or believe that Jesus (pbuh) would die for his sins. On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was through keeping the commandments. It is indeed striking to note the difference between the words of Jesus Christ (pbuh) and the Christian dogma of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh).
Note that when the man called Jesus good, Jesus admonished him instantly. Imagine, the man does not even want to be called good, how can one even think him to be God? I also want to point out that aside from declining that he was good, Jesus Christ also gave a characteristic of God i.e “……. There is none good but one, that is, God…….”. So over here Jesus says
Jesus=Not good God=good
It does not take a genius to conclude that Jesus=not God
NOTE: I just want to make it clear that Muslims do not believe Jesus to be “not good” or bad (God forbid). We believe him to be not just good but one of the greatest messengers of God. I suppose that in this context, the word “good” implies divinity so it is solely for God here.

Jesus (pbuh) of Nazareth – a Man Approved of God

The following statement from the Bible supports the Islamic belief that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet of God.
"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God AMONGST YOU by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know." [The Bible, Acts 2:22]
God said that Jesus was chosen amongst the people. Something I must say most Christians will disagree with. Did God chose His son amongst us human beings? Were we all candidates to be God’s son and then He chose Jesus? No. The fact is that it is the definition of a PROPHET that a prophet is chosen among his own people. This verse clearly implies that Jesus was a prophet.

The First Commandment is that God is One

The Bible does not support the Christian belief in trinity at all. One of the scribes once asked Jesus (pbuh) as to which was the first commandment of all, to which Jesus (pbuh) merely repeated what Moses (pbuh) had said earlier:
"Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adonai Ikhad."
This is a Hebrew quotation, which means:
"Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." [The Bible, Mark 12:29]
It is striking that the basic teachings of the Church such as Trinity and vicarious atonement find no mention in the Bible. In fact, various verses of the Bible point to Jesus’ (pbuh) actual mission, which was to fulfill the law revealed to Prophet Moses (pbuh). Indeed Jesus (pbuh) rejected any suggestions that attributed divinity to him, and explained his miracles as the power of the One True God.
Jesus (pbuh) thus reiterated the message of monotheism that was given by all earlier prophets of Almighty God.
In the Gospel according to Mark 13:31-32, Jesus is also reported to have denied having knowledge of when the final hour of this world would be, saying: “Heaven and the earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away, but of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in the heaven nor the Son but the Father.” One of the attributes of God is omniscience, knowledge of all things. Therefore, his denial of knowledge of the Day of Judgement is also a denial of divinity, for one who does not know the time of the final hour cannot possibly be God
“EVIDENCE” FOR JESUS’ DIVINITY
There are a number of verses which have been interpreted by the Catholic and Protestant Churches as evidence for the Divinity of Jesus Christ. However, on close examination of these verses, it becomes evident that, either their wordings are ambiguous, leaving them open to a number of different interpretations, or they are additions not found in the early manuscripts of the Bible. Hence we can say that there is not single unambiguous or a single unequivocal statement of Jesus Christ himself in the Bible where he says that I am God or where he says worship me.
The following are some of the most commonly quoted arguments.
1. The Alpha and Omega
In the Book of Revelation 1, verse 8, it is implied that Jesus said the following about himself: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” These are the attributes of God. Consequently, Jesus, according to early Christians, is here claiming divinity. However, the above-mentioned wording is according to the King James Version. In the Revised Standard Version, biblical scholars corrected the translation and wrote: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” A correction was also made in the New American Bible produced by Catholics. The translation of that verse has been amended to put it in its correct context as follows: “The Lord God says: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the one who is and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.’ ” With these corrections, it becomes evident that this was a statement of God and not a statement of Prophet Jesus.
2. The Pre-existence of Christ
Another verse commonly used to support the divinity of Jesus is John 8:58: “Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.’ ” This verse is taken to imply that Jesus existed prior to his appearance on earth. The conclusion drawn from it is that Jesus must be God, since his existence predates his birth on earth. However, the concept of the pre-existence of the prophets, and of man in general, exists in both the Old Testament, as well as in the Qur‘aan. Jeremiah described himself in The Book of Jeremiah 1:4-5 as follows: “ 5Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, 5 ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.’ ”
Prophet Solomon is reported in Proverbs 8:23-27, to have said, “23Ages ago I was set up at the first, before the beginning of the earth. 24When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water, 25Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; 26before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world 27When he established the heavens, I was there.”
According to Job 38:4 and 21, God addresses Prophet Job as follows: “4Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding... 21You Know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!”
In the Qur‘aan, Chapter al-A‘raaf, (7):172, God informed that man existed in the spiritual form before the creation of the physical world.

} وَإِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَى أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُوا بَلَى شَهِدْنَا أَنْ تَقُولُواْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هَذَا غَافِلِينَ {
“When your Lord gathered all of Aadam’s descendants [before creation] and made them bear witness for themselves, saying: ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They all replied: Yes indeed, we bear witness. [That was] so you could not say on the Day of Judgement: ‘We were unaware of this.’ ”

Consequently, Prophet Jesus’ statement, “Before Abraham was, I am,” cannot be used as evidence of his divinity. Within the context of John 8:54-58, Jesus is purported to have spoken about God’s knowledge of His prophets, which predates the creation of this world.
3. The Son of God
Another of the evidences used for Jesus’ divinity is the application of the title “Son of God” to Jesus. However, there are numerous places in the Old Testament where this title has been given to others.
God called Israel (Prophet Jacob) His “son” when He instructed Prophet Moses to go to Pharaoh in Exodus 4:22-23, “22 And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is my first-born son, 23and I say to you, ‘Let my son go that he may serve me.’ ” [5]
In 2nd Samuel 8:13-14, God calls Prophet Solomon His son, “13 He [Solomon] shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14I will be his father, and he shall be my son.”
God promised to make Prophet David His son in Psalms 89:26-27: “26 He shall cry unto me, ‘Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation,’ 27Also I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth.” [6]
Angels are referred to as “sons of God” in The Book of Job 1:6, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.” [7]
In the New Testament, there are many references to “sons of God” other than Jesus. For example, when the author of the Gospel according to Luke listed Jesus’ ancestors back to Adam, he wrote: “The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” [8]
Some claim that what is unique in the case of Jesus, is that he is the only begotten [9] Son of God, while the others are merely “sons of God”. However, God is recorded as saying to Prophet David, in Psalms 2:7, “I will tell the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you.’ ”
It should also be noted that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus actually call himself “Son of God”. [10] Instead, he is recorded to have repeatedly called himself “Son of man” (e.g. Luke 9:22) innumerable times. And in Luke 4:41, he actually rejected being called “Son of God”: “And demons also came out of many, crying, ‘You are the Son of God!’ But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.”
Since the Hebrews believed that God is One, and had neither wife nor children in any literal sense, it is obvious that the expression “son of God” merely meant to them “Servant of God”; one who, because of his faithful service, was close and dear to God, as a son is to a father. Christians who came from a Greek or Roman background, later misused this term. In their heritage, “son of God” signified an incarnation of a god or someone born of a physical union between male and female gods. [11] When the Church cast aside its Hebrew foundations, it adopted the pagan concept of “son of God”, which was entirely different from the Hebrew usage. [12]
Consequently, the use of the term “son of God” should only be understood from the Semitic symbolic sense of a “servant of God”, and not in the pagan sense of a literal offspring of God. In the four Gospels, Jesus is recorded as saying: “Blessed are the peace-makers; they will be called sons of God.” [13]
Likewise, Jesus’ use of the term abba, “dear father”, should be understood similarly. There is a dispute among New Testament scholars as to precisely what abba meant in Jesus’ time and also as to how widely it was in use by other Jewish sects of that era.
For Christians, to think of God as their “heavenly Father” was by no means new, for in the Lord’s prayer they are taught to address God in this same familiar way.
Further more, in John 20:17, Jesus told Mary Magdalene to tell his followers: “I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God.” Jesus’ reference to God as “my Father and your Father” further emphasizes the distinction between himself and God. Furthermore, by referring to God as “his God”, he left no room for anyone to intelligently claim that he was God.
One with God
Those who claim that Jesus was God, hold that he was not a separate god, but one and the same God incarnate. They draw support for this belief from verse 30 of the Gospel according to John, chapter 10, in which Jesus is reported to have said, “I and the Father are one.” Out of context, this verse does imply Jesus’ divinity. Let us read this verse in context:
Joh:10:23: And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
Joh:10:24: Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Joh:10:25: Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
Joh:10:26: But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Joh:10:27: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh:10:28: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh:10:29: My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Joh:10:30: I and my Father are one.
Initially, it says that no man can pluck the sheep i.e his followers out of his hand. Then it says no man can pluck them out of God’s hands. Then it says I and my Father are one, meaning both are one, not physically but one in purpose. Both have the same purpose i.e protecting the sheep. But Christians say that this one is ONE, in all aspects. Well let us read further. In the gospel of John, Chapter 17, verse 21:
Joh:17:21: That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ONE IN US: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Here, Jesus is talking to God, asking him :”that they (i.e disciples) may be one in us (i.e God and Jesus Christ). Here, the same one is used. If I agree that in John 10:30, the “one” used is one in all aspects, then the same “one” is used here. That means that the disciples also have to be gods.
The Christians say that since Jews called him god in the same chapter, he is god. Let us read the chapter further in context
Joh:10:31: Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh:10:32: Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Joh:10:33: The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Christians say that since Jews called him God here, he is God. No muslim has to search for a reply to this allegation, since it has been replied by Jesus himself in the next verse.
Joh:10:34: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS?
What did Jesus mean by that? He is actually quoting book of psalms, 82 :6
Psalms:82:6 I SAID, YE ARE GODS; and all of you are children of the most High.
Here, “I” is the God and “GODS” are the prophet. So in the old testament, the word god is used for a prophet many times. Jesus Christ quoted this verse of Psalms to clarify for them, with a scriptural example well known to them, that he was using the metaphorical language of the prophets which should not be interpreted as ascribing divinity to himself or to other human beings. Jews alleged that : thou, being a man, makest thyself God, so he was practically telling them that it is okay if I say: I and my father are one, since according to psalms, prophets are referred to as gods and I am a prophet.
Further evidence is drawn from verses ten and eleven of the Gospel according to John, chapter 14, where people asked Jesus to show them the Father, and he was supposed to have said: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.”
These phrases would imply Jesus’ divinity, if the remainder of the same Gospel is ignored. However, nine verses later, in John 14:20, Jesus is also recorded as saying to his disciples, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” Thus, if Jesus’ statement “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” means that he is God, then so were his disciples. This symbolic statement means oneness of purpose and not oneness of essence.
“In the beginning was the Word”
Perhaps the most commonly quoted ‘evidence’ for Jesus’ divinity is John 1:1&14, “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth...” However, these statements were not made by Jesus Christ, nor were they attributed to him by the author of the Gospel according to John. But let us agree with the Christians and suppose that these verses are authentic.
Joh:1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (Hotheos), and the Word was God (Tontheos)
Here, the word is Jesus Christ. In the Greek bible, the first God is HOTHEOS meaning THE GOD. The second god is TONTHEOS meaning a god or a godly person. So here since the word or Jesus is referred to as TONTHEOS, it does not mean that he is god. It means that he is a godly person. But Christians say that TONTHEOS is also GOD. Let us read Exodus 7:1, “And the Lord said unto Moses, ‘See, I have made thee a god (TONTHEOS) to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” Here Moses is referred to as TONTHEOS. If TONTHEOS means the GOD, then Moses should also be God along with Jesus.
An Immaculate Conception
Christians claim that since Jesus had a mother and no father, then his father has to be God. Quran itself answers to this allegation with a beautiful example
“Surely, the example of Jesus, in Allaah’s sight, is like that of Aadam. He created him from dust and said: ‘Be!’ and he was.” Qur’aan, (3):59
For God to create a million Jesus, he can just say BE and it can be done. God does not require a father to make a human being. If I agree with the Christians that Jesus’ father is God since he had no father, then God is a father AND a mother to Adam, since he had neither. So Adam is a double God, something I am sure Christians disagree with.
MIRACLES OF JESUS
Unfortunately, those who claim divinity for Jesus, usually hold up his miracles as evidence. However, other prophets were recorded to have done the same or similar miracles in the Old Testament.

Jesus fed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fishes. Elisha fed 100 people with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn (II Kings 4:44)
Jesus healed lepers. Elisha cured Naaman the leper (II Kings 5:14).
Jesus caused the blind to see. Elisha caused the blind to see (II Kings 6:17&20).
Jesus raised the dead. Elijah did the same (I Kings 17:22). So did Elisha (II Kings 4:34). Even Elisha’s bones could restore the dead (II Kings 13:21).
Jesus walked on water. Moses and his people crossed the dead sea (Exodus 14:22).
There are also texts in the New Testament which confirm that Jesus did not act on his own. Jesus is quoted in John 5:30, as saying: “I can of mine own self do nothing...” and in Luke 11:20, as saying, “But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the Kingdom of God is come upon you.” In Acts 2:22, Paul writes: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know...”
I will repeat what I said before. There is no statement of Jesus Christ in the whole Bible where he unequivocally or unambiguously says that I am God or where he says worship me.

[shakylla]

Allahuakbar.

A million thanks for this post.

:)

[Azy]

(ii) "My Father is greater than all." [The Bible, John 10:29]

If you'd got to the next line you would've seen -

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

[Muslim Knight]

If you'd got to the next line you would've seen -

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

He'd already explained that in no.3. It is one in purpose.

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

[Azy]

He'd already explained that in no.3. It is one in purpose.

I didn't even realise it was in sections :D
Sorry, missed that one ;)

[glo]

Interesting post, Ali. Did you write all that yourself?

It is true that Jesus never said in so many words "I am God" and "Worship me!"

However, looking at Jesus' trial we see that the Jewish scholars and pharisees at the time felt they had enough evidence to have Jesus executed on the grounds of blasphemy.

Their two accusations for his blasphemy were these:

1. Claiming to be God

The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"
"He is worthy of death," they answered.
(Matthew 26:63-66)

Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
(John 10: 25-33)

2. Claiming to have the divine power of forgiveness - a power, which in Jewish eyes only God himself has.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."

The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
(Luke 5:20-21)

Apart from this account there are several others in the gospels of Jesus forgiving people's sins:

Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
(Matthew 9:2)

Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"

Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
(Luke 7:48-50)

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
(Luke 23: 39-43)

Consequently, at the time there were two groups of people:

• Those who believed Jesus to be a blasphemer and a fraud
• Those who believed Jesus to be the Son of God

Of course there is a third possible belief, one which is helf by Islam.
That is, that the gospel account has been corrupted and falsified - which would really make the entire argument in the OP meaningless ...

[Whatsthepoint]

Glo, don't you think god could have made things a bit clearer...? I mean, it seems it takes years of studying the Bible and history to find rather vague proofs of Jesus's divinity..
Islam is a much better and more proper religion in terms of clarity, at least by my standards.
no offence, that's how I've always felt about Christianity, this is one of the main reasons I left it.

[glo]

Glo, don't you think god could have made things a bit clearer...? I mean, it seems it takes years of studying the Bible and history to find rather vague proofs of Jesus's divinity..
Islam is a much better and more proper religion in terms of clarity, at least by my standards.
no offence, that's how I've always felt about Christianity, this is one of the main reasons I left it.

If only you knew how often I think the same, WTP! :D
But who knows what God's reasons are ...

I suppose by the very fact that we are human and not God ourselves, we fail to understand God completely. (I am sure that most monotheists reach a point sometime or another, when they have to acknowledge that God as a whole is unfathomable, and we either believe and trust him or we don't ...)

A religion which was perfectly clear from a human perspective would, in my mind, be likely to be of human origin ...

[tetsujin]

This is all fine and dandy. My only issue is that neither parts of the bible were written when Jesus was alive.

How far does one go to trust second hand accounts of an event, when really the witness wasn't even there?

You then come up with problems like these, and the conflicting accounts of the resurrection.

I'm pro-Jesus. Great guy, radical thinker in his time. To come from a society in which the old testament is your moral guide to then say love your neighbour as yourself, that's wonderful. I just can't buy all this stuff in the bible.

[glo]

This is all fine and dandy. My only issue is that neither parts of the bible were written when Jesus was alive.

How far does one go to trust second hand accounts of an event, when really the witness wasn't even there?

I'm afraid that I am not the best qualified person to make a case for the authenticity of the Bible.
Perhaps somebody else feels better qualified ... if not you will probably find old threads in this section somewhere ...

I'm pro-Jesus. Great guy, radical thinker in his time. To come from a society in which the old testament is your moral guide to then say love your neighbour as yourself, that's wonderful.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

I just can't buy all this stuff in the bible.

Seems you can buy some stuff, but not everything ...

Peace

[john316]

I think I dont understand about muslims is that they know that the NT was written when Jesus was not there but they still pick excerpts from it to justify their agenda. They think their interpretation of scripture is more correct than ours. Gimme a break.


2 Peter 1:19-21
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

[tetsujin]

The issue itself has two sides.

As a muslim you want the christian and jewish doctrines to be absolutely perfect and in agreement with Islamic doctrines, but you want to show that Islam is a path which is better or more pleasing to god.

It's a difficult game to play.

[glo]

^
I would say it's impossible to use a source which you consider to be unreliable to argue for anything.

You may use parts within the source to demonstrate why you consider it unreliable ... but you then cannot use that very same source to argue in your favour.
If you consider it reliable, use it whenever appropriate.
If you consider it unreliable, leave well alone ...

Just my own opinion, of course.

[barney]

I would Imagine that Glo's faith isnt based on the intricacies of scripture, more on an interpersonal relationship with God. What God means to her.
A lot of Christians feel this and whilst some scripture cant be answered, I find this idea of putting things in Gods hands more acceptable than fighting tooth and nail to prove that the world is actually flat or that ,if you remove whole sentances and approach them from an illogical angle and ignore hundreds of other references, then the word of God dosnt actually say the world is flat.

One is based on a inner comfort with the power and majesty of God and the other seems based on a wild and desperate defence of the indefencible.

[john316]

Our God seems to go a little above logic.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1 Corinthians 1:25
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

[snakelegs]

since both islam and christianity claim to be the "one true religion" - doesn't this mean that in order for your religion to be right, the other must be wrong?
i think so - and if so, there is an inherent problem here.

[john316]

how wrong you are.

Revelations 3:16(Jesus speaking)
So -- because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to vomit thee out of my mouth;

Matthew 12:30
`He who is not with me is against me, and he who is not gathering with me, doth scatter.

[barney]

how wrong you are.

`He who is not with me is against me, and he who is not gathering with me, doth scatter.

George Bush 2004?

[snakelegs]

George Bush 2004?

:bravo:
great post!

[john316]

I follow Christ not George Bush

[جوري]

was that your God in Narnia? likened unto an animal? or the one at wal-mart next to bratz dolls? or the one in the national gallery bought from Russia for 8 million?

want to be given a break? you should give the world a break first from your fairy tales..

cheers

[tetsujin]

since both islam and christianity claim to be the "one true religion" - doesn't this mean that in order for your religion to be right, the other must be wrong?
i think so - and if so, there is an inherent problem here.

Well not exactly, deep down inside. If a muslim doesn't believe there was ever a one true Christianity, or a one true Judaism, regardless of their current states, then you have some issues with Islam as well.

The Quraysh felt that they had been left out for a while because they knew they hadn't received a divine revelation while the jews and christians had.

It is quite possible to be a muslim and believe that one of the Christian sects is also correct (but incomplete) and one of the Jewish sects is also correct (but incomplete). The problem lies in the fact that the other faiths must also recognize the prophet mohammad to complete their own faiths.

There is also a Fourth book, or religion that is never talked about.

If you claim to be the chosen people, or if you claim to have been visited by god himself, or if you claim to be the final revelation then you're going to have these problems.

What need for another revelation if god himself came down here to sort this out? No?

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

since both islam and christianity claim to be the "one true religion" - doesn't this mean that in order for your religion to be right, the other must be wrong?
i think so - and if so, there is an inherent problem here.

Well one is purely monotheistic and the other is blatant polytheism and one's scripture is pure and unaltered whereas the other has about as many versions of it's scripture as you can care to count...I think the truth stands out clearly here? :D

[جوري]

Please refrain from speaking on behalf of islam/Muslims, not only are you ignorant of theology but also of history....

Your last sentence there, does remind me of a verse from the Quran-- I suppose kaffirs have always shared the same psychology, even thousands of years ago.. amazing thing this human condition... for God to show in the cloud with the angels, it would be a done deal, don't you think? what is the point then of being tried on earth? (everything on earth is already very splendid, must it also be super natural)?

2: 210

هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلاَّ أَن يَأْتِيَهُمُ اللّهُ فِي ظُلَلٍ مِّنَ الْغَمَامِ وَالْمَلآئِكَةُ وَقُضِيَ الأَمْرُ وَإِلَى اللّهِ تُرْجَعُ الأمُورُ {210}

Are these people* waiting, perchance, for God to reveal Himself unto them in the shadows of the clouds, together with the angels - although [by then] all will have been decided, and unto God all things will have been brought back?**



* Lit., "they"-obviously referring to the people addressed in the preceding two verses.



** I.e., it will be too late for repentance. All commentators agree in that the "decision" relates to the unequivocal manifestation of God's will on the Day of Judgment, which is alluded to in the words, "when unto God all things will have been brought back". Since, in the next verse, the children of Israel are addressed, it is possible that this rhetorical question is connected with their refusal, in the time of Moses, to believe in the divine message unless they "see God face to face" (cf. 2 : 55).

[snakelegs]

Well not exactly, deep down inside. If a muslim doesn't believe there was ever a one true Christianity, or a one true Judaism, regardless of their current states, then you have some issues with Islam as well.

The Quraysh felt that they had been left out for a while because they knew they hadn't received a divine revelation while the jews and christians had.

It is quite possible to be a muslim and believe that one of the Christian sects is also correct (but incomplete) and one of the Jewish sects is also correct (but incomplete). The problem lies in the fact that the other faiths must also recognize the prophet mohammad to complete their own faiths.

There is also a Fourth book, or religion that is never talked about.

If you claim to be the chosen people, or if you claim to have been visited by god himself, or if you claim to be the final revelation then you're going to have these problems.

What need for another revelation if god himself came down here to sort this out? No?

ok, i bite - what's the 4th book? (please don't say the book of mormon! ;D
as for the rest so yes, there are inherent problems here.
but why can't everyone focus on their own religion and concentrate on living it (certainly not an easy path) and nevermind the others? i guess christians and muslims cannot because both proselytize.
when you have 2 religions who both claim a monopoly on god and both believe in proselytizing, major problems are inevitible sooner or later.

[snakelegs]

Well one is purely monotheistic and the other is blatant polytheism and one's scripture is pure and unaltered whereas the other has about as many versions of it's scripture as you can care to count...I think the truth stands out clearly here? :D

i am inclined to agree with you - at least the first part of your statement. but i'm an agnostic, so ultimately i think these things are not knowable.
personally, i believe in the oneness of god, but i have a hard time believing that any religion has a monopoly on god. i think god is beyond religion.

[tetsujin]

ok, i bite - what's the 4th book? (please don't say the book of mormon! ;D
as for the rest so yes, there are inherent problems here.
but why can't everyone focus on their own religion and concentrate on living it (certainly not an easy path) and nevermind the others? i guess christians and muslims cannot because both proselytize.
when you have 2 religions who both claim a monopoly on god and both believe in proselytizing, major problems are inevitible sooner or later.

Not quite, you have the Tawrat, Zabur and Injil, or the Torah, Book of Psalms and the 4 Gospels.

I can't imagine why they're not divided as such in common discourse.

[snakelegs]

Not quite, you have the Tawrat, Zabur and Injil, or the Torah, Book of Psalms and the 4 Gospels.

I can't imagine why they're not divided as such in common discourse.

yeah, i tend to forget that the zabur is regarded as a separate book in islam. is the injil only the 4 gospels?

[جوري]

Injeel is none of the current four gospels, some contend that the original injeel was either written by the only disciple who actually hung around Jesus 'barnabas' .. some think it is a fake, whatever the case, we don't actually know who luke/mark/mat etc actually are, thus their books are actually very questionable according to Islam.. the original Injeel should be free from error as it is divinly inspired..(clearely not the case with any of the versions or the re-defined versions of what is now widely accepted)

peace

[snakelegs]

Injeel is none of the current four gospels, some contend that the original injeel was either written by the only disciple who actually hung around Jesus 'barnabas' .. some think it is a fake, whatever the case, we don't actually know who luke/mark/mat etc actually are, thus their books are actually very questionable according to Islam.. the original Injeel should be free from error as it is divinly inspired..(clearely not the case with any of the versions or the re-defined versions of what is now widely accepted)

peace

i know that the present 4 gospels are not considered the original. but the term injil refers to them, and not the entire new testament? (mostly paul anyway, i believe).

[جوري]

There is some truth to what the atheist fellow said..

there are however 5 books not four..
scrolls (suhuf) of Abraham (PBUH), zabur of David, tawrat of Moses, Injeel of Jesus, and the Quran... Quran is the criterion of what preceeded...

if you are Muslim, it all comes together in perfect harmony and makes perfect sense.. if any of the other, including Manadeans who stop at John the Baptist, they have a hard time reconciling the other scriptures with their own so they go for some character assassination, you'll find the Jews doing this of Jesus and Mohammed (PBUT)

"Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, [did the children of Israel slay with the sword].3 A soothsayer? But he was a prophet! — R. Johanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer.4 R. Papa observed: This is what men say, 'She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters.'5 Did the children of Israel slay with the sword among them that were slain by them.6 Rab said: They subjected him to four deaths, stoning, burning, decapitation and strangulation.7"—I. Epstein, Sanhedrin 106a-b, "Sanhedrin II", The Babylonian Talmud, Volume 28, The Soncino Press, London, (1935), pp. 721-729, at 725.

you'll find the christians doing this about prophet Mohammed.. their existence and survival of their religions can't be otherwise.. and it is very unfortunate...
peace

[barney]

you'll find the christians doing this about prophet Mohammed.. their existence and survival of their religions can't be otherwise.. and it is very unfortunate...
peace

Actually christianity survived at least 500 years without islam or any attacks on the prophet.
Admittedly those 500 years were spent wrestling with the bizzareness of their own beleif, but thats the rule with these things not the exception.

[جوري]

Actually christianity survived at least 500 years without islam or any attacks on the prophet.
Admittedly those 500 years were spent wrestling with the bizzareness of their own beleif, but thats the rule with these things not the exception.

Eh, that is how it goes, when you have a new baby, the old one is jealous trying to re-affirm its existence, that is of course, if you'll forgive the analogy.. a lone child is odd indeed and needs some perspective!

cheers

[barney]

Or the new baby copies the old one and can never live up to its older sibling. Hey, you know psychology. Which one is the more rational prospective :D

[جوري]

Or the new baby copies the old one and can never live up to its older sibling. Hey, you know psychology. Which one is the more rational prospective :D

if only it were true.. but the youngest, is also the oldest and stands above all...
speaking of which.. I challange you to bring me just one chapter from any of the previous scriptures, say like that of suret al'3adyat (100) in complexity of language, content, complete rhyme/poetry/meaning/ or show me its semblance in the previous scriptures a mere 11 verses each verse no more than two or three powerful words, and considered by myself to be the most complex in language (Arabic is my mother tongue) that you'll not find traslations using same words to denote what the sura actually means...:)
or do that for any of the others for that matter!

peace

[جوري]

Media Tags are no longer supported

The Message of the Quran

Muhammad Asad



AL-ADIYAT (THE CHARGERS)

THE HUNDREDTH SURAH
Total Verses: 11
MECCA PERIOD



Introduction



REVEALED after surah 103. For an explanation of the symbolism of "the chargers", see note 2 below.



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



1) Oh, 1 the chargers that run panting,



(2) sparks of fire striking,



(3) rushing to assault at morn,



(4) thereby raising clouds of dust,



(5) thereby storming [blindly] into any host! 2



(6) VERILY, towards his Sustainer man is most ungrateful 3 –



(7) and to this, behold, he [himself] bears witness indeed:



(8) for, verily, to the love of wealth is he most ardently devoted.



(9) But does he not know that [on the Last Day,] when all that is in the graves is raised and brought out,



(10) and all that is [hidden] in men's hearts is bared –



(11) that on that Day their Sustainer [will show that He] has always been fully aware of them?





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1 Since the subsequent clauses refer to a parabolic, imaginary situation, the adjurative particle wa is more suitably rendered here as "Oh", instead of the rendering "Consider' usually adopted by me, or the adjuration "By" appearing in most other translations.



2 I.e., blinded by clouds of dust and not knowing whether their assault aims at friend or foe. The metaphoric image developed in the above five verses is closely connected with the sequence, although this connection has never been brought out by the classical commentators. The term al-adiyat undoubtedly denotes the war-horses, or chargers, employed by the Arabs from time immemorial down to the Middle Ages (the feminine gender of this term being due to the fact that, as a rule, they preferred mares to stallions). But whereas the conventional explanation is based on the assumption that "the chargers" symbolize here the believers' fight in God's cause (jihad) and, therefore, represent something highly commendable, it takes no account whatever of the discrepancy between so positive an imagery and the condemnation expressed in verses 6 ff., not to speak of the fact that such a conventional interpretation does not provide any logical link between the two parts of the surah. But since such a link must exist, and since verses 6-11 are undoubtedly condemnatory, we must conclude that the first five verses, too, have the same – or at least, a similar - character. This character becomes at once obvious if we dissociate ourselves from the preconceived notion that the imagery of "the chargers" is used here in a laudatory sense. In fact, the opposite is the case. Beyond any doubt, "the chargers" symbolize the erring human soul or self - a soul devoid of all spiritual direction, obsessed and ridden by all manner of wrong, selfish desires, madly, unseeingly rushing onwards, unchecked by conscience or reason, blinded by the dust-clouds of confused and confusing appetites, storming into insoluble situations and, thus, into its own spiritual destruction.



3 I.e., whenever he surrenders to his appetites, symbolized by the madly storming chargers, he forgets God and his own responsibility to Him.




compare the translation to that of pickthal or some of the others!

cheers

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Beauitful recitation MashaAllah. I needed that ha. Relaxed my mind! :D

[جوري]

Beauitful recitation MashaAllah. I needed that ha. Relaxed my mind! :D

listen to this please.

http://www.islamway.com/?iw_s=outdoo...1&rm_size=2.73

here is the abridged version from youtube

Media Tags are no longer supported

and this one, another one of my favorites

Media Tags are no longer supported

if the link doesn't work?
then
http://youtube.com/watch?v=f_X1fEC2TMg


and let me know, where those who claim the Quran is plagiarized from the bible, where the plagiarism actually is..

There is no other book like it on earth!

:w:

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Umm yea i cant see the second sis. We both know there's no book like it! Alhamdulillah! :D Doesnt really matter what people say, Allah Ta'ala has declared what He Wills and no one can change that :) The second is beautiful indeed and my favorite recitor.

[Armand]

Injeel is none of the current four gospels, some contend that the original injeel was either written by the only disciple who actually hung around Jesus 'barnabas' .. some think it is a fake, whatever the case, we don't actually know who luke/mark/mat etc actually are, thus their books are actually very questionable according to Islam.. the original Injeel should be free from error as it is divinly inspired..(clearely not the case with any of the versions or the re-defined versions of what is now widely accepted)

Actually, the Injeel was not written by any disciple. The Injeel was a Book of Revelation sent down to Jesus (pbuh); the Gospels we have today are not a corrupt version of the Book. They are written as accounts on Jesus' life and message. According to the rejected Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus received his own scripture from his Lord.

The Injeel is no longer existent. Christians will argue that this is so because it never did exist notwithstanding that thousands of their books have been discarded, as they were not in agreement with their newfound creed. Anyway, that is the truth about the Injeel.

[جوري]

Actually, the Injeel was not written by any disciple. The Injeel was a Book of Revelation sent down to Jesus (pbuh); the Gospels we have today are not a corrupt version of the Book. They are written as accounts on Jesus' life and message. According to the rejected Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus received his own scripture from his Lord.

The Injeel is no longer existent. Christians will argue that this is so because it never did exist notwithstanding that thousands of their books have been discarded, as they were not in agreement with their newfound creed. Anyway, that is the truth about the Injeel.

:sl:

I stand corrected then akhi.. thank you

Baraka Allah feek

:w:

[snakelegs]

There is some truth to what the atheist fellow said..

there are however 5 books not four..
scrolls (suhuf) of Abraham (PBUH), zabur of David, tawrat of Moses, Injeel of Jesus, and the Quran... Quran is the criterion of what preceeded...
peace

i assume the zabur of david has also been lost, yes?

[tetsujin]

i assume the zabur of david has also been lost, yes?

...only the parts that don't agree with what is already accepted...

Yep, they're all lost. the Suhuf, Zabur, Tawrat, Injil.... You really can't trust those Jews with anything right?


Nevermind that the Qu'ran in it's current form was compiled after the death of Mohammad, and yes there were slightly different versions in the beginning.

[Umar001]

Hi everyone,

I think the main problem is to know what Jesus actually did say before stating whether he said x.y.z.

i know that the present 4 gospels are not considered the original. but the term injil refers to them, and not the entire new testament? (mostly paul anyway, i believe).

The term would be speaking about what was given to Jesus, not neccesarily what Mark/Matthew/Luke/John say was given to Jesus. So for example snake, the Qur'an is what was given to Muhammad, but this, i.e. Qur'an, has been transmitted by all Muslims down throughout the ages, so, if we look at a book by a companion of Muhammad, the companion may say 'x.y.z and this is proved in the Qur'an....' now, the portion of Qur'anic quote is what the Qur'an is, the rest is different. Similarly, the Gospels have something like that, you have Jesus speaking, and then you have the authors writing. So for example:

17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

From Mark 7, what you note here is, Jesus' apparent speech, 'Are you so dull..' etc, then the author telling the story, i.e. 'after he had..' and then the author's interpretation 'In saying this , JEsus declared..'.

What may have been part of the Injeel is the direct speech/action (derived from a comman in the injeel) of Jesus. So only that would be up for scrutanisation. Now, if you look at some scholar's of the Bible's writings, they will tell you there were three stages, stage I: The actions and words of the real Jesus. Stage II: The oral traditions from such actions, so these actions were transmitted, sometimes correctly sometimes not so. Stage III: The taking of the tradition and shaping it to form a gospel. In trying to find the real actions/sayings of Jesus one has to try work back.


What I would say is that there may be some stage I stuff in the Gospels, but there are also other stages.

Injeel is none of the current four gospels, some contend that the original injeel was either written by the only disciple who actually hung around Jesus 'barnabas' .. some think it is a fake, whatever the case, we don't actually know who luke/mark/mat etc actually are, thus their books are actually very questionable according to Islam.. the original Injeel should be free from error as it is divinly inspired..(clearely not the case with any of the versions or the re-defined versions of what is now widely accepted)

peace

Pretty much that sister, some parts of Jesus' message may have been written or may not, some may have been written but re-interpreted in a different way, God knows best.

Actually, the Injeel was not written by any disciple.

As Salam Alaykum,

How do you know that akhi?

...only the parts that don't agree with what is already accepted...

Yep, they're all lost. the Suhuf, Zabur, Tawrat, Injil.... You really can't trust those Jews with anything right?

Well maybe not all, I mean if you understand the complexity behind the compilation of the text you'll appriciate the difficulty in knowing what is what.

Nevermind that the Qu'ran in it's current form was compiled after the death of Mohammad, and yes there were slightly different versions in the beginning.

Well although you seem to have a different view on how I understand the textual history of the Qur'an to have been. The Qur'an stands not only on texual witness, rather, one also should look at the method of memorising, the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is a really smart man for inspiring so many of his followers, through rewards, to memorise the whole qur'an, to 'come up' with making them recite it 5 times a day at least, and make the teachers of the Qur'an the best, I mean, if you ask me that's a great way to go in making sure a message isn't lost.

On top of that, one only has to note the social differences.

And God knows best.

[جوري]

i assume the zabur of david has also been lost, yes?

I am not sure.. I have read some Psalms when I went to catholic school, and some of them were very sexual, almost bordering upon pornographic.. I don't believe that, that is the style of divinity... but some were ok.. so I am not sure, I am the wrong person to come to on this particular subject matter. Perhaps one of our brothers/sisters who have converted can shed better light? :)


peace

[جوري]

Br Ansar Al'Adl has touched upon the subject of the collection and compilation of the Quran http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...tml#post787918
as to leave very little room for speculations on behalf of atheists. unless of course they want to dispense out opinions rather than facts-- which is in fact what we have become accustomed to here...

Be that as it may, I also recommend this book

ISBN: 1872531652
Author: Muhammad Mustafa al-Azami
Publisher: UK Islamic Academy (2003)
Pages: 376 Binding: Paperback

[Umar001]

The Revised Standard Version, Illustrated, says in the back, where it lists the books of the Bible, under authorship for Psalms:

Principally David, though there are other writers.

Under settering:

The 150 Psalms were col-lected into a hymnal for use in the Second Temple. Likely written over a span of 1,000 years or more.

EDIT: Yes, that book is pretty nice, may Allah reward the brother, it also contains a small section in the back focusing on OT and NT. Though obviously not as detailed as the main part.

[YusufNoor]

...only the parts that don't agree with what is already accepted...

Yep, they're all lost. the Suhuf, Zabur, Tawrat, Injil.... You really can't trust those Jews with anything right?

you may want to read Richard Elliott Friedman's: Who Wrote The Bible?; and for further evidence try: The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible edited by Charles M. Laymon and put out by Abington, now in it's 15th printing


Nevermind that the Qu'ran in it's current form was compiled after the death of Mohammad, and yes there were slightly different versions in the beginning.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

here's the problem with claims that "the Qu'ran in it's current form was compiled after the death of Mohammad[pbuh]", and it's a fundamental one, are you ready for it?

AS LONG AS THE Messenger of Allah[Salla Allahu Alayhe Wa Salaam] WAS ALIVE, REVELATION WAS COMING DOWN! YOU COULDN'T COMPLETE IT IN WRITING UNTIL IT WAS DONE BEING REVEALED!!!!!!!

simple, eh?

if you were writing a biography of someone who was alive, it would be out of date the second that you finished it. it would need to be "revised" every so often. the same holds true with " there were slightly different versions in the beginning", OF COURSE THERE WOULD BE! whatever "version" someone had would be "outdated" as soon as the next revelation!

again, simple, eh?

if you still don't comprehend, just ask away!

:w:

[Dr.Trax]

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

here's the problem with claims that "the Qu'ran in it's current form was compiled after the death of Mohammad[pbuh]", and it's a fundamental one, are you ready for it?

AS LONG AS THE Messenger of Allah[Salla Allahu Alayhe Wa Salaam] WAS ALIVE, REVELATION WAS COMING DOWN! YOU COULDN'T COMPLETE IT IN WRITING UNTIL IT WAS DONE BEING REVEALED!!!!!!!

simple, eh?

if you were writing a biography of someone who was alive, it would be out of date the second that you finished it. it would need to be "revised" every so often. the same holds true with " there were slightly different versions in the beginning", OF COURSE THERE WOULD BE! whatever "version" someone had would be "outdated" as soon as the next revelation!

again, simple, eh?

if you still don't comprehend, just ask away!

:w:

THE BEST AND GREATEST ANSWER I've EVER SEEN!
Jazakallahkhair brother!

[barney]

I thought it was written down on sheep bones and the like as the revalations came up?

[tetsujin]

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

here's the problem with claims that "the Qu'ran in it's current form was compiled after the death of Mohammad[pbuh]", and it's a fundamental one, are you ready for it?

AS LONG AS THE Messenger of Allah[Salla Allahu Alayhe Wa Salaam] WAS ALIVE, REVELATION WAS COMING DOWN! YOU COULDN'T COMPLETE IT IN WRITING UNTIL IT WAS DONE BEING REVEALED!!!!!!!

simple, eh?

Surely god knew the precise moment when Muhammad would die and would leave enough time for him to finalize the message, compile it, have it read out to him in it's totality for it's approval. Then maybe he would have a few more days just to make sure enough copies were made.

The Qu'ran is not a biography of the Muhammad, any more than it is a biography of Noah.

The Qu'ran is taken to be a revelation to all mankind. Truly, there are ethical problems that mankind faces today that we do not have a prescription for in the holy book. Do you think it is out of date?

THE BEST AND GREATEST ANSWER I've EVER SEEN!
Jazakallahkhair brother!

So you mean to say that the prophet's lifetime was not enough to reveal everything, or that god could not have forseen his death? So either muhammad's life was long enough simply for the revelation (if you assume it was complete) and not it's propogation, or long enough only for the propogation of a core message and it was possible that there would be further revelations.

This is what you seem to be saying.

[MTAFFI]

Surely god knew the precise moment when Muhammad would die and would leave enough time for him to finalize the message, compile it, have it read out to him in it's totality for it's approval. Then maybe he would have a few more days just to make sure enough copies were made.

Allah (swt) knows all... His message is complete in the Quran, therefore he did leave enough time to finalize his message.. This is why the final prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had those who followed him, just as Jesus (pbuh) had those who followed him and finalized his message and teachings after he was crucified, according to Christian belief.

The Qu'ran is not a biography of the Muhammad, any more than it is a biography of Noah.

The Sunnah is the biography of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the Quran is the message of Allah (swt)

The Qu'ran is taken to be a revelation to all mankind. Truly, there are ethical problems that mankind faces today that we do not have a prescription for in the holy book. Do you think it is out of date?

Please elaborate on the ethical problems that the Quran does not have an answer for... I can already tell you before you state them, that more than likely you will have a more liberal point of view, since you are a self proclaimed atheist. Where you may think something is backwards or to strict, I will tell you that you and I, and much of the world have veered away from what is good to better suit our needs, rather than Allahs.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Jesus (pbuh) had those who followed him and finalized his message and teachings after he was crucified.

Ehh, I hope you mean in terms of the Christian belief?

[Umar001]

I thought it was written down on sheep bones and the like as the revalations came up?

The Qur'an may have been written in totality, I think it was off the top of my head, but what is reffered to normally is the Qur'an being compiled into a book.

So yes, people were asked to write by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, but it was only after his demise which the Qur'an was put inbetween covers, if i am not mistaken.

And Allah knows best.

[barney]

Ehh, I hope you mean in terms of the Christian belief?

Jesus delivered teachings, but as a prophet would those teachings be inspired by God or the word of God.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Huh? He said Jesus was crucified, so i was making sure he meant in terms of the Christian belief.

[MTAFFI]

Ehh, I hope you mean in terms of the Christian belief?

correcto-mundo... sorry about that, should have been more clear

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Okie dokie :D Just checkin.

:sl:

[wth1257]

The Qur'an may have been written in totality, I think it was off the top of my head, but what is reffered to normally is the Qur'an being compiled into a book.

So yes, people were asked to write by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, but it was only after his demise which the Qur'an was put inbetween covers, if i am not mistaken.

And Allah knows best.

I think it was the third Caliph who assembled it

but am not sure:blind:

[barney]

Any chance bits of it got broken/buried lost in the hundred years or so then?

[snakelegs]

probably unlikely because it was largely an oral culture so many people had it memorized.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Any chance bits of it got broken/buried lost in the hundred years or so then?

Nope. Like snakelegs said, it was an oral culture. Many people had the Qur'an memorized, even as each verse was revealed. If it was lost, you wouldn't have people from all different places reciting the same thing for the past 1400 and so years.

[YusufNoor]

I think it was the third Caliph who assembled it

but am not sure:blind:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

it was the 1st Kaliph Abu Bakr As Siddiq, RadiAllahu Anhu, who, following a suggestion of Umar ibn Al Kittaab Ar Farooq, RadiAllahu Anhu, ordered the collection of the Qur'an into a book form. it took some convincing too!
Zaid ibn Thaabit, RadiAllahu Anhu, a personal recorder for the Messenger of Allah, Salla Allahu Alayhe Wa Salaam, was given the task.

and answering Barney,

I thought it was written down on sheep bones and the like as the revelations came up?

EXACTLY, which is one of the reasons that Abu Bakr, RadiAllahu Anhu, had to be convinced by Umar, RadiAllahu Anhu. Abu Bakr, RadiAllahu Anhu, was EXTREMELY hesitant to to something that the Messenger of Allah, Salla Allahu Alayhe Wa Salaam, hadn't requested to be done! to make Zaid's, RadiAllahu Anhu, task an ordeal, he had to assemble written Ayats and Surahs that were written in the presence of the Messenger of Allah, Salla Allahu Alayhe Wa Salaam, THAT was the hard part! there were plenty of Hafiz around but locating EVERY SINGLE VERSE written in the presence of the Messenger of Allah, Salla Allahu Alayhe Wa Salaam, was the hard part!

the 3rd Kaliph, Uthman ibn Affan, RadiAllahu Anhu, simply ordered the vowel points put on in order to limit the pronunciation to that which was already approved by the Messenger of Allah, Salla Allahu Alayhe Wa Salaam.

originally posted by the apostate tetsujin:

Surely god knew the precise moment when Muhammad would die and would leave enough time for him to finalize the message, compile it, have it read out to him in it's totality for it's approval. Then maybe he would have a few more days just to make sure enough copies were made.

why? the Sahaabah, RadiAllahu Anhum, were more than qualified for the task of assembling the Qur'an.

more from our illustrious apostate tetsujin:

The Qu'ran is taken to be a revelation to all mankind. Truly, there are ethical problems that mankind faces today that we do not have a prescription for in the holy book. Do you think it is out of date?

ah, is that why you have left the deen? you simply aren't aware of all that the Qur'an has to offer. that's a shame, consider listening to this brilliant Shaykh, Mufti Ismail Menk:

http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html

and finally from our little apostate tetsujin:

So you mean to say that the prophet's lifetime was not enough to reveal everything, or that god could not have forseen his death? So either muhammad's life was long enough simply for the revelation (if you assume it was complete) and not it's propogation, or long enough only for the propogation of a core message and it was possible that there would be further revelations.

This is what you seem to be saying.

foolish little boy, let's look at what you've written, shall we:

So you mean to say that the prophet's lifetime was not enough to reveal everything

it was EXACTLY long enough! no more, no less!

or that god could not have forseen his death?

He did, see above!

So either muhammad's life was long enough simply for the revelation (if you assume it was complete) and not it's propogation,

the entire Message was revealed during Muhammad ibn Abdullah's Salla Allahu Alayhe Wa Salaam, life and left for others to continue the propagation.

or long enough only for the propogation of a core message and it was possible that there would be further revelations.

Surah 5:3 in part:

This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

no further relevations, excepting those clarifying Riba came after that.

This is what you seem to be saying.

you did not write what he wrote...

and back to barney:

Any chance bits of it got broken/buried lost in the hundred years or so then?

the Qur'an, including the later vowel marks were finished in the time that Sahabah were still alive, in fact, iirc, Uthman was Hafz.

:w:

[Armand]

As Salam Alaykum, How do you know that akhi?
- Al Habeshi

Wa alaykum as salam,

By Injeel I mean the revelation Isa (as) received from God. The gospels might have been partly authored by the apostles of Isa (as), but they are not wahi (revelation). The NT is not a corrupt version of the Injeel; the Injeel is a separate text aside from the gospels.

Perhaps Isa's sahaaba recorded extra copies of the book but we have no trace of these anywhere. It is possible that parts of this text are scattered as verses or passages throughout the NT, but this is not known.

[arabianprincess]

well i actually watched dr zakir nak n he explain the whole thing..

heres the video.. i think everyone knows this one ..

but i ll post it here.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRqvHG5IuyY salamz

[Umar001]

Bismillah, Salam Alaykum,
And Salah wa Salam be upon Muhammad.

I think it was the third Caliph who assembled it

but am not sure:blind:

The third caliph, who was a companion of Muhammad, living at a time when many other companions were alive, did order a decree with regards to the Qur'an. What is fascinating is that this was about 19 years after Muhammad, and as stated many of his companions and others were alive.

Now, if we for the sake of arguement say Uthman did what he wanted, then we should realise that at worst, we would have the Qur'an according to close followers of Muhammad, who individually, some were praised by Muhammad, some of them given tidings of Paradise by him. At worst this is the case scenario.

Any chance bits of it got broken/buried lost in the hundred years or so then?

The strength of the Muslims by the time of the death of the Prophet Muhammad, in my opinion, was a major factor in securing the Qur'an. The persecution which plagued Christians in the early days, may have played a part in some of the earlier documents being lost. Whilst in Islam, this factor was non-existant.

Another consideration is that, even up until now, one is required to study under a teacher, even learning from a book is discouraged in normal islamic fields, let alone in Qur'anic Recitation, where one is required to read to teachers and refer back to them. If you refer to the book by Azami, you will find that teachers were sent out. Also look at the concept of Ijaza.

This is crucial, for, a teacher would have learned the Qur'an, memorized it, would know what was inside it. If the pages ended up missing, he would know, and thus the students would come to know, and this carried on.

And Allah knows best.

Wa alaykum as salam,

By Injeel I mean the revelation Isa (as) received from God. The gospels might have been partly authored by the apostles of Isa (as), but they are not wahi (revelation). The NT is not a corrupt version of the Injeel; the Injeel is a separate text aside from the gospels.

Perhaps Isa's sahaaba recorded extra copies of the book but we have no trace of these anywhere. It is possible that parts of this text are scattered as verses or passages throughout the NT, but this is not known.

I don't disagree with you, I guess we agree, we cannot be sure if anything was written that was all, it is possible, until we find evidence, that Jesus, peace be upon him's, companions wrote the Injeel and that we just have not recieved it through history. :)

And Allah knows best.

Edit: Anyhow, aint this supposed to be about Jesus' divintiy?

[barney]

probably unlikely because it was largely an oral culture so many people had it memorized.

Oral tradition is the single most unreliable way of recording something after translating it into random code.

[Umar001]

Oral tradition is the single most unreliable way of recording something after translating it into random code.

What are the characteristics of Oral Tradition?

[barney]

Memorising something and passing it on to people so they can repeat it verbatum.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Lol, are you confused or something? What else do you think they did? Why do you think we recite the Qur'an, especially in Ramadhan?

[Umar001]

Memorising something and passing it on to people so they can repeat it verbatum.

And what do you base your view that Oral Tradition is the 'single most unreliable way of recording something after translating it into random code.'

[barney]

And what do you base your view that Oral Tradition is the 'single most unreliable way of recording something after translating it into random code.'

With Random code, you will take unintelligible symbols and attempt to repeat them in an order to make sense.

With Oral tradition, you take Intelligable language and attempt to repeat it in order for another human to repeat it with no mistakes.

Which is impossible.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Excuse me? So your saying Arabic isnt a good language? I beg to differ. Alhamdulillah for the language of the Qur'an, cause no one could mess with it. And if you screw up anywhere or try to change it, you'll have people ready to fix you. So i dont see the problem. That's called preservation.

[Umar001]

With Random code, you will take unintelligible symbols and attempt to repeat them in an order to make sense.

With Oral tradition, you take Intelligable language and attempt to repeat it in order for another human to repeat it with no mistakes.

Which is impossible.

I was reffering simply to the Oral Tradition, the mention of random Code was only added since you compared Oral Tradition to being the worst, apart from the random Code.

As for Oral tradition, you haven't answered, I asked, what do you base your view that Oral Tradition is the 'single most unreliable way of recording something after translating it into random code.'

You have given me your view again, i.e. that it is impossible, that is not what I am asking, I am asking, how do you know it is impossible, i.e. what have you based that view on.

[barney]

Arabic is no doubt a fine language.

It is however as "messable" with as any other.
Simply put, if you tell a thousand people one thing, then there is a cahnce that a percentage will get it wrong.
And in practice, this chinese whispers can result in horrific inaccuracies.

The only way in which Oral Tradition could be accurate, is if God himself made a special case that it would be so. And that perspective is unarguable.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Lol it shows how little you know. If there were inaccuracies of the Arabic of the Qur'an, you wouldnt have recitors of different countries reciting the same thing for over 1400 years. The Qur'an is a special case. Have u seen it with any other religion, as good as it is with the Qur'an? If anyone makes a mistake in reciting, there will always be people to correct the mistake, as I just mentioned to you.

[Umar001]

It is however as "messable" with as any other.
Simply put, if you tell a thousand people one thing, then there is a cahnce that a percentage will get it wrong.
And in practice, this chinese whispers can result in horrific inaccuracies.

So that's why you base that Oral Tradition in this case would not work?

[Armand]

Salam,

Anyone heard of that story where this man set out to find a sign or proof that the Muslims' Qur'an was preserved? This was a long time ago though. He took the Bible, made some changes in it, and returned it to the Christian people to see if they would detect the error. They didn't. He took the Torah and did the same thing with it and returned it to the Jews, but they didn't detect anything either. Finally he took the Qur'an and made a few changes, and then returned it to the Muslims, whereupon they immediately noticed the mistake.

(Note these were layman Muslims, Jews and Christians, not scholars)

[Umar001]

Salam,

Anyone heard of that story where this man set out to find a sign or proof that the Muslims' Qur'an was preserved? This was a long time ago though. He took the Bible, made some changes in it, and returned it to the Christian people to see if they would detect the error. They didn't. He took the Torah and did the same thing with it and returned it to the Jews, but they didn't detect anything either. Finally he took the Qur'an and made a few changes, and then returned it to the Muslims, whereupon they immediately noticed the mistake.

(Note these were layman Muslims, Jews and Christians, not scholars)

Wa Alaykum Salam,

I have heard a similar story, though from what I remember it was learned people, if I remember right, this individual was selling copies and the people bought them off of him, except the Muslims who noticed the changes he had made, this prompted him to join Islam. I forget where I got this from though, it was a random story, in a lecture or something.

[Umar001]

Arabic is no doubt a fine language.

It is however as "messable" with as any other.
Simply put, if you tell a thousand people one thing, then there is a cahnce that a percentage will get it wrong.
And in practice, this chinese whispers can result in horrific inaccuracies.

The only way in which Oral Tradition could be accurate, is if God himself made a special case that it would be so. And that perspective is unarguable.

So that's why you base that Oral Tradition in this case would not work?

So that's why you base that Oral Tradition in this case would not work? Wouldn't one have to look at the particular case at hand, what paralel case of Oral Tradition has there been to the Islamic one?

[Grace Seeker]

Ultimately I think that those who are here are going to find those points which support views they already have, so I suspect that trying to convince anyone of anything different than the opinions they already hold is a waste of time. Therefore, I'll just respond very briefly to the question which is the title of this thread.


Yes, I do believe that Jesus Christ claimed divinity. And I think that this claim was clearly understood by those who heard him speak in his own day. For this reason some followed him, some left him, and some ultimately sought to have him executed on the charge of blasphemy, and the reason they gave him was "because you, a mere man, claim to be God" (John 10:33).

[Bassam Zawadi]

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_trinity