Hi Budda,
format_quote Originally Posted by
budda
I am curious as to the source of Mohammed's thought on Jesus?
The source for Muhammad's, thoughts on Jesus, peace be upon them both is given in the Qu'ran, the recital given onto Muhammad for mankind, within many verses, here are some,
By the star when it goes down, (or vanishes). (An-Najm 53:1)
Your companion (Muhammad SAW) has neither gone astray nor has erred. (An-Najm 53:2)
Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. (An-Najm 53:3)
It is only an Inspiration that is inspired. (An-Najm 53:4)
He has been taught (this Qur'an) by one mighty in power [Jibrael (Gabriel)]. (An-Najm 53:5)
This is the translation of the meaning of the direct word of G-d, according to Islamic belief, in the first verse you witness Almighty G-d swearing by his creation, i.e. the star, then adressing the people that Muhammad, their companion is not gone astray, i.e. on a wrong path, nor has he made a mistake, in what he claims, nor does he speak of what he wishes, but that it is only an inspiration, inspired.
So the source behind Muhammad's thoughts in religious matters is Almighty G-d, who revealed to him what He wished, according to the Qu'ran.
format_quote Originally Posted by
budda
If you read the gospels written down by his followers they do not really go in line with what Mohammad writes. Such stories as Jesus saving the adulteress from stoning and Jesus forgiving the criminal crucified next to him tend to contradict Sharia law.
It is interesting you quote those two things, if you will allow me, I will post my personal findings on those aspects of the Canocial Gospels, I hope you are not offended by a non Christian quoting passages and if you feel I am stating something wrong please feel free to correct me here and in pm.
To proceed,
The Story of the Adulteress
According to the King James Version there appears a story of a woman who is taken to Jesus after having been accused of commiting adultery, the famous and often quoted passage is found here 'let ye of no sin cast the first stone'.
Other versions also report the story with silence, but there are version which claim other things.
Having said that, your claim was that, 'do not really go in line with what Mohammad writes' and the story of the lady being set free is shown as an act of great mercy which is not apparently shown in the Shariah of Muhammad.
I will briefly touch on this, the Woman was brought to Jesus, peace be upon him, being accused of being caught commiting the act of adultery, we are not told of any court procedings or the likes, rather we are told people brought her, told him this, and tried to trap Jesus, Jesus replied that those with no sin should cast the stone, this can be interpreted in multiple ways, most say that 'This means that because the men had sinned at one or another point in their lives they cannot then judge others' or we could say that, since there was no evidence of a court proceding, and since, we are told that these people tried to 'trap' and use his answer as an accusation against him, it is concieveable that they could have lied to see how Jesus would deal with the issue of having witnesses and so forth, or whether he would make the mistake of just saying 'Kill her' in which case he would be doing wrong, so in that case, if the men had lied, then the 'let ye of no sin cast the first stone' could be an indication that Jesus knew of their plan, to trap him through his descion, and so the men who had lied and tried to trap him, left the scene. Furthermore Jesus then let the lady go, since he himself did not see anything nor had any witnesses. In my view either interpretation is valid.
Now, the question is, does the Shariah, allow stoning because of some people's accusation?
The Qu'ran states:
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever. They indeed are the Faasiqoon (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allaah)”
[al-Noor 24:4]
So if a person was to be brought to Muhammad, by some people, and said 'she was caught in adultery' they would be demanded to produce witnesses, if those who accuse do not produce the such then they have SINNED, so 'let ye of no sin cast the first stone' would be valid in this case, implyin that the speaker knows those who have accused are lying.
So in Islam, if people just brought a woman, they would have to produce witnesses and so forth. It is therefore possible that what Jesus is reported said, Muhammad could have, peace be upon them both.
Anyhow, to move on to forgiveness,
In Islam forgiveness is emphesised over retribution,
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof; but whoever forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is with Allaah. Verily, He likes not the Zaalimoon (oppressors, polytheists, and wrongdoers).
And indeed whosoever takes revenge after he has suffered wrong, for such there is no way (of blame) against them.
The way (of blame) is only against those who oppress men and rebel in the earth without justification; for such there will be a painful torment.
And verily, whosoever shows patience and forgives, that would truly be from the things recommended by Allaah”
[al-Shoora 42:40-43]
So we see, that if someone is wronged, then that person is allowed to have justice if they chose it, but if they want they can opt to forgive, for verily forgiveness is from the things recommended by Allah.
format_quote Originally Posted by
budda
Secondly he did refer to himself as the son of god or the messiah on several occasions, it was after all the reason the Jews wanted him dead.
That is again your interpretation, you feel that this is the reason the Jews wanted Jesus dead, well, maybe not, maybe this was an escuse they used, because even when they confronted Jesus, according to the Gospel of John, Jesus explained to them that he was not making himself one with God.
So some ask, 'well if Jesus was not making himself God and so on, why would the Jews want to kill him?'
The answer is simple, in fact I have answered it here before, I was asked,
If your simple answer is correct and complete, then why did the "Teachers of the Law" believe Jesus had blasphemed?
format_quote Originally Posted by
Al Habeshi
Simple, just read the Bible, first we see the teaching method of Jesus according to the Bible is a very stern method and a method used by someone who claims to have authority.
Examples that I can find include:
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Show the authority, where as teachers would say The Law says this and that, Jesus taught, "you heard this but I tell you that" and people quite naturally would have thought whose this geezer, and the hypocrites who wanted power would have been angry at this show of Authority.
Also, Jesus condemned the acts of many people, such as the comments of ‘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 others…’ (Matthew 6:5) It seems clear who Jesus is condemning, he went further on to say ‘..If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and want to carry out your father’s desire...’ (John 8:42-44)
So from this point of anger it is clear that any chance came to get Jesus killed, so when Jesus says I and the father are one, the enemies jumped to the conclusion of claiming divinity just like a lot of Christians do, and when Jesus called himself son and so on they claimed he was making himself one with God. Yet if taken into context and from an unbiased party they would have seen differently.
format_quote Originally Posted by
budda
Many people have claimed to speak for God but few have been able to challenge the authorities of there day such that Jesus did. In fact the Jews were quite adept at picking out blasphemers by the time Jesus was born.
I believe that totally about Jesus, peace be upon him, and I also believe it about Muhammad, peace be upon him.
format_quote Originally Posted by
budda
Jesus was never known to write down his own teaching's. He instead taught through oral tradition and it was only written down by his disciples after his death, you are correct on that subject.
Again this is not concrete, we do not know the authors of the Cannonised Gospels, we do not know their sources. There are theories on who they are but no conclusive evidence, if there is then please pm me the info so I may retract my statement.
format_quote Originally Posted by
budda
Even the dozens of Gospels not included in the Bible generally agree upon his teachings and his death, some do question his divinity though.
This gives the impression that you are stating that all the Gospels of the time agreed on the death of Jesus, I find that hard to believe, there are gospels we do not know the content of, also does the Gospel of Thomas say such a thing. Furthermore in this case the quantity is not an indication of validity, since we do not know the quality.
format_quote Originally Posted by
budda
These are writings of first hand witnesses.
Again I disagree, and it is amazing that you say this with full conviction, would be interesting in knowing your source for such a firm belief that the Gospels are written by people who witnessed the events.
format_quote Originally Posted by
budda
and instead I am supposed to believe someone who lived 650 years later?
Let me ask you, if you believed someone is inspired by God Almighty, then whether they come 100 years, or 1000 years or even before the events, then you will believe that person right?
Then, I guess the task is not to establish whether we should believe someone from 650 years later as a historian, rather, we should ask, should we believe that this man, Muhammad, peace be upon him, is correct in his claim of prophethood.
format_quote Originally Posted by
budda
New teachings from "prophets" should never be accepted at face value as this is blind faith.
I could not agree more, and I hope that you yourself practice a similar attitude and do not believe in the Bible through blind faith but rather through objective study.
It will be interesting to see how you derive your views.
Regards,
Eesa Abdullah.
Bookmarks