Man needing a saviour???

[abdussattar]

God took the dead body of Jesus to Heaven — for three hours according to some

that Muhammad supposed Jesus to have died a natural death,

Jesus never died...

Muslims believe that jesus was taken up by god before the people came to kill him..

 

[Woodrow]

Rodwell's translation of the Qur'an says at Surah 3:55 "Remember when God said, ‘O Jesus! verily I will cause thee to die, and will take thee up to myself and deliver thee from those who believe not; and I will place those who follow thee above those who believe not, until the day of resurrection."

A footnote here reads: "Muhammad probably believed that God took the dead body of Jesus to Heaven — for three hours according to some — while the Jews crucified a man who resembled him. Sura iv. 156. The word motewaffika (comp. Sura xxxix. 156) means, in speaking of God, to cause to die, take to himself. It would also seem from Sura xix. 34, that Muhammad supposed Jesus to have died a natural death, though it is nowhere said how long he continued in that state. The Muhammadans believe that Jesus on his return to earth at the end of the world will slay the Antichrist, die, and be raised again. A vacant place is reserved for his body in the Prophet’s tomb at Medina. See Lieut. Burton’s ‘Pilgrimage,’ vol. ii."

See:
http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Rodwell_Koran.html


Does this mistranslate Surah 3:55 and is Rodwell's commentary on the Arabic word "motewaffika" totally wrong?

The Rodewell translation while giving an interesting view, should not be taken as the definitive translation. while it is a good translation it like all translation falls far short of being accurate. With a stretch of the imagination motewaffika might be translated as to die. But a more accurate meaning is "Taken up". While mote can be translated as to die the addition of wa ffika changes the context and gives more of a meaning of lifted up, not our concept of death. Rodewell is a reasonbly good translater, but he is not qualified to give tafsir (Commentary) While he is within his right to give his personal opinion, his commentaries should not be considered to be the findings of trusted Quranic scholars.

 

[Woodrow]

The Rodewell translation while giving an interesting view, should not be taken as the definitive translation. while it is a good translation it like all translation falls far short of being accurate. With a stretch of the imagination motewaffika might be translated as to die. But a more accurate meaning is "Taken up". While mote can be translated as to die the addition of wa ffika changes the context and gives more of a meaning of lifted up, not our concept of death. Rodewell is a reasonbly good translater, but he is not qualified to give tafsir (Commentary) While he is within his right to give his personal opinion, his commentaries should not be considered to be the findings of trusted Quranic scholars.

Yusuf Ali gives a much more accurate translation of 3:55

55. Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

 

[Woodrow]

Indeed. Would you not also agree that it is this assignment of what are the best things about us to God in this anthropomorphic fashion that is at least partially responsible for that arrogance and self-righteousness? With the best bits alienated (a word that will clue in some that this is hardly an original thought!) only the worst bits are left to fester?

We seem to be in full agreement here.

 

[Hiroshi]

Jesus never died...

Muslims believe that jesus was taken up by god before the people came to kill him..

Taken up to heaven without dying? Do you believe that this has happened to anyone else, e.g. Mary, as the Catholics Church teaches?

 

[Hiroshi]

The Rodewell translation while giving an interesting view, should not be taken as the definitive translation. while it is a good translation it like all translation falls far short of being accurate. With a stretch of the imagination motewaffika might be translated as to die. But a more accurate meaning is "Taken up". While mote can be translated as to die the addition of wa ffika changes the context and gives more of a meaning of lifted up, not our concept of death. Rodewell is a reasonbly good translater, but he is not qualified to give tafsir (Commentary) While he is within his right to give his personal opinion, his commentaries should not be considered to be the findings of trusted Quranic scholars.

Doesn't Surah 39:42 also use the word motewaffika when it says: "GOD puts the souls to death when the end of their life comes, and also at the time of sleep. Thus, He takes some back during their sleep, while others are allowed to continue living until the end of their predetermined interim. This should provide lessons for people who reflect"?

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura39.html

 

[abdussattar]

Taken up to heaven without dying?

Yes, That is what happened.

Do you believe that this has happened to anyone else, e.g. Mary, as the Catholics Church teaches?

No This is exceptional with jesus only.

 

[abdussattar]

By the way, check this out.

http://www.jesuswillreturn.com/

 

[Woodrow]

Doesn't Surah 39:42 also use the word motewaffika when it says: "GOD puts the souls to death when the end of their life comes, and also at the time of sleep. Thus, He takes some back during their sleep, while others are allowed to continue living until the end of their predetermined interim. This should provide lessons for people who reflect"?

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura39.html

Who on earth did that translation you are reading?

39:42

42. It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death; and those that die not (He takes) during their sleep: those on whom He has passed the decree of death, He keeps back (from returning to life), but the rest He sends (to their bodies) for a term appointed verily in this are Signs for those who reflect.

Now let us look at the Ayyat in Arabic:

اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا فَيُمْسِكُ الَّتِي قَضَى عَلَيْهَا الْمَوْتَ وَيُرْسِلُ الْأُخْرَى إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى

Allahu yatawaffa alanfusa heena mawtiha waallatee lam tamut fee manamiha fayumsiku allatee qada AAalayha almawta wayursilu alokhra ila ajalin musamman inna fee thalika laayatin liqawmin yatafakkaroona (42)

Where in the actual ayyat do you see the word motewaffika?






Are you sure you are reading a translation of the Quran. what you found on the dubious site does not look much like The Quran ::

[39:42]GOD puts the souls to death when the end of their life comes, and also at the time of sleep. Thus, He takes some back during their sleep, while others are allowed to continue living until the end of their predetermined interim. This should provide lessons for people who reflect.

Which if written in Arabic would read as:

الله يضع ارواح حتى الموت عند نهاية حياته وتأتي أيضا, وحتى وقت النوم. ومن ثم يأخذ البعض على ظهره أثناء النوم, بينما يسمح بمواصلة العيش حتى نهاية محددة سلفا مؤقتا. ومن شأن ذلك أن تقدم دروسا لمن يعبر

 

[aadil77]

Hiroshi - read this comment by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, found in the foreword of his english translation of the Quran:

It may be reasonably claimed that no Holy Scripture can be fairly presented by one who disbelieves in its inspiration and its message; and this is the first English translation of the Qur'an by an Englishman who is a Muslim. Some of the translations include comments offensive to Muslims, and almost all employ a style of language which Muslims at once recognise as unworthy.

please stick to translations by muslims

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Rodwell's translation of the Qur'an says at Surah 3:55 "Remember when God said, ‘O Jesus! verily I will cause thee to die, and will take thee up to myself and deliver thee from those who believe not; and I will place those who follow thee above those who believe not, until the day of resurrection."

A footnote here reads: "Muhammad probably believed that God took the dead body of Jesus to Heaven — for three hours according to some — while the Jews crucified a man who resembled him. Sura iv. 156. The word motewaffika (comp. Sura xxxix. 156) means, in speaking of God, to cause to die, take to himself. It would also seem from Sura xix. 34, that Muhammad supposed Jesus to have died a natural death, though it is nowhere said how long he continued in that state. The Muhammadans believe that Jesus on his return to earth at the end of the world will slay the Antichrist, die, and be raised again. A vacant place is reserved for his body in the Prophet’s tomb at Medina. See Lieut. Burton’s ‘Pilgrimage,’ vol. ii."

See:
http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Rodwell_Koran.html


Does this mistranslate Surah 3:55 and is Rodwell's commentary on the Arabic word "motewaffika" totally wrong?

Seeying since we "muslims" are refferred to as the "Muhammadans", when we are not! and are called the "muslims" therefore proving that source is not accurate by any means. Its not the source muslims will support whatsoever it is, i however have never heard of "Rodwells" translation.

I shall quote you

Surah 3:55 "Remember when God said, ‘O Jesus! verily I will cause thee to die, and will take thee up to myself and deliver thee from those who believe not; and I will place those who follow thee above those who believe not, until the day of resurrection."

i thought you was talking about surah 19:33, you suddenly jump and bring up some next source which doesnt support muslims or Islaam esp when we are reffered to as the "Muhammadans" :-\

Anyways . . .

This is the Surah you mentioned Surah Maryam verse 33
\"And Salam (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!\"

In no way does this surah prove the death or crucifiction took place with Jesus (pbuh), Is this verse Jesus Pbuh says peace be upon him the day he WAS born, the day he DIES, not died, and the day he SHALL be raised alive.

If you know who Rodwell is, could you please provide some authentic information about him such as Biography, is he muslim etc.
Thankyou

PEACE

 

[Dave...]

Another thread has me thinking. Thanks to all of you who have been posting about Christianity's belief that Jesus had to die so sin can be forgiven as well as Islam's counter response.

I have been taught that God cannot stand sin. One sin is enough to merit eternal hellfire. The Breach of one sin can only be paid with the blood of God's only son. Man cannot atone for the dammage he has commited. This is taught that as God is just the penalty must be paid it cannot be waived.

This is not making sense to me. God is Omniscent, Omnipotent and Omnipresent. The whole teaching of the bible is to forgive the repentent offender. Nowhere does it say forgive the offender after he makes reperations. If God is merciful than he can forgive any offense aginst him. If man can wound God so much that he must bleed to be able to forgive what man has done how can he than be God?? Can the clay pot harm the potter? Can the cornstalk harm the planter? How can creation become so powerful that he can limit God's ability to grant mercy without God himself dying?

I'm very interested in your comments on this.

Peace to all

Another thread has me thinking. Thanks to all of you who have been posting about Christianity's belief that Jesus had to die so sin can be forgiven as well as Islam's counter response.
I have been taught that God cannot stand sin. One sin is enough to merit eternal hellfire. The Breach of one sin can only be paid with the blood of God's only son. Man cannot atone for the dammage he has commited. This is taught that as God is just the penalty must be paid it cannot be waived.
This is not making sense to me. God is Omniscent, Omnipotent and Omnipresent. The whole teaching of the bible is to forgive the repentent offender. Nowhere does it say forgive the offender after he makes reperations. If God is merciful than he can forgive any offense aginst him. If man can wound God so much that he must bleed to be able to forgive what man has done how can he than be God?? Can the clay pot harm the potter? Can the cornstalk harm the planter? How can creation become so powerful that he can limit God's ability to grant mercy without God himself dying?
I'm very interested in your comments on this.
Peace to all

Hi Seeker.

God's attributes are all perfect. He can never not be perfect. He is by nature perfect in all His ways, perfect holiness, perfect justice, perfect righteousness, etc. This is not a separate standard that He lives by, rather, it is the very essence of Who God is. So, for God to compromise on any of these perfect attributes, just once, would also mean He would cease to be God. In short, He cannot compromise on Who He is without ceasing to be Who He is. This was exactly the point when we read in Hebrews that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God's character never changes. The Law is a reflection of His character. God's Law demands perfect obedience because God is perfectly Holy, righteous, just, etc. God's justice is driven by His holiness. Therefore, He must punish sin. Look at the lengths that He went to so as not to compromise His holiness, justice, righteousness, etc. when Jesus was sent to the cross on our behalf. At the cross we see the greatest act of God's love and mercy towards us and while at the same time, simultaneously, His perfect justice was being satisfied on our behalf. It was done this way so that His perfect holiness and righteousness were not compromised.

In short, God is constrained by His nature. He cannot just wink at sin. A just and Holy God must punish sin. Every one of them. Adam and Eve were cast away from God's presence because His perfect holiness and perfect righteousness, which are foundational to His perfect justice, demanded that seperation as a result of their sin. Not one sin can He turn His back on.

If God could lie why would I believe anything that He said? For that matter, why would I believe His prophets, His believers, or anyone speaking on His behalf? Jesus told us that He is the truth. He told us that His Word is Truth. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word became flesh.... I'll give you a few examples from scripture. God...

1) cannot lie--Titus 1:2

2) "...cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone..."--James 1:13

3) is never unjust, always just.--Dueteronomy 32:4. (The word justice implies guilt in the one receiving the justice)

Is God bound by these truths? Yes. That's why we can trust in His Word.

See Romans 10:2-4; 9-13. 2 Corinthians 5:21. Too much to go over in one post. This is the condensed version. If you or anyone has any questions, please ask. It is only the righteousness of God that can save us, because it is only the righteousness of God that is perfect, as God's justice demands.

Dave

 

[Woodrow]

Hi Seeker.

God's attributes are all perfect. He can never not be perfect. He is by nature perfect in all His ways, perfect holiness, perfect justice, perfect righteousness, etc. This is not a separate standard that He lives by, rather, it is the very essence of Who God is. So, for God to compromise on any of these perfect attributes, just once, would also mean He would cease to be God. In short, He cannot compromise on Who He is without ceasing to be Who He is. This was exactly the point when we read in Hebrews that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God's character never changes. The Law is a reflection of His character. God's Law demands perfect obedience because God is perfectly Holy, righteous, just, etc. God's justice is driven by His holiness. Therefore, He must punish sin. Look at the lengths that He went to so as not to compromise His holiness, justice, righteousness, etc. when Jesus was sent to the cross on our behalf. At the cross we see the greatest act of God's love and mercy towards us and while at the same time, simultaneously, His perfect justice was being satisfied on our behalf. It was done this way so that His perfect holiness and righteousness were not compromised.

In short, God is constrained by His nature. He cannot just wink at sin. A just and Holy God must punish sin. Every one of them. Adam and Eve were cast away from God's presence because His perfect holiness and perfect righteousness, which are foundational to His perfect justice, demanded that seperation as a result of their sin. Not one sin can He turn His back on.

If God could lie why would I believe anything that He said? For that matter, why would I believe His prophets, His believers, or anyone speaking on His behalf? Jesus told us that He is the truth. He told us that His Word is Truth. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word became flesh.... I'll give you a few examples from scripture. God...

1) cannot lie--Titus 1:2

2) "...cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone..."--James 1:13

3) is never unjust, always just.--Dueteronomy 32:4. (The word justice implies guilt in the one receiving the justice)

Is God bound by these truths? Yes. That's why we can trust in His Word.

See Romans 10:2-4; 9-13. 2 Corinthians 5:21. Too much to go over in one post. This is the condensed version. If you or anyone has any questions, please ask. It is only the righteousness of God that can save us, because it is only the righteousness of God that is perfect, as God's justice demands.

Dave

Peace Dave.

I know I am nitpicking but I do not fully agree with this sentence.

Is God bound by these truths? Yes. That's why we can trust in His Word.

Allaah(swt) is beyond the concept of being bound. It is not that he is bound by those Truth it is He, who is the source of these Truths and they are in accordance with His will.

It is we who are bound by those truths and we can trust in his word, because His will is the source of all things..

 

[Hiroshi]

Who on earth did that translation you are reading?

Is it incorrect? I gave you the link to it:

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura39.html

39:42

Now let us look at the Ayyat in Arabic:

اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا فَيُمْسِكُ الَّتِي قَضَى عَلَيْهَا الْمَوْتَ وَيُرْسِلُ الْأُخْرَى إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى

Allahu yatawaffa alanfusa heena mawtiha waallatee lam tamut fee manamiha fayumsiku allatee qada AAalayha almawta wayursilu alokhra ila ajalin musamman inna fee thalika laayatin liqawmin yatafakkaroona (42)

Where in the actual ayyat do you see the word motewaffika?

Oh that's right. I don't see it there. But I do see the word "yatawaffa" (from "tawaffi"?) which must be close.


This link:
http://www.institutealislam.com/jesus-in-the-quran-and-bible-by-dr-jamal-a-badawi/

connects "mutawaffika" with "tawaffi":

“Mutawaffika” in (3:55) and “Tawaffaytani” in (5:120) refer to “completing” your term or mission on earth. “Tawaffi” is used also in the Qur’an for other than death (6:60, 39:42).


In the footnote to Surah 3:55 Rodwell asks us to compare Surah xxxix:156. I believe that this is a careless error or misprint and he actually meant Surah 39:42 (since there are only 75 verses!!). This is why I connected Surah 39:42 with Surah 3:55.

 

[Ramadhan]

In the footnote to Surah 3:55 Rodwell asks us to compare Surah xxxix:156. I believe that this is a careless error or misprint and he actually meant Surah 39:42 (since there are only 75 verses!!). This is why I connected Surah 39:42 with Surah 3:55.

and yet you keep insisting on using his translation
....

:bravo:

 

[Ummu Sufyaan]

surely you Christians have better things to do. goodness, get a life for crying out loud.

 

[Woodrow]

Is it incorrect? I gave you the link to it:

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura39.html




Oh that's right. I don't see it there. But I do see the word "yatawaffa" (from "tawaffi"?) which must be close.


This link:
http://www.institutealislam.com/jesus-in-the-quran-and-bible-by-dr-jamal-a-badawi/

connects "mutawaffika" with "tawaffi":

“Mutawaffika” in (3:55) and “Tawaffaytani” in (5:120) refer to “completing” your term or mission on earth. “Tawaffi” is used also in the Qur’an for other than death (6:60, 39:42).


In the footnote to Surah 3:55 Rodwell asks us to compare Surah xxxix:156. I believe that this is a careless error or misprint and he actually meant Surah 39:42 (since there are only 75 verses!!). This is why I connected Surah 39:42 with Surah 3:55.

The link you gave for the translation is very possibly the most inaccurate translation I have ever read. I doubt that many errors would be accidental. The author of that translation is the late Dr. Rashad Khalifa an apostate who was very anti-Islamic. His Translation was a deliberate attempt to provide a false translation of the Quran to demean and attack Islam.

Before a person goes about comparing words on the basis of having the same root. They had best know enough Arabic to understand the word they are comparing.

Stop and think in English ::: for Example the word bolt can be used in 2 opposite meanings -- To bolt the board down. To bolt away in fear. Same word same root yet in one usage it means to secure something and in the other usage it means to break loose from.

It is not wise to look for things in a language if you do not know the language. The fact that words have the same root is not necessarily indicative they have the same meaning.

 

[aadil77]

repeat.......

 

[aadil77]

Is it incorrect? I gave you the link to it:

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura39.html

Submission.org is an anti-islam site run by a deviant group who are not considered muslim, heres some comments on them:

submission.org is a site created and maintained by followers of rashad khaleefa, who like many others before him, has claimed prophethood after Muhammad (saw), although Islam clearly states that no prophet is to come after Muhammad (saw)....

there r many muslim scholars who have refuted the claims of rashad khaleefa, and he has only a very small number of followers....
others who tend to follow him r those who look for excuses to drink and fornicate, and rashad khaleefa's theories please them well, and hence they opt to follow him....


It's the main page of a sect of Islam known as Submitters/Koranists. Though there may be some true information on the site (the sect revolved around the Qur'an after all), I would not recommend it to anyone seeking information on Islam. The sect rejects the practice of the Sunnah of Rasulullah (saw), which is critical to our deen.


refrain from using such websites or you will risk getting banned

like I've said before stick to the well established translations of the Quran, www.Quran.com

 

[Hiroshi]

Submission.org is an anti-islam site run by a deviant group who are not considered muslim, heres some comments on them:

submission.org is a site created and maintained by followers of rashad khaleefa, who like many others before him, has claimed prophethood after Muhammad (saw), although Islam clearly states that no prophet is to come after Muhammad (saw)....

there r many muslim scholars who have refuted the claims of rashad khaleefa, and he has only a very small number of followers....
others who tend to follow him r those who look for excuses to drink and fornicate, and rashad khaleefa's theories please them well, and hence they opt to follow him....


It's the main page of a sect of Islam known as Submitters/Koranists. Though there may be some true information on the site (the sect revolved around the Qur'an after all), I would not recommend it to anyone seeking information on Islam. The sect rejects the practice of the Sunnah of Rasulullah (saw), which is critical to our deen.


refrain from using such websites or you will risk getting banned

like I've said before stick to the well established translations of the Quran, www.Quran.com

I might get banned eventually anyway although I am trying to stick to the rules of the powers that be. Anyway, thanks for the warning. I truthfully had no idea that anything was amiss. Khaleefa's rendering didn't look any different to me than a dozen others although I now notice unusual wording in Surah 3:55 and Surah 5:117.