Co-founder, Masjid al-Islam, the Tri-State Muslim Education Initiative
“On Faith” panelist Zaid Shakir is a scholar-in-residence and lecturer at Zaytuna Institute in Hayward, Calif. A graduate of Syria's prestigious Abu Noor University, Shakir is a co-founder of Masjid al-Islam, the Tri-State Muslim Education Initiative, and the Connecticut Muslim Coordinating Committee. California-born Shakir accepted Islam in 1977 while serving in the U.S. Air Force. He is a graduate of American University in Washington and earned his master’s degree in political science at Rutgers University, where he led a successful campaign for disinvestment from South Africa and co-founded a local Islamic center, Masjid al-Huda. As an American Muslim who came of age during the civil rights struggles, he has brought sensitivity about race and poverty, as well as scholarly discipline to his faith-based work. While Imam of Masjid al-Islam (1988-1994) he spearheaded a community renewal and grassroots anti-drug effort and taught political science and Arabic at Southern Connecticut State University. For the next seven years he studied Arabic, Islamic law, Quranic studies, and Islamic spirituality in Syria, and briefly in Morocco, with top Muslim scholars. In 2001, Shakir’s translation from Arabic into English of The Heirs of the Prophet was published. In 2003, he joined Zaytuna Institute where he teaches Arabic, Islamic law, history and Islamic spirituality. In 2005, Zaytuna published “Scattered Pictures,” an anthology of Shakir’s essays.
Close.
Zaid Shakir
Co-founder, Masjid al-Islam, the Tri-State Muslim Education Initiative
“On Faith” panelist Zaid Shakir is a scholar-in-residence and lecturer at Zaytuna Institute in Hayward, Calif. A graduate of Syria's prestigious Abu Noor University, Shakir is a co-founder of Masjid al-Islam, the Tri-State Muslim Education Initiative, and the Connecticut Muslim Coordinating Committee.
more »
mashaalah loved reading this thank you for this beautiful website and mashallah to you Zaid Shakir mashallah you found the straight path islam mashallah.
Dear Niz
You have missed the point made by my comment posted 4 March completely. Your effort to repeat the "for every thing there must be a creator "proof"" of the existence of a god was noted BUT it is totally beside the point. Certainly, I respect your right to believe in god and I expect you to respect the right of others to believe in other gods, or not to believe.
To remind you of my point: Irrespective of your, mine or any other human's system of belief, we are all here on earth, worshiping one, two...etc god(s), or, none. Irrespective of this, it is time to think about and address the common issues and challenges that face us collectively. Let us put an end to sacrificing our common responsibilities in the name of our private faiths. I do not want to sound patronising here, but is my point lost on you again?
You might realize that; you are just with another philosophy; preached by some schools of thought; who detach themselves from a divine power.
You go to a good resort / house / palace/ club/ bar and if it is nice you look for, who made it, what was the purpose etc. While the beautiful and the vast universe you live in; did you ever look for? who made it? What was his purpose of creating all these and you and me? Do we have any responsibility towards him?
May be one day u will look for these truth, for the satisfaction of your soul; that day you will probably turn to religion; may Allah show you the truth before your departure from this beautiful world.
Till then enjoy your freedom. 'Allah (God) does not need you, rathar you need Him'
Has it ever occurred to any of you that YOUR problem is not whether religion "a" is better than religions b or c...etc and visa-versa in this or that point, but that ALL religious thinking is a mental illness of fossilised retarded minds ... and that is why you go round and round and round in circles, agreeing and disagreeing with each other like patients in a psychiatric ward about fantasies such as Allah, Jesus, Buddha & Co.
Listen all of you: no religion has the right of monopoly over what is good in us as humans which we have developed over generations of communal experiences. Forget about your fantasies and surely you'll find common ground before and after the next earthquake or famine, not to speak of wars in the name of your gods!
I am sorry to see that many of the christians just talk against Quran on here-says or their knowledge of anti Islamic propagation of lies. Please read the Holy Quran and tell me where it is said to kill all the people who does not accept islam? or where in Quran it says to kill some one turning back from Islam? Where Quran preaches violence?
Quran permits me to fight for my rights of practicing religion, rights for property, honour etc. It ois christianity who syas unequivocally to kill all the non believers, i dont like to spoil space by quoting it.
Please read Quran and bible both and then make ur conscious decision for what is the truth.
There is no human words, that includes prophet Muhammad, it's only the words of Allah, so there will never be a change of a single word in it, unlike bible.
You know, what's the root causes of such misunderstandings with Islam and others? Majority of the muslims practice their religion and others don't practice. Please practice your religion and seek for truth, Allah will give you the knowledge to understand the truth. If you don't practce how do you seek for truth? Remember, truth is a blessing of Allah (God) and you can't get it if you dont seek for it.
'Alhamdulillahi Rab-ul A'lameen' (All Praises are for Allah, who is the (Rab)owner of all creations)
Hi all,
I read the entire post and I found that rafael provided proves and references to the arguments he made and was consistent.
joseph on the other hand stands by one claim and he did not bother to engage many points raised by different people (e.g rafael, Ben ,victoria). I also noticed that he claims victory at everey step without adding anything new.
joeseph, re-read you posts and make sure they make all the sense that you think they do.
"However, it is wrong for Muslims to believe that earlier faiths are void of any truth.". I object to the notion that there is a "correct" way to interpret a religious text. It is simply more of the same absolutism that is the very problem. Since I reject the notion that the Bible or the Koran contain THE Truth, I find it nonsense to say that some interpretation is right or wrong. What matters to me is the IMPORTANT interpretation. An interpretation becomes important when large numbers of people act for tremendous good or tremendous bad.
"However, it is wrong for Muslims to believe that earlier faiths are void of any truth.". I object to the notion that there is a "correct" way to interpret a religious text. It is simply more of the sample absolutism that is the very problem. Personally, Since I reject the notion that the Bible or the Koran contain THE Truth, naturally, I find it nonsense to say that some interpretation is right or wrong. The important thing to me is what people are DOING in the name of religion. If it is small numbers, I let it go. But when the numbers get large, the important interpretation (as opposed to the "right" interpretation) is what people are doing.
I have had Muslim friends, Budhist friends, Shinto friends, New Age friedns, Christian Friends, Catholic Friends, and friends with no faith at all!
All were good people. All are caring and compassionate. I see good Muslims and bad Muslims. God Christians and bad. No religion has all the good people and we cannot say that all Hindus are bad for example.
Zaid Shakir is wise to say that we can find some truth outside of Islam. To say that one religion is the true and final revelation from God/The Force/The Universe/Brahma/whatever is not the same as saying that all other faiths are all 100% wrong!
I believe that all religions could be false, but they could not all be true because they are contradictory.
If Hinduism is 100% true then Islam is not 100% true. If Islam is true then Jesus is not God and God didn't love us enough to give himself up for us on the cross. It is clear that JESUS cannot be God if any other religion has the way to 'salvation" (Whatever that may be). You can't have it both ways friends. Jesus said, "I AM the way. The Truth. The Life. He who believes in me will never die."
If Jesus is Emmanuel (God with us) then we should listen to him. that's why Christians are so hard headed. there is no room to compromise.
But I agree with Zaid Shakir. Islam is very clear that JESUS IS NOT GOD!
Day by day, I am starting to relize how much hate there is in the world today.... It seems we need a break from each other, maybe people with different faiths need to go back to their religion and I am sure they will find a way to live in peace with world. I am sure all religions in spirit call for peace and I think no one should rush in insulting any religion without really knowing it, you can take any small part in any religion and turn it into a negative message, but its the religion as a whole that counts and again, being exposed to many relgions there is always truth behind all relgions in essence. So let's not insult each other is just brings more hate and we've got a lot of that going aourn these days.
I believe there is one god and he is everyones god, not only muslims, jews, christians etc.. Yes I agree with many comments above about the muslim word and all the corruptions but as a muslim I assure you the Muslim world today does not do Islam justice. Islam calls its followers to seek knowledge in order to find god, but you have to understand that many muslims stop at simply saying they are muslims thinking that this makes them superior (its simply ignorance and pride and not Islam and this is something that they will have to answer to god on judgement day), they are not true muslims if they don't seek knowledge and the more you seek knowledge the more you undertsand the ture teachings of Islam.
I think we should stop pointing fingers at each other and start seeking justice and truths beyond religions, I believe it is only then that we will find our true common grounds, all the talk and insults are just keeping us all from doing something positive and moving forward.
I hope I did not upset anyone and I hope we can all find it in ourselves to move past the mixed message and feelings and do something about the future.
As my income increased over the years, I moved away from an area with a heavy concentration of immigrants to a diversified community in order to assimilate myself better. I do not buy this argument that being Western somehow dilutes your own culture and upbringing. An Indian usually is extremely secure in his identity.
As you know, India has been colonized and conquered by various powers--the Muslim Mughuls (over 300 years), the Persians, the British (over 200 years), the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the French. Indian culture has benefitted from a wide variety of influences but we have not lost our identity. Hinduism still thrives today in India. Therefore Indians find it amusing that some people are paranoid about losing their identity because of the "corrupting influence" of the West and America in particular.
I earnestly believe that if you work hard in this country, you will be rewarded. I worked and went to school (three different universities) over many years continously and today I am enjoying the fruits of those long hard days. I am sure that this is a familiar story with immigrants in this country--many have arrived with nothing but today most have made it. I am surrounded by such people anyway and don't give it a second thought.
thats good advice for all the humans dave-
my mistake i thought i smelled the old standby partyline that i hear about "freedom and beacon of hope"- which is what were exporting in iraq today-
as i discalimed they were paraphrases- admittedly its not an analysis- saldy my personal experiences for the last 20 or 30 years have seen a different kind of immigrant coming to america- intentions i mean-
as an immigrant, now that you have acheieved the 'american dream' do you still live in an immigrant community? this is purely idle curiosity onmy part.
and youre right dave, people should hop on down to their nearest mosque and find out who their neighbors are and what they believe in- they will find remarkable similarity of the human experience
peace
It is very amazing reading all these articles the amount of generalizations made from misinformation. People, before you make conclusions on any idea, or determine a set of values to believe in while critisizing the "other"...please be informed of and know of what you speak. Muslims, Christians and Atheists in these responses have all said some of the most off the wall stuff about each other. I would caution all of us to not believe every single thing you read or see, but to be more critical in forming conclusions and to not be so hasty to label the "other". Simply put, religion has been used by many for the wrong objectives. But only those who are ignorant and have poor critical thinking skills are those who can be manipulated by the imposters in religion.(Those who misrepresent) The same goes true to those who form conclusions based on what is read, heard, and seen, from these same imposters. No one is perfect and this holds true. The ideals between Islam and Christianity are about 95% the same. And while that 5% is a huge difference, the life that God has established is equally the same for us and would provide ample opportunity for co-existence, cooperation, and provide a platform for human excellence and growth in all aspects. I am a muslim, but Like Zaid has said, God has said, and the knowledgeable people(not the misinformed ones) know that the Quran is not contradictory in these terms...know one another, appraciate our differences, dialogue, live in peace, for we are all one family and will all return to One Creator.
Your analysis is very weak and the text has lots of errors.
The oil rich countries also have lots of money but you don't find immigrants from all over the world there. Immigrants come to America to realize their dream of improving their lives which does not simply involve making more money.
I am an immigrant myself who came to this country with nothing in my pocket but today I am doing very well after earning several advanced degrees. I have talked to lots of immigrants and lived among them for years.
A major factor driving the growth of the US population is new immigration. For centuries, the US has been a beacon of hope for the oppressed and striving masses across the world.
As for brotherhood, read my messages carefully. I am all for it but I would like to see significant improvement in human rights and religious reform in the Muslim world. Get real and demand these reforms. Just being goody-goody doesn't do anyone any good.
DAVE i think youve never talked to an immigrant- i have asked literally hundreds why they came to america -hundreds- and no one has ever said any such thing. people come to america because its rich and they want to make money. maybe in some distant past people came for these "ideals" but not for a long long time if ever.
i have had the real life experience and opportunity to ask hundreds of immigrants their reason for coming here- you have definitely never asked any immigrant this question.
theres alot biblically qrong with thoses statements- judge not lest ye be judged
love your enemy
rneder unto caesar what is caesars and unto god what is gods
youhave heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but i tell you if any man strikes you on the chek turn the other cheek and let him slap that one also
if he asks you to walk a milw with him walk 10 miles with him
if he asks for your cloak give him your shirt also
the second of the 2 commandments is love your neighbor as you love yourself
the amazing thing is ive seen people attacking any mentionof islam even if the word is mentioned yet people remain strangely silent and will condone by silent complicity any amount of unchristianlike malevolent or vicious allegations and attacks as long as it is in the name of Jesus(ata)
o you scribes and hypocrites do not stand on the corner and pray to be seen by men but go into a private place to pray and your Father who sees everything will reward you
and finally the old standby remove the plank from your own eye before you try to remove the splinter form your brothers eyes
and whether you like it or not dave- all of us on the planet are brothers and sisters and have a right to be here
please dont bother to correct any scripture here as it is from memeory and there are 20 translations of the bible and these are from one of them
hans and raphael- you obviously have read your history
wow i just scrolled up and there is some outstanding scholarship there ill come back again andread it for the sake of edification
peace
I believe that God & Religion are incompatible. God is the ultimate bandwidth-omnipresent,omniscient,omnipotent. God does not prophets or religions. Every realised man will get what he needs from God. Every level of human intelligence which answers questions posed by an earlier intelligence will ask itself questions it cannot answer. The unanswered question is God. There will always be an unanswered question. Religions act as a middleman and are anti God. To realise God, one needs to medidate directly.
This is typical; People who want to fight and argue will come up with reasons/excuses to do so, and those who want peace will have it.
I am personally tired of the radical Muslims and Neo-conservatives/Neo-Christians who feel the need to stir things up and prevent us from coexisting like normal human beings.
Even if you are a Christian and consider Muslims to be your enemy Jesus says (in the Bible) to love your enemy.
All these theological discussions about Islam and Christianity by Rafael, Seth Mcbee, and others seem quite erudite and impressive. But the fact remains that today there is a lot of violence and intolerance in the name of Islam.
It is always in the PRACTICE of a set of religious doctrines or principles AS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD OR MISUNDERSTOOD that the rest of the world will form an opinion about any religion. Very few people have the time or the inclination to delve into fine theological points. Instead, the practice will always stand out. People are not judged on the largeness of their heart or for their tolerance for diversity based on some fine scriptures but on the extent to which those religious principles are actually implemented in the life of their country and their society. Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and some others have treated minorities so terribly even violently that these practices have tarred the image of Islam. So people have to take responsibility for their actions. As I mentioned elsewhere, I do not believe that it is realistic to expect a permanent separation in the human mind between the "beautiful peaceful nature" of any religion and the actions of its adherants. That is called living in a fools' paradise.
The reason why America attracts immigrants from all over the world is because the country and its people actually try to implement, as best as they can, the constitution and the vision of the founding fathers. These are not merely some poetic, nice sounding documents.
Garrick,
the context of those revelations such as the one where Muslims are told to kill the non Muslims whenever they find them was during a time of war between the muslim's and the non muslims, when the muslims were being prevented from practicing their religion and were being forced out of their homes. In those times Muslims were the ones being severely persecuted and discriminated against. What many orientalist's and ill informed non muslims and even some muslims dont like to focus on is the when in the Quran 60.8-9 it says:
"Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just towards those who did not make war on you because of your deen (faith) or drive you from your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are just". This is not to say that is the Quran cannot be a guide for mankind in this day and age. the Quran is a living and breathing text that is so deep and with so much meaning that not even the greatest scholars have completely been able to unravel it and understand it. We are told that if we as Muslims that we have to defend ourselves when someone attacks us because of our religion and wants us to drive us out of our homes. so you see the above verses would still apply today BUT in those circumstances. Never are we told to randomly attack others. The war in Islam is never holy or unholy, rather the word Jihad means to "struggle or strive" in the Cause for Allah, therefore war in Islam is either Just or Unjust. Never holy. And it is Just when one is acting in self defense. Furthermore there are two types of Jihad. The lesser Jihad is struggling in the Cause of Allah during times of war. The greater Jihad is struggling of the soul in the Cause of Allah. That is controlling ones inner lusts and desires for Allah. but of course no one bothers to tell people this because they simply dont know! anyway i hope this helped.
cheers
In all honesty, I do not believe that the Bible teaches "reincarnation" in the Hindu sense of the word, but I do believe that it teaches about the pre-existence of the soul in the knowledge of God in addition to a particular form of reincarnation that was believed by the Pharisees in Jesus' time. For example, it is clear that the Pharisees believed in some form of reincarnation or else why would they have thought that John the Baptist was the Prophet Elijah-returned and Jesus confirmed this (although John denied being the Elijah-returned). The thing about this, though, is that according to the Bible, Elijah never physically died but was lifted into heaven by a chariot of fire and whirlwind. Additionally, there are many similarities between John the Baptist and Elijah and even Luke 1:17 states that the Angel told Zachariah about John while still in his mother's womb:
"And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
In my studies, I too have come across the reality as it pertains to the history of the various versions of the Bible among the various churches (Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Greek Orthodox, etc.) and it is quite disturbing in and of itself, especially considering that it establishes the fact that Christianity and its associated doctrines (unlike Islam) are not monolithic as it pertains to what is believed to be the Word of God. It it interesting that so many Christians seem to never ask the question as to what were Christians reading before 1611 when the KJV was published by the authority of King James I.
If Jesus had been walking around with a book under his arm called "The Gospel According to Jesus" and it was preserved over the generations, I would like to think we wouldn't have the problems we have within Christianity today amongst all of its denominations and factions and differing in dogma, doctrine, rituals, and practices.
I see this thread is running out of steam. But I would like to come back to some aspect I've touched upon before, i.e. the pre-existence of soul (i.e. which amounts in practical terms to reincarnation), which for me personally makes perfectly sound sense.
The Byzantine Emperor Justinian (483-565) (well, it was basically his wife who had complete control over Justinian and thus is behind this story) who in 553 summoned the Fifth Ecumenical Congress of Constantinople - which took place without pope Virgiulius who together with the western church was against this initiative - to condemn the Platonically inspired writings of Origen which were at that time still part of the original gospels. Origen fully represented metempsychosis (pre-existence of soul), and his teachings were integral part of the early church.
Since all of this is amply documented, I'm just wondering what is it that holds back a recognition of past errors and the reintroduction of early principles of the Christian faith.
I have to say that I am very sorry that we are not in the same league as the Muslims who can claim that they possess only one version of the Koran, i.e. the original one.
I was toubled by your Quote,"I will believe Paul over any prophet of Islam". I am very sure that you do not know anything about Islam because believing in every prophet and respecting all of Prophets and believing in every book revealed by God the almighty is part of Muslim faith and Muslims can not descriminate from one prophet over other Prophet. For your surprise that list Includes every Prophet in Old Testaments and new testaments right from Adam to Muhammad.
Quran Explicitely says that there were Prophets and Massengers sent to every part of the world. Some of Them are mentioned in the Quran others are not.
Quran-2:177 It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces towards East or West; but it is righteousness to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practise regular charity, to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing.
Your response almost left me with a lost of words (due to shock)... but not quite. If you choose to make accusations against Islam and Muhammad without substantiating them, then that is your decision. Such antics have no place in theological discussions. I am fully aware that there are serveral Christian scholars and Orientalists that have stated the points that you have presented, i.e.
1) Muhammad spread Islam by the sword
2) Islam condones domestic violence/abuse
3) Muslim women are oppressed
4) Muslims are commanded to indiscriminately kill non-Muslims without cause
5) Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but just a Prophet
And of all the literature that I have read concerning these accusations, not one of them have been able to produce a text from a contemporary of Muhammad that said they bore witness to him forcing anyone to convert to Islam by the sword while at the same time preaching that there is no compulsion in religion. Can you imagine that? He is standing over his victims with sword in hand and slashing their necks while at the same time telling his followers that Muslims are to allow people to choose of their own free will to either believe or disbelieve.
Additionally, those same authors look to modern day abuses of Muslim women and try to say that this is because of Islam when in fact it is just the opposite of what Islam teaches and history attests to this fact and even their own Book attests to this fact.
And the whole idea of Muslims being commanded to indiscrimately kill non-Muslims for no reason at all but only because they are non-Muslims is simply ridiculous and history along with present day historical facts attests to this. If that was the case, then please explain to me how is it that there are still indiginous Christian communities since the time of Christ and the disciples still living in Egypt, Ethiopia, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, etc., where Muslims are the majority? Why don't the Muslim majority not just wipe them all out as they are commanded to do in the Qur'an (as you say)?
And as to the last point... everyone who is reading this forum can clearly see that you said that Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah and they clearly see that according to their own book, i.e. the Qur'an, that they in fact do; but you seem to have too much pride to quote one verse of the Qur'an for us to support your fantastical idea that they don't. What sense does that make? How can you prove to Muslims that the Gospel of Christ is the truth when you can't even deal truthfully with them? If this is not a hypocritical attribute, then I don't know what is.
Just SAYING that you read some books about Muhammad gives no credence to what you read. Please excuse the imagery, but I can read something on the wall of a public bathroom, but that doesn't make it credible. In theological discussions, it is a matter of respect, courtesy, and dignity to cite your sources when making accusations against another's faith and beliefs. You have to substantiate it. There is a certain etiquette that is assocatied with theological discussions, and you seem to not be willing to attain to that level of etiquette.
Jesus himself opposed the understanding of the Pharisees, but he backed his arguments up by using logic, reason, and OT references to show them that their understanding was incorrect. He didn't just say, "This is the way it is" and just left it at that without providing supporting evidence for the Gospel that he came to teach.
You say that I misquoted 2 Peter 1:1 - Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
This is EXACTLY what is stated in the King James Version. I don't know what version you are reading from that is adding the word "our" before the word God, but according to the Greek, which you claim to be able to reference, says:
Sumeon (Simon) Petros (Peter) doulos (a servant) kai (and) apostolos (an apostle) Iesous (of Jesus) Christos (Christ), lagchano (to them that have obtained) isotimos (like precious) pistis (faith) hemin (with us) en (through) dikaiosune (the righteousness) theos (of God) kai (and) hemon (our) soter (savior) Iesous (Jesus) Christos (Christ).
You see, this clearly shows how a translation can twist and skewer the correct understanding of the Biblical message. You have to look at the Greek to ensure that what you are getting in the English is correct. If you noticed, the verse DOES NOT SAY "en dikaiosune HEMON theos kai soter Iesous Christos", i.e. through the righteousness of OUR God and Savior Jesus Christ... it says through the rightousness of God and OUR Savior Jesus Christ. Your misplacement of the pronoun has caused you to have the impression that this verse supports your belief that it is teaching that Jesus is God when in reality that is not what it says. And as HANS pointed out, the very next verses clarifies the correct translation even further because all of the disciples understood that God and Jesus are two seperate beings... they are not one and the same. So, no I did not misquote and I am sorry that you thought that I did.
I find it so very interesting that you did not address any of my other points showing that your attempt to use Biblical references to try and support your view that Jesus is God is unsubstantiated. Even if the pronoun was placed in the order that you put it, the fact STILL remains that if Jesus was referred to in Greek as THEOS, it still does not have the same narrow connotation as we use the English word "God". If that was the case, are you then prepared to accept that the Devil and the Roman authoritarians and God are one and the same because the Greeks referred to them all as THEOS? You have to expand your understanding beyond that and take the nuances of language into consideration when understanding Scripture. Simply looking at the English translation will cause you to stumble and belief in false doctrine as I am hoping that you have come to understand through this discussion of ours via this forum. You do not require to be affluent in Greek and Hebrew to grasp and understand this concept.
No one here, as far as I can see, has argued over what is the OVERALL message of the Scripture. No one is arguing the point of the reason why Christ came. Once again, your methodology of dodging the topics that you yourself bring up and then no longer address when pertinent and substantial refutations are made is, in my opinion, counterproductive of having a sound and objective theological discussion.
I am not the one who brought up the points of accusations against Islam and the Muslims... YOU did and all that can be understandably expected of you is to present your evidence to support those claims. Is that just too much to ask? You have to prepare fellow Christians with better than that. Can you imagine a Christian having a discussion with a Muslim and saying, "You Muslims only accept Jesus as a Prophet, but not as the Messiah." Then the Muslim open their Qur'an and starts reading those verses that clearly show that they do. What then? What are you proposing to fellow Christians to do when that happens? Just move on to another point without addressing the wrong that had just been committed? Is this acceptable Christian behavior? I think not.
I really don't know how much clearer to make my point, but as you said:
"If you don't want to see it, I can't do anything more." I leave it up to the readers of this forum to make up their own minds to see whether or not your approach is fair, balanced, and objective.
Jesus did not speak Greek. Aramaic is believed to have been the native language of Jesus. Since so much has been discussed about Jesus being God?, Jesus being Son of God? or Jesus being just Prophet and massenger of God who was doing as earlier prophets did and that was to convey massege of God to the humans.
A very large Part of misunderstanding arises when the original messege is lost in the translations. If Jesus did not speak Greek then It means original Bible was translated in Greek which hace a very different pattern and origin of language and now we read Bible in English or any other language where again the original beauty of language is gone and It becomes something else.
From linguistic point of view It is a nightmare. It is a lengthy discussion and I only wish that I had so much time to give you all the references. For reference please go the site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_languageAramaic
Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew are part of Semitic languages All Semitic languages exhibit a unique pattern of stems consisting of "triliteral" or consonantal roots (normally consisting of three consonants), from which nouns, adjectives, and verbs are formed by inserting vowels with, potentially, prefixes, suffixes, or infixes.
It could have disastress effect If proper language pattern is not being followed.
Peace
It's true, you can't do anything more for me, because apparently I have no free will, I can't choose, I'm an automaton. So whatever you could do for me, it's futile because everything is preordained, you can't change it, can you?
If there is no free will, then there is neither any resulting consequence from a hypothetic choice or option, hence no responsibility whatsoever.
If man has no free will, then God preordains everything, then he preordained collective sin into which we were born at His command (command=preordain).
Is all this joke?
This is what I found in the Bible: "Mark 3:35 Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
This quote presupposes that one can choose not to do God's will, and for being able to choose, one must be able to decide, one must possess free will.
Reverting to the Peter quote, it's true I can't ascertain anything in this case because I don't know the original-language version. To me it looks like something linguistically idiosyncratic, but since you esteem futile analysing the original-language version, further discussion about this particular item is effectively futile.
Hans.
by the way, you can't prove that God gave us a free will through the Bible, that is a man made doctrine that cannot be proven. If man has a truly free will then God isn't sovereign and cannot preordain or predestine which is thoroughly referenced in the Bible.
two separate parts of that Scripture. How can you say Peter doesn't call Jesus God? It's right there in the first verse. Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, there is no room at all to say that Peter does not. After that, sure he then gives reverence to also the Father and the Son in verse 2. But the first part of the verse Peter is clearly speaking of Jesus as God. Verse one speaks of how we received righteousness which is through God the Son and the second part which is verse 2 says it was through the knowledge of God the Father and Jesus our Lord.
If you don't want to see it, I can't do anything more.
Before you accuse someone of misquoting 2 Peter 1, you had better give a more complete quote of the passage:
"2 Peter 1(-3): To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."
It says: "God", on the one hand, and "Jesus our Lord", on the other.
I feel indebted for your huge and compelling contribution as regards both Islam and Christianity. At long last, my eyes are reading some well-founded reasoning, yes, you've opened my eyes. I am particularly relieved that the information that you are providing confirms the validity of my own reasoning, or at least, that there seems to be not too much of incompatibility. As said before, I grew up with pre-concile catholicism and have gone through some terrible inner fighting, over many years, due to that main inconsistency according to which Jesus is declared as being like Gold Himself. In my earlier youth (18-28), I had then taken the eastern-wisdom path and have come up with a life philosophy that accepts Jesus as the Saviour/Messiah, while at the same time thinking that since Jesus considers us as his brothers/sisters, we are of the same nature, i.e. God-created souls in the image of God, essential parts of God but - in contrast with the rest of Creation - with a free will. Without expanding endlessly here, Jesus is a soul that has used His free will to do exactly the Father's will, hence His Perfection, while myself ...
Rafael.
As I said before I have done much reading on Muhammad and his life and teachings and like I said before I could site many resources that would differ with your take, but I will ask again, what will that accomplish? For won't you just give me the opposite research? I don't see how that progresses our thoughts, and such I will not retract my statements as I believe through my research that they are correct.
You misquoted 2 Peter 1...it says our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Peter calls Jesus God.
I appreciate your great research into the Scriptures as have I. I will admit that I do not know Greek and Hebrew affluently, but I do read and study in the original text including syntax, tenses and uses in the original text. To continue to go back and forth on the original text to me is futile.
As I look though at the complete canon of Scripture the whole point of existance is to understand that their is a Creator, which is God through Christ, that we as humans are born into sin and must pay for that sin eternally in hell. But God sent His Son who had to be completely perfect (which is how you describe God perfectly, HOLY) so that He could die on the cross in our place so that we would not have to go to hell. When asked how we shall be saved in Acts 2:37 the apostles respond as Christ also said many of times, repent and believe. If you do not repent and believe in Christ as your Lord and Saviour you will spend eternity in hell for that sin.
This is the reason that Christ came and that the Word of God was written. John 20:31 and 1 John 5
Thank you, Rafael, for the compelling insight you are giving here regarding Islam, you must have worked a lot on this.
Seth McBee, I truly think that professing alone is not enough: "1 John 3:18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth." Without active participation, nothing is achieved.
And as pointed out in some earlier post, Jesus came here to point out the way by living God's Law BY EXAMPLE. Others will only convinced by the convincing example, which is why God expects us to follow Jesus' example:
"John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you."
Once again, I have to disagree with you on your statement that it would be useless to show why you believe what Muhammad taught and how he lived his life. That is part of having an intellectual discussion as it relates to theological matters. You have to have references; otherwise, people will be able to say and claim anything they want without having what's necessary to substantially support their argument. That would make conversations such as these completely counter-productive. You have made a claim against the Muhammad that he was a violent man who spread his religion by the sword and I think it only right and fair that you provide legitimate evidence to support such an accusation just as I would expect a Muslim to do the same if they tell me that Jesus is or did such-and-such. You made a claim that Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah and yet you did not provide any references to reflect such a statement and neither did you acknowledge that you made a mistake because in fact Muslims DO believe that Jesus is the Messiah. You made the claim by way of insinuation that Muslims mistreat their women and yet references from their own sacred texts show that the picture you attempted to paint was quite inaccacurate. I am simply in awe that you are not even able to acknowledge that you are mistaken in your claims and refuse to provide the necessary evidence to support your claims:
1) Muhammad spread Islam by the sword,
2) Islam teaches domestic violence and physical abuse of women
3) Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah
4) Muslims are to kill non-Muslims without reason except that they are non-Muslims
As I said before, unless you are fair and just in dealing with Muslims, you will utterly fail in your endeavors because God does not give success for those who do not operate in Truth. On those four points you have not provided sufficient references to substantiate your views. Where are the verses in the Qur'an that says that Jesus IS NOT the Messiah? Where are the eye witness accounts that state they saw Muhammad spreading Islam by the sword (or is this just hearsay)? Where is the proof that Christian women enjoyed more rights and freedoms than their Muslim counterparts? Where does it say in the Qur'an that Muslims are to kill non-Muslims for no reason except that they are not Muslims?
People need to see proof of accusations and not continued unsubstantiated statements. You said that you have "plenty of scholars", but WHO are they? Give us some names. Are they eye witnesses of the accusations that you have made or are they simply repeating the age old arguments of the Crusades? Once again, if we are going to argue against the validity of Islam, we have got to come up with better arguments because there are simply too many holes in the ones that you are using.
You reference Matthew 26:65 - Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
If you look at the context, Jesus was asked if he was Christ, the SON OF GOD and he answered, "You have said this." Additionally, he referred to the SON OF MAN as sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. It was to this statement that the high priest rent his clothes and accused Jesus of speaking blasphemy. This does not say that Jesus is GOD.
You reference Mark 14:64 - Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
Once again, please read the context. According to Mark's version of the events, the same question was asked, but according to Mark instead of answering the question of whether or not he is Christ, the Son of God/the Blessed, with "You say this", Mark reports Jesus as answering the question with "I am." Additionally, like Matthew, Mark reports that Jesus commented about the SON OF MAN sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven and it was to this that the high priest rent his clothes. Once again, this does not say that Jesus is GOD.
You mention Luke 5:21 (which is similar to Mark 2:7) - And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
Once again, read the context. It was the belief of the Jews, particularly the Pharisees, that only God could forgive sins, but this is not true. On several occasions, Jesus told the Pharisees that their doctrine was wrong and this is what these verses are saying. There is nowhere in Scripture where it says, "only God can forive sins." Where is this statement in the Old Testament? It is simply something that the Pharisees made up. You see, the Jews had a bad habit of following traditions instead of Scripture. The fact of the matter is, God has granted the authority to forgive sins as He pleases. He granted that authority to Jesus as well as to the disciples.
Just read John 20:23 - Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.
Does this make the disciples to be God because they were given the authority to either forgive/remit or retain sins? I think not.
You mention John 8:58, 59 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
I am assuming that by you citing these verses, you are trying to say that Jesus is claiming to be God because he said, "Before Abraham was, I am." To somehow use this verse to substantiate Jesus claim to being God is simply insufficient. Saying "I am" does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said "I am the man," and the Greek reads exactly the same like Jesus' statement, i.e. "I am." The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as "I am" and the other as "I am the man", is one reason why Christians such as yourself continue to use this verse to try and substantiate the belief that Jesus is God. That is why you have to study the Greek and stop relying just on an English translation. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as "I am". [Acts 26:29]. And no one believed him to be making a claim to being God. This Greek phrase, i.e. "Ego eimi", has been translated in various ways throughout the NT in the mouths of different people and it is simply amazing that the one time that Jesus says it, it is somehow interpreted as him claiming to be God as though this Greek phrase is somehow equivalent or the same as what God said in the OT. The point is, "Ego eimi" was a common Greek phrase used as a way of designating one's self, and it did not mean a person was claiming to be God when they said: "Ego eimi".
You mention John 10:33 as though it somehow supports your belief that Jesus is God; but, once again, you do not read it within its proper context. Let's look at the whole incident and in this I will also be answering to your understanding of the phrase "I am my Father are one."
John 10:23 - And Jesus walked in the temple of Solomon's porch.
John 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.
John 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.
John 10:26 - But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
John 10:27 - My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
John 10:28 - And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, NEITHER SHALL ANY [MAN] PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY HAND.
John 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.
John 10:30 - I and [my] Father are one.
John 10:31 - Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 10:32 - Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
John 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.
John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
John 10:35 - If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:36 - Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the SON OF GOD?
John 10:37 - If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
John 10:38 - But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in him.
Once again, the problem with reading English translations without studying the Greek produces doctrines that don't quite line up with Scripture. According to the Greek of 10:30, this is not the numerical "one", but the "one" of purpose, which is made even clearer when you read the previous versus. No one will be able to pluck Jesus' sheep out of his hands nor will any man be able to pluck them out of God's hands. In this way they are ONE. This point is further elaborated and explained upon in chapter 17. Additionally, notice how Jesus states that God GAVE the sheep to Jesus. That means that God is the GIVER and Jesus is the RECEIVER of the sheep. That also CLEARLY shows that Jesus IS NOT GOD. So, after his explanation, the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus and accused him of making himself to be God, although he was a man. This was THEIR twisted understanding of his words and that is why he rebutted them with a quotation from the OT where God Himself refers to the Children of Israel as being "gods" that are children of the Most High, who received the word of God. Jesus let them know that "Scripture cannot be broken", meaning that the verses he cited cannot be contradicted because it is there in black and white. So if God Himself refers to the Children of Israel as being "gods" (even though they are human beings), then what is the big deal for Jesus to say, "I am the SON OF GOD"? Now, there are Christians who interpret Jesus' statement in 10:38 as saying that since he is in God and God is in him, then that makes him God. This is utterly ridiculous and once again goes to show that people are not taking the time and making the necessary efforts to study Scripture in the language in which it was written, i.e. Greek. If we were to accept such an interpretation as yours, then when we read John 17:11, 21, and 22, we might as well believe that the disciples were God as well.
John 17:11 - And now I am no more in the world, by these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are [one].
John 17:21, 22, 23, 24 - That they will 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 has sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Once again, the idea of "ONE" in the Greek language and culture as it pertains to its usages in these verses are ONE in purpose and not ONE in number.
As it pertains to faith and works, James makes it very clear that even the devils believe, so faith is not sufficient alone for the attainment of salvation, so your understading is contradicted by the plain words of Scripture. You say that you believe that if you have faith then you will work for God. Once again, James makes it very clear that there are those who have faith, but not works that are meet with faith and, therefore, they are just like the devils and I quoted James directly and this is exactly what he says. Additionally, I have already stated that Paul was stating the same principle, but only from a particular aspect, i.e. that works will not provide you with salvation. James did not disagree with Paul, but clarified it even further to say that you must have both. In principle, I agree with you that we are justified by faith and that faith SHOULD produce fruit that is a reflection of that faith; but I am wary to agree with you wholistically because it appears that you do not accept the points that James has made.
You stated, "As far as Galations and the Muslims I will believe Paul over any prophet of Islam." Where are you coming from with that statement? Was this an issue? Did I say that you should believe Muhammad over Paul? I did no such thing. I simply pointed out to you that I think you are stretching purpose and intent of Paul writing this letter to the Galatians by trying to say it also applies to the Muslims and this is simply untenable, in my opinion. First of all, I did not say that the Koran abrogated the Qur'an. I said, and please re-read my post, that the MUSLIMS believe that the Koran abrogated the Gospel and therefore they do not spend their time discussing with one another as to how to interpret and understand the Gospel of Jesus as do Christians, as was the case in Galatia between Paul and the Jewish-Christians. Paul did not believe in the necessity of following the Law, especially as it pertained to the Gentile-Christians, but the Jewish-Christians believed and understood the Gospel of Jesus as being otherwise and they had good and sufficient reason to come to such an interpretation, but I will hold out on that point for another time and perhaps under a different topic. I am not saying that they were correct, but I am simply showing that Galations is based on CHRISTIANS not having and agreeing upon the understanding and interpretation of the Gospel of Jesus and has nothing to do with Muslims who follow a completely different revelation altogether.
You mention Acts 4:12 as though I presented some type of opposition towards what it teaches.
And what is your point for emphasising that Jesus is THE way and not A way as though I said otherwise? I did not say that Jesus was A way. The point that I was making was that Jesus said that he was the WAY. When you are the WAY, then that means that you are not the destination. The DESTINATION is the FATHER. And ALL Christians agree that Jesus is NOT the Father. He is the WAY to the Father. What is difficult to understand about this? Again, this is reemphasized in 1 Timothy when it clearly states that Jesus is a man who is the mediator BETWEEN God and mankind. If he is God himself, then the verse doesn't make any sense. "God - Jesus - Mankind": if Jesus = God, then that would mean "Jesus - Mankind"...where's the mediator?
Next, you mention 2 Peter 1:1 - Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
How are you taking this to mean that the disciples, or at least Peter, preached that Jesus is God? If you read all of the epistles, you will see that it is the customary practice to introduce both God and Jesus at the opening of each one. Additionally, it is through the righteousness of both God and Christ that we have received our previous faith. It was through God in that it was He who devised the plan of salvation and was righteous in His ways of making it available to us. It was through Christ in that by his righteous life he carried out the plan so that we can have what now have.
You also mentioned John 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Once again, due to unfamiliarity with Greek verbiage and grammar, English-speaking Christians have misconstrued and misunderstood this verse to mean that Thomas believed that Jesus is God. In Greek, the word "theos" has a much wider significance and usage in their language and culture than our Enlish word "God/god". In Greek language, "THEOS" was a descriptive title that was applied to a range of authoritarian figures, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22) and even the Devil (2 Corinthians 4:4). The Greek word THEOS is not limited in an absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use the English word GOD. So, once again, have a correct understanding of Scripture and the ORIGINAL languages that they were written in, to include grammar, cultural usages, and syntax, it is clearly understood that Thomas was not declaring to believe that Jesus was God in the sense of being the Supreme Being, i.e. the Father.
Additionally, even by the stretch of the imagination, it is clearly understood THROUGHOUT the Bible that even those who represented God were referred to as such although it was understood that the representative themselves were not God Himself. For example, in the Old Testament it states that Jacob "wrestled with God" although we know that it was not God Himself, but an angel of God. That reminds me of another point that I almost forgot to mention previously, you have to remember that in the Jewish culture (and Jesus was a Jew) that according to Jewish usage and grammar, a person's agent is regarded as the person himself. Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed deputy or agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent absence of liability on the part of the agent.
So, throughout the OT, we find angels being called "Adonai" and "Elohim". So it is not God Himself that is on the scene, but his agent, which by the way, was what Jesus was as well; but for those who are not familiar with these truths of Jewish language and grammar will conlude from the wording (especially as it is translated into English) will not be able to derive this understanding because they are fixed on a translation instead of referring back to the original languages.
the disciples believed that Jesus was “God” in the sense that many Christians do, they would not have “all fled” just a few days before when he was arrested. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God…and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:19-21). The Bible is clear that these disciples thought Jesus was a “prophet.” Even though some of the apostles realized that Jesus was the Christ, they knew that according to the Old Testament prophecies, the Christ, the anointed of God, was to be a man. There
All Comments (201)
Alhamdulilah for Zaid Shakir!!! Salam brother...
September 2, 2007 3:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 2, 2007 03:18
Deliver A Messiah "Mistaken Identity" By Agron Belica.......New Theory? Umm....
September 2, 2007 3:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 2, 2007 03:13
>>Deliver A Messiah "Mistaken Identity" AuthorHouse.... Ban! Ban! Ban!!
August 13, 2007 1:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 13, 2007 13:33
..Deliver A Messiah "Mistaken Identity" AuthorHouse...
August 13, 2007 1:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 13, 2007 13:31
Deliver A Messiah "Mistaken Identity" AuthorHouse Publishing Co.
August 13, 2007 1:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 13, 2007 13:28
Deliver A Messiah "Mistaken Identity" Authorhouse Publishing CO.
August 13, 2007 1:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 13, 2007 13:26
mashaalah loved reading this thank you for this beautiful website and mashallah to you Zaid Shakir mashallah you found the straight path islam mashallah.
August 7, 2007 2:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 7, 2007 14:00
Dear Niz
You have missed the point made by my comment posted 4 March completely. Your effort to repeat the "for every thing there must be a creator "proof"" of the existence of a god was noted BUT it is totally beside the point. Certainly, I respect your right to believe in god and I expect you to respect the right of others to believe in other gods, or not to believe.
To remind you of my point: Irrespective of your, mine or any other human's system of belief, we are all here on earth, worshiping one, two...etc god(s), or, none. Irrespective of this, it is time to think about and address the common issues and challenges that face us collectively. Let us put an end to sacrificing our common responsibilities in the name of our private faiths. I do not want to sound patronising here, but is my point lost on you again?
March 12, 2007 5:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2007 17:25
GILGAMESH
You might realize that; you are just with another philosophy; preached by some schools of thought; who detach themselves from a divine power.
You go to a good resort / house / palace/ club/ bar and if it is nice you look for, who made it, what was the purpose etc. While the beautiful and the vast universe you live in; did you ever look for? who made it? What was his purpose of creating all these and you and me? Do we have any responsibility towards him?
May be one day u will look for these truth, for the satisfaction of your soul; that day you will probably turn to religion; may Allah show you the truth before your departure from this beautiful world.
Till then enjoy your freedom. 'Allah (God) does not need you, rathar you need Him'
Peace
March 6, 2007 1:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 13:07
Has it ever occurred to any of you that YOUR problem is not whether religion "a" is better than religions b or c...etc and visa-versa in this or that point, but that ALL religious thinking is a mental illness of fossilised retarded minds ... and that is why you go round and round and round in circles, agreeing and disagreeing with each other like patients in a psychiatric ward about fantasies such as Allah, Jesus, Buddha & Co.
Listen all of you: no religion has the right of monopoly over what is good in us as humans which we have developed over generations of communal experiences. Forget about your fantasies and surely you'll find common ground before and after the next earthquake or famine, not to speak of wars in the name of your gods!
March 4, 2007 7:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 19:08
I am sorry to see that many of the christians just talk against Quran on here-says or their knowledge of anti Islamic propagation of lies. Please read the Holy Quran and tell me where it is said to kill all the people who does not accept islam? or where in Quran it says to kill some one turning back from Islam? Where Quran preaches violence?
Quran permits me to fight for my rights of practicing religion, rights for property, honour etc. It ois christianity who syas unequivocally to kill all the non believers, i dont like to spoil space by quoting it.
Please read Quran and bible both and then make ur conscious decision for what is the truth.
There is no human words, that includes prophet Muhammad, it's only the words of Allah, so there will never be a change of a single word in it, unlike bible.
You know, what's the root causes of such misunderstandings with Islam and others? Majority of the muslims practice their religion and others don't practice. Please practice your religion and seek for truth, Allah will give you the knowledge to understand the truth. If you don't practce how do you seek for truth? Remember, truth is a blessing of Allah (God) and you can't get it if you dont seek for it.
'Alhamdulillahi Rab-ul A'lameen' (All Praises are for Allah, who is the (Rab)owner of all creations)
March 2, 2007 7:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 07:50
Hi all,
I read the entire post and I found that rafael provided proves and references to the arguments he made and was consistent.
joseph on the other hand stands by one claim and he did not bother to engage many points raised by different people (e.g rafael, Ben ,victoria). I also noticed that he claims victory at everey step without adding anything new.
joeseph, re-read you posts and make sure they make all the sense that you think they do.
peace .
February 22, 2007 9:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 22, 2007 21:27
Tell all this to Chrsitians in Saudi!
What a crock of Islamist crud.
February 4, 2007 8:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 4, 2007 08:08
"However, it is wrong for Muslims to believe that earlier faiths are void of any truth.". I object to the notion that there is a "correct" way to interpret a religious text. It is simply more of the same absolutism that is the very problem. Since I reject the notion that the Bible or the Koran contain THE Truth, I find it nonsense to say that some interpretation is right or wrong. What matters to me is the IMPORTANT interpretation. An interpretation becomes important when large numbers of people act for tremendous good or tremendous bad.
January 27, 2007 7:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 27, 2007 19:51
"However, it is wrong for Muslims to believe that earlier faiths are void of any truth.". I object to the notion that there is a "correct" way to interpret a religious text. It is simply more of the sample absolutism that is the very problem. Personally, Since I reject the notion that the Bible or the Koran contain THE Truth, naturally, I find it nonsense to say that some interpretation is right or wrong. The important thing to me is what people are DOING in the name of religion. If it is small numbers, I let it go. But when the numbers get large, the important interpretation (as opposed to the "right" interpretation) is what people are doing.
January 27, 2007 7:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 27, 2007 19:38
I have had Muslim friends, Budhist friends, Shinto friends, New Age friedns, Christian Friends, Catholic Friends, and friends with no faith at all!
All were good people. All are caring and compassionate. I see good Muslims and bad Muslims. God Christians and bad. No religion has all the good people and we cannot say that all Hindus are bad for example.
Zaid Shakir is wise to say that we can find some truth outside of Islam. To say that one religion is the true and final revelation from God/The Force/The Universe/Brahma/whatever is not the same as saying that all other faiths are all 100% wrong!
I believe that all religions could be false, but they could not all be true because they are contradictory.
If Hinduism is 100% true then Islam is not 100% true. If Islam is true then Jesus is not God and God didn't love us enough to give himself up for us on the cross. It is clear that JESUS cannot be God if any other religion has the way to 'salvation" (Whatever that may be). You can't have it both ways friends. Jesus said, "I AM the way. The Truth. The Life. He who believes in me will never die."
If Jesus is Emmanuel (God with us) then we should listen to him. that's why Christians are so hard headed. there is no room to compromise.
But I agree with Zaid Shakir. Islam is very clear that JESUS IS NOT GOD!
January 15, 2007 3:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 15, 2007 15:59
I second that Ranooshi. Well said.
January 7, 2007 3:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 7, 2007 03:54
Day by day, I am starting to relize how much hate there is in the world today.... It seems we need a break from each other, maybe people with different faiths need to go back to their religion and I am sure they will find a way to live in peace with world. I am sure all religions in spirit call for peace and I think no one should rush in insulting any religion without really knowing it, you can take any small part in any religion and turn it into a negative message, but its the religion as a whole that counts and again, being exposed to many relgions there is always truth behind all relgions in essence. So let's not insult each other is just brings more hate and we've got a lot of that going aourn these days.
I believe there is one god and he is everyones god, not only muslims, jews, christians etc.. Yes I agree with many comments above about the muslim word and all the corruptions but as a muslim I assure you the Muslim world today does not do Islam justice. Islam calls its followers to seek knowledge in order to find god, but you have to understand that many muslims stop at simply saying they are muslims thinking that this makes them superior (its simply ignorance and pride and not Islam and this is something that they will have to answer to god on judgement day), they are not true muslims if they don't seek knowledge and the more you seek knowledge the more you undertsand the ture teachings of Islam.
I think we should stop pointing fingers at each other and start seeking justice and truths beyond religions, I believe it is only then that we will find our true common grounds, all the talk and insults are just keeping us all from doing something positive and moving forward.
I hope I did not upset anyone and I hope we can all find it in ourselves to move past the mixed message and feelings and do something about the future.
December 31, 2006 11:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 31, 2006 11:48
Victoria:
As my income increased over the years, I moved away from an area with a heavy concentration of immigrants to a diversified community in order to assimilate myself better. I do not buy this argument that being Western somehow dilutes your own culture and upbringing. An Indian usually is extremely secure in his identity.
As you know, India has been colonized and conquered by various powers--the Muslim Mughuls (over 300 years), the Persians, the British (over 200 years), the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the French. Indian culture has benefitted from a wide variety of influences but we have not lost our identity. Hinduism still thrives today in India. Therefore Indians find it amusing that some people are paranoid about losing their identity because of the "corrupting influence" of the West and America in particular.
I earnestly believe that if you work hard in this country, you will be rewarded. I worked and went to school (three different universities) over many years continously and today I am enjoying the fruits of those long hard days. I am sure that this is a familiar story with immigrants in this country--many have arrived with nothing but today most have made it. I am surrounded by such people anyway and don't give it a second thought.
December 26, 2006 12:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 26, 2006 12:07
thats good advice for all the humans dave-
my mistake i thought i smelled the old standby partyline that i hear about "freedom and beacon of hope"- which is what were exporting in iraq today-
as i discalimed they were paraphrases- admittedly its not an analysis- saldy my personal experiences for the last 20 or 30 years have seen a different kind of immigrant coming to america- intentions i mean-
as an immigrant, now that you have acheieved the 'american dream' do you still live in an immigrant community? this is purely idle curiosity onmy part.
and youre right dave, people should hop on down to their nearest mosque and find out who their neighbors are and what they believe in- they will find remarkable similarity of the human experience
peace
December 24, 2006 12:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 24, 2006 00:26
It is very amazing reading all these articles the amount of generalizations made from misinformation. People, before you make conclusions on any idea, or determine a set of values to believe in while critisizing the "other"...please be informed of and know of what you speak. Muslims, Christians and Atheists in these responses have all said some of the most off the wall stuff about each other. I would caution all of us to not believe every single thing you read or see, but to be more critical in forming conclusions and to not be so hasty to label the "other". Simply put, religion has been used by many for the wrong objectives. But only those who are ignorant and have poor critical thinking skills are those who can be manipulated by the imposters in religion.(Those who misrepresent) The same goes true to those who form conclusions based on what is read, heard, and seen, from these same imposters. No one is perfect and this holds true. The ideals between Islam and Christianity are about 95% the same. And while that 5% is a huge difference, the life that God has established is equally the same for us and would provide ample opportunity for co-existence, cooperation, and provide a platform for human excellence and growth in all aspects. I am a muslim, but Like Zaid has said, God has said, and the knowledgeable people(not the misinformed ones) know that the Quran is not contradictory in these terms...know one another, appraciate our differences, dialogue, live in peace, for we are all one family and will all return to One Creator.
December 20, 2006 11:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 20, 2006 11:14
Victoria:
Your analysis is very weak and the text has lots of errors.
The oil rich countries also have lots of money but you don't find immigrants from all over the world there. Immigrants come to America to realize their dream of improving their lives which does not simply involve making more money.
I am an immigrant myself who came to this country with nothing in my pocket but today I am doing very well after earning several advanced degrees. I have talked to lots of immigrants and lived among them for years.
A major factor driving the growth of the US population is new immigration. For centuries, the US has been a beacon of hope for the oppressed and striving masses across the world.
As for brotherhood, read my messages carefully. I am all for it but I would like to see significant improvement in human rights and religious reform in the Muslim world. Get real and demand these reforms. Just being goody-goody doesn't do anyone any good.
December 18, 2006 9:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 18, 2006 09:17
DAVE i think youve never talked to an immigrant- i have asked literally hundreds why they came to america -hundreds- and no one has ever said any such thing. people come to america because its rich and they want to make money. maybe in some distant past people came for these "ideals" but not for a long long time if ever.
i have had the real life experience and opportunity to ask hundreds of immigrants their reason for coming here- you have definitely never asked any immigrant this question.
theres alot biblically qrong with thoses statements- judge not lest ye be judged
love your enemy
rneder unto caesar what is caesars and unto god what is gods
youhave heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but i tell you if any man strikes you on the chek turn the other cheek and let him slap that one also
if he asks you to walk a milw with him walk 10 miles with him
if he asks for your cloak give him your shirt also
the second of the 2 commandments is love your neighbor as you love yourself
the amazing thing is ive seen people attacking any mentionof islam even if the word is mentioned yet people remain strangely silent and will condone by silent complicity any amount of unchristianlike malevolent or vicious allegations and attacks as long as it is in the name of Jesus(ata)
o you scribes and hypocrites do not stand on the corner and pray to be seen by men but go into a private place to pray and your Father who sees everything will reward you
and finally the old standby remove the plank from your own eye before you try to remove the splinter form your brothers eyes
and whether you like it or not dave- all of us on the planet are brothers and sisters and have a right to be here
please dont bother to correct any scripture here as it is from memeory and there are 20 translations of the bible and these are from one of them
hans and raphael- you obviously have read your history
wow i just scrolled up and there is some outstanding scholarship there ill come back again andread it for the sake of edification
peace
December 16, 2006 11:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 16, 2006 23:03
I do understand any of this. God and religion are mutually incompatible. God needs no religion. Each of his creation is his prophet.
December 14, 2006 4:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 14, 2006 16:19
I believe that God & Religion are incompatible. God is the ultimate bandwidth-omnipresent,omniscient,omnipotent. God does not prophets or religions. Every realised man will get what he needs from God. Every level of human intelligence which answers questions posed by an earlier intelligence will ask itself questions it cannot answer. The unanswered question is God. There will always be an unanswered question. Religions act as a middleman and are anti God. To realise God, one needs to medidate directly.
December 14, 2006 1:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 14, 2006 13:42
This is typical; People who want to fight and argue will come up with reasons/excuses to do so, and those who want peace will have it.
I am personally tired of the radical Muslims and Neo-conservatives/Neo-Christians who feel the need to stir things up and prevent us from coexisting like normal human beings.
Even if you are a Christian and consider Muslims to be your enemy Jesus says (in the Bible) to love your enemy.
I am a Muslim by the way.
December 12, 2006 11:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 12, 2006 23:38
All these theological discussions about Islam and Christianity by Rafael, Seth Mcbee, and others seem quite erudite and impressive. But the fact remains that today there is a lot of violence and intolerance in the name of Islam.
It is always in the PRACTICE of a set of religious doctrines or principles AS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD OR MISUNDERSTOOD that the rest of the world will form an opinion about any religion. Very few people have the time or the inclination to delve into fine theological points. Instead, the practice will always stand out. People are not judged on the largeness of their heart or for their tolerance for diversity based on some fine scriptures but on the extent to which those religious principles are actually implemented in the life of their country and their society. Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and some others have treated minorities so terribly even violently that these practices have tarred the image of Islam. So people have to take responsibility for their actions. As I mentioned elsewhere, I do not believe that it is realistic to expect a permanent separation in the human mind between the "beautiful peaceful nature" of any religion and the actions of its adherants. That is called living in a fools' paradise.
The reason why America attracts immigrants from all over the world is because the country and its people actually try to implement, as best as they can, the constitution and the vision of the founding fathers. These are not merely some poetic, nice sounding documents.
December 11, 2006 6:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2006 18:15
Garrick,
the context of those revelations such as the one where Muslims are told to kill the non Muslims whenever they find them was during a time of war between the muslim's and the non muslims, when the muslims were being prevented from practicing their religion and were being forced out of their homes. In those times Muslims were the ones being severely persecuted and discriminated against. What many orientalist's and ill informed non muslims and even some muslims dont like to focus on is the when in the Quran 60.8-9 it says:
"Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just towards those who did not make war on you because of your deen (faith) or drive you from your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are just". This is not to say that is the Quran cannot be a guide for mankind in this day and age. the Quran is a living and breathing text that is so deep and with so much meaning that not even the greatest scholars have completely been able to unravel it and understand it. We are told that if we as Muslims that we have to defend ourselves when someone attacks us because of our religion and wants us to drive us out of our homes. so you see the above verses would still apply today BUT in those circumstances. Never are we told to randomly attack others. The war in Islam is never holy or unholy, rather the word Jihad means to "struggle or strive" in the Cause for Allah, therefore war in Islam is either Just or Unjust. Never holy. And it is Just when one is acting in self defense. Furthermore there are two types of Jihad. The lesser Jihad is struggling in the Cause of Allah during times of war. The greater Jihad is struggling of the soul in the Cause of Allah. That is controlling ones inner lusts and desires for Allah. but of course no one bothers to tell people this because they simply dont know! anyway i hope this helped.
cheers
December 11, 2006 5:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2006 05:34
Thanks, Rafael.
December 5, 2006 7:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2006 07:15
HANS
In all honesty, I do not believe that the Bible teaches "reincarnation" in the Hindu sense of the word, but I do believe that it teaches about the pre-existence of the soul in the knowledge of God in addition to a particular form of reincarnation that was believed by the Pharisees in Jesus' time. For example, it is clear that the Pharisees believed in some form of reincarnation or else why would they have thought that John the Baptist was the Prophet Elijah-returned and Jesus confirmed this (although John denied being the Elijah-returned). The thing about this, though, is that according to the Bible, Elijah never physically died but was lifted into heaven by a chariot of fire and whirlwind. Additionally, there are many similarities between John the Baptist and Elijah and even Luke 1:17 states that the Angel told Zachariah about John while still in his mother's womb:
"And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
In my studies, I too have come across the reality as it pertains to the history of the various versions of the Bible among the various churches (Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Greek Orthodox, etc.) and it is quite disturbing in and of itself, especially considering that it establishes the fact that Christianity and its associated doctrines (unlike Islam) are not monolithic as it pertains to what is believed to be the Word of God. It it interesting that so many Christians seem to never ask the question as to what were Christians reading before 1611 when the KJV was published by the authority of King James I.
If Jesus had been walking around with a book under his arm called "The Gospel According to Jesus" and it was preserved over the generations, I would like to think we wouldn't have the problems we have within Christianity today amongst all of its denominations and factions and differing in dogma, doctrine, rituals, and practices.
December 4, 2006 11:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 11:02
Rafael
I see this thread is running out of steam. But I would like to come back to some aspect I've touched upon before, i.e. the pre-existence of soul (i.e. which amounts in practical terms to reincarnation), which for me personally makes perfectly sound sense.
The Byzantine Emperor Justinian (483-565) (well, it was basically his wife who had complete control over Justinian and thus is behind this story) who in 553 summoned the Fifth Ecumenical Congress of Constantinople - which took place without pope Virgiulius who together with the western church was against this initiative - to condemn the Platonically inspired writings of Origen which were at that time still part of the original gospels. Origen fully represented metempsychosis (pre-existence of soul), and his teachings were integral part of the early church.
Since all of this is amply documented, I'm just wondering what is it that holds back a recognition of past errors and the reintroduction of early principles of the Christian faith.
I have to say that I am very sorry that we are not in the same league as the Muslims who can claim that they possess only one version of the Koran, i.e. the original one.
December 1, 2006 6:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 06:52
Seth Mcbee
I was toubled by your Quote,"I will believe Paul over any prophet of Islam". I am very sure that you do not know anything about Islam because believing in every prophet and respecting all of Prophets and believing in every book revealed by God the almighty is part of Muslim faith and Muslims can not descriminate from one prophet over other Prophet. For your surprise that list Includes every Prophet in Old Testaments and new testaments right from Adam to Muhammad.
Quran Explicitely says that there were Prophets and Massengers sent to every part of the world. Some of Them are mentioned in the Quran others are not.
Quran-2:177 It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces towards East or West; but it is righteousness to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practise regular charity, to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing.
1.1 Adam
1.2 Idris (Enoch)
1.3 Nuh (Noah)
1.4 Hud
1.5 Saleh
1.6 Ibrahim (Abraham)
1.7 Lut (Lot)
1.8 Ismail (Ishmael)
1.9 Ishaq (Isaac)
1.10 Yaqub (Jacob)
1.11 Yusuf (Joseph)
1.12 Ayub (Job)
1.13 Shoaib (Jethro)
1.14 Musa (Moses)
1.15 Harun (Aaron)
1.16 Dhul-Kifl (most likely Ezekiel)
1.17 Dawood (David)
1.18 Sulayman (Solomon)
1.19 Ilyas (Elijah)
1.20 Al-Yasa (Elisha)
1.21 Yunus (Jonah)
1.22 Zakariya (Zacharias)
1.23 Yahya (John the Baptist)
1.24 'Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus)
1.25 Muhammad
For making statements like not believing in any of the Prophets of Islam might take you away from your own believes.
November 27, 2006 11:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 23:10
SETH MCBEE:
Your response almost left me with a lost of words (due to shock)... but not quite. If you choose to make accusations against Islam and Muhammad without substantiating them, then that is your decision. Such antics have no place in theological discussions. I am fully aware that there are serveral Christian scholars and Orientalists that have stated the points that you have presented, i.e.
1) Muhammad spread Islam by the sword
2) Islam condones domestic violence/abuse
3) Muslim women are oppressed
4) Muslims are commanded to indiscriminately kill non-Muslims without cause
5) Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but just a Prophet
And of all the literature that I have read concerning these accusations, not one of them have been able to produce a text from a contemporary of Muhammad that said they bore witness to him forcing anyone to convert to Islam by the sword while at the same time preaching that there is no compulsion in religion. Can you imagine that? He is standing over his victims with sword in hand and slashing their necks while at the same time telling his followers that Muslims are to allow people to choose of their own free will to either believe or disbelieve.
Additionally, those same authors look to modern day abuses of Muslim women and try to say that this is because of Islam when in fact it is just the opposite of what Islam teaches and history attests to this fact and even their own Book attests to this fact.
And the whole idea of Muslims being commanded to indiscrimately kill non-Muslims for no reason at all but only because they are non-Muslims is simply ridiculous and history along with present day historical facts attests to this. If that was the case, then please explain to me how is it that there are still indiginous Christian communities since the time of Christ and the disciples still living in Egypt, Ethiopia, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, etc., where Muslims are the majority? Why don't the Muslim majority not just wipe them all out as they are commanded to do in the Qur'an (as you say)?
And as to the last point... everyone who is reading this forum can clearly see that you said that Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah and they clearly see that according to their own book, i.e. the Qur'an, that they in fact do; but you seem to have too much pride to quote one verse of the Qur'an for us to support your fantastical idea that they don't. What sense does that make? How can you prove to Muslims that the Gospel of Christ is the truth when you can't even deal truthfully with them? If this is not a hypocritical attribute, then I don't know what is.
Just SAYING that you read some books about Muhammad gives no credence to what you read. Please excuse the imagery, but I can read something on the wall of a public bathroom, but that doesn't make it credible. In theological discussions, it is a matter of respect, courtesy, and dignity to cite your sources when making accusations against another's faith and beliefs. You have to substantiate it. There is a certain etiquette that is assocatied with theological discussions, and you seem to not be willing to attain to that level of etiquette.
Jesus himself opposed the understanding of the Pharisees, but he backed his arguments up by using logic, reason, and OT references to show them that their understanding was incorrect. He didn't just say, "This is the way it is" and just left it at that without providing supporting evidence for the Gospel that he came to teach.
You say that I misquoted 2 Peter 1:1 - Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
This is EXACTLY what is stated in the King James Version. I don't know what version you are reading from that is adding the word "our" before the word God, but according to the Greek, which you claim to be able to reference, says:
Sumeon (Simon) Petros (Peter) doulos (a servant) kai (and) apostolos (an apostle) Iesous (of Jesus) Christos (Christ), lagchano (to them that have obtained) isotimos (like precious) pistis (faith) hemin (with us) en (through) dikaiosune (the righteousness) theos (of God) kai (and) hemon (our) soter (savior) Iesous (Jesus) Christos (Christ).
You see, this clearly shows how a translation can twist and skewer the correct understanding of the Biblical message. You have to look at the Greek to ensure that what you are getting in the English is correct. If you noticed, the verse DOES NOT SAY "en dikaiosune HEMON theos kai soter Iesous Christos", i.e. through the righteousness of OUR God and Savior Jesus Christ... it says through the rightousness of God and OUR Savior Jesus Christ. Your misplacement of the pronoun has caused you to have the impression that this verse supports your belief that it is teaching that Jesus is God when in reality that is not what it says. And as HANS pointed out, the very next verses clarifies the correct translation even further because all of the disciples understood that God and Jesus are two seperate beings... they are not one and the same. So, no I did not misquote and I am sorry that you thought that I did.
I find it so very interesting that you did not address any of my other points showing that your attempt to use Biblical references to try and support your view that Jesus is God is unsubstantiated. Even if the pronoun was placed in the order that you put it, the fact STILL remains that if Jesus was referred to in Greek as THEOS, it still does not have the same narrow connotation as we use the English word "God". If that was the case, are you then prepared to accept that the Devil and the Roman authoritarians and God are one and the same because the Greeks referred to them all as THEOS? You have to expand your understanding beyond that and take the nuances of language into consideration when understanding Scripture. Simply looking at the English translation will cause you to stumble and belief in false doctrine as I am hoping that you have come to understand through this discussion of ours via this forum. You do not require to be affluent in Greek and Hebrew to grasp and understand this concept.
No one here, as far as I can see, has argued over what is the OVERALL message of the Scripture. No one is arguing the point of the reason why Christ came. Once again, your methodology of dodging the topics that you yourself bring up and then no longer address when pertinent and substantial refutations are made is, in my opinion, counterproductive of having a sound and objective theological discussion.
I am not the one who brought up the points of accusations against Islam and the Muslims... YOU did and all that can be understandably expected of you is to present your evidence to support those claims. Is that just too much to ask? You have to prepare fellow Christians with better than that. Can you imagine a Christian having a discussion with a Muslim and saying, "You Muslims only accept Jesus as a Prophet, but not as the Messiah." Then the Muslim open their Qur'an and starts reading those verses that clearly show that they do. What then? What are you proposing to fellow Christians to do when that happens? Just move on to another point without addressing the wrong that had just been committed? Is this acceptable Christian behavior? I think not.
I really don't know how much clearer to make my point, but as you said:
"If you don't want to see it, I can't do anything more." I leave it up to the readers of this forum to make up their own minds to see whether or not your approach is fair, balanced, and objective.
November 27, 2006 4:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 16:46
Seth Mcbee
Jesus did not speak Greek. Aramaic is believed to have been the native language of Jesus. Since so much has been discussed about Jesus being God?, Jesus being Son of God? or Jesus being just Prophet and massenger of God who was doing as earlier prophets did and that was to convey massege of God to the humans.
A very large Part of misunderstanding arises when the original messege is lost in the translations. If Jesus did not speak Greek then It means original Bible was translated in Greek which hace a very different pattern and origin of language and now we read Bible in English or any other language where again the original beauty of language is gone and It becomes something else.
From linguistic point of view It is a nightmare. It is a lengthy discussion and I only wish that I had so much time to give you all the references. For reference please go the site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_languageAramaic
Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew are part of Semitic languages All Semitic languages exhibit a unique pattern of stems consisting of "triliteral" or consonantal roots (normally consisting of three consonants), from which nouns, adjectives, and verbs are formed by inserting vowels with, potentially, prefixes, suffixes, or infixes.
It could have disastress effect If proper language pattern is not being followed.
Peace
November 27, 2006 3:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 15:26
To Seth McBee, or any other Bible erudite on this thread.
Since you've done extensive Bible research, would you kindly explain to me what "brother and sister and mother" really mean in this quote:
"Mark 3:35 Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother" (also used in connection with the free will post).
Thank you in advance.
November 27, 2006 3:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 15:22
Seth McBee
It's true, you can't do anything more for me, because apparently I have no free will, I can't choose, I'm an automaton. So whatever you could do for me, it's futile because everything is preordained, you can't change it, can you?
If there is no free will, then there is neither any resulting consequence from a hypothetic choice or option, hence no responsibility whatsoever.
If man has no free will, then God preordains everything, then he preordained collective sin into which we were born at His command (command=preordain).
Is all this joke?
This is what I found in the Bible: "Mark 3:35 Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
This quote presupposes that one can choose not to do God's will, and for being able to choose, one must be able to decide, one must possess free will.
Reverting to the Peter quote, it's true I can't ascertain anything in this case because I don't know the original-language version. To me it looks like something linguistically idiosyncratic, but since you esteem futile analysing the original-language version, further discussion about this particular item is effectively futile.
November 27, 2006 3:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 15:12
Hans.
by the way, you can't prove that God gave us a free will through the Bible, that is a man made doctrine that cannot be proven. If man has a truly free will then God isn't sovereign and cannot preordain or predestine which is thoroughly referenced in the Bible.
November 27, 2006 12:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 12:57
two separate parts of that Scripture. How can you say Peter doesn't call Jesus God? It's right there in the first verse. Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, there is no room at all to say that Peter does not. After that, sure he then gives reverence to also the Father and the Son in verse 2. But the first part of the verse Peter is clearly speaking of Jesus as God. Verse one speaks of how we received righteousness which is through God the Son and the second part which is verse 2 says it was through the knowledge of God the Father and Jesus our Lord.
If you don't want to see it, I can't do anything more.
November 27, 2006 12:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 12:53
Seth McBee
Before you accuse someone of misquoting 2 Peter 1, you had better give a more complete quote of the passage:
"2 Peter 1(-3): To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."
It says: "God", on the one hand, and "Jesus our Lord", on the other.
Peter does NOT call Jesus God.
November 27, 2006 12:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 12:19
Rafael
I feel indebted for your huge and compelling contribution as regards both Islam and Christianity. At long last, my eyes are reading some well-founded reasoning, yes, you've opened my eyes. I am particularly relieved that the information that you are providing confirms the validity of my own reasoning, or at least, that there seems to be not too much of incompatibility. As said before, I grew up with pre-concile catholicism and have gone through some terrible inner fighting, over many years, due to that main inconsistency according to which Jesus is declared as being like Gold Himself. In my earlier youth (18-28), I had then taken the eastern-wisdom path and have come up with a life philosophy that accepts Jesus as the Saviour/Messiah, while at the same time thinking that since Jesus considers us as his brothers/sisters, we are of the same nature, i.e. God-created souls in the image of God, essential parts of God but - in contrast with the rest of Creation - with a free will. Without expanding endlessly here, Jesus is a soul that has used His free will to do exactly the Father's will, hence His Perfection, while myself ...
November 27, 2006 12:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 12:06
Rafael.
As I said before I have done much reading on Muhammad and his life and teachings and like I said before I could site many resources that would differ with your take, but I will ask again, what will that accomplish? For won't you just give me the opposite research? I don't see how that progresses our thoughts, and such I will not retract my statements as I believe through my research that they are correct.
You misquoted 2 Peter 1...it says our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Peter calls Jesus God.
I appreciate your great research into the Scriptures as have I. I will admit that I do not know Greek and Hebrew affluently, but I do read and study in the original text including syntax, tenses and uses in the original text. To continue to go back and forth on the original text to me is futile.
As I look though at the complete canon of Scripture the whole point of existance is to understand that their is a Creator, which is God through Christ, that we as humans are born into sin and must pay for that sin eternally in hell. But God sent His Son who had to be completely perfect (which is how you describe God perfectly, HOLY) so that He could die on the cross in our place so that we would not have to go to hell. When asked how we shall be saved in Acts 2:37 the apostles respond as Christ also said many of times, repent and believe. If you do not repent and believe in Christ as your Lord and Saviour you will spend eternity in hell for that sin.
This is the reason that Christ came and that the Word of God was written. John 20:31 and 1 John 5
Thanks for your time and discussion.
November 27, 2006 12:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 12:05
Thank you, Rafael, for the compelling insight you are giving here regarding Islam, you must have worked a lot on this.
Seth McBee, I truly think that professing alone is not enough: "1 John 3:18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth." Without active participation, nothing is achieved.
And as pointed out in some earlier post, Jesus came here to point out the way by living God's Law BY EXAMPLE. Others will only convinced by the convincing example, which is why God expects us to follow Jesus' example:
"John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you."
November 27, 2006 11:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 11:19
SETH MCBEE:
Once again, I have to disagree with you on your statement that it would be useless to show why you believe what Muhammad taught and how he lived his life. That is part of having an intellectual discussion as it relates to theological matters. You have to have references; otherwise, people will be able to say and claim anything they want without having what's necessary to substantially support their argument. That would make conversations such as these completely counter-productive. You have made a claim against the Muhammad that he was a violent man who spread his religion by the sword and I think it only right and fair that you provide legitimate evidence to support such an accusation just as I would expect a Muslim to do the same if they tell me that Jesus is or did such-and-such. You made a claim that Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah and yet you did not provide any references to reflect such a statement and neither did you acknowledge that you made a mistake because in fact Muslims DO believe that Jesus is the Messiah. You made the claim by way of insinuation that Muslims mistreat their women and yet references from their own sacred texts show that the picture you attempted to paint was quite inaccacurate. I am simply in awe that you are not even able to acknowledge that you are mistaken in your claims and refuse to provide the necessary evidence to support your claims:
1) Muhammad spread Islam by the sword,
2) Islam teaches domestic violence and physical abuse of women
3) Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah
4) Muslims are to kill non-Muslims without reason except that they are non-Muslims
As I said before, unless you are fair and just in dealing with Muslims, you will utterly fail in your endeavors because God does not give success for those who do not operate in Truth. On those four points you have not provided sufficient references to substantiate your views. Where are the verses in the Qur'an that says that Jesus IS NOT the Messiah? Where are the eye witness accounts that state they saw Muhammad spreading Islam by the sword (or is this just hearsay)? Where is the proof that Christian women enjoyed more rights and freedoms than their Muslim counterparts? Where does it say in the Qur'an that Muslims are to kill non-Muslims for no reason except that they are not Muslims?
People need to see proof of accusations and not continued unsubstantiated statements. You said that you have "plenty of scholars", but WHO are they? Give us some names. Are they eye witnesses of the accusations that you have made or are they simply repeating the age old arguments of the Crusades? Once again, if we are going to argue against the validity of Islam, we have got to come up with better arguments because there are simply too many holes in the ones that you are using.
You reference Matthew 26:65 - Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
If you look at the context, Jesus was asked if he was Christ, the SON OF GOD and he answered, "You have said this." Additionally, he referred to the SON OF MAN as sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. It was to this statement that the high priest rent his clothes and accused Jesus of speaking blasphemy. This does not say that Jesus is GOD.
You reference Mark 14:64 - Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
Once again, please read the context. According to Mark's version of the events, the same question was asked, but according to Mark instead of answering the question of whether or not he is Christ, the Son of God/the Blessed, with "You say this", Mark reports Jesus as answering the question with "I am." Additionally, like Matthew, Mark reports that Jesus commented about the SON OF MAN sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven and it was to this that the high priest rent his clothes. Once again, this does not say that Jesus is GOD.
You mention Luke 5:21 (which is similar to Mark 2:7) - And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
Once again, read the context. It was the belief of the Jews, particularly the Pharisees, that only God could forgive sins, but this is not true. On several occasions, Jesus told the Pharisees that their doctrine was wrong and this is what these verses are saying. There is nowhere in Scripture where it says, "only God can forive sins." Where is this statement in the Old Testament? It is simply something that the Pharisees made up. You see, the Jews had a bad habit of following traditions instead of Scripture. The fact of the matter is, God has granted the authority to forgive sins as He pleases. He granted that authority to Jesus as well as to the disciples.
Just read John 20:23 - Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.
Does this make the disciples to be God because they were given the authority to either forgive/remit or retain sins? I think not.
You mention John 8:58, 59 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
I am assuming that by you citing these verses, you are trying to say that Jesus is claiming to be God because he said, "Before Abraham was, I am." To somehow use this verse to substantiate Jesus claim to being God is simply insufficient. Saying "I am" does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said "I am the man," and the Greek reads exactly the same like Jesus' statement, i.e. "I am." The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as "I am" and the other as "I am the man", is one reason why Christians such as yourself continue to use this verse to try and substantiate the belief that Jesus is God. That is why you have to study the Greek and stop relying just on an English translation. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as "I am". [Acts 26:29]. And no one believed him to be making a claim to being God. This Greek phrase, i.e. "Ego eimi", has been translated in various ways throughout the NT in the mouths of different people and it is simply amazing that the one time that Jesus says it, it is somehow interpreted as him claiming to be God as though this Greek phrase is somehow equivalent or the same as what God said in the OT. The point is, "Ego eimi" was a common Greek phrase used as a way of designating one's self, and it did not mean a person was claiming to be God when they said: "Ego eimi".
You mention John 10:33 as though it somehow supports your belief that Jesus is God; but, once again, you do not read it within its proper context. Let's look at the whole incident and in this I will also be answering to your understanding of the phrase "I am my Father are one."
John 10:23 - And Jesus walked in the temple of Solomon's porch.
John 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.
John 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.
John 10:26 - But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
John 10:27 - My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
John 10:28 - And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, NEITHER SHALL ANY [MAN] PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY HAND.
John 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.
John 10:30 - I and [my] Father are one.
John 10:31 - Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 10:32 - Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
John 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.
John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
John 10:35 - If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:36 - Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the SON OF GOD?
John 10:37 - If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
John 10:38 - But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in him.
Once again, the problem with reading English translations without studying the Greek produces doctrines that don't quite line up with Scripture. According to the Greek of 10:30, this is not the numerical "one", but the "one" of purpose, which is made even clearer when you read the previous versus. No one will be able to pluck Jesus' sheep out of his hands nor will any man be able to pluck them out of God's hands. In this way they are ONE. This point is further elaborated and explained upon in chapter 17. Additionally, notice how Jesus states that God GAVE the sheep to Jesus. That means that God is the GIVER and Jesus is the RECEIVER of the sheep. That also CLEARLY shows that Jesus IS NOT GOD. So, after his explanation, the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus and accused him of making himself to be God, although he was a man. This was THEIR twisted understanding of his words and that is why he rebutted them with a quotation from the OT where God Himself refers to the Children of Israel as being "gods" that are children of the Most High, who received the word of God. Jesus let them know that "Scripture cannot be broken", meaning that the verses he cited cannot be contradicted because it is there in black and white. So if God Himself refers to the Children of Israel as being "gods" (even though they are human beings), then what is the big deal for Jesus to say, "I am the SON OF GOD"? Now, there are Christians who interpret Jesus' statement in 10:38 as saying that since he is in God and God is in him, then that makes him God. This is utterly ridiculous and once again goes to show that people are not taking the time and making the necessary efforts to study Scripture in the language in which it was written, i.e. Greek. If we were to accept such an interpretation as yours, then when we read John 17:11, 21, and 22, we might as well believe that the disciples were God as well.
John 17:11 - And now I am no more in the world, by these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are [one].
John 17:21, 22, 23, 24 - That they will 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 has sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Once again, the idea of "ONE" in the Greek language and culture as it pertains to its usages in these verses are ONE in purpose and not ONE in number.
As it pertains to faith and works, James makes it very clear that even the devils believe, so faith is not sufficient alone for the attainment of salvation, so your understading is contradicted by the plain words of Scripture. You say that you believe that if you have faith then you will work for God. Once again, James makes it very clear that there are those who have faith, but not works that are meet with faith and, therefore, they are just like the devils and I quoted James directly and this is exactly what he says. Additionally, I have already stated that Paul was stating the same principle, but only from a particular aspect, i.e. that works will not provide you with salvation. James did not disagree with Paul, but clarified it even further to say that you must have both. In principle, I agree with you that we are justified by faith and that faith SHOULD produce fruit that is a reflection of that faith; but I am wary to agree with you wholistically because it appears that you do not accept the points that James has made.
You stated, "As far as Galations and the Muslims I will believe Paul over any prophet of Islam." Where are you coming from with that statement? Was this an issue? Did I say that you should believe Muhammad over Paul? I did no such thing. I simply pointed out to you that I think you are stretching purpose and intent of Paul writing this letter to the Galatians by trying to say it also applies to the Muslims and this is simply untenable, in my opinion. First of all, I did not say that the Koran abrogated the Qur'an. I said, and please re-read my post, that the MUSLIMS believe that the Koran abrogated the Gospel and therefore they do not spend their time discussing with one another as to how to interpret and understand the Gospel of Jesus as do Christians, as was the case in Galatia between Paul and the Jewish-Christians. Paul did not believe in the necessity of following the Law, especially as it pertained to the Gentile-Christians, but the Jewish-Christians believed and understood the Gospel of Jesus as being otherwise and they had good and sufficient reason to come to such an interpretation, but I will hold out on that point for another time and perhaps under a different topic. I am not saying that they were correct, but I am simply showing that Galations is based on CHRISTIANS not having and agreeing upon the understanding and interpretation of the Gospel of Jesus and has nothing to do with Muslims who follow a completely different revelation altogether.
You mention Acts 4:12 as though I presented some type of opposition towards what it teaches.
And what is your point for emphasising that Jesus is THE way and not A way as though I said otherwise? I did not say that Jesus was A way. The point that I was making was that Jesus said that he was the WAY. When you are the WAY, then that means that you are not the destination. The DESTINATION is the FATHER. And ALL Christians agree that Jesus is NOT the Father. He is the WAY to the Father. What is difficult to understand about this? Again, this is reemphasized in 1 Timothy when it clearly states that Jesus is a man who is the mediator BETWEEN God and mankind. If he is God himself, then the verse doesn't make any sense. "God - Jesus - Mankind": if Jesus = God, then that would mean "Jesus - Mankind"...where's the mediator?
Next, you mention 2 Peter 1:1 - Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
How are you taking this to mean that the disciples, or at least Peter, preached that Jesus is God? If you read all of the epistles, you will see that it is the customary practice to introduce both God and Jesus at the opening of each one. Additionally, it is through the righteousness of both God and Christ that we have received our previous faith. It was through God in that it was He who devised the plan of salvation and was righteous in His ways of making it available to us. It was through Christ in that by his righteous life he carried out the plan so that we can have what now have.
You also mentioned John 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Once again, due to unfamiliarity with Greek verbiage and grammar, English-speaking Christians have misconstrued and misunderstood this verse to mean that Thomas believed that Jesus is God. In Greek, the word "theos" has a much wider significance and usage in their language and culture than our Enlish word "God/god". In Greek language, "THEOS" was a descriptive title that was applied to a range of authoritarian figures, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22) and even the Devil (2 Corinthians 4:4). The Greek word THEOS is not limited in an absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use the English word GOD. So, once again, have a correct understanding of Scripture and the ORIGINAL languages that they were written in, to include grammar, cultural usages, and syntax, it is clearly understood that Thomas was not declaring to believe that Jesus was God in the sense of being the Supreme Being, i.e. the Father.
Additionally, even by the stretch of the imagination, it is clearly understood THROUGHOUT the Bible that even those who represented God were referred to as such although it was understood that the representative themselves were not God Himself. For example, in the Old Testament it states that Jacob "wrestled with God" although we know that it was not God Himself, but an angel of God. That reminds me of another point that I almost forgot to mention previously, you have to remember that in the Jewish culture (and Jesus was a Jew) that according to Jewish usage and grammar, a person's agent is regarded as the person himself. Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed deputy or agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent absence of liability on the part of the agent.
So, throughout the OT, we find angels being called "Adonai" and "Elohim". So it is not God Himself that is on the scene, but his agent, which by the way, was what Jesus was as well; but for those who are not familiar with these truths of Jewish language and grammar will conlude from the wording (especially as it is translated into English) will not be able to derive this understanding because they are fixed on a translation instead of referring back to the original languages.
the disciples believed that Jesus was “God” in the sense that many Christians do, they would not have “all fled” just a few days before when he was arrested. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God…and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:19-21). The Bible is clear that these disciples thought Jesus was a “prophet.” Even though some of the apostles realized that Jesus was the Christ, they knew that according to the Old Testament prophecies, the Christ, the anointed of God, was to be a man. There