jesus christ

Society Religion & Philosophy
81

[quote]
Originally posted by filhaal:
**dear alpha1,
salaam

filhaal:
but we are here to stay!!
this just shows that people more and more are willing to use their GOD given 'Aql' and not merely digest what certain people (pir, fakir) say or what tradition tells them!!

concerning that hadith
irrestpective of the economic system, abandance of money is no solution!!**
[/quote]

The fact that you have not given a credible answer to my question shows that your manhaj is an innovation - you have shut up and made simply noises - picking bones in the arguments rather than answering them. The sunnah is clear for all to see as is the fact that what you have brought here is a new thing.

Yes concerning the hadith - tell me, what does it say? Does it say abundance of money or does it say an abundence of wealth? You do not even know what your are talking about and are just arguing for arguments sake. Soon you will say to me that in Paradise there will be inflation and because people will have more money they will not be rich.

That is your ploy, rather than answering a question, you mock and taunt the questioner and laugh at the sunnah that is presented to you. Thats all fine, but you still need to proove that you are right. Just as the ahmadis, the rafidis, the jahmis, the asharis and all the other groups need to proove that the first muslims believed as they did. Proove it and you will have silenced Ibrahim, and you will have converted me into your way of thinking.

82

salaam alpha1,

[quote]

But surely Nescio, if you put your faith so readily more into economic theories than you do to the *sayings of the
Nabi *,
[/quote]

sayings of the nabi??
what the hadith literature??
how do you know for sure that these are the true teachings of the Prophet (saw)??

let me give you an example:
(7) The farewell Pilgrimage of the Prophet Muhammed is a corner stone in the Muslim history. many muslims witnessed this event. There are however THREE versions of this sermon in the Hadiths books.

1- First version, " I left for you what if you hold up to, you will never be misguided, the book of God and my Family.

2-Second version, "I left for you what if you hold up to, you will never be misguided, the book of God and my Sunnah" .

3- Third version, "I left for you what if you hold up to, you will never be misguided, the BOOK OF GOD."

you will understand that such an occasion was witnessed by so many people still we ended up having three different version of the SAME EVENT!! you can decide for yourself which one is supported by shia and which one by sunnis!!

the sunni's say that their hadith doctors used strict criteria, the same is proclaimed by the shia hadithdoctors.
so who is right??

you will agree the Prophet (saw) could only have said one of these statements. Either the one who were present there interpreted the Nabi (saw) words in three different ways or the distortion happened latter on........... which two of these three are fabricated, the one you choose depends on under which banner (shia, sunni....)you have been raised, i mean in the sense of upbringing, not a physical ascension..............mind you!!

already this example shows the variability and unreliability in the hadith literature!!

[This message has been edited by filhaal (edited August 02, 2002).]

83

alpha1,

[quote]

laugh at the sunnah
[/quote]

first you said i laughed at the QURAN now you are claiming that i laugh at the sunna.
In both cases you are wrong!!

[quote]

Yes concerning the hadith - tell me, what does it say? Does it say abundance of money or does it say an abundence
of wealth?
[/quote]

the hadith is talking about abundance of money and not abundance of wealth!! hence illogical!!

and BTW to understand that there was no physical ascension, do you understand 'wafat' and 'rafa'??

84

...and I say to you again, just because someone invents a lie that does not mean that the lie is true does it? The Shia have invented a surplus chapter of the Qur'an, does that mean that the Qur'an naozubillah has been fabricated?

Also, in what order do you readthe Qur'an, how do you know for sure that one ayah truly belongs to a particular surah? In fact, how do you know that the Qur'an you have is the Qur'an?

In trying to argue for its own sake, you have cited Mahatma Ghandi - how do you know that the quotation you cited was accurate????

That is why we can see the plain stupidity of your methods. You are more willing to accept an economist or a politician than you are willing to accept the words of the Nabi.

You truely are on a path of deviation.

A man accuses you of being the illegitimate child of an affair - do you reject your father, or do you fight to know the truth?

Yes there are dubious narrations out there, but they can be discounted just as easily as you can tell whether or not you were born in wedlock.

85

[quote]
Originally posted by filhaal:
**alpha1,

the hadith is talking about abundance of money and not abundance of wealth!! hence illogical!!
**
[/quote]

Please feel free to quote me the hadith to proove this.

If it is money - and you are saying to me that the theory of monetary expansion will be applicable in x years time, then Im afraid to tell you that it is you who are illogical. Read my post earlier on Nescio's comments.

[This message has been edited by Alpha1 (edited August 02, 2002).]

86

salaam,
alpha1

great step, you have started to ask questions!! this is a first step towards enlightening yourself!!

[quote]

If it is money -
[/quote]

the hadith is quoted at the beginning of this thread!! check it for yourself, please!!
i am not saying that any monetary policy will be applicable x years from now!!
i am just saying that abundance of money is no solution irrespective of economic considerations!!

[quote]

Also, in what order do you readthe Qur'an, how do you know for sure that one ayah truly belongs to a particular
surah? In fact, how do you know that the Qur'an you have is the Qur'an?
[/quote]

do you know that the QURAN was already present from the very early days of islam?? and the hadith literature came latter!!
if hadith are so important to know the order of sura's, why did it take 200 years before bukhari & co. compilled thir books. DIDn't the people before that know what the order was, or was this order established after bukhari's book!!

[quote]

You are more willing to accept an economist or a
politician than you are willing to accept the words of the Nabi.

[/quote]

i am not overruling the prophet (saw) by other people!! by looking at the QURAN i want to understand the prophet's true teachings!!

to go back to the original subject of this thread
have you understood the meaning of wafat and rafa???

87

So proove to me that the Qur'an is the only thing preached by the nabi - show us what the original muslims actually believed in this. Again, surely there must be at least one person like you at least?

Then I will follow your manhaj and only then.

I will ignore your other digressions from now and await your evidence. Otherwise we will argue and nothing will come of it - at least you will then be able to hide and avoid the truth.

[This message has been edited by Alpha1 (edited August 02, 2002).]

88

[quote]
Originally posted by filhaal:
**salaam alpha1,

let me give you an example:
(7) The farewell Pilgrimage of the Prophet Muhammed is a corner stone in the Muslim history. many muslims witnessed this event. There are however THREE versions of this sermon in the Hadiths books.
(edited August 02, 2002).]**
[/quote]

If there were many witnesses to this event, then surely there must have been at least one witness present during the early years of Islam who heard the Messenger (saw) telling his followers to accept the Qur'an as guidance alone??????????

Not even one witness?????????

If you can find a piece of history on the farewell pilgramage, why cant you find one witness to support the methods that you have based your deen upon?????????

89

Woe to people, they show intolerance of the slightest offence to conceptions of their own greatness; they cannot accept the imputation of any defect or shortcoming to themselves. But they hesitate not to attribute defects and weaknesses to the Holy Prophet, yet claim to be the lovers of the Holy Prophet. What use is the love which is loud in profession but finds no echo in the heart? What use are professions un-supported by proper performance?

*If Muslims did really love the Holy Prophet, they would not tolerate the re-coming of an Israelite prophet for the rejuvenation of the followers of the Holy Prophet. *

Who would turn to a neighbour for needs which he can meet out of his own house? Who would turn to another for help when he can help himself? Mullahs, who think and teach that the Holy Prophet's followers would need the re-advent of the Messiah of Nazareth at the time of sorest need, have such excessive conceptions of their own dignity that in religious debates they would rather lose in argument than accept help from any other. If there is an offer of help they do not feel grateful; they are hurt and say, `Are they so lacking in learning that others dare offer them help?' But when it comes to the Holy Prophet, how casual are they! They are quick to believe and teach that when the Prophet's followers need to reform, the reformation will come not from amongst the followers, not from the Prophet's own spiritual influence, but from the good offices of a prophet from an earlier dispensation, owing nothing to the Holy Prophet or his teachings. Have men become so utterly dead or dull? Have they lost all capacity to think or feel? They value dignity and self-respect for themselves, but not for God and the Prophet? Anger and annoyance may be shown to personal enemies, but not to those who offend God and His Prophet?

90

Zaksnoor says:

If Muslims did really love the Holy Prophet, they would not tolerate the re-coming of an Israelite prophet for the rejuvenation of the followers of the Holy Prophet.

So you are making a differentiation between the two Phrophets!!!

One being an Israelite and the other an Ishmaelite!!!

Or what do you actually mean, by your quote.

91

Filhaal

My dear friend.

Your rejection of A'Hadeeth is evident, and does not solely rest on the issue concerning Jesus.

The ayat is blatantly clear in it's discourse, but you choose to differ. No problem. You are excercising the best gift of all. CHOICE.

Another one of your colleagues also took this stance, and actually ended up embarrassing himself into seclusion, when asked certain questions. He knows who he is!!

There is no doubt Qur'aan is the primary source, but for people like us, the A'Hadeeth are the secondary source. For the past fourteen centuries Qur'an and Sunnah have been the twin undisputed sources of Guidance for Muslims. In every generation, the Muslims devoted the best of their minds and talents to their study. They learned both the words and meanings of the Qur'an through the Prophet SAW and made an unprecedented effort in preserving them for the next generation.

The result: The development of the marvelous -- and unparalleled -- science of A'Hadith, one of the brightest aspects of Muslim history.

What does it mean to believe in a Prophet except to pledge to follow him? And so the teachings of the Prophet SAW, have always guided this Ummah. No body, in his right mind, could or did question this practice.

Then something happened. During the colonial period, when most of the Muslim world came under the subjugation of the West, some "scholars" arose in places like Egypt (Taha Hussein), India (Abdullah Chakralawi and Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz), and Turkey (Zia Gogelup), not to forget Rashad Khalifah, who began questioning the authenticity and relevance of A'Hadith. It was not that some genius had found flaws in the A'Hadith study that had eluded the entire ummah for thirteen centuries. It was simply that the pressures from the dominant Western civilization to conform were too strong for them to withstand. They buckled. Prophetic teachings and life example -- A'Hadith -- was the obstacle in this process and so it became the target.

Another factor helped them. Today most Muslims, including the vast majority of the western-educated Muslims, have meager knowledge of A'Hadith, having spent no time in studying even the fundamentals of this vast subject. How many know the difference between Sahih and Hasan, or between Maudau and Dhaif?

The certification process used in A'Hadith transmission? Names of any A'Hadith book produced in the first century of Hijrah, or the number of such books? A majority probably would not be able to name even the six principal A'Hadith books (Sihah Sitta) or know anything about the history of their compilation. Obviously such atmosphere provides a fertile ground for sowing suspicions and doubts.

They call themselves as ahle-Qur'an or Quranists. This is misleading.

For their distinction is not in affirming the Qur'an, but in rejecting the A'Hadith. The ideas of munkareen-e-hadith evolve into three mutually contradictory strains.

The first holds that the job of the Prophet SAW, was only to deliver the Qur'an. We are to follow only the Qur'an and nothing else, as were the Companions. Further, A'Hadith is not needed to understand the Qur'an, which is sufficient for providing guidance.

The second group holds that the Companions were required to follow the Prophet SAW, but we are not.

The third holds that, in theory, we also have to follow the A'Hadith but we did not receive A'Hadith through authentic sources and therefore we have to reject all A'Hadith collections!

Internal contradictions are a hallmark of false ideologies.

How can anyone hold the first position yet profess belief in Qur'an while it says: "And We have sent down unto You the Message so that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them." [An-Nahal, 16:44].

And this: "Allah did confer a great favor on the Believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs (Verses) of Allah, purifying them, instructing them in Scripture, and teaching them Wisdom. While before that they were in manifest error." [A'ale Imran 3:164].

How can anyone hold the second position (limiting the Prophethood to 23 years) yet profess belief in Qur'an, while it says: "We did not send you except as Mercy for all creatures." [Al-Anbia, 21:107]

And, "We have not sent you except as a Messenger to all mankind, giving them glad tidings and warning them against sin." [Saba, 34:28]

The third position seems to have avoided these obvious pitfalls, yet in reality it is no different. So A'Hadith undermines Qur'an's exclusivity, yet would have been followed blindly at the time of the Prophet SAW. A'Hadith cannot be followed because they are not reliable, yet can be followed for ritual prayers.

The munkareen-e-hadith think that their beliefs are built on solid rock. Well, it is as solid as wax: The religion based on this idea can be fitted into any mold. For some A'Hadith rejecters that was the motivation. For everyone, that is the inevitable result.

But the good news is that their arguments are the same way. On the surface they appear to be solid. But faced with the light of truth, they melt away like wax!!!!

Ponder my friend, ponder!!

92

[quote]
Originally posted by sholay:
**PA You seem to be once again misunderstanding the point!!!

There is no cross referencing with other religions. The mere fact is that Christians also believe in the return of Jesus and they do NOT follow any A'Hadeeth. This is where you get stuck and claim that the A'Hadeeth's are a derivative of the Bible.

Whatever next!**
[/quote]

sholay, my argument remains the same. Judeo-Christian teachings have heavily influenced Islamic writings compiled as hadith today. Why else would you find a need for having tales of a second coming of Christ when the Qur'an is silent on it.

[quote]
*Contrary to what most people believe, Jesus was not crucified and killed *nor did he die for any other reason. The Qur'an tells us that they did not kill him and they did not crucify him and that Allah raised him up to Him. **
[/quote]

Conjecture.

The verse only tells us that:

  1. He wasn't crucified
  2. Jews were unable to kill him.
  3. For sure they didn't kill him

Where do you find that Jesus never died of his own??

The matter of being 'raised' has been discussed by filhal. I suggest you read that and the meaning cross referenced from the Qur'an.

[quote]
**Now try and take real good note of the following:

"Nothing did I tell them beyond what You did bid me to say: ‘Worship God, who is my Sustainer as well as your Sustainer’ And I bore witness to what they did as long as I dwelt in their midst: but since You have caused me to die (tawaffa), You alone have been their keeper: for You are witness unto everything. (Surat al-Ma’idah: 117) **
[/quote]

sholay bro, you went on to discuss 'wafat' instead of letting us know what you wanted to arrive at by quoting this verse. Let me help you..

Jesus will say to God that he remained a witness as long as he remained with them Then when Allah made him die (tawaffaytani) he was unaware of what happened.

Now even if you take tawaffaytani as taking away the verse only tells us:

  1. Jesus didn't remain among his people.
  2. Wherever he was, he was unable to witness what they did.
  3. On the Day of Judgement Jesus would still be unaware of what happened after him?? Strange innit when in his supposed second coming as per your contention, he could read history books or ask around to find out what happened after he was 'taken away' ??

Now how does this prove that Jesus is alive in heaven or somewhere else or will return??

[quote]
*It is He Who takes you back to Himself (yatawaffakum) at night, while knowing the things you perpetrate by day, and then *wakes you up again, so that a specified term may be fulfilled. Then you will return to Him. Then He will inform you about what you did. (Surat al-An’am: 60)

The word used for "take back" in this verse is the same as the one used in Surah Al ‘Imran 55. In other words, in both verses, the word "tawaffa" is used and it is obvious that one does not die in one’s sleep. Therefore, what is meant here is, again, "taking the self back."**
[/quote]

The word used is derived from the same root wafah which means die. In 2:234, 2:240, 3:193, 4:15, 4:97, 6:61, 7:37, 7:126, 8:50, 10:46, 10:104, 12:101, 13:40, 16:28, 16:32, 16:70, 40:67, 40:77, 47:27 it's used as die, not "take back".

Variations of the word will mean the same even in the verses quoted by you about sleep.

Look at the use of the word yubasukum in 6:60. It's not been used as 'Return the self' but as 'Raise' or 'Resurrect', which only happens after death.

Therefore 6:60 cannot be used as an example because it appears to be an allegorical verse.

One does not actually die the way we know, nor is resurrected the way we understand however the sequence of death and resurrection has been used as an allegory to describe the state of a person in sleep. This does not change the literal meaning of 'yatawaffakum' which can continue to be translated as "makes you die."

[quote]
**The same is also true for the following verse:

Allah takes back people’s selves (tawaffa) when their death arrives and those who have not yet died, while they are asleep. He keeps hold of those whose death has been decreed and sends the others back for a specified term. There are certainly Signs in that for people who reflect. (Surat az-Zumar: 42)

As these verses suggest, Allah takes back the self of the one who is asleep, yet He sends the selves of those whose deaths have yet not been decreed. In this context, in one's sleep one does not die, in the sense in which we perceive death. Only for a temporary period, the self leaves the body and remains in another dimension. When we wake up, the self returns to the body.**
[/quote]

This gets us into a discussion about 'nafs' which is beyond the scope of this thread. I understand 'nafs' as something closer to our 'selves'. You are interpreting it as something like a 'soul' or 'spirit' and assuming that 'dying' of a 'nafs' has to be a dying of the soul, which doesn't happen after death, so therefore it must be 'take away' instead.

Once again it's an allegorical verse which uses 'dying' to describe a state, and the literal meaning of the word does not change into 'take away' only because the verse describes an unnatural act.

It's however ironic that to support another unnatural point of view (of a person living in limbo for thousands of years and then returning after they have died once) you decided to logically cross examine the state of dying. Let it be clear that it's an allegory and hence the literal meaning of the word remains 'dying' and not 'take away' to withstand a logical scrutiny, or I'd be forced to ask you how Jesus has sustained himself over these years and why he wouldn't have aged beyond senility by the time of his second coming.

[quote]
Imam al-Qurtubi makes clear that there are three meanings to the term ‘wafat’: the wafat of death, the wafat of sleep, and last, the wafat of being raised up to Allah, as in the case of Sayyiduna ‘Isa (as).
[/quote]

Well I certainly have to disagree with the respectable Imam then.

Approaching the Qur'an without any preconceived notions, how can the Imam honestly create a third kind of wafat??

Granted one can chose to interpret the verses on sleep as direct instead of allegorical (a flaw but we'll play along for now) and create a second 'wafat of sleep' relying on the verses of sleep, how come the Imam suddenly created a whole new category in it'self.

Even going by your understanding there should be just two kinds of death.

  1. Die
  2. Take away of nafs. (like in sleep)

Now either of the two happened to Jesus. Let's not invent a third one for the sake of satisfying Church dogma instilled into us through fabricated narrations.

My understanding is that Isa definitely experienced death of the natural kind. There is no change in Allah's system. Cross referencing from the Qur'an we can only find the meaning of the word, not derive new meanings for them. There is no reason for us to create a third kind of death for Isa only.

[quote]
*To conclude, we can say that Jesus (as) may have been in a special state, raised up to the presence of Allah. What he actually experienced was not death in the sense with which we are familiar, but merely a departure from this dimension. Surely, Allah knows best. *
[/quote]

Conjecture. All this 'special death' is not proven from the Qur'an about Isa.

[quote]
**Surah Al ‘Imran 55...

The statement in the verse, "And I will place the people who follow you above those who are disbelievers until the Day of Rising" is important. Here, there is reference to a group strictly adhering to Jesus (as)**
[/quote]

sholay, what is 'placing above' or fauq?? it's being 'better in Allah's view' or being of a 'higher level' in Allah's consideration.

Read for a clarification of rafa and fauqa

(6:165) For, He it is who has made you inherit the earth, and He raised some of you by degrees above others so that He might try you by means of what He has bestowed upon you.

PakistaniAbroad: It should be abundantly clear that when rafa is mentioned, people do not get 'physically raised to heaven' and when fauqa is mentioned they don't gain military, political or any other sort of worldly superiority over another.

All the verses you quoted had no prophecy of a return of Christ and any events that may transpire while he's revisiting earth.

Now read this:

[Shakir 5:109] On the day when Allah will assemble the messengers, then say: What answer were you given? They shall say: We have no knowledge, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.

PakistaniAbroad: What a verse!! Anyone who blasphemes against the prophets of possessing some knowledge of the unseen should read this and hang their head in shame for thinking these Prophets know anything that goes on after they pass away.

Now had Isa Ibn Maryam returned from his 'vacation' he certainly would know the 'answers' he was given as he'd have seen the state of Christianity and Islam and fought that 'fictitious' armageddon etc.. but here Allah tells us that the prophets shall say that they had NO knowledge.

[Shakir 5:110] When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and when of old age, and when I
1. taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel;
2. and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission,
3. and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission;
4. and when you brought forth the dead by My permission;
5. and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.

PakistaniAbroad: Pray tell me those waiting for Christ to return.. when Allah has already told us that Christ SPOKE to people when in old age. Ok.. I know you'd quickly say that it will be when he returns and then grows older.

So tell me this.. aren't the returned Christ's activities of ANY significance that Allah wouldn't remind him of them??

Allah is quick to remind Isa of the favours He granted him of prophethood, and the various miracles.. but naoozobillah forgets to remind him of the event of his 'second coming' and his 'bumpy landing on a minaret' or 'slaying a swine' or 'ending Jazya' or 'praying behind Mehdi' or 'leading the Muslims to Global victory??'

Seem like awfully important events to me, but yet Allah doesn't even mention a single one while reminding Jesus of the favours and the high rank awarded to him to actually let him put the full stop in the final paragraph of the story of creation as we know it.

Could it be that these events are just a figment of imagination of a lot of highly imaginative people and there is nothing divine about them or the concept of a second coming of Christ??

I very well think so becasue Allah doesn't forget.. He's all knowing all wise.

[This message has been edited by PakistaniAbroad (edited August 04, 2002).]

93

PA

If you had taken time out and understood the ayat, dealing with Jesus's punishment from the Jews, in the very beginning. Maybe you wouldn't be 'clutching at straws' now, giving feeble explanations stating that it does not say Jesus did not die, but only that the Jews did not kill him, or something of the sort, blah blah blah.

Read the ayat again:

004.157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the

Apostle of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to

appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain)

knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

004.158 Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

004.159 And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them.

Unfortunately for you, the ayat cannot be any clearer. If you fail or to understand or refuse to to understand the wording with Tajweed, then this is something you need to deal with.

Similar to your stance on Salaat, do you honestly believe that the MAJORITY of Muslims over the past 1400 years or so are in manifest error!!! and you are correct?

I don't think so.

People who hold the same view as you on Jesus and his 'death' most probably fall into about 3% at best, and only came to light during the period of recent colonialisation.

Once again PA, you are in seclusion and in a tight corner. The beauty of CHOICE!

Allah knows best.

Salaam and good luck.

94

[quote]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad:

[Shakir 5:109] On the day when Allah will assemble the messengers, then say: What answer were you given? They shall say: We have no knowledge, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.

PakistaniAbroad: What a verse!! Anyone who blasphemes against the prophets of possessing some knowledge of the unseen should read this and hang their head in shame for thinking these Prophets know anything that goes on after they pass away.
**
[/quote]

PA
Ever seen these verses ?

72:26 & 27
YUSUFALI: He (alone) knows the Unseen, nor does He make any one acquainted with His Mysteries;Except a messenger whom He has chosen: and then He makes a band of watchers march before him and behind him,

PICKTHAL: (He is) the Knower of the Unseen, and He revealeth unto none His secret;Save unto every messenger whom He hath chosen, and then He maketh a guard to go before him and a guard behind him

SHAKIR: The Knower of the unseen! so He does not reveal His secrets to any; Except to him whom He chooses as a messenger; for surely He makes a guard to march before him and after him,

If you never try anything new, you'll miss out on many of life's great disappointments.

95

[quote]
Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad:
[Shakir 5:110] When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and when of **old age, and when I ..

PakistaniAbroad: Pray tell me those waiting for Christ to return.. when Allah has already told us that Christ SPOKE to people when in old age. Ok.. I know you'd quickly say that it will be when he returns and then grows older.
**
[/quote]

Old age is interpreted to mean maturity. Spoke here refers to nubuwat. Hazrat Esa Al-Maseh(pbuh) declared his prophet hood when he was brought by his mother Maryam bint Imran(pbuh) and then(2nd time)when Allah swt commissioned him to preach to Bani Israel when he was 30 years old age.

005.110
YUSUFALI: Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! ..

PICKTHAL: When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how ...

SHAKIR: When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and I when of old age,...

If you never try anything new, you'll miss out on many of life's great disappointments.

96

salaam to all,

how are you all doing??
did you have a nice weekend??

Within this thread there are at this moment different discussions going on.
first i will say something in response to Sholay and Alpha1.
after this i would like to react to the original theme of this thread on Jesus Christ.

** Dear Sholay, Dear Alpha1, **

i think this is becoming a nice discussion.

[quote]

The ayat is blatantly clear in it's discourse, but you choose to differ. No problem. You are excercising the best gift of
all. CHOICE.
[/quote]

filhaal:
i will try to discuss the ayat on the "return" of Prophet Isa (saw) bit later!!

[quote]

Your rejection of A'Hadeeth is evident, and does not solely rest on the issue concerning Jesus.
[/quote]

first of all, we have to get clear what do i mean by rejecting the hadith!!
rejecting or doubting the hadith i my opinion means that i reject
1. the divine nature people attribute to it. CErtain people say that it contains extra-quranic revelation!!
this is the aspect of the hadith which i doubt and reject.
2. also what i reject about the hadith is the binding nature which people attribute to it, as if it contains the law of GOD!! In my opinion the LAW OF GOD IS CONTAINED IN THE WORD OF GOD: THE QURAN!

in other words, i consider the hadith a historical document. OF course it contains some interesting info, but for OUR SALVATION GOD HAS given us THE QURAN, because as i have said many a times the QURAN is COMPLETE, FULLY-DETAILED and PERFECT!!

[quote]

Ponder my friend, ponder!!
[/quote]

filhaal:
yes, yes that is what i am doing and as a matter of fact have been doing for quite some time!!
there are many questions going through my mind.
1.for quite some time have i been puzzled why the muslims today are in a mess!! if we look at the numbers the muslims are outnumbering all other major religions, still muslim countries today are backward in military, political, scientific, cultural, social, economic aspects!! WHY??
2. The muslims countries have every kind of natural (GOD given) resources (such as fertile land, oil, raw materials etc), still muslims are backward. WHY??
3. muslims proudly claim to be a part of the MUSLIM UMMAH.
but is there a UNITED MUSLIM UMMAH??

these kinds of questions lead me to do some research on the muslim history.
How was it possible that the muslims under the leadership of the Prophet (saw) and after him under the Khalifa's could make such a brilliant empire??
the same arabs who were a bunch of nomads before the Prophet (saw) came, and after he (saw) left a complete metamorphsis had taken place!!

Why did the muslims after about 200 years after the prophet lose their position in the world?
Why have we not produced the best scientists, philosphers, writers etc in the last 800-1000 years!!(of course there are incidental examples)?
the mean question is:
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUSLIMS IN THE FIRST 100 YEARS OF ISLAM AND THE LAST 1000 years??

[quote]

Then something happened. During the colonial period, when most of the Muslim world came under the subjugation of
the West, some "scholars" arose in places like Egypt (Taha Hussein), India (Abdullah Chakralawi and Ghulam Ahmed
Pervaiz), and Turkey (Zia Gogelup), not to forget Rashad Khalifah, who began questioning the authenticity and
relevance of A'Hadith.
[/quote]

filhaal:
is it really because islam came in contact with the WEST that people doubted the hadith??no not all,
islam did not come in contact with the WEST during the colonial period, the contact between the WEST and Islam has been since the very early advent of islam towards the all corners of the world!!
I am living in the WEST. my reasons to reject the hadith is NOT because i want to westernize, on the contrary, i want to recognize the true spirit of ISLAM !!
if this was the case then i would have discarded the QURAN also!!

[quote]

It was not that some genius had found flaws in the A'Hadith study that had eluded the entire
ummah for thirteen centuries. It was simply that the pressures from the dominant Western civilization to conform
were too strong for them to withstand. They buckled. Prophetic teachings and life example -- A'Hadith -- was the
obstacle in this process and so it became the target.
[/quote]

If the hadith rejectors did reject because of western pressure, why did they only reject the hadith and not the QURAN??
does the QURAN approve the western lifestyle??why only the hadith??

the second thing you wrote here was "flaws in the hadith eluding the ummah for THIRTEEN CENTURIES"!
i think we have to get the time frame right.
we have to understand when were the hadith written, who wrote, compilled them and its relation to the QURAN.

As you might be aware that the QURAN had been written down already during the life of the Prophet (on seperate sheets and other materials), and by the time Hz. Uthman became khalifa there were Official copies of the QURAN in book form spread to the main islamic centres:
Mekkah, Medina, but even Kufa and Damascus!!

If the Hadith were such an important aspect for ISLAM why did not the first four Khalifa's order the writting down of the hadith??
Even within the hadith collections there are narrations in which the prophet (saw) forbade writting down anything then the QURAN!!

My basic point is why did it take almost two hundred years befor a PROFESSIONAL ATTEMPT was made by Bukhari et co. to COMPILE THE HADITH IN WRTITTEN FORM??

the traditionalist make the following arguments:
1.the order of the prophet (saw) not to write anything down was given to prevent confusion between the QURAN and the prophet's sayings.

filhaal:
this argument seems logical, but as i stated earlier, the QURAN was already present by the time of Hz. Uthman' Khalifate, so why didnot he or Hz. Ali after him give an OFFICIAL order to COLLECT and COMPILE in PROFESSIONAL way the teachings of the PROPHET??
in other words, have these illustrious Companions and Khalifa's neglected their works?? (of course this is a retorical question!!)

  1. the second argument used by traditionalists is that the people did not need to write the prophetic teaching because there was a excellent ORAL TRADITION, and also some companions had personal diaries!!

filhaal:
again this argument seems logical, but if we look at history it does not make sense!
the islamic empire by the time of Hz. Uthman already extended from Egypte, Syria to Iran!!
again why was there no OFFICIAL order like it was for the QURAN to compile the prophetic teachings in book form for the ever expanding islamic empire??

also, did these khalifa's not understand that the prophetic teaching were also essential for LATTER GENERATION and the oral tradition might cause corruption of the prophetic teachings for latter generation??

again, why did it take 150-200 years before anyone undertoke this work to ** PROFESSIONALLY ** (i am nottalking about personal diaries etc.) COLLECT AND COMPILE the Prophet's sayings??

......filhaal, itna kafi hai..........

waslaam

[This message has been edited by filhaal (edited August 05, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by filhaal (edited August 05, 2002).]

97

[quote]
Originally posted by sholay:
**
Then something happened. During the colonial period, when most of the Muslim world came under the subjugation of the West, some "scholars" arose in places like Egypt (Taha Hussein), India (Abdullah Chakralawi and Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz), and Turkey (Zia Gogelup), not to forget Rashad Khalifah, who began questioning the authenticity and relevance of A'Hadith. It was not that some genius had found flaws in the A'Hadith study that had eluded the entire ummah for thirteen centuries. It was simply that the pressures from the dominant Western civilization to conform were too strong for them to withstand. They buckled. Prophetic teachings and life example -- A'Hadith -- was the obstacle in this process and so it became the target.

**
[/quote]

How come that in order to aaclimatize to the western culture only the Hadith seem to be an obstacle? why not the Hadith AND the Quran??????

The answer for this is clear: The Hadith are history writing about how Islam was praticed in a civilization which existed 1000+ years ago and was located in the Middle East. So, if you try to combine the western culture with hadithism you'll get problems, because it is very difficult to combine too cultures which are that different from each other. However, the Quran was sent down for everyone, in every sort of culture, in any time-frame: hence it isn't too difficult to incorporate western thought and the quran in one's life (don't get me wrong: there are also bad things in the western culture, but I'm talking here about things, like art, poetry, science, philosophy etc.)

Furthermore, I seem to get the impression that the hadith-advocates find it disrespectful if I call the Hadith history-writing: is that true?? If so, I would like to know why you think that??? I mean Hadith certainly aren't novels or comics are they??

98

salaam,

[quote]

004.157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the 

                     Apostle of Allah";- ** but they killed him not, nor crucified him **, but so it was made to 

                     appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) 

                     knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

[/quote]

filhaal:
"....but they killed him not, nor crucified him ...."
the second part (nor crucified him) is giving problem for people to interpert!!
this ayat is talking about two things:
first part a. general murder ("they killed him not") and b. 'crucify'.

Now, why did the jews crucify people, what was their goal?? the jews did not put people on the cross just for the sake of putting someone on the cross, but they did it IN ORDER TO KILL THEM on the cross!! so, if someone was put on the cross and this person lost consciousness or fainted and this person was taken down from the cross then the goal for crucifixon is NOT achieved!!
so the right way to interpret the second part of this ayat would be to say:
"nor did they kill him by crucifixion"

so, GOD is telling Prophet Mohammad (saw) about these event that the Jews claimed that they killed Prophet Isa (saw),but in reality, they did not kill him, but specifically they could not kill him by crucifixion!!

now the next part of the ayat ..."but so it was made to 

                     appear to them,"......

some people say that this part shows that some other person was replaced on the cross instead of prophet Isa (saw). But this interpretation is flawed, but the ayat says:
"...IT WAS MADE...".
so this is not refering to a person,but to a thing or event!!Prophet Isa (saw) was not replaced by another person!!
in other words, the whole occasion seemed to the Jews as if they KILLED THE MESSIAH BY CRUCIFIXION!!
So Prophet Isa was put on the cross but he was NOT KILLED ON THE CROSS, but it (the event) seemed to the jews as if he was killed, instead he could have lost consciousness or fainted!!
so, a natural death after this occasion is still an option!!

so, first of all the meaning of the words FROM THE QURAN:
wafat: take the soul to cause death.
rafa: exalt someone in honour, and NOT a physical ascension.

secondly, the above ayat does not say that prophet Isa (saw) was ascended towards the heaven and replaced during crucifixion by another person, he (prophet Isa (saw)) was actually put on the cross but he was not KILLED as was intended by the jews.

also PEOPLE, look at the post by PA, he is making some good points there!!

salaam

[This message has been edited by filhaal (edited August 05, 2002).]

99

Dear sholay,

You’ve disappointed me.

I was expecting a more learned cross reference and explanation for the flaws in your argument pointed out by me, but you chose to run and hide behind the majority.

Is that it?? that’s all you have to offer as an argument; that since more people follow your point of view it has to be correct??

I had thought you were the more rational of the lot; sadly there is no logical discussion with someone who decides that there belief IS the correct one and then immediately falls back on a support group to defend it instead of cogent arguments.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif

google

Thanks for posting the verse 72:26-27.

I’ll requote myself with stress on the bold.

“PakistaniAbroad: What a verse!! Anyone who blasphemes against the prophets of possessing some knowledge of the unseen should read this and hang their head in shame **for thinking these Prophets know anything that goes on after they pass away. **”

Arriving at my question to sholay that if Jesus is going to return, how come he would still be oblivious at the Day of Judgement about what his people did after he was .. ahem.. ‘taken away’???

The word used is kahlan.

Let’s accept your interpretation that the verse is limited to Jesus declaring his prophethood to the people at age 30 years; which begs the question.. Where is the mention of Jesus declaring his prophethood a third time to people in his second coming??

100

PA

My dear friend.

No matter what argument I put in front of you, you will never accept my view. This practice is known as CHOICE.

I beleive that your arguments based on the Qur'aan are flawed despite your vain attempt.

I can give you a very long lesson in the Arabic language and it's grammar, but you will still think otherwise.

Secondly, you are a A'Hadeeth rejector, so further arguments also using A'Hadeeth as well as the Qur'aan will also be overlooked by you.

Despite your disappointments, I tend not to repeat my self after a number of attempts, even though I try and explain issues in different formats. I believe that you've had several different formats from me, but are still hell-bent in your belief and interpretations.

I really don't have a problem with your belief, as each individual will be judged according to his own merit.

I sincerely believe that my view is correct, similarily to you believing that your view is correct.

Please don't lose any sleep over this issue and concentrate on other more important issues!

Salaam