posted
Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَالَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالنَّصَارَى وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحاً فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلاَ خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ
Posts: 2691 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please this is not to debate who is right and who is wrong ...but feel free to add any verse from the Quran,Bible, or Torah) that promote understanding that faith (any faith) combined with the righteous work will get rewarded from THE LORD.
quote:Originally posted by *tigerman*: Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَالَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالنَّصَارَى وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحاً فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلاَ خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ
But just three verses further in the text it says
Unbelievers are those that say: "God is the Messiah, the son of Mary." For the Messiah himself said: "Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord." He that worships other gods besides God, God will deny him Paradise, and the fire shall be his home. None shall help the evil-doers. -- Sura 5:72
So, are Christians believers or unbelievers? Are they allowed to remain as Christians (knowing they worship Christ) as long as they do what is right, or are they condemned outright for their faith? Do we have to worry or not to worry according to the Qur'an?
Sometimes I even wonder if single Suras were even completely authored by the same person.
Muslims try to save the Quran by claiming that any Trinitarian is not a true Christian and hence verse 72 does not apply to them. But the problem is only shifted. Either the contradiction is as above, or with the shift the contradiction is with reality. It is historical fact that Christianity has always considered Jesus to be the LORD, to be of the same nature of God.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by *tigerman*: Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَالَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالنَّصَارَى وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحاً فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلاَ خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ
According to Islamqa
Who are the Jews and Christians who will enter Paradise?
Question: For the time being, I do not have the resources to quote the exact Quranic verse, nor can I tell you what sura it has been taken from. However, I believe it is a common verse. I understand little Arabic; hence I found that in English. The verse can be interpretted as such: The godfearing Jews, muslims and christians will not have fear (on that day). I am not exactly sure of the bracketted phrase. Now my question to you: is it mistranliteration? We know that christians and jews in general cannot be hoped to have any sanction in the life hereafter. So, how do we understand the verse?
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
What you refer to in your question is mentioned in two similar aayaat in the Qur’aan. The first of them is the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): “Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” [al-Baqarah 2:62]
The second is the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): “Surely, those who believe, those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians – whosoever believed in Allaah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” [al-Maa’idah 5:69]
In order to understand these aayaat correctly, we need to refer to the scholars of Tafseer (Qur’aanic commentary). The great Imaam Ismaa’eel ibn Katheer, may Allaah have mercy on him, said in his tafseer of the aayah from Soorat al-Baqarah:
“Allaah, may He be exalted, points out that whoever of the previous nations did well and was obedient, will have a good reward, and this will be the case for everyone who follows the Unlettered Prophet [Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) until the Hour comes – he will have eternal happiness, and they will not fear what they are going to face, nor will they grieve for what they have left behind. As Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): ‘No doubt! Verily, the awliya’ of Allaah [i.e., those who believe in the Oneness of Allaah and fear Allaah much, and love Allaah much], no fear shall come upon them nor shall they grieve.’ [Yoonus 10:62]. And Allaah tells us what the angels say to the believers at the time of death (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Verily, those who say, “Our Lord is Allaah,” then they istaqaamu [stood straight, i.e., truly followed Islam], on them the angels will descend (at the time of their death) (saying): “Fear not, nor grieve! But receive the glad tidings of Paradise which you have been promised!”’ [Fussilat 41:30]
As far as the Jews are concerning, their faith meant believing in the Tawraat (original Torah) and following the way of Moosa (peace be upon him) until ‘Eesa came, after which whoever continued to follow the Torah and the way of Moosa, and did not leave this and follow ‘Eesa, was doomed. As far as the Christians are concerned, their faith meant believing in the Injeel (original Gospel) and following the laws of ‘Eesa; whoever did this was a believer whose faith was acceptable to Allaah, until Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came, after which whoever did not follow Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and leave the way of ‘Eesa and the Injeel that he had been following before, was doomed.
The aayah (interpretation of the meaning), “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:85] is a statement that Allaah will not accept any way or deed from anyone, after sending His Final Messenger, except those that are in accordance with the laws of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Prior to this, however, anyone who followed the Prophet of his own time was on the Straight Path of salvation. So the Jews were those who followed Moosa (peace be upon him) and referred to the Tawraat for judgement at that time. When Allaah sent ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), the Children of Israel were obliged to follow him and obey him, and so they and others who followed him became Christians.. When Allaah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as the Final Prophet and a Messenger to all the children of Adam, all of mankind was obliged to believe in him and obey him, and refrain from what he prohibited. Those who did so are the true believers. The ummah (nation) of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) are called the believers because of their deep eemaan (faith) and conviction, and because they believe in all the past Prophets and in the prophesied events that are yet to come.”
Commenting on the aayah in Soorat al-Baqarah, Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
“What is meant is that every group believed in Allaah and the Last Day, which is the appointed Day of Reckoning, and did righteous deeds. But after Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was sent to both mankind and the jinn, true belief can only be in accordance with the way of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Whoever follows his way will not fear the future or grieve for what they leave behind.
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most Christians would be shocked and dismayed to know that the Quran mis-represents their faith as it does. I certainly was when I first read the Quran.
When a Muslim is asked to consider Christianity, they can’t, because of the misrepresentation they have already accepted. They don’t really know what we believe. The Quran agrees with the Bible that there is only one God. Islam thinks we believe in three gods, the father, the mother and the son. They believe Jesus is literally the son of God, that he was conceived by sex. To be a Son of God means having sex with God and having a offspring. That is just as offensive to us as it is to them. The only church that claims to be Christians who hold to this are the Mormons; we do NOT believe they are Christians because of this and many other doctrines such as many gods. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God had sexual relations with a woman to produce a literal son. Christianity has never taught a son was produced through any physical act of God. What Muslims need to do to arrive at the true meaning is to as ask what does that term mean in the Bible, and not bring their own interpretation to the Biblical term. If you pursue what the Bible means by this term and you will arrive at the context found throughout the Scriptures.
Both the Old and New Testaments affirm that the Messiah, because he is a Divine Being, is to be worshiped. But the Quran that Christians are blasphemers 5:17, 72-73, have deluded away from the truth, are unbelievers and curse of Allah be on them 9:30.: “Allah's curse be on them, because they are deluded away from the Truth!” [URL=“Allah's curse be on them, because they are deluded away from the Truth!” 9:30]9:30[/URL]
The Quran says in one of its verses: The Jews say Ezra is the son of God...
You must admit that this statement is false.
Do the Jews today say Ezra is the son of God? No, they do not.
When did they change? Did the Jews ever say Ezra is the son of God? No, they did not.
The Quran is clearly wrong in saying that the Jews believed that Ezra is the Son of God. The Jewish people DO NOT believe and have NEVER believed that Ezra is the Son of God.
There are no records from any Jewish community that believed Ezra was the Son of God! Suppose, as in the case of the Qur'an's error that Mary was a member of the Trinity, there was a heretical sect of Jews who believed that Ezra was the Son of God. An all-knowing God would know that the vast majority of the Jews DO NOT believe this. Why is the majority opinion important in this case?
Notice that the Quran says "The Jews", and not "some Jews"! This wording indicates that this verse is talking about the mainstream majority of the Jewish community.
Since God is perfect and cannot error, He did not produce this verse. So, the question is : how did Muhammad make this error? The first possibility is that Muhammad knew nothing of Jewish theology and beliefs and either thought this in his own mind or heard it from someone else who was equally uniformed. The second, and more likely explanation, is that Muhammad knew the facts (the Jews did not regard Ezra as the Son of God) but distorted the truth to fit his needs of the moment.
This entire Sura was "revealed" at Medina at a time when the Muslims had conquered much of Arabia and were preparing to attack neighboring lands. The Qur'an commentator Syed Maududi tells us that : "In this portion the Muslims have been urged to fight in the Way of Allah with the mushrik Arabs, the Jews and the Christians, who were duly warned of the consequences of their mischievous and inimical behavior. (Sura 9:13-37)
Muhammad was condemning the Christians of "shirk" because they believed that Jesus is the Son of God. Apparently, Muhammad wanted to accuse the Jews of "shirk" so he threw the accusation, that the Jews believed that Ezra was the Son of God, in for good measure. In any event an all-knowing God would NEVER and could NEVER make such an error! Clearly, these are Muhammad's words which he uttered to serve his purposes.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Islam thinks we believe in three gods, the father, the mother and the son. They believe Jesus is literally the son of God, that he was conceived by sex. To be a Son of God means having sex with God and having a offspring. That is just as offensive to us as it is to them.
Is that story in Quran or Authentic Haidth?
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Quran says in one of its verses: The Jews say Ezra is the son of God...
You must admit that this statement is false.
Do the Jews today say Ezra is the son of God? No, they do not.
When did they change? Did the Jews ever say Ezra is the son of God? No, they did not.
The Quran is clearly wrong in saying that the Jews believed that Ezra is the Son of God. The Jewish people DO NOT believe and have NEVER believed that Ezra is the Son of God.
There are no records from any Jewish community that believed Ezra was the Son of God!
1400 years Ago, The Jews of Medina did. Which Historical records do you have to tell they didn't worship Ezra? if we cannot rely on the Qur'an as a document of what happened 1400 years ago (which we can of course), how can we accept the Bible as a document of events 2000-4000 years ago?!
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The major most difference between Islam and Christianity revolves around the divinity of Christ. Whereas the Koran states that Jesus was no more than a prophet of God, a human being, Christian doctrine insists that he was in some way divine, a son of God. The doctrine of God incarnate, whereby it is implied that that "word" that was divine became flesh states the same thing. The concept of the Trinity, popular among the majority of Christian churches embodies within itself the notion that three distinct co-equals are God.
The Koran states unequivocally, that God is just one (indivisible) and that no one can be held equal to God.
This forms the very heart and the basis of the system called Islam. The Christian articles of God-Incarnate, Son of God, Holy Trinity, clearly violate the oneness of God that Islam teaches.
In any logical/scientific study of religion, it is necessary to consider the facts and then go to the origin of the dis-equilibrium, as opposed to just dealing with the subjective claims of the followers of the various systems.
The standard for Islam is the Koran, that for Christianity is the Bible particularly the New Testament. Let us go to the sources and examine them.
As this document is being written by a Muslim, it is understood that the majority of people belonging to the "other camp," will be skeptical as to the intentions and purpose of this research. For this reason, I request that the style of the document be considered, which will according to my purpose show that value judgments have been avoided and that the arguments and quotations are stated clearly and truthfully. If however it is still believed that I have falsified some information or misquoted from the source book, it is requested that corrections be sent to the author for comments and consideration and possible change of stand on issues.
THE TRINITY:
The Athnasian Creed states the concept of the Holy Trinity in its standard form. Its wording runs as follows: "There is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal....The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."
GOD INCARNATE:
This concept in its summary states that God became a man, and that that man was Jesus. It is claimed that Jesus shared the nature of God in every way and that he was in every way a God, and a man. He was the only "begotten" son of God and hence a "son of God" in a unique fashion.
From the standpoint of mathematics and the English language, when we say that this is a person, that is another person and that that one is yet another, it is understood that there are three people involved and not just one. One plus one plus one will always be three and not one. Therefore, the concept of Trinity is itself faulty in its wording. If the three are separately and distinctly God then there are three distinct Gods, according to the language. If there is only One God, then each, Father, Son and Holy Ghost , on their own cannot be God.
From the standpoint of the human mind's comprehension, when the preacher says, "In the Name of the Father," a certain distinct mental image or idea emerges. When he continues, "And the Son, "the idea or image that one gets now is different. The same is the case when the words Holy Ghost are uttered by the preacher. No matter how hard you try, you can never super-impose these three distinct pictures as one. Three persons can never be one person. One person can have parts to his/her personality. Together those parts form the person. However, the concept of the Trinity states it completely different. It is claimed that Jesus is not a part of God but 100% God on his own, so also the Holy Ghost and the Father. But then it is conluced that they are not three but One God. The premise of the statement does not support its conclusion about there being One God. It makes the assertion about the trinity impossible to prove logically and reduces it to just words which can not have any meaning.
Jesus, according to the source of Christianity, in the records that we have of his sayings, never made a claim to be divine. In an answer to a question on what the first commandment was, he replied, "The First is, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One (Mark 12:29)."
The word translated "one" in the above verse is the Hebrew IKHAD. This word is the same as the Arabic AHAD. It means one whole, indivisible. It doesn't and cannot in anyway represent the Trinity but rather it disqualifies it. It is well documented and understood by scholars of the history of Christianity, universally, that the Trinity was a later invention, and was never preached by Jesus. Jesus preached about the one God and His kingdom.
When the believers in the divinity of Christ are asked on whether Jesus himself ever made a claim to be God, in the sources that they have, a handful of basically similar references across the board are offered to the questioner. However, all of these references when studied in their context and in the context of other explicit statements made by Jesus, fail to prove that Jesus was claiming to be God in any way. There are three main problems with the claims that are presented. They are either i)insufficient on their own to prove the divinity of any person, ii) or it is impossible, on the basis of the verse alone to prove the divinity of any person, or iii) They are ambiguous; in that they are open to alternative interpretation which is more valid than what is asserted.
THE CLAIMS:
Claim 1>. Jesus says, " I and the Father are One (John 10:30)."
It is claimed on the basis of this quotation (which is almost always presented without its context) that Jesus was claiming equality with God. The problem with this assertion is that the context has been taken out, either deliberately or out of ignorance. My experience with people presenting this claim is that often enough they are even unaware of where the quotation came from in the Gospel of John.
Beginning at verse 23 of the Gospel of John, chapter 10 we read (in the context of 10:30) about Jesus talking to the Jews. In verse 28, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29)My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30) I and the Father are One."
The above verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either's hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God's equal in everything. In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL...," completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus.
In the 17th chapter of John, verses 20-22, the same word ONE used in the above verses, the Greek, HEN is used, not only to describe Jesus and the Father but to describe Jesus, the Father and eleven of the twelve disciples of Jesus. So here if that implies equality, we have a unique case of 13 Gods.
"That the ALL may be made ONE. Like thou Father art in me, I in thee, that they may be ONE in us. I in them, they in me, that they may be perfect in ONE (John 17:20-22)."
Of the verse in question, "I and the Father are One(John 10:30)," we also need to take note of the verses following the 30th verse in the text. In those verses, the Jews accuse Jesus falsely of claiming to be God by these words. He however replies, proving their accusation wrong by their own text:" 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 a God '(John 10:33)."
Jesus replies to this accusation saying: "Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, "I said ye are gods. "If He can call them gods, unto whom the word of God came, say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, "Thou blasphemeth," because I said I am the son of God?' (John 10:34-36)."
In the language of the Bible, in Psalms 82 from which Jesus quotes above, the word "gods" is used by God to describe the prophets ("to whom the word of God came"). Jesus argues with them that if God can call the prophets gods, then his saying that he is the "son of God," is no claim to divinity, just as the other prophets were not God just because they were referred to as gods by God himself. The point that Jesus makes to the Jews is further proven by the use of the term "son of God," in both the Old and the New Testament. Metaphorically speaking, God is the cherisher and sustainer and hence the "Father" of everybody. This doesn't mean that the person so described as a "son of God" is physically begotten by God or of the same nature as God. Otherwise the term "son of God" would not make any sense. God by definition signifies one who received his existence from nobody, whereas son signifies someone who received his existence from somebody else. God and son are mutually exclusive terms, they cannot go together. The use of the term by Jesus and in other places in the Bible is metaphoric and not literal.
The many Sons of God in the Bible: 1. Luke 3:38 "...Adam which was the Son of God." 2. Genesis 6:2 &4 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men...and when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men..." 3. Exodus 4:22 "Israel is my son even my first born." 4. Romans 8:14 "For as many as are led by the spirit of God are called sons of God," 5. Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peace-makers for they shall be called sons of God."
By the above quotations from the Bible it should be clear that the term "son of God," signifies only a righteous person. It does not mean that the person so titled is divine, or we would have hundreds of Gods according to the Bible. Jesus is described as the "son of man," 83 times in the New Testament whereas he's described only 13 times as the son of God. What we also see is that Jesus used the terms, "Your Father," "Thy Father," describing God's relationship with people 13 times before the first time he ever said, "My Father," about God. All these show that he was in no way implying that God physically begot him.
It is claimed that in John 3:16 (the favorite verse of the evangelists) that Jesus is referred to as the only son of God. A careful reading of the verse compared to Hebrews 11:17 shows that Isaac is described as the only son of Abraham, whereas literally speaking Isaac was never the only son of Abraham as Ishmael was born before him. The use of the word is metaphoric, Jesus was special among the sons of God.
Peter in the Book of Acts testifies about Jesus: "O you men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a MAN approved of God among you...(Acts 2:22)." Jesus thus even to his disciples, as to early Christians, not poisoned by Pauline doctrine, was a man, not a God.
Claim 2> Another claim that is often times made is concerning Isaiah 7:14. In the Book of Isaiah in the Old Testament of the Bible it states: "Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign, behold a will conceive and bear a child and shall call his name Immanu-el."
It is claimed that the above was a prophecy about the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary. It is further claimed that since the word Immanuel means "God with us," the person being talked about, i.e Jesus was God.
The above quotation is from the King James Version of the Bible. The word translated as "virgin" is the wrong translation of the Hebrew word ALMAH. The word ALMAH in Hebrew means "young woman." The correct Hebrew word for virgin is BETHULAH. Since many young women begot children since those words were penned, it is not at all necessary that those words should apply to Jesus.
Another fact that is often ignored is that Jesus was never named Immanuel, nor did anyone ever address him as Immanuel when he lived. On the contrary, the Messiah was named Jesus (Luke 2:21) by the angel according to the gospels. Also, even if a person is named Immanuel, it doesn't mean that the person so named is God. Consider for example all the people named ELI in the Old Testament. ELI means God in the Hebrew. It is also narrated that Jesus while talking to God referred to Him as ELI (Mark 15:34 & Matthew 27:46). We cannot however on this basis of just name accept all the people named ELI in the Old Testament as Gods. Similarly, we cannot accept a person named Immanuel (God with us) as God. Jesus was never named Immanuel anyway, so both ways the argument and claim are false.
Claim 3> Another common claim is John 1:1 which reads: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." This is often presented from the Gospel of John to prove that Jesus was God. There are however several problems with this claim:
By the above verse it is assumed that Jesus was the "word" and since the word was God and became flesh, Jesus is God. The statement that John reproduced in his gospel however was uttered not by John but by a certain Philo of Alexandria, years before Jesus or John were born. It is therefore completely unlikely that Philo was even remotely referring to Jesus.
There is also another reason, considering the Greek of the above verse which disproves the assertion that Jesus is referred to as God in the verse. In the verse above, the first time the word God is used, the Greek is HOTHEOS, which means The God. The second time the word God is used,"....and the word was God," the word for God is TONTHEOS, which means A God. Europeans have evolved a system of capital and small letters non-existent in Greek. The God, HOTHEOS is translated as God with a capital G, whereas Tontheos, which means A or ANY God is translated with a small g, god. In this case however, we see the unlawful translators trying to prove Jesus being God by putting capital G for both whereas it doesn't belong in the case of the "word".
Check out Exodus 7:1 (God said to Moses)"See I have made you a god (in the Greek it would be Tontheos, doesn't mean God almighty but just a god.) to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother will be thy prophet."
2 Corinthians 4:4 Paul states that the Devil is the God (should be Hotheos in Greek but the translators translate it with a small g instead of capital) of the world.
The word "god" in the Bible is used for every other person including the prophets. It does not mean the person is God almighty. As examples consider the above quote from Exodus where Moses is referred to as God and also Psalms 82:6 where God allegedly refers to the prophets as gods: "I said, Ye are all gods and all of you are the children of the Most High."
4. Another common claim presented from the Bible to "prove" the divinity of Christ is presented surprisingly from the first chapter of the book of Genesis. God in there says :"Let US create." The word us is plural and has been used by God for himself in Genesis. Christians assert that this plural proves the Trinity, otherwise God would have used the singular.
This claim is ill founded. An ignorance of eastern languages including Hebrew and Arabic prompts such a claims. In most eastern languages, there are two types of plurals: plural of numbers and plural of respect. In the Koran, God speaks of Himself as "us" and "we" too. Yet in those verses no Muslim will ever doubt that God is referring to Himself alone. Even in old English, the King or the Queen would use such plurals for themselves alone. An objective inquiry from Jewish scholars, whose book the Old Testament is, will reveal the same. Also, modern translators recognize this and therefore translate the word ELOHIM in the Old Testament as God and not Gods even though it is a plural. I have never seen a Bible with the word ELOHIM translated as "Gods". It is a plural of respect, it doesn't signify the Trinity.
5. Another common claim that is presented is Philip's statement in John 14:9 where Philip asks to be shown God, and Jesus replies, " If you have seen me you have seen the Father."
By this statement the Christian claims that what Jesus is really saying is that "I am the Father." However, Jesus is not saying this. We need to read the context of the verse in question. Beginning from verse 4, we see that the disciples are misunderstanding Jesus from the beginning. Verse 4) Jesus is talking about a spiritual journey, going to God whereas Thomas takes it to be a physical journey. In verse 7, Jesus makes clear that to know him would be to know God since Jesus was conveying knowledge about God. Philip then asks Jesus to show them the Father to which the response in 14:9 comes. Since God cannot be seen according to the law of the Jews (which says that No one can see God and live), the only way that He can be known is through His signs and messengers. Jesus' response "If you have seen me you have seen the Father," is consistent with this. He is not claiming to be God.
However, to further prove that Jesus was not claiming to be God, consider what Jesus says in John 5:32 "You have not heard him (God) at any time NEITHER seen His shape or form." Now the Jews and the disciples were seeing Jesus. If Jesus was God then this statement by him is a gross error and a contradiction compared to John 14:9. No, Jesus was not claiming to be God in any way.
On the contrary Jesus says: i) "The Father is greater than I." John 14:28 ii)"y Father is greater than ALL." (John 10:29) iii)" I can of mine own self do NOTHING.....I seek not my own will but the will of Him who sent me (John 5:30)." iv) Jesus was sent according to the verse above by his own admission. In this verse he himself says that the one who is sent:"..... the one who is sent is not greater than the one who sent (John 13:16)."
God according to Judaism, Christianity and Islam has knowledge of everything. Jesus according to the Gospels had limited knowledge and therefore can never be God: "For of that hour (of Judgment) knows no man, no not the angels, NEITHER THE SON, but the Father in heaven (John 10:32)." A similar idea is reflected in Mark 11: 12-13 where Jesus appears ignorant of the season of fruiting of the fig tree.
6. In trying to prove the divinity of Jesus, Christians assert that Jesus gave life to the dead, something which only God can do and hence he was God. The major problem with this assertion is the continual denial on the part of Jesus that he was doing the miracles on his own. In John 5:30 above, for example, we read that Jesus disclaims having the power to do anything. In Matthew 28:18 it is further asserted that all power to do everything was GIVEN to Jesus. In this context read John 12:49. Hence Jesus is the receiver (recipient) and not the originator of that power. Therefore he was not God. A reading of John 11:40-43, which tells the story of the bringing back of Lazarus to life, clearly reveals that it was God who brought Lazarus back to life, using Jesus: "Then he took away the stone from the place the dead was laid; and Jesus lifted up his eyes and said: 'Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me, and I know that you hear me always....' (John 11:40-43)
God heard Jesus, and Jesus knew that God would work the miracle through him.
7. The Koran and the New Testament both suggest that Jesus was born without a father and only had a mother.
This is sometimes presented by Christians to prove that God was the father of Jesus in a physical sense and hence Jesus was God the son or the son of God.
The Koran clarifies this misconception by comparing the creation of Jesus to the creation of Adam (Koran 3:59) God, who created the first humans could create a man without a father. It is no big deal for God. The New Testament points to another man also, greater than Jesus in his credentials, yet this man is ignored by main line Christianity:
"For this Melchizedec, King of Salem, priest of the Most High God....without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days or end of life...." (Hebrews 7:1-3)
Can anyone match that?
Therefore it is insufficient on the basis of the above alone to prove that a person was God just because he had no father. According to the Christian assumptions about God, He has no shape or sex (see John 4:24), but Jesus had a human form and was of the male gender (Luke 2:21). Therefore, Jesus cannot be God. God has no beginning or end. Jesus had a beginning (Luke 2:6) and according to Christianity, a violent death on the cross. Therefore he cannot be God.
8. It is often claimed that since Thomas referred to Jesus as "My God, my Lord (John 20:28)," that Jesus was God. An ignorance of the context of the verse and of Christian doctrine prompts this claim.
The context of the verse talks about an unbelieving Thomas being surprised when Jesus offers him evidence. The exclamation, "My God," on his part was just astonishment. We use such exclamations everyday while talking to people. This doesn't mean that the person we are talking to is God. For example, I see John cutting his wrist with a Rambo knife. I say: "My God, John what are you doing?" Do I mean that John is God? Of course not. Similar is the use of the expression by Thomas. If you go into Jewish or Muslim societies even today, you'll hear people exclaim "My God, my Lord," at every situation which surprises them or causes them anguish or is astonishing.
In the verse above Thomas says: "My God, my Lord." He was not claiming that Jesus was his i) God and ii) Lord. If he did then the church and the disciples should have stamped him as a heretic right there and then.
Because claiming that Jesus is Lord and God is a violation of Christian doctrine, which asserts that there is One God, the Father and One Lord, Jesus. Jesus can't be God and Lord.
"...yet for us there is but one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 8: )
Believing the above (i.e Jesus is Lord and God) would leave a person with unorthodox doctrine branded by the church as Sabellianism, Patripassianism, Monarchianism.
9. It is claimed that Jesus used the words, "I am", and since these same words were used by God to describe Himself to the people in the Old Testament, Jesus was claiming to be God. John 8:58, is presented to back this claim. In the verse, Jesus says:" Before Abraham was I am."
Now, if Jesus existed before Abraham did, that might be a remarkable thing, but does that prove that he was God? How many people existed before Abraham? The Bible presents Jeremiah as being a prophet before he was conceived in his mother's womb (Jeremiah 1:5), yet no one says that his pre-human existence qualifies him for deity.
In Exodus chapter 3, God allegedly says: "I am what I am." Long before the time of Jesus, there existed a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. The key word, "I am," in Exodus which is used by Christians to prove the deity of Jesus is translated as "HO ON." However, when Jesus uses the word in John 8:58 the Greek of the "I am," is EGO EIMI. If Jesus wanted to tell the Jews that he was claiming to be God he should have at least remained consistent in the use of words or the whole point is lost. How many people in that age would have said "I am," in answer to questions in everyday life. Billions. Are they all gods? If you ask me :"Are you Mohammed," and I say "I am," am I claiming to be God just because God happened to use the words "I am?"
10. It is sometimes claimed that the use of the Hebrew word for father, ABBA, by Jesus for God, signifies a special relationship of a physical type. This however is unwarranted since every Christian is supposed to use the same word ABBA for God (see Romans 8:14, and Galatians 4:6)
Sometimes, certain other terms used by Jesus for himself are presented to prove that he was claiming divinity. Terms like "Messiah," and "Savior," are not only applied to Jesus in the gospels but have been applied to others in the Bible. Yet in their case, no one says that they prove divinity. If these claims were to be presented truthfully then we would have not one but many candidates for divinity.
As examples, Cyrus the Persian, who was a pagan is called Messiah in the Bible (Isaiah 45:1). It is however covered up by the translators who translate the word as anointed. The Hebrew and the Arabic word Messiah comes from the root Masaaha, which means to rub, message or anoint. Ancient kings and priests were "anointed" or appointed, into office. It does not mean that the person so named and termed is God at all. The title of "savior," or "saviors" is used for other people in the Bible (2 Kings 13:5 and Obadiah 21 and Nehemiah 9:27). Translators are well aware of this so they substitute the word savior for deliverer to throw off readers.
Jesus had a servant-master relationship with God. He never claimed to be equal to God, or to be of the same nature as God. Attributing divinity to Christ, a man goes completely against his teachings as found in the New Testament of the Bible.
"...and go and tell my brethren that I ascend to My Father and Your Father, to MY GOD and your God (John 20:17)."
Anyone who claims to have a God, cannot be God.
"Indeed they reject the truth, those that say "God is Christ, the son of Mary." For indeed, Christ said, worship God, who is MY GOD and your God (Koran 5:75)."
Acknowledgments: The writing above is mostly based on the work of
1. Ahmed Deedat. South Africa 2. Gary Miller. Canada.
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka ): 1400 years Ago, The Jews of Medina did. Which Historical records do you have to tell they didn't worship Ezra? if we cannot rely on the Qur'an as a document of what happened 1400 years ago (which we can of course), how can we accept the Bible as a document of events 2000-4000 years ago?!
Nowhere in the Torah, and the Bible, can be found this belief in the Jewish Scriptures nor in the commentaries like Talmud and Mishnah. And we also have verses from the Quran showing that the Torah and the Gospel were true and unchanged at the time of Muhammad.
10:94: If you were in doubt as to what We have revealed unto you then ask those who have been reading the Book from before you...
Note: The Muslims of those early days were only following the Quran which testifies to the authenticity of the Bible. It only accuses the Jews on a few occasions of distorting the meaning of words and of concealing truths contained in their Scripture. It was much later that Muslim writers claimed that the Quran teaches that the Bible itself has been corrupted.
As Muslims learned more about the true teachings of the Bible, they realized that both the Quran and the New Testament cannot be true. One had to be wrong. The differences were concrete they couldn't be passed off as mere "misunderstanding" or "misinterpreting". They also believed that Jesus spoke the Gospel. Their dilemma was how can both be true -- indeed both be the Word of God -- if they completely contradict each other on many fundamental doctrines. They were in a dilemma. Consequently, they choose to attack the integrity of today's Bible. It was easy for these so-called Muslim "scholars" to fool their fellow Muslims. Most Muslims are ignorant of the Bible, and they don't bother to analyze exactly what their Quran teaches. Instead of addressing exactly what the Quran teaches, they borrow from the work of others who have attacked the Bible's credibility and focus on bible criticisms.
* Many other stories in the Quran have serious historical and theological errors.
It is stated in the Quran that Alexander the Great, called Zul-Qarnayn ("the two-horned one"), is a Muslim (S. 18:83-98). This is in contrast with historical writings that say Alexander was a polytheist who believed he was the son of Amman, an Egyptian deity. The discovery of coins portraying Alexander with two horns refutes any Muslim attempt to deny these verses as references to him.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by *tigerman*: Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَالَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالنَّصَارَى وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحاً فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلاَ خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ
But just three verses further in the text it says
Unbelievers are those that say: "God is the Messiah, the son of Mary." For the Messiah himself said: "Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord." He that worships other gods besides God, God will deny him Paradise, and the fire shall be his home. None shall help the evil-doers. -- Sura 5:72
I do not know which Quran you are quoting from but the verse 5:75 clearly says
5: 75. Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!
and if you want the verse three verses down from the verse which is the subject of the post it clearly says the following 002.065 And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected
وَلَقَدْ عَلِمْتُمُ الَّذِينَ اعْتَدَواْ مِنكُمْ فِي السَّبْتِ فَقُلْنَا لَهُمْ كُونُواْ قِرَدَةً خَاسِئِينَ So if you are asking to learn you have it there. and if you are asking to punch holes in the Islamic faith GO AHEAD KNOCK YOURSELF OUT.
But if you want to show some knowledge about your own religion why to you post some verses that promote tolerance and it does not matter what your faith is as long as you believe and do the right thing you will get rewarded. Or is that too hard for you?
Posts: 176 | From: Proud to be Egyptian | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka ): The major most difference between Islam and Christianity revolves around the divinity of Christ. Whereas the Koran states that Jesus was no more than a prophet of God, a human being, .
I'm a Muslim and I believe that ALL human beings are sons of God not just the Christ. and we are all divine but when and how ? think about it.
Posts: 176 | From: Proud to be Egyptian | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not Just the Jews or the Christians but anyone and everyone even the atheists are entitled to their own beliefs according Islam. Here is the proof if you need one.
With the Name of Allah, the Merciful Benefactor, The Merciful Redeemer 109.001 Say : O ye that reject Faith! 109.002 I worship not that which ye worship, 109.003 Nor will ye worship that which I worship. 109.004 And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, 109.005 Nor will ye worship that which I worship. 109.006 To you be your Way, and to me mine. بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 1. قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ 2. لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ 3. وَلَا أَنتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ 4. وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَّا عَبَدتُّمْ 5. وَلَا أَنتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ 6. لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ
Posts: 176 | From: Proud to be Egyptian | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by *tigerman*: Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَالَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالنَّصَارَى وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحاً فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلاَ خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ
There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. [2:256]
Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The verse 'no compulsion in religion' is explained by an Islamic scholar here. In short, he says that this verse applies only to the people from whom Jizyah may be taken, i.e Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians (any others?). Everyone else are to be compelled to become Muslims.
Question: Some friends say that whoever does not enter Islam, that is his choice and he should not be forced to become Muslim, quoting as evidence the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad) then compel mankind, until they become believers” [Yoonus 10:99] “There is no compulsion in religion” [al-Baqarah 2:256] What is your opinion concerning that?.
Answer: Praise be to Allaah.
The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah.
Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, but was subsequently abrogated by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought when the Muslims are able to fight, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah. The kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islam if they are not people from whom the jizyah may be taken, because that will lead to their happiness and salvation in this world and in the Hereafter. Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allaah alone and enter into the religion of Islam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. This applies unless they are People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians, or Magians, because Islam says that these three groups may be given the choice: they may enter Islam or they may pay the jizyah and feel themselves subdued.
Some of the scholars are of the view that others may also be given the choice between Islam and jizyah, but the most correct view is that no others should be given this choice, rather these three groups are the only ones who may be given the choice, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fought the kuffaar in the Arabian Peninsula and he only accepted their becoming Muslim. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Tawbah 9:5]
He did not say, “if they pay the jizyah”. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them if they are able to do so. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”
[al-Tawbah 9:29]
And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above.
The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]”
[al-Anfaal 8:39]
“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Tawbah 9:5]
This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).
These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.
quote:Originally posted by Dalia*: There is no compulsion in religion; [2:256]
Perhaps you are unaware that in the lands conquered by Muslims they offered, as Quran and Sunnah tell them to offer, only three possibilities to non-Muslims: death, conversion, or the status of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity known as that of the "dhimmi."
That third option was open, of course, only if the conquered people happened to be ahl al-kitab, People of the Book, that is Christians or Jews, or came to be treated as such at some point, as happened to Zoroastrians and, after some 60-70 million of them had been killed, even the Hindus -so as to keep the Jizyah flowing.
Isn't that a form of "compulsion" in religion? If one is forced to pay a burdensome tax, forbidden from suing Muslims at law, forbidden from repairing or building new houses of worship, forbidden from marrying a Muslim woman without converting to Islam first, forbidden from all kinds of things that add up to a condition that in many cases was nearly unendurable, isn’t that compulsion in religion? Over time, those Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians who constituted, outside of Arabia proper, the original population of the Middle East and North Africa, steadily became more and more islamized.
That certainly constitutes "compulsion in religion." And in any case, the meaning traditionally given to that over-quoted line (a favorite of apologists who assume that Infidel audiences will simply take it at face value) does not mean what it appears to say. It means merely that you cannot compel deep inner belief, but you can certainly compel outward conformity with it (i.e. outwardly showing belief in Islam, whatever one inwardly might feel).
The history of Islamic conquest shows that there has been, from Spain to the East Indies in space, and from the seventh century until now in time, a great deal of "compulsion in religion" by Muslim rulers on the non-Muslims they conquered. And there is to this day, with intolerable pressures put on the most helpless, such as the Mandeans in Iraq, or to a lesser extent, the Copts in Egypt, the Christians in Lebanon and in the "West Bank," and the Chaldeans and Assyrians of Iraq.
Of course in Islam there is "compulsion in Islam." It's all over the place, and not only in the Middle East. When Christian schoolgirls are decapitated in Indonesia, and thousands of churches burned, or Buddhist villagers decapitated all over southern Thailand, or Hindus beaten to death in Bangladesh, or attacked in Pakistan, or driven out by the hundreds of thousands from Kashmir, when if they converted to Islam they would be left alone, surely over time that has its effect. Not everyone can heroically withstand such persecution and threat of murder and actual murder.
That may be defined as "compulsion in religion." web pagePosts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by *tigerman*: Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَالَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالنَّصَارَى وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحاً فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلاَ خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ
There is another verse that was written after this one, which says.
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.9:29
People of the Book are the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians. Which verse is the right one?
I have found also other verses such as this one:
"Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him; and in the next world he shall be among the losers." 3: 85
Can you reconcile these verses with the one you quoted? May be you can’t, but I can. The verse that you quoted was “revealed” when Muhammad was weak and aspired the alliance of the Jews and Christians. The ones that I quoted were written when he became powerful and the Jews and Christians did not pay attention to his claims. It is natural that in such state (1st verse) he would speak of tolerance and other good stuff. But Muhammad showed his true nature when he came to power and became the uncontested despot of the land. Then his message also changed. There you will see why Muslims are literally asked to lie as long as they are weak and as soon as they become powerful they are asked to "as the last resort" kill them.
Muslims in the West often claim that Islam stands for "no compulsion in religion". Is not the sunna of their own prophet contradicting them?
Here is the text of a message the Prophet Mohammad sent to the Julanda brothers through the intermediary of his Messengers, 'Amr bin al-'As al-Sahmi and Abu Zaid al-Ansari.
"Peace be upon the one who follows the right path! I call you to Islam. Accept my call, and you shall be unharmed. I am God's Messenger to mankind, and the word shall be carried out upon the miscreants. If, therefore, you recognize Islam, I shall bestow power upon you. But if you refuse to accept Islam, your power shall vanish, my horses shall camp on the expanse of your territory and my prophecy shall prevail in your kingdom." The Message of the Prophet to the Omani People
Is this a good thing in your opinion? Would it be okay if, say for example, Hindus give ultimatums to Muslims to convert and if they fail “as a last resort” take arms against them? Where is the justice in this? How can you justify this with the verse "There is no compulsion in religion" that you are so fond of quoting? Are you really so devout that you confuse this plain violation of human rights with justice?
Why people who want to keep their own religion and pray to their own god should face the military might of Muslims? Why they dare to tell me and the rest of the world to believe in a religion that we do not want to believe and then feel justified to take sword, guns and bombs against us and murder us if we decide not to believe in Islam? Tell me where is the humanity and justice in this act? Tell me isn’t this what Bin Laden did? Then isn't this a lie if we say he is not a true Muslim? Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Undercover! why do not you respect the poster's wish in keeping this post for verses that promote tolerance between religions and if you have a verse of your own that achieve this purpose then present it otherwise why are you flooding this post with garbage that depends on mixing papers together with no logical background behind them.
Posts: 176 | From: Proud to be Egyptian | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christians have been constantly criticizing Islam's stance regarding Jizya. They say that it is meant to oppress them. Besides the fact that this concept is also found in their Bible http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttals/Jizya I will show that Jizya is not meant to oppress the Christians or Jews.
For those who don't know, the Jizya is a tax imposed on the Christians and Jews living under the protection of the Islamic state. However, it is not imposed on all Christians and Jews. It is only imposed on the men who have attained puberty. So therefore it is not imposed on the women and children. The tax is also imposed fairly and is not meant to be overburdening.
The Jizya tax guarantees the Christians and Jews complete protection under the Islamic state. If an enemy country attacks the Islamic country, the Islamic country has a duty to defend the Christians and Jews and the Christians and Jews are not even obliged to fight!
Muslims also have to pay a yearly tax called Zakat. Zakat is even binding on property, and jewellery. Zakat should also be paid in the form of food as well. The Jizya is not binding on the property of the Christians and Jews.
Christians might use Surah 9:29 to show that Muslims must fight them until they pay the Jizya, so this shows discrimination. However, this also applies to the Muslims who do not pay their Zakat! Abu Bakr fought against the Muslims who didn't pay Zakat. So how does this discriminate against the Christians and Jews?
This is completely justified. If they go against the Islamic rule and government they deserve to be punished. What else was Abu Bakr supposed to do? In America if someone does not pay their taxes they can go to jail. Does that make America unjust? In China they kill tax evaders (A New York Times article describes the context and details of one businessman who was executed in China for tax evasion (11 Mar. 2001). at http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/research/ndp/ref/?action=view&doc=chn41156e). You have to understand that these are God's laws. It is probably difficult for a non-Muslim to understand this but from the Muslim perspective it is completely justifiable. For God sake people get executed or punished for crimes against man made laws, what do you expect to happen to people that break God's laws?
Zakah is one of the 5 pillars of Islam and it is compulsory on everyone. It is compulsory even on the non-Muslim, this is called Jizya. Jizya does not degrade the non-Muslim people, it actually brings equality. Since the Muslims are obliged to pay Zakah, then why cant non-Muslims pay Jizya? That brings equality between the two.
The Jizya is a tax levied on non-Muslims in lieu of military service which is compulsory for Muslims but not for non-Muslims. The amount of Jizya is much less than the Zakat, which is levied on Muslims only. The non-Muslims paying Jizya were exempt from compulsory military service in a Muslim State but were entitled to full protection. (http://www.netmuslims.com/info/economic.html)
Posts: 2728 | From: جمهورية مصر العربية | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Islamic understanding of peace means submission or surrender. Peace comes (according to Islam) only after one surrenders or submits one’s self. Submission or surrender to whom? Submission to only Allah and his messenger Muhammad. Therefore peace (Islamic) exists only inside the Dar-ul-Islam—the house of submission, after the conversion to Islam. That is the ultimate meaning of Islamic peace.
According to Quran and its teachings—the 'people of the book' should be given a chance/invitation to accept Islam, or be subjugated and killed if necessary. People of the Books (Christians and Jews) are to be fought against until they are subdued.
The Islamic concept of peace meaning making the whole world Muslim is undoubtedly a mandate for war. After that peace will prevail in the earth of Allah. That is the ultimate exegesis of the Arabic word “Islam”. Islam is committed to war, both by the example of Prophet Muhammad, (who fought against pagans and also against other tribes and religions until he subdued Mecca and Medina), and by the Quranic teachings supported by numerous Sahi hadiths. The Quran does teach that Muslims are never to initiate war, but Muslims are supposed to offer non-Muslims an opportunity/invitation to embrace Islam. If the non-Muslims refuse to accept Islam, this is viewed as aggression against Allah and Islam. Therefore Muslims are legitimately allowed to fight those aggressors until they are converted, or killed.
Now some sahi hadiths and quotes from Islamic thinkers:
quote:(1) Alsaylu Jarar (4:518-519) by Al-Shawkani. Shawkani: "Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jizya tax (protection money for the Jews and the Christians only) or being killed. The verse about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case".
(2) The Baydawi quoted in his book (The lights of Revelation, page-252):
“Fight Jews and Christians because they violated the origin of their faith and they do not believe in the religion of the truth (Islam), which abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the poll-tax (Ziziya tax) with submission and humiliation.”
(3) The well-known Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb, (Sayyid Qutb, Milestones, Revised Edition, chapter. 4, “Jihaad in the Cause of God") notes four stages in the development of jihad:
1. While the earliest Muslims remained in Mecca before fleeing to Medina, God did not allow them to fight; 2. Permission is given to Muslims to fight against their oppressors; 3. God commands Muslims to fight those fighting them; 4. God commands the Muslims to fight against all polytheists.
Sayyid Qutb views each stage to be replaced by the next stage in this order, the fourth stage to remain permanent.
(4) Introduction section of the English translation of Sahih Bukhari by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Medina Islamic University. In the same section Dr M. Muhsin Khan writes:
, "Then Allah revealed in Sura Bara’at (9) the order to discard (all) the obligations (covenants, etc.) and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the people of the scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians who do not embrace Islam and are under the protection of an Islamic government) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (9:29). So they (Muslims) were not permitted to abandon ‘the fighting’ against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the possibility of fighting against them."
(5) Opinion by an Islamist General: Hamid Gul - the Islamist and former Pakistani general was interviewed by the BBC News, Monday, 5 August, 2002. This Jihadi General of Pakistan said, “Armed resistance, of the oppressed people, of the persecuted people, of the enslaved people - that jihad has the UN sanction. Who is Pervez Musharraf to say we should stop that, when the Koran says it and when the United Nations Charter backs it up? Musharraf says: “Stop the jihad, do this, that and the other.” No, no, no. He cannot. There is a clear-cut Koranic injunction”.
(6) Sahi Buchari #1246, page-1180: Hazrat Ali (ra) narrated, “Certainly I heard Prophet Muhammad saying, in the days of last era, there will be some people evolved who will talk very nice and gentle, but they will never have faith upon Allah, and their faith will be expelled from their heats like the way an arrow is expelled from a bow. Therefore, you would kill them where ever you find them, because whoever will kill them they will be rewarded by Allah at the Judgement day with heaven.
posted
Jizya is "protection" tax. The Jizya was to be paid only by people of Abrahamic faith as compensation for not accepting Islam. Muslims didn't have to pay it and followers of non-Abrahamic religions were outright executed. It is not just a protection tax, It is much more than that. It is a tax to humiliate non-muslims so as to force them to convert to Islam as some prominant muslim scholars say. Hardly comparable to state or property tax. It wasn't so much a tax at all as a ransom. Not to mention that under the Ottomans, the "tax" was payable in human slaves- the strongest and most able Christian boys for the Sultan's killing machine.
You don't seem to understand the difference between tax and extortion. An analogy would be for Israel to invade Iran, become its rulers, and then demand from the Iranians they pay taxes for not being willing to become Jews, as a penalty to define themselves nevertheless as inferior to the invading Jews.
You pay taxes to the state to maintain armed forces to protect you from outside invaders and for a police force to protect you from criminals inside the state. You pay protection money to keep you and/or your family from being attacked/killed by a specific entity who will be using the money for it's own purposes as opposed to public benefit. The difference is that if you don't pay the hefty protection money to the Muslims THEY are the ones that will attack you.
Ibn Kathir’s Quranic commentary for verse 9:29, pages 405 -409, states: Allah said, until they pay the Jizyah, if they do not choose to embrace Islam, with willing submission, in defeat and subservience, and feel themselves subdued, disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Undercover: The verse 'no compulsion in religion' is explained by an Islamic scholar here. In short, he says that this verse applies only to the people from whom Jizyah may be taken, i.e Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians (any others?). Everyone else are to be compelled to become Muslims.
Undercover, you should know by now that I don't take anything from that site seriously. Those people are insane. I don't care how he interprets the verse, I chose to interpret it differently. Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
what is the right interpretation dalia for the verse undercover quoted?
Posts: 653 | From: Great Manchester | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The difference is that if you don't pay the hefty protection money to the Muslims THEY are the ones that will attack you."
How the maffia does it. We should get rid of those disrespectfull ways. In a community everyone should be protected by the others and should pay what they can afford to contribute to the community in favor of social wellfare and peace. This is a setup for tensions between groups.
Posts: 1419 | From: Amsterdam, Netherlands | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic