5:82 Nasara, who are they?
-
I bite my tongue on topics like this because... 1) it's not important in my sight and 2) because I don't like arguments. But for the sake of discussion I think people here are too rigid in their understanding of Quranic criteria. Even though the Quran vividly condemns Christian doctrine of the deity of Jesus, and the Jewish inflexibility of legal interpretation, I think it still extends tolerance, even salvific tolerance to Christians and Jews without implying endorsement of dogma.
There's a tradition that comes from Hadith about the Quran praising Christian Roman victory over Pagan Persia. While the interpretive tradition may be bogus it's interesting how Shia and even modern Sunnis try to wiggle out of this line of reasoning for the sake of denigrating their rivals.
And for the criticism that Quranists try to replace Hadith with historical guess-work, in this case it's worth noting that historically only Christians bore the title Nassara and only Jews were called Judah. Trying to claim their were somehow Islamic Christians, or Islamic Jews (both with accommodating scripture) during the time of the Prophet is completely unsupportable. Moreover, it renders the role of the Prophet with God's qualifying revelation redundant.
Also, although this is less significant, I hold to the less-traditional understanding of Nassara as referring to the Davidic bloodline rather than being a reference to the fictional NT Nazareth or speculative Arabic etymology. Again, historically this would have been made more sense.
Edit Here's Wikipedia with a pretty in depth list of problems with the word Nassara
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_%28sect%29
-
I don't understand what you mean by this. The Jews and the Nazarenes were allies of eachother, since the Nazarenes were fully Jewish, and they observed the Torah. Therefore, in matters of conflict, they were allies of the Jews, even if it meant fighting against the Muslims
Notice your language there, ?were allies of each other?. Quran doesn?t point to ?weres?. It always points to ?ares? Even when it tells you to go see previous civlistions, its to see how the previous civilisations ?are? (that is, fallen to ruin). Similarly, it?s not expecting us to play Indiana Jones to discover what sects of Christianity did thousands of years ago. God?s lessons are a living sign for all time.
-
If nasara refers to 'nazrenes' and 'yahood' refers to jews, explain this verse
551
O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Nazarenes as allies, for they are allies to one another; and whoever takes them as such from amongst you is one of them. God does not guide the wicked people.
Nasara doesn't refer to 'Nazarenes', unless nazerenes also upheld the view that al masih is the son of allah (930) ?
Jesus' supporters upheld the view that 'the messiah' is the son of God?Good point there, Jack. I would call bring to notice that 9/30 doesn?t use the word ?walad? (son through biological process) like in 112/2 (lam yalid wa lam yulad) and 19/88. 9/30 uses the same word for Uzair as it does for Al-masih (notice Isa isn?t mentioned either) which is ?abnaa?. Abnaa could be something close to, a construction of. I definitely won?t construe it as a biological son.
Nasaraa is from ?ansar?. Isa asked his followers ?man ansari ila Allah? (who are my helpers towards Allah) and they answered ?nahnu ansaarallah?. (we are god?s helpers) (3/52). These are the people, theologically flawed as they may be, will always remain true to God?s cause. THAT is why they are close to believe, as 5/82-84 shows us. -
Notice your language there, ?were allies of each other?. Quran doesn?t point to ?weres?. It always points to ?ares? Even when it tells you to go see previous civlistions, its to see how the previous civilisations ?are? (that is, fallen to ruin). Similarly, it?s not expecting us to play Indiana Jones to discover what sects of Christianity did thousands of years ago. God?s lessons are a living sign for all time.
So, we should check historical references outside the Qur'aan?
Sorry, but I'm not buying this. The Qur'aan is not a book instructing us to have blind faith in it, it's telling us that we should investigate the things written in it and compare them with history. If the Qur'aan is really from Allah, it should be able to survive the challenge; if it's not, it won't.
-
So, we should check historical references outside the Qur'aan?
No, that's precisely what I'm saying. Checking historical references IS NOT what God tells us to do.
Sorry, but I'm not buying this. The Qur'aan is not a book instructing us to have blind faith in it, it's telling us that we should investigate the things written in it and compare them with history. If the Qur'aan is really from Allah, it should be able to survive the challenge; if it's not, it won't.
Good, DON'T have blind faith in it and that's not what I was advocating either. However, can you please show me where the Quran tells us 'that should investigate things in it and compare them with history'. Awaiting your reply.
-
Good, DON'T have blind faith in it and that's not what I was advocating either. However, can you please show me where the Quran tells us 'that should investigate things in it and compare them with history'. Awaiting your reply.
The Qur'aan doesn't have to tell us how to do simple things, since they come with reason. If the Qur'aan says a certain event happened historically, while all the outside evidence shows that this is a lie, should we still believe in the Qur'aan? This is called blind faith. To keep from falling into the trap of blind faith, you have to look at the full spectrum of what the scripture is saying, and contrast it with science. That is what nearly all Islaamic scholars have done throughout the ages. Life is about progression, and believing in an event simply because 'the scripture says so' is a terrible regression.
-
The Qur'aan doesn't have to tell us how to do simple things, since they come with reason. If the Qur'aan says a certain event happened historically, while all the outside evidence shows that this is a lie, should we still believe in the Qur'aan? This is called blind faith. To keep from falling into the trap of blind faith, you have to look at the full spectrum of what the scripture is saying, and contrast it with science. That is what nearly all Islaamic scholars have done throughout the ages. Life is about progression, and believing in an event simply because 'the scripture says so' is a terrible regression.
Firstly, who told you to believe in it blindly? Can you point to where I said this please because I would love to correct myself for saying such a blasphemous thing.
When its ?too simple? for the Quran, we will have people claiming to fill that vacuum with opinion so lets not go down that road. Who is the author of this ?reason? you speak of. Apologies but I never authorised you or ?islamic scholars? to speak for me. And as for ?islamic scholars?, have you actually read classical tafasir works? On the whole, they are mythical nonsense designed to divert the reader away from the text.
THey hijacked the text and they carry it to where it can never touch us THE PAST. Quran says of al mutadeen athmeen (transgressors of debilitation)
When Our Signs are rehearsed to him, he says, "Tales of the ancients!" (83/13)Lets test your hypothesis, shall we? You say If the Qur'aan says a certain event happened historically, while all the outside evidence shows that this is a lie, should we still believe in the Qur'aan? This is called blind faith .
Here are my questions
1.When you say ?outside evidence?, can you describe what this ?outside evidence? constitutes?. Please provide proof that this ?outside evidence? conforms to the epistemology given by Quran (that is, what Quran deems as information or data).2.By your principle above, the Quran tells us that the Prophet did not teach anything except the Quran or he would be killed (69/40-47). However, ?outside evidence?, tells us that he not only taught other things, he also taught things in direct contravention of the Quran. Shall then then remove this portion of the Quran which ?contradicts? your ?outside evidence??
3.The Quran REPEATEDLY claims its sole authority to Islam (6/114, 10/15 etc) and repeatedly uses strong language to declaim other sources to this authority (6/112-113, for example which calls story-spinners as DEVILS). This being the case, how will know devilish tales from ?outside evidence?, as you call it?
Awaiting your response.
-
The Qur'aan doesn't have to tell us how to do simple things, since they come with reason. If the Qur'aan says a certain event happened historically, while all the outside evidence shows that this is a lie, should we still believe in the Qur'aan? This is called blind faith. To keep from falling into the trap of blind faith, you have to look at the full spectrum of what the scripture is saying, and contrast it with science. That is what nearly all Islaamic scholars have done throughout the ages. Life is about progression, and believing in an event simply because 'the scripture says so' is a terrible regression.
What science?
History is biased. Archaeological evidence doesn't cover EVERYTHING that happened. It can't unearth EVERYTHING. So we get biased data, and base our views on biased data. Conjecture, is no subsitute for the truth. It can't unearth things that may have been eroded/destroyed/burnt, etc.
The winners write history. It's gullible to think that they would write (literally and metaphorically) an accurate version of what actually happened.
-
Good point there, Jack. I would call bring to notice that 9/30 doesn?t use the word ?walad? (son through biological process) like in 112/2 (lam yalid wa lam yulad) and 19/88. 9/30 uses the same word for Uzair as it does for Al-masih (notice Isa isn?t mentioned either) which is ?abnaa?. Abnaa could be something close to, a construction of. I definitely won?t construe it as a biological son.
Nasaraa is from ?ansar?. Isa asked his followers ?man ansari ila Allah? (who are my helpers towards Allah) and they answered ?nahnu ansaarallah?. (we are god?s helpers) (3/52). These are the people, theologically flawed as they may be, will always remain true to God?s cause. THAT is why they are close to believe, as 5/82-84 shows us.Thanks to you,
I was feeling that "ansar" came from "nasara".
Could you tell me who was the "ansar" ?
Peace -
To answer this question we should first examine the context of the use of the term for their predecessors. What is a Jew? Taking this term at face value leads straight to big problems. There were historically, in the time of Yeshua/Isa three known, clearly identifiable groups of Jews, with a fourth he created. In the time of the Qur'anic revelation there were likely only two different groups of Jews. One being that of Pharisaic Judaism, the other being but a few surviving descendants of the Aaronic line, Tsadokim. Yahovah/Allah elected to use a generic term to test and limit the understanding of scholars. Since this time the Islamic world has had to come to terms with the existence of the Karaite movement in Judaism. Some Karaites are Tsadokim, a remnant of the Sadducees that bibles mention. Karaites likely reflect the theology of the early Tsadokim most closely. Of course there were differing perspective in Pharisaic Judaism, like the historic schools of Hillel versus Shammai. The Qur'an acknowledges differing sects of the three base monotheist religions. If the term Jew, being a noble title in context, may be used generically, then why not that for the Nasara?
Not being an Arabic speaker, nor having close links to Islam I was shocked to see how a couple of things are being translated into English from the Qur'an. No way can the term nasara be translated as Christian. From the information presented here it seems as though the term in question is being used as a pun. The word can mean supporter in a Qur'anic context or Netzerim by historic usage. The term Netzerim is biblical, and noble in context, but just as in Judaism, things changed. The first Jew was Yerimahyahu/Jeremiah (Mordechai Schreiber - The Man Who Knew God). The original Netzer was Yeshua ben Miriam. The term Netzer is different to Netzert/Nazareth. A netzer is literally an offshoot, a reference to Yeshua's unique genealogy. So the Netzerim are followers of the offshoot. The debased religion that is christianity is an offshoot of the Netzerim, and the vine planted outside of the Creator shall be uprooted and destroyed (Thomas 40). -
Peace free-minders,
We can read this
2113 And the Jews say "The Nassaras have no basis," and the Nassaras say "The Jews have no basis," while they are both reciting the Book! Similarly, those who do not know have said the same thing. God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection in what they dispute.
Nassaras are obviously not Christians, nor a Nazarenes (Jews that accept Jesus as Messiah) in the historical sense.
Jews, Christians, and Nazarenes share the Old Testament. They only disagree in its interpretation when it comes to the status of Jesus.Old Testament is a too big collection of books for the Quran to assert that Jews say about Christian that they stand on nothing and reciprocally.
So really, Jews and Nassaras thought that they didn't share anything in common, not even OT.
Likewise, having discussed with Christians they don't understand why Quran says they took Mary as god as in
5116 And God will say "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you tell the people to take you and your mother as gods other than God?" He said "Glory to you, I cannot say what I have no right of. If I had said it then You know it, You know what is in my self while I do not know what is in Your self. You are the Knower of the unseen."They never said that.
To understand properly who were the Nassaras, we have to properly understand who was Issa ben Mariam. It is hadiths that say he is Jesus.
But look, arab Christians never speak of Jesus as Issa (3issa). They speak of it as Yassou3a. One is not another word for it. God does not roll His tongue.And by the way, did you never notice that while Quran speaks of Romans (in Surah 30), it never speaks explicitely of Persians ?
-
As far as I have researched on the word nasar I get it to baptism, the kind of thinking John the Baptist was into.
I track the root's origin to Saad-Ra-(Ra) and Sad-Waw-Ra. It can refer to resolution or (make a) preparation. It seems to mean that you take action in order to reform yourself. It is similar to the "slogan" of John the Baptist "Repent, the Kingdom is at hand". John meant that you should wake up and do something about your own situation, cleanse yourself. The water baptism was probably symbolic to symbolize a fresh start.
And this means Nasara does not translate Christianity because the baptism that John came with was hence already in place when Jesus came.
In comparison Nasara and Yahood (Jew) were two sects that emerged about 2000 years ago.
The only comparable group that remains today to refer to Nasarene are a minority group who follow the teachings of John the Baptist in the Middle-East and whom are generally considered to be Gnostic.
The belief in Nasara ("baptism" is that you abstain hard from this world very similar to Buddhism because the world is "evil" and leads into temptation innately.
Modern Christianity does no have a lot to do with nasarenes except that Jesus followed that branch of tradition, e.g. when he came for baptism to John at the water.
The word Jew means that a person has recognized the truth and this recognition will lead to "Heaven". This stance is what Jesus verbally counters in many of his sayings when he talks about taking action for your salvation.
Be well
Amenuel -
But look, arab Christians never speak of Jesus as Issa (3issa). They speak of it as Yassou3a. One is not another word for it. God does not roll His tongue.
is pronounced Yesoua, it is just the wannabe interpreters from past times who did not master Arabic very well and could not put the sequence together into a spoken phrase.
The Arabic you think people master is not the real Arabic.
The only person with a similar name as Jesus (Yesoua) was Yiseiua who interestingly prophesied a lot about the future and of whom still have active prophecies that have not yet come true.
Be well
Amenuel -
Peace Man of Faith
is pronounced Yesoua, it is just the wannabe interpreters from past times who did not master Arabic very well and could not put the sequence together into a spoken phrase.
The problem is that the word begins with a 'ayn which is a consonant in arabic, not a vowel. It does not make sense for a native Arabic speaker to pronounce Ya, although western people often cannot pronounce it.
In hebrew, the closest word is Esau, same consonant 'ayn at the beginning, but different ending vowel. This can be explained by passage to Aramaic language.
Transformation of vowel is easy to explain linguistically but transformation of consonant is harder to explain properly.So really, Issa in Quran is actually Esau. Esau was never meant to be the stupid brother of Israel, and son of Isaac. He was the true Messiah, rejected by Children of Israel.
(By the way, rabbis call christianism Essav...).
The Arabic you think people master is not the real Arabic.
The only person with a similar name as Jesus (Yesoua) was Yiseiua who interestingly prophesied a lot about the future and of whom still have active prophecies that have not yet come true.
It is really Yesou3a or Yeshou3a, with a consonant 'ayn at the end, like Yeshou3a bin Nun.
I wonder if the inversion of consonants 'ayn and sin in hebrew in Esau name wasn't done on purpose, so as to be sure to erase all Esau story.
-
Yes, it begins with an ayn, but the second letter is Ye and in proper pronunciation it becomes from Eysua which when spoken sounds more like Yesua. It begins Eyy or Ay as different from Yesaiua . It has become linguistically made into Jesus in other tongues as that is how it may sound.
Those interpreters of Quran missed an important factor and that is must be clearly pronounced. Furthermore they did not pay attention to the origin of the language and is a special Ae (?) sound so and together would produce a sound like Aeysua.
is not Esau, it is not supported by the letters. The name would be spelled with Arabic letters (Esow), these are the originally used letters from the past to write his name also in Hebrew/Aramaic. If you make Esau of you gravely mispronounce the word, no better than how the creators of Islam misinterpreted it.
And I apologize for not offering an explanation on how is Yesua (Eysua) to begin with.
There are multiple prophets not mentioned in Quran, but also prophets that the creators of Islam left out when deciphering their fabrication of an interpretation such as (Yesaya) who indeed is mentioned in it.
Be well
Amenuel -
And while people today speak of eternal punishment in Hell, Yesaya spoke that "one faces the consequences of their deeds in entirety". In other words it means that there are no more consequences than what their misdeeds are worth. The requital is proportionate.
As to what Jesus (Eysua) and John in Baptism taught the realm (Heaven) is at hand and there is no need of waiting, i.e. resurrection. What is required is taking proper action and cleanse yourself from within. Cleanse yourself out from this world.
Be well
Amenuel