:: Nasara - A sect among Christians? ::
-
Peace mmKhan,
The word Nasara probably in some cases refers to specific Jewish Christians, and in other places to Christians in general. The word "nasara" most likely refers to Christians as Nazarenes. Before the term "Christian" was applied to the disciples of Jesus, they were called by various names, such as "followers of the Way". They were called Nazarenes pretty early on, refering to their belief that Jesus was the Messiah/"Branch" of Zechariah 38 (Hebrew "netzer", "branch"
"But, to detain you no further, I beg you in your kindness to hear us briefly. For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 244-5)." (Note this is an orator's accusation of Paul before Roman authorities.)
The only way, in my opinion, to tell the difference in who is being addressed in the Quran is the context. Some of the things that the Nasara are told not to believe would have only been believed by non-Jewish Christians.
Peace,
JoelSalaam Joel,
My understanding as per now about Yahood and Nasara is based on 930
930
930 And the Yahudis said Uzair is the son of Allah, and the Nasaras said The Maseeh is the son of Allah. Such is their utterances with their mouths, they imitate the sayings of those who rejected before them. Allah will fight them. They are deluded from the truth!This aayat is clear about Yahood and Nasara, whosoever said "Uzair is son of Allah" is a Yahoodi and whosoever said "The Maseeh is son of Allah" is Nasara. Either they are from Jews or Christians or Jewish-Christians or any other they will fell into the categories mentioned above.
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan -
Peace mmkhan,
I think that would apply to some Jews and Nazarenes, but not all of them. Look at the ayat following 930
931 - "They have taken their Priests and Monks to be patrons besides God, and the Messiah, son of Mary, while they were only commanded to serve One god, there is no god except He, be He glorified against what they set up. (Free Minds)"
I think the strong words against them only applies to those who took on patrons and authorities in the place of God, whether that is a rabbi, or priest or monk, or even the Messiah. Historically, there were groups of Nazarenes who would not have placed that kind of authority in a priest or monk, or even given Jesus the same authority as God. I believe the other ayats that speak kindly of Jews and Nazarenes speak to those who had not added partners and patrons to their religion. That's why I think the context of the passages in the Quran are more important than simply lumping them all together.
Peace,
JoelSalaam Joel,
My understanding as per now about Yahood and Nasara is based on 930
930
930 And the Yahudis said Uzair is the son of Allah, and the Nasaras said The Maseeh is the son of Allah. Such is their utterances with their mouths, they imitate the sayings of those who rejected before them. Allah will fight them. They are deluded from the truth!This aayat is clear about Yahood and Nasara, whosoever said "Uzair is son of Allah" is a Yahoodi and whosoever said "The Maseeh is son of Allah" is Nasara. Either they are from Jews or Christians or Jewish-Christians or any other they will fell into the categories mentioned above.
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan -
Peace mmkhan,
I think that would apply to some Jews and Nazarenes, but not all of them. Look at the ayat following 930
931 - "They have taken their Priests and Monks to be patrons besides God, and the Messiah, son of Mary, while they were only commanded to serve One god, there is no god except He, be He glorified against what they set up. (Free Minds)"
I think the strong words against them only applies to those who took on patrons and authorities in the place of God, whether that is a rabbi, or priest or monk, or even the Messiah. Historically, there were groups of Nazarenes who would not have placed that kind of authority in a priest or monk, or even given Jesus the same authority as God. I believe the other ayats that speak kindly of Jews and Nazarenes speak to those who had not added partners and patrons to their religion. That's why I think the context of the passages in the Quran are more important than simply lumping them all together.
Peace,
JoelSalaam Joel,
My understanding is different than yours bro. Why you take only a single following aayat in reference to 930? Why not 932, 933, etc...
I believe that when a topic has been split into different aayaats, then each aayat is stand alone. It may have a relation with the following aayaats or aayaats before it, but it is not always necessary, otherwise what could be the possible reason to dividing this into two or more aayaats when already there are many big aayaats available in AlQuraan.
Secondly, as per my understanding if there is a link with the following aayat then the following aayat will begin with either waw or fa in order to relate the previous aayat.
If there is not waw or fa in the beginning of the following aayat, then it has no relation with the previous aayat or there might be only a single possibility of relation mentioning of later period/long after from what was already mentioned in previous aayat.
This is how I understand at this time.
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan -
Salaam Joel,
My understanding is different than yours bro. Why you take only a single following aayat in reference to 930? Why not 932, 933, etc...
Because I think it has the most relevance to what you are asking. The following verses ARE related to the subject matter, but not to your question about the identity of the Nasara. )
I believe that when a topic has been split into different aayaats, then each aayat is stand alone. It may have a relation with the following aayaats or aayaats before it, but it is not always necessary, otherwise what could be the possible reason to dividing this into two or more aayaats when already there are many big aayaats available in AlQuraan.
I think this is the case sometimes. But without looking at the context in this case, it is pretty much impossible to determine who "they" are. Contextually, since there have been Christians who elevated Jesus to the place of God, and elevated monks and priests to a place of high authority in place of God, then we can determine that this applies to those kinds of Christians. In some Eastern Orthodox churches, it is still customary to greet a priest with, "Father, bless ."
God only knows why some ayats are longer than others. I don't know classical Arabic (something I plan to change soon, God willing). Maybe it is related to the cadence of the text. Maybe it is related to any amount of time that passed between the revealing of the ayats. But I think some ayats make no sense or are impossible to understand when looked at in a contextual vacuum. In this case, we have some reliable history to confirm a contextual reading. While I do not believe we should interpret Qur'an BECAUSE of history, but I see nothing wrong if history or science or logic support a clear reading of the text.
Peace bro,
Joel -
Because I think it has the most relevance to what you are asking. The following verses ARE related to the subject matter, but not to your question about the identity of the Nasara.
I think this is the case sometimes. But without looking at the context in this case, it is pretty much impossible to determine who "they" are. Contextually, since there have been Christians who elevated Jesus to the place of God, and elevated monks and priests to a place of high authority in place of God, then we can determine that this applies to those kinds of Christians. In some Eastern Orthodox churches, it is still customary to greet a priest with, "Father, bless ."
God only knows why some ayats are longer than others. I don't know classical Arabic (something I plan to change soon, God willing). Maybe it is related to the cadence of the text. Maybe it is related to any amount of time that passed between the revealing of the ayats. But I think some ayats make no sense or are impossible to understand when looked at in a contextual vacuum. In this case, we have some reliable history to confirm a contextual reading. While I do not believe we should interpret Qur'an BECAUSE of history, but I see nothing wrong if history or science or logic support a clear reading of the text.
Peace bro,
JoelSalaam Joel,
For the highlighted part above, I think we have already discussed it in another thread and I don't agree with you on that completely. I believe that AlQuraan is self sufficient to explain its aayaats, we need more study to understand it instead of taking other sources to support which may lead us to misunderstand aayaats.
Brother, you can take a look at the following aayat how it talks about two totally different topics.
1785
1785 And they ask you concerning the Rooh. Say "The Rooh is from the authority of my Lord;" and the knowledge you were given was but very little.In a single small aayat two different things has been discussed. Red part talks about the Rooh and blue part has nothing to do about the Rooh but it is about knowledge that was given. So, what context you will look for here bro? And there are many more such aayaats.
Hope you understand my point.
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan -
Peace mmKhan,
I see your point. But I think the benefit of the grammatical construction is to show where the quote ends in terms of what the prophet was to say to others, and what God was saying to him. I don't see how this contradicts with looking at the context, it just means I need to learn classical Arabic.
Besides, knowing what I know about the speculative debates among Christians about the ruh, I think it is possible to arrive at the same conclusion. God was telling the prophet to stay out of their conversations - with good reason.
Again, there's no question that knowledge of the Quran itself is first in understanding it. At the moment, there's too much going on in my personal life, but as soon as I can I'm going to start learning Arabic. But where you and I disagree is on the use of secondary sources. Going back to the topic where we didn't exactly agree if the Quran says that it confirms "what is in the hands" then there is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with verifying if this is true. In fact, it is how I came to be a muslim. ) If there is history that confirms a clear reading of the text, I see nothing wrong with this. But I will admit that without knowledge of the Quran itself there is a danger of reading too much into the text. I keep this in mind as often as I can.
Peace brother,
JoelSalaam Joel,
For the highlighted part above, I think we have already discussed it in another thread and I don't agree with you on that completely. I believe that AlQuraan is self sufficient to explain its aayaats, we need more study to understand it instead of taking other sources to support which may lead us to misunderstand aayaats.
Brother, you can take a look at the following aayat how it talks about two totally different topics.
1785
1785 And they ask you concerning the Rooh. Say "The Rooh is from the authority of my Lord;" and the knowledge you were given was but very little.In a single small aayat two different things has been discussed. Red part talks about the Rooh and blue part has nothing to do about the Rooh but it is about knowledge that was given. So, what context you will look for here bro? ) And there are many more such aayaats.
Hope you understand my point.
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan -
Peace mmKhan,
I see your point. But I think the benefit of the grammatical construction is to show where the quote ends in terms of what the prophet was to say to others, and what God was saying to him. I don't see how this contradicts with looking at the context, it just means I need to learn classical Arabic.
Besides, knowing what I know about the speculative debates among Christians about the ruh, I think it is possible to arrive at the same conclusion. God was telling the prophet to stay out of their conversations - with good reason.
Again, there's no question that knowledge of the Quran itself is first in understanding it. At the moment, there's too much going on in my personal life, but as soon as I can I'm going to start learning Arabic. But where you and I disagree is on the use of secondary sources. Going back to the topic where we didn't exactly agree if the Quran says that it confirms "what is in the hands" then there is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with verifying if this is true. In fact, it is how I came to be a muslim. ) If there is history that confirms a clear reading of the text, I see nothing wrong with this. But I will admit that without knowledge of the Quran itself there is a danger of reading too much into the text. I keep this in mind as often as I can.
Peace brother,
JoelSalaam Joel,
First, I don't find any aayat mentioning that Arabic/classical Arabic is needed for guidance. I understand, you may ask that AlQuraan says it in sent in Arabic Language, I agree but not needed for guidance, just you have look at the patterns and designs as it is a guidance for whole mankind.
As for the blue part above, I cannot say anything but -X
For the red part, you must understand that there will not be any danger in the Book of guidance until and unless you add your personal opinions without any aayat.
Anyways, we are going far away from the main topic. I will agree to disagree on this part but still handshake
I suggest you to seek Allah's help and guidance instead of looking for other sources, just a suggestion brother, either you can take it or throw it away, its up to you. )
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhanPS. I am not against learning Arabic Language, it may surely help you but not to understand AlQuraan completely, as so called Arabic grammar has conflict with the Text of AlQuraan in many places.
-
Anyways, we are going far away from the main topic. I will agree to disagree on this part but still handshake
I suggest you to seek Allah's help and guidance instead of looking for other sources, just a suggestion brother, either you can take it or throw it away, its up to you. )
Peace mmKhan,
Yes, we did get off topic. While we may not agree on this, I have come to respect your no-nonsense approach to the Quran. handshake
Your suggestion is a wise one. )
Peace,
Joel -
Peace mmKhan,
Yes, we did get off topic. While we may not agree on this, I have come to respect your no-nonsense approach to the Quran. handshake
Your suggestion is a wise one. )
Peace,
JoelSalaam Joel,
Thanks! handshake
May Allah bless you brother and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan