Can we pray for our christian friends?
-
The things about Muslims doing shirk or doing something on par with Christians (which IMO is not even close)
You're 'right' about that one.. is not even close.. what Muslim (read sunnis/shiites/or other Mohammedans group) did it's actually much worse!!..
is irrelevant as the subject of this talk is Polytheistic Christians. Lets focus on Christians. If we are to talk about shirk in Islam, lets do that in another topic dedicated to that and not derail this one.
It's relevant, if we're to judge about 'not to pray' for those who have a 'wrong belief/view about God'... we have to apply the same standard to any other groups, regardless the name...
And islam is not a religion or sect or group or social identity.. islam is an 'attitude/character'.. it fell within the same domain as 'honest', 'kind', 'forgiving', 'humble' etc..
Salam / Peace
-
Peace Jafar,
You're 'right' about that one.. is not even close.. what Muslim (read sunnis/shiites/or other Mohammedans group) did it's actually much worse!!..
I guess we have to agree to disagree, and only God knows best.
It's relevant, if we're to judge about 'not to pray' for those who have a 'wrong belief/view about God'... we have to apply the same standard to any other groups, regardless the name...
And islam is not a religion or sect or group or social identity.. islam is an 'attitude/character'.. it fell within the same domain as 'honest', 'kind', 'forgiving', 'humble' etc..
Salam / Peace
I gave scriptural reference to Christians of what God says. You haven't addressed the answer that God gives, which is why I said lets stay on topic. God goes at length talking about how displeased he is with people that say Jesus is Allah. He specifically targets those people. Are you saying that God is wrong when he talks about these polytheists?
Peace
-
In Islam, kufr (disbelief) is almost as great as a sin as shirk. Therefore monoteist christians will also go to hell. Believing in Allah is only possible by believing in ALL his prophets, books ... etc. Plz read the ayats below
Yes indeed the Paradise is reserved only for you. Everyone else would go the Hell. rotfl
Stop playing God. And stop misusing the Quran in your anti-christian mission.
-
Peace Bigmo, all,
I gave the Qur'anic verse which tells you exactly what happens to people that worship disbelieve and worship Jesus as God. How can we dance around the verse and start thinking of ways out of what God says? What God says is clear, what further explanation is needed?
The things about Muslims doing shirk or doing something on par with Christians (which IMO is not even close) is irrelevant as the subject of this talk is Polytheistic Christians. Lets focus on Christians. If we are to talk about shirk in Islam, lets do that in another topic dedicated to that and not derail this one.
Peace
The verse only tells us to stop saying Jesus is divine. It does not say whether sunnah is better than that.
I dont make any difference between Sectarian muslims and Christians who believe Jesus is divine. The both share the same though, they just use different words.
There are hundreds of hadith making Muhammad God, although the word God is not used because Quran clearly says that is forbidden. So what muslims do is that they exploit the 'loopholes'. They say Muhammad is NOOR-ALLAH, That he was the first thing ever created, That he is the only one who can change Gods mind, that God gave him unlimited power and authority, that Muhammad is the best person of all creations, That Muhammad would make intercession, that it was Muhammad who decided many aspects of Islam (like prayer) etc. etc. BUT HE IS STILL NOT GOD
So attribute All the qualities of God to Muhammad but just remember to not CALL him God
Indeed, I would even say that the Christian who believe in trinity are somehow more righteous than the muslims, since the Christians are honest and use the right words, while the muslims are hypocrites who say one thing but believe in a compleately different thing. And Munafeqeen are worse than the Kaffirs in the quran.
The truth is, that Every person who believes in monotheism and do righteous acts would go to paradise, whether he is christian, Jew or Muslim or atheist or a secular person without any religion.
Believers, Jews, Sabaeans and Christians -
whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right -
shall have nothing to fear or regret.
-- Sura 569 -
Stop playing God.
Playing God is only the case if one dares to decide the afterlife of individuals. However the salvation criteria (rules of the game) is clear in Quran since otherwise God wouldn't hold us responsible for anything.
The truth is, that Every person who believes in monotheism and do righteous acts would go to paradise, whether he is christian, Jew or Muslim or atheist or a secular person without any religion.
Believers, Jews, Sabaeans and Christians -
whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right -
shall have nothing to fear or regret.
-- Sura 569What is this? a kind of customizing the salvation criteria Where does in 569 write anything about monoteism ? Using your way I may easily claim righteous Mekkan idolworshippers will get salvation since they also believed a single God which they called Allah/Al-Ilah (probably based on Abraham)
6511 a messenger who recites to you GOD's revelations, clearly, to lead those who believe and work righteousness out of the darkness into the light. Anyone who believes in GOD and leads a righteous life, He will admit him into gardens with flowing streams; they abide therein forever. GOD will generously reward him.
To understand 569 read other verses. There are thousands more verses in Quran beside 569, 262, 4913. Anyway, you may encourage your athe/mono/polytheist christian friends to refuse Quran/Mohammad by showing them 569. I wish you all a happy afterlife without fear and regret.
Final words Light-hearted bull licks the knife of the butcher. (turkish saying)
-
Playing God is only the case if one dares to decide the afterlife of individuals. However the salvation criteria (rules of the game) is clear in Quran since otherwise God wouldn't hold us responsible for anything.
What is this? a ii of customizing the salvation criteria D Where does in 569 write anything about monoteism ? Using your way I may easily claim righteous Mekkan idolworshippers will get salvation since they also believed a single God which they called Allah/Al-Ilah
6511 a messenger who recites to you GOD's revelations, clearly, to lead those who believe and work righteousness out of the darkness into the light. Anyone who believes in GOD and leads a righteous life, He will admit him into gardens with flowing streams; they abide therein forever. GOD will generously reward him.
To understand 569 read other verses. There are thousands more verses in Quran beside 569, 262, 4913. Anyway, you may encourage your ate/mono/polyteist christian friends to refuse Quran/Mohammad by showing them 262. I wish you all a happy afterlife without fear and regret.
Final words Light-hearted bull licks the knife of the butcher. (turkish saying) D
Your post does not make any sense. Brother, quran 569 tells us that Christians and jews can enter paradise.
Peace
-
Peace Maha,
Again, have you read what I posted at all? I am not fluent in Arabic and do not try to appear so. I am just a learner of the Qur'an. With that aside, don't take offense to this, but practice what you preach. You translate the word Muslim into English. Although it is a rough translation, it is understandable. Now tell me where God says the word Christian. Also if there is this word "Christian", is he talking about all Christians, or those that conform to Islam and Tawhid? Trinitarian Christians are neither, according to God Himself.
What hamzamutlu says is true, it seems like you are "customizing the salvation criteria" to fit your own opinions/needs. If we go by your criteria, as hamazamutlu states, even the Meccans idolators would not have to pay for their disbelief. The idolators in Mecca believes in Allah, but practiced similar beliefs as the trinitarian polythiest Christians of today. And it is quite possible that their idolatoray wasn't even as bad as what the Christians do.
Believe me, if it were up to my human emotions, I would have the same opinion as you. However, God knows better than us, and while it doesn't hurt to question, we must accept his decision if we believe that the Qur'an is his authorship. Please do not twist God's Words, God speaks of horrible consequences for those that did for the past scriptures.
Peace
-
Peace Maha,
Again, have you read what I posted at all? I am not fluent in Arabic and do not try to appear so. I am just a learner of the Qur'an. With that aside, don't take offense to this, but practice what you preach. You translate the word Muslim into English. Although it is a rough translation, it is understandable. Now tell me where God says the word Christian. Also if there is this word "Christian", is he talking about all Christians, or those that conform to Islam and Tawhid? Trinitarian Christians are neither, according to God Himself.
What hamzamutlu says is true, it seems like you are "customizing the salvation criteria" to fit your own opinions/needs. If we go by your criteria, as hamazamutlu states, even the Meccans idolators would not have to pay for their disbelief. The idolators in Mecca believes in Allah, but practiced similar beliefs as the trinitarian polythiest Christians of today. And it is quite possible that their idolatoray wasn't even as bad as what the Christians do.
Believe me, if it were up to my human emotions, I would have the same opinion as you. However, God knows better than us, and while it doesn't hurt to question, we must accept his decision if we believe that the Qur'an is his authorship. Please do not twist God's Words, God speaks of horrible consequences for those that did for the past scriptures.
Peace
Dear sister. I feel that you judge too much and that you consider yourself to know what God thinks.
But look just as what you wrote
Also if there is this word "Christian", is he talking about all Christians, or those that conform to Islam and Tawhid?This applies for all people, not only for christians but also for muslims. Every person, whether he is Christian or Muslim should follow monothoism in order to get salvation. Thats a basic fact. I am not trying to defend any MUSHRIK, whether he calls himself for Christian or Muslim. It just seems to me, that you try to judge ALL christians and in the same time you try to DEFEND the polytheism in Islam.
What I am trying to say is, that there are monotheist Christians AND polytheist muslims (and vice versa) and that of course monotheist Christians would enter paradise.
The word 'christian' a follower of Christ is a later invention (by name). Quran use the word Nasaara (Helpers, or can refer to Nazerath a palestinian city) of the followers of Christ. But in any case, note that vers 569 says'' WHOEVER believes in God and the last day.... '' so in other words, God does not really care about your membership of any sect or religion, what is important is that you believe in god, the last day and do righteous deeds.
I dont really know anything about the people from Mekka, before the islamic crusades destroyed their country and culture. Very few accounts do we possess about them beside for the thousands of hadith sources written only for the sake of insulting the mekkans. But my best guess is, that there exsisted both muslims and kaafirs among the mekkans like in any other place.
-
'' WHOEVER believes in God and the last day.... ''
I think the problem lies in understanding the phrase above which is used for believers, not for faithful people who follow their ancestors' religion. And believers are those who believe in the whole book ( i.e. muslims ). 5822 may be a proper verse to better understand the above phrase
5822 You will not find people who believe in GOD and the Last Day befriending those who oppose GOD and His messenger, even if they were their parents, or their children, or their siblings, or their tribe. For these, He decrees faith into their hearts, and supports them with inspiration from Him, and admits them into gardens with flowing streams wherein they abide forever. GOD is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. These are the party of GOD. Most assuredly, GOD's party are the winners.
It can be easily seen that people who believe in GOD and the Last Day are very faithful to Mohammad. Following verses and hundreds more support this point
565 If the people of the scripture only would have believed and been righteous, We would have cancelled for them their sins and admitted them to gardens of paradise.
566 If only they would uphold the Torah and the Gospel, and what is sent down to them herein from their Lord, they would be showered with blessings from above them and from beneath their feet. Some of them are righteous, but many of them are evildoers.
Consequently, the salvation criteria are be a believer (believe in the book) and be righteous (follow the book). The criteria are the same for everybody, i.e. do not change for non-muslims.
To better understand 262 plz read it together with 3199
262 Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who believes in GOD, and believes in the Last Day, and leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.
3199 Surely, some followers of the previous scriptures do believe in GOD, and in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed to them. They reverence GOD, and they never trade away GOD's revelations for a cheap price. These will receive their recompense from their Lord. GOD is the most efficient in reckoning.
262 nnellezne amenu vellezne hadu ven nesara ves sabine min amene billahi vel yevmil ahri ve amile salihan fe leh?m ecruh?m nde rabbihim ve la havf?n aleyhim ve la h?m yahzenun
3199 Ve inne min ehlil kitabi le mey y?'min? billahi ve ma ?nzile ileyk?m ve ma ?nzile ileyhim haiyne lillahi la yeterune bi ayatillahi semenen kalla ?laike leh?m ecruh?m nde rabbihim innellahe serul hsab
peace
-
Peace Maha
Dear sister. I feel that you judge too much and that you consider yourself to know what God thinks.
I am not a sister
But look just as what you wrote
This applies for all people, not only for christians but also for muslims. Every person, whether he is Christian or Muslim should follow monothoism in order to get salvation. Thats a basic fact. I am not trying to defend any MUSHRIK, whether he calls himself for Christian or Muslim. It just seems to me, that you try to judge ALL christians and in the same time you try to DEFEND the polytheism in Islam.What I am trying to say is, that there are monotheist Christians AND polytheist muslims (and vice versa) and that of course monotheist Christians would enter paradise.
The word 'christian' a follower of Christ is a later invention (by name). Quran use the word Nasaara (Helpers, or can refer to Nazerath a palestinian city) of the followers of Christ. But in any case, note that vers 569 says'' WHOEVER believes in God and the last day.... '' so in other words, God does not really care about your membership of any sect or religion, what is important is that you believe in god, the last day and do righteous deeds.
I dont really know anything about the people from Mekka, before the islamic crusades destroyed their country and culture. Very few accounts do we possess about them beside for the thousands of hadith sources written only for the sake of insulting the mekkans. But my best guess is, that there exsisted both muslims and kaafirs among the mekkans like in any other place.
Again, either you did not understand what I wrote or you didn't bother to read what I said. I said "Trinitarian polytheist Christians". Not all Christians, just those that commit shirk. When I say that there are Christians that will be punished severely, I am talking about polytheist ones and only them. I made it clear when I said, "Those that worship Christ as God." Whethere there are polytheist Muslims is besides the point. I gave you Quranic evidence, I am not saying what I am saying based on my own accord. Now, whether you want to accept it or not is up to you, that is what God says. Not me. Not a man-made aHadith. But God's Hadith.
Peace
-
I think the problem lies in understanding the phrase above which is used for believers, not for faithful people who follow their ancestors' religion. And believers are those who believe in the whole book ( i.e. muslims ). 5822 may be a proper verse to better understand the above phrase
5822 You will not find people who believe in GOD and the Last Day befriending those who oppose GOD and His messenger, even if they were their parents, or their children, or their siblings, or their tribe. For these, He decrees faith into their hearts, and supports them with inspiration from Him, and admits them into gardens with flowing streams wherein they abide forever. GOD is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. These are the party of GOD. Most assuredly, GOD's party are the winners.
It can be easily seen that people who believe in GOD and the Last Day are very faithful to Mohammad. Following verses and hundreds more support this point
565 If the people of the scripture only would have believed and been righteous, We would have cancelled for them their sins and admitted them to gardens of paradise.
566 If only they would uphold the Torah and the Gospel, and what is sent down to them herein from their Lord, they would be showered with blessings from above them and from beneath their feet. Some of them are righteous, but many of them are evildoers.
Consequently, the salvation criteria are be a believer (believe in the book) and be righteous (follow the book). The criteria are the same for everybody, i.e. do not change for non-muslims.
No that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You are forgetting the thousands to people who never had any access to any book. How can God judge people by a book to which they had absolutely no access too or have no knowledge of???
Monotheism is the fundamental teaching in ALL OF THE SCRIPTURES. It is this teaching that is base for all salvation not any scripture.
7172 When your Lord took from the children of Adam from their backs, their progeny; and He made them witness over themselves "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we bear witness." Thus you cannot say on the day of Resurrection that you were unaware of this."
Basically every person whether they be an Atheist, Jew , Christian, Hindu (from ANY religion or sect) has the knowledge of an Almighty God. For example who do you think a person will call on when he or she is in life and death situation....
3131 Have you not seen the ships sailing the sea, carrying God's provisions, to show you some of His signs? In that are signs for every one who is patient, thankful.
3132 When waves surround them like mountains, they call on God, sincerely devoting the system to Him. But when He saves them to the shore, some of them revert. None discard Our signs except those who are betrayers, ingrates.
Everyone believes in God and everyone has knowledge of him. The scripture is only meant for those who have knowledge of them or who have access to them. Those who don't will be expected to follow the basics....
The basics....
- We worship God and God alone
- That we do no associate beings with him
- That we do righteous deeds
It is by these basics that people who had no scripture or any book will be judge by.
Ask yourself this question. When Abraham was guided did he have any scripture??? Read Sura 674- 79 . Or did he use logic and reasoning and sincerely seek God and God guided him?That is how guidance works. Sincerity is the key to guidance and Abraham had it in spades. And because he was sincere God guided to the Straight Path. What is the Straight Path????
6161 Say, "My Lord has guided me to a Straight Path. An upright system, the creed of Abraham the monotheist; he was not from those who set up partners."
351 "God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him, this is a Straight Path."
3660 "Did I not pledge to you, O Children of Adam, that you should not serve the devil for he is your most ardent enemy?"
3661 "That you should serve Me? That is a straight path."Prays, rituals and following of scripture is only binding upon those who have access to scripture. However these things are not the basics of salvation. The basics of salvation is that we worship/serve/give thanks to God and GOD ALONE and that we do not associate beings with him. That is the sum of all of the scriptures. It is a message and teaching that ANYONE can easily be guided to since EVERYONE has the knowledge of an Almighty God. Abraham was able to do it. And he did it during a time when people use to believe that the world was flat and that the mountains used to support the sky. In this day in age of Science what excuse does any man have for not being aware of God?
Some people may ask what is to stop a person from not reading the Quran to do those 'other things(like rituals and regulations etc)' in the first place? The answer to that question is simple. A true monotheist will never do that. It binding upon a servant of God to follow the scripture when he has the means to it. Or else how can he call himself a servant of God if he rejects what God has sent???
However like I said before it the basics of Monotheism which is the Straight path and the doorway to salvation. It is not the scripture.
7172 When your Lord took from the children of Adam from their backs, their progeny; and He made them witness over themselves "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we bear witness." Thus you cannot say on the day of Resurrection that you were unaware of this."
Peace,
Kevin
-
Peace Maha
I am not a sister
Again, either you did not understand what I wrote or you didn't bother to read what I said. I said "Trinitarian polytheist Christians". Not all Christians, just those that commit shirk. When I say that there are Christians that will be punished severely, I am talking about polytheist ones and only them. I made it clear when I said, "Those that worship Christ as God." Whethere there are polytheist Muslims is besides the point. I gave you Quranic evidence, I am not saying what I am saying based on my own accord. Now, whether you want to accept it or not is up to you, that is what God says. Not me. Not a man-made aHadith. But God's Hadith.
Peace
Ok than brother We basically agree and were talking about the same thing. Yes christians who strongly believe and uphold the trinity are committing shirk just as muslims who strongly believe and uphold their wicked hadith are committing shirk. thats very obvious from the quranic verses you showed. But ofcourse i would not judge individually except in extreme cases like hitler, bush, bashar assad etc.
Peace
-
Peace Bigmo, all,
I gave the Qur'anic verse which tells you exactly what happens to people that worship disbelieve and worship Jesus as God. How can we dance around the verse and start thinking of ways out of what God says? What God says is clear, what further explanation is needed?
The things about Muslims doing shirk or doing something on par with Christians (which IMO is not even close) is irrelevant as the subject of this talk is Polytheistic Christians. Lets focus on Christians. If we are to talk about shirk in Islam, lets do that in another topic dedicated to that and not derail this one.
Peace
Right, as I said there are Christians who will say Jesus is god, but this is not the doctrine of mainstream Christianity.
What they said was the Jesus is fully god and fully human at the same time. But I am not sure if most Christians understand all this as Christianity is still seen as a monotheist faith.
But you are right that if a person believes that Jesus or whomever is god then he is not a believer in god and is considered a kaffir.
Nobody has been able to explain the trinity.
-
No that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You are forgetting the thousands to people who never had any access to any book. How can God judge people by a book to which they had absolutely no access too or have no knowledge of???
sorry for not having given additional explanation but I thought every one with average IQ could think, that the salvation criteria which are nothing but believing and following a book is only valid for those who have access to this book. (and what the book is, depends on the time you live)
for the salvation of those who have no access, Quran doesn't say much as far as I know, since the info is unnecessary (since people without access don't access the info and the people with access don't need the info )
but my opinion is that for people without access, the quranic principle applies that Allah never hold someone responsible for things he is not capable of.
Finally only Allah can decide who has access and who doesn't and the consequences.
but today in the information era it is only a matter of seconds to access Quran (depending on your internet connection speed ), so nonmuslims shouldn't hope to evade fire.
After all, our duty as muslims is to warn/threaten nonmuslims with this Quran.
The basics....
- We worship God and God alone
- That we do no associate beings with him
- That we do righteous deeds
It is by these basics that people who had no scripture or any book will be judge by.
I like this. At least it shows that 3 requirements in verse 262 aren't the minimum salvation criteria since God replaced your second "basic" requirement with another one that we do believe in afterlife.
peace
-
What they said was the Jesus is fully god and fully human at the same time. But I am not sure if most Christians understand all this as Christianity is still seen as a monotheist faith.
Their 'exact' word is actually 'fully DIVINE and fully human' at the same time..
Xtianity (just like sunniism, shiitism and others) is the result of syncretism from many traditions/beliefs/cultures..The word "DIVINE" was a loan word from Latin "DIVO" which also a loan word Proto-Indo-Iranian (Ancient central asia + caucasus language) DEIWO with literal meanings of "Shining"... ANother derivation of "DEIWO" are found in Sanskrit "DEVA".. with the same (literal) meanings "Shining".
In cultural context the meanings of "DEIWO" become "Shining Beings" -> "Supernatural / Coming From Heaven beings".
Within Hinduism, Krishna is another example of figure who often refered as "DEVA", much of it is due to a segment within "Gita" where it's told Krishna shows his 'true form' to Arjuna which being described as "Majesticly Shining".
Within eastern cultural traditions.. the 'universal force / power' a.k.a 'Brahman' often 'descended/manifested' as 'avatar'. These avatars are often 'descended' from 'heaven' to meddle with human affairs. Mostly their objective of 'descending' is to restore 'dharma' (Good deeds / righteousness) upon the earth. The word 'avatar' by itself has a literal meanings of 'descent'.
A quite similar concept can be found within western cultural traditions, only the names are different, they call 'avatar' as 'angelos' (Greek for messenger) or 'Malakh' (Semitic). They believe that these 'angels' / 'malakh' are also 'made of light' (shining) and 'supernatural'.. Although within their tradition there are many legends and stories where those avatar/malakh/angel can also take form as 'human being' with flesh and blood. Similar story also appears in the Quran.
As thus the statement of X as "Divine and human" at the same time is actually carry the notions that X is a kind of 'the universal force /power''s angel or avatar but not 'the universal power / force' itself. Although they are some kind of 'the universal force / power's manifestation.
As thus; to which concept does one map the word "God" to?.. to "Avatar"/"DEIWO"? or to the "Universal Force/Power"?
I left that to each individuals...Just sharing that with you guys for your better understanding...
Salam / Peace
-
Their 'exact' word is actually 'fully DIVINE and fully human' at the same time..
Xtianity (just like sunniism, shiitism and others) is the result of syncretism from many traditions/beliefs/cultures..The word "DIVINE" was a loan word from Latin "DIVO" which also a loan word Proto-Indo-Iranian (Ancient central asia + caucasus language) DEIWO with literal meanings of "Shining"... ANother derivation of "DEIWO" are found in Sanskrit "DEVA".. with the same (literal) meanings "Shining".
In cultural context the meanings of "DEIWO" become "Shining Beings" -> "Supernatural / Coming From Heaven beings".
Within Hinduism, Krishna is another example of figure who often refered as "DEVA", much of it is due to a segment within "Gita" where it's told Krishna shows his 'true form' to Arjuna which being described as "Majesticly Shining".
Within eastern cultural traditions.. the 'universal force / power' a.k.a 'Brahman' often 'descended/manifested' as 'avatar'. These avatars are often 'descended' from 'heaven' to meddle with human affairs. Mostly their objective of 'descending' is to restore 'dharma' (Good deeds / righteousness) upon the earth. The word 'avatar' by itself has a literal meanings of 'descent'.
A quite similar concept can be found within western cultural traditions, only the names are different, they call 'avatar' as 'angelos' (Greek for messenger) or 'Malakh' (Semitic). They believe that these 'angels' / 'malakh' are also 'made of light' (shining) and 'supernatural'.. Although within their tradition there are many legends and stories where those avatar/malakh/angel can also take form as 'human being' with flesh and blood. Similar story also appears in the Quran.
As thus the statement of X as "Divine and human" at the same time is actually carry the notions that X is a kind of 'the universal force /power''s angel or avatar but not 'the universal power / force' itself. Although they are some kind of 'the universal force / power's manifestation.
As thus; to which concept does one map the word "God" to?.. to "Avatar"/"DEIWO"? or to the "Universal Force/Power"?
I left that to each individuals...Just sharing that with you guys for your better understanding...
Salam / Peace
Good point you made. If you heard a lecture by Gary Miller, a Christian convert to Islam who used to be a Christian clergy, he said that he used to ask his teachers at the clergy what does it mean God has a son and what kind of son is that and yet he was never able to get an answer. It was unexplainable. Gary Miller used to conduct lectures with Ahmed Deedat.
But the Koran does talk about Jews and Christians as monotheist. And these religions claim monotheism. I think that Jesus was a test because of his unique nature. His birth was unique and he left the Earth uniquely. Just like the Koran is ahistorical so we were left with the Sunni and Shia fitna. The Koran does not talk about places and names and biographies and so the later generation had to manufacture them. I think its a fitna to see what people will do later on.
But in the end faith is an individual issue. And the Koran did talk about Jews and Christians as monotheist. But not all have faith. Therefore just like we do against Sunni and Shias, we must attcak their doctrine and not their faith as we do not know what really goes insiode the mind of a Christian since the Trinity is actually impossible.
2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve
Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Book stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin good and forbid wrong; and they hasten in good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are God fearing. 3113-115
And there are, certainly, among the people of the Book, those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account. 3199
So here the Koran recognizes that there are Jewish believers and Christian believers. We must focus on attacking the Trinity doctrine or the teachings of the Talmud and Sunnah and not faith since we never will know who hasfaith in God and who does not. What a Christian may say about Jesus is one thing and what he actually believes is another. We can never really know because the Trinity is unexplainable.
-
Good point you made. If you heard a lecture by Gary Miller, a Christian convert to Islam who used to be a Christian clergy, he said that he used to ask his teachers at the clergy what does it mean God has a son and what kind of son is that and yet he was never able to get an answer.
The terminology of "Son Of God", is a translated word from Hebrew "Ben Elohym" and it has a plural form of "Beney Elohym". Literally it does mean "Son Of God", however it's also an idiom and the actual meanings in such context is actually "God's man" (Singular) or "God's people" (plural / beney elohym). Not all Christians aware of this (mis) translation / misconception of Hebrew idiom.
The same case happened with the terminology of "DIVINE" which I have posted earlier.. a case of misconception..
I would like to highlight the similarity between the case of Muhammad and Jesus..
Christians ulema/clerics/priest/ruler will always insist on the importance of "Jesus Divinity" because
God --> transfer power to --> Jesus --> transfer power to --> Church
They will often (mis) quote a verse in the Gospel which said that "Peter is the 'foundation' of church" and as thus a transfer of authority from Jesus to Peter.
And they shall bicker against each others on 'whose church did Peter build first", Catholics will insist that it's the church in Rome, (and as thus they inherit the 'authority' Orthodox will insist that it's the church in Antioch (and as thus they inherit the 'authority' and the Coptics will insist that it's the church in Alexandria (and as thus they inherit the 'authority'.
The same story with Muhammadans... struggle for power to control the masses..
When the dogma of "Jesus Divinity" crumbled... so does their authority/power....
Salam / Peace
-
The terminology of "Son Of God", is a translated word from Hebrew "Ben Elohym" and it has a plural form of "Beney Elohym". Literally it does mean "Son Of God", however it's also an idiom and the actual meanings in such context is actually "God's man" (Singular) or "God's people" (plural / beney elohym). Not all Christians aware of this (mis) translation / misconception of Hebrew idiom.
The same case happened with the terminology of "DIVINE" which I have posted earlier.. a case of misconception..
I would like to highlight the similarity between the case of Muhammad and Jesus..
Christians ulema/clerics/priest/ruler will always insist on the importance of "Jesus Divinity" because
God --> transfer power to --> Jesus --> transfer power to --> Church
They will often (mis) quote a verse in the Gospel which said that "Peter is the 'foundation' of church" and as thus a transfer of authority from Jesus to Peter.
And they shall bicker against each others on 'whose church did Peter build first", Catholics will insist that it's the church in Rome, (and as thus they inherit the 'authority' Orthodox will insist that it's the church in Antioch (and as thus they inherit the 'authority' and the Coptics will insist that it's the church in Alexandria (and as thus they inherit the 'authority'.
The same story with Muhammadans... struggle for power to control the masses..
When the dogma of "Jesus Divinity" crumbled... so does their authority/power....
Salam / Peace
Could be. But about Christianity it seems to me that the Romans did not struggle with authority the way the Abbasids did. After all without Muhammad what was Mecca? The Roman empire was there long before Christianity. But the Abbasids were only there because of their geneology with Muhammad. The collapse of the Ummayids, also Meccan, and the riots that toook place during Al Mutawakkil's reign in the early years of the Abbasids must have made them realize that with limited authority and historic status they could not rely on geneology alone. It was during the Mutawakkil's reign that the concept of the Sunnah emerged and became the state religion. I am not very acquainted with the Church histroy so I may not know. Joseph Schacht wrote an interesting piece about how the Muhammedan Sunnah came to be.
The need of creating some kind of theoretical justification for what so far had been an instinctive reliance on the opinions of the majority, led, from the first decades of the second/eighth century onwards, to the living tradition being retrojected, and to its being ascribed to some of the great hgures of the past. This process, too, began in Kufa, where the stage of doctrine achieved in the time of Hammad b. Abi Sulayman (d. I20/73 was attributed to Ibrahim al-Nakha'i (d. 95-6/7I3-I5). The Medinese followed suit and retrojected their own teaching to a number of ancient authorities who had died about the turn of the century, some of whom later became known as the 'seven jurists of Medina'. At the same time as the doctrine of the school of Kufa was retrospectively attributed to Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, a similar body of doctrine was directly connected with the very beginnings of Islam in Kufa by being attributed to Ibn Mas'ud, a Companion of the Prophet who had come to live in that city, and Ibrahim al-Nakha'i became the main transmitter of that body of doctrine, too. In the same way, other Companions of the Prophet became the eponyms of the schools of Medina and of Mecca. One further step in the search for a solid theoretical foundation of the doctrine of the ancient schools was taken in 'Iraq, very early in the second/eighth century, when the term ' Sunna of the Prophet ' was transferred from its political and theological into a legal context, and identified with the sunna, the ideal practice of the local community and the corresponding doctrine of its scholars. This term, which was taken over by the school of Syria, expressed the axiom that the practice of the Muslims derived from the practice of the Prophet, but it did not as yet imply the existence of positive information in the form of ' Traditions ' (Hadith), that the Prophet by his words or acts had in fact originated or approved any particular practice. It was not long before these Traditions, too, came into existence, and the persons who put them into circulation were the Traditionists.
The ancient schools of law themselves represented, in one aspect, an Islamic opposition to popular and administrative practice under the later Umayyads, and the opposition group which developed into the Traditionist movement emphasized this tendency. As long as a Companion of the Prophet had been the final authority for the doctrine of a school on a particular point, it was sufficient for a divergent doctrine to be put under the aegis of another Companion of equal or even higher authority, as happened in Kufa where all kinds of minority opinions were attributed to the Caliph 'Ali, who had made Kufa his capital. But after the general authority of the Prophet himself had been invoked by identifying the established doctrine with his sunna, a more specific reference to him was needed, and there appeared detailed statements or 'Traditions' which claimed to be the reports of ear- or eye-witnesses on the words or acts of the Prophet, handed down orally by an uninterrupted chain of trustworthy persons. Very soon the emphasis shifted from proposing certain opinions in opposition to the ancient schools to disseminating Traditions from the Prophet as such, and the movement of the Traditionists, which was to develop into a separate branch of Islamic religious learning, came into being. It was the main thesis of the Traditionists that formal Traditions from the Prophet superseded the living tradition of the school. The Traditionists existed in all great centres of Islam, where they formed groups in opposition to, but nevertheless in contact with, the local schools of law. Initially the ancient schools offered strong resistance to the disturbing element represented by the Traditions, but they had no real defence against their rising tide; they had to express their own doctrines in Traditions which allegedly went back to the Prophet, and to take increasing notice of the Traditions produced by their opponents. Finally the outlines and many details of Islamic law were cast into the form of Traditions from the Prophet. In this way, one of the greatest and most successful literary fictions came into being.
http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/schacht.asp
Authority moved backwards as the Meccan dynasties shielded themselves more and more with Muhammad and his companions because that is all Mecca really had. Their geneology status kept them in the game but could not keep them there long so they had to create a theocracy that can give them more authority. The person who would end up giving them that is Muhammad himself. So Muhammad'e enemies, the Meccans, ended up being his biggest beneficiaries. How odd.
-
Could be. But about Christianity it seems to me that the Romans did not struggle with authority the way the Abbasids did.
Well they did...
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Wars_of_the_Tetrarchy_%28306-324_AD%29Religion is a perfect tool for ruler to secure his authority and control the mind of the people..
"In 321, Constantine instructed that Christians and non-Christians should be united in observing the venerable day of the sun. Constantine himself disliked the risks to societal stability that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring where possible to establish an orthodoxy."
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_GreatAnd since he control the church (he can appoint a pope who shall be the head of the church), the power layout of God->Jesus->Church give him the comfort of projecting an 'illusion' to the mind of the people that he got his authority from "Heaven". If the 'pope' dare to go against his will well he can easily replace the pope with somebody else..
The layout of
God->Jesus->Many Churches
Is too much of a headache for him... that's why he feel the need to 'unite' the churches (with force if possible) into one easily controllable church (Catholic Church) where Catholic = Universal.This mark the 'importance' of 'conversion', conversion into state universal religion shall establish control of the ruler over the people. In return converted people shall earn extra benefits of being regarded as the 'state citizen'. That's why converted out from the state religion is considered as an act of 'hideous crime' and punishable by death.
Compare the Roman layout with the current layout in Saudi's Kingdom.. it''s practically the same..
Salam / Peace
-
Well they did...
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Wars_of_the_Tetrarchy_%28306-324_AD%29Religion is a perfect tool for ruler to secure his authority and control the mind of the people..
"In 321, Constantine instructed that Christians and non-Christians should be united in observing the venerable day of the sun. Constantine himself disliked the risks to societal stability that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring where possible to establish an orthodoxy."
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_GreatAnd since he control the church (he can appoint a pope who shall be the head of the church), the power layout of God->Jesus->Church give him the comfort of projecting an 'illusion' to the mind of the people that he got his authority from "Heaven". If the 'pope' dare to go against his will well he can easily replace the pope with somebody else..
The layout of
God->Jesus->Many Churches
Is too much of a headache for him... that's why he feel the need to 'unite' the churches (with force if possible) into one easily controllable church (Catholic Church) where Catholic = Universal.This mark the 'importance' of 'conversion', conversion into state universal religion shall establish control of the ruler over the people. In return converted people shall earn extra benefits of being regarded as the 'state citizen'. That's why converted out from the state religion is considered as an act of 'hideous crime' and punishable by death.
Compare the Roman layout with the current layout in Saudi's Kingdom.. it''s practically the same..
Salam / Peace
I think what you are talking about is a theocracy. I was talking about how authority was formulated. That Chrisianity was seen by the Romans of a way to unite the roman Empire and keep it stable is something I agree with after all all theocracies are for that reason. Like the Pharoah and ancient Egypt and Babylon and Greece. However I was talking about how that authority came to be. The Ummayids and Abbasids were already Islamic but could not attain authority so the Sunnah came to the rescue. So the Sunnah was added for authority. The Romans had authority but were not Christian and became Christian. This is why there is no concept like the Sunnah in Christianity but we find that in Islam and Judaism. Both these religions traced their added traditions to some prophetic figure for it to enjoy authority. Something the Romans did not have to do. The celebration of Christmas is a good example of that, it is not scriptural however Christians celebrate Christmas and even at different times like the Ethiopian Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. However you will never be able to establish something like that in Islam without some religious evidence.