Judeo-Christian Context of the Quran?
-
Peace,
This is a good question that although I have ideas about, but I don't have the answer to. Perhaps it would involve some sort of campaign of ones-on-ones. What I mean by going back to Jesus works both ways. 'Muslims' need to make the trip to Jesus and 'Christians' as well, as so with more difficulty Jewish people. How will Jesus be a sign for the 'hour' ? Using the quran as reference, today, in the light of history and science will be revealing. The reference is not an institution, it's not a particular person, it's the book.
It is an interesting idea. It would certainly disrupt (in a good way) some of the labels we have a tendency to label others and ourselves with. I read this passage from 1st John this morning, and I think it parallels the message of the Quran "Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous." (It also is in sharp contrast to the "justification by faith alone" I was raised with.) Can we recognize those who truly believe in one God and do and teach good works, regardless of what they are called? I don't know. Honestly, through my time here, I'm not sure I know what to call myself. Am I Christian? Most Christians say no. Am I a Muslim? What masjid would possibly think so? Regardless, I think I am getting closer to the truth. If you were in my shoes, what would you do?
When I first entered this forum this was the hot topic. I was really taken aback by these pictures and what they were described to represent. One needs to go beyond the image to understand. This is definitely something to think about. Everything is found to be questionned here. It's quite the maze.
? Reply #482 on January 13, 2007, 083206 PM ?
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13210.480From what I understand, St-Peter's Cathedral in Rome is built on the foundations of some sort of pagan temple, is that so? So it would seem like the same pattern would have been repeated in Mecca. Abraham is described as elevating the foundations and the question has been asked how do you elevate foundations? Building from what has been layed down before would do that. This allows the masses to enter. But the hard core isn't built from that. It would have suffered the innitial formation to get to the stage of masses.
Interesting stuff. While I think the suggestion that Bakka is Jerusalem and not Mecca is one that would just about get someone killed in certain places, the Christian tradition is that Jesus was crucified on the very spot where Abraham was to offer his son, not to mention where Araunah gave his threshing floor for the construction of the Solomonic temple. There seems to be some harmony there. On the other hand, Jesus used familiar religious concepts and imagery to speak his message, like his use of the imagery of the temple. Paul quoted the pagan poets, too. As for St. Peter's I'm pretty sure there is no location in Rome where anything was built without being located on something pagan. Romans loved their religion and covered about every square inch of the city with edifices dedicated to some deity. Once Christianity became the religion of the day, why not incorporate what was already there? Most of the early portrayals of Jesus in "Christian" Rome were of him beardless and riding in a chariot - surprisingly similar to Apollo, and certainly not even close to the way Jesus actually looked.
Peace.
-
Peace,
If I were you I would walk and reflect. My suggestion is to begin with 96-1, CSR 1, iqra in the name of the Lord...
adjwi
Will do. Thanks. )
-
Peace myowndesert, OK, I'll admit that Jesus was a real person. But do you think that the "miracles" he performed were literal or metaphoric? Does healing the blind mean that he fixed their eyes, or did he convince them to see the truth?
My personal opinion is that it doesn't matter. I believe that he did physically heal peopple, but men of tremendous learning did not, such as William Barclay. I think the important thing about the healing stories to keep in mind is the purpose for them. For instance, in the gospels, there is the story of the man who Jesus healed who was blind from birth. The narrative begins with Jesus' disciples asking him the question, "Teacher, who sinned that this man was born blind he or his parents?" Being good Jews, they were ultimately concerned with what was the justice of God in this man's life. It was a hypocritical conversation that ultimately had no resolution. But Jesus, as the representation of the character of God, was more interested in the state of the man rather than high-brow speculation. The "why" of the situation does not matter redemptive and loving action is what mattered to Jesus. Whether or not the man was actually blind or not each person must judge - after all, I was not there. But what matters is who is the God that sent Jesus the Messiah, and was ultimately behind his actions? Is he a God of unrelenting justice, ultimately punishing the man with blindness because of some idolatrous action taken by his mother before he was born, as Jewish tradition believed could happen? Or is he a God of mercy and love who desires to be incarnate (metaphorically) in the actions of people actively working to end humanity's blindness both of the physical and spiritual sort? If you can see this, then perhaps you too need to end blindness where it is around you. But you must start with your own blindness, as we all must do. As Jesus said, "Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, when you have a log in your own eye? First remove the log from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
-
Mr. myowndesert,
Was Adam divine? And yet God made all creation bow to him. Iblis was cast out because he failed to bow. If Jesus was created like Adam, then tell me why he should not also be reverenced and obeyed by all of creation?
Not all creation was made to bow to "Adam". As far as the quran's description goes, it was the malaika (usually translated as "Angels" who were ordered to bow to "Adam". So, why on earth should Jesus be reverenced and obeyed by "all of creation"???
Anwar Azim
-
Also Adam comes from 'adami' meaning Mankind, as can be seen in 711. Adami also means 'black skinned person', and thus clearly refers to the first humans that originated in Africa. Malikah means 'those that carry out the Law' or also 'those that have control and authority', the short definition is 'Universal Forces'.
3 59 Verily, in the sight of God, the nature of Jesus is as the nature of Adam, whom He created out of dust and then said unto him, "Be" - and he is.* (3 60) the truth from thy Sustainer; be not, then, among the doubters!
*Lit., "The parable of Jesus is as the parable of Adam...", etc. The expression mathal (rendered above as "nature" is often metaphorically employed to denote the state or condition (of a person or a thing), and is in this sense - as the commentators have pointed out - synonymous with sifah (the "quality" or "nature" of a thing). As is evident from the sequence, the above passage is part of an argument against the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. The Qur'an stresses here, as in many other places, the fact that Jesus, like Adam - by which name, in this context, the whole human race is meant - was only a mortal "created out of dust", i.e., out of substances, both organic and inorganic, which are found in their elementary forms on and in the earth. Cf. also 1837, 225, 3020, 3511, 4067, where the Qur'an speaks of all human beings as "created out of dust". That "Adam" stands here for the human race is clearly implied in the use of the present tense in the last word of this sentence.
Jesus was born in a natural way as he is listed among the Prophets in 686-88 which fathers are blessed.
688 And from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren. And We chose them and We guided them towards the Right Path.
The Quran is the Furqan, the Criterion between Truth and Falsehood, it explains where the Bible is tampered, the Bible cannot explain the Quran. See my book, 'The Evolution of Thinking'
http//19.org/index.php?id=91,548,0,0,1,0
-
Mr. myowndesert,
Not all creation was made to bow to "Adam". As far as the quran's description goes, it was the malaika (usually translated as "Angels" who were ordered to bow to "Adam". So, why on earth should Jesus be reverenced and obeyed by "all of creation"???
Anwar Azim
At what point in the history of creation did this event fall? I am willing to assume that God making the angels bow to Adam happened very shortly after Adam's creation by God. This would mean that, reasonably, the only beings in existence at the time were 1) God, 2) Angels, 3) animals, 4) Adam - the only human in existance at the time. God cannot worship another being, and animals are incapable of veneration except as God makes them. This leaves the only part of creation at this time that could actually choose to worship God and venerate Adam to be the angels. If angels were the only beings at the time that could actually choose to bow to Adam, and those are the ones that God commands to do so, then it would be a logical deduction that the "second Adam" would be venerated in like manner.
Jesus should be obeyed because he is the Word of God and the Messiah. The Messiah is a king. If you confess what the Quran says, that Jesus the son of Mary is in fact the Messiah, then wouldn't it be fair to say that he should be obeyed as well?
*Lit., "The parable of Jesus is as the parable of Adam...", etc. The expression mathal (rendered above as "nature" is often metaphorically employed to denote the state or condition (of a person or a thing), and is in this sense - as the commentators have pointed out - synonymous with sifah (the "quality" or "nature" of a thing). As is evident from the sequence, the above passage is part of an argument against the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. The Qur'an stresses here, as in many other places, the fact that Jesus, like Adam - by which name, in this context, the whole human race is meant - was only a mortal "created out of dust", i.e., out of substances, both organic and inorganic, which are found in their elementary forms on and in the earth. Cf. also 1837, 225, 3020, 3511, 4067, where the Qur'an speaks of all human beings as "created out of dust". That "Adam" stands here for the human race is clearly implied in the use of the present tense in the last word of this sentence.
If I remember correctly, the other passages in the Quran that talk about humanity as a whole refer to means of conception over a spectrum of time 1) first made from the dust, 2) then from a clot, 3) then from a sperm drop, sometimes in a different order. Logic would state that although Adam was made from the dust (which is why the root "black" is part of the root of the Hebrew "adamah" - dirt is black), every human since then is not. We are made from other human stock, which is why the Quran references things like leech-like clots and sperm drops. Adam's, and Jesus' conceptions were unique. While passages in the Quran may reference all of humanity through Adam, it certainly makes a distinction between how both Jesus and Adam were concieved.
The Quran is the Furqan, the Criterion between Truth and Falsehood, it explains where the Bible is tampered, the Bible cannot explain the Quran. See my book, 'The Evolution of Thinking'
rolls eyes Give me a break. Sound linguistic, archeological, historical, and most importantly <b>manuscript</b> evidence is what someone should look at before making allegations of tampering.
This is what I really do not understand about Islam. When Christians considered themselves partakers of the Abrahamic covenant thorugh Jesus the Messiah, they made the Jewish scriptures their own and interpreted them through the lens of what they experienced. Not only do Muslims NOT do this, but have disdain for Judeo-Christian scripture at all levels and do nothing but pass off the same incorrect and ahistorical "proofs" for tampering over and over again, even though nowhere in the Quran does God make the allegation that the People of the Book have tampered with their revelation. In fact, the opposite is implied in verses where Jews and Christians are told to be obedient to what was revealed to them. By the point of the revelation of the Quran, both Jewish and Christian canons were solidly established. If Christians are partakers in the Abrahamic covenant through Jesus the Messiah, who is prophesied of in the Torah, then wouldn't logic state that Muslims also be able to reasonably articulate thier faith from the Torah and Injeel? Wouldn't you expect the Quran to make certain assumptions that would be made clear through previous revelation, if the same God that inspired the Torah and Injeel also inspired the Quran?
Every time I consider converting to Islam, all I have to do is look at how many Muslims treat with ignorance and contempt the Jewish and Christian scriptures.
-
Peace MyownDesert,
Your conclusion on Adam and Jesus is non-Quranic. Jesus is clearly mentioned in the list of Prophets that have fathers, and thus including Jesus. Adam is a metaphorical name for the first humans and mankind in total, this can be seen in the difference uses of the words in the Quran.
As for the Bible, I study Theology at the University of Amsterdam, and I know the Bible is tampered with. It has nothing to do with me being Muslim.
-
Peace MyownDesert,
Your conclusion on Adam and Jesus is non-Quranic.
Then I guess it is a good thing I'm not a Muslim.
As for the Bible, I study Theology at the University of Amsterdam, and I know the Bible is tampered with. It has nothing to do with me being Muslim.
Interesting. I spent 2 years working on Master's level work in Theology in seminary, and I never came to that conclusion. There are manuscript differences, but to either assume that they are the result of deliberate tampering, or to assume that modern textual criticism can trump manuscript and historical evidence, is erroneous. Besides, don't you have an article on your website that incorrectly states that the King James Bible was translated from Jerome's Biblia Vulgata, among other incorrect statements about the Bible?
My problem is not with any assertions that the Bible has been tampered with. If there is evidence of deliberate tampering, fine. Let's talk about it, let's weigh the evidence in an objective manner. My problem is with the attitude of Muslims who have never bothered to understand the development of Judeo-Christian approaches to scripture and who make unfounded allegations about the validity of Christianity, and then get all bent out of shape the second anyone says anything remotely suggesting that there are any errors or manuscript differences in the Quran.
-
Jesus was born in a natural way as he is listed among the Prophets in 686-88 which fathers are blessed.
688 And from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren. And We chose them and We guided them towards the Right Path.
Disagree with above assertion; explain how you infer ?ancestors, their descendants? means ALL prophets.
And we granted him Isaac and Jacob, and we guided both of them. Similarly, we guided Noah before that, and from his descendants (we guided) David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron. We thus reward the righteous.
Also, Zachariah, John, Jesus, and Elias; all were righteous.
And Ismail, Elisha, Jonah, and Lot; each of these we distinguished over all the people.
From among their ancestors, their descendants, and their siblings, we chose many, and we guided them in a straight path.
Such is GOD's guidance, with which He guides whomever He chooses from among His servants. Had any of them fallen into idolatry, their works would have been nullified.Jesus should be obeyed because he is the Word of God and the Messiah. The Messiah is a king. If you confess what the Quran says, that Jesus the son of Mary is in fact the Messiah, then wouldn't it be fair to say that he should be obeyed as well?
If Christians are partakers in the Abrahamic covenant through Jesus the Messiah, who is prophesied of in the Torah, then wouldn't logic state that Muslims also be able to reasonably articulate thier faith from the Torah and Injeel? Wouldn't you expect the Quran to make certain assumptions that would be made clear through previous revelation, if the same God that inspired the Torah and Injeel also inspired the Quran?
Every time I consider converting to Islam, all I have to do is look at how many Muslims treat with ignorance and contempt the Jewish and Christian scriptures.
Qur?an refers to a Gospel according to Jesus and what exists are Gospels supposedly according to John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke then you have the countless others surfacing according to Peter, Thomas, Mary, etc. so Muslims have no choice but to go by Qur?an and treat all else with a suspicious maybe, perhaps, context and exact words used unknown similarly to hadith which we can never be sure about.
Peace
-
688 And from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren. And We chose them and We guided them towards the Right Path.
In the verse 688, the Arabic words ". Wa min aaba ihim" is critical. Let me break down the words Wa means And, Min means From Aaba means Fathers Ihim means Among theirs. Together it means . And from among their fathers.
Translating it with 'ancestors' is not a literal translation, also it is funny you only presented that translation as 80% do translate it with fathers and not with forefathers or ancestors.
Yusuf Ali (To them) and to their fathers, and progeny and brethren; ..
Pickthall With some of their forefathers and their offspring, and their brethren;
Shakir And from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren;
Rodwell And some of their fathers, and of their offspring, and of their brethren .
Hilali & Khan And also some of their fathers and their progeny and their brethren,
Irving We picked out some of their forefathers, their offspring and their brethren....
Arberry And of their fathers, and of their seed, and of their brethren;....To understand more on the falsehood of the virgin birth, please read my book on the mistranslation of the Quran into 'miracles'
http//19.org/index.php?id=91,548,0,0,1,0
MyownDesert, if your college never admitted that the Bible has gone through many editing-stages, where texts were changed, then they were not objective and honest. But this is a completely different discussion.
And it is true that many Muslims do not respect or understand the Christian Theology, which is wrong. I myself grew up as a Christian and have studied it deeply. I also teach Muslims at mosques about Christian History so mutual understanding is created.
-
MyownDesert, if your college never admitted that the Bible has gone through many editing-stages, where texts were changed, then they were not objective and honest. But this is a completely different discussion.
And it is true that many Muslims do not respect or understand the Christian Theology, which is wrong. I myself grew up as a Christian and have studied it deeply. I also teach Muslims at mosques about Christian History so mutual understanding is created.
The only possibility of an intentional revision would be along trinitarian lines, such as the inclusion of one verse in 1 John, and some minor changes in greek tense in other places. Textual critics who argue about Hebrew source documents like "J", two Isaiahs, etc, have absolutely no manuscript evidence to support their claims. My professor for Greek and New Testament studies considered himself a textual critic, but was honest enough about it to say that it mainly looks at literary cues and changes in writing style, and draws conclusions based solely on this, sometimes not bothering to look at history at all. He, unlike many others, did manage to do a lot with manuscript evidence, handwriting styles, etc, so he had a balanced look at things. Besides, objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. Of course you are going to assert as objective those who happen to agree with you, but the truth is without actually being there and looking at the academic credentials of the seminary, you cannot offhand make such a judgment. Besides, as I said earlier, you have blatantly incorrect information on your website. I don't think you've addressed this yet. Sorry, but this doesn't give me a lot of hope that you can effectively address objectivity about the seminary I attended.
Muslim "understanding" of Christian history and theology is about as good as orientalist understandings of Islamic society. To date, I don't see a lot of mutual understanding. I'm tired of Christian texts being treated in the same context and framework as the Quran, when the belief structures, language, history, approach to inspiration, culture, etc, etc, are miles apart. Apples and oranges. Not to mention, I've never heard a Muslim who talks about corrupt biblical texts mention the "revision" of the Quran under Caliph Uthman, or the variant readings of the Quran that are found in various hadiths. Until there is integrity in the discussion, there can be no understanding.
Qur?an refers to a Gospel according to Jesus and what exists are Gospels supposedly according to John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke then you have the countless others surfacing according to Peter, Thomas, Mary, etc. so Muslims have no choice but to go by Qur?an and treat all else with a suspicious maybe, perhaps, context and exact words used unknown similarly to hadith which we can never be sure about.
Peace
There are "noncanonical" texts, but by far those that were accepted in the Bible already had almost universal endorsement as from apostolic sources. You can see how clearly this is illustrated in this chart at
http//www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
The other gospels date pretty late compared to the others. I believe some of them serve a purpose, namely to preserve certain teachings that were considered incorrect once Nicea began to have influence and certain bishops began to use Constantine's authority to affect change with the force of law. Instead of stating these teachings outright, they couched them in narrative form because of the sensitivity of what they were writing. But this is another matter altogether, and requires citation of information and sources beyond the scope of this discussion, as well as is beyond the reading attention span of most people.
Peace.
-
688 And from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren. And We chose them and We guided them towards the Right Path.
In the verse 688, the Arabic words "?. Wa min aaba ihim?" is critical. Let me break down the words Wa means And, Min means From Aaba means Fathers Ihim means Among theirs. Together it means ?. And from among their fathers?.
Peace Arnold,
I played/coached/managed a soccer team (18 players on roster) ?And from their fathers and their brothers? guided some of them to help mark the field, put up nets, and have chosen assistant coaches and linesmen.
How do we imply from the above that ALL 18 players had fathers and brothers?
There was an extensive debate on this?
REF virgin birth, what about Cloning?
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13174.msg109581#msg109581 -
Peace Joel,
In the past when I have asked Muslims in other online forums about how the Quran dialogues and "fits" with the Jewish and Christian scriptures, I basically get the answer that it doesn't, that the previous texts are so mangled and corrupted that they must be discarded in favor of the Quran. When I asked for examples, most of the ones I was given showed ignorance of or blatant disdain for Judeo-Christian hermeneutics. For a while, I simply put the Quran back on the bookshelf because most of the answers I received showed contempt for intellectual curiosity.
Just curious, which Islamic forums did you visit?
And if possible can you please link us to the threads?
Cheers.
-
Peace Joel,
Just curious, which Islamic forums did you visit?
And if possible can you please link us to the threads?
Cheers.
It was a few years ago on livejournal. I no longer have an lj account, and I cannot remember the names of the communities.
I remember a Christian telling me that it was the Muslims that tampered with the bible >D, so it can fit Muhammads claim that the bible was corrupted and hence useless. >D
Whaa??? Sheesh. That's absurd. Sometimes I very much relate to what Gandhi said "I would have been a Christian, if it weren't for the Christians I knew."
-
I actually found the claim pretty funny. ;D
Joel have you ever read the gospel of Judas, Thomas, Philip or any other heretical gospel?
God Bless
peaceAngel,
Yes, I have. The Nag Hammadi library is an area of great interest to me, and if push came to shove, I'd have to give myself away as a closet gnostic. Why do you ask?
Peace.
-
Peace Arnold,
I played/coached/managed a soccer team (18 players on roster) And from their fathers and their brothers guided some of them to help mark the field, put up nets, and have chosen assistant coaches and linesmen.
How do we imply from the above that ALL 18 players had fathers and brothers?
There was an extensive debate on this
REF virgin birth, what about Cloning?
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13174.msg109581#msg109581Salaam Nun-de-Plume,
There are far more logical explanations to the story of Mary and Jesus, to hold on to the most illogical one is irrational and goes against the scientific method the Quran prescribes. Grasping every little thing to still believe in miracles while the Arabic and the stories give room to far more logical explanations. Muslims have been totally blinded by the superstitious belief of the past. But to each its own. As for that thread, if you read it correctly, you would have seen it was between me and Tanveer mostly. Even if Mary gave a virginbirth as some reptile species do, then still it would not be a miracle, but a rare natural phenomena. People think miracles are needed so God can show His Power, seems creating the Universe is not enough, He needs to show He can break the Laws He created Himself! How irrational the human-being is.....
Please read my article on the miracle belief and the far more logical explanations
http//19.org/index.php?id=91,548,0,0,1,0&PHPSESSID=efe84155b706f92601563eda5afbc90b
And MyOwnDesert, thank you for the tip on the KJV, I had read over it myself. I have discussed it with Dr.Shabbir, and the claim of the Vulgate is because his own copy of KJV says it is so. We are now checking everything to understand why his copy claims the Vulgate. But this still does not take away the power of his book.
literary cues and changes in writing style
But to say it is only literaly cues and changes in writing is to naieve and to easy dismissal. I agree that not all of their claims are to be taken as truths, they are theories, but they are based on many truths. To just dismiss in this way is not scientific and not being open to the truth.