Am I/Could I Be a Muslim??
-
Peace Evyon and welcome to the forum.
To answer the heading questions you posted;
Am I a muslim? - I don't know. I don't think anyone can, atleast not in a forum.
Could I be a muslim - Definitely! )As for the details of resurrection/crucifiction and such, there are many threads on that subject. Please the search function and you can discuss further in the appropriate section.
Peace be with you
-
Evyon
welcome, man. suni was kind of in your shoes a couple years ago. i knew that i believed in One God, not the trinity, but wasn't sure of much else.
the Quran says say "o people of the Scripture, let us come to a common understanding between us and between you; that we do not serve except God, and do not set up anything at all with Him, and that none of us takes each other as patrons beside God." if they turn away, then say "bear witness that we have submitted"... Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Nazarene, but he was a monotheist who submitted; he was not of those who set up partners (364,67)
the main message the i see within the Quran is of submission to One God, and practicing a lifestyle that is simple, prayerful, and grateful. i think you definitely fall into the frame work of Islam from the Quran alone perspective.
what encourages me about the Quran so far as inter-faith universalism and reconciliation, is that it says we will all be returned to God, and is clear that submission to God and one's way of living is more important than the label one uses.
let us know how things go for you, keep us updated, ok? salam aleykum, and may Allah bless and guide you.
Thank you for your kind words. I'll definitely hang out here for a while with questions and such. )
-
Peace evyon, welcome to the faith. If i may suggest you something, check the christianity page at http//www.submission.org It's quite complete
Thanks for the link. ) I've actually looked there before, but I'll make sure to give the articles a second read. While I respect those who use the gematria of 19, it is not something I personally use for evaluating truth. One of the articles uses two instances of the number 19 with a stroke patient as proof that Jesus was already soulless at the time of the crucifixion. I get the author's point, and I take nothing away from those who look for 19, but it's just not my thing. )
Peace.
Peace Evyon and welcome to the forum.
To answer the heading questions you posted;
Am I a muslim? - I don't know. I don't think anyone can, atleast not in a forum.
Could I be a muslim - Definitely! )As for the details of resurrection/crucifiction and such, there are many threads on that subject. Please the search function and you can discuss further in the appropriate section.
Peace be with you
Thank you, I will search to see the best place to pose any questions. )
Peace.
-
peace Evyon,
Firstly, welcome to the forum.
The question you ask "Am I/Could I be a muslim?" is a question we should all perhaps ask ourselves, so that's a good start )
Your question is akin to a student asking their teacher "Am I/Could I be a good student?"
You may wish to consider what the teacher might say to them.
From what you've said so far, the following two wisdoms came to mind
The perfect way is only difficult for those who pick and choose, Do not like, do not dislike; all will then be clear. Make a hairbreadth difference and heaven and earth are set apart; if you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease. ~ Bruce Lee
There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. ~Morpheus, The Marix
-
Thanks for the link. I've actually looked there before, but I'll make sure to give the articles a second read. While I respect those who use the gematria of 19, it is not something I personally use for evaluating truth. One of the articles uses two instances of the number 19 with a stroke patient as proof that Jesus was already soulless at the time of the crucifixion. I get the author's point, and I take nothing away from those who look for 19, but it's just not my thing.
Peace.
Thank you, I will search to see the best place to pose any questions.
Peace.
Ahmad Deedat once said that Jesus was crucified but did not die there. Yes, the Koran does not say Jesus was not placed on the cross. Since Crucifixion is actually death by hanging from the cross. So when it says they did not crucify him in the Koran one reading could be he was not crucified but hung on the cross and did not get killed. Or, they(Jews) did not do it and somebody else(Romans etc) did. Since the verse came to counter the Talmudic claim. Please see attached file since it talks about that verse and what the Jews claimed in their Talmud
-
Ahmad Deedat once said that Jesus was crucified but did not die there. Yes, the Koran does not say Jesus was not placed on the cross. Since Crucifixion is actually death by hanging from the cross. So when it says they did not crucify him in the Koran one reading could be he was not crucified but hung on the cross and did not get killed. Or, they(Jews) did not do it and somebody else(Romans etc) did. Since the verse came to counter the Talmudic claim. Please see attached file since it talks about that verse and what the Jews claimed in their Talmud
Well, what is wrong with the 19 code? What do you think is wrong with rk's theory of jesus's death? It seems to be quite plausible. Remember that many people sleepwalk yet are unconscious of this.
Peace tarikh and bigmo,
Your comments are related, so to save space and time, I'll answer both together. Bigmo, the interpretation that it was someone else who killed him is more likely. When the Romans conquered Palestine, they took away from the Jewish Sanhedrin the right to put to death anyone over religious reasons listed in the Torah. This is why they had to cook up charges against Jesus of insurrection against Rome. Otherwise, the Roman officials stationed in Jerusalem wouldn't have even listened to them because it would have been a religious matter. So while it was the Jews who handed Jesus over, it was actually the Romans who oversaw his death.
Which does bring up the swoon theory, which is related to rk's theory of unconsciousness, or death prior to the crucifixion. This has problems for two reasons. First, the cross was a sentence of death, and those Roman soldiers and officials were held responsible to make sure it was carried out. Palestine was a place of constant revolt, and many Jewish zealots were crucified or killed in riots. Roman soldiers knew death when they saw it, and they well knew how to take a life. It is highly unlikely that they would be fooled by someone passing out. And they also fully expected some people to die before they ever made it to the cross, and they would have known that as well. The scourging before crucifixion was brutal, and it was likely that internal organs could be seen through the ribs of those who managed to survive it. They wouldn't have nailed him to the cross if he was dead.
Second, one had to be conscious to even breathe on the cross. If you passed out, you died soon after. Normally, a person would have their arms tied, although occasionally nailed, to the crossbar. There were various ways that one's legs were attached to the post, and the "t" shape was not always used. Sometimes crosses were "x" shaped. But at any rate, one's arms bore the primary weight of the body, and as one hung there, the pericardium around the heart, as well as the lungs, would begin to fill with fluid. To breathe, one had to pull one's body weight up enough to allow the ribcage to expand. So, a crucified person had to flex one's arms and push up with one's feet every time they wanted to take a breath. People died of asphyxiation on the cross once they lost the strength to keep pulling themselves up over and over again to breathe. So, if someone passed out to the point where they were not in control of their body, they would die of asphyxiation as well.
And Bigmo, yes I agree the Quran counters the Talmudic claim that Jesus was stoned to death by the Jews. It would have been an impossible thing to happen during the Roman occupation. But the danger is going to the other extreme and interpreting it in a reactionary manner against the worst of Christianity when historical evidence is likely that he did die on the cross. The theological significance of the cross, when it is rightly understood, IMHO is a verification of the message of the Quran.
As far as the 19 code, I don't have a problem with it when a person is using gematria in the text of the Quran itself. But looking for the number 19 outside of the text in daily events is, in my very uninformed opinion, something like looking for omens or divination. Besides, it is entirely possible that the number 19 in the case of the coma patient is a coincidence, and the academic and historical evidence is stronger. )
Peace.
-
Peace well we cannot rely on any other source than quran. Specially christian sources and even less on muslim sources like the forged gospel of barnabas.
True, to an extent, but the Quran requires interpretation. In order to interpret something rightly one needs knowledge of the language and culture, as well as an understanding of any historical items that are related to interpreting something correctly. When dealing with a statement like the one in the Quran regarding the cross, in order to find the truth we have to eliminate those interpretations that don't mesh with sound academic study and prior revelation. To give you an example of what happens when we fail to do this, one only needs to look at the Christian development of Trinitarian theology. Greek readers eisegeted pagan concepts into a surface reading of the text, and now we have "God" in three persons. Yipee. The same sort of mistake can be made with the Quran.
I'd be interested to know how the swoon theory and the substitution theory developed in Islam. Are there any pre-hadith commentaries on the Quran, particularly related to this Sura?
Peace,
evyon -
True, to an extent, but the Quran requires interpretation. In order to interpret something rightly one needs knowledge of the language and culture, as well as an understanding of any historical items that are related to interpreting something correctly. When dealing with a statement like the one in the Quran regarding the cross, in order to find the truth we have to eliminate those interpretations that don't mesh with sound academic study and prior revelation. To give you an example of what happens when we fail to do this, one only needs to look at the Christian development of Trinitarian theology. Greek readers eisegeted pagan concepts into a surface reading of the text, and now we have "God" in three persons. Yipee. The same sort of mistake can be made with the Quran.
I'd be interested to know how the swoon theory and the substitution theory developed in Islam. Are there any pre-hadith commentaries on the Quran, particularly related to this Sura?
Peace,
evyonIt also needs a very good grasp of reality, something hadeeth inventors clearly didn't have.
