Messages

166

Prophets and Messengers / Re: The Meaning of Messiah

« on: January 17, 2014, 09:27:15 PM »

Dear Daniel,

This was taught by Jesus as not a kingdom where a physical overthrow of Rome, but where the invisible rule of God is established. This was the central message of Nabi Isa, the character of God's rule, which is what is revealed in the Injil.

Could this mean, for you, that Jesus was paving the way to the coming of Quran and Divine Order? Remind me of a verse in the Gospel about how things will be given to a nation that is more fruitful than Israel.

Regards.

No, the Kingdom that Jesus taught does not directly relate to the Qur'an, although at the same time the Qur'an does not contradict it.
In one way, the Qur'an relates more to the Torah / Moses, in the law that Moses brought was for a people that had no law, and God instructed how to live in practical ways, the Torah was revealed for the people coming out of Egypt, the Quran was revealed for the people of Arabia. This is in contrast to the Injil that Jesus brought, not one jot was added or taken from the existing law, the Torah. Jesus brought a universal law for the human heart.

In another way the Qur'an relates to the Injil, in that it is a corrective message for those who had left Gods will. For Jesus, he was confronting a Jewish way of life that had accumulated over 1000 years of oral tradition (not the Torah) that was a burden for everyone, and a corrupt temple system, where the High Priests were conspiring with the Roman occupiers. Similarly the Qur'an was a corrective to Christians, partly in Arabia, who accumulated traditions not consistent with the Injil.

The Qur'an never replaced the former Holy Books, "replacement belief" is what the Romans did (ie. West replaced East, Injil replaced Torah etc..) , and not what teh Prophet Muhammad did.

167

General Discussions / Re: Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam

« on: January 17, 2014, 05:20:47 PM »

Ah yes, was just going to say....

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1105.msg4542#msg4542

This is one of the overlooked areas in Islam.....

Daniel

168

Prophets and Messengers / Re: The Meaning of Messiah

« on: January 17, 2014, 11:48:24 AM »

Hello Abbsrayray,

Thanks for your question. As a non-Trinitarian Christian, I would endorse what Br. Joseph wrote in response to your question. I would add that from what I understand "Mashiah" or "anointing" relates to the inaugurating of a king. This needs to be put in a historical context, of a Roman occupation of Palestine at the time of Nabi Isa. Therefore Jesus was killed (see dialogues and articles) under belief that he was establishing a kingdom as "The Mashiah".

This was taught by Jesus as not a kingdom where a physical overthrow of Rome, but where the invisible rule of God is established. This was the central message of Nabi Isa, the character of God's rule, which is what is revealed in the Injil.

A more sensitive issue for Muslims related to "The Mashiah" is that it represents an authority given by God to Jesus. This is why Christians use the word "Lord", which is misleading as these days it implies divinity, which the original language does not imply. The teaching by Isa about authority in Gods kingdom is that of a serving. In response the Bible says, after Jesus rose,  that God gave authority to him in this world (see QS 3:45). The challenge for Islam is to disentangle Jesus and his teaching from Christianity. This is because Jesus lived prior to Christianity  (Technically the term "Christian" refers to Gentile followers of Jesus who emerged 50 years later), and in reality, Jesus was very similar culturally and theologically to the Islam understood by the Prophet, with the Qur'an referring to Jesus' followers as "muslims'.

This may or may not synchronize with Br. Josephs thinking on "The Mashiah"

Wasalam
Daniel

169

General Discussions / Re: Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam

« on: January 15, 2014, 11:11:00 AM »

Yes, BTW, what country are you from?

170

General Discussions / Re: Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam

« on: January 15, 2014, 09:50:16 AM »

Thank you Br Joseph. In response to "Good Logic", I think we can summarize 3 Islamic different interpretations of 4:157 that synchronize this verse with the belief of the death of Christ in the Biblical and historical record.

a) 4:157 is speaking of a Spiritual reality:  What Good Logic mentioned, in relation to 2:154, the body died, but the spiritual reality is that Jesus is not dead. According to scripture, some of the last words spoken by Jesus, "My God, why have you forsaken me", (Matt 27:46) and then the spirit left him." This would be somewhat according to the Church of the East (who opposed the catholic Chalcedon creed that the Physical nature of Jesus was divine), this being one of the prominent churches in the Middle East,
b)  4:157 is speaking of Christ not being a criminal: The crucifix represents the punishment of a murderer; God did not allow him to die a decayed death where the birds ate away the body, but his body was allowed to be removed by a discple called Joseph and cared for (Matt 27:59), wrapped in clean cloth and buried. This would represent something like what Br. Joseph presented below.
c) 4:157 is confronting the boast of the Jews that THEY killed him.  Ultimately the laying down of Jesus life was not the decision of Jews, Jesus submitted to Gods will for his life to be laid down for the sake of others "Not my will but yours be done." After 135AD, the Jews detested the Hebrew followers of Jesus because the followers of Jesus would not support their attempted overthrow of the Roman empire in Jerusalem. This resulted in the Tauhid followers of Jesus and Jews becoming separate entities, and fleeing to Arabia away from Roman rule.

All 3 of the interpretations above basically synchronize with the Biblical record (although they do not necessarily synchronize with orthodox Christian interpretation) , but does not need a dogmatic interpretation, with any 3 of the above possibly being acceptable biblically. Also we need to remember that the physical symbol of the cross (a small "t"), was a post Bible development as a symbol of Gentile Christianity.

171

General Discussions / Re: Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam

« on: January 14, 2014, 09:46:16 PM »

Hi Marealta,

Great to hear from you, and to to have a fellow journey-er who really isn't clinging on to defending their religious identity. (-:  One of the biggest things for me is to create the 7th century Arabian Church context.... a church that was divided and influenced over centuries of accumulating dogma, saint worship and paganism, with Christians not having the scriptures in their language (only Syriac not Arabic).... with Arab Jews translating Targums and selling them as scripture.....With all of this as background then understand that Muhammad, despite not understanding the language of scripture, receiving revelation and it being a "Corrective" for Christians and Jews.

So in some ways the Qur'an is sometimes repeating beliefs that are not true and correcting them. However you are SO CORRECT, Islam so often spends its time expressing the negatives of who Jesus is not. The sooner that Islam consumes the words of Jesus in particuarly the Gospel of Matthew, and lives them, it will revolutionize Islam. The problem is, that the very name of Jesus has become so attached to  Western Christianity that his words are unknown. Yet in reality, he was  a "Sharia abiding", fasting, "Islamic praying",  "revealing the character of God" prophet, who is more linked culturally and theologically to Islam.

Loved the article link!!! BTW, I travel around quite a lot, but often in India.

172

Discussions / Re: Bible, the Book in the Qur'an?

« on: January 14, 2014, 12:59:50 PM »

Hello,

"On your "The Injil and Torah was held by the People of the Book;" .... If a study was done on the characteristics of "The People of the Book" who held held the Torah and Injil as per the Quran, it would show the People of the Book were confused trinitarians, venerating Mary etc.

Much of the Qur'an is a "corrective" to the People of the Book who did not follow the books contents. Remember, the Arabic speakers  of the People of the Book could not speak the language of "The Book" (Syriac). This is why there needed to be correction.

If "the Book" was not the current Bible that these trinitarian / Mary worshipers held to, the problem is there is no evidence of the streams of Christianity in Arabia holding to any other scripture. The Bible was canonised centuries before the Prophet Muhammad. It would be good to hear from Br. Joseph on this........

173

Prophets and Messengers / Re: Is the Prophet Muhammad Alive?

« on: January 14, 2014, 12:47:19 PM »

Hello Br. Joseph,

Thank you very much for your forum and articles!! I should mention before writing this I write with a view of a unity of theology of the Qur'an and New testament, and so write with that in mind. (Which is why with the death and resurrection of Jesus being so central in the Bible and as a historical fact for those closer to that era, I begin with that premise in interpreting the Qur'an)   
A couple of questions from your response above:
- You mentioned "verses such as 2:154 are nothing but a desperate attempt to support an errant theology." In that case what is your interpretation of 2:154? It would seem that both this verse, as we as numerous verses in the Bible, recognise a special position after death for those who lay down their lives for truth.
- There is absolutely no unequivocal support for beliefs such as the continuation of prophethood through spirituality. From the Bible, it cannot be avoided to recognise a spiritual authority given to Jesus after death as a result of his submission to God, and willingness to give his life out of love for others. (Acts 2:36 / Quran 3:45). I am not talking about the Greek thinking of Jesus being a part of a trinity, but a spiritual authority given that is consistent with the monotheistic theology of the Quran.

174

General Discussions / Re: The issue of using the word Allah by non muslims in Malaysia

« on: January 09, 2014, 04:03:11 PM »

Hi Adam,

Good to hear from you, I have many Malay friends!! Just a few thoughts before Br. Joseph might write. As a non-trinitarian Christian myself, the idea of Malays wanting to stop Christians in their country from using the word Allah would seem to reflect a people living in fear and desiring to be insular, creating a greater distance between religious communities.

The way forward is to stand on truth, not living in fear. If the Bible does not teach the trinity, it is astonishing that there is fear amongst Muslims of their children being taught the trinity. Truth is powerful, however it is not allowed to express itself when it is behind fear.
- There are faithful Tauhid Bible translations with commentaries these days, Malays should seek to educate Christians on monotheism like the Prophet Muhammad did, helping them understand the oneness of God.
- In the Injil, Paul sets a rule to all Christians in the city of Corinth (1 Cor 7:17-21), never ask for the circumcised (ie. Muslims) to be non-circumcised (ie. Christians) and visa versa, because that is not important. Following truth is. The Bible opposes Christianization.

Dividing walls need to come down, not built up. There needs to be an understanding within Christianity of the Qur'an and Muhammad, calling all people to monotheism..... as well as Muslims having a simple logical understanding of the Bible and Isa.

Allah / God etc. is the God for all peoples. This is the inclusive message of the Prophet Muhammad I believe. Hopefully Malaysia follows his example. (-;

Wasalam,

Daniel

175

Discussions / Re: Bible, the Book in the Qur'an?

« on: January 09, 2014, 03:01:13 PM »

Hi Salahuddin,

Thanks for your response. The following article written on this website will provide further clarification on the topic of the Bible, the link being...

http://www.quransmessage.com/articles/people%20of%20the%20book%20FM3.htm

The Injil and Torah was held by the People of the Book; the two cannot be separated.

176

General Discussions / Re: Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam

« on: January 06, 2014, 05:44:42 PM »

Salaam.

The Historians were, likely, wrong.

"Gospels don't say Jesus was crucified":
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/01/bible-doesnt-say-jesus-was-crucified-scholar-claims/

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

Thanks for your response Ismail. Declaring the Islamic thinkers of the classical Islamic era in era, so to continue the interpretation of one verse, 4:157, is a big call!!

50% of the Gospel of John, and a large portion of the other Gospel accounts is explaining step by step the death of Jesus. They explain the execution, the Roman Guard verifying the death, the guarding of the tomb etc..  Believing an obscure pastor in Switzerland having a theory in 2013 can't beat the secular historians of Jesus’ day, plus no-one in the first few centuries ever coming up with the idea that Jesus did not die by execution, except that a Christian sect called Docetists believed that Jesus was only a Divine Spirit and not human, and in that case he did not die a human death. Docetists are the ultimate reverse of Islam, declaring Jesus had no humanity.
The amazing thing is that the denial of the death of Christ can only deny the Injil, that is, one of the Holy Books of Islam. It aligns Islam with a Christian sect in denying the death of Christ, and views such as this and other conspiracy theories discredits Islam itself in my view.

An Islam which believes in the Holy Books and believes in a unified message of the Holy Books has so much potential in being  “a corrective” to the catholic dogma of the creeds in history. I believe that denial of the death of Jesus (as well as corruption of the Bible) has more to do with a reaction to past wrongs of Christianity than the truth of Islam.  Islam will really move forward when Islam has leaders like Nelson Mandela who doesn’t hold on to or reacts by the wrongs  of the past..
Wasalam
Daniel

177

General Discussions / Re: Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam

« on: December 31, 2013, 02:30:36 PM »

Salaam.

The question is not about the original Book or Books.

Controversies regarding Holy Books are all from the angle of translations and interpretations.

"The Quran and the Bible are in the matter of the crucifixion in Opposition"

We have the original Qur'an with us. What about the Bible?
The words: "meaning of some verses aren't meant word for word", or similar words, are those employed in the translations, and subsequent interpretations of verse 3:7.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

I believe according to the Qur'an and the instructions given within, the Qur'an did not state that the Bible was error. It repeatedly instructed its readers to not go beyond its boundaries, it encouraged People of the Book to believe in its message (QS 4:47), instructed People of the Book to not depart from the Torah and the Injil; (QS 5:68).... So... that is what I endeavor to do. To discredit the legitmiacy of Holy Books and to what would seem to deviate from plain instruction from the Qur'an so to accommodate a different interpretation on the crucifixion is dangerous. With that, the who foundation of Gods revealed written word is on shaky ground, as we question it because it doesn't fit with our interpretation.

I went through a number of years of struggle as I left an orthodox trinitarian position to one of Tauhid, I could only do this by placing the truth of the Holy Books above my own interpretations.

178

General Discussions / Re: Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam

« on: December 31, 2013, 10:22:13 AM »

Salaam.

The Quran and the Bible are in the matter of the crucifixion in Opposition.Literally we will not find an Agreement so i tried this way .And also the Quran is telling us that the meaning of some verses arent meant word to word.

As I have mentioned in the past, I begin with a starting point of a unity of message of the Qur'an and the Bible. Re the crucifixion, either the Qur'an and the Bible are in unity with each other, or either the Bible or the Qur'an was in error at the time of the 7th century. The theory of the corruption of the Bible post Prophet Muhammad is quite difficult to maintain. "For no change can occur in a book that is well circulated among men. Every wise man can see that the alteration of the Bible was impossible for it was well circulated among men of different faith and backgrounds.Al-Razi (865 – 925) ”

Surely Gods written Word is on a higher level than my ability to interpret a single verse. For the sake of interpretation of a single verse, an entire pillar of faith of Islam, belief in the Holy Books, is invalid. Interpretation is fragile, often influenced by wars and tensions. The way Christianity interprets what they think the Qur'an says  is due to Rome being a political enemy of Arabia. Whatever the interpretation of the crucifixion, we begin with the understanding that the Holy Books are inspired.

179

Discussions / Re: Bible, the Book in the Qur'an?

« on: December 28, 2013, 09:22:53 PM »

As-salaamun alaikum.

To reiterate my point early followers of Issa don't have a "bible" but the Gospel of Jesus passed through to the word of mouth. The book does not always have to be in a paperbound in my humble opinion.

As you may agree there are two dogmatic versions of the bible, the Catholic's and the Protestant's.
Sincerely,

Salahuddin

Hello Salahuddin,

Thanks for your post. Yes you are correct in speaking of the oral Gospel for the first period of early followers of Isa. It is simply a matter of how long were things oral. One of the early Christian Church fathers , Ireneous, in 125AD speaks of Matthew compiling the Hebrew gospel in 50AD (which was based upon later translated by Waraqa). There wouldn't haven't been any reason for this to be untrue, as who Ireneous represented (Rome) was somewhat opposed to the Hebrew speakers.

Re the other 3 Gospel accounts (Mark, Luke, John), traditionally they have were authored in the 1st century.  However there is some basis for them being written in the mid 2nd century, based on traditions and accounts past down.

Re the letters of the New Testament which make up 50% and are mostly by Paul, these were NOT oral, simply because they are written as letters, sealed and delivered to communities of faith.

Re at the Prophet Muhammad’s time concerning the Torah, Zabur and Injil, I think it was clear that the record was in written form, and that was held by “The People of the Book,” sometimes misinterpreted.  In fact, the very pillar of the Islamic faith recognises the Torah, Zabur and Injil in book form, being belief in the Holy Books.  I believe the Qur’an in refering to the Injil is centred around the account of the Gospel presented by Isa as stated in the Holy Books, not an oral Gospel.  “So when you are in doubt about what we have revealed to you, ask those who are reading the book that was before you. Truth has come to you from your Lord, so don’t be a doubter” (QS 10:94)

However your point of the Gospel being initially oral is definitely true.

Wasalam
Daniel

180

General Discussions / Re: Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam

« on: December 27, 2013, 09:33:07 AM »

Hello Ismail,

I will look into what you mentioned about Yusuf Ali. On Yusuf Ali, here is a free book link on Isa in the AQ, interacting with Yusuf Ali, including a section on the crucifixion.    http://www.scribd.com/doc/102913537  (Isa in the Qur'an)

Re 4:157 and apparent denial of the crucifixion, I believe the Eastern view of life and death was quite different to that of the west. It is clear that the Arab church in the Middle east was thrown out of Christianity prior to the prophet Muhammad because of their views on 2 distinct natures of Jesus, ie. God speaking through Christ. This affects the way the Injil and AQ  are presented. The Hebrew mind is "The beheaded Hawariyuun are not really dead, but functioning in a different capacity." In the Qur'an prior to 4:157 it states "Don’t say that those killed in Allah’s* path are dead, but alive, though you don’t realize it." (QS 2:154). The question is, does 2:154 apply to Jesus, or didn't he qualify?

The historical evidence for the crucifixion is so overwhelming, to have tens of thousands of people in the era of Jesus, as well as secular historians, recognise the crucifixion makes it almost impossible to question. Whats more, the Hawariyuun who are honored in the Qur'an as faithful Muslims all recognise the crucifixion of Jesus, as does the Hebrew Gospel which was likely the first recording of the Gospel (which is the basis for the Gospel according to Matthew), carried through to Mecca with Waraqa. In my mind denial of the crucifixion causes so much internal problem within the Qur'an as well as external evidence.

However I will still follow up on the source you mentioned,

Regards
Daniel