Messages

"Ben Elohim"is clearly means son of God which is clearly against Tawheed. Is there is no word for messenger/ prophet in Hebrow the Jewish language ?

OK, I understand your concern. I will leave this here, and if Br. Joseph would like to comment on this discussion, he can provide input. All I am saying is that as far as I can see it is undeniable that it is a part of the Tauhid Hebrew language, understood by the Messengers of God in the Torah as something totally different to Arabia later.

I am Aware of such speech using Terms like Father in Heaven,son of god etc. but the group"Yahoud" named a Person to be son of god as do the "Nasara" named Isa son of god.There is a passage when the Jesus will be questioned about it ,if he preaches to be the son of god and maryam his mother to be mothers god,he will deniy to have done that.
This Group the "Nasara" have a different view of the message which was delivered by Jesus thus it is a heretic sect of Bani Israel to whom Jesus was sent.

Yes, according to the Injil, Isa was referred to as the son of God in HEBREW. (ben elohim). So was Adam, so was Moses and so was Daud... they were all called son of God.  In Hebrew, when someone was son of God, it is interpreted as something like the Caliphate of God, Gods appointed one. In other languages, the phrase can't be translated that way, and is quickly distorted.

Re Nashara, it is clear that a segment were faithful to the original Nashara teaching of Isa's followers in the Quran, and then others who had deviated.

The situation in Arabia that is addressed by the Quran is most likely not as straight forward as in your last E Mail.

a) Firstly the fact is, despite 9.30, that if the Nashara were the Nazarenes, they were of Hebrew origin and "the guardians of pure monotheism / Tauhid", in contrast to Greek influenced Gentile Christianity. The problem is that ben elohim (son of God) was a perfectly acceptable term in their language as far as Tauhid is concerned, and was used by the Messengers of God all the way back to Nabi Musa. It was purely a figure of speech. This is rarely understood by Muslims. "Hebrew figures of speech make great use of sonship terminology, e.g., sons of Babylon, sons of the kingdom, sons of the evil one, sons of thunder, sons of peace, sons of the light, sons of darkness, sons of heaven, and sons of the resurrection. Obviously, such titles neither imply biological offspring, nor suggest that a woman could literally be impregnated by thunder or light."

b) The problem occurs when the Nazarenes / Nashara use that phrase in Arabia. "Obviously, literal translation of ben elohim (son of God) was even more vulnerable to evolve into heresy in Arabia not only because of the more restrictive use of terms like ibn and walad, but also because of how easily such titles were confused by pagan idolaters to refer to that which the Qur'a¯n condemns unequivocally." . This is rarely appreciated within Islam. Son of God is a linguistic problem between Hebrew and Arabic.

c) As mentioned previously, Arabia was known for heresies prior to Muhammad.  Possibly because of the linguistic issue, also surely that there was no Torah / Injil in their language.... which the Quran refers to people trying to sell fragments. It was a complex problem....

[/quote]
Salam Zack,

The Group that were waiting for a Messia which you quoted at the beginnig are you you referring to Essene.They lived Long before Jesus birth and he(Jesus) lerned from them the Taurat and they gave him shelter.They call them self "Keeper of the Bond" which in hebraeic is "Nozrei ha brit"
[/quote]

Certainly the Nazarenes / Nashara could be closely connected to the Essenes, however they certainly were not the same thing. They are a number of differences. However potentially Nashara were a segment of the Essenes.

Either way, of all the streams of believers who recognized Isa as the Messiah, the Nazarenes are the closest culturally and theologically to the Prophet Muhammad and his followers. This makes sense, as it is the Nazarenes who were the first followers of Isa in Jerusalem, whom the Quran calls "muslims".

Hello,

The Nazarenes / Nashara were known by this name from the earliest times since Nabi Isa as the group of Jews who recognised Isa as the Messiah. Throughout their history, those who were known as Christians (Those centred in Rome who believed Isa as the Messiah)  were NEVER known as Nazarenes, in fact Nazarenes and Christians were basically enemies, as Rome believed they had superseded the Nazarenes. (replacement theology)

The Nazarenes and Jews, despite being ethnically the same, became enemies as well, as the Nazarenes refused to support the reclaiming of Jerusalem (in 135AD). The Nazarenes held to the Injil Matthew and many settled in Arabia, the most famous being Waraqa Bin Nauffel who officiated the Prophets wedding.

The Qur'an doesn't necessarily refer to mainstream Christianity at all when it refers to Nashara, and that the Nasrani that the Quran addresses do not follow the catholic belief. It is clear that wesrtern (catholic) Christianity as is known today was basically not present in Arabia at the time of the Prophet. In refering to Nashara, the Qur'an most likely refers to a local Arabian sect context of the Nazarenes or Eastern Christians who were presented a corrected belief from the Qur'an.

Zack

Thank you very much for your response....

Much appreciated

Dear Joseph

I am reading at the moment of the move of Islam away from Rationalism and recognizing the value of sciences  in the 11th century. It was said to be replaced with an understanding of God as pure "will" / takdir, where God did not act in according to a  loving and compassionate nature, as that would be viewed as a  limit upon his actions. Weather forecasts are a violation of recognizing Gods omnipotence, in that there are no natural laws, only what God wills.

Quotes were from 2:284 that God does as he pleases; 5:40 He punishes who he pleases are used.

This would seem to be a major departure in what is understood of the God of the Torah and Injil. Obviously "who God is" did not suddenly change from one era to the next.

How would you respond to this as a Muslim scholar?

Wasalam

[ANYONE]

Hello,

So not to misquote the verse: "take not those who have taken your religion in ridicule"  ... It is referring to not taking as allies ANYONE who mocks your faith, whether they be People of the Book or non-believers. It is clear that this is simple good advice for people who are new Arab believers from a pagan background, have limited spiritual knowledge with no access to written scripture, whether that be the Qur'an or former Holy Books. They will be totally confused with the sectarian issues of the day, and basically given advice to stand strong as sectarian groups endeavor to entice them over.

We need to put things in context, not try and apply it to 21st century politics!!

Wasalam

[like]

Hello danigabriel,

Re jealous, I do not see any reason to doubt the translation of the Hebrew, it does not seem to be a word that is in dispute. The personal aspects, the anthropomorphisms, are something that are avoided within Islam in response to the incorrect views of the church. However the danger in this is making God into an impersonal spirit, a force that is irelavent.

God created man in His image according to the Torah. Different inherent attributes of man reflect the nature of God. That being God like a loving Father. The other is that his people (ummah) are like a bride to him. This where understanding God as a jealous God comes in. If I were to see some man  trying to steal my wife's affections and seduce her, then my godly response would be one of jealousy, wrath and anger. This is actually central to the Shahadat. Why does God say "There are no god's but God?" Because His love, mercy and compassion is directed towards His people, and responds as if a husband could see his wife being seduced. This actually puts new importance on the Shahadat not simply as a confession for Kafir to enter the faith, but for those who are islam to always put God above all else. I think this terminology in regards to God is important, simply to understand the character of God.

[SHOULD NOT]

[/quote]

As per articles on this site, these types of verses SHOULD NOT be read as relating to whether someone is Muslim / Christian etc, as those divisions did not exist within the Quran.
[/quote]

Sorry missed a key word in the previous post. There is also another thing to consider....... Often the motivation to disconnect with "Sinners" is to give "the appearance of someone religious". This is one of the central themes of the Injil...... the accusations against Nabi Isa was that he associated with "sinners." The response of Isa was "He came for the sick, not those who are well." Those who are living in "sin" are often living that life as a result of the life they were born into..... they need "a friend of sinners".

Assalamou 'alaykom everybody,

And when you see those who engage in [offensive] discourse concerning Our verses, then turn away from them until they enter into another conversion. And if Satan should cause you to forget, then do not remain after the reminder with the wrongdoing people 6:68

O you who have believed, take not those who have taken your religion in ridicule and amusement among the ones who were given the Scripture before you nor the disbelievers as allies. And fear Allah , if you should [truly] be believers. 5:57

With Peace,

Mehdi

I would think 5:57 and 6:68 is straight forward good advice to not associate and take as friends those living an immoral life. Beyond that, 5:57 seems to be directed to a war context in Arabia, and not taking as allies those who mock your belief.

As per articles on this site, these types of verses need to be read as relating to whether someone is Muslim / Christian etc, as those divisions did not exist within the Quran.

Asalamu Alykum Daniel

Is it also safe to say that in John 14:13-31 has nothing to do with the word Ahmad?

I just suggested that the word Ahmad does not mean Gods divine presence, so in John 14:15-31 I would read it how it is. And not mix the two up. I understood that Gods divine presence does not mean the trinity and what you meant.

Salam

Yes, you are correct. Sorry, my original response might have been a bit confusing, when I was trying to showing relating John 14 to "Ahmad" or Muhammad was not possible.

And yes, we are not talking about the trinity here, simply John 14 being God's promise to once the prophet Jesus leaves, he will not leave His people abandoned, but there will be a supernatural realisation of Gods presence, known as the Holy Spirit. The background to this is the Hebrew understanding of the Tabernacle / Temple in the Torah, where Gods presence was believed to have dwelt according to David.

Salamun Alaikum Hamzeh,

Verse 61:6 Allah tells us what Jesus says.

Now the Gospels that Jesus preached is in Syriac..  Which is pronounced "Manahma". 

There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus was NOT referring to Gods presents. Nor the Holy Spirit, Christians think the Holy Spirt is one of the three of the Trinity which is linked to God, Which is certainly not true.

OK, I will stand by what is written in the article http://www.quransmessage.com/articles/ahmad%20FM3.htm as correct as far as I can see. Re when Jesus was speaking in John 14:26, not referring to the Holy Spirit.... well to come to that conclusion we have to simply throw out the Injil and say it is not true... Pages of the words of Jesus refer to the one coming after him as the Holy Spirit such as "But the counsellor, the HOLY SPIRIT, will teach you all things." We are not talking about the trinity, simply the belief that God will not leave mankind alone and distant....

Wasalam
Daniel

Hello Hamzah,

I might add something before Br Joseph replies. The passage that is used for applying "Ahmad" to Muhammad is John 14:15-31. In using "Ahmad", we read....
- The "Ahmad" (counsellor) is the Holy Spirit 14:17
- The disciples of Nabi Isa know the "Ahmad"  14:17
- The "Ahmad will teach the disciples of Nabi Isa  14:26

Numerous other aspects of "Ahmad" refering to Ahmad being Gods divine presence being felt in the lives of those who follow God, and that when Nabi Isa leaves, people will not be left alone, but God's presence (Ahmad) will be with them.

I will be honest writing from a Christian perspective, when they hear of the above passage being applied to the prophet Muhammad, it discredits Islam and presents a great misunderstanding of Islam in the eyes of a Christian. It leaves the impression that Islam is a religion applying deity status to Muhammad as a desperate effort to be legitimate. If only Islam could leave such things, let the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad be what they originally were meant to be, there would be so much more positive response.

Wasalam
Daniel

Dear Bassam,

Surely, we would only be able to distinguish such matters based on the 'explicit' information God provides in the Quran. I personally do not know of any statement in the Quran where God unequivocally and explicitly states that He has granted the highest rank to one Prophet 'by name' over all other Prophets.

Peace to you :-)

I know this is going to be controversial, and I have no interest in presenting "orthodox Christian dogma" here, however wouldn't wouldn't QS 3:45 be a case of God explicitly elevating Nabi Isa? Obviously Isa being given high rank and authority is central to the Injil. Some may disclaim this as the teachings of Paul to a Gentile context. However this is the opposite. It is central to the Hebrew teaching in the Torah, "The Lord said to my lord, sit at my right hand," this verse is quoted over 20 X in the New Testament referring to Isa. It is the central message of Hebrew disciples of Isa, who were the guards of "Tauhid". In essence it is saying God has made Isa, due to his obedience, high in rank to be His "Right hand man" to fulfill his purposes on earth. The one anointed as the Messiah.

This is what made the Hawariyuun and thousands of Hebrew followers of Isa distinct from the regular Jews. Remove this, and Islam becomes in a sense an Arabised form of regular Judaism, disconnecting itself from the Tauhid followers of Isa. This is one of those topics which is uncomfortable, as Isa has been so misrepresented by Christianity.

Thank you for all the contributions and articles on this site which have been very helpful for me.

Wasalam
Daniel