Jesus In Islam

[Muslimah]

Peace ronniv


to continue in replying to your points.


Not only that some muslims say Prophet Mohamed salla Allah a`lyhee was sallam was not illiterate going against Quran. No there are some Muslims (by name of course) who even dont belive Allah Exist.


U ask question, we reply back the way a Muslim believes, the issue of how others who may not be Muslims believe is not our concern.


If u receive a reply for a question, that is the one we have according to Quran and Sunnah.


hope things are clear now

[ronniv93]

Rehmat, could you please leave me alone? Have you not noticed that I ignore every single one of your posts. You are full of hate and the things you say make no sense.


For example:

Ever heard of Barnabas dude? In his Gospel, he confirms that Mary was engaged to her cousin Joseph (not married).

The fact that you can't use some simple common sense logic to realize this book as a fake disqualifies you from ever speaking to me about FACTS; you are apparently easily fooled by lies.

[ronniv93]

<b>Umm_Zachariah</b>,

If on one hand it was said he was Messiah and on the other hand that his father was Joseph

There is no dilemma for Christians at all. The term "Messiah" does not mean "one who will be born of a virgin." That may have been a prophecy ABOUT Him, but your point is that he could not be Messiah and have a father at the same time. Those 2 things do not have anything do with one another ESPECIALLY since WE KNOW that Joseph was NOT His biological father, because the apostles have related that fact to us.

Who could then blame people if they didn't believe in him if they were told that Messiah HAD a father, Joseph, as you are saying here?

This was not the only qualification, though. You cannot limit Jesus' signs to just this 1 thing.

And it also gives the impression to play a charade since it is all about fooling people to believe what is not true (that Joseph is the father) and to protect his mother, that Allah, SWT already is protecting?

In Christianity, ther is no need to protect Mary. It doesn't even come into play. Thus, there is no need for the story about Jesus talking in the cradle. Mary was engaged to Joseph, then Gabriel appeared to her telling her that she would become pregnant with the Messiah having never known a man, Joseph still marries her because the angel appears to him also and life goes on.


There's no charade involved. There's no fooling people since no one would have thought to question the matter in the first place.

[Rehmat]

The fact that you can't use some simple common sense logic to realize this book  as a fake disqualifies you from ever speaking to me about FACTS; you are apparently easily fooled by lies.

Hmmmmmm!


You must be referring to Zionist lies - like 'Six Million Died'; Mongolian Khazar Jews are 'Sematic Jews'; German Jews hated Hitler (while 150,000 of them served in Nazi forces); when European Jews landed in Palestine - it was an empty land (ignoring the fact that there lived 700,000 Palestinians); Jews don't control the US government or Hollywood.......

[ronniv93]

<b>Muslimah</b>,

U ask question, we reply back the way a Muslim believes, the issue of how others who may not be Muslims believe is not our concern.

*Sigh* But I QUOTED Muslims.


First I'm accused of just making stuff up to try to prove a point.


Then, when I bring sources FROM MUSLIMS, the point is simply dismissed as NOT being from a Muslim.


I don't understand what's so hard about just dealing with the issue presented. Where in the Quran does it say that to be considered a Muslim, you have to believe that Muhammad was illiterate? And Muslims always claim that the only way to *truly* understand the Quran in fulness is to know the Arabic. Well these people are going back to the original Arabic itself and yet this is still not good enough for me to be able to get someone to actually discuss the issue.


What does it take?


You all quote from anyone calling themselves Christian and expect me to just accept and believe whatever they may say be it good or bad about the Bible.


Yet you all simply dismiss anything that doesn't fit with what YOUR notion of Islam is.


Is that not a double-standard? Let me answer: It is.


Tell me why the word "ummi" CANNOT mean "without a scripture".


Explain to me how "ummi" would ALWAYS mean illiterate when the Quran uses this word both of Muhammad and of the people to whom he carried his message. If it truly means illiterate and ALL the Arab groups that he preached Islam to were illiterate, then how would the Quran ever have been written down in the first place?

[umm Zachariah]

Hi Ronniv,


Thanks for your prompt reply.


Let me back a bit to have the chain complete?


<i>''The most important for example is that he spoke in the cradle to prove his mother's innocense from committing zina (sex outside the wedlock).''</i>


Sister Muslimahs answer - to that you responded


<i>''What would be the purpose of this "miracle" since Mary was married to Joseph? People would just assume (as they did) that Jesus' was Joseph's son.'' </i>


She wasn't a single mother.''


And then your respons to me


''<i>...ESPECIALLY since WE KNOW that Joseph was NOT His biological father, because the apostles have related that fact to us.''</i>


Yes, you are right I believe that the Messiah does not have any father, but Christianity gives a double face on this, since you said that ''people assumed that Jesus' was Joseph's son''? So Joseph then let them believe that it was his son, is that what you are telling me? Ronniv, this is confusing, WHO is the true father of Messiah OR CREATOR as I know it?


Next point,


<i>''Who could then blame people if they didn't believe in him if they were told that Messiah HAD a father, Joseph, as you are saying here? '' - </i>


''This was not the only qualification, though. You cannot limit Jesus' signs to just this 1 thing.''


I feel you avoid the question a bit, since we were not discussing his other qualifications, I am aware of some of them since I as a Muslim also believe he is the Messiah, and that is not the issue here.


Next point,


<i>''There's no charade involved. There's no fooling people since no one would have thought to question the matter in the first place.''</i>


I don't know if we are following the same thread here. IF Joseph pretends that the son is HIS, isn't that living on falsehood?


I cannot see 'lying' or avoiding to tell the truth about fatherhood as a virtue - it doesn't make sense, I repeat that again, sorry.


Regards

[ronniv93]

Thanks for your prompt reply.

No problem! Any time. :-)

Yes, you are right I believe that the Messiah does not have any father, but Christianity gives a double face on this, since you said that ''people assumed that Jesus' was Joseph's son''? So Joseph then let them believe that it was his son, is that what you are telling me? Ronniv, this is confusing, WHO is the true father of Messiah OR CREATOR as I know it?

1. First, remember also that King Herod at this time had heard that the Messiah had been born. He knew of some of the prophecies concerning him as well. So, for Joseph to go around telling everyone that Mary's baby was the miraculously-born, promised Messiah, he's practically inviting the King to come and kill the child before he even gets started in life.


2. Another point: Would you have preferred for Joseph to go out and tell the family and everyone else he met, "Hey, this isn't really my baby. My wife got pregnant before she and I came together, but it's okay because an angel came and told both of us that she would get preganant by the power of the Holy Spirit, so everything's fine." That doesn't seem like a necessary situation to put him or his new bride in.


3. Lastly, if you say that this is some sort of deception or "double-face", would you then accept the statement from me that I think it is deception on the part of Allah to fool everyone into thinking that Jesus died on the cross (including his own precious mother and all his closest followers) but never clear up the matter until 600 years later when Muhammad came on the scene? So all those thousands and thousands of Christians who had lost their lives - been martyred for their faith in Christ - would have died in vain because Christ never really died and thus was never resurrected. Would a loving and merciful God really let all those people be tricked for HUNDREDS of years?


To ME, that seems deceptive. I'm sure that you don't see it that way. Neither do I see my faith as deceptive. There was nothing good that could come of Joseph running around telling people that Jesus wasn't his son; people would probably have just thought he was crazy or that he had been mesmerized and fooled by Mary's lie that she "magically" got pregnant. And then, as I said before, that CERTAINLY would have attracted the attention of Herod who would have come after Jesus to kill Him.


The good that came from him NOT running his mouth and making his wife appear as a fornicator is that Christ was able to survive until it was time for His earthly mission.


There is nothing good that I can see from letting people think that Jesus died when He didn't. The bad is that thousands of people were deceived, died in their deception, and many were martyred based upon a lie that was prompted by Allah himself and never corrected for hundreds of years. Even now, there is no proof that Jesus didn't die on the cross, so it's STILL not cleared up. IMO, this is deception; not the issue of Joseph.


<b>ANOTHER EXAMPLE</b>


If my biological father divorced my mother while she was pregnant but then she married another man, are you saying that it is incumbent upon me, my mother and stepfather to make sure we tell all of our neighbors, friends, family, church members, co-workers, etc. that he's not my real dad? Do you consider it deception if WE DON'T go publicizing that information? Do you go around telling everybody your personal business?


I'm not meaning my questions in the last paragraph to be ugly or mean, but seriously... since when do people have to go around telling everybody they meet what's going on in their household? I don't see that as a law for any of us - Jew, Christian or Muslim.

I don't know if we are following the same thread here. IF Joseph pretends that the son is HIS, isn't that living on falsehood?

Why do you think it would be pretending?


It seems like you just WANT to find something wrong with the Christian story. How is he pretending? He just takes care of and helps raise Jesus just as normally as he does anything else. There's no need to put on a show.

I cannot see 'lying' or avoiding to tell the truth about fatherhood as a virtue - it doesn't make sense, I repeat that again, sorry.

But wait a minute.... On another thread, I saw several Muslims make the statement that if a woman commits adultery or fornication then she's okay as long as she doesn't do it in front of 4 witnesses and doesn't go confess to it. It was even affirmed by your prophet that it would be better for her NOT to say anything, thus she wouldn't be subject to the punishments according to Islamic law.


Now here is an actual <b>SIN</b> that took place and Islamically-speaking, the person should just never confess it openly.


In addition, according to some hadith I read before, your prophet Muhammad actually even condoned outright lying in about 3 or 4 circumstances.


But here Joseph is.... there's no sin involved, there's no blatant lying.... but you think that is not virtuous.


In Islam, one is encouraged TO NOT confess to sins they commit and in some instances, lying is even encouraged, yet you <b>don't</b> have a problem with that?


Now, I'm the one who is confused.

[Rehmat]

But wait a minute.... On another thread, I saw several Muslims make the statement that if a woman commits adultery or fornication then she's okay as long as she doesn't do it in front of 4 witnesses and doesn't go confess to it.  It was even affirmed by your prophet that it would be better for her NOT to say anything, thus she wouldn't be subject to the punishments according to Islamic law. 

Another 'thread' or your own 'other ID'?


Now, if there are FOUR EYE WITNESSES to the act of adultery, how can the woman lie?


But wait a minute, here is something I read in 'Judaism and History' written by an Israeli Jew - Professor Israel Shahak:


ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. A Jew who indirectly causes the death of another Jew is, however, only guilty of what talmudic law calls a sin against the 'laws of Heaven', to be punished by God rather than by man.


When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.


Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, 'one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice .., there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly:3 He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile's death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews.


A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.


All this has a direct and practical relevance to the realities of the State of Israel. Although the state's criminal laws make no distinction between Jew and Gentile, such distinction is certainly made by Orthodox rabbis, who in guiding their flock follow the Halakhah. Of special importance is the advice they give to religious soldiers.


Since even the minimal interdiction against murdering a Gentile outright applies only to 'Gentiles with whom we [the Jews] are not at war', various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or even should be killed.6 Since 1973 this doctrine is being publicly propagated for the guidance of religious Israeli soldiers. The first such official exhortation was included in a booklet published by the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In this booklet the Command's Chief Chaplain writes:


When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilized ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good.


See, now I am confused too

[ronniv93]

Why are you talking to me about Judaism?


Why are you talking to me at all???


Why are you STALKING me????

[Rehmat]

Why are you talking to me about Judaism?
Why are you talking to me at all???


Why are you STALKING me????

Gee, I thought I was showing you a MIRROR


Can you tell me why're you talking about Islam - ARE YOU A MUSLIM?


Remember dude, it's Internet FREEDOM - Not Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG) the United States.


Hey Maan, Frustration Iznogoodh