Muslim Q And A

[extempers]

I'm not a big fan of quoting Biblical scripture because I believe it to be fabricated, but here's one view.


Bible:

We believe that the Gospels that are in people’s hands today, in which the Christians believe, have been tampered with and changed, and are still being tampered with from time to time, so that there is nothing left in the form in which the Gospel was revealed from Allaah. Here we would point out that the Gospel which speaks most of the belief in the trinity and the divinity of the Messiah (peace be upon him), so that it has become a reference-point for the Christians in their arguments in support of this falsehood, is the Gospel of John. This Gospel is subject to doubts about its authorship even among some Christian scholars themselves, as is not the case with the other Gospels in which they believe. This is an ancient doubt which goes back to the second century CE according to their own history.


Regardless of the doubts about the authorship of the Gospels in general, and of the Gospel of John in particular, the phrases that they quote from these Gospels do not support the point they are trying to make, rather it is a spider’s web to which they are clinging, as Allaah says of them and others like them (interpretation of the meaning):

“The likeness of those who take (false deities as) Awliya’ (protectors, helpers) other than Allaah is the likeness of a spider who builds (for itself) a house; but verily, the frailest (weakest) of houses is the spider’s house if they but knew”

[al-‘Ankaboot 29:41]

The Bible in which it says that the Messiah is the son of God is the same Bible in which the lineage of the Messiah ends with Adam (peace be upon him), and he too is described as a son of God.

“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli … the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God”

[Luke 3:23-38]

This is the same Bible that describes Israel in the same terms:

“Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son”

[Exodus 4:22]

Something similar appears in the Book of Hosea:

“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son”

[Hosea 11:1]

The same is said of Soloman (peace be upon him):

“He said to me: 'Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father”

[I Chronicles 28:6]

Were Adam, Israel and Soloman all other sons of God, before the Messiah (peace be upon him)? Exalted be Allaah far above what they say!

Indeed, in the Gospel of John itself there is an explanation of what is meant by this being a son; it includes all the righteous servants of God, so there is nothing unique about Jesus or any other Prophet in this regard.

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”

[John 1:3]

Something similar appears in the Gospel of Matthew:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God”

[Matthew 5:8-9]

This usage of the word “son” in the language of the Bible is a metaphor for the righteous servant of God, without it implying anything special or unique about the way in which he is created, or describing him literally as the offspring of God. Hence John says:

“How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!”

[1 John 3:1]

For the same reason Adam is also called a son of God – exalted be Allaah far above that.

There remains the issue of Eesa (peace be upon him) being described as a son of God, and what they fabricated about the Lord of the Worlds, saying that He was the father of the Messiah (peace be upon him). This too is not unique in the language of the Gospels:

“Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, '[b]I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”[/b]

[John 20:17]




Islamqa

[extempers]

One final point:

“Verily, the likeness of ‘Eesa (Jesus) before Allaah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: ‘Be!’ — and he was”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:59]

This is the belief concerning the creation of the Prophet of Allaah ‘Eesa, which was a miracle for all the people to see.

But the miracle of Adam’s creation is greater. For ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) was created without a father, but Adam was created without a father or a mother, and this is more expressive of the power of Allaah to create; it is more miraculous than the creation of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him). For all these reasons and others, it was essential to explain the issue of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) and put matters straight.

Islamqa

[mortify]

[quote name='extempers' date='13 December 2009 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1260746927' post='2019911']
The Gospel of Barnabas has miraculously survived though.
[/quote]

It amazes me that Muslims will consider this 17th century forgery a genuine Gospel when they reject writings written decades after Jesus' resurrection.

[Selah]

Very interesting, Extempers. Thank you

[mortify]

[quote name='extempers' date='13 December 2009 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1260746927' post='2019911']
The notion of Jesus as son of God is something that was established under the influence of Paul of Tarsus (originally named Saul), who had been an enemy of Jesus, but later changed course and joined the disciples after the departure of Jesus.[/quote]

St Paul is like the Umar of Christianity, originally an enemy but then a devoted convert, and in St Paul's case it was a miraculous conversion. Anyone who has read St Paul's writings knows that he recognized the authority of the Apostles in Jerusalem, in fact when an issue over practice arose St Paul took the issues to the Apostles who settled it, and then he followed through with their decision (hardly the behavior of a rebel.) This man endured many a hardship for the Gospel and ultimately gave up his life for it. Anyone who wants want to make this man into a rebel doesn't know who he really was.
[quote]
Later, however, he initiated a number of changes into early Christian teachings, in contradiction, for instance, to disciples like Barnabas, who believed in the Oneness of God and who had actually lived and met with Jesus.[/quote]

If St Paul was a rebel teaching false doctrines he would have been rejected by the Apostles, instead, they accepted him as an apostle.


[quote]
The original followers of Prophet Jesus opposed these blatant misrepresentations of the message of Jesus. They struggled to reject the notion of the Divinity of Jesus for close to 200 years.[/quote]

Please name these "original" followers of Jesus.

[quote]The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 CE Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This indicates that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity. [/quote]

In all probability St Barnabas did write a gospel but it has been lost to antiquity. The 17th century forgery labeled "Gospel of Barnabas" and proclaimed by Muslims to be the real gospel is just that, a forgery.

And if you think St Ireneus rejected the Divinity of Christ you surely never read any of his writings.


The Muslim attitude to the "Gospel of Barnabas" reveals how poor their methodology is.

[extempers]

St. Paul was no Umar (ra).

Prophet Muhammad (s) prayed to God for help by giving guidance to one of the strong-willed leaders of the Quraish and it was Umar (ra) who was chosen.

This was done in the very early stages of Islamic history and he immediately became the 2nd closest companion to Prophet Muhammad (s). His sacrifices, faith, fear and love of God are well documented as well as direct praises of him from the mouth of Prophet Muhammad (s).
Glory to God, how he cried for his mistakes of the past even though conversion wipes away all sins.

This list of polar opposites with Paul can go on for pages and you probably know some of them

Edited December 14, 2009 by extempers

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='extempers' date='13 December 2009 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1260752823' post='2019963']
St. Paul was no Umar (ra).

Prophet Muhammad (s) prayed to God for help by giving guidance to one of the strong-willed leaders of the Quraish and it was Umar (ra) who was chosen.

This was done in the very early stages of Islamic history and he immediately became the 2nd closest companion to Prophet Muhammad (s). His sacrifices, faith, fear and love of God are well documented as well as direct praises of him from the mouth of Prophet Muhammad (s).
Glory to God, how he cried for his mistakes of the past even though conversion wipes away all sins.

This list of polar opposites with Paul can go on for pages and you probably know some of them
[/quote]
I see no polar differences so far, other than St. Paul was Christian, and St. Paul (probably) never met Jesus.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='13 December 2009 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1260753336' post='2019965']
I see no polar differences so far, other than St. Paul was Christian, and St. Paul (probably) never met Jesus.
[/quote]
St. Paul met Jesus; he met Him on the road to Damascus.

[rkwright]

It is interesting that people have appealed to Irenaeus for support of the idea that Jesus was not God...

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).

[extempers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 December 2009 - 08:27 PM' timestamp='1260754060' post='2019967']
St. Paul met Jesus; he met Him on the road to Damascus.
[/quote]
And this is not accepted as historical fact.


Prophet Muhammad (s) directly prayed for Umar's (ra) guidance, kept him as his 2nd closest companion, spoke numerous praises for him and followed the the Arab tradition of marriage in bring closer the relationship.

Even if Jesus (as) met st. Paul on the road, there is no comparison.
Nor did Umar (ra) write any major theological books or "adapt" the message of Muhammad (s)

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='extempers' date='13 December 2009 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1260756501' post='2019999']
And this is not accepted as historical fact.
[/quote]
Who says? You?

I accept the appearance of Christ to St. Paul as historical fact.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='extempers' date='13 December 2009 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1260756501' post='2019999']
Even if Jesus (as) met st. Paul on the road, there is no comparison.
Nor did Umar (ra) write any major theological books or "adapt" the message of Muhammad (s)
[/quote]
Well I cannot help it that Umar was not able to write any theological books.

P.S. - Again, I do not accept the idea that St. Paul "adapted" the message of Christ, because after his conversion to Christianity St. Paul met with the other Apostles and they accepted his gospel as accurate.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='extempers' date='13 December 2009 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1260756501' post='2019999']
Prophet Muhammad (s) directly prayed for Umar's (ra) guidance, kept him as his 2nd closest companion, spoke numerous praises for him and followed the the Arab tradition of marriage in bring closer the relationship.[/quote]
What proof do you have that Mohammad prayed for Umar? A Muslim text perhaps?

Well, I have the New Testament and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers which confirm the information about St. Paul's conversion. You are free to cast aspersions on the New Testament, and other early Christian writings, but that does not prove them false.

[extempers]

From a secular historical perspective, is there proof that Jesus (as) met St. Paul?
From what I understand, the answer is a definitive no.


From a secular historical perspective, is there proof that Umar (ra) was the 2nd closest companion of Prophet Muhammad (s)?
Absolutely.
I've yet to read any source that has countered this claim. Can the same be said for st. Paul?


Umar (ra) had no need to write theological books because he stayed on message and the Book of Guidance was memorized by hundreds (if not thousands) and was already compiled by Abu Bakr (ra)

However, Umar (ra) was a scholar (and his son is of the 3 greatest scholars of the companions), a leader and his statements, stories and lessons are well documented throughout Islamic books.

It is he who protected the Holy Church in Jerusalem and when invited by the Christians to pray in there he did not so there would no evidence to future Muslims that they can turn it into a mosque or tear it down.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 December 2009 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1260754060' post='2019967']
St. Paul met Jesus; he met Him on the road to Damascus.
[/quote]
Ok, fine, before the Crucifixion then.