Isa--Jesus

[unicorn]

I know many Christians are confused about their religion (e.g. believing that salvation can be earned through works rather than being a gift), so when I say this, I mean no disrespect, but are many Muslims confused about their religion? I thought that Islam expressed that Jesus did not rise from the dead and was not the Messiah/Son of God. But, I have read some articles lately that have said otherwise:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/quran-jesus.html

http://www.the-good-way.com/eng/book/b06.htm

[snappyanswer]

Please try to find this great and glorious goodness in today's Islamic rule in today's Islamic world?

The women in Christianity are free for example. Christians come in a vast variety from orthodox to heretical and exist across the street from each other with no Jihad-genocide.

Revisionism of the true history of Islamic totalitarianism is OK for some people, but you are still left with the fact that Abraham did not try to scarifice Ishmael and Jesus was crucified and resurrected. And, that Jesus is the Son of God.

Three (four) key things that make Islam some other religion and belief system but not a member of the three Abrahamic based religions because followers of Islam are following mistakes and errors perpetuated for some reason, by the followers of Mohammadism.

The Qur'an does have some things right. (Even a broken clock right?) There is a reason (now) why the Christian and Jews are friends of each other. Islam.

[MagusYanam]

Please try to find this great and glorious goodness in today's Islamic rule in today's Islamic world?

I see it in my classmates - some of the most generous, enlightened and intelligent people I know are Moslem by faith and by culture. I know quite a few Islamic women who don't wear burqas. And they have no more in common with suicide bombers than I do with hospital bombers. They believe in democratic governance as much as I do; they live in close contact with Christians and Jews with no trouble whatsoever.

As long as I can know and respect Moslems as people, I won't condemn the whole of Islam as being totalitarian, genocidal, rapacious or vicious.

Christians come in a vast variety from orthodox to heretical and exist across the street from each other with no Jihad-genocide.

Moslems also come in a vast variety from orthodox to reform, Sunni and Shi'a. In many areas of the world, they can also exist across the street from each other with no jihad and no genocide. You don't do your integrity any credit by comparing your own religion's best tendencies with the worst of Islam, by the way - a mistake I see a lot of people making on this site.

Three (four) key things that make Islam some other religion and belief system but not a member of the three Abrahamic based religions because followers of Islam are following mistakes and errors perpetuated for some reason, by the followers of Mohammadism.

These are honest disagreements which can be settled through reasonable dialogue and intellectual honesty. And they don't invalidate Islam as an Abrahamic religion - Judaism doesn't assert either that Jesus was the Son of God or that he was resurrected, yet you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims about Judaism (I hope). Regardless of who was offered as sacrifice then, Abraham had two sons and fathered two nations, and we still share those bonds of brotherhood even though we are at times at odds.

[snappyanswer]

These are honest disagreements which can be settled through reasonable dialogue and intellectual honesty.

How? If you oppose Mohammad the Muslims see this as blashphemy. There is little to debate when they are told he was wildly wrong.

And they don't invalidate Islam as an Abrahamic religion - Judaism doesn't assert either that Jesus was the Son of God or that he was resurrected, yet you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims about Judaism (I hope).

ALL of the followers of Jesus WITH Jesus were Jews. Many Jewish people called Messianic believers are believers in Jesus as Christ and God. Many. The Jews of Judaism, disagree about Jesus but the Christian and the Jews see Abraham 100% the same.

Regardless of who was offered as sacrifice then, Abraham had two sons and fathered two nations, and we still share those bonds of brotherhood even though we are at times at odds.

REGARDLESS? REGARDLESS of WHO was sacrificed? Jesus to Jacob and the story is 100% necessary to be told factually. We "share" nothing with Ishmael's descendants as Christians except the Gospel of the Son of God and the commonality as people on this planet.

Didn't Paul talk about this?

In Galatians:

16 So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?

17They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out so that you will seek them.

18But it is good always to be eagerly sought in a commendable manner, and not only when I am present with you.

19My children, with whom I am again in labor until (Y)Christ is formed in you--

20 but I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

Bond and Free

21Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.

23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 2

5 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written,
"REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR;
BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR;
FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE
THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND."

28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.

29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the Scripture say?

"CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON,
FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN."

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

And the Jews do not believe it would be better to change the Tanakh to support a new religion. That is what the debate between Judaism and Christianty IS all about. But no one has the right to change Abraham and Jacob and the sacrifice of Jacob stopped by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham had two sons. One of the Promise and one that was promised something completely NOT messianic.

I know many fine people that are not believers in Christ Jesus. Some of them are Muslims too.

[MagusYanam]

REGARDLESS? REGARDLESS of WHO was sacrificed? Jesus to Jacob and the story is 100% necessary to be told factually. We "share" nothing with Ishmael's descendants as Christians except the Gospel of the Son of God and the commonality as people on this planet.

We share parentage in Abraham. No self-respecting Jew, Christian or Moslem can deny that - we don't deny (regardless of who it was God demanded be sacrificed) that Abraham had two sons - Isaac and Ishmael - who went on to father two nations. Thus, we are all children of the same Patriarch and we do have bonds of brotherhood which tie us in a spiritual communion transcending the separate covenants God made with each of the sons.

And the Jews do not believe it would be better to change the Tanakh to support a new religion. That is what the debate between Judaism and Christianty IS all about. But no one has the right to change Abraham and Jacob and the sacrifice of Jacob stopped by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham had two sons. One of the Promise and one that was promised something completely NOT messianic.

Jacob was not the one trussed up to be sacrificed on the mountain - that would be Isaac, Jacob's father. Isaac also had two sons, Esau, father of the Elamites, and Jacob, father of the Israelites.

Interestingly enough, the Qur'an does not deny this as it doesn't specify which son was trussed up to be sacrificed. It's only with nationalist movements recently in which some Moslems began to say it must have been Ishmael. Also interestingly, Islam doesn't claim a messianic tradition among the descendants of Ishmael - Mohammed never claimed kingship or asked to be anointed in the line of David. Yet somehow, these two misconceptions (on which two Moslems in particular were able to correct me) are quite prevalent among the uneducated here.

[snappyanswer]

snappyanswer wrote:
REGARDLESS? REGARDLESS of WHO was sacrificed? Jesus to Jacob and the story is 100% necessary to be told factually. We "share" nothing with Ishmael's descendants as Christians except the Gospel of the Son of God and the commonality as people on this planet.

MagusYanam wrote:
We share parentage in Abraham. No self-respecting Jew, Christian or Moslem can deny that - we don't deny (regardless of who it was God demanded be sacrificed) that Abraham had two sons - Isaac and Ishmael - who went on to father two nations. Thus, we are all children of the same Patriarch and we do have bonds of brotherhood which tie us in a spiritual communion transcending the separate covenants God made with each of the sons.

How many peoples were living in the middle east before Ishmael was even born? Not all or even many peoples of the mid-east are descedants of Ishmael. Maybe "some nations" but far from many peoples.

snappyanswer wrote:
And the Jews do not believe it would be better to change the Tanakh to support a new religion. That is what the debate between Judaism and Christianty IS all about. But no one has the right to change Abraham and Jacob and the sacrifice of Jacob stopped by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham had two sons. One of the Promise and one that was promised something completely NOT messianic.

MagusYanam wrote:
Jacob was not the one trussed up to be sacrificed on the mountain - that would be Isaac, Jacob's father. Isaac also had two sons, Esau, father of the Elamites, and Jacob, father of the Israelites.

thank you for the accurate correction. Of course this comes as a complete shock to the billions of Muslims that believe otherwise. I hope you won't go to Indonesia, Iran, or Saudi Arabia and spout this off anytime soon. Correctly correcting me will not get you beheaded.

MagusYanam wrote:
Interestingly enough, the Qur'an does not deny this as it doesn't specify which son was trussed up to be sacrificed.

Billions of Muslims that go to Mecca for Hajj are somehow telling a different story.

MagusYanam wrote:
It's only with nationalist movements recently in which some Moslems began to say it must have been Ishmael.

How long has the Kaaba been the MOST holy sight in Islam and why?

MagusYanam wrote:
Also interestingly, Islam doesn't claim a messianic tradition among the descendants of Ishmael - Mohammed never claimed kingship or asked to be anointed in the line of David. Yet somehow, these two misconceptions (on which two Moslems in particular were able to correct me) are quite prevalent among the uneducated here.

It appears there are a billion uneducated Muslims that need to be enlightened by your educated Muslim friends.

From Abraham, Isaac and Jacob came David. No wonder he is of little importance to Mohammad's revision. But, certainly is to Christians AND Jews. Mohammad claimed that the angel Gabriel told him Jesus was NOT crucified (to death) or resurrected. Is this right or wrong?

[snappyanswer]

Or maybe Muslims get a good education:

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_2 ... ascend.htm

Did Jesus Ascend? A Quran’ic View

by M. A. Malek

The entire super-structure of the Christian faith is built on a dogma: the death of Jesus (a.s) on the cross, his resurrection, and his bodily ascension to heaven. Islam categorically rejects this dogma:

"They slew him not nor crucified him." (Holy Qur'an 4:157) Some Muslim scholars have attempted in vain to paint this episode in the colors borrowed from the Christians. But do the Qur'anic injunctions warrant this interpretation? The Holy Qur'an says: "And because of their saying we slew the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, Allah's Messenger - They slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them. Those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain." (Q4:157)

It is accepted that Jesus (a.s) was apparently placed on the cross, and they were determined to kill him, but they failed in their attempt and Jesus (a.s) escaped death on the cross. Allah created circumstances to save Jesus (a.s) dying an accursed death. (Deut. 21:23) There is nothing in the Holy Qur'an to suggest that "Jesus was taken up," so much so that even Maulana Maudoodi in his popular commentary Tafhimul-Qur'an had to admit that:

"The Qur'an is silent about the nature and the details of the matter, and does neither say explicitly whether Allah raised him bodily from the earth to some place in heaven, nor does it say that he died like other mortals and only his soul was raised to heaven. It has been couched in such a language that nothing can be said definitely about the incident except that it was uncommon and extraordinary." (Note 195 to verse 4:157)

That is not the whole truth. It is wrong to say that "nothing can be said definitely."

If we interpret this verse with the application of the rules of interpretation, we arrive at only one conclusion: "That Jesus (a.s) had died - that he is not living." The same rules of interpretation have led Muhammad Asad to the following conclusion:

"The Qur'an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus." (Note 171 on verse 4:157 in his commentary The Message of the Qur'an). He further goes on to explain: "There exist, among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment, God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends find the slightest support in the Qur'an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at "harmonizing" the Qur'anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion. The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur'anic phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, which I render as "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so" - implyng that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown (probably under the then-powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the "original sin" with which mankind is allegedly burdened; and this legend became so firmly established among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it - albeit in a derogatory sense (for crucifixion was, in those times, a heinous form of death-penalty reserved for the lowest of criminals). This, to my mind, is the only satisfactory explanation of the phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, the more so as the expression shubbiha li is idiomatically synonymous with khuyyila li, "[a thing] became a fancied image to me", i.e. "in my mind" - in other words: "[it] seemed to me" (see Qamus, art. khayala, as well as Lane II, 833 and IV, 1500)."

He rejects the theory of the bodily ascension of Jesus (a.s) and explains that the verb rafa'ahu (Lit. "he raised him" or "elevated him"), as in verses 4:158 and 3:55, "has always, whenever the act of raf ("elevating") a human being is attributed to God, the meaning of "honoring" or "exalting". Nowhere in the Holy Qur'an is there any warrant for the popular belief that God has "taken up" Jesus (a.s) bodily, in his life time, into Heaven. The expression "God exalted him unto Himself" in the above verse (4:158) denotes the elevation of Jesus (a.s) to the realm of God's Special Grace - a blessing in which all Prophets partake - as is evident from 19:57 where the verb rafa'nahu ("we exalted him") is used with regard to the Prophet Idris (a.s) (see also Muhammad Abdullah in Manar III, 316f and VI 20f)." That was Muhammad Asad commenting on the Qur'anic verses 4:157 and 4:158 in his "The Message of the Qur'an".

Using the application of the same rules of interpretation, Shaykh Muhammad Shaltut came to the following conclusion: "There is nothing in the Holy Qur'an, nor in the sacred traditions of the Prophet (s.a.a.w), which endorses the correctness of the belief to the contentment of heart that Jesus (a.s) was taken up to heaven with his body and is alive there even now . . ." (Al-Risalah, Cairo, vol. 10 no. 462, p. 515).

He further writes in the same article: The word tawafa is used in so many places in the sense of death that it has become its foremost meaning: "Say the angel of death, who is given charge of you, shall cause you to die" (Q32:11). "(As for) those whom the angels caused to die while they are unjust to themselves" (Q4:97). "And if you could see when the angels will cause to die those who disbelieve" (Q8:50). "Our Messengers caused him to die" (Q22:5). "Make me die in submission and join me with the righteous" (Q12:101). It is absolutely clear from the Qur'anic verses quoted by Shaykh Shaltut that tawafa has no other meaning than taking away the soul either in sleep or death, particularly when God is the subject and a human being the object. The interpretation is also supported by Ibn Abbas. According to him, as narrated in Bukhari, Muttawaffika means Mumituka. (i.e. I will cause thee to die).

Jesus (a.s) was a Messenger (Q5:75), a mortal (Q21:7) subjected to the laws of Allah. Allah created human beings (and Jesus was a human being) and ordained that Death shall be their common lot. Life without death has not been granted to anyone. All human beings are mortals, and accordingly must die on earth. There are numerous verses that clearly indicate that every soul must taste death: "Every soul shall taste death" (Q3:185). "Every soul must taste death" (Q21:35). "He said (to man) therein (on earth) you shall live and therein you shall die" (Q7:25). "We appointed immortality for no mortal before thee" (Q21:34). "And He it is who gave you life, then He will cause you to die" (Q22:66). "Everyone in it (earth) must pass away" (Q55:26). "We have ordained death for you" (Q56:60). "Then He causes him to die and assigns him to a grave" (Q80:21). "Verily We created man from a product of wet earth, then placed him as a drop of seed in a safe lodging, then We make the life-germ a clot, then We make the clot a lump of flesh bones, then We clothe the bones with flesh, then We cause it to grow into another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators! Then after that you will certainly die" (Q23:11-15).

In contrast with the life of man, which must come to an end in accordance with the fundamental law laid down by the above verses, the Qur'an says that: "Allah alone is Everlasting and does not die" (Q25:25). The Qur'an lays down the principle that: "A man must die" (Q21:35), and that: "Only Allah lives forever" (Q25:58). It does not contemplate any change or exception, and it is categorically stated: "And you shall not find a change in Our course" (Q27:77). "And you shall not find any change in the course of Allah" (Q33:62). "Thou wilt not find for the law of Allah aught of power to change" (Q48:23). "Thou wilt not find for Allah's way of treatment any substitute, nor wilt thou find for Allah's way of treatment aught of power to change" (Q35:43).

The fundamental principles, wherein there can be no change (Q27:77) are: (i) a mortal must die (Q3:185) and (ii) a mortal cannot live forever as only Allah lives forever (Q25:58). The application of these principles forces us to believe that Jesus (a.s) must have died a natural as he was a mortal, a human being subject to all divine laws (Q21:7-8; 25:20; 5:75). How could Jesus (a.s) escape death (Q3:103; 20:55; 2:28) when Allah says: "Wherever you are, death will overtake you, though you are in towers raised high" (Q4:78).

Conclusive proof that Jesus (a.s) died a natural death is furnished by the verse Q5:117. Allah is said to remonstrate with Jesus (a.s) and enquires if he taught his followers: "Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah" (Q5:116)? Jesus (a.s) is made to say: "I said nothing to them except that which Thou didst command me: serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die (i.e. after my death) Thou hast been the Watcher over them and Thou art witness over all things" (Q5:117). The following facts are revealed by this verse: (i) As long as Jesus (a.s) was alive, he kept a careful watch on those who followed him; (ii) but he did not know how they behaved after his death; (iii) the followers of Jesus (a.s) have gone astray.[/b]

Accordingly, as long as Jesus (a.s) lived, his teachings were uncorrupted. The doctrine of his Divinity was introduced after his death or he could not plead ignorance. This verse (Q5:117) conclusively proves that Jesus (a.s) will not return, for if he returns to this earth, this verse is rendered void. He should have said that he had corrected his people on a second coming. He does not say so. A report in Sahih Bukhari supplements the proof provided by the verse Q5:117. It is narrated that on the Day of Resurrection, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s.a.a.w) would be shown some men from among his ummah being dragged towards hell. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said that he will plead: "I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die (i.e. after my death), Thou hast been the Watcher over them and Thou art witness over all thing." (Al-Bukhari Kitab-ul Tafseer). Note the words: they are identical to those of verse Q5:117. Since the words are the same, the same meaning must also be assigned to them. Double standards cannot be accepted.

No Muslim during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet believed in the so called ascension of Jesus (a.s). The deniers of his (i.e. the Holy Prophet's) mission challenged him to prove his Prophethood by ascending to heaven (Q17:93). Did Allah empower the Holy Prophet to show this miracle? No, instead the Prophet had to say: "I am but a mortal sent as a messenger" (Q17:93). The question arises: was not Jesus (a.s) a mortal? How could he ascend when the Holy Prophet could not? The only conclusion is that Jesus (a.s) must have died a natural death on this earth. If Jesus (a.s) had ascended, why did no one refer to his ascension to refute the Prophet's argument that he was only a mortal and a messenger?

The fact that Jesus (a.s) has died is further apparent from verse 144 of Surah Al-Imran: "And Muhammad is only an apostle, all of the (other) apostles have passed away before him: if, then, he dies or is slain, will you turn about on your heels" (Q3:144 Asad's translation)? It is clearly indicated in this verse that: (i) the Holy Prophet Muhammad was mortal; (ii) all the Prophets before him (including Jesus) were mortals and (iii) all the Prophets before the Holy Prophet had died. Hadrat Abu-Bakr (r.a) argued on the basis of this verse about the death of the Holy Prophet when some of his companions thought that the Prophet was not dead and could not die. The Muslims accepted his arguments. If the people had believed that Jesus (a.s) or some other Prophets were alive, Hadrat Abu-Bakr's arguments could not have satisfied the doubters in the Prophet's death. No one referred to any living Prophet. None of them mentioned anything about the ascension of Jesus (a.s). The only logical conclusion is that they did not believe that Jesus (a.s) had ascended to heaven or was alive.

The Qur'anic verse 75 of Surah Al-Maida negates the allegation that Jesus (a.s) is alive: "The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; Messengers before him had indeed passed away. And his mother was a family woman. They both used to eat food" (Q5:75). The verse contradicts the claim of the divinity in respect of Jesus (a.s). It shows that he stood in need of food when he was alive. As he does not partake food now, he cannot be alive. Jesus (a.s) was mortal (Q5:75; 21:7). How could he live without food?

Prayers and giving of alms have been obligatory on Jesus (a.s). "He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live." If, let us suppose, Jesus (a.s) has all the facilities of prayer and absolution in heaven, to whom is he offering poor-rate (zakaat), which was made essential for him as long as he lived?

Allah is above limitations: "Vision comprehends Him not, and He comprehends (all) vision" (Q6:104). "Nothing is like Him" (Q42:11). "He is nearer to us than our life-vein" (Q50:16). "He is present everywhere, in all directions" (Q2:115). He is not sitting in any particular office giving orders. His presence can be felt. "He Is All-Knowing" (Q2:225; 58:7). If Jesus (a.s) has "gone up" and is "with Allah," does it mean that he is also present everywhere? If so, then he cannot be a human being, for human beings cannot be present everywhere. Logic dictates that Jesus (a.s) has not gone up alive but must have died in this world. However, there cannot be any doubt that he has gone up spiritually like all other Prophets and other mortals.

Man is essentially a social animal. He lives in the company of his mates. He will go mad if put in solitary confinement. How could it be possible for Jesus (a.s) to remain above for such a long time and still remain sane?

Another question: even if we accept the proposition that Jesus (a.s) went up into heaven, who was the one who was put on the cross and crucified? Why did Allah substitute? Is not this substitution unethical? Is not this deception unbecoming of Allah? (God forbid)! This is cruelty and injustice by the canons of any "civilized law." Allah could not substitute, for He embraces all mercy (Q40:7; 6:148; 7:156). He is Truthful and Just. There is no evidence either in the Holy Qur'an or the hadith literature showing that someone else was put on the cross.

In conclusion, we can only say that the Holy Qur'an clearly repudiates the concept of the ascension of Jesus (a.s).

(Interestingly, in the first edition of his translation of the Qur'an, Allama Yusuf Ali translated "inni muttawaffi-ka" (Q3:55) as "I will cause thee to die." A similar translation is given by many others, including George Sale, J.M. Rodwell, N. J. Dawood, Muhammad Asad, Maulana Muhammad Ali, Shaykh Muhammad Shaltut, Allama Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, and so on.

Muhammad Pickthall translates it as "I am gathering thee." It should be noted that the language of his translation is "scriptural" and "I am gathering thee" is the Biblical idiom for "I am causing thee to die."

In his second and subsequent editions, Allama Yusuf Ali changed his translation to "I will take thee," but he did not give any reasons for the change. However, in footnote 2485, he comments on "(Jesus said) So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)" (Q19:33) as follows: "Those who believe that he never died should ponder over this verse."

According to a hadith, referred to in Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Vol. 11 page 246), the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.a.w) is reported to have said that he was told by the Archangel Gabriel that the Prophet Jesus (a.s) lived on earth to the age of 120 years before he died. - A. A. Karim, member of the Editorial Board).

Posted November 7, 1998. This article was printed in two parts in the April-June 1998 and July-September 1998 issues of "The Message," a United Islamic Association (UIA) publication, London, England.

Courtesy: http://www.geocities.com/forpeoplewhothink

[MagusYanam]

How many peoples were living in the middle east before Ishmael was even born? Not all or even many peoples of the mid-east are descedants of Ishmael. Maybe "some nations" but far from many peoples.

I'm sure my ancestors back in Saxony of old were not descendants of Isaac, yet they partook in Abraham's covenant through Christ the same way that the Canaanites, the Berbers, the Iranians and the Turks partook in it through Islam.

Of course this comes as a complete shock to the billions of Muslims that believe otherwise. I hope you won't go to Indonesia, Iran, or Saudi Arabia and spout this off anytime soon. Correctly correcting me will not get you beheaded.

I don't think the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia (conservative dictatorships as they are) are representative of the majority opinion among Moslems or the 'official' opinion of Islam as a whole. Thus (for obvious reasons) I wouldn't use them as my rules of thumb when judging the worth of the religion as a whole.

How long has the Kaaba been the MOST holy sight in Islam and why?

Ostensibly because that is the site where Hagar and Ishmael had the well spring up in Genesis 16. Which has nothing to do with the near-sacrifice of Isaac (or Ishmael) as I'm sure you're well aware.

Mohammad claimed that the angel Gabriel told him Jesus was NOT crucified (to death) or resurrected. Is this right or wrong?

I would argue that he was wrong. Most Moslems would say he was right. I would argue that it was Isaac the ancestor of Elam and Israel that was nearly sacrificed by Abraham; most Moslems would disagree. Are these any reason for violence or ill-will? I would argue (as most Moslems undoubtedly would) that it is not.

It's addressing questions like these that makes interfaith dialogues so important - where people can sit down without fear and ready to dispel their own misconceptions to discuss these kinds of issues.

[snappyanswer]

snappyanswer wrote:
How many peoples were living in the middle east before Ishmael was even born? Not all or even many peoples of the mid-east are descedants of Ishmael. Maybe "some nations" but far from many peoples.

MagusYanam wrote:
I'm sure my ancestors back in Saxony of old were not descendants of Isaac, yet they partook in Abraham's covenant through Christ the same way that the Canaanites, the Berbers, the Iranians and the Turks partook in it through Islam.

But the question was dealing with Muslim claiming they are descendants of Ishmael. Which almost all of them are not.

snappyanswer wrote:
Of course this comes as a complete shock to the billions of Muslims that believe otherwise. I hope you won't go to Indonesia, Iran, or Saudi Arabia and spout this off anytime soon. Correctly correcting me will not get you beheaded.

MagusYanam wrote:
I don't think the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia (conservative dictatorships as they are) are representative of the majority opinion among Moslems or the 'official' opinion of Islam as a whole. Thus (for obvious reasons) I wouldn't use them as my rules of thumb when judging the worth of the religion as a whole.

Please post an Islamic country where Billy Graham and DC Talk could hold an evangelical "crusade" to preach to the masses openly and free? Even Turkey has hasseled Christians for doing what Christians must. And, how is evangelizing in any way harmful?

snappyanswer wrote:
How long has the Kaaba been the MOST holy sight in Islam and why?

MagusYanam wrote:
Ostensibly because that is the site where Hagar and Ishmael had the well spring up in Genesis 16. Which has nothing to do with the near-sacrifice of Isaac (or Ishmael) as I'm sure you're well aware.

It has to do with a site that has nothing to do with the God of Israel, which is the only God. Jesus of course being that God dwelling with us (or more historically, the Apostles).

snappyanswer wrote:
Mohammad claimed that the angel Gabriel told him Jesus was NOT crucified (to death) or resurrected. Is this right or wrong?

MagusYanam wrote:
I would argue that he was wrong. Most Moslems would say he was right. I would argue that it was Isaac the ancestor of Elam and Israel that was nearly sacrificed by Abraham; most Moslems would disagree. Are these any reason for violence or ill-will? I would argue (as most Moslems undoubtedly would) that it is not.

You would argue this in which Islamic, Sharia controlled country?

MagusYanam wrote:
It's addressing questions like these that makes interfaith dialogues so important - where people can sit down without fear and ready to dispel their own misconceptions to discuss these kinds of issues.

When this can be done in Islamic Sharia run countries then it will be a fine day indeed. Do you agree? So far I have seen this abilty to argue religion mainly in Christian nations and at Christian founded Universities. Are we not still decades if not centuries away from Muslim run free societies, where peoples have the right to freedom of religion or freedom from religion?

[MagusYanam]

You would argue this in which Islamic, Sharia controlled country?

Ah, but I'm not arguing this in a country run under Shari'a, am I?

When this can be done in Islamic Sharia run countries then it will be a fine day indeed. Do you agree? So far I have seen this abilty to argue religion mainly in Christian nations and at Christian founded Universities. Are we not still decades if not centuries away from Muslim run free societies, where peoples have the right to freedom of religion or freedom from religion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirin_Ebadi

Perhaps not as far away as you might think. People like Shirin Ebadi, though they are working in what must be difficult and dangerous political environments for reform in countries as regressive as Iran, are nonetheless succeeding, one minor victory at a time.

Turkey is already a 'free society', a secular, largely Islamic society in which people do have (and have had for a long time) legally guaranteed personal 'freedom of religion'. Of course, I have seen, to date, only one example of an Orthodox Christian arrested there, and that even wasn't because he was professing his own religion.

It has to do with a site that has nothing to do with the God of Israel, which is the only God. Jesus of course being that God dwelling with us (or more historically, the Apostles).

The well brought forth in Genesis 16 'has nothing to do with the God of Israel'? Really, you astonish me. I thought that the Torah in its entirety was about the God of Israel.

[snappyanswer]

One minor victory for freedom in an Islamic country in how many centuries since Mohammad's followers started their war campaign?

Ah, but I'm not arguing this in a country run under Shari'a, am I?

My point exactly. No way this happens under Islamic law in an Islamic country. Luckily we and the numerous atheists and secularists live in a Judeo-Christian moral society.

Turkey is already a 'free society', a secular, largely Islamic society in which people do have (and have had for a long time) legally guaranteed personal 'freedom of religion'. Of course, I have seen, to date, only one example of an Orthodox Christian arrested there, and that even wasn't because he was professing his own religion.

When was the last time there was a Christian music concert held in Turkey? Any mass evangelizing campaigns held in Turkey? Notice I did not use the word "crusade." There is a reason for this.

The well brought forth in Genesis 16 'has nothing to do with the God of Israel'? Really, you astonish me. I thought that the Torah in its entirety was about the God of Israel.

Yes of course it does. The God of Abraham and Hagar is the God of the Israelites. Let's see what Genesis 16 says about Hagar's child Ishmael?

Also an interesting place to disprove the unreachable deity of Islamic theology. Hagar saw and talked with God.

Genesis 16
Hagar and Ishmael
1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."
Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.
When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, "You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me."
6 "Your servant is in your hands," Abram said. "Do with her whatever you think best." Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.

7 The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. 8 And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?"
"I'm running away from my mistress Sarai," she answered.

9 Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her." 10 The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count."

11 The angel of the LORD also said to her:
"You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael, [a]
for the LORD has heard of your misery.

12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."

13 She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: "You are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me." 14 That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi [d] ; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered.

15 So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne. 16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.