Jump to content
Islamic Forum

yusufar

IF Guardian
  • Content count

    250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

yusufar last won the day on March 1 2015

yusufar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About yusufar

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
    Married
  • Religion
    Islam

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Malaysia
  1. Muslim-Christian Debate, Here

    God is not a tax collector, neither is Jesus. Tax collectors will surely love those that love them, but who does? Surely God will love those that love Him, and if you don't love those that love you then what are you? But of course you should not love only those that love you. "You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and pagans; and you will find the nearest of them in love (affection) to the believers those who say, "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant". (Surah Al Maidah 5:82) Our recompense for love of anyone and God is only with God.
  2. Muslim-Christian Debate, Here

    The Trinitarian Christian hypothesis of a suffering god in human form is not exactly new or unique to Christianity and has its roots in pagan beliefs. God is not distant at all and in Islam the concept of suffering, hardship, trials and tribulations, even triumphs, are tests, our response to all of which is meant to bring us closer in love to God. Lovers of God are plentiful in Islam, even if Christians may think otherwise. They participate in His Love both in this life and the hereafter and do not require Him to suffer with or for them. "And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular vein" (Surah Qaf 50:16). "...But those who believe are stronger in love for Allah (more than anything else)..." (Surah Baqarah 2:165) Abû Hurayrah relates that the Prophet said: “Allah will ask on the Day of Judgment: ‘Where are those who loved each other for the sake of My Glory? Today, - on a day when there is no shade but Mine – I shall shade them with My Shade.” [Sahîh Muslim (2566)] The Prophet said: “Among Allah’s servants are people who are neither Prophets nor martyrs, but whom the Prophets and martyrs will deem fortunate because of their high status with Allah.” They asked: “O Messenger of Allah! Inform us of who they are.” He said: “They are people who loved each other for Allah’s sake, without being related to one another or being tied to one another by the exchange of wealth. By Allah, their faces will be luminous and they will be upon light. They will feel no fear when the people will be feeling fear and they will feel no grief when the people will be grieving.” Then he read the verse: “Behold, on the friends of Allah there shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” (Surah Yunus 10:16) [Sunan Abî Dâwûd (3527)] In case you are wondering, "the friends" of Allah are those who love Him and whom He loves. Before I present the evidence of the Trinitarian Christians destroying Jesus's teachings, may I ask if you have gone through the "Paul's Different Gospel" thread? And by the way, so that there is no misunderstanding, if you read carefully what I said in my previous post, I did not say that the Trinitarian Christians destroyed these "glimpses" but rather that all other of Jesus's "real" teachings were destroyed except for the glimpses in the Four Gospels.
  3. Muslim-Christian Debate, Here

    God's Omnipotence is exactly the reason for Him not assuming a human nature. He has no need to do so. There is absolutely no question of denying his Omnipotence. The hypothesis of His Omnipotence may appear to include His Power to assume a human nature and dwell with us, but that is and will always be only a theory, as it has never happened and will never happen. To carry this hypothesis to its logical conclusion, we can say that His Omnipotence includes the Power to self-destruct, so God can self-destruct, but WILL He? The mistake and confusion of Christians is in attributing human nature to God's Omnipotence. Human nature is an attribute of creation, not of the Creator but by the Creator and entirely separate from Him. His Divinity is in contrast to humanity. That is the Very Essence of His Nature, that He is entirely different from His creation. Everything that human beings are, God is not. The Creator cannot at the same time be the created. That would be inimical to His Nature as Creator. Can we therefore attribute humanity to Divinity or Divinity to humanity? Even if it were Omnipotently possible to be both Creator and created at the same time, would God reduce His Status thereby? Can or would he He divide Himself into Two or Three? If so, why not more? Is humanity not sufficient proof of how the many can create chaos? Can He split His Omnipotence in such a manner that the Three Parts thereof are All Equal in Omnipotence to the One? If they are All Equal, Whose Will will prevail? Or will Two Parts not be Equal to the One, in which case can the Other Two (not Equal in Omnipotence) be called God? Can They All Be Equal yet different at the same time? In other words, can God be both Omnipotent yet not Omnipotent at the same time? For that is what being both Divine and "assuming" a human nature will entail. God cannot be both Divine and human at the same time as that would negate His Omnipotence. The Very Essence of God's Being is to Be One, not Two and not Three and certainly not to "assume" human nature. Two and Three cannot be the same as One. Is that so hard to believe? As for Jesus's "real" teachings, all I will say for now is that they are in direct contrast to those of Paul. There are only glimpses in the Four Gospels as unfortunately the Trinitarian Christians conveniently destroyed all others, especially after the Council of Nicaea, thereby establishing heresy as the truth. "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)
  4. Muslim-Christian Debate, Here

    How does God become "incarnate"? Has any human being ever seen God or can any human being know the nature or Essence of God? Human witnesses can be mistaken, even if it may be accepted that the apostles and a number of their associates did witness something (what?), which is doubtful. Exaggeration and embellishment could have taken place. Intrinsically and impossibly, the very first matter that has to be overcome is whether the Creator can become the created or whether the created can become the Creator. This will be a never-ending and futile quest, since it cannot be proven by witness testimony or self-proclamation. A super being who is both human and Divine (both created and Created) does not and cannot exist. One is Eternal, has no beginning and no end. The other is mortal and has a beginning and an end, at least in this life. Greater minds than ours have grappled with this issue and have led themselves and many others astray for failing to establish this fundamental fact. There is only One God. This was a fundamental teaching of Jesus. "Hear, O israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is One; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind". Jesus never taught anything about a "Trinity" or a "Triune" God. That is a later extrapolation, a hypothesis fabricated by Paul and later theologians who based Christianity on it. (Detailed arguments on this are in the old "Paul's Different Gospel" thread). Christianity (or at least the Trinitarian version of it) thus removed itself from Jesus and his teaching, while purporting to elevate him into becoming the "Son of God". It is not necessary to accept Muhammad as a prophet to come to this conclusion but it is necessary to accept that Jesus is no more the "Son of God" than anyone of us, if only to accept the real teaching of Jesus.
  5. Hmm, let's see... how about "Muslims signal firm Islamic Stance with Christians/Vatican": "Yusufar, a Muslim nobody today said "Christians do not accept that one can discuss the divinity of Jesus in depth, because they say that he said he is the Son of God...With such an absolute interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith." So how about it Christians? Are you willing to accept that Jesus may not be what you say someone said he said so that we can have a dialogue?
  6. I'm quite sure there are uneducated or ignorant imams just as there are such priests, Cardinals or otherwise. It is a "tradition", "Islamic" or otherwise. The Prophet Muhammad (pbbuh) was unlettered (or illiterate as some may crudely put it) but no one would say he was uneducated or ignorant unless they themselves were, and the Christians (Catholics included) have said a lot of worse things about him so please excuse us if we say that if that is the peak of piety for Catholics and other Christians, then you are certainly in grave spiritual danger from your own holy fathers of your faith. Have you ever considered whether you have been misled by them? If his "eminence" really knew the Qur'an he would not be a Catholic now would he? He can debate it all he likes in any forum and so can you, but that would not change what it is, and what it is is a Revelation from God put into the mouth of the Prophet Muhammad (pbbuh). Islam's tolerance and mercy towards all other religions may not be shared by purportedly "Islamic" goverments or all who call themselves "Muslim", but this should not confuse you as sometimes such governments and people do not follow Islam. What would you call building statues of Jesus and his mother and worshipping them rather than God? You have never killed any prophets sent to you because none were sent to you after Jesus, but you (Christians) have ceaselessly character-assassinated the one God sent as a mercy to the whole of mankind. Don't wonder then if we relentlessly ignore you. But you are still welcome to open any dialogue here.
  7. I don't like to blow my own trumpet, but perhaps the answer to this question may lie in this thread started by me: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=28610"]The Gospel of Paul - Paul's Different Gospel[/url] It may also help to explain why Christians (or those who claim to really follow Jesus) shouldn't follow Paul's "teachings" of Jesus, which were actually really different from the teachings of Jesus.
  8. Why

    For the same reason that the West supports Bliar and Bush against Muslims. Again nothing to do with Islam. This is entirely political. Since when was Jesus born in Jerusalem? This is a fight over land, not religion. Not all Palestinians are Muslim. There are Palestinian Christians as well. The Palestinians were there for thousands of years before israel was formed. It was the Jews (Zionists) who wanted their so-called "homeland" back who started the attack against Palestinians who had been living there for so long after the Jews had been expelled and dispersed by the Romans. So why can't the Palestinians also want their land back? Who has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire Middle East if not israel? Not all israelis are Jews. There are also Arab (and Muslim) israelis as well. For the same reason that the West brainwashes its children to hate Muslims and Islam. You have never personally spoken to a Muslim and yet you "truly" know about Islam? Don't mistake your own personal prejudices for the truth. Do your own research with an open mind. There is a lot more to Islam than you think, a lot more than what a minority of misguided Muslims themselves know or show.
  9. Why

    Truly? That I really doubt, since nothing in any of your posts even suggests that you truly know anything about Islam other than your own personal prejudices and biases. There is nothing in Islam which condones any such acts, and in fact Islam condemns them. These are senseless acts of violence which are completely unIslamic and do not advance the truth of the cause of Islam at all. Islam does not support compulsion in matters of religion since the truth is clear from error. If Islam in fact propagated such beliefs, needless to say there would be no churches or Christians at all in any Muslim land today nor would Muslims live in non-Muslim countries. There is nothing in Islam which justifies senseless violence, even under extreme provocation. Nevertheless, it would seem that the West has seen how easy it is to provoke Muslims into committing such acts, which they can then attribute to Islam, even though there is entirely no basis for them in Islam. These are just senseless acts of violence perpetrated under provocation (no excuse). There is nothing in Islam which forces people into suicide bombings. There is entirely no justification for suicide bombings in Islam. The Islamic ruling on suicide is clear - it is forbidden. Cruel oppression may provoke certain Muslims into committing such acts and delude them into thinking that these are acts of heroism and martyrdom but there is entirely no support for such acts in Islam. There is nothing in Islam which justifies targetting children or innocent civilians, even in war. US bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as israeli in Palestine and Lebanon) have probably killed more civilians and children than "combatants" than all these suicide bombings put together but that is no excuse for them. These are not "Islamic" acts. There is nothing in Islam which justifies rape. This is punishable by death. Where is Islam does that Shariah (law) even encourage let alone force gang rape? This statement alone shows just how brainwashed, biased, prejudiced and completely ignorant you are against Islam.
  10. Concept Of God In Christianity

    My fanaticism in this regard derives not from laziness but much contemplation. The only wine I know is that of the Absolute Oneness. I know of nothing other than. If I imbibe in the Unity out of sheer laziness only He will know. If that is laziness, then I claim the right to be lazy. If that is fanaticism then so be it. I will accept none other than.
  11. Concept Of God In Christianity

    There is absolutely no contradiction. Anything other than God is not Him. That is not a limitation, just a fact. While your theory that God can "become" anything appears reasonable and logical, yet this will go against His very Nature as Creator, and saying that does not in any way limit Him or His Powers to do or become "anything". The moment it even appears to us that God has "become" or is capable of "becoming" something else (as you say, a person, a tree, etc), then that which we know or assume we know is NOT God but a creation of God. What I am saying is not an assumption of what God should be, but rather what we know He is not, since what we know cannot be God.
  12. Concept Of God In Christianity

    You may have misunderstood me. I never said nor even think that I can comprehend God, and I thought I made that quite clear. He is the Absolutely Incomprehensible. Nothing we know is like Him. Conversely that means that anything we know is not Him. And that still doesn't mean that He can become a creature. And the answer by anyone who asserts that He can (become a creature) that it is impossible to comprehend how this can be done is woefully inadequate. But as you say, the debate continues...
  13. Concept Of God In Christianity

    Explain then if you can. As far as I can see, the problem is what certain people think when they hear that God does not "beget" nor is He "begotten". For some reason they can't accept this plain and simple statement (as stated in the Qur'an), but prefer a more complicated, convoluted and concocted doctrine. That Jesus was literally created by God is a fact, not an assumption. How is it possible for people to misunderstand what that means? For people to understand what you (Christians) mean is a different matter, since you have got it all in a twist. It is simple but not as you explain it. What does "in the sense" mean? Does it mean that there was a time when the "Son" did not exist? If he existed pre-eternally with the "Father", how could he be lower in rank? If he did not, what does it mean for him to have been brought into existence as a human being? No transformation involved? How did God become a human being then, or how did a human being become God (or "Son" of God)? Just plain impossible! Really? How was God's complex nature reduced to such a simplistic (yet complicated) concept as the "Trinity" then, if it is far too complex for the human mind to comprehend? However, I can certainly comprehend without any great deal of complexity that the "Trinity" cannot even come close to explaining the true nature of God. Somehow you have grasped the truth, that God is of such a complex nature that cannot be comprehended by the human mind, yet you have still managed to lead yourself astray by reducing that complexity to a (purportedly) comprehensible "Trinity". (Yet there were and still are also Christians who believe in "Unity" of God rather than God the "Trinity"). What we really know about God is that there is nothing like Him (that we know of). We cannot compare God to anything we know, let alone any human being. This is where the Christians got it wrong. If it really was His Written Word, wouldn't it be reported and recorded in the first person? Why then is it possible to see that it is the scribes' words which comprise the Bible rather than the actual Word of God? The only thing I notice is that this is an obvious forgery. The evidence, among others, is that it is not to be found in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetjesus-messiah(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html"]Matthew 28:19 Fraud Exposed[/url] See also (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_jesus-messiah(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/apologetics/catholic/matthew2819.html"]Is Matthew 28:19 Spurious?[/url] Indeed. To me a far more erroneous assumption would be that the Creator could become a creature or vice versa. God is God, Jesus is Jesus. There is no doubt that Jesus was a human being, therefore he cannot be God or "Son" of God. What were the Unitarian (Arian) Christians fighting about with the Trinitarian Christians then, such that Constantine had to call the warring factions together at the Council of Niceae in 325 CE? Then why use such a term? (with all its human connotations). It is just not possible for the Creator to become a creature. There are two entirely different and completely separate natures here, neither of which can be or become the other. All it needs is for us to understand what it means for Jesus NOT to be the "only" "begotten" "Son" of God. Otherwise, please explain how it is possible that the Creator can be or become a creature. And don't tell me it is impossible to comprehend how this can be so.
  14. Concept Of God In Christianity

    You are still being facetious, as polite as it may be, and I think there is no necessity for it. This is a serious fundamental issue and not one to be playful or impolite with. Unfortunately the Christians cannot explain this concept fully or clearly either, even impossibly since obviously it is an artificial concept, not even mentioned as such in the Gospels, but arising out of an unwarranted extrapolation of various statements appearing in them - the authenticity of which statements themselves is questionable. A heresy which Jesus (pbuh) never taught or even spoke about has been transformed from "Hear O israel, the Lord our God is One Lord" through politics and power play into the current orthodoxy of belief in "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" of those who purport to be his followers. To do so they have had to uphold a further fictitious concept of "inerrancy" of the Bible and to deny history as well as reality. Since the Christians have been misled into elevating the "Son" to equal partnership with the "Father" and a third party called the "Holy Spirit", they have had no choice but to use a totally inappropriate term such as "beget" to explain his conception by a human woman without the normal intervention of a human father. This idea and reality of the "virgin" conception is quite easily explained by God commanding it to "Be" as is usual with the normal process of creation, but rather more difficult (in fact impossible) to explain if one for any reason wished to equate the creature (Jesus (pbuh)) with the Creator. You know very well of course that there is no "begetting" involved, nor is it a form of adoption. It is just fiction.
×