Jump to content
Islamic Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About danieldemol

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
  • Religion
    Other religion

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. The Return Of Jesus

    Actually I don't, if you read back through this thread, you will notice that I acknowledge that the Christian interpretation of the Gospel differs from the Muslim interpretation of the Qur'an, then I also acknowledge the true meaning of the Gospel and the Qur'an to be the same. The reason for this is because I don't see either the Christian interpretation of the Gospel, or the Muslim interpretation of the Qur'an as being wholly correct interpretations in all respects. Thus you can see why pointing out contradictions between my interpretation and the Christian interpretation (which is not mine in all aspects) does not necessarily show self contradiction. The Gospel does not state anywhere that the "soul was returned to the body", It says that the body was raised from the dead. The subtlety here is that the terms "body of Christ" and "dead" are used symbolically for a couple of things in the Gospel. Thus dependant on whether one explores the symbolism demonstrably present in the Gospel, depends on what interpretation one gains from the Gospel. Regarding the other issues you are raised, of course each one of them is worthy of individual intention since each are meaningful subjects, however to cover a dozen issues at once would do more to add confusion rather than clarification. Kind regards.
  2. The Return Of Jesus

    I can see there is a subtlety here Younes, 39:42 only refers to sleep when the soul is returned, but the soul of Jesus was not returned, as 3:55 testifies. Your statement, "I'm going to keep this short", is indicative of the fact that there is actually much to be said about this, which is why I feel that it makes sense for the individual to read a broad diversity of scholarly dissertations on this matter. Kind regards
  3. The Return Of Jesus

    Respectfully, I feel that you are sweeping a few scholarly differences of opinion under the carpet with that a-s-sertion. First of all, In Surah 3:55, Yusuf Ali translates this as; "Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme" Here is an alternative interpretation of 3:55 from wholly within the pale of Islam '"The verse in 3:55 Allah uses a word which means death or termination of life. And the way the sentence is framed, it is evident that death will be be ahead of raising. Let us read the verse before going any further: 3:55 Behold! Allah Said: "O Jesus! I shall cause you to die (wafat) and I shall exalt you towards me and I shall clear you of those who rejects Faith, and I am going to make those who follow you above those who reject Faith - until the day of Resurrection. Then unto Me is your return, so that I shall judge among you as to in that wherein you used to differ. They key words here are : Ya Isa, inni mutawaffika wa rafi’uka ilaiya Meaning: "O Jesus! I shall cause you to die and I shall exalt you towards me….." In order to fulfil the prophecy, first death will happen, second, he will be raised. Allah did not say He will raise Isa in any manner before his death. This argument is based on the key word 'wafat'. The meaning of "wafat" is death, or take away soul. If soul is taken away from a person, it is nothing but death. The problem arises when with regards to this verse, Muslims refuse to interpret the meaning of "wafat" as death. Irony is that all scholars who translated the Holy Quran do agree "wafat" means death. They translated the word "wafat" as death in at least 20 different instances. However, in this particular verse, they interpreted the meaning as ‘take away’ and insinuate physical ascension.'1 Now because of this, Yusuf Ali's interpretation of Surah 4 is based not on what is explicitly stated, but rather on the interpretation given by the majority of scholars. The problem is, there are Hadith in all schools of Islam which state the time when the majority of Muslims would be in a state of ignorance. Thus although there is comfort in assuming the majority of scholars can't be wrong, it cannot be ruled out by anyone with a deep knowledge of Hadith that this is a very real possibility. Now according to my understanding there are three interpretations given by people wholly within the pale of Islam dependant on which scholar they follow in this matter (There could be more interpretations not known to me). (a) The mainstream interpretation - Jesus was not crucified. No historical evidence supports this interpretation. The scientific study of the life of Jesus considers authentic historical sources to be those dating from within 100 years of the passing of His holiness Jesus. From the historical statements of both early Christian and Jew, to the best of my knowledge it is agreed (amongst those scientific historians who consider Jesus to have been a real person) that Jesus was crucified. (b) The view which I have put forward2 © The swoon hypothesis. I think from memory that this view has been championed by Ahmed Deedat, and may even be trace-able back to somebody like Ibn Sina, however don't quote me on it since it is a while since I read about this theory. The theory essentially states that Jesus was crucified to a state of unconciousness near death, and that this made it appear to people that He had been crucified to death, but then He awoke from this state of unconciousness later on. My personal view is that rather than attempting to suppress free thought to remain cool with the majority, Muslims should consider the merits of each interpretation and then decide the matter for themselves. Kind regards :) 1 http://www.freewebs.com/nadqur/evid.htm 2 Encyclopedia of Islam, Jesus article. cf. L. Massignon, Le Christ dans les Évangiles selon Ghazali, in REI , 1932, 523-36, who cites texts of the Rasa'il Ikhwan al-Safa, a passage of Abu Hatim al-Razi (about 934), and another of the Isma'ili da'i Mu'ayyad fid-din al-Shirazi (1077).
  4. Does Knowledge Prove Causation?

    So what is your answer to the question posed - does our certain knowledge of the choices Hitler made prove that he did not have the free-will to make them at the time?
  5. The Return Of Jesus

    Here is a beautiful truth from Paul, "...The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."1 Now if we look at the exact nature of the blood sacrifice, it was that the blood sacrifice would be made outside the inner temple, and then taken in by the high priest. In the crucifixion the blood was let out of Jesus, not taken in. As I understand it, you are insisting that the crucifixion fulfills the spirit of the blood sacrifice, but not the letter, then stating that Eid Al-Adha does not fulfill the letter of the blood sacrifice. I fail to see why whether it fulfills the letter of the blood sacrifice is relevant since in all three cases the spirit of it is that a blood sacrifice is made to God. Kind regards. 1 (2 Corinthians, Ch3:4)
  6. How The Bible Led Me To Islam

    I confirm that I did not imply that the meaning of the Qur'an is different to the meaning of the Gospel. All the best with your break, may the All-Merciful Lord bring you peace.
  7. How The Bible Led Me To Islam

    Given that I never said the meaning of the Qur'an is different to the meaning of the Gospel why do you feel this should be so?
  8. The Return Of Jesus

    No high priest took the blood of Jesus into the inner temple though, did they?
  9. How The Bible Led Me To Islam

    How are these statements contrary? "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel" (King James Bible, 2 Thessalonians) and "If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side." Both of them insist Christians should obey the Gospel.
  10. The Return Of Jesus

    Interesting question, although the Muslims will have to clarify how they see it, I think it is interesting to understand Hebrews 9:22 in it's context. I think from memory that at the time the Hebrews were required to sacrifice an animal in order to fulfill their obligations to shed blood. Could this requirement be fulfilled at Eid al-Adha? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_al-Adha
  11. What Muslims Face In America, And Why!

    Hi WeAreComming, Why is it not sad to you that Muslims are (as your hadith states) "powerless as the foam of the water", not feared by their enemies, and have in their "hearts a corruption" which the Hadith explains is, "The love of life's amusements and the fear of death" ? I would be very sad if I were in your shoes.
  12. What Exactly Is Islamophobia ?

    Hi StopS, An interesting a-s-sertion which is worthy of exploration, as it is a topic tangential to this thread I have started a new thread to discuss it here http://www.gawaher.c...prove-causation Feel free to play devil's advocate to my thoughts on the matter :)
  13. Assalamu Alaikum and G'day, I wish to explore with you the subject of whether knowledge proves causation, as people often ask whether God can be Omniscient and allow free-will and my hunch is that at the crux of this matter is whether or not God's knowledge of your choice leaves you free to make it, in other words, does God's knowledge make the choice for you (/cause you to make the choice) or do you make the choice freely and God somehow knows what it will be? So it seems relevant to explore whether knowledge proves causation. If I know that a person is a cocaine addict, but I never supplied them the drug and always discouraged drug use, is my knowledge of their addiction either the initial cause of their addiction or something which forces them to continue in their addiction? Here is another way to think about it. You and I know that Hitler chose - presumably of his own free will if you are an atheist - to hate and attack Jews. Now does our certain knowledge of this prove that Hitler did not make that choice of his own free will at the time? In order to prove that God's fore-knowledge of a choice is the cause of it (and therefore that this knowledge precludes such choice being made without free-will), it would seem we would need to know the following; (a)The means by which God knows the future (b)That the means used causes a person to make the choice instead of allowing them to make it of their own free will. I don't know of either a believer or an atheist who knows the answer to (a), and this would seem to rule out the possiblity of determining (b). Your thoughts are much appreciated. Kind regards, Dan :)
  14. Serious, Shocking Questions About The Bible

    No, the verse clearly does not forbid having a glass of non-alcoholic grape juice :)