Did Jesus Die?

[arthra]

Well this thread was revived... and my earlier post even cited!

Regarding though statement made by Abdullah..and I have respect for him and feel he does indeed represent probably most Muslims I've talked with and this is a Muslim Board so please understand I respect that...

I think we Baha'is accept that Jesus was martyred and therefore the verses I cited earlier would apply:

There is another verse of Qur'an that speaks to how Martyrs are viewed..that they are not "dead". You can find this in Surih 2:154 and in Surih 3:169..

And say not of those who are slain in the Way of Allah: "They are dead". Nay they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.

......................

Is this some kind of concession to Christians? I don't see it that way.

Some believe Jesus escaped... and another was placed in His stead. If this were to be so then what are we saying? That Jesus fearing His physical death was willing for someone else to be martyred in His place.. There's something really very disturbing about that..

that a Messenger of God would be willing to use a subterfuge even though a divine one to "escape" martyrdom.

The simple verses of Jesus death on the cross though are also found in the Gospel:

Then Jesus calling out with a loud voice said: "Father into your hands I commit my Spirit!" And having said this He breathed His last. - Luke 23:46

This is about as simple and direct as you can find. But note He commits His Spirit to God.

The Qur'an echoes this simple Gospel verse with the following beautiful verse:


Sahih International: Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

"Allah raised Him up unto Himself: and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise"

- Quran 4:158

So it actually complements the Gospel.

 

[Abdullah]

Well this thread was revived... and my earlier post even cited!

Regarding though statement made by Abdullah..and I have respect for him and feel he does indeed represent probably most Muslims I've talked with and this is a Muslim Board so please understand I respect that...

knowing you my friend, respect is your second nature!

I think we Baha'is accept that Jesus was martyred and therefore the verses I cited earlier would apply:

There is another verse of Qur'an that speaks to how Martyrs are viewed..that they are not "dead". You can find this in Surih 2:154 and in Surih 3:169..

And say not of those who are slain in the Way of Allah: "They are dead". Nay they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.

the meaning for this too will be the same arthra, in that Allah [swt] is emphasising the special station of the martyrs here where they have immediately been entered into heaven where they are alive and well; there is in a hadith where two companions of prophet [saw] got martyred and the Prophet [saw] said of them that he could see them hold hands [once they were dead] and walk their way to Paradise [or something very similar]

Is this some kind of concession to Christians? I don't see it that way.

Some believe Jesus escaped... and another was placed in His stead. If this were to be so then what are we saying? That Jesus fearing His physical death was willing for someone else to be martyred in His place.. There's something really very disturbing about that..

that a Messenger of God would be willing to use a subterfuge even though a divine one to "escape" martyrdom.

Jesus would have been informed before hand that it was in Allah's plan to lift him up to the heavens alive, so he could be sent back on his mission to kill the false-christ; once a person dies, they never return you see...[unless it was via the Prophetic miracle of Jesus to raise the dead, but not sure if all of them were just for a temporary period...] therefore Jesus [pbuh] had to stay alive for him to come back; Jesus [pbuh] would have only been doing the will of ALlah, this is why he went to the window of his house, knowing beforehand that he would be lifted up to the heavens

and the person who got crucified in his place; well he iether volunteered to be martyred and get that special reward, in which case it would have been a great blessing on him, or iether an assoicate of the enemies got punished; both ways it is Just

The simple verses of Jesus death on the cross though are also found in the Gospel:

Then Jesus calling out with a loud voice said: "Father into your hands I commit my Spirit!" And having said this He breathed His last. - Luke 23:46

there is just too much evidence of the distortion of the Bible arthra thus when we compare this to the Qur'an we know this is a fabrication

This is about as simple and direct as you can find. But note He commits His Spirit to God.

The Qur'an echoes this simple Gospel verse with the following beautiful verse:


Sahih International: Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

"Allah raised Him up unto Himself: and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise"

- Quran 4:158

So it actually complements the Gospel.

yes raised him unto Himself, but the context shows that this was while he was alive, niether being crucified or having been killed

Peace

 

[Lunitik]

there is just too much evidence of the distortion of the Bible arthra thus when we compare this to the Qur'an we know this is a fabrication

Sorry, but the Quran has certainly been tampered with, and in fact the way we can tell this is itself founded on a particular miracle of it. The Quran was written in patterns of 19, and this is fairly consistent throughout, except that in a few places it is broken - how has an illiterate man managed it? Everywhere that it does not comply with the pattern, we can know it has been tampered with. For Baha'is, especially, this is of some importance because until Bab, it was never known... yet it has not been confirmed until more recently with the advent of computers.

This means that any Empire leader could have changed things to better conform to their own desires without knowing this miracle was even there. Bab has made the Baha'i calendar 19 months of 19 days to emphasize this... the Quran itself talks about the return of the Messiah, so how can Muhammad be the last prophet? It means the document about not changing the calendar and Muhammad being the seal is false.

 

[Abdullah]

There is another verse of Qur'an that speaks to how Martyrs are viewed..that they are not "dead". You can find this in Surih 2:154 and in Surih 3:169..

And say not of those who are slain in the Way of Allah: "They are dead". Nay they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.

Allah says in another verse, martyrs are killed:

Sahih International: Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.
..............

so if martyrs can be killed, then why does verse 4:157 say people who say Jesus has been killed are only conjecturing and that he weren't killed?

thats because he weren't killed

Ahanu, take note of the above verse too; it proves people can kill, but it is Allah that ultimately takes life

 

[Abdullah]

Sorry, but the Quran has certainly been tampered with, and in fact the way we can tell this is itself founded on a particular miracle of it. The Quran was written in patterns of 19, and this is fairly consistent throughout, except that in a few places it is broken - how has an illiterate man managed it? Everywhere that it does not comply with the pattern, we can know it has been tampered with. For Baha'is, especially, this is of some importance because until Bab, it was never known... yet it has not been confirmed until more recently with the advent of computers.

This means that any Empire leader could have changed things to better conform to their own desires without knowing this miracle was even there. Bab has made the Baha'i calendar 19 months of 19 days to emphasize this... the Quran itself talks about the return of the Messiah, so how can Muhammad be the last prophet? It means the document about not changing the calendar and Muhammad being the seal is false.

The whole '19' business is a concoction of the Quran onlies i think lunitik, for if there is a somewhat 19 pattern to it, but not throughout the whole Quran, then it is meant to be like that; nowhere in the Quran does it say there has to be an unbroken pattern of 19

basically what is meant by that no other Prophet or Messengers are coming, is that no other new Prophet representing a new religion is coming, or Prophet in the sole capacity of a Prophet; the Prophet Jesus [pbuh] is infact returning as a ummah/follower of the Prophet Muhammad [saw] so his position will be just like an ordinary Muslim, while he'd still be a Prophet in his own right; it's sort of like a us president that is no longer in office, is no longer president but under the leadership of the new president, but yet he still retains his title as 'president'

Also some Scholars have said Jesus [pbuh] will not be a new Prophet, for he allready has come before, thus he is an old one just coming back to finish his life

 

[radarmark]

Abdullah... is it really fortold "a Messiah will come"? I thought (probably incorrectly) that 63:41 of the Holy Qur'an (I think) only discussses Isa's return. Is not the Madhi a product of hadith, not Holy Qur'an?

 

[Ahanu]

Before continuing, I need to make a slight correction in post number 36, where I wrote the following:

"Also, the second set of quotes came from Abu al-Qasim Mahmud ibn Umar al-Zamakhshari . . . "

Actually, the second set of quotes came from al-Baydawi; however, this is a small matter, because al-Zamakhshari also gives the same grammatical objections to substitution theory.

Back to your question.

But weren't it an Ismaili site purporting them scholars said all of that?

My source comes from a paper titled "Did Jesus Die on the Cross? The History of Reflection on the End of His Earthly Life in Sunni Tafsir Literature" by Joseph L. Cumming. In this paper, Cumming summarizes the views of five Sunni commentators: (1) Al-Tabari, (2) Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, (3) al-Qurtubi, (4) al-Baydawi, and (5) Sayyid Qutb.

I will briefly summarize his findings.

Al-Tabarsi lists four different Islamic traditions that interpret Jesus' end differently: (1) Sleep, (2) death = ascension, (3) literal death, and (4) non-chronological arrangement. Al-Tabarsi was aware of the substitution theory (which, for him, falls under number two above), and he says there were numerous views here too:

"How did God cause Jesus to appear to them? Exegetes have differed as to themanner of appearing which was caused to appear to the Jews in the matter of Jesus (upon him peace)."

Al-Tabarsi relates two different substitution views: (1) The one that says all of the disciples were made to look like Jesus, (2) and Jesus gives his appearance to a single volunteer. Like you, Abdullah, al-Tabarsi believes in substitution theory. However, unlike you, al-Tabarsi believes your version of substitution theory is unlikely: Al-Tabarsi accepts the theory all of the disciples were made to appear like Jesus.

Do any of these Mulsim commentators agree with Abdullah? Take a look with me . . .

Next up is Fakhr al-din Al-Razi. I mentioned his views in post number 33. He definitely disagrees with Abdullah and al-Tabarsi. I will come back to him later.

Next up is Abu 'Abd Allah al-Qurtubi. Like al-Tabarsi, Abdullah, al-Qurtubi is aware of the same traditions. He supports substitution theory. Which one? I'm unsure.

Next up is Al-Baydawi, who I already mentions. Al-Baydawi rejects substitution theory, as I mentioned in a previous approach. Al-Baydawi quotes al-Zamakhshari, and uses his grammatical objections to substitution theory, so the author lumps these two together.

Siyyid Qutb is agnostic on the entire issue. He writes:

"As for how his “death” came about, and how his being raised came about, these are mysterious matters which fall into the category of obscure verses whose exegesis no one knows but God. There is no use in trying to get to the bottom of them, either in doctrine or in law. Those who chase after them and make them into a matter for dispute will only end up falling into a state of doubt and confusion and complexity, without coming to any certainty in truth and without being able to rest their minds in a matter which must be entrusted to the knowledge of God."

 

[Ahanu]

Back to Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, who is my favorite Sunni commentator out of the bunch above. Briefly, he does not endorse any view. After more reading, it seems he takes an agnostic approach, but not without criticizing certain views. I have been reading Gordon Nickel's excellent paper titled "'Self-Evident truths of reason': Challenges to clear thinking in the Tafsir al-kabir of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi."

Unlike other commentators, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi does something unthinkable. Unimaginable.

Unpredicted!

He questions the "traditional interpretations!" Gasp! For a Muslim thinker of his stature to do this borderlines on the miraculous! This is why Fakhr al-Din al-Razi is my favorite out of the group I mentioned in my previous post.

Al-Razi, using the reasoning capabilities the good Lord gave him, argues against numerous views of substitution. Al-Razi discusses the "ambiguities," the various versions of substitution theory. Al-Razi considers Abdullah's version of substitution first. He argues the idea of casting the likeness of a person onto another person is confusing. I could say the same about the Prophet! God cast the likeness of a person onto the Prophet!

"This would of course lead to the negation of all sacred laws (shara’i‘). Moreover, the fundamental principle in all widely transmitted reports is that the first narrator must report what he clearly perceived with his senses. But if erroneous confusion is possible with regard to what is seen with the eye, then the falsity of widely accepted reports is more probable. In sum, opening the door of this possibility begins with confusion or sophistry and ends with the total negation of the prophethood of all prophets."

Abdullah delivers his counterargument as follows:

"and it is really ludricous to say that Prophetic miracles will continue, in that case why dont raising the dead continue, why dont a stick turning to snake continue?, thus it is a fallacious argument to say that a one off Prophetic miracle will jepeordise history and reality."

Well, we can't disprove miracles. Al-Razi does not say "Prophetic miracles" will continue, but he does say karamat (miracles as divine favor) will continue. Since miracles of divine favor will continue, this idea does jeopardize history and reality. Remember, al-Razi writes:

"Furthermore, even if in our day prophetic miracles are blocked, the way of karamat [miraculous signs of divine favor] is still open. So the aforementioned possibility is still present in all ages. In sum: opening this door would of necessity discredit factual historical transmission. And discrediting that would of necessity discredit the prophethood of all prophets (upon them blessing and peace). So this branch would of necessity discredit the very roots. And that must be rejected."

Al-Razi sees the acceptance or rejection of substitution theory as "only conjectures transmitted from one generation to the next; the acceptance or rejection of any of them would be in itself a matter of opinion."

When the Koran is unclear about Jesus, maybe we should turn to the New Testament:

"And if thou art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee.."
(Koran 10.94)

Al-Razi's critiques still stand, Abdullah. You have yet to refute his critiques.

 

[Ahanu]

I think the more reliable report of who it was on the cross is the one of that youth, for that hadith is by ibn Abbas, the cousin of the Prophet [saw] and [iirc] the Prophet [saw] said about him something like that he is the gateway to the Quran, i.e, he will know the proper interpretations of it

Is ibn Abbas infallible? Consider Sabbatai Sevi. Only in a matter of weeks or months after Sabbatai Sevi's public appearance, miraculous stories about him surface. Some said a fiery cloud surrounded him, and they heard an angel's voice; some said he entered a fire twice without being hurt or damage to his hair; some said he even raised the dead. I wouldn't be surprised if ibn Abbas did reported similar legends of his own.

 

[Ahanu]

why dont raising the dead continue, why dont a stick turning to snake continue?

Because they are "Prophetic" miracles. Prophetic miracles, argues al-Razi, may be blocked.

 

[True Gabriel]

Back to Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, who is my favorite Sunni commentator out of the bunch above. Briefly, he does not endorse any view. After more reading, it seems he takes an agnostic approach, but not without criticizing certain views. I have been reading Gordon Nickel's excellent paper titled "'Self-Evident truths of reason': Challenges to clear thinking in the Tafsir al-kabir of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi."

Unlike other commentators, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi does something unthinkable. Unimaginable.

Unpredicted!

He questions the "traditional interpretations!" Gasp! For a Muslim thinker of his stature to do this borderlines on the miraculous! This is why Fakhr al-Din al-Razi is my favorite out of the group I mentioned in my previous post.

Al-Razi, using the reasoning capabilities the good Lord gave him, argues against numerous views of substitution. Al-Razi discusses the "ambiguities," the various versions of substitution theory. Al-Razi considers Abdullah's version of substitution first. He argues the idea of casting the likeness of a person onto another person is confusing. I could say the same about the Prophet! God cast the likeness of a person onto the Prophet!

"This would of course lead to the negation of all sacred laws (shara’i‘). Moreover, the fundamental principle in all widely transmitted reports is that the first narrator must report what he clearly perceived with his senses. But if erroneous confusion is possible with regard to what is seen with the eye, then the falsity of widely accepted reports is more probable. In sum, opening the door of this possibility begins with confusion or sophistry and ends with the total negation of the prophethood of all prophets."

Abdullah delivers his counterargument as follows:

"and it is really ludricous to say that Prophetic miracles will continue, in that case why dont raising the dead continue, why dont a stick turning to snake continue?, thus it is a fallacious argument to say that a one off Prophetic miracle will jepeordise history and reality."

Well, we can't disprove miracles. Al-Razi does not say "Prophetic miracles" will continue, but he does say karamat (miracles as divine favor) will continue. Since miracles of divine favor will continue, this idea does jeopardize history and reality. Remember, al-Razi writes:

"Furthermore, even if in our day prophetic miracles are blocked, the way of karamat [miraculous signs of divine favor] is still open. So the aforementioned possibility is still present in all ages. In sum: opening this door would of necessity discredit factual historical transmission. And discrediting that would of necessity discredit the prophethood of all prophets (upon them blessing and peace). So this branch would of necessity discredit the very roots. And that must be rejected."

Al-Razi sees the acceptance or rejection of substitution theory as "only conjectures transmitted from one generation to the next; the acceptance or rejection of any of them would be in itself a matter of opinion."

When the Koran is unclear about Jesus, maybe we should turn to the New Testament:

"And if thou art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee.."
(Koran 10.94)

Al-Razi's critiques still stand, Abdullah. You have yet to refute his critiques.

I think is, if there is no discrepancy or inaccuracy then there is no need for Muslim scholars to be coming up with different interpretation that challenge the substitution theory of Jesus Christ that they themselves have claim to be?

Christian have been very consistent and that is Jesus Christ is the Son of God according to the Bible, Jesus is God according to the Bible and that Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected as according to the Bible. How can Muslims deny or doubt Thomas Gospel? Thomas is one of the apostles who had first hand experience with Jesus Christ.

I think, some intellect Muslims understand that there is something wrong with the way Islam was founded, they are just having a hard time reconciling it, because there are now billions of Muslims and several Muslim governments are hard bound to hold on and enforce Islam the way it was presented by Mohammed those scholars are in no position to challenge the personality of Mohammed and change Islam to separate Islam from State.

It would seem some of the early writers and scholars of the Hadith wrote in coded messages for the readers to decipher saying that Mohammed is a questionable prophet? That is why we see the way how Hadith expand the Gabriel-Mohammed encounter.

 

[Ahanu]

I think, some intellect Muslims understand that there is something wrong with the way Islam was founded,

We're just talking about the crucifixion of Jesus here. These various intellectuals of Islam are simply analyzing the various traditions of Islam. The very existence of these various traditions of Islam does not mean Muhammad is a questionable prophet.

 

[Abdullah]

Back to Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, who is my favorite Sunni commentator out of the bunch above. Briefly, he does not endorse any view. After more reading, it seems he takes an agnostic approach, but not without criticizing certain views. I have been reading Gordon Nickel's excellent paper titled "'Self-Evident truths of reason': Challenges to clear thinking in the Tafsir al-kabir of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi."

Unlike other commentators, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi does something unthinkable. Unimaginable.

Unpredicted!

He questions the "traditional interpretations!" Gasp! For a Muslim thinker of his stature to do this borderlines on the miraculous! This is why Fakhr al-Din al-Razi is my favorite out of the group I mentioned in my previous post.

Al-Razi, using the reasoning capabilities the good Lord gave him, argues against numerous views of substitution. Al-Razi discusses the "ambiguities," the various versions of substitution theory. Al-Razi considers Abdullah's version of substitution first. He argues the idea of casting the likeness of a person onto another person is confusing. I could say the same about the Prophet! God cast the likeness of a person onto the Prophet!

"This would of course lead to the negation of all sacred laws (shara’i‘). Moreover, the fundamental principle in all widely transmitted reports is that the first narrator must report what he clearly perceived with his senses. But if erroneous confusion is possible with regard to what is seen with the eye, then the falsity of widely accepted reports is more probable. In sum, opening the door of this possibility begins with confusion or sophistry and ends with the total negation of the prophethood of all prophets."

Abdullah delivers his counterargument as follows:

"and it is really ludricous to say that Prophetic miracles will continue, in that case why dont raising the dead continue, why dont a stick turning to snake continue?, thus it is a fallacious argument to say that a one off Prophetic miracle will jepeordise history and reality."

Well, we can't disprove miracles. Al-Razi does not say "Prophetic miracles" will continue, but he does say karamat (miracles as divine favor) will continue. Since miracles of divine favor will continue, this idea does jeopardize history and reality. Remember, al-Razi writes:

"Furthermore, even if in our day prophetic miracles are blocked, the way of karamat [miraculous signs of divine favor] is still open. So the aforementioned possibility is still present in all ages. In sum: opening this door would of necessity discredit factual historical transmission. And discrediting that would of necessity discredit the prophethood of all prophets (upon them blessing and peace). So this branch would of necessity discredit the very roots. And that must be rejected."

Al-Razi sees the acceptance or rejection of substitution theory as "only conjectures transmitted from one generation to the next; the acceptance or rejection of any of them would be in itself a matter of opinion."

When the Koran is unclear about Jesus, maybe we should turn to the New Testament:

"And if thou art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee.."
(Koran 10.94)

Al-Razi's critiques still stand, Abdullah. You have yet to refute his critiques.

Im sorry to have to dissapoint you again Ahanu and say that there are a number of reasons why those articles you have presented are totally unreliable as to the correct views of them scholars, or their final view

in scholarly works there is a lot of speculation, theories, etc, and opinions of other unorthodox views, and finally their view, which could change later on in their life as they grow in Islamic knowledge

for the above reasons, allthough the purported views of those scholars have a pro-christian slant to it, yet it cannot be verified wether exactly in what context they were said, or exaclty what was said or what views they were expressing

Also for the fact that they are the work of non-muslims, and most of the references they have used, as can be seen from the references provided at the end of that article, are non-Muslim sources too; have you heard of william chittick?; now one would think that he's pretty well learned about the views of traditional Islam, but just take a look at the following article to see how he has very subtly and cleverly twisted the works of Ibn Al-Arabi:

Universal Validity of Religions


that is just one example of how, no matter how genuine some non-Muslim sources may seem yet there well could be distortions in it

karamat can only be done by genuine sufi's who have reached a very high degree of gnosis, and there have only been a very few of them alltogether, also the karmat they can do and cannot is decided by Allah, thus the karamat lies in the hands of Allah, and not a person who can use it at will, thus concerns about metamorphisis being misused has no sound basis; Ar-Razi may have expressed such a concern in one of his works, but yet it should be noted that he is just a fallible human who could err

i'll give you an example of a karamat once done by a great sufi; a woman came to him with her blind child and said, wipe over his eyes and make him better again; the sufi said, i cannot do that; the woman insisted, the sufi replied, that is a specific miracle of Jesus [pbuh] and i cannot do that, but the woman was adamant that he do it, and when the sufi got up and started walking away, suddenly he heard a voice from the unseen saying 'who is Jesus and who is Moses, We do it!", and he got infatuated by the voice of the divine and started saying in devotion 'we do it', 'we do it'; while saying this he walked back in a trance and wiped over the childs eyes and the child was cured!

thus as we can see, karamat is enabled by ALlah for the cause of good and I dont think we have to worry about Allah putting reality and history in jeopardy by turning half the people of the wrold into people their not!

and lets say for example some of them views expressed in that aritcle are genuine, then in that case many schoalrs have been known to differ from consensus' yet that dont effect the consensus and such views fall into the cotogory of hetorodxoy and innovation; however if normally such views will constitute desbeleif, such an opinion is waved when geunine scholars come to such views by way of subtle and metahpysical interpretations

here is a comment from shaykh Hamza Yusuf expalning the hetorodox views of some schoalrs and how such views are set aside and the majorirtyy view is adhered to:

While some of the views Dr. Lings has expressed in his insightful and brilliant writings are in contradistinction to what my own teachers taught me and what I believe, they are, however, rarified metaphysical considerations that are better pointed out as heterodoxies that fall into a category of opinion and interpretation that many of the great scholars of the past have held, including but not limited to Ibn 'Arabi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Rushd, al-Farabi, Imam az-Zamakhshari, and Ibn Sina. Many of our great Scholars have maintained positions based upon their idiosyncratic views and conclusions that extend beyond the boudaries of mainstream orthodoxy, but this did not prevent the community of beleivers from recognising their excellence and benifting from their knowledge and piety and looking for interpretive justifications, or lat least excuses for them

However Scholars are verry carefull about deeming someone a desbeliever who may hold hetorodox views as a result of taweel. And interpretive statements that have been deemed as hetorodox can be found in the works of ibn Arabi, sidi Abdal Kaeem Al jili, Emir Abd Al Kadir Al Jazairi, Mevlana Jalal uddin rumi and others. And despite all of those illustirous men suffering attacks from some of the great as well as less then great scholars of Islam, the community of scholars and believers alike have, not withstanding such views, taken the good of such Scholars and point out the areas of concern while adhering to the majority view where they may differ

http://www.q-news.com/363.pdf

 

[Abdullah]

Abdullah... is it really fortold "a Messiah will come"? I thought (probably incorrectly) that 63:41 of the Holy Qur'an (I think) only discussses Isa's return. Is not the Madhi a product of hadith, not Holy Qur'an?

That is right isa [as] is only foretold in the Quran and the mahdi in the hadith, but hadiths are connected to the Quran in that the Quran orders to accept hadiths


for a fascinating read of what they're going to do once they come, see link:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/signs-of-the-last-day-7438.html

 

[Ahanu]

have you heard of william chittick?;

No, I have not. But more than one scholar supports the view that Fakhr al-Din al-Razi was agnostic on the crucifixion of Jesus issue, and they also support the view al-Razi critiqued substitution theory. Still, no other scholar has come along to critique this view. Anyway, since I do not have translations of al-Razi's writings, we will have to move him out of the discussion. Guess we can't prove for ourselves what al-Razi was getting at with his distinction between mu'jizat (prophetic miracles) and karamat (miraculous signs of divine favor).

No worries.

In the Koran, we read that messengers have passed away before Jesus:

"The Messiah, son of Maryam, was none but a Rasul, surely the Rasuls have passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman and they both used to take food…"
(Koran 5.75)

Perhaps Abdullah will reason to himself, "Jesus will pass away too, but when? After he returns!" However, I would like to point out another verse from the Koran. In the Battle of Uhud, a rumor spread that the Prophet was killed. But the Koran reveals:

"Muhammad is no more than a Rasul, surely the Rasuls before him have already passed away. If then he dies or be killed, will you turn upon your heels?"
(Koran 3.144)

Jesus is a "Rasul," just like Muhammad, and the Rasuls before Muhammad "have already passed away." If Jesus did not "pass away" (die), then why doesn't Allah mention it in the above passage? Is Allah contradicting Himself?

 

[Ahanu]

Remember, Abdullah holds Jesus did not die and ascended to heaven, because he accepts the following account:

Ibn Abu Hatim has narrated from Ibn 'Abbas saying: "When Allah wanted to lift him up to heaven, Jesus came to his companions in the house. There were twelve people, with some from among his disciples. He had just taken a bath, and his head was still dribbling with water, He said to them: 'There are those among you who will disbelieve in me twelve times after he had believed in me.' Then he said: 'Who from among you will take my likeness and be killed in my place, so he will reach my rank?' A youth came forward. But Jesus said to him: 'Sit down.' Then he repeated the same question, and the same youth stood up and came forward, and said: 'I.' Jesus said: 'You are the one,' and then the likeness of Jesus was put on him, and Jesus was lifted up to the heaven from the window (in the roof) of the house."

Muslims believing in swoon theory would say Jesus survived the crucifixion, grew old, and then died. I would like to know when Abdullah believes Jesus will die.

 

[Abdullah]

No, I have not. But more than one scholar supports the view that Fakhr al-Din al-Razi was agnostic on the crucifixion of Jesus issue, and they also support the view al-Razi critiqued substitution theory. Still, no other scholar has come along to critique this view. Anyway, since I do not have translations of al-Razi's writings, we will have to move him out of the discussion. Guess we can't prove for ourselves what al-Razi was getting at with his distinction between mu'jizat (prophetic miracles) and karamat (miraculous signs of divine favor).

No worries.

In the Koran, we read that messengers have passed away before Jesus:

"The Messiah, son of Maryam, was none but a Rasul, surely the Rasuls have passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman and they both used to take food…"
(Koran 5.75)

Perhaps Abdullah will reason to himself, "Jesus will pass away too, but when? After he returns!" However, I would like to point out another verse from the Koran. In the Battle of Uhud, a rumor spread that the Prophet was killed. But the Koran reveals:

"Muhammad is no more than a Rasul, surely the Rasuls before him have already passed away. If then he dies or be killed, will you turn upon your heels?"
(Koran 3.144)

Jesus is a "Rasul," just like Muhammad, and the Rasuls before Muhammad "have already passed away." If Jesus did not "pass away" (die), then why doesn't Allah mention it in the above passage? Is Allah contradicting Himself?

all of them verses have a distorted translation, , and you probably got them from an Ahamadiyah site; they're known to use such translations; i will now present to you the proper translations which shows that they use words such as 'many a Messengers [Rasuls] have passed away before him', etc, and not 'all Messengers...'

5.75 PICKTHAL: The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!

YUSUFALI: Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

3.144 PICKTHAL: Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him. Will it be that, when he dieth or is slain, ye will turn back on your heels ? He who turneth back on his heels doth no hurt to Allah, and Allah will reward the thankful.

YUSUFALI: Muhammad is no more than a messenger: many Were the messenger that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then Turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude.


And no Muslim adheres to the 'swoon' theory; Ar-razi merely is reported to mention that the 'appearance' to the people that Jesus got crucified could have been by means of a lie spreading or an illusion from Allah [swt] and not that Jesus must have been on the cross

the only people who call themselves Muslims who subscribe to that theory are the Ahmadiyahs and Ikhwan al-safa; both of them are non-Muslim groups; the latter is an Ismaili group who have very weird beliefs like any person can reach the level of Prophethood, etc,

and you might in this day and age see some 'liberal' Muslims' who adhere to this view too, but what i've seen of most of them is that they are usually Christians and Jews just pretending to be Muslims

And the Muslim belief that Jesus was raised alive to the heavens comes from that very explicit verse that says that he was not killed nor crucified... and the fact that he is coming back; them hadiths however compliment fitting in the peaces of what happened between

Once a person dies, they can never return to this world as a barrier is set between called the barzaq (souls do not return as ghosts or spirits, rather such paranormal phenomena is explained by mischievous Jinn).

Until when death approaches one of them (the polytheists), he says, "My Lord! Send me back, so that I may do good in that which I have left behind!" No! It is but just a word that he speaks; and behind them is a barrier (barzaq) until the Day when they will be Resurrected. (Quran 23:99-100)

Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihe wa-sallam) said: "No servant who has good in store for him with Allah and dies ever wants to return to the Earth - even if he were to have the whole world and everything that is in it - except for the martyr. That is due to what he sees in the nobility of martyrdom. Verily, he would like to return back to the Earth, in order to be martyred another time." [(Saheeh) Saheeh Sunan at-Tirmidhee (1341)]

But as the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihe wa-sallam) informed, even the martyr is refused the permission to return, he (sallallahu alaihe wa-sallam) said: "The souls of the martyrs live in the bodies of green birds who have their nests in chandeliers hung from the throne of the Almighty. They eat the fruits of Paradise wherever they like and then nestle in these chandeliers. Once, their Lord cast a glance at them and said: "Do you want anything?" They said: "What more can we desire? We eat the fruit of Paradise wherever we like." Their Lord asked them the same question thrice. When they saw that they would be continued to be asked and not left (without answering the question), they said: "O Lord, we wish that You may return our souls to our bodies so that we may be slain in Your cause once again. When He (Allah) saw that they had no need, they were left (to their joy in Heaven)." [Saheeh Muslim (4651)]

These and many other proofs from the Qur'aan and the Sunnah deny the concept of the soul's return, and thus there remains no doubt that souls of the dead do not return back to the world.

Do Souls of the Dead Return Back to this World?

http://se.quran.nu/quran/islam/Hereafter-death.php


and the ultimate evidence that Jesus [pbuh] was raised alive in body and not while dead is the consensus on this view; consensus' are infallible as previously pointed out

PEACE

 

[Abdullah]

I would like to know when Abdullah believes Jesus will die.

we allready have that information Ahanu:


Narrated Abu Huraira(RA) that the Prophet(SAW) said:

There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognize him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
(Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 37, No. 4310)


Allah's Prophet(SAW) said:

Hazrat Masih(SAW) will die after completing the duration he was destined to pass in the world and that Muslims would offer his funeral prayers and bury him next to the grave of the holy Prophet, Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar(RAs).
(Mishkat, P. 480)


Allah's Apostle(SAW) foretold:

After his descent on earth, Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will marry. He will have children, and he will remain on earth 19 years after marriage. He will pass away and Muslims will perform his Janaza Salaat (funeral prayers) and bury him next to Rasulullah (SAW). (Tirmidhi)

 

[Ahanu]

all of them verses have a distorted translation, , and you probably got them from an Ahamadiyah site

Actuallly, I read those verses on a liberal Muslim website: Free-minds.org. Search the site. I've been looking for contemporary Muslims whose beliefs are more similar to the New Testament.

Maybe no Muslims around you believe in swoon theory, but I bet I could find Muslims in India and Africa believing it, because of Zakir Naik and Ahmad Deedat. While looking for refutations from contemporary Muslims, I found this website:

Unchangingword.com

Just click on "Did Jesus Die on the Cross?" You will see he uses al-Tabari and al-Razi to refute their arguments. If al-Razi did not critique substitution theory, then I'm confused as to why so many scholars are using him to show he did not choose which theory was correct, or to show al-Razi critiqued them to show their weaknesses. The article on Unchangingword.com is more scholarly than the one on Free-minds.org.

Even with the translations you posted, Jesus could be among those "many Messengers," right?

 

[Ahanu]

and the ultimate evidence that Jesus [pbuh] was raised alive in body and not while dead is the consensus on this view; consensus' are infallible as previously pointed out

"Say: 'Shall I seek for judge other than Allah?' - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail.' They know full well, to whom we have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt. The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: none can change His words: for He is the one Who heareth and knoweth all. Were thou to follow the common run among those on earth, they will lead thee away form Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie."
(Koran 6.114-116)