Quran says that Jesus Christ died a natural death.

[muhammad_isa]

You wish me to cut and paste my reply again? Okay. no problem.

No. Your reply is nonsense.
You aren't being serious. You're just fooling around.

When somebody keeps referring to the wrong verse, what else can one think?

Now, if you had said that verse 158 doesn't categorically prove anything one way or the other,
you would appear to be more sincere.
There again, perhaps you have dementia or something. I am truly sorry, if this is the case.

 

[Firedragon]

No. Your reply is nonsense.
You aren't being serious. You're just fooling around.

When somebody keeps referring to the wrong verse, what else can one think?

Now, if you had said that verse 158 doesn't categorically prove anything one way or the other,
you would appear to be more sincere.
There again, perhaps you have dementia or something. I am truly sorry, if this is the case.

Thanks for all the ad hominem. But it seems like you have missed the post. for the 100'th time.

Let me cut and paste again and you can go on your ad hominem afterwards if it satisfies you.

Try to read the whole Qur'an, not one selected verse alone. Okay?

Quran says that Jesus was taken to God in 4:158. But in 3:55 it says that his life ended. He was caused to die.

So when you read a book written by one person, you must take the whole book. Not one verse in isolation. That's how you can avoid cherry picking or what people call as quote mining.

Hope you understand.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Quran says that Jesus was taken to God in 4:158.

At last.

But in 3:55 it says that his life ended. He was caused to die.

If you say so. That is your opinion.

Nominal​

(1) Noun

(9:111:25) awfā

(is) more faithful

وَمَنْ أَوْفَىٰ بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللَّهِ

(2) Adjective

(53:41:4) l-awfā

the fullest

ثُمَّ يُجْزَاهُ الْجَزَاءَ الْأَوْفَىٰ

Active participle (form II)​

(11:109:17) lamuwaffūhum

will surely pay them in full

وَإِنَّا لَمُوَفُّوهُمْ نَصِيبَهُمْ غَيْرَ مَنْقُوصٍ

Active participle (form IV)​

(2:177:36) wal-mūfūna

and those who fulfill

وَالْمُوفُونَ بِعَهْدِهِمْ إِذَا عَاهَدُوا

Active participle (form V)​

(3:55:6) mutawaffīka

(will) take you

إِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَىٰ إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَيَّ

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^​

 

[RJM]

@muhammad_isa

As a non-Muslim following the discussion, it seems @Firedragon is making the point that although the Quran clearly says Jesus survived the cross, it also says that He died and was raised to Allah? There is no time of death given, nor details about events following the crucifixion until the death of Jesus?

But in 3:55 it says that his life ended. He was caused to die.

If you say so.

The Quran seems to say so?

 

[muhammad_isa]

As a non-Muslim following the discussion, it seems @Firedragon is making the point that although the Quran clearly says Jesus survived the cross, it also says that He died and was raised to Allah?

I know that is what he is saying.
I am not able to quibble over meanings of classical Arabic, so rely on others who can.

The Quran seems to say so?

A moot point.
I follow well-known mainstream English translations.
They do not render verse 3:55 as does @Firedragon

Here are 7 different translations of the verse 3:55
https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=3&verse=55

 

[Firedragon]

At last.

Nah. I have said this many many many times. I guess you must have missed them.

They do not render verse 3:55 as does @Firedragon

But that's the call for authority fallacy. "Because they say so". I have given you direct evidence from the same book, the Qur'an, from the same website that you keep referring to, giving you all the verse the same word is used referring to "end of life" and this particular verse 3:55 in order to "IMPOSE" an already existing faith onto the Qur'an these translators have intentionally ignored the rest of the Qur'an.

What you are doing is either an ad hominem fallacy or an appeal to authority fallacy every single time. You should try to be objective.

If you say so. That is your opinion.

Nominal​

(1) Noun

(9:111:25) awfā

(is) more faithful

وَمَنْ أَوْفَىٰ بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللَّهِ

(2) Adjective

(53:41:4) l-awfā

the fullest

ثُمَّ يُجْزَاهُ الْجَزَاءَ الْأَوْفَىٰ

Active participle (form II)​

(11:109:17) lamuwaffūhum

will surely pay them in full

وَإِنَّا لَمُوَفُّوهُمْ نَصِيبَهُمْ غَيْرَ مَنْقُوصٍ

Active participle (form IV)​

(2:177:36) wal-mūfūna

and those who fulfill

وَالْمُوفُونَ بِعَهْدِهِمْ إِذَا عَاهَدُوا

Active participle (form V)​

(3:55:6) mutawaffīka

(will) take you

إِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَىٰ إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَيَّ

Again, you have cherry picked the most irrelevant verses and ignored all the relevant verses doing a cut and paste. The grammar here is Marfoo of wafaya, and is used in other verses as well. So intentionally mistranslating it while other verses are translated differently is the definition of hypocrisy. That's my point. Only if you engage with that argument rather than saying "because they say so" which is an appeal to authority or the other thing you did saying "seven translations" which is an appeal to majority. Ad populum fallacy.

The most renown method of Qur'anic rendering is called Qur'an bi Qur'an. Read up.

Peace.

 

[Firedragon]

@muhammad_isa

As a non-Muslim following the discussion, it seems @Firedragon is making the point that although the Quran clearly says Jesus survived the cross, it also says that He died and was raised to Allah? There is no time of death given, nor details about events following the crucifixion until the death of Jesus?

The Quran seems to say so?

It's like this RJM. I understand that linguistics might be a little too much for the discussion but the word used there have been translated by some as "will take you" in the verse 3:55, while the same word in verses 16:32, 13:40, 12:101, 10:104, 10:46, 8:50, 7L126, 7:37, etc, etc, etc are all translated as "caused you to die".

The belief that Jesus did not die at all, was raised alive to heaven directly, and will return one day in the future is a very late concept. This concept does not have any trace in the early years after Muhammed. This concept comes after a man called Farabry who lived in the 4th century after Muhammed. Or late 3rd century after Muhammed. That too he is not a renown scholar or a vouched for narrator. He narrates on behalf of a previous guy called Bukhari who is famous as you know. So it's not reliable. The concept is not reliable. Prior to all of this there was another scholar called Malik Ibn Anas who is renown to have the MOST AUTHENTIC narrations who never in his life ever spoke of Jesus coming back. He is earlier, more authentic, and is called the "Golden chain" which means nothing else is more reliable than his narrations. Anyone who looks at this objectively will find both of these points being strange or weird. It's weird that some translators changed the meaning in one verse when it comes to Jesus, and it's weird and strange that the earliest most authentic renown scholar who was the Jurist and Imam of Islam never ever even knew about this concept.

These are the things that should be taken into consideration.

Cheers.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But that's the call for authority fallacy. "Because they say so"..

I understand that.

in order to "IMPOSE" an already existing faith onto the Qur'an these translators have intentionally ignored the rest of the Qur'an.

Maybe.
It's not my debate. I am not qualified to discuss meanings of classical Arabic.

Again, you have cherry picked the most irrelevant verses and ignored all the relevant verses doing a cut and paste. The grammar here is Marfoo of wafaya, and is used in other verses as well..

I didn't cherry-pick .. I just displayed the bit that you omitted from the page you referred to.

I have to rely on the authority of scholars. Not just one scholar, btw.

 

[Firedragon]

I understand that.


Maybe.
It's not my debate. I am not qualified to discuss meanings of classical Arabic.


I didn't cherry-pick .. I just displayed the bit that you omitted from the page you referred to.

I have to rely on the authority of scholars. Not just one scholar, btw.

Ah. I omitted the one's you cut and pasted because they are a completely alien type of usage though the root is the same. It's a different Faala as one would call it in arabic. So they are "IRRELEVANT".

I have to rely on the authority of scholars. Not just one scholar, btw.

That's good. But I have given you many scholars. Islamic scholars. Earliest Islamic scholars. You ignored them and went for one's you want. That's a confirmation bias. So first it was ad hominem, second it was appeal to authority, then it was appeal to majority, and now it's confirmation bias.

No worries no worries. Just explore what I said. Read about Malik Ibn Anas. Read about Imam Mujahid from I think the first century after the prophet. And address the argument presented. YOu don't have to address it here. I mean you could do it with yourself.

Peace.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The belief that Jesus did not die at all, was raised alive to heaven directly, and will return one day in the future is a very late concept. This concept does not have any trace in the early years after Muhammed. This concept comes after a man called Farabry who lived in the 4th century after Muhammed.

Who knows?
The trinity, resurrection and ascension were already established belief in Christianity.
The trinity and resurrection are denied by Allah SWT in the Qur'an.
The ascension is not.

You may say that we have no good reason to believe anything in particular.
That's OK. That is how you see it.
Many people follow shekhs and so on.
There continues to be squabbles between historic divisions .. sunni shia .. barelvi deobandi etc.

I, personally, look at all I have come across, and make my own mind up.
I trust that Allah SWT has not led me astray.
Many of these divisions are relatively minor, but not all.

Prior to all of this there was another scholar called Malik Ibn Anas who is renown to have the MOST AUTHENTIC narrations who never in his life ever spoke of Jesus coming back.

That is irrelevant .. unless he is your sheikh
Naturally, he is highly respected, but could not know all.

He is earlier, more authentic, and is called the "Golden chain" which means nothing else is more reliable than his narrations. Anyone who looks at this objectively will find both of these points being strange or weird.

I don't find it "weird".
Malik Ibn Anas lived in the 8th. century, and is a renowned scholar.
That does not render other scholars to be inferior.

 

[Firedragon]

Who knows?

I explained in the post. Read it and you will get the answer.

The trinity, resurrection and ascension were already established belief in Christianity.

That's called Israeliath in Islamic scholarship so there were many scholars who said that the belief of Jesus's return is Israeliath, which means it's an insertion based on existing influence, not Islamic.

The trinity and resurrection are denied by Allah SWT in the Qur'an.
The ascension is not.

Haha. Even in the Bible, most of the ascention narrations are proven to be baseless. Without providence. Not in earlier manuscripts. There is no ascension as Christians believe in the Qur'an. Just because the Quran says we took him to us, that is not ascension. And Allah speaks about raising people in their belief and knowledge by "standard" in other places, that does not mean they all didnt die but just ascended to heaven.

I, personally, look at all I have come across, and make my own mind up.
I trust that Allah SWT has not led me astray.
Many of these divisions are relatively minor, but not all.

It's your faith. No problem. I told you that I am only engaging because this is a forum, and people debate.

And again you just spoke of "divisions" and "minor" which is again an ad populum fallacy. And it's no division to have mainstream Islamic scholars in it since the earliest times possible. I know that you will ignore everything said with names of scholars given and keep repeating the same sectarian stance that a lot of people do take. That's your prerogative.

That is irrelevant .. unless he is your sheikh
Naturally, he is highly respected, but could not know all.

I know that you have these sectarian hate spreading tendencies, but we in Islam don't have Sheikh's like you just made up. Sheikh to us a just an educated or respected or older person.

And if Imam Malik is irrelevant to your minority version of Islam (using your own tactics to show you how bad it is), then you have to read up a little. You are still engaging in ad hominem, not engaging with the argument made.

I don't find it "weird".
Malik Ibn Anas lived in the 8th. century, and is a renowned scholar.
That does not render other scholars to be inferior.

What other scholars of his time spoke of Jesus's return? Could you quote them specifically rather than making general commentary?

Thanks.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Ah. I omitted the one's you cut and pasted because they are a completely alien type of usage though the root is the same. It's a different Faala as one would call it in arabic. So they are "IRRELEVANT".

They are irrelevant to you .. not to me.
If it was that "alien", such renderings would not be acceptable.
This is not just about the issue of Jesus' return, as you appear to suggest.

That's good. But I have given you many scholars. Islamic scholars. Earliest Islamic scholars. You ignored them and went for one's you want

I haven't ignored any scholar.
I rely on scholars that have knowledge.
An early scholar is not always right, just because he lived long ago.

No worries no worries. Just explore what I said. Read about Malik Ibn Anas. Read about Imam Mujahid from I think the first century after the prophet..

Good general advice.

I believe that Medina University is a good place to study Islam.
Many people have studied those scholars in Medina, and many more.

 

[Firedragon]

They are irrelevant to you .. not to me.

Of course. Because you don't understand anything about the language nor do you have the humility to do so.

I haven't ignored any scholar.

Oh yes you have completely.

Good general advice.

I believe that Medina University is a good place to study Islam.
Many people have studied those scholars in Medina, and many more.

Imam Malik is from the school of Medina. It's called the school of Medina. It is the oldest school of thought in Islam. Their traditions are direct Salaf from the prophet himself.

Nevertheless, yes. Many have studied in Medina. But it's more of an academic environment and definitely not rigorous as a traditional Madrasa. No way. It's a completely different approach. So it's two different environments.

Anyway, have a good day.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's called Israeliath in Islamic scholarship so there were many scholars who said that the belief of Jesus's return is Israeliath, which means it's an insertion based on existing influence, not Islamic.

Yes, I get that.

Haha. Even in the Bible, most of the ascention narrations are proven to be baseless. Without providence. Not in earlier manuscripts. There is no ascension as Christians believe in the Qur'an. Just because the Quran says we took him to us, that is not ascension.

It seems to be implied, I would say.

John the Baptist [Yahya AS] was beheaded, or so it is believed by many.
Come on ! Jesus AS is a prophet, and mentioned many times in the Qur'an.
Do you really think that Jesus wasn't killed or crucified, and then went into obscurity?
No, of course not ! What sort of prophet would that be?
Allah SWT "raised him to Himself" .. in whatever way it happened.

..but we in Islam don't have Sheikh's like you just made up.

Who's "we"?
Many people do.
Call them Imams, Sheikhs .. you know what I mean.

What other scholars of his time spoke of Jesus's return? Could you quote them specifically rather than making general commentary?

I'll get back to you on that .. but they could be later than Imam Malik .. but that doesn't matter. It proves nothing.
Imam Malik is not the only one capable of collecting reliable hadith.

 

[Firedragon]

It seems to be implied, I would say.

John the Baptist [Yahya AS] was beheaded. We know what happened to him.
Come on ! Jesus AS is a prophet, and mentioned many times in the Qur'an.
Do you really think that Jesus wasn't killed or crucified, and then went into obscurity?
No, of course not ! What sort of prophet would that be?
Allah SWT "raised him to Himself" .. in whatever way it happened.

Well. Maybe he died.

Who's "we"?

We. I spelled it out. We in Islam. And you told me that I am having dementia? Haha. Just kidding just kidding.

I'll get back to you on that

Nah. It won't happen.

but they could be later than Imam Malik .. but that doesn't matter. It proves nothing.

It proves, that it could have developed much later. It's not in the Qur'an, it's not in the most authentic ahadith or the Golden chain, it's not in any book by any early scholar, but emerges centuries after the prophet passes.

So it proves that it's not an early concept, but a later concept.

Imam Malik is not the only one capable of collecting reliable hadith.

So who has the more reliable ahadith than Imam Malik? Can you give me specifically rather than making some general commentary?

Please show me which collector of ahadith is more reliable than imam malik, and who told you that, and on what basis. This discovery of yours is going to change all scholarship in the entire Islamic history. I will be waiting.
Thanks.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It proves, that it could have developed much later.

..could have..

So who has the more reliable ahadith than Imam Malik? Can you give me specifically rather than making some general commentary?

No. I am not claiming that.

Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maajah, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abu-Dawood and many others have narrated the narrations of the return of Jesus at the time of Imam Mahdi, and that he will pray behind Imam Mahdi.

You are suggesting that they are all most likely Israeliath in origin .. right?
That is more or less the same as saying that they are all most likely fabricated.
Personally, I doubt it.

 

[Firedragon]

Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maajah, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abu-Dawood and many others have narrated the narrations of the return of Jesus at the time of Imam Mahdi, and that he will pray behind Imam Mahdi.

All of them are not Sarih. Every single one of them.

You are suggesting that they are all most likely Israeliath in origin .. right?

Yes. Most likely.

That is more or less the same as saying that they are all most likely fabricated.
Personally, I doubt it.

I can give you reasons, narrations, conflicts, scholarship, and many reasons you should consider. I already have. Just that you didn't follow through by researching about what I said.

What you just did is say "I doubt it". That's it. No reasons (when I say reason I mean in the traditional sense of Akal), no scholarship, not addressing the argument, nothing. Just a faith statement "I doubt it". It's not a good methodology.

 

[muhammad_isa]

All of them are not Sarih. Every single one of them.

Can you explain?
Example..

Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported:
I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) say: A section of my people will not cease fighting for the Truth and will prevail till the Day of Resurrection. He said: Jesus son of Mary would then descend and their (Muslims') commander would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say: No, some amongst you are commanders over some (amongst you). This is the honour from Allah for this Ummah.
- Sahih Muslim -

Why is that not sarih?
It starts off by saying "I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) say".

Just a faith statement "I doubt it". It's not a good methodology..

I'm trying to understand.
It's not a methodology .. it's expressing my doubt.

 

[Firedragon]

Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported:
I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) say: A section of my people will not cease fighting for the Truth and will prevail till the Day of Resurrection. He said: Jesus son of Mary would then descend and their (Muslims') commander would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say: No, some amongst you are commanders over some (amongst you). This is the honour from Allah for this Ummah.
- Sahih Muslim -

Why is that not sarih?
It starts off by saying "I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) say".

I don't know in what world a hadith is Sarih because it says "I heard the prophet say". I have never heard anything worse than that. Munkar, Daif, mathrook, all kinds of hadith start with "i heard the prophet say". Does that authenticate all of them? I mean all the single narrations, and even the weakest ahadith in all of the hadith collections accepted by every one as weak start with the same phrase. It does not mean it's true.

Let me see if can go to the roots of this hadith. Please give me the direct reference. I will try to make you understand if you are willing to really look at it or just dismiss it with an ad hominem or some other fallacy.

Okay wait. I think I found the hadith. For your sake I googled it because I had to find the hadith reference in Muslim.

1. So in this hadith it's saying Jesus will refuse to lead the prayer! Correct? But you see, in Bukhari's collection, In Kithabul Fitna or the book of trials, hadith number 2029 named the victory over Constantinople, it says Jesus will lead the prayer. Contradiction.

2. Take both the hadith's. Your hadith you copy pasted is in the future, but the hadith in Bukhari 2029 says that Jesus will appear as soon as Constantinople is conquered and they go to Syria. The antichrist will appear, and Jesus will lead the prayer. Constantinople was conquered like 600 years ago.

There are narrative contradictions, and historical contradictions.

They are NOT Sarih. All you can do now is to jump through many hoops to explain them away because you have no choice.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know in what world a hadith is Sarih because it says "I heard the prophet say". I have never heard anything worse than that. Munkar, Daif, mathrook, all kinds of hadith start with "i heard the prophet say". Does that authenticate all of them?

From what I understand, a hadith can be classified as explicit or implicit [sarih or hukmi]
If you stick to English, it would be easier.
You are saying that they are not genuine .. authentic .. right?

1. So in this hadith it's saying Jesus will refuse to lead the prayer! Correct? But you see, in Bukhari's collection, In Kithabul Fitna or the book of trials, hadith number 2029 named the victory over Constantinople, it says Jesus will lead the prayer. Contradiction.

2. Take both the hadith's. Your hadith you copy pasted is in the future, but the hadith in Bukhari 2029 says that Jesus will appear as soon as Constantinople is conquered and they go to Syria. The antichrist will appear, and Jesus will lead the prayer. Constantinople was conquered like 600 years ago.

There are narrative contradictions, and historical contradictions.

Point 1. means little really. It could mean that Jesus would not regularly lead the prayer .. whatever.
Point 2. There could be more than one conflict regards Constantinople. There doesn't just have to be one.

Many people believe as you do. i.e. hadiths about Jesus return are unreliable
..but a lot more believe that there are so many of them, by different narrators [ heard the prophet [saw] saying ],
that the return of Jesus AS is fairly certain.

Where I do agree with you, is that hadith about "the end-times" in general, can be a source of fitna.
..but as I've already stated, so can the Qur'an.
It is about considering all Quranic verses and hadith, and not leaning towards extremist ideologies.

..and Allah SWT knows best.