The Death of Jesus In The Qur'an

Friend said:
Why Not Polyandry (plurality of husbands for the same women?)
It is evident that the nature of women is physiologically and psychologically different from that of men. Psychologically speaking, the woman is monogamous by her very nature. Furthermore, in all cultures, new and old, the headship of the family is normally man’s. One can imagine what would happen if the family had two or more heads. Furthermore, if the woman was married to more than one husband, which would be the father of her children?
......and the most important issue behind the prevent or unacceptable of woman Polyandry is to save the Pedigrees or Lineages .( so we as humans be different from animals).
Hello. You are certainly welcome to keep your beliefs, and I respect them. However, science does not agree with what you are saying here; I am happy to provide references if you like.
1. It is a falsehood that women are monogamous by our very nature. The widespread (in nearly every culture on earth and every time on earth) problems of adultery by women, and the preoccupation with keeping women from interacting with other men in a sexual way is testimony to this. Women typically do not have as high a sex drive as men, but sex drive and number of partners are two separate issues. The evidence is that women struggle with lust and commitment to a single man, just as men struggle with lust and commitment to a single woman.
2. It is not true that in all cultures throughout time, men are typically the head of household. In many cultures, the headship is shared equally between men and women or women had the dominant say in the household- not just modern cultures, but also in practically all hunter-gatherer societies (which made up about 90% of human history) and in most horticultural societies. Most pastoral societies (such as those in the Middle East) and agricultural soceities (ancient Europe, most of Asia) are patriarchal. Many cultures have gotten along just fine for millenia with women as heads of household or as equals.
3. Many families have two or more heads in many different cultures. Sometimes it is a shared headship between the adult men and women (married together), sometimes it is shared among adults of multiple generations (father and son, mother and daughter). Speaking from experience from a successful marriage in which we are equal partners and equal in our headship of the household, it isn't that difficult if you are respectful of one another and of like mind to begin with.
4. Polyandry (more than one man with one woman) does occur in some societies, though it is rare. It works fine for them.
5. In societies in which polyandry is the norm, or in which little emphasis is place on the finding the "real" father, lineage is typically calculated through the mother or is not important. Many cultures care little about pedigrees, or simply reckon them through the mother since there can be no mistakes there. In some societies, women and children live separate from the men or live with the mother's kin (brothers, father, etc.) so the father is hardly present in the child's life and the chief fatherly responsibilities fall on one's uncle. In some societies, there is little property (such as among hunter-gatherers), so lineage doesn't much matter because there is no inheritance. Children are raised by their parents by marriage and by the entire group as a whole, and it really doesn't matter terribly if they are not biologically the child of the father.
6. Genetic studies have shown that there is virtually no impact of cousins producing children. There is a problem if brothers and sisters or parents/children reproduce. There are many cultures in the world in which marrying a cousin is the best marriage choice and is encouraged and they have not suffered genetic defects. The worst genetic defects seem to occur in small, closed population groups in which no external genetic information can come in to the group. If the group is sufficiently large and open, cousin-marriage does not seem to be a problem.
7. I do not believe that what separates humans and animals is attention to lineage and/or pedigree. I would wager that most people would disagree with that, though they'd give different reasons for the distinction depending on their religion. But especially because many humans do not care much about lineage/pedigree, that can't be the dividing line between us and animals, at least not scientifically.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
Cool. I love anthropology. During my first two years as an undergrad, I intended to major in it. What is your thesis? (If you don't mind my asking)
I never mind anyone asking! :) My thesis is on the economics and ecology of family cattle ranchers in the United States. I'm focusing on rangeland management decision-making. My theoretical focus is on how people experience their landscape, the link between spirituality and cultural assumptions and practical decision-making and action, and how to promote conservation to people with widely diverse cultural backgrounds and relationships to the land. ;)

I nearly double-majored in religious studies, so that's my other intellectual passion and why I end up on forums like this! :D
 
Hi all here
The Holy Quran confirms that Jesus (PUH) was born miraculously without the intervention of any man, but that event is compared to the creation of Adam (PUH) Who had no parents at all: God willed it and it took place. Similarly, the miracles performed by Jesus (PUH) have been recounted and confirmed, but, like the miracles of all Prophet, they are counted as manifestations of the Might and Power of the Creator

According to Islam, Jesus never died on the cross, nor ever wanted to die on the cross, nor ever was born to die on the cross. Muslims believe that Jesus was sentenced to death, and people thought that he got executed on the cross. The Holy Quran rejects this idea .

Let's look at verse 4:156-159 "That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.' But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjunction to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them."

Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take you and raise you to Myself and clear you of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow you superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall you all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein you dispute." (Holy Quran, Al-Imran, 3:55)


And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow you Me: this is a Straight Way.
(Holy Quran, Az-Zukhuruf, 43:61)

verse 4:171-172 "O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say Of Allah ought but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) A Messenger of Allah, And His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and the Spirit proceeding From Him: so believe In Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: It will be better for you: For Allah is One God: Glory to Him: (Far Exalted is He) above Having a son. To Him (Allah) Belong all things in the heavens And on earth. And enough Is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
Christ disdained no To serve and worship Allah, Nor do the angels, those Nearest (to Allah): Those who disdain His worship and are arrogant, He will gather them all Together unto Himself (Jesus) to (answer)."

For those whom interested , you can visit this site :

http://www.jamaat.net/cis/ChristInIslam.html



 
Hi
In reply to Path_of_One

It is not true that in all cultures throughout time, men are typically the head of household. In many cultures, the headship is shared equally between men and women or women had the dominant say in the household- not just modern cultures, but also in practically all hunter-gatherer societies (which made up about 90% of human history) and in most horticultural societies. Most pastoral societies (such as those in the Middle East) and agricultural soceities (ancient Europe, most of Asia) are patriarchal. Many cultures have gotten along just fine for millenia with women as heads of household or as equals.
I'm not agree with your point here ,because often man is the head of the family this is what the past and modern history provied ......you can tell me which name you have the name of your father or the name of your mother ...in your culture even the wives take the name of their husband after married .and in the near history the heirs coefficients in the west culture defferentiate between men and women which reflict the position of each one ...I'm not talking here about the helping in the household affaires ...but I'm talking about the final decissions in the family ...I know that many family taking the decisions togather but the average rate through the history movement proved that the man is the head .
In societies in which polyandry is the norm, or in which little emphasis is place on the finding the "real" father, lineage is typically calculated through the mother or is not important. Many cultures care little about pedigrees, or simply reckon them through the mother since there can be no mistakes there. In some societies, women and children live separate from the men or live with the mother's kin (brothers, father, etc.) so the father is hardly present in the child's life and the chief fatherly responsibilities fall on one's uncle. In some societies, there is little property (such as among hunter-gatherers), so lineage doesn't much matter because there is no inheritance. Children are raised by their parents by marriage and by the entire group as a whole, and it really doesn't matter terribly if they are not biologically the child of the father.
My friend I'm not talking here if the societies accepting this or not , or if the existence of father is important or not ....I'm talking about the real identity of the person from the heirdom point of view ...the question is can the children of one mother which have many husbands determine their attributing and their brothers and sisters from their real father ????????????
at the same time the children with one father which have more than one wives ...can they determine their lineage and kins ??????
Genetic studies have shown that there is virtually no impact of cousins producing children. There is a problem if brothers and sisters or parents/children reproduce. There are many cultures in the world in which marrying a cousin is the best marriage choice and is encouraged and they have not suffered genetic defects. The worst genetic defects seem to occur in small, closed population groups in which no external genetic information can come in to the group. If the group is sufficiently large and open, cousin-marriage does not seem to be a problem.
Specifically ,this point I saw it in my eyes because in my culture as you told marrying a cousin is the best marriage choice , and do you know what happened many disease appears in the children which resulted from this kind of marriage ...like ( Thalassemia disease), and now the people convince about the hadith of our messenger Mohammad(PUH) that called to be far away from kins marriage.
 
I don't like to make long posts and explain myself because sometimes it doesn't matter what you say there's always an opposing argument...
1. Jesus as God, which is the dominant way of thinking about him in Christianity. To a Jew, God is a One Divine Entity. There can be no trinity, because God is always One and One only. Jewish people tell me that to worship Jesus is to break the first commandment.
2. Jews believe that God made all things perfect and as they should be. They say that Christians view of Satan makes God's creation of the angels imperfect, because the angels were messengers of God and had no free will according to Judaism. Thus, the Christian Satan, who has free will and fights God and is often framed as God's enemy and "winning" in some people's hearts, appears as a pseudo-deity compared to the Jewish Satan, who is the angel of temptation and death and judgment, the "adversary" and "prosecutor," an entity that is just doing his job as God commands him. Jews believe that God created both good and evil in order that we may grow spiritually, and OT scripture supports this (even the translations in English).
3. Jews do not believe in an eternal hell. They believe that those who fail to put spirituality and righteousness as a strong priority in life will spend time away from God after death in order to learn the lessons they missed. Some Jews believe reincarnation may occur to learn lessons. Hell ("Gehenna") is a metaphor for this separation from God for us to learn our lessons and attain righteousness and a spiritual connection to God.
4. Jews do not believe that the OT God is wrathful, judgmental, and unyielding. They believe their Father God is just but also merciful, and if one tries hard in life to be righteous, one will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. They did not have the idea that perfection was required, which is how many Christians view it: that Jesus is mediating between humans and the Father, who is unable to let them into heaven without the covering of Jesus.
5. Jews do not believe God is gendered. In the Torah, the Hebrew words for God alternatively are masculine, feminine, and plural. This was to show that God was not gendered. God was beyond gender and had no physical form. Some Christians believe in the non-corporeal Jewish version of God, others I know believe in the masculine, corporeal God as Father and Son.
6. Jews never had the idea that Gentiles had any obligation to follow the law. They tell me that Gentiles are judged based on cultivating spirituality and ethical action (righteousness), just as Jews are, but they are not judged under the law because that was exclusive to the Jewish people. One can convert to Judaism, but they do not believe that non-Jewish people automatically cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This is one of the reasons many of them have problems with Christianity, which typically professes to be the only way for everybody in the world.
7. Jews never saw the Messiah as God. The Messiah was King. This gets back to #1.
Do you have to go all technical? Did Chrsit prove himself enough to have the authority to edit the words of God to serve the next generation of people?. End of the day Islam is a blatant Anti-Christ religion, may have something to do with anti-west, something Alexander the Great may be guilty for ;) Personally I don't blame them, or maybe we can, maybe they are just as bad? Only God knows.. By "them" I mean people of the middle east, because the difference between west and east is like night and day. If there really is a right or wrong, I suppose there is a chance I could be guilty myself ;)
 
Hi

Islam is a blatant Anti-Christ religion
How you conclude this perception?:confused: :confused: :confused:
According to your replies ,I think you didn't understand anything you read about this subject.:) :) :)
 
3.55 Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

That phrase brings the chills down my spine for some reason.
 
Islam against Christ? thats absurd thinking. as i said before, please LEARN the facts and stop following your desires. Islam is very pro-Christ, all of Gods blessed prophets taught us to worship the one true God. Jesus never commanded man to worship him, and the bible actually names many "sons" of God. God is Creator, Jesus is creation. Jesus taught us to worship the Creator. its pretty simple. Islam teaches that Jesus, the son of Mary, peace be upon him, will return and he will kill the anti-Christ/false Messiah and that he will break the cross,(ie..correct the wrong, those that worship him or set him up as a partner to God.)

you should learn the history and true teachings of Islam and the stories of all of Gods prophets, peace be upon them all. there are some really nice educational books at: http://www.astrolabe.com/
 
Jesus Christ taught us that rich people have low chance of entering the kingdom of heaven, he also told us not to marry widows. One of Muhammad’s wives was a wealthy widow. Christianity is very much more passive religion that's why our symbol of our religion is the cross (sacrifice) and at the same time more liberal. I have studied both Islam and Christianity, each view can differ. But in my view Islam is an anti-Christ religion. Don't confuse politicians like Bush as an ambassador for Christianity.
 
Postmaster said:
Jesus Christ taught us that rich people have low chance of entering the kingdom of heaven, he also told us not to marry widows. One of Muhammad’s wives was a wealthy widow. Christianity is very much more passive religion that's why our symbol of our religion is the cross (sacrifice) and at the same time more liberal. I have studied both Islam and Christianity, each view can differ. But in my view Islam is an anti-Christ religion. Don't confuse politicians like Bush as an ambassador for Christianity.

You know Postmaster, in considering the life of Prophet Muhammad, that He was connected by family to the richest, most powerful clan in Mecca. Before receiving Divine Revelation in the cave of Mount Hira, He already had the material and social connections that was the envy of His day. Even so He was known as "Al Ameen" the Trusted One, and people would go to Him as an arbiter to settle squabbles, resolve disputes and as an insurer of trusts.

On receiving the Revelation His life was turned over to the Will of the Almighty God. His personal wealth and position in society was lost and His life was at risk much of the time. Peopel scorned Him and threw thorns on His path and rediculed Him while He prayed. All this He endured selflessly for some years.

Some Moslems escaped to the nearby Kingdom of Aethiopia and received the protection of a Christian monarch. Moslems and Christians realized they had more in common than either had with the Meccan Pagans.

Finally, the Almighty decreed that Prophet Muhammad and His band of followers could escape Pagan Mecca and so the Hijra began to Medina and so on. The Pagans raised large armies to crush the new Faith and against great odds, the band of followers thanks only to God prevailed.

The battles took the lives of many selfless heroes who had risked everything to defend their Faith. Widows in the Pagan culture at that time had no one to care for them or defend them. There was no Social Security or death benefits in those days and one of the signal honors was to be under the protection of the Prophet. Prophet Muhammad was married for several years to His first wife Lady Khadijah and only after her passing did He marry other wives... Marriage in those days was not like marriage today. People today marry on a whim they call "love" and just as easily when this "love" leaves the women are abandoned and the children go on public welfare, not so in the provisions of the Revelation of God.

When the spirit Prophet Muhammad ascended and left this earthly place, He had a few dates and some ransomed armour left in a modest hut of a house. Materially He had next to nothing. Spiritually He had triumphed over all His enemies and the corrupt earthly Empires of His day.



Unfortuantely the "Christianity" you speak of was neither passive nor liberal in much of it's history. After Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire it became a part of the powerful, corrupt apparatus of the State and Christians waged war for profit and worldly territory. Eventually the power and corruption became it's own undoing. Ikons were set up and dogmatic pronouncements were made. Pontiffs railed against their enemies as heretics imprisoning and burning those they disagreed with.

Liberalism and passive life was not a feature of this "Christianity" but rather dogmatic rigidity and spiritual backruptcy.

- Art
 
Unfortuantely the "Christianity" you speak of was neither passive nor liberal in much of it's history.

Exactly that's why Christ came, imagine if he didn’t... The western political system probably would have been more aggressive today. Don't mix politics with religion... When the Turks came and invaded my home land in 1974 did I blame Islam? From a Spiritual sense Christianity is more passive then Islam. You don't even need God to tell you that. When the Israelis took some of Palestine, even today people are blowing themselves up and they claim they are going to paradise and justify it within Islamic teachings. A Greek Cypriot has never blown himself up in the north of Cyprus, where all there houses and property are. And Palestine is only but 30 miles away from Cyprus.

Passiveness is the key.... That's why I have much respect for Buddhism and Hinduism. Passiveness is what Christ taught, western Europe, USA and the middle east does not practise this. They are just as bad as much other
 
Changing attitude:

Postmaster said:

Exactly that's why Christ came, imagine if he didn’t... The western political system probably would have been more aggressive today. Don't mix politics with religion... When the Turks came and invaded my home land in 1974 did I blame Islam? From a Spiritual sense Christianity is more passive then Islam. You don't even need God to tell you that. When the Israelis took some of Palestine, even today people are blowing themselves up and they claim they are going to paradise and justify it within Islamic teachings. A Greek Cypriot has never blown himself up in the north of Cyprus, where all there houses and property are. And Palestine is only but 30 miles away from Cyprus.

Passiveness is the key.... That's why I have much respect for Buddhism and Hinduism. Passiveness is what Christ taught, western Europe, USA and the middle east does not practise this. They are just as bad as much other

Just as you wrote earlier:

"Don't confuse politicians like Bush as an ambassador for Christianity."

Don't confuse Islam with what the Turks did in Cyprus...after all Turkey claims to be a secular state since Kamal Ataturk. Don't confuse Islam as a religion with those who have attempted to hijack it for their own purposes such as terrorists or bombers. True Isalm is opposed to killing innocents. Jihad is defensive response to violence and oppression.

Hindus and Buddhists have also been involved in wars and warfare was very common in ancient and medieval India.

What you should do is change your attitude that Islam is an anit- Christ religion. Moslems accept Jesus and ideally respect Christians and permit them to practise their religion. But I also think we're far off from the original subject of this thread.

- Art
 
Re: Changing attitude:

Your world is too perfect arthra, it's dangerous thinking like this because no human is perfect ;) As a Baha'i you must recognise all the other work of religious leaders? But these very faiths are all claiming to be the only right way. It's the worlds imperfection that make’s it so perfect. Muhammad unified the Middle East and created the Islamic empire and gave his word, Christ gave his life for his word. Surely the next message of God Muhhamad can't be such a contradiction and entering out of the boarder’s of passiveness. Build your life on a strong foundation, that was talked about in the bible too.
 
Re: Changing attitude:

Postmaster said:
Your world is too perfect arthra, it's dangerous thinking like this because no human is perfect ;) As a Baha'i you must recognise all the other work of religious leaders? But these very faiths are all claiming to be the only right way. It's the worlds imperfection that make’s it so perfect. Muhammad unified the Middle East and created the Islamic empire and gave his word, Christ gave his life for his word. Surely the next message of God Muhhamad can't be such a contradiction and entering out of the boarder’s of passiveness. Build your life on a strong foundation, that was talked about in the bible too.

You can call me "Art".... that's my name.

All I'm suggesting to you, is that you reconsider your views on Islam.

- Art
 
Well PM I guess most of your hatred towards Islam arises b/c of Turkish invasion of Cyprus . And then U have reinforced your hatred with your perception of Islam . I may be wrong on that , but thats what I figured out after reading your posts .

A Greek Cypriot has never blown himself up in the north of Cyprus, where all there houses and property are
I guess thats because they have got some place to live , rather than camps . And those muslim cyproits have been lioving there for a long time , there was not a mass immigration for making a country .

Jesus Christ taught us that rich people have low chance of entering the kingdom of heaven, he also told us not to marry widows
Whats wrong with marring widow . U R talking like every teaching of Christianity has been proven beyond doubt .

Tolerence !! ;)
 
I don't blame Islam for this

http://www.missing-cy.org/



I blame the human, the animal in the human, the barbarian, the non passive being.... Peace is not about unity of fellow human beings by force or any other way, it's about acceptance, sacrifice forgiveness and tolorance. Because like the Baha'i faith says, were all different flowers of one Garden. No one can change that fact, not even the Baha'i faith.
 
Post master,
I do not know what made you to write such a hateful remark about Prophet Muhammad, but I got something to say to you:
1) Prophet Muhammad never negated the fact that Jesus was chosen from God, because all of the prophets are chosen ones.
2) Islam views Jesus/Isaa s.a.v.s. as one of the highest prophets/chosen ones, but not as a divne.
3) Muhammad's followers and Muhammad united Arabs into one Kingdom.
4) "Muslim" conquests began after Prophet Muhammad's death.
5) Alexander the Great had nothing in common with Prophet Muhammad: a) Alexander did not preach a monotheistic faith and was a pagan, b) all Alexander yearned for was expansion of his earthly riches whereas Muhammad was a poor man who cared only in religion of God, TheOne True God.
*Muhammad s.a.v.s. was known to have been poor even when he became known as the leader among the faithful in Islam. There is a hadith that describes how many times in his house there was nothing to eat, besides dates and water. Alexander the Great yearned for riches and conquests. He did not believe in God, was not persecuted because of his believes like Muhammad s.a.v.s. was.
*Postmaster, please educate yourself first, before posting such a hateful remark.
 
Back
Top