Muslims I have met have never mentioned not believing Jesus was crucified. In fact they are even happy to believe he was the Son of God - the issue is how you interpret “son” - as in literally, or figuratively, ie “we are all God’s children” etc.
Jesus is held in high regard as a prophet, just not as the final (most important) prophet.
[Homer Simpson]The ability to weasel out of things is what seperates Man from the animals…except the weasel [/Homer Simpson]
You are correct that there are any number of miracles outlined in the bible and the koran however there are important differences between those miracles and the one you are suggesting took place at the crucifixion:
More than this though there’s even external evidence completely independant of the bible - the Roman annals. In fact, there’s so much evidence for it that I’m not sure how much more evidence there could possibly be (considering we are talking about something that happened 2000 years ago).
Many people claim that Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies. As far as I’m aware there aren’t any OT prophecies that say something along the lines of:
“There will come a prophet. He will appear to die but in fact he isn’t dead really, it’s just one of God’s tricks. But no one will know about this trick until many centuries later”
So Muhammed’s claim, that Jesus wasn’t crucified, has no scriptural basis. He just seems to have made it up, on the hoof.
Before you say “well I follow the koran not the bible, so I don’t care about what it says in the OT or the NT” you should remember that Muhammed considered the koran to be the third book in a trilogy. And also remember that while you may be tempted to dismiss the bible as an authoritative source, it is pretty much the only evidence we have and is therefore valuable in that regard and perfectly valid to consider it.
So if Muhammed is incorrect about this particular detail, you kinda wonder what else is he incorrect about?. If Muhammed is wrong about this (and such evidence as we have suggests that he is) then it makes Muhammed an unreliable witness. Say that sentence out loud and try to comprehend the enormity of it - Muhammed may be an unreliable witness. This is why I think this detail is central to your faith. I’m questioning the credibility of the guy who kickstarted Islam.
You are correct that the Gospels were written 60 years after the events they describe but there’s a big difference between 60 years and 600 years. 60 years is a human lifespan so it is not impossible that some of the Gospel writers may have actually met Jesus. In any event, they will certainly have met people who knew Jesus.
By what authority can Muhammed, writing 600 years later, disagree with events depicted in the bible? You will no doubt say “God’s authority” but apart from that cop-out argument, can you give me any reason at all why I should think that Muhammed was in a position to authoritatively disagree with events stated as fact in the bible and understood to be facts by everyone (even the Romans) in the 600 years prior to Muhammed’s arrival on the scene?
This business about the crucifixion isn’t just a small detail, it’s the lynchpin of the worlds largest religion. And Muhammed dismisses it in one short paragraph offering up no evidence whatsoever for his claim.
As you say the NT is essentially a historical work in which many different writers all tell essentially the same story. The koran is just one person telling a story. This is a strength of the bible and a weakness of the koran. As a muslim you have to put all your eggs in one basket.
If, say, Luke is found to have been wrong about something then it’s no biggie because there’s plenty of other writers in the NT covering his back. If Muhammed is wrong about something then…oops there goes the whole of Islam.
Reading my post I realise I come across sounding Christian (and possibly aggressive). Please believe me, I’m not either of those things. I just have this really bad habit of grilling people about their religious beliefs (one day it’s gonna get me into trouble, I’m sure).
Thousands of people who mostly wouldn’t know what he looked like. But that’s a quibble.
You know, that’s a very good point. However, I’m going to have to play, well not DEVIL’s advocate, but… If I were going to establish a religion, having my star quarterback die and rise from the dead then Poof into heaven is way cooler and showier than having him duck out while someone else dies, then Poof into heaven. I’d advertise the former even or especially if the latter happened.
Question for Martin- What was the purpose of having someone else die instead of Jesus?
Not me, baby! I’m neither Muslim nor Christian, merely well-read and married to one.
Prophets get to do Miracles. I was told that the basic fact of Muhammad turning a migraine into a world religion should be considered a miracle. He did get an awful lot of followers awfully quickly with some far-out ideas for the time. I can see it. Not far out on the miracle scale as walking on water, but still on the unlikely side.
I’m not sure why this one thing is such a big deal. Could you explain, please? I mean, there’s more to the religion than how one historical figure dies.
Jojo, I’m not a Muslim, but I find your tone in your last post to be extremely arrogant and condescending. You owe Martin an apology.
Ask a muslim
As salaam u alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu
Peace, Mercy, and Blessings of Allah be upon you
Hey Dopers!
I’m pretty new here, but here goes.
I’ve noticed a wide range of knowledge regarding Islam in the various posts here. I think it’s time to fix some misconceptions.
I am a new muslim, but fairly well studied on the basics, Inshallah.
As an American who has not felt the need to abandon his culture, my understanding of the faith may differ with other, more fundamentalist types. In Islam, that’s ok. We are allowed to have differences of opinion and interpretation, as long as it doesn’t lead to sectarianism.
Ask away. You might find out some things you didn’t expect.
Blatantly hostile, rhetorical, or “Trolling” type posts shan’t be dignified with a response. Sincere questions are welcome, regardless of the source.
Here’s a guideline for prior assumptions. If you heard it in the American Media or from your pastor/priest/minister/rabbi, it is probably not 100% accurate. many religions have skewed ideas about Islam dating back to the oh-so-scholarly days of the Crusades or from current political/territorial tensions.
Martin
I’m not a “Mohammadan”!
I am not in need of an apology, but thanks for the suggestion.
I do not see how I can answer Jojo’s post without beginning to trash the Bible.
That is not the purpose of this thread!
Martin
Here goes…
“Before you say “well I follow the koran not the bible, so I don’t care about what it says in the OT or the NT” you should remember that Muhammed considered the koran to be the third book in a trilogy. And also remember that while you may be tempted to dismiss the bible as an authoritative source, it is pretty much the only evidence we have and is therefore valuable in that regard and perfectly valid to consider it.”
The Qur’an is not the words of Muhammad, it is the Word of Allah. The Qur’an carries more weight for me than the Bible on the matters where they disagree.
That’s why I’m a muslim. Christians can disagree, because they’re Christians. Others may disagree with both of us because they are Atheists, lawyers, Hindus, Hottentots or whatever.
The Quran is the last in a series of Revelatory books. It was sent to correct the human rewrites, additions, omissions and corruptions of the remaining copies of the preceding volumes. I won’t go into Bible-bashing. Neither my intent nor that of this thread.
(I keep saying that and keep getting sucked in…)
Martin
“Reading my post I realise I come across sounding Christian (and possibly aggressive). Please believe me, I’m not either of those things. I just have this really bad habit of grilling people about their religious beliefs (one day it’s gonna get me into trouble, I’m sure).”
Christian? No. Most Christians are a bit more knowledgeable about their book than you sound.
Aggressive? Certainly. Whatever.
An asshat? Absolutely!
Sorry about that last one. I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to use “asshat” having seen a few people, probably asshats themselves, doing so.
Forgive me,
Martin
Martin: Direct insults of posters in GD is not allowed.
Also, all due respect to you and sdrwkcab, but I don’t think Jojo was all that insulting. He could have dropped the weasling accusation, but otherwise I thought it was a reasonable post ( though philosophically I don’t think his argument is all that overwhelming ). MHO only.
Peace :).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Tamerlane *
**Martin: Direct insults of posters in GD is not allowed.
Peace :).
You are correct.
I’m an asshat
Martin
I don’t think it was at all arrogant or condescending. I’m merely pointing out (what I think) are holes in Islam. If you like, in my next post I’ll point out what I think are holes in Christianity then I’ll move on to Judaism, Hinduism and so on until I’ve covered all the world’s religions. But I don’t think you really want me to do that so I won’t.
My arguments may seem a bit “in your face” and for that I apologise if I cause offence. Since I’m not myself a muslim then obviously I must think muslims are wrong, stands to reason. If I didn’t think muslims were wrong then I would be a muslim.
So I’m just trying to tell you why I think muslims are wrong in the hope that Martin can correct any errors or misconceptions I may have.
Can you point out any errors regarding the bible I’ve made on which you base this statement?
Don’t get me wrong I like a lot of things about Islam, I’m not hostile towards Islam at all. I just don’t think Muhammed was divinely inspired. Or Jesus for that matter, or Moses or Abraham or any of them. It just seems to me that this retrospective miracle thing at the crucifixion is a hole in Islam big enough to drive a bus through.
Anyway, if you think my line of questioning is unwanted (or too difficult?) then I’ll back out of this thread, again with apologies for any offence I’ve caused.
I can satisfy you without beginning a textual crticism of The Bible, something I have already stated I won’t do here.
several times
Here
http://www.tl.infi.net/~ddisse/rabia.html
You will find some stuff on my favorite sufi, a woman from Basra, Iraq during the early part of the second century of the Islamic calendar
Rabia
"[Rabi’a’s most often-quoted prayer:]
If I adore You out of fear of Hell, burn me in Hell!
If I adore you out of desire for Paradise,
Lock me out of Paradise.
But if I adore you for Yourself alone,
Do not deny to me Your eternal beauty. [ll.8-12, p.45]"
More
"I carry a torch in one hand
And a bucket of water in the other:
With these things I am going to set fire to Heaven
And put out the flames of Hell
So that voyagers to God can rip the veils
And see the real goal. [p.43]
[And her emphasis is on individual response, rather than on ritual:]
How long will you keep pounding on an open door
Begging for someone to open it? [p.51]"
This is my Islam in a nutshell. The words of Rabia are part of what lead me here. The opinions of a Fundamentalist minority aside, Islam is a big (goathair) tent, with lots of room for different opinions and interpretations.
Martin
Peace and Mercy to ye.
Martin, What is with Muslims and cirumcision?
I believe it is also true that Muslim women have to undergo a similar religious ritual, and if I may bring this up in this thread,
'so that they can’t sexually pleasure themselves"? (masturbation if you please).
“Female Circumcision” is a phrase that means different things depending on who uses it. It was an Egyptian and Sudanese custom followed by some of the people that converted to Islam. It was not common as an overall Arabic thing, and is not a part of Islam. At one point, a lady asked the Prophet Muhammad if women should be circumcised. He said something like I wish you wouldn’t, but if you feel you need to, please don’t go overboard and just do as little as possible.
As for the procedure, in some cases, it removed the clitoral hood, which would give a woman more easy access to sexual pleasure. Given the Islam acknowledges that it is normal and healthy for women to desire sex, this would almost make sense. The removal of all the flappy bits downstairs and sewing up afterwards (with thorns (shudder)) is a relatively modern thing. A researcher friend of mine interviewed a lady who had done intake for a refugee camp in a place where the second sort was common. Apparently the operation was extremely disliked by the men but women would brag about it to each other about how clean they were and how much their husband loved them to pay to have them cut open to have sex so frequently.
SO FAR AS I KNOW, there is nothing scripturally about people masturbating.
One question I’ve always had about Islam is why the calendar is dated from the Hajira rather than Muhammad’s revelation which occurred several years earlier. I’m not a Muslim, but it appears to me that the former event was much more signifigant to Islam than the latter. Of course, by the same argument, you could argue that the Christian calendar should be dated from Jesus’s resurrection rather than his birth.
Salaam,
Male circumcision is basically a contiuation of the Covenant of Abraham. Also, it was aan Arabic custom. Muhammad was circumcised, therefore it is generaly considered a good thing.
Femal Genital Mutilation is another thing entirely. There is no compelling religious justification for it and several against it. It was a Pharonic Egyptian custom, one picked up by the Christian and Jwish communities in the areas formerly held by that empire. It s reported that the Prophet tried to discourage the practice, but when people persisted, he said “…do not cut deeply, for it is better for the woman, and more desirable for the husband.” I have come across some claims that all traditional sayings regarding FGM are questionable as to authenticity. There are several reliable sayings regarding the husband’s duty to pleasure his wife, and a woman can divorce her husband for not fulfilling those duties.
Add it up.
My friend Marwan is estranged from much of his family, grandmother, aunts, older cousins, because they broke their promise regarding his sister in Sudan. After much argument, the women wouldn’t agree to abandoning the ceremony, and promised to give a token nick. They did the full number.
So, to summarize…
Female circumcision is not required by the religion, probably not even mentioned in accurate accounts, and goes against other, stronger laws.
Martin
Salaam
It is dated that way because Muhammad did so. The Hijra was the defining moment for the early muslims as a distinct community. The year 622 BC was a year of triumph and freedom from execution, torture, and persecution, and a year of pain due to separation from ones tribe, families, businesses, and home city. I can’t say exactly why that year was chosen over others, but I suspect it is one that left quite an impression on the emigrees, and felt like the beginning of a new era.
Good question,
Thank you,
Martin