JESUS AND CHRISTIANITY REVEALED AS MYTH

[Jeehad]

Hi Mustardseed,

I understand the points you make, and I (hope I) also understand the place you are coming from - a place of spiritual christianity, as opposed to fundamental dogmatic christianity, in which case, you are following the principals Jesus was trying to teach us about.

I guess I should clarify more my thoughts about what serves us.
To me, what serves us is what helps us to grow and evolve  - it is the direction of the soul, not the ego. What serves us most is love - firstly love of self, which then enables love of others. Apart from Jesus' quote "Love others as you would love yourself", there isn't a whole lot taught in religions that promotes this.

IT could be argued (and I believe has been... extensively) that Fundamentalist Christian beliefs are no less excessive and separatist than fundamentalist Muslim beliefs. There have been Islamic scholars who have tried to put across to their followers that the whole concept of Jihad has been grossly misinterpreted. They have tried to tell their followers that their way is a way of love and tolerance.
Unfortunately, as it is with many christians, the message of love seems to be lost amongst the many messages of fear.

Blessings,
James.

Sorry If I haven't been replying lately I've had alot of projects and assignments due lately :S But James thank you very very very much for that wonderful post. It seems as though MustardSeed just doesn't get it... he's trying to educate a false message of Islam portrayed by the Media. Again, As is every belief there are some "black sheeps" People who try to divert actions for a cause. this is a phenomenon which happens in every religion, every belief system! You got Radical Christians as well!! Did you not witness the Oklahoma bombings? Where immediately Arab men were persecuted, but the culprits were Catholic extremists!!! You fail to realize the rationale of why Muslims are fighting and I've tried explaining to you a countless number of times but you simply just don't get it!! why has terrorism suddenly splured out in the past 6 years? It is because of the violent interrogations faced by this common enemy of these people! Its the fact that occupation and brutal dictators were shoved down our throats. Jihad has absolutely nothing to do with war! In Islam Jihad is a struggle, the prophet muhammed(pbuh) referred to Jihad as ones struggle with his inner soul so in essence battling your soul in the way of God. Uh.... Jihad isn't a pillar of Islam....  Also do you even know what she Shahada is. It seems to me you have a distorted view of history!! If you only read the prophets hadiths on war you'd be surprised how peaceful he is!! Look at the biblical prophetic stories! The entire concept was based upon brutal murders, God setting up events which would in essence destroy the relationship with humans!  So again, where do these "Christian" fundamentalists get there ideas from?? My opinion is that religion itself is not corrupt, but perhaps people are! I am going to say this again, I AM A MUSLIM, I SUBMIT TO THE ONE TRUE GOD, I BELIEVE IN ALL THE PROPHETS INCLUDING MUHAMMED)PBUH) BELIEVE IN PEACE LOVE AND HUMANITY AND CONDEMN ANY VIOLENT ACT WHETHER IT BE DONE BY MUSLIMS,CHRISTIANS,JEWS,HINDUS WTEVER!!! I DO NOT ASSOCIATE RELIGION WITH WAR!!  IN FACT DONT EVEN ASSOCIATE RELIGION WITH POLITICS!! The events in the Middle East are absolutely political to a critical level, and instead of explaining the western media chooses to blaim such events on a Religion. MustardSeed instead of claiming such things please provide "proof," rather irrefutable proof!

Islam permits people TO FIGHT IN SELF DEFENSE but attacking people in any ways is absolutely against this noble religion.


" GOD advocates justice, charity, and regarding the relatives. And He forbids evil, vice, and transgression. He enlightens you, that you may take heed.(16:90)

"O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is Omniscient, Cognizant."(49:13)

"O you who believe, you shall be absolutely equitable, and observe GOD, when you serve as witnesses, even against yourselves, or your parents, or your relatives. Whether the accused is rich or poor, GOD takes care of both. Therefore, do not be biased by your personal wishes. If you deviate or disregard (this commandment), then GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do." (4:135).

"You shall prepare for them all the power you can muster, and all the equipment you can mobilize, that you may frighten the enemies of GOD, your enemies, as well as others who are not known to you; GOD knows them. Whatever you spend in the cause of GOD will be repaid to you generously, without the least injustice.If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient." (8:60-61)


P.S: I cant reply your youtube videos for my speakers are broken :S Could you possibly post it here?? Id rather have you explain it in your own words.


Islam spread by the sword???

Allah (SWT) "Say: the truth from your Lord and let him who will believe and let him who will reject."(18:29)


Today, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, currently we claim 1.7 billion muslims worldwide and despite the efforts to demonize such a religion people are converting at all time highs! Are you telling me, Muslims nowadays in America are holding up swords to Americans telling them to convert? Therefore, we should ask ourselves first, before we are asked by anyone else, what is the truth? Did Muslims really force others to convert to Islam? Is there any evidence for consistent forcible conversion throughout the Islamic history? As a matter of fact, there is no such evidence anywhere in the history of Islam. Many distinguised Western historians have attested this fact-- foremost among whom is Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his book, "The Preaching of Islam". Also there is Marshall G. Hodgson in his book, "The Venture of Islam", Albert Hourani in his book, "A History of the Arab People", Ira Lapidus in his book, "History of Islamic Societies", L.S. Starorianos in his book, "A Global Hisotry, the Human Heritage" and many others.
In fact, there is substantial evidence to the contrary. We have already seen in a previous *khutbah* that Muslims were often seen as liberators of the oppressed people everywhere.

Are you telling me Islam Islam is being spread by the sword today as we speak?  You must understand that Islam is a religion which has separated itself from other religious doctrines. Calling all mankind to worship the one God worthy of worship, Calling all mankind to unite as a brotherhood instead of fighting. Reestablishing the covenant with the Jews and Christians. THIS IS ISLAM! It is an action, to submit ones soul to God! To perform acts of worship, such as giving to the needy, helping someone in need, regarding man as equal humans from the same bloodline. Islam is an amazing blend of simplicity and rationality: a very simple religion yet very rational at the same time.


http://www.submission.org/muhammed/jihad.html

[James S]

I see something important in Jeehad's post that many people (including myself) can fail to see:

Most, if not all religions started out as a set of SPIRITUAL teachings.
These spiritual teachings were given to us by truly incredible and truly loving spiritual masters. Masters that came to earth to show us how to be better than we are, how to better connect with the God that is a part of all of us, and how to better connect with each other.

It is the egotistical human face put upon religions by those who sought to use it to control others that have distorted it so badly, but yet there remains wonderful inspiring spiritual messages within the texts of all religions if we choose to see them, if we choose to cut out all the negative human interference and see right to the heart of the messages.

Radical Muslims are not alone in their misguided hatred of others. Anyone who has lived in Ireland can attest to that. Catholics fighting Protestants! Just like Sunnis fighting Shiites in Iraq.

Unfortunatly religion is the most popular vehicle used by tyrannical madmen to impose their will on others... In God's Allah's, Krishan's, whoever's name.

Blessings,
James

[Nay]

I do have a hard time being told I should "shut my yap" and that I am an "arrogant fool", but that is Nay for you, she is probably so used to breaking up fights, and like any mother just wants some "peace in her house". I will try to take that is good spirits as well Nay. Hope we are still friends.

Do you prefer shut your pie hole?   You are absolutely right with me breaking up fights like a mom and calling you both arrogant fools is exactly what you two were acting like, in my eyes.  Arrogant, in that fact that you both kept going on and on like the energizer bunny, wanting and thinking to be right.

I dislike discussing religion just as much, if not more than politics.... *shiver*  So, I'll drop out with the mommy attitude and allow James to keep a healthy level of arrogance in here.

Oh and David.... Of course we're still friends. 

[mon9999]

we don't need religion to experience spirituality. In fact, religion confuses many people in finding their spiritual path.

[Curious39]

You know something?

I think you may both have inspired me to ignore the Christian Apologists and Muslims with all I have in me from this day forward.

I have my beliefs and I see no reason to ram them repeatedly down the throats of those who do not share my viewpoint.

What I DO know is you both should be ashamed of yourselves.  You BOTH come across writing posts that subtly flame and insult the other, then when your target calls you out on it.. you back pedal and claim "Oh NOOOooo... I wasn't INSULTING you... I MEANT to say.... blah blah."  Like everyone here can't see you both spewing this pseudo-intellectual vomitus at one another?  

Believe what you are gonna believe.  TALK about what you want to talk about.  Let everyone else deal with their own, how shall I say this?... uh.... olfactory sensitivity to barnyard effluvium as you both turn off more people to your repective religions as you drone on and on.

This is already a site that is spiritual in nature.  Its a path we all walk.  "Called to it" in our own way.  If you believe in Allah or God or whatever, at least believe A LOVING ENTITY WILL LOVINGLY GUIDE YOU ON A PATH SUITABLE FOR YOU TO DISCOVER WHAT YOU MUST.  PERIOD.  

In any case, the primary "respect" paid to love is always FREE WILL.  If we reach to our God, from our own loving free will, then we can be sure that the response will be -- in many respects -- unique to us and very likely custom designed for our particular calling.

I think you both need to pour a big glass of Shut The F*CK UP ALREADY.

Sorry for the outburst.  I'm not pretending to be calm when I'm irritated.  That would be dishonest.

Sickened, but still love y'all,

C

[Mustardseed]

  Well whatta ya know all the loving people coming out of the woodwork, as soon as the debate get a bit edgy. The kind spirited replies overwhelm me.....shut the yap.....shut the piehole .....shut the f***up, I guess I hit a raw nerve. Examine these things for yourself.

Jeehad please explain to me the Islamic doctrines of "Naskh" "Taqiyya" and "Tu-Quoque" I would be interested in your take on that.

Regards Mustardseed

[Nay]

MS....  it isn't edgy, it's overplayed.   People have come out of the woodwork because they feel either uncomfortable, don't agree or FED up because they don't agree.  hehe.    You yourself have said this particular forum was created by US moderators to separate from the rest.  I, for sure thought you would find the piehole comment funny, but.......is this what religion does to ones humor, or does humor do this to ones religion?

You are loved...at least by me, and should not feel the need to continue trying to convince others of your beliefs.  I miss the clown......

[Curious39]

I, for one, have the nerve to reply to MS on this:

I'm not disagreeing.

I'm not uncomfortable.

I am absolutely fed up.

.... and I still hold to the fact that you both are behaving poorly.

As ambassadors to your systems of belief, you should both be reading your own prior posts with an eye towards behavior.  MS was ready to stop talking about this kindly about seven pages ago.  Apparently that kindness hides a temper tantrum.  Jeehad, you defend your faith vehemently... with all the arrogance of your age.

I cannot even believe you two would bother.  I think you will, once you both simmer down, have a proper embarrassment.

Not for your beliefs.

For the way you behaved in arguing them.

I'll demonstrate by example.  I'm not even bothering with this thread again.  MY post was to tell you one thing only:  You are both being childish.

Period.

C

[Novice]

Now the question is... how long before it is discovered to be a hoax? (Just like every other artifact that "proved" Big J's existance)

Not long at all -- it was on CNN's main page yesterday:

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Filmmakers and researchers on Monday unveiled two ancient stone boxes they said may have once contained the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, but several scholars derided the claims made in a new documentary as unfounded and contradictory to basic Christian beliefs.

"The Lost Tomb of Jesus," produced by Oscar-winning director James Cameron and scheduled to air March 4 on the Discovery Channel, argues that 10 small caskets discovered in 1980 in a Jerusalem suburb may have held the bones of Jesus and his family.

One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son, according to the film. (Watch why it could be any Mary, Jesus and Joseph in those boxes )

"There's a definite sense that you have to pinch yourself," Cameron said Monday at a news conference. He told NBC'S "Today" show earlier that statisticians found "in the range of a couple of million to one" in favor of the documentary's conclusions about the caskets, or ossuaries. (Watch Cameron talk about his involvement in the documentary )

Simcha Jacobovici, the Toronto filmmaker who directed the film, said that a name on one of the ossuaries -- "Mariamene" -- offers evidence that the tomb is that of Jesus and his family. In early Christian texts, "Mariamene" is the name of Mary Magdalene, he said.

The very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Most Christians believe Jesus' body spent three days at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem's Old City. The burial site identified in Cameron's documentary is in a southern Jerusalem neighborhood nowhere near the church.

In 1996, when the British Broadcasting Corp. aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.

"They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.

Shimon Gibson, one of three archaeologists who first discovered the tomb in 1980, said Monday of the film's claims: "I'm skeptical, but that's the way I am. I'm willing to accept the possibility."

The film's claims, however, have raised the ire of Christian leaders in the Holy Land.

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight.

"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."

"How possible is it?" Pfann said. "On a scale of one through 10 -- 10 being completely possible -- it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."

Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun." Ancient Semitic script is notoriously difficult to decipher.

Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time," he said.

William Dever, an expert on near eastern archaeology and anthropology, who has worked with Israeli archeologists for five decades, said specialists have known about the ossuaries for years.

"The fact that it's been ignored tells you something," said Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. "It would be amusing if it didn't mislead so many people."

Osnat Goaz, a spokeswoman for the Israeli government agency responsible for archaeology, said the Antiquities Authority agreed to send two ossuaries to New York, but they did not contain human remains. "We agreed to send the ossuaries, but it doesn't mean that we agree with" the filmmakers, she said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Jeehad]

Well whatta ya know all the loving people coming out of the woodwork, as soon as the debate get a bit edgy. The kind spirited replies overwhelm me.....shut the yap.....shut the piehole .....shut the f***up, I guess I hit a raw nerve. Examine these things for yourself.

Jeehad please explain to me the Islamic doctrines of "Naskh" "Taqiyya" and "Tu-Quoque" I would be interested in your take on that.

Regards Mustardseed

I think religion is essentially not the corrupt part, but rather man is. I mean, nowadays "religion" has been converted into a business. Although, this is not a product of the religion itself!! Where in Christianity does it allow any sort of "popes" "priests" to benefit from money by blessing people? Where do religions teach ignorance or hatred? Hatred is apart of our nature! This is why God created a perfect order, revelations sent down to mankind to guide us to the straight path. Let me go into an Islamic perspective, Islam is the submission or surrendering to the One Almighty God! This is the essential meaning! The Call to Islam was to humanity, to unite mankind out of a state of ignorance! I don't mean that an ignorant state is one who is a non Muslim! But rather Islam teaches us to bring mankind together! Re-Unite the covenant of man! Stop all business benefits off of religion!! Calling man to worship ONE GOD.

Servants of Allah the most Compassionate are those who walk on earth in modesty and if ignorant people address them, they say," Peace
(HQ: 25:63).

.. if anyone kills a person who did not kill, and did not mischief on earth, it would be as if he killed all human beings. And if any one saved a life of one person, it would be as if he saved the life of all human beings. (HQ: 5: 32) (Our translation)

Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein
(HQ: 5: 14).


Everyone, I am sorry for this heated debate but I am entitled to defending claims in which MustardSeed is having against Muslims. I think people are misrepresenting this religion, and whether you are a believer or not one should truly look into such matters instead of making blind accusations.

MustardSeed:

Naskh is a form of Islamic calligraphy... Its like an artistic way of writing the Holy Quran I dont see why that needs explaining??

Taqqiya is widely unbelieved by the majority of Muslims, but some insist on it to be true!Lets sayyy all muslims were to be killed globally, taqiyya allows the person to hide or conceal his religious belief.


Tu-Quoque... Are you sure you got the name right?

[Mustardseed]

.........whether you are a believer or not one should truly look into such matters instead of making blind accusations.

MustardSeed:

Naskh is a form of Islamic calligraphy... Its like an artistic way of writing the Holy Quran I dont see why that needs explaining??

Taqqiya is widely unbelieved by the majority of Muslims, but some insist on it to be true!Lets sayyy all muslims were to be killed globally, taqiyya allows the person to hide or conceal his religious belief.


Tu-Quoque... Are you sure you got the name right?

Hi Jeehad I agree lets examine facts not engage in heated arguments  based on feelings. In the light of that let me help you.

(From WIKIPEDIA)

Naskh employs the logic of chronology and progressive revelation. The different situations encountered over the course of Muhammad's more than two decade career as prophet, it is argued, required new rulings to meet the Muslim community's changing circumstances. Or, from a more theologically-inflected stand-point, the expiration points of those rulings God intended as temporary all along were reached. A classic example of this is the early community's increasingly militant posture towards its pagan and Jewish neighbors:

Many verses counsel patience in the face of the mockery of the unbelievers, while other verses incite to warfare against the unbelievers. The former are linked to the [chronologically anterior] Meccan phase of the mission when the Muslims were too few and weak to do other than endure insult; the latter are linked to Medina where the Prophet had acquired the numbers and the strength to hit back at his enemies. The discrepancy between the two sets of verses indicates that different situations call for different regulations.
Burton, Naskh, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI)²

Read the full article here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28exegesis%29

Yes I am pretty sure, all you need to do is copy the word into Wikipedia or Google

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

That is not so hard is it.

For your benefit here is an article by a former Muslim

http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/Infidel.htm

Come now Jeehad, were you really not aware of this?

Regards Mustardseed

[Jeehad]

AL-NASIKH WA AL-MANSUKH


The revelations from Allah as found in the Qur'an touch on a variety of subjects, among them beliefs, history, tales of the prophets, day of judgement, Paradise and Hell, and many others. Particularly important are the ahkam (legal rulings), because they prescribe the manner of legal relationships between people, as Allah wishes them to be observed.
While the basic message of Islam remains always the same, the legal rulings have varied throughout the ages, and many prophets before Muhammad brought particular codes of law (shari'a) for their respective communities.
The Arabic words 'nasikh' and 'mansukh' are both derived from the same root word 'nasakha' which carries meanings such as 'to abolish, to replace, to withdraw, to abrogate'.

The word nasikh (an active participle) means 'the abrogating', while mansukh (passive) means 'the abrogated'. In technical language these terms refer to certain parts of the Qur'anic revelation, which have been 'abrogated' by others.
Naturally the abrogated passage is the one called 'mansukh' while the abrogating one is called 'nasikh'.
The Qur'an on Naskh The principle of naskh (abrogation) is referred to in the Qur'an itself and is not a later historical development:
'
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause it to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou that God has power over all things?' (2: 106). [Some however say that this refers to the revelations before the Qur'an, which have now been substituted by the Qur'an itself. See Mawdudi. The Meaning of the Qur'an, Lahore,
1967, Vol. I, p.102. note 109.]

How it came about When the message of Islam was presented to the Arabs as something new, and different from their way of life, it was introduced in stages. The Qur'an brought important changes gradually, to allow the people to adjust to the new prescriptions.
Example: There are three verses in the Qur'an concerning the drinking of wine. Wine drinking was very widespread in pre-Islamic times and, although a social evil, highly esteemed. The three verses which finally led to the prohibition of intoxicating substances were revealed in stages (4: 43, 2: 219; 5: 93-4).
Why it is important Knowledge of al-nasikh wa al-mansukh is important because it concerns the correct and exact application of the laws of Allah. It is specifically concerned with legal revelations:

 It is one of the important pre-conditions for explanation (tafsir) of the Qur'an.
 It is one of the important pre-conditions for understanding and application of the Islamic law (hukm,
shari'a).
 It sheds light on the historical development of the Islamic legal code.
 It helps to understand the immediate meaning of the ayat concerned.
Tafsir (explanation of the Qur'an) or legal ruling is not acceptable from a person who does not have such knowledge.


How do we know it?
As in the field of asbab al-nuzul, the information about al-nasikh wa al-mansukh cannot be accepted upon mere personal opinion, guesswork or hearsay, but must be based on reliable reports, according to the ulum al-hadith, and should go back to the Prophet and his Companions.

The report must also clearly state which part of the revelation is nasikh and which is mansukh.
Some scholars say that there are three ways of knowing about al-nasikh wa al-mansukh:

 Report from the Prophet or Companions.
 Ijma' (consensus of the umma upon what is nasikh and what mansukh).
 Knowledge about which part of the Qur'an preceded another part in the history of revelation. [Qattan,
op.cit., p. 199]
Example:
Narrated Mujahid (regarding the verse):
Those of you who die and leave wives behind, they (their wives) shall await (as regards their
marriage) for four months and ten days (2: 234).
The widow, according to this verse, was to spend this period of waiting with her husband's family, so Allah revealed: Those of you who die and leave wives (i.e. widows) should bequeath for their wives, a year's maintenance and residence without turning them out, but if they leave (their residence) there is no blame on you for what they do with themselves, provided it is honourable (i.e. Lawful marriage) (2: 240).
So Allah entitled the widow to be bequeathed extra maintenance for seven months and 20 nights and that is the completion of one year. If she wished, she could stay (in her husband's home) according to the will, and she could leave it if she wished, as Allah says: Without turning them out, but if they leave (the residence) there is no blame on you.
So the idea (i.e. four months and ten days) is obligatory for her. 'Ata' said: Ibn 'Abbas said: This verse i.e. the statement of Allah ... without turning one out ... cancelled the obligation of staying for the waiting period in her late husband's house, and she can complete this period wherever she likes.
'Ata' said: If she wished, she could complete her 'idda by staying in her late husband's residence according to the will or leave it according to Allah's statement:

'There is no blame on you for what they do with themselves.'
'Ata' added: Later the regulations of inheritance came and abrogated the order of the dwelling of the widow (in her dead husband's house) so she could complete the 'idda wherever she likes. And it was no longer necessary to provide her with a residence.
Ibn Abbas said: This verse abrogated her (i.e. the widow's) dwelling in her dead husband's house and she could complete the 'idda (i.e. four months and ten days) (wherever she liked, as Allah's statement says: ...'without turning them out ...'
[Bukhari, VI, No. 54.]
This report explains clearly which part of the revelation is nasikh and which is mansukh. Mujahid was one of the wellknown tab'iun and Ibn 'Abbas was a Companion of the Prophet.

What is Abrogated?
According to some scholars the Qur'an abrogates only the Qur'an. They base their view on suras 2: 106 and 16: 101.
According to them the Qur'an does not abrogate the sunna nor does the sunna abrogate the Qur'an. This is, in particular, the view held by Shafi'i. [For details see Kitab al-risala, Cairo, n.d., pp.30-73; English translation by M. Khadduri, op.cit.,
pp. 12345; for a brief summary of Ash-Shafi'i's views see also Seeman, K., Ash-Shafi'is Risala, Lahore, 1961, pp.53-85.]
Others are of the opinion that the Qur'an may abrogate the Qur'an as well as the sunna. They base their view on Sura 53: 34.

There is also the view that there are four classes of naskh:
 Qur'an abrogates Qur'an.
 Qur'an abrogates sunna.
 Sunna abrogates Qur'an.
 Sunna abrogates sunna.
[Qattan, op.cit, pp. 201-2.]

In this discussion, we shall only consider the abrogation in the Qur'an, and leave aside the abrogation in the sunna.

Three Kinds of Naskh in the Qur'an
[Ibn Salama, al-nasikh wa al-mansukh, Cairo, 1966, p.5.]
The scholars have divided abrogation into three kinds:

 Abrogation of the recited (verse) together with the legal ruling.
 Abrogation of the legal ruling without the recited (verse).
 Abrogation of the recited (verse) without the legal ruling.

For abrogation of the recited (verse) together with its legal ruling:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear
sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and
Allah's apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and
recited by the Muslims). [34 Muslim, II, No. 3421.]

For abrogation of a legal ruling without the recited (verse):
'O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou has paid their dowers; and
those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to
thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts and daughters of thy maternal uncles
and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates
her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her; - this only for thee and not for the
believers (at large);We know what we have appointed for them as to their wives and the
captives whom their right hands possess; - in order that there should be no difficulty for
thee and God is oft-forgiving, most merciful' (33: 50).
'It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other)
wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as
handmaidens); and God doth watch over all things' (33: 52).
This is one of the few very clear examples of naskh, though only concerning the Prophet specifically, since for Muslims in general the number of wives has been restricted to four. (Sura 4:3).

For abrogation of the recited (verse) without the legal ruling:
'Abdullah bin 'Abbas reported that 'Umar bin Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's messenger (may peace
be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and he sent
down the book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We
recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's messenger (may peace be upon him)
awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and after him, we
also awarded the punishment of stoning. I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget
it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the book of Allah, and thus go astray by
abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's book for married men and
women who commit adultery when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy or a confession. [Muslim,
III, No. 4194; Bukhari, VIII, No. 816.]
The punishment of stoning for adultery by married people has been retained in the sunna, while it is not included in the
Qur'an .

The Abrogated Verses
There are, according to Ibn Salama, [Op cit., see pp.6-8 for the names of these suras.] a well-known author on the
subject:
 43 suras with neither nasikh or mansukh.
 6 suras with nasikh but no mansukh.
 40 suras with mansukh but no nasikh.
 25 suras with both nasikh and mansukh.

According to Suyuti's Itqan there are 21 instances in the Qur'an, where a revelation has been abrogated by another.
He also indicates that there is a difference of opinion about some of these: e.g. 4: 8, 24: 58, etc. [Itqan, II, pp.20-3; Kamal, op.cit., pp.101-9 also gives Suyuti's complete list.]
Some scholars have attempted to reduce the number of abrogations in the Qur'an even further, by explaining the relationships between the verses in some special ways, e.g. by pointing out that no legal abrogation is involved, or that
for certain reasons the naskh is not genuine
Shah Waliullah (d. 1759) the great Muslim scholar from India only retained the following 5 out of Suyuti's 21 cases as genuine:

Mansukh 2: 180 nasikh 4: 11, 12
Mansukh 2:240 nasikh 2: 234.
Mansukh 8:65 nasikh 8: 62.
Mansukh 30:50 nasikh 33: 52.
Mansukh 58: 12 nasikh 58: 13.

A case listed by Suyuti, which has no direct legal implication is the following:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: When the verse: 'If there are 20 amongst you, patient and persevering,
they will overcome two hundred', was revealed, it became hard on the Muslims, when it became
compulsory that one Muslim ought not to flee before 10 (non-Muslims) so Allah lightened the order by
revealing: 'but now Allah has lightened your (task) for He knows that there is weakness in
you. But (even so) if there are 100 amongst you who are patient and persevering, they will
overcome 200 (non-Muslims)' (8: 66). So when Allah reduced the number of enemies that Muslims
should withstand, their patience and perseverence against the enemy decreased as much as their task
was lightened for them. [Bukhari, VI, No.176.]
Still others hold that there are no genuine (sahih) reports available on this issue, going back to the Prophet, while those going back to the Companions contradict each other. [Ali, M.M.: The Religion of Islam, Lahore, 1936, p.32. It may be pointed out that Ali's treatment of the subject is not very thorough. Of the three examp1es he cites in support of his opinion ('in most cases, where a report is traceable to one Companion who held a certain verse to have been abrogated, there is another report traceable to another Companion, through the fact that the verse was not abrogated' - p. 33) two are definitely not in his favour, while the third can be easily explained. His first case concerns Sura 2:180 (inheritance). It has certainly been superseded by other verses, e.g. 4:7-9 and that is probably all that is meant, when saying it is mansukh Ali's second case, '2:184, is considered by Ibn 'Umar as having been abrogated while Ibn 'Abbas says it was not' . See below, where I have quoted this very hadith from Ibn 'Abbas (Bukhari, VI, No.32) where Ibn 'Abbas himself explains why he does not hold it as abrogated. The third case is, like the first one, definitely not in support of Ali: '2: 240
was abrogated according to Ibn Zubair, while Mujahid says it was not'. This is wrong, see Sahih Bukhari, VI, Nos. 53 and 54, where both Ibn Zubair and Mujahid hold the verse to be abrogated. Furthermore both Ibn Zubair and Mujahid are tabi'un, and not Companions (sahaba).]
Therefore to them the issue of nasikh wa al mansukh is perhaps not of great importance. However, it is clear from the Qur'an itself, (e.g. in the case of inheritance, 2: 180; 4: 7-9, etc.) that abrogation occurred occasionally. Hence it is wrong to completely ignore the subject.
Abrogation and Specification There is of course a difference between abrogation and specification. By the latter is meant that one revelation explains in more detail or according to specific circumstances how another revelation should be understood.
Example: Sura 2:183 says 'O you who believe, fasting is prescribed to you ...'
Narrated 'Ata' that he heard Ibn 'Abbas reciting the Divine verse 'for those who can do it is a ransom, the feeding of one that is indigent' (2:184). Ibn 'Abbas said 'This verse is not abrogated but it is meant for old men and old women who have no strength to fast, so they should feed one poor person for each day of fasting (instead of fasting). [Bukhari, VI, No. 32.]
It is quite clear that the second verse (2:184) does not abrogate the rule of fasting from the first verse (2:183) but explains that in a specific case, that of feeble old people, there is a way of making up for the loss of fast.
In the same way the verses concerning intoxicating drinks can be understood as specifications rather than abrogations (see 4:43;2:219;5:93-4).
Summary The Qur'an, in 2:106, refers to the concept of naskh. However, there is a difference of opinion about the extent to which al-nasikh wa-al mansukh does in fact occur in the text of the Qur'an. The information concerning al-nasikh wa-al mansukh must be treated with great caution as, for all reports concerning the text of the Qur'an, two independent witnesses are required. Many of the examples which the scholars have drawn upon to illustrate this question (and I have quoted them for the same purpose) are based on one witness only. 'A'isha alone reported that 10 or 5 sucklings had been part of the Qur'anic recitation, and only 'Umar reported that the 'verse of stoning' had been included in the Qur'anic text.
These legal rulings are not included in the Qur'an precisely because they were not considered reliable, being based on one witness only. Similarly, other examples about naskh, based on the words of Ibn 'Abbas or Mujahid alone, are to be judged by the same measure.
However, as mentioned there remain a small number of verses which, as far as can be ascertained from the internal evidence of the Qur'an, have been superseded by other verses in the Qur'an.


(From: Ulum al-Quran by Ahmad von Denffer)

[James S]

ARRRGGGGG!!!!

Jeehad, Mustardseed,

Legal implications, new rulings, discrepancies, regulations.....

Ok guys, NOW do you see a big part of the reason why so many people are fed up with these religions?

Christ almighty!! (blasphemy intended)

If you REALLY want to know Gods will, throw away your interpretations and all their rules and regulations and JUST ASK GOD YOURSELF.

You two do know you can do that don't you?

I know I said that there is some great wisdom to be found in most religious texts, but you don't need books and prophets to know Gods will. You just have to ask God, then put your thoughts aside for a moment and quietly listen. It's really easy!

Direct connection to God is intrinsic in all people. It's just that most people have forgotten this, or have been told otherwise by self-serving religious leaders.

Taking the time to stop, ask, then listen to God has to be far more beneficial than arguing over who's interpretation of God's / Allah's will is more correct.

[Nay]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ok4Hv0LQiIA

A bit of a laugh anyone? 

[James S]

LOL!!!

That brings back memories... my time spent in raving mad Pentecostal churches...
Gee, thanks Talanay! All that therapy to help me forget gone out the window! 

Never let it be said that the power of suggestion (not to mention a good shove) doesn't have an effect.

[DH]

LOL!!!

Never let it be said that the power of suggestion (not to mention a good shove) doesn't have an effect.

      It'd be funnier if it weren't so scary!!!   My mother dragged me to one of Benny's meetings several years ago, and whole sections of people were flying all over the place!  I hid on the floor under some seats for awhile.  It would have been more exciting if I had been 12 years old,  but I was thirty-something!     DH

[Mustardseed]

Hi James and Nay

Please explain to me how I go about having this discussion with Jeehad, without continually being put down, and ridiculed by the 2 of you. Your ongoing slurs and you-tube clips appear very condescending. Nay you know very well that all that Church s*** is a very disgusting to me as well, so why do you post it here. Are you trying to bully us into having our debate in another net forum?.  James, you have so often told me how important it is not to put down other's faith, you also confess that you yourself do not have the ultimate truth, but subscribe to a belief system like the rest of us. In the light of this, I find it extremely hypocritical that you continue this line of heckling.

Jeehad and I are trying to work through something, that means something to us. These are issues that concern us and we would like to discuss them without your continued belittling. By now it is obvious that you do not see the importance of this discussion so why do you continue to post. In my opinion you should remember that when you point at others you have 3 fingers pointing back at yourself. 

The fact that you are both moderators should ensure a fair and decent debate.  This is below you both, and saddens me.

Regards Mustardseed

[James S]

Mustardseed,

Who's heckling? I'm just stating this as I see it or have experienced it. In my experiences the Youtube clip Talanay posted is so very typical of religious con-artists such as these tele-evangelists. I've been to churches that do that and they are very definitely frauds! To me that's not putting down someone's faith. That's just pointing out how easy it is for these evangelical con men to manipulate and subjugate people.

Besides, it was put across in an amusing way. You know, humour?
Didn't someone here say recently that the first thing lost to religions is a sense of humor?
I've been in those kind of church meetings. That's why I found it hilarious!

You keep throwing up that I subscribe to a belief system like its some precious fragile treasure.
You seem to think that I'm going to be as defensive about it as you are about yours.

It's not fragile and it certainly does not need defending in any way. Besides, in order for me to feel the need to defend my belief system I'd first have to define it, and I don't think there's any way I can do that - it changes from day to day, just as my experiences, perceptions and understandings change. It grows and evolves. I guess you could say that my belief system is... me.

And your right, I do not see the importance of this ongoing "discussion" you are having with Jeehad because I see it as purely a reactive, defensive, insecure, ego-driven tit for tat "mine's better than yours" schoolyard argument.

I'm sorry MS, but your "discussions" are not going anywhere, nor will they ever until you are willing to stop looking at things through the eyes of a rigid belief system based on a book written not quite 200 years ago, and stop feeling the need to continually defend it.

[Apeman]

Then what is Christianity?  I know a PhD in biblical studies who is Christian and is head over heals for the bible.  What do you mean by .. christianity is not the bible.  Christianity is simply a compilation of ancient beliefs accompanied by poor story telling.  And this garbage is what Christians beleive.

I agree Bud

Great post  BTW

Show them the money ......... 

A classic question : Who wrote the bible ?

With Love

[Mustardseed]

Very interesting question indeed. The answer is a bit of a leap of faith for some but let me try to explain what Christians believe (note:believe) happened.

In actual fact God wrote the Bible...............

Before you jump to any conclusions let me validate this by a explanation in New Age terms. The Bible is believed to be the channelings of various holy men. As each one was touched by "the holy Spirit" they channeled His voice. Some of the Bible, the OT is believed to be a historical account of the Jewish nation, though this is also a hotly debated issue. Dis the Jewish nation even exist. It is the topic of multitudes of books and cannot be ascertained, nor denied.


Thats the lowdown

Regards Mustardseed

[Apeman]

Very interesting question indeed. The answer is a bit of a leap of faith for some but let me try to explain what Christians believe (note:believe) happened.

In actual fact God wrote the Bible...............

Before you jump to any conclusions let me validate this by a explanation in New Age terms. The Bible is believed to be the channelings of various holy men. As each one was touched by "the holy Spirit" they channeled His voice. Some of the Bible, the OT is believed to be a historical account of the Jewish nation, though this is also a hotly debated issue. Dis the Jewish nation even exist. It is the topic of multitudes of books and cannot be ascertained, nor denied.


Thats the lowdown

Regards Mustardseed

Hi Bud

Could be the info was channeled. But then the question would be - Why did it take the church (Roman Catholics - Pope etc), over 200years to approve witch books to include in the bible ? And even in recent times, new "lost" books appear all over the place - books meant to be in the bible.

Can you explain your opinion on that ?

No, I'm not attacking you, just wanting to know where you come from with your info !

With Love

[Mustardseed]

No offense taken.

At the time the counsel of Nicea was called, (I think 330 ad) a multitude of folks had channeled manuscripts, claiming they were "of God". It appears that there are 2 ways of looking at this council, in which it was decided what was to be the correct teaching.

Some say that the emperor wanted to consolidate his power and chose the manuscripts based on an attempt to control the Christians. Others say that he was a man with a sincere desire to clarify and establish a proper doctrine. The ones that were chosen had the same common denominators, sort of the same drift or red thread. Some differed vastly and taught things that made them stand alone, they were discarded.

Very much like any channeling today, it was (some believe) an attempt to validate which seemed to be consistent and coming from the same source.

Personally I believe that it is impossible to know  what exactly was the motive of the ruler, and hence I prefer to let people believe what they want to believe. Some are by nature suspicious of everything and everybody, others are more positive and believing types. To each his own. The fact is that we were not there so we don't know.



Regards Mustardseed

[Kraven Obscuria]

outofbodydude,

Great post, I am certain you are aware that although these concepts are nothing new, the content of your post can be watched online(in the first 10 -35 minutes) in the 2 hours movie called Zeitgeist. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&q=zeitgeist+final&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[DH]

Could be the info was channeled. But then the question would be - Why did it take the church (Roman Catholics - Pope etc), over 200years to approve witch books to include in the bible ? And even in recent times, new "lost" books appear all over the place - books meant to be in the bible.
Can you explain your opinion on that ?

Apeman,

In the first 200 years after Jesus appeared on earth, there were many diverse "Jesus" groups that sprung up.  They were radically different in their beliefs, such as Jewish Christians, gnostic Christians, Mithric Christians, Platonic Christians, and those who would now be called "orthodox" Christians.  Each Christian group had its own sacred writings, but there was no Bible as we know it now.  Some groups included the writings we find in the Bible now, but many more included those that were left out -- the "lost" books that you mention.  There was no conformity.  Nothing was considered THE official scripture.  Each Christian group kind of did its own thing.  Everybody minded his own business.

Then about 130 A.D., a Christian by the name of Marcion put together the first "Bible".  He thought that the God of the Old Testament (the Jewish God) couldn't be the God of the NT because he was violent and ordered his people to slaughter innocents, and the the God of Jesus was about love and forgiving  enemies.  In his mind there were two different deities, and being a Christian, he chose Jesus' God.  He therefore put together a "Bible" for his followers that excluded the OT and only had the Gospel of Luke and some of Paul's letters, both of which had any references to Judaism cut out.  His brand of Christianity was popular among many and cursed by others, but it stirred up the debate:  What should be the holy writings of Christianity?  The debate went on for a couple of hundred more years until Constantine called the Council of Nicea to debate that issue, among other things.  Was Constantine a pious Christian or a shrewd politician?  I think the latter.  He was trying to unify the Roman Empire, which meant stamping out dozens of diverse Christian groups in favor one strand.  Of course, the sacred writings of the favored group were the ones that made the "official cut".

This is probably way more info than you want (sorry, I used to be a college professor!  ), but the point is, there is nothing simple about the way the "Bible" as we now know it came to be.  There has always been debate among Christians about what should be accepted as "God's Word".  In the 16th century, Martin Luther, the Protestant reformer, edited the Catholic Bible, so the Bible most Protestant groups use now is different from the more ancient version.  Even since that time, some Christian people have wondered, why stop there with the editing?  Who has the final word about what is "God's Word"?

A good reference for this quagmire is Bart Erhman's book Lost Christianities.

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195182499/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-7969723-7860625?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184907450&sr=1-3

Kind regards, DH

[Mydral]

Very interesting question indeed. The answer is a bit of a leap of faith for some but let me try to explain what Christians believe (note:believe) happened.

In actual fact God wrote the Bible...............

Before you jump to any conclusions let me validate this by a explanation in New Age terms. The Bible is believed to be the channelings of various holy men. As each one was touched by "the holy Spirit" they channeled His voice. Some of the Bible, the OT is believed to be a historical account of the Jewish nation, though this is also a hotly debated issue. Dis the Jewish nation even exist. It is the topic of multitudes of books and cannot be ascertained, nor denied.


Thats the lowdown

Regards Mustardseed

Dont take this the wrong way put... God was the last person to write the bible.
Everything written is manmade references to the solar system which was then edided by romans to controll people and justify wars etc.
Most characters are just copies of older religions which were supposed to be myths, but well the romans decided in around 312 AD to change all that. Jesus was a real person all of a sudden, instead of a myth potraying the sun.
Do you know how many saviours born on the 25 of December by a Virgin there were in history?
Ever wonder why there are so many...

So how can a book, in which most of the things, inluding major holidays, events, characters, messages, morals, etc., are plagerized from older religion be the word of God?
But wait I have the Christian explanation:
The Devil put all those others characters who are just like Jesus into history to test our faith (now do u really believe that?)

Overall Christianity isn't that bad of a thing in most places, although its still beeing heavily abused in some countries, it should just be noted that this religion is copied from older ones and was used to justify bad things in the past. That probably was its main purpose in the Roman Empire and in the Dark Ages.