How did the Messiah son of Mary really die???

[Guest]

MF,<p>Give up! Like you have given up 'extolling' your demi-God the Sahih Sunnah! The Quran in indeed INCOMPLETE on the subject of Christ crucifiction & ascension. Maybe Christ ascended to Heaven like prophet Muhammed did on the back of a white horse with a female face.<p>The Nizari Imam uz Zamaan has said that there are "no conflicts" between Islam & christianity.<p>The only conflicts are raised by pathetic morons like you & your even pathetic creed of wahabiyya & salafiyya.

[Guest]

In 3:7, mutashaabihaa is Yusufali translates as “allegorical”<p>In 6:141, it is translated as “similar to” or “like”<p>In 39:23, it is translated as “consistent”<p>The last sentence of 3:7 reads in transliteration “wa ar raasikhuun fe al ilm yaquluun 'aamannaa bihi kull min inda rabbnaa wa maa yazzakkar 'illaa 'ulu al albaab”<p>My translatioin is :<p>“Those firmly rooted in knowledge say ‘We have faith in it, it all is from our lord, and none can CALL ATTENTION to/POINT OUT/REMIND (mutashaabihaat)except ulul albaab”<p>zakkara means point out or remind, or call attention to<br>ulul albaab means those gifted with understanding in their hearts<p>As you can see Yusufali’s translations are as subjective as mine.<p>Some observations:<p>1. Clearly, Allah reveals existence of taawil.<br>2. Allah says only he is aware of taawil; however, there is no suggestion here that he has not revealed taawil to some humans.<br>3. Allah says some humans can identify the verses with taawil.<br>4. There is no suggestion in Ismaili doctrine that ulul albaab are searching for taawil. In fact, the suggestion is that taawil is given to them. There is no change in meaning except that its tafseer will vary according to time and place.<br>5. There is no redundancy in Quraan. Everything is revealed including taawil and only some humans, with Allah’s grace, have complete understanding.<p><br>Ismaili view that there is taawil resonates clearly with the desire that man has for knowledge which will bring him closer to Allah, the knowledge that will take him beyond mere observance of rituals.<p>Ismaili, both Nizari and Mustaalian, sects are essentially esoteric. Looking for hidden nmeaning is a charge that Sunnis make against the Shia but they are not really looking for the hidden meanings.<p>Their claim is that the knowledge has been inherited by ulul albaab from source which is Allah via Muhammad.<p><br>

[Guest]

Porus,<p>Nobody denied the existence of allegorical verses in the quran. And if people want to go search for their meanings then they are welcome to do that.<p>All I am saying is that they fall into the category - "BUT THOSE IN WHOSE HEARTS IS DOUBT PURSUE, FORSOOTH, THAT WHICH IS ALLEGORICAL seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it"<p>You say "2. Allah says only he is aware of taawil; however, there is no suggestion here that he has not revealed taawil to some humans."<p>When Allah says only he is aware of taawil, does that not mean that only he is aware of taawil? If he had revealed taawil to some humans then it wouldn't be only he who is aware of taawil.<p>Or may be all this is also allegorical!!<p>

[Guest]

<br>"The Nizari Imam uz Zamaan has said that there are "no conflicts" between Islam & christianity."<br>-----<p>That is a strange statement!<p>If it is true then<p>Why are we not christian muslims?<p>Christ son of God?<p>Salvation is only thru Christ?<p>And Hazir Imaam is saying there is no confilct between Islam and Christinity.<p>May be there is no conflict between Ismilism and Chiristinity.<p><p>

[Guest]

Anajmi,<p>Allah does reveal taawil to some humans. <p>There are a number of ayats in Surah Yusuf (12) that deal with teaching of taawil to Yusuf.<p>In 4:59, there is a suggestion that taawil is with Muhammad.<p>The above two references are not related to the taawil of mutashabihaat; but, in principle, taawil is revealed to some humans. That is my conclusion.<p>I read 3:7 as saying that Ulul Albaab are able to identify the mutashaabihaat, the allegorical verses. And may be, they also have the knowledge of their taawil.<p>However, I cannot conclude that Ulul Albaab are "looking for hidden meanings" with view to cause fitna.<p>It is of course possible that those who are not among ulul albaab may, without proper knowledge, look for hidden meanings with a view to cause fitna.<p>

[Guest]

3:7 states that some verses are the core and others are "allegorical".<p>Who would know which one is which? Suggestion is that Ulul Albaab know. If they do, and they do not know its taawil, then they would be able to say that some parts of the Allah's message are not for mankind.<p>That seems a strange conclusion. I submit therefore that taawil of mutashaabihat must be known to some humans for propogation to select few, who in turn become ulul albaab. That way esoteric knowledge is preserved among humans.<br>

[Guest]

This excuse of a human being who calls himself - muslim first looks for "conflict" in every bloody statement one makes. You are right there is no conflict between ismailism and other abrahamic faiths. There are CONFLICTS between Extremist islam and moderate Islam (includes ismailis) just like there is conflict between Extremist Islam and other Abrahamic faiths.<p>I see a day not too far away where the average human will sniff people like you out and chase you out of town. There is no room in this global village for trash like you - ditto for your wahabiya trash!

[Guest]

<br>3/54 Behold! Allah Said: "O Isa! I shall cause you to die (innee mutawaffeeka) and I shall exalt you towards me and I shall clear you of those who reject Faith, and I am going to make those who follow you above those who reject Faith - until the day of Awakening. Then towards Me is your return, so that I shall decide among you as to in which you used to differ. </font><p>So maybe Jesus is dead.<p>Of course, this is not a popular view and not many translators have translated "innee mutawafeeka" as above.<p>"...I will take thee..." - Yusuf Ali<br>"...I am gathering thee..." - Pickthall<br>"...I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth)..." - Shakir<p>But "mutawaffeeka" is AFAIK derived from the word "wafat" which means death. Possibly hadith have influenced the translations above.<p>

[Guest]

Correction: the above is in verse 3/55, not 3/54.

[Guest]

mutawaffiyyun is active participle of wafa (spelt waw, fa, alif maqsura). It means "one who receives one's soul".<p>mutawaffee-ka = one who receives your soul<p>inni mutawaffee-ka = I am the one who receives your soul

[Guest]

Brother Muslim,<p>Mybe jesus christ is dead, I don't know. What we are discussing here is whether he was crucified and killed by the jews (literally and not allegorically). The quran says that he was not. So is that allegorical or is it clear.<p>May be the above translations that you present were influenced by the verse of the quran which says that he was neither killed nor crucified.<p>The quran says he was neither killed nor crucified. I believe that. Is that allegorical or not, I don't know, but I don't think so. Do we have to know? for what purpose and from whom?

[Guest]

<br>Thanks Porus and Anajmi, allow me to add to what I said.<p>4/157 "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. Only a likeness of that Was shown to them."</font> <p>Nizari > could this just be an allegory? If you think about it, the Jews only crucified and killed Jesus physically, not his soul, and not his message. They thought they had done away with him and humiliated him, but his teachings and his message went on forever.<p>If Jesus was actually crucified/killed, I would agree with your view of verse 4/157 - that he would spiritually live on (though I would say, not indefinitely).<p>There appears to be support of this elsewhere:<p>2/154 And say not of those who are slain in the way of God: "They are dead." Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.</font> <p>However, there is a difference: In 2/154 there is no denying the fact that the people are physically dead (by being slain) whereas 4/157 does not say the same about Jesus (in fact it says he was NOT killed).<p>In addition to 4/157 if one takes into account:<br>- verse 2/55<br>- the belief that Muhammad and not Jesus is the last prophet<br>- the belief that all humans (including Jesus) have physical deaths but will be spiritually resurrected<p>then I would have to conclude that Jesus was not killed/crucified but has died a natural death.<p>There is a church in Jerusalem which has a tomb of Jesus and many (possibly Eastern Orthodox) Christians come to pay their respects. Of course, this is no proof that Jesus is physically dead (just as there is no proof that he was crucified or killed), but it shows that at least some Christians submit to that view.<p>Finally, let me leave you with a quote:<br><blockquote>In Mark's [one of the Gospels] story, Jesus is buried in a tomb. Mark's original ending of the gospel does not contain an account of the resurrection; that ending, now contained in the gospel of the New Testament, was added by a later author.<br>-- "From Jesus to Christ", Marillyn Mellowes<br><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ckquote><p>

[Guest]

Let me just clarify my position on this topic by saying that i have no position.<p>I just decided to start this discussion to get other ppl's opinions.<p>And I thank all that contributed.

[Guest]

My position on this topic is the same as that of the quran. I believe that Jesus Christ was neither killed nor crucified by the Jews.

[Guest]

Here is a retarded way of interpreting the verse:<p>"But THEY killed him not" <br> - emphasis on "THEY" as in the Jews didnt kill him, the Romans did.<p>"But they KILLED him not" <br> - emphasis on KILLED, as in the Jews didnt kill him, but maybe they hurt him or something.<p>"But they killed HIM not" <br> - emphasis on HIM, as they didnt kill Jesus, they killed someone else.<p><br>

[Guest]

Mizari, <p>That sure is a retarded way of looking at it. Infact since you are at it - quoting out of context, why don't you remove the "but" in the beginning and the "not" in the end and you will have "they killed him" And then you can claim that you were right.

[Guest]

Hey i never said that was my view of it.<br>That was what i just picked up from a website.

[Guest]

<br>43:83<br>So leave them (alone)to speak nonsense and play until they meet the Day of theirs which they have been promised.<p>My comment:<p>'So leave them (alone)' could very well apply to devient followers of Aga Khan so called Hazir Imaam<p>