The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> To Minime

To Minime
Posted by AssyrianMuslim (Guest) - Tuesday, May 20 2008, 8:42:20 (CEST)
from 75.219.165.168 - 168.sub-75-219-165.myvzw.com Commercial - Windows Codename Longhorn - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

When have I made excuses or refused to answer your questions? I may have not given the answer you expected but I gave the answers from an Islamic perspective to any questions you may have, and I would learn the answers if I don't know something. I must warn you because I am not one who will take every verse as telling something different. I already said there are verses that are examples or parables but we know them very clear. But the issue is the "eucharist" which you obviously object to. This is not my opinion but what the church teaches. No Catholic or Orthodox believes that the bread he is eating in communion is just bread but they believe that it is the flesh of Jesus, and the wine or grape juice is his blood. In fact it is a "sin" for Christian not to believe that the bread is the "flesh" and the drink is the "blood" of Christ. This is basic and known to everyone who knows Christianity. It's not a secret and you are attacking the wrong people because Pancho didn't lie or make it up but it comes from the New Testament and it is an important Christian doctrine.

Now you are back asking me questions while pretending I have never been able to answer questions which is not true. I never dodged your questions ever but you have dodged many on this forum since I been on here. Not giving you the answer to what you want to hear is one thing, and not being able to answer at all is another. I will answer the questions you raised and as always you only post the verse number without the chapter. You expect someone to just go to a book of 114 chapters, over 6,200 verses and just know where the verse is at by just giving the verse number? Where is the "Surah" number? Post them to make things easier to find. I don't go and post a verse number without giving you the chapter, and particular book in the Bible for something I quote to you. It will save a lot of time if you post both the Surah, and Ayah number so One can go and verify. If you do that from now on, I greatly appreciate it. I would also appreciate it if you could avoid switching subjects and bringing things into it which have nothing to do with the subject. I understand that you are trying to help me understand a very good point and I very well understand what you trying to prove.

The subject was the "eucharist" and you jump to saying "all religions are corrupt" or they are "all the same". This was not the subject and Pancho is showing you that it is not true. He goes on to show you why that is not true. He doesn't call you names but posts his comment and shows you where he got it from. I must say, I think that was a stupid question for you to ask "where he got that from". This is basic knowledge and anyone familiar with Christian doctrines will know the "eucharist". Even a child knows that. We learned that when I was 7 years old in "Kommunion Klasse" which is "Communion class". It was a requirement in my school to take. If the teachers were wrong, you can go take that and debate it with the church but this is very essential to Christians, especially the Catholics and Orthodox churches. Now I will be kind enough to answer your questions which I find irrelevant and off of the subject.

The first question you asked is "Al Mu'minun" and the answer is, no, it does not apply to everyone else but to all believers in Allah, His messengers/prophets, scriptures, angels, judgement day and the divine decree that Allah is all knowing, future, present, past nothing is hidden to him. He does not even have "time" because He is not like his creation but the absolute unique Creator.

The second question about the verse is that mankind all have one belief and I told you that before. Allah has sent in the past a prophet or messenger to every people. We know from the Sunnah that there were a total of 125,000 prophets sent to all of mankind before Muhammad and of them 316 were messengers. Messengers means that they received a message or a scripture. So after these messengers and prophets came to their peoples, a party of them obeyed and others didn't. Some tried to take short cuts and deviate from this message while others went completely another route and followed their desires and invented things. Others believed and obeyed their prophets and so became Muslims of their time. Muslim, as you may know, meaning "those who submitted and surrendered to the One and only God with obedicience, sincerity and in peace". To us Muslims, it is a blasphemy to say that Muhammad was the founder of Islam or the inventor, but it is not so at all. Islam, meaning in a nut shell, "submission to Allah" with the above mentioned words was the message and belief of all the previous prophets.

In all times there were Muslims because they were those who obeyed their messengers or prophets and worshipped God alone. The words "Muslims" and "Islam" may have been new because they are obviously in Arabic but the concept was the same all along. Muhammad didn't invent anything new or bring a new religion but it was the same unviversal way and that is to worship God alone without partners, believe in the hereafter, etc. So they were all Muslims and we don't distinguish between the prophets. That is the islamic perspective and concept.

As for the third question, about "eat", I think the answer is clear but this is not like the "eucharist" if that is where you are getting at. The "Eucharist" means eating the flesh and blood of Jesus which is bread and wine. "Eat" in the verse which you quoted obviously means that "backbiting" is as evil as "eating the flesh of a human". We obviously wouldn't do that if we are sane so don't "backbite". The point about eating flesh and drinking blood is that we know that obviously it's bread and wine but that is not the case for the Christian who will take offense because they believe it is the body of Christ. Ask them if you don't believe it.

As for the fourth verse about the "pus", that is in Jahanam(hell). If you had quoted the verse in its context, you would notice that because it is clear that this is in "hell" that they will drink boiling water, eat from the "Zaqqum" tree and eat "pus". Again this is not like the "eucharist".

As to the "Al Maidah" or "The Table", this was sent down to the followers of Jesus(as). It contained a few pieces of fish and few pieces of bread. They were able to eat from it as much as they like but some of them stole by saying "it may not come down tomorrow" so the table ascended again. This was a miracle and "eat" is literal. It happened so for the Israelites until they diobeyed.

Now, I have answered all your questions faithfully, inshaAllah, you will be satisfied. As for the point you were making, it's that "eating" is not always "literal" but we clearly know where and when it is "literal" because all you have to do is read the entire verse. Another blessings we have in the Quran is that it was the job of the Prophet Muhammad to convey it and explain the Quran by his Sunnah. We have no difficulties with it at all. The differences among Muslims like for example "Shiites" and "Sunnis" is not one from the Quran but something which originates outside the scripture. Shiites believe that the "successor" to Muhammad would come out of the blood line of Ali rather than allowing the people to elect the "leader". The Prophet did not elect a leader because he left it up to the people to decide. The majority were in agreement that Abu Bakr was best for the job because he was mature and very close with the prophet, plus he was put in charge even before. The point is that people deviate at any point for odd reasons.

The point you are making which I fully understand and agree with you is that things aren't always literal. For example, there is a passage in the Gospel of Luke where Jesus is recorded as saying "those enemies of mine who wish not that I shall rule over them, bring them and slay them before me". Now if we were to take the verse out of context, we be in a lot of trouble because that don't sound like "the prince of peace". So we can read further on from before the verse and after it and see that it is a parable. But when he is recorded as saying "I came not to bring peace but rather a sword" we know he meant that his job was not to bring peace on earth but that there would be "trouble" because it will divide household against it self". We know that "sword" and "fire" may be "metaphorical" but the point of the verse is that he did not come to bring "peace" on earth and we can see that by looking over history in the last 2,000 years. Now I am not saying I believe he said that because there is no way of verifying what or what not he could have said in the Bible but the point is that we see what he was saying there.

The same goes with the eucharist, the eating his body while using bread and wine. The Christian world does not believe that it is just metaphorical but that is an article of faith which they believe they are eating his body and that he is present with them. If you say that is not true and it is just bread and wine, it's like telling them that "baptism" is just a dip in the pool and nothing else. That may be so to you or others but that is not so to the Christian who will find that a blasphemy. So while we know that it is only bread and wine, the Christian world does not hold that view but believe that it is not really bread and wine but the body of Christ. There is a nice debate I watched before between a Muslim scholar of Christianity who is one of my favorites and a well known Christian minister. They brought this subject up in the debate and the Christians both in the audience and the speaker were angry and felt it was "blasphemous" when the Muslim had said "what is it with you people, the bread is not really bread but flesh, the wine is not wine but blood" etc, they were outraged and couldn't even sit quiet.

So it is not pancho's opinion nor is he slandering by saying that they believe by performing the eucharist they are eating and drinking from the "body of Christ". We may not agree with it but it is how it is. We can either reject it or follow it. However, if you are ever interested, I be more than glad to tell you were the Christians got that from, how it was thrown into the mouth of poor Jesus and how the Christians have both misunderstood it and taken it wrong. As for your other request that I should call pancho a donkey or monkey and tell him he is wrong, I can first of all insult him like that and he also has not done anything wrong toward Christianity. He simply stated about the eucharist, and supported it with quotes from Christian sources. If you feel he is wrong, you can try to prove that by bringing the proof that Christians do not believe so. But from what everyone knows about Christianity is that the communion is important and that it consists of eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood. Now we obviously know that it is just bread and wine but that is not so to the Christians. You can take that to them if you feel that is wrong or stupid but pancho has not slandered nor lied about Christianity.

I hope i answered you to your satisfaction and I can not do more than that. Take care and God bless you inshaAllah.



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 11926
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-ms-application, application/vnd.ms-xpsdocument, appli...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: en-us
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?.hDzU.
Ua-cpu: x86
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9