| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
In this latest installment of my Blogging the Qur'an series at Hot Air (many links in the original), Jesus the slave of Allah is born:
This is another Meccan sura. In the first part of Muhammad’s career, a group of Muslims migrated from Arabia to Abyssinia. One of the Muslims recited the material here about Mary and Jesus to the Christian ruler of Abyssinia, showing him that Muslims believed in Jesus, but not as the Son of God.After the mysterious letters in v. 1, verses 2-40 retell the story told in Luke 1:5-80 – with some important differences, of course. Vv. 2-15 begin, as does Luke’s account, with the story of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, encountering an angel (Luke 1:11; v. 9 of this chapter of the Qur’an establishes that Allah is not speaking directly with Zechariah). The angel tells him he will become a father despite his old age and his wife’s barrenness (v. 8). In the Qur’an, unlike in the Gospel, this comes as an answer to his prayer for a son (vv. 4-6). In both the Gospel (Luke 1:20) and the Qur’an (v. 10) he is unable to speak after this vision, although the Qur’an, unlike the Gospel, does not present this as punishment for his unbelief, but only as a sign of Allah’s power.
There is nothing in the Qur’an paralleling the Gospel’s connection of Zechariah’s son John with Elijah (Luke 1:17), the prophet who was to return before the Lord’s coming (Malachi 4:5-6). John is not the messenger sent to prepare the way of the Lord; he is simply pious (“meaning that he was pure and had no inclination to do sins,” says Ibn Kathir, in an echo of some Christian traditions that John committed no sins), devout, and kind to his parents (vv. 13-14).Then vv. 15-40 follows the story of the birth of Jesus, but like the account of the birth of John it differs significantly from the Gospel account. For one thing, the angel tells her only that she will be the mother of a “holy son” (v. 19) – there is not a word, of course, about his being “Son of the Most High” (Luke 1:32), a concept rejected again in v. 35. Jesus is virginally conceived (v. 20). Ibn Kathir says that many scholars believe she conceived by the breath of the angel Gabriel: “Many scholars of the predecessors (Salaf) have mentioned that at this point the angel (who was Jibril [Gabriel]) blew into the opening of the garment that she was wearing. Then the breath descended until it entered into her vagina and she conceived the child by the leave of Allah.”
Mary still suffers the pains of childbirth (v. 23) – while in some Christian traditions she does not, since those are the result of the sin (Genesis 3:16) that Jesus is taking upon himself and expiating (I Corinthians 15:22). Here, Mary gives birth to Jesus under a palm tree (not in a manger as in Luke 2:7) as Allah comforts her in her pains with dates (vv. 24-26). A voice cries out from beneath her, “Grieve not! For thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee” (v. 24); Ibn Abbas, Sa‘id bin Jubayr, Ad-Dahhak, ‘Amr bin Maymun, As-Suddi and Qatadah say this was Gabriel, while Mujahid, Al-Hasan, and Abdul-Rahman bin Zayd say it was the baby Jesus, who speaks soon enough anyway (vv. 30-33).
Abdul-Rahman bin Zayd notes that when Jesus told her in this verse not to grieve, she responded, “How can I not grieve when you are with me and I have no husband nor am I an owned slave woman?” To avoid the embarrassment of having to explain how she came to have a newborn, he tells her to tell people she is fasting and not speaking with anyone (v. 26). And as expected, when her family sees the child, they are amazed (v. 27), and remonstrate with her: “O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!” Many have charged that since the Qur’an here calls Mary “sister of Aaron,” Muhammad is confusing Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron – in Arabic the names are identical, Maryam. Even the Christians of Muhammad’s day noticed this, but Muhammad had a ready explanation: “The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.” So calling Mary “sister of Aaron” was, says Muhammad, an honor, not an error.
In any case, to allay their suspicions Mary simply points to the cradle, and Jesus begins speaking (vv. 30-33). This and other Qur’anic material about Jesus seems to come from heretical and non-canonical Christian material: the baby Jesus doesn’t speak in the New Testament, but an Arabic Infancy Gospel that dates from the sixth century says this: “Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.” Of course, in the Qur’an he doesn’t say he was the Son of God, but rather the “slave of Allah” (v. 30), for to have a son is not befitting for Allah’s majesty (v. 35).
Verses 41-50 return to the story of Abraham, recounting his breach with his father when his father refused to give up his idol-worship. Abraham prays that Allah will forgive his father (v. 47), but we learn elsewhere that in this he is not an example for the Muslims (60:4). Abraham turns away not only from the idols, but from his father also (vv. 48, 50). Verses 51-58 mention in passing several prophets, including Moses, Ishmael, and Idris (Enoch). Verses 59-63 return to the delights that the blessed will enjoy in Paradise, but without being very specific.
Then verses 64-98 conclude the sura by sounding familiar themes, mostly about the unbelievers. The angels don’t descend except by Allah’s command (v. 64) – this said because Muhammad wondered why he didn’t see Gabriel more often. Those who doubt the resurrection will not escape the Day of Judgment (vv. 66-71). In v. 73, the unbelievers are ready to determine which religion to follow based on the level of earthly prosperity of its adherents. “In this,” according to Ibn Kathir, “they were saying, ‘How can we be upon falsehood while we are in this manner of successful living?’” But Allah has destroyed countless generations before them (v. 74). Those who boast of their worldly success while remaining unbelievers will be punished for their boasts (vv. 77-80). The demons that the unbelievers worship will turn against them (v. 82); indeed, Allah will set the demons upon them (v. 83). The idea that Allah has begotten a Son is “most monstrous” (v. 89) – indeed, “at it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin” (v. 90). Allah will judge all beings (v. 95). The Qur’an gives “Glad Tidings to the righteous, and warnings to people given to contention” (v. 97) – for “how many a generation before them have We destroyed!” (v. 98)
Next week: Sura 20, “Ta Ha”: “We have not sent down the Qur’an to thee to be an occasion for thy distress.”
Posted by Robert at March 31, 2008 7:22 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Mr Spencer,
wasn't Mary married or related to a biblical figure that lived some thousand years before her?
I don't recall where that came from, perhaps I'm mistaken. But if you know anything about this would you please post it?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 31, 2008 7:54 AM
Sheik:
Why don't you just read this week's Q-Blog (above)?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 31, 2008 8:07 AM
I have read two English translations of the Koran. Does it matter that the references to the Old and New Testements are inaccurate? I think it does. Has this implications for the validity of the text? I raised this point and was told that the Koran preceded the Old and New, the time delay being due to the long wiat for the right prophet. How do you think about these matters?
Posted by: pipertune at March 31, 2008 8:09 AM
Robert, I did.
“O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!” Many have charged that since the Qur’an here calls Mary “sister of Aaron,” Muhammad is confusing Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron – in Arabic the names are identical, Maryam. Even the Christians of Muhammad’s day noticed this, but Muhammad had a ready explanation: “The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.” So calling Mary “sister of Aaron” was, says Muhammad, an honor, not an error.
But I don't understand it. Can you explainit?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 31, 2008 8:15 AM
Pipertune:
The traditional Islamic view on this is that the Old and New Testaments have been corrupted by the Jews and Christians, and no longer contain the actual Word of God unadulterated. The Qur'an is considered to have existed forever with Allah in Paradise and was delivered in perfect form to Muhammad over a period of 23 years.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 31, 2008 8:16 AM
Sheik,
You asked, "wasn't Mary married or related to a biblical figure that lived some thousand years before her?"
Yes -- she is called sister of Aaron. Moses and Aaron lived about two thousand years before Jesus, or more. So when the Qur'an calls Mary "sister of Aaron," it seems likely that Muhammad is confusing Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam the sister of Aaron and Moses -- the names Mary and Miriam are the same in Arabic.
But Muhammad attempted to explain this way by saying that Mary the mother of Jesus was called "sister of Aaron" as an honorific, just as I might (but probably wouldn't actually) call you something like "Brother of John Howard" to signify that you, like Howard, oppose the jihad.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Posted by: jihadwatch
at March 31, 2008 8:19 AM
The Old and new Testaments were corrupted. Yet they never say how, by whom, when, where. Just corrupted. We must never question. Ever.
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at March 31, 2008 8:46 AM
Comparative to the jihadist field manual, the Qur'an, I can honestly say thank God for the "corruption" which has lead to the current New Testament.
Posted by: awake at March 31, 2008 9:01 AM
'Abdul-Rahman bin Zayd notes that when Jesus told her in this verse not to grieve, she responded, “How can I not grieve when you are with me and I have no husband nor am I an owned slave woman?” To avoid the embarrassment of having to explain how she came to have a newborn, he tells her to tell people she is fasting and not speaking with anyone (v. 26).'
How simple it must have been for Mohammad to have Jesus tell His mother to lie. But it is totally illogical for Jesus to have done so. He didn't have anything to hide, unlike the liar Mohammad.
The more I read this stuff, the more I think Muslims are the most gullible and ignorant people on the planet.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 31, 2008 9:09 AM
The Qur'an was written by individuals familiar with both the Bible and the Torah. (Something borrowed, something blue.......)
Where the Qur'an differs from all other religions is it's division of humanity into believers and nonbelievers. Other faiths may do this as well, but they view the nonbelievers as fellow humans who have been "lead astray" or are ignorant of the "true" faith.
Islam insists that nonbelievers are "the sons of apes and pigs". A kuffar can have property stolen from them by Muslims, they can be enslaved, raped, tortured and killed by any Muslim. This demonization of the "other" is unlike anything else in any other religion.
The reaction to "Fitna" simply magnifies this issue.
Posted by: tanstaafl at March 31, 2008 9:29 AM
It's sad to think about how the true Jesus is there before their very eyes, but they refuse to see Him for who He is.
Posted by: livefreeordie! at March 31, 2008 9:57 AM
The more I read this stuff, the more I think Muslims are the most gullible and ignorant people on the planet.
Oh, they're right up there, but they've got competition for the top spot. You might try reading the Book of Mormon, for instance. (Like the Mahometans, the Mormons have a "revelation" to a "prophet," abstain from alcohol, and have an unfortunate tendency toward polygamy. To give them their due, though, they've tended to lay off the terrorism thing since the Mountain Meadows Massacre gave them such bad press.)
Posted by: Seamus at March 31, 2008 10:07 AM
Dear Robert, At church yesterday an "Asian" guest pastor provided information on how to introduce a Muslim to Jesus and the crux of the matter came down to the question: "Who is Jesus' father?" He said that Islamic texts say that Allah created men by a drop of sperm, yet just as you've indicated, Jesus was born of breath. This pastor also indicated that Islamic writings say that Jesus "has the spirit of God in him", and that "Jesus is the word of God". Hmmm...
Posted by: Infidel's Delight at March 31, 2008 10:14 AM
So even Islam's texts agrees? Jesus=Virgin Birth (VS) Humans=Drop of Allah's Sperm.
Posted by: Infidel's Delight at March 31, 2008 10:22 AM
Here is a link to further confusion of a Bible story.
Saul and Gideon:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/03/saul_and_gideon_in_the_quran_r.html
at March 31, 2008 10:22 AM
Seamus,
Mormons aren't having a cow over Fitna. Mormons don't kill people in the name of their prophet. They don't walk into other countries and force people to become Mormons. They haven't slaughtered multiple tens of thousands of "non-believers" over the past 1400 years.
The Mountain Meadows Massacre had Mormon militia killing 120 Arkansans over 150 years ago. Are you trying to compare what Muslims do on a daily basis with what a small group of Mormons did in one instance? Now why would you even bring that up in this forum?
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 31, 2008 10:26 AM
Concerning Mary and the virgin birth, are Moslems saying allah can't have a son if he wills it?
That is blasphemous to me, if allah is the creator, anything is possible.
Think on that moslems.
at March 31, 2008 10:32 AM
The Mountain Meadows Massacre had Mormon militia killing 120 Arkansans over 150 years ago. Are you trying to compare what Muslims do on a daily basis with what a small group of Mormons did in one instance? Now why would you even bring that up in this forum?
If you paid attention, you'd have noticed that I said that Mormons *don't* do that sort of thing any more. (Saying that they have "tended to lay off the terrorism thing" is what's known as "understatement." I apologize if it was too subtle for you.) So yes, that's a comparison, and one in which the Mormons come off comparatively better than the Moslems. Why did I bring up the Mountain Meadow Massacre at all? Because any discussion of the similarity between Mormons and Moslems (wacky prophet, too many wives, too little alcohol) leads toward a comparison of their use of violence, and whaddaya know, there's a parallel even there (up to and including the September 11 date). I'm not trying to make more of that parallel than the record justifies, but let's not pretend there's no point of comparison at all.
Posted by: Seamus at March 31, 2008 4:08 PM
Taking Jesus at his own words, found documented in the New Testament, should suffice as proof for who Jesus Christ is: God Incarnate:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm
But since Muhammad clearly wanted to fashion a god of his own choosing - called idolatry - then it isn't necessary to take Christ at his word; therefore making Muhammad not only a false prophet, but a liar as well.
Posted by: champ at March 31, 2008 5:06 PM
Sheik asked, "wasn't Mary married or related to a biblical figure that lived some thousand years before her?"
Perhaps he is thinking of Mary's lineage from the House of David.
The Muslim claim that the Old and New Testaments have been corrupted ignores the fact that ancient texts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, are virtually identical in every jot and iota to the Hebrew scripture read today. The burden is on them to show who, when, how and why Scripture was corrupted. Lacking that, it is just an absurd claim.
livefreeordie said: "It's sad to think about how the true Jesus is there before their very eyes, but they refuse to see Him for who He is."
1 John 2:22-23 "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."
I think that pretty much tells us who the Mohammadans are and who their god really is. Incidentally, the curse upon mankind after the fall is called "alah" (Heb. for curse), not a coincidence to many Jews and Christians.
Posted by: drewas at March 31, 2008 5:51 PM
I read the Koran in English and French never saw a word about Jesus being the word of God. neither having the spirit of God.
and speaking with some Muslim scholar I was told they consider Jesus as a prophet, his mother was a normal woman. nothing special and Allah is very upset when you ssy that he had a son.
I dont even understand why the Pope is opening a dialog with Muslims. There is nothing to talk about with those people.
It is two different worlds ...light and darkness
We really should not mix or talk and send them all back to the Sheik.
at March 31, 2008 5:56 PM
I read the Koran in English and French never saw a word about Jesus being the word of God. neither having the spirit of God.
and speaking with some Muslim scholar I was told they consider Jesus as a prophet, his mother was a normal woman. nothing special and Allah is very upset when you ssy that he had a son.
I dont even understand why the Pope is opening a dialog with Muslims. There is nothing to talk about with those people.
It is two different worlds ...light and darkness
We really should not mix or talk and send them all back to the Sheik.
at March 31, 2008 5:59 PM
"If you paid attention, you'd have noticed that I said that Mormons *don't* do that sort of thing any more."
If you paid attention, you'd have noticed that Robert is blogging the Qu'ran, not the book of Mormon. You're the only one concerned about the Mormons here.
"I apologize if it was too subtle for you."
Ah, what's the matter sweetie, not getting enough attention on JW?
If what I say in my posts disturbs that chip on your shoulder so much, hit the next button when you come to them and keep going.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 31, 2008 6:29 PM
Tartine, I've been told you must read the Koran in Arabic, and have a pre-1947 version.
Posted by: Infidel's Delight at March 31, 2008 7:15 PM
Foefic. Foefic. Muhammad - or whoever put the Qur'an and the rest of it together - was writing 'foefic' on the TaNaKh and the Gospels.
The key to it is that all the alterations are driven by the idea that ultimate 'good' = absolute power, dominance/ submission, tyranny-slavery; 'allah' is pure despotism apotheosised/ absolutised, like Nietzsche's Will to Power (of COURSE he has no partners - any more than the likes of Saddam Hussein or the Ottoman Sultans wanted 'partners' or rivals).
So everything borrowed from the Hebrew and Christian scriptures that contradicts that assumption (that Power is the ultimate good), has to be altered.
The insistence that Jesus is 'the slave of allah' is interesting. Let's think about this episode in the Temptation in the Wilderness: "And the devil, taking him up to a high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
And the devil [the satan, the adversary] said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them; for that is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will, I give it.
If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine."
And Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Get thee behind me, Satan, for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4: 5-8).
Matthew's version runs thus:
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, IF THOU WILT FALL DOWN AND WORSHIP ME."
Then saith Jesus unto him, 'Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
The 'slaves of allah', like Mohammed (remember that story about Muhammad having a dream in which he was given the keys of the world, etc.?), prostrate themselves before 'allah' and become his 'slaves', and in return allah pretends to offer them domination over everybody else.
If one sees in 'allah' something eerily resembling the 'satan' of the Bible, then the Muslim claim that Jesus is 'slave of allah' is a mind-bogglingly blasphemous reversal and denial of the meaning of the Gospel story that I have just cited.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at March 31, 2008 9:50 PM
Not sure if Robert mentioned this but as I understand Mohammad was illiterate and had Jewish scribes tell and write the bible stories. Which he then had them or others change to fit his POV. And conveniently say others (the Jews and Christians) had corrupted the original story.
I have not had the opportunity to challenge this out-right lie of corruption. This should be vigorously argued whenever it is stated. God is quit capable of preserving his words and does not need any help.
In the Old Testimony, He had this problem of prophets saying something and announce that it was God's very words. He, countered them by saying if they were His words then they will come true. If not you could kill the prophet because he was a false prophet. If Mohammad was alive today he would fit the second category perfectly.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at March 31, 2008 11:01 PM
I have heard the claim that "sister of Aaron" was an honorific before -- but it always sounds like a cheap cop-out. Moe got caught showing his ignorance and needed to come up with a way out.
Mohammed was illiterate and only gathered his information regarding Jesus and the New Testament either from hearsay or from various heretical writings. It seems a whole lot more plausible that he just made a really really bad mistake.
Since he wanted his followers to believe he was perfect, he could not admit to making such a dumb mistake.
> wasn't Mary married or related to a biblical
> figure that lived some thousand years
> before her?
Mary (and Joseph) were descendants of King David, and ultimately from Jacob/Israel's son Judah.
This is detailed in the New Testament geneologies, and is necessary for Jesus to be considered the Messiah or "Son of David", who was to be of the tribe of Judah.
On the other hand, Aaron and Moses were, again by necessity, from the tribe of Levi. (Exodus Ch.2)
Aaron was High Priest, and only descendents of the tribe of Levi could be priests.
So it would not only be impossible for Mary to be the sister of Aaron (since they lived 1200 - 1500 years apart), but they could also not have been of the same bloodline -- since Aaron was from the tribe of Levi and Mary was of the tribe of Judah.
Posted by: StephenDvd at March 31, 2008 11:23 PM
CHAPTER 19, Surah MARYAM
(Revealed before Hijrah)
Date of Revelation and Context
Consensus of opinion among the Companions of the Holy Prophet is that the Surah was revealed very early in Mecca, probably towards the end of the fourth year of the Call, before the Emigration to Abyssinia which took place in the month of Rajab in the fifth year. Its connection with the Chapters Bani Isra’il (Chapter-17, The Night Jouney) and Al-Kahf ( Chapter-18; The Cave) consist in the fact that some account of the rise and progress of the Jews and Christians was given in these two Chapters. In Bani Isra’il(Chapter-17, The Night Journey)) it was particularly stated that the Jews would suffer national eclipse twice and twice they would rise to power and glory, and that the followers of Islam would, like the Jews, would also rise to power twice and twice like them they would decline and fall. In Surah Al-Kahf (Chapter18. The Cave ) the same subject was dealt with a greater length, specially the part dealing with Christians. After it had been explained in that Surah that Muslims would sustain national disaster at the hands of the followers of the Messiah of the Mosaic Dispensation; but they would regain their lost glory under the leadership and guidance of the Messiah of the Islamic Dispensation. A brief history of the Christian Faith is also given in the present Surah. The Surah thus constitutes a third link in the chain in which Chapters Bani Isra’il(Chapter-17) and Al-Kahf (Chapter-18) respectively form the first and second link. In fact, the three Chapters deal with the same subject and follow the same pattern in dealing with that subject.
Subject-Matter
In the abbreviated letters at the head of the Surah a comparison has been instituted between Christian and Islamic doctrines and attention has been drawn to the fact that while originally Christianity was a Divine Dispensation, subsequently some false doctrine and dogmas found their way into its teaching. As these doctrines run counter to Divine attributes, a brief account of Jesus’ birth has been given to refute them. This account is preceded by a brief mention of Prophet Zachariah, because according to Biblical prophecies Prophet Elijah was to have descended from heaven ‘before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord’ (Mal, 4:5); and Jesus on being asked by the Jews about Elijah, who was to have appeared before him, answered that he was John the Baptist who had come in his power and spirit (Matt. 11:14, 15; 17:12; Mark 9:13). He also told that Elijah was not to have come from heaven but like the mortals was to have been born of an earthly mother in the form of another man and that he was John (Matt. 11:11; Luke 7:28).
While giving an account of Jesus, the Surah refers to the unusual manner of his birth without the agency of a human father. The procedure adopted him to bring about this most extraordinary consummation implied that Prophet Hood was not going to be transferred from the House of Isaac to that of Ishmael, since there had remained among the Israelites no male from whose loins a Prophet of God should have been born. After this the Surah reinforces the argument against the godhead of Jesus by stating that if all the Prophets from Adam down to the last Israelite Prophet before Jesus, to whom a brief reference is made in the Surah, were mere human beings, why should Jesus, who was also only a Prophet of God, be invested with Divine attributes and be regarded as God or Son of God. As Resurrection and Life after death were to be widely denied in Latter Days by Christians with whom the Surah particularly deals, much stress has also been laid on the Hereafter and the stale and hackneyed arguments of disbelievers against it exposed and refuted.
The disbelievers, the Surah says, seem to derive false comfort from their wealth, material means and large numbers and adduce these things as an argument in support of their denial of the Life after death and of their belief that what really matters is the present life. They are warned that they should not be deceived by the apparent material weakness of believers and of their own power, wealth and vast resources; since Truth always progresses gradually and in stages but most surely it does triumph in the end.
The Surah ends with an answer to and implied question viz,, why Arabic had been adopted as a vehicle for the revelation of the Quranic teaching. The answer given is: Since the Arabs are the first addressees of the Qur’an, and it is natural and also sensible that a message should be addressed to the people in their own tongue in order that they should easily understand it and having understood it should convey it to others; therefore the Qur’an has been revealed in Arabic.
-----------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for None
at April 1, 2008 3:50 PM
Dear All,
Jesus Birth was a Special Birth
God declares in the Holy Book of Quran that Jews were the chosen people of God. God had laden them with all the worldly graces and His blessings. But when God went angry with them for their conduct, they were made to wander in the wilderness along with the Prophet for forty long years…till God forgave them.
It is also worth mentioning that Christianity may be placing the Birth of Jesus a miracle of God etc, but for the House of Israelite it is totally a different scenario altogether. Judaic had gone astray and were in need of a reformer; Where as, when their reformer came they did not accept him as True Prophet. Jesus*, the Reformer was out rightly rejected and they put him up on the crux (cross) to die a humiliating death.
But if we see the birth of Jesus in the historical prospective; it is worth noting that God Almighty has always awarded a special honoraria to the male members of certain tribes and peoples from whom lions, God’s prophets were born; but some how God became so angry with the Judaic that He even ceased the blessings and honour from among Israelites to father their Reformer.
God had to devise the special means to bring about the Jesus* in this world; and ever since Judaic are defunct and cursed.
A sad demise of a defiant people who had gone astray!
It is a great lesson and severe admonishing for all the people to come!
-------------------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for None
at April 1, 2008 4:59 PM
If what I say in my posts disturbs that chip on your shoulder so much, hit the next button when you come to them and keep going.
Projection much? You're the only one who seems to be upset.
Posted by: Seamus at April 1, 2008 5:56 PM
"I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Genesis 12:2-3
Posted by: champ at April 1, 2008 8:44 PM
It’s always such a blessing to have A Khokar stop by at then end of each of Mr. Spencer’s BtQ articles to straighten everything out, tie up all those loose ends, and, as in this article, explain why his god forever curses all Jews. Yes, yes, love for all, hatred for none…except the Jews. So nice of you to help out…jerk.
Posted by: butterfly at April 3, 2008 10:15 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)