The Quran and the Son of God

[KT Shamim]

The above is borderline heretical according to Islam.

Let it be understood that just as an ambassador is such a servant of representative state that the presence of the ambassador is considered representative of the head of state.
Or just as when Iron burns in fire it adopts the color of the fire such that dimwitted people might even think that the iron and the fire are the same being ... but in fact the ambassador is not the head of state and nor is the iron same as the fire but the concept is clear from these two examples.

That is, Jesus Christ was such a servant of God that God bestowed him with the honor of being called the son of God while he was of course not his literal son.
So in the same way Muhammad was such a greatest servant of God that his arrival was called (as in the verse and others show) that his arrival could be considered the arrival of God Himself.

It is a simple concept in the the meaning "Muhammadan Abduhu waRasooluh" ... slavery of Allah lead to Messengership of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) but of course they were and always will be completely different beings.

Does that clear it up?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

So, you always agree with Rabbi's understandings?

No. However when it comes to language and the Judaic understanding of Messiah as it relates to the Jewish faith I depend on what learned Jews perceive the idea of what a Messiah is. But that doesn't mean I'm right by telling others who study their faith their wrong according to what I know. That is the problem with dogma.

Do you as a Muslim agree with them?

How many times do I have to say I'm not Muslim. I've studied the faith of Islam extensively but it does not mean I am one. I've said this ad nauseum.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

“Messiah” comes from a word meaning “anointed,” referring to the kings of Israel being anointed.

Yet, the Rabbi said the following:

It does?

Funny, they didn't mention that in rabbinical school.

“ when he says that Jesus is the Christ (anointed one), the Son of the living G_d. It would be inconceivable for a Jewish person to imagine that G_d mated with a human to father a son, like some Roman god, which is what the Quran is denouncing.

But in Islam there is no concept of "Son of God" or "son of God" no matter how you're spinning it. Simply associating your interpretation of what that means according to your understanding of the biblical language is a fallacy. Muslims do not conceive of any "sonship" no matter how you're spinning it. I don't understand what the argument is! you can explain to me until you turn blue your explanation regarding the nature of Jesus' sonship is not even remotely close when you relate it to the Qur'an or Islam. That is just fact.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The Quran is denouncing Christian trinity doctrines,

Ok. But you were emphasizing "sonship" in the beginning, not trinity.

and the idea that God has mated with a human to father a son, like some Roman god.

Simply put, both Jews and Muslims believe the Creator is above any material desires or any human traits.

At the same time it is endorsing Jesus as the Messiah that He claimed to be, and the Messiah that Jesus claimed to be was one that God called “my Son.”

Ok since you're proclaiming this under whose interpretation of scripture are you basing this off of? Since you are proclaiming this as fact, the burden is on you to support what you are saying using Islamic/Jewish sources. Because in reality what you're doing is sounding like a Christian apologist trying to justify their interpretation of "Messiah" to confirm a Christian truism in another faith.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

We all have our perspectives.

This is the most sensible answer thus far. the problem I have with the OP is the presentation, and passing off that something is true in another religion even when said religion is quite clear on what concepts mean.

Now I can respect if someone had said "well, according to the Baha'i faith, such and such means this to us" but where I have a problem as an academic is when someone of the Baha'i faith says "The Qur'an does not deny Jesus is the Messiah, so therefore if we look the Messiah is a King who therefore is a son of God."

The latter is intellectual dishonesty because I would assume most Baha'i's know there is no concept of Allah having a son nor is "sonship" a remote title attributed to Jesus in Islam nor in Judaism. This is the problem I have with the Baha'i interpretation. You (not you specifically) are trying to reinterpret what is clear as day in Islam.

If we believe the Jews then Jesus wasn’t the Messiah and both Christianity and Islam are wrong. If we believe the Muslim orthodox position then the gospels are corrupted and Christians couldn’t even get it right about the crucifixion of Christ. If we believe the Christians then the Jews and Muslims are wrong. So if you want to extol the orthodox position of each faith being representative we have three contradictory and irreconcilable positions.

Maimonides held that both Christianity and Islam are heretical religions that stems from Jewish monotheism. It just so happens that on the spectrum of what is more right, Judaism holds on a theological level Islam is more right than Christianity. But similarly Islam says both Christianity and Judaism are perversions of what was sent before and that the current messages at least some, are fabrications. The Christians hold the same view when it comes to the monopoly of truth. So yes you're right. If we choose the orthodox position of one religion all other religions are wrong (or further away from the truth).

I have no problem with the Baha'i perspective, but what I do have a problem with is the reinterpretation of a word and trying to pass it off as true for the other faith when that other faith does not believe such a word or concept is true[ in relation to the Baha'i's reinterpretation of said word or concept]. That is the argument I am having. You cannot be honest and say as a Baha'i "this is what the Qur'an really means" when the opposite is really clear.

 

[Dawnofhope]

This is the most sensible answer thus far. the problem I have with the OP is the presentation, and passing off that something is true in another religion even when said religion is quite clear on what concepts mean.

Thanks for your response.

Reading the OP, the author is simply presenting his personal POV, albeit very influenced by being a Baha’i.

The Baha’is rightly or wrongly believe Bahá’u’lláh to be the latest Manifestation from God and has therefore brought a Revelation from God in the same manner as Moses, Christ, and Muhammad. We then go on to claim that Buddha and Krishna were also Manifestations from God. That’s an extremely challenging and ‘out there’ perspective for adherents of all those Religions. Instead of the Baha’is saying you guys are wrong, we say you guys are right but you have misunderstood your own religion. We're bound to ruffle more than a few feathers.

In regards Islam, Baha’is believe the Holy Qur’an to be the authenticated respository of the Word of God. Although we hold the Gospels as being authentic, unlike the Qur’an they are not wholly authentic. We believe Muhammad to be the Messenger of God He claims to be. However, we are not Muslims but Baha’is. Why? We believe Bahá’u’lláh has Revealed the latest Message from God to humanity. Muslims of course not only cry foul, but heretic, apostate and death to the Baha'is as of course they believe Muhammad words 'seal of the prophets' to mean that the flow of God's grace through Divine revelation has been forever stilled.

With that said, I believe Muhammad’s words about Christ need to be considered in the context of God’s Revelation to the pagan Arabian tribes. They did not have great knowledge about either Christianity or Judaism. Muhammad affirmed it wasn’t enough to believe in Him but in all the prophets who had gone before with special emphasis on Moses and Jesus who had brought the Torah and Gospel. However, Muhammad is clear as to how the Christians have erred in their understanding of God. The key areas of concern are the Divinity of Christ, the sonship of Christ, and the trinity. It’s is no coincidence that these beliefs are enshrined in the Nicene Creed composed during the fourth century, just a few centuries before the rise of Islam.

Unfortunately this led to the false belief (Baha’i perspective) that the Gospels were corrupted. Muhammad never said they were but the Ulama have inferred they were. So Islamic theology has developed under the false premise about the gospels that say much more about Christ than the Qur’an. Some modern Islamic scholars are playing catch-up and redefining what Muhammad said with due consideration to the Gospels. Many remain locked in the past.

Bahá’u’lláh however highlighted the problem with Islamic interpretation in the 19th century.

We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93

 

[Jim]

@Epic Beard Man I’m not sure where you think I’m wrong in what I’m saying. I’ll try spelling out my reasoning in more detail, and maybe you can pinpoint where you think I’m wrong.

1. In the gospel stories, Jesus approves of Peter saying that He, Jesus, is “the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
2. The Quran calls Jesus “the Messiah.”
3. What “the Messiah” means in the Quran is the same as what it means to Jesus.
4. What it means to Jesus includes G_d calling Jesus His Son.

Which parts of that are you disagreeing with?
1. Do you think that part of the gospel stories is false? Do you think that Peter did not really say all that, or that Jesus did not approve of it?
2. Do you disagree with saying that the Quran calls Jesus “the Messiah”?
3. Do you disagree that what “the Messiah” means in the Quran is the same as what it means to Jesus?
4. Do you disagree that what it means to Jesus includes G_d calling Jesus His Son?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Thanks for your response.

Reading the OP, the author is simply presenting his personal POV, albeit very influenced by being a Baha’i.

The Baha’is rightly or wrongly believe Bahá’u’lláh to be the latest Manifestation from God and has therefore brought a Revelation from God in the same manner as Moses, Christ, and Muhammad. We then go on to claim that Buddha and Krishna were also Manifestations from God. That’s an extremely challenging and ‘out there’ perspective for adherents of all those Religions. Instead of the Baha’is saying you guys are wrong, we say you guys are right but you have misunderstood your own religion. We're bound to ruffle more than a few feathers.

In regards Islam, Baha’is believe the Holy Qur’an to be the authenticated respository of the Word of God. Although we hold the Gospels as being authentic, unlike the Qur’an they are not wholly authentic. We believe Muhammad to be the Messenger of God He claims to be. However, we are not Muslims but Baha’is. Why? We believe Bahá’u’lláh has Revealed the latest Message from God to humanity. Muslims of course not only cry foul, but heretic, apostate and death to the Baha'is as of course they believe Muhammad words 'seal of the prophets' to mean that the flow of God's grace through Divine revelation has been forever stilled.

With that said, I believe Muhammad’s words about Christ need to be considered in the context of God’s Revelation to the pagan Arabian tribes. They did not have great knowledge about either Christianity or Judaism. Muhammad affirmed it wasn’t enough to believe in Him but in all the prophets who had gone before with special emphasis on Moses and Jesus who had brought the Torah and Gospel. However, Muhammad is clear as to how the Christians have erred in their understanding of God. The key areas of concern are the Divinity of Christ, the sonship of Christ, and the trinity. It’s is no coincidence that these beliefs are enshrined in the Nicene Creed composed during the fourth century, just a few centuries before the rise of Islam.

Unfortunately this led to the false belief (Baha’i perspective) that the Gospels were corrupted. Muhammad never said they were but the Ulama have inferred they were. So Islamic theology has developed under the false premise about the gospels that say much more about Christ than the Qur’an. Some modern Islamic scholars are playing catch-up and redefining what Muhammad said with due consideration to the Gospels. Many remain locked in the past.

Bahá’u’lláh however highlighted the problem with Islamic interpretation in the 19th century.

We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93

Perhaps this should have been discussed in the Baha’i DIR

 

[Epic Beard Man]

@Epic Beard Man I’m not sure where you think I’m wrong in what I’m saying. I’ll try spelling out my reasoning in more detail, and maybe you can pinpoint where you think I’m wrong.

1. In the gospel stories, Jesus approves of Peter saying that He, Jesus, is “the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
2. The Quran calls Jesus “the Messiah.”
3. What “the Messiah” means in the Quran is the same as what it means to Jesus.
4. What it means to Jesus includes G_d calling Jesus His Son.

Which parts of that are you disagreeing with?
1. Do you think that part of the gospel stories is false? Do you think that Peter did not really say all that, or that Jesus did not approve of it?
2. Do you disagree with saying that the Quran calls Jesus “the Messiah”?
3. Do you disagree that what “the Messiah” means in the Quran is the same as what it means to Jesus?
4. Do you disagree that what it means to Jesus includes G_d calling Jesus His Son?

Look, I disagree with your entire presentation just as I disagree with your faith but hey have at it hauss. There really isn’t much to debate since you’re going off conjecture and anecdotes. You can’t use Jewish resources and Muslim resources considering those two faiths are older than Baha’i. What are we left with? The words of what Baha’i say.

This is just as worthless as discussing the word Paraclete meaning it to refer to as Muhammad.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It looks to me like many people, maybe most people including most Christians and Muslims, think that the Quran denies that Jesus was the Son of G_d. I think that the Quran denounces the idea of Mary being the mother of G_d and/or the mother of G_d’s Son, but I don’t think it denies that Jesus is the Son of G_d in the way that the Bible says He is, meaning that He is king of Israel.

In the time when the Quran was revealed people might have been saying or insinuating sometimes, as they do sometimes today, that it is the way Jesus was born that makes Him the Son of G_d, and also that it makes Mary the mother of G_d. There might have been a need for G_d’s purposes at that time to denounce those ideas unequivocally, without confusing the issue by affirming that in a certain way Jesus really is the Son of G_d. That might be why the Quran says repeatedly that G_d “does not beget, nor is He begotten.” “G_d does not beget” means that Mary is not the mother of G_d’s Son, and “nor is He begotten” means that Mary is not G_d’s mother. Saying that in a certain way Jesus actually was the Son of God would have been needlessly confusing and distracting.

I think that the king of Israel was sometimes viewed figuratively as the son of G_d. The difference between Jesus as king of Israel and the other kings might be analogous in some ways to the difference between a begotten son and an adopted son. For example, the other kings were anointed by a priest, but Jesus was anointed by G_d Himself. However that may be, the way He was born does not make Mary the mother of G_d, or of His Son, and that might be the whole point of the Quran saying that G_d “does not beget, nor is He begotten.” Not to deny that Jesus was the Son of God, meaning the rightful king of Israel.

I’ll be doing some more research on all that. I would welcome any scripture references that anyone thinks I’m contradicting.

I appreciate your insight here, and want to hear more from your studies, but I present these facts:

1) The absolute worst Muslim sin, worse than rape or anything else, is shirk--saying any one or any person is God or can help God do God's work in any way
2) Every Muslim who proselytizes to Westerners has apologetics as to why Jesus is not God, accordingly
3) Islam teaches Judas died on the cross and Jesus is not divine atonement, etc.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Perhaps this should have been discussed in the Baha’i DIR

The problem with the DIR section is that it suppresses open debate and discussion. You wouldn’t be able to have expressed much of what you’ve already said in this thread. Although you are largely opposed to the Baha’i Faith, it’s important you’re able to put forward your POV.

 

[Sanzbir]

YOU guys seem to be creating these special definitions and implying them as if perhaps Qur'an means it a certain way,

Calm down.

You need to calm down a bit, I think, because that's not at all what I have said.

If you actually read what I wrote calmly, my statement is not "the Qur'an means it a certain way" but that the Bible "means it a certain way".

My position is that Jesus is not the literal son of God, and that Christians misinterpret the Biblical Scripture reading "son of God" in an overly literal way. Also in a biased way, as the Christians do not interpret "son of God" literally when it appears in the text referring to anyone who is not Jesus (see the Matthew text I just referenced).

If anything the Baha'is here are not providing any new or even non-standard interpretation of the Quran, at least none of the posts I have read here do that. If anything, what is being provided is a heterodox interpretation of the Bible to bring the Biblical text more in line with the Quranic.

If anything, pointing out that the early Christians used the phrase "son of God" non-literally only supports the Quran on this matter.

 

[Niblo]

...........................Islam teaches Judas died on the cross.......

No. Allow me to clarify:

‘And so for breaking their pledge, for rejecting Allāh’s revelations, for unjustly killing their prophets, for saying: “Our minds are closed” - No! Allāh has sealed them in their disbelief, so they believe only a little - and because they disbelieved and uttered a terrible slander against Mary, and said: “We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allāh.” They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him - Allāh raised him up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’ (Al-Nisa: 155-158).

I’ve spent a while learning (and in some cases re-learning) what the Qur’an, and others, have to say about the crucifixion. I’ve read extracts of the tafâsîr (interpretations of the Qur’an) of Wahb Ibn Munabbih; Ṭabarî; Makkî Ibn Abi Ṭâlib; Qurṭubî; Ibn Kathîr; Suyûṭî; Ṭabâṭabâ’î ; and Jazâ’irî. All of them (apart from Ṭabâṭabâ’î) are saying that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) was not crucified, but that another was made to resemble him - and to take his place. It is not possible to justify, from these verses, any notion of a substitute.

It is just as likely – although I have no way of proving this – that the words ‘though it was made to appear like that to them’ are nothing more than a reference to the belief – widespread by the time these verses were revealed – that the crucifixion of Yeshua did, in fact, take place. In short, these words reference a false belief, rather than a substitute.

I hope this helps.

 

[Dawnofhope]

No. Allow me to clarify:

‘And so for breaking their pledge, for rejecting Allāh’s revelations, for unjustly killing their prophets, for saying: “Our minds are closed” - No! Allāh has sealed them in their disbelief, so they believe only a little - and because they disbelieved and uttered a terrible slander against Mary, and said: “We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allāh.” They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him - Allāh raised him up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’ (Al-Nisa: 155-158).

I’ve spent a while learning (and in some cases re-learning) what the Qur’an, and others, have to say about the crucifixion. I’ve read extracts of the tafâsîr (interpretations of the Qur’an) of Wahb Ibn Munabbih; Ṭabarî; Makkî Ibn Abi Ṭâlib; Qurṭubî; Ibn Kathîr; Suyûṭî; Ṭabâṭabâ’î ; and Jazâ’irî. All of them (apart from Ṭabâṭabâ’î) are saying that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) was not crucified, but that another was made to resemble him - and to take his place. It is not possible to justify, from these verses, any notion of a substitute.

It is just as likely – although I have no way of proving this – that the words ‘though it was made to appear like that to them’ are nothing more than a reference to the belief – widespread by the time these verses were revealed – that the crucifixion of Yeshua did, in fact, take place. In short, these words reference an error, rather than a substitute.

I hope this helps.

The gospel accounts clearly outlined that Christ was crucified. We know that Romans executed criminals by crucifixion which is consistent with the gospel narrative. There’s no good reason to lie about this. There is general agreement amongst historians that Christ was crucified. The idea that He wasn’t at all is just as preposterous to Christians as Judas being substituted. There is one verse in the Holy Qur’an that refers to the crucifixion of Christ, which can easily be interpreted symbolically. No disrespect, but orthodox Muslim belief in this regard looks unattractive to Westerners.

 

[Niblo]

The gospel accounts clearly outlined that Christ was crucified. We know that Romans executed criminals by crucifixion which is consistent with the gospel narrative. There’s no good reason to lie about this. There is general agreement amongst historians that Christ was crucified. The idea that He wasn’t at all is just as preposterous to Christians as Judas being substituted. There is one verse in the Holy Qur’an that refers to the crucifixion of Christ, which can easily be interpreted symbolically. No disrespect, but orthodox Muslim belief in this regard looks unattractive to Westerners.

That's fine. According to the Muslims, where the Bible and the Qur'an agree...no problem. Where they disagree...the Qur'an prevails. Where there is neither agreement not disagreement....the Exalted knows best! By the way, I don't expect Christians....Westerners or otherwise....to accept the Qur'an. When I was a Christian....for over sixty years....I didn't accept it either .

 

[Dawnofhope]

That's fine. According to the Muslims, where the Bible and the Qur'an agree...no problem. Where they disagree...the Qur'an prevails. Where there is neither agreement not disagreement....the Exalted knows best! By the way, I don't expect Christians....Westerners or otherwise....to accept the Qur'an. When I was a Christian....for over sixty years....I didn't accept it either .

I believe Muhammad is a Messenger of God and the Holy Qur’an the authenticated respository of the Word of God. I believe Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and the Gospels to be inspired by God and a sufficient account of the Teachings and life of Christ. It seems obvious that both Muslims and Christians have a lot to learn from each other about interpreting their sacred writings.

Welcome btw and good to have a Muslim voice here.

 

[Niblo]

I believe Muhammad is a Messenger of God and the Holy Qur’an the authenticated respository of the Word of God. I believe Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and the Gospels to be inspired by God and a sufficient account of the Teachings and life of Christ. It seems obvious that both Muslims and Christians have a lot to learn from each other about interpreting their sacred writings.

Welcome btw and good to have a Muslim voice here.

Amen to that!

Thank you very much for your warm welcome. I'm Welsh, by the way.....we do so love the sound of our voices. Let's hope you don't.....oh so soon.....get tired of mine

 

[Dawnofhope]

Amen to that!

Thank you very much for your warm welcome. I'm Welsh, by the way.....we do so love the sound of our voices. Let's hope you don't.....oh so soon.....get tired of mine

I used to be Christian and became a Baha’i nearly 30 years ago.

I’m from New Zealand so we play you guys quite a bit in rugby. I don’t think the Welsh have ever beaten the All-Blacks to they’re usually great games between the two nations.

I have ancestors from Ireland and England.

 

[Niblo]

I used to be Christian and became a Baha’i nearly 30 years ago.

I’m from New Zealand so we play you guys quite a bit in rugby. I don’t think the Welsh have ever beaten the All-Blacks to they’re usually great games between the two nations.

I have ancestors from Ireland and England.

We've taken 3 out of 33...or thereabouts. You have to understand, though, that this is due entirely to Welsh generosity....our natural inclination to give maximum encouragement to you colonials.

Nah...Kiwis are the best union team in the world...and I have very fond memories of watching them at Cardiff Arms Park as a kid. Very much respected in South Wales....to this day.

 

[Dawnofhope]

We've taken 3 out of 33...or thereabouts. You have to understand, though, that this is due entirely to Welsh generosity....our natural inclination to give maximum encouragement to you colonials.

Nah...Kiwis are the best union team in the world...and I have very fond memories of watching them at Cardiff Arms Park as a kid. Very much respected in South Wales....to this day.

So you have lol

History of rugby union matches between New Zealand and Wales - Wikipedia
The last loss was in 1953 so a few years before I was born!

I don’t hear of too many of your countrymen becoming Muslims. How come the change if you don’t mind me asking?