Studying Islam

Post Reply

Username

Invalid Username or Password

Password

Format

Message Icon

Message

- Forum Code is ON
- HTML is OFF

Smilies

[quote]Salam All,

Indeed it is quite an interesting point to say the least.  Let me say that I've read the verses of the Bible that puport the Second Coming of Christ and really I think they are implicit and not explicit in nature.  What I'm trying to find out now is whether this doctrine of Second Advent was developed at a later date as was the Trinity, God-ship of Jesus etc...  This would answer a lot.

Mr. Hanif writes:

[b]He told me that the Bible also talks about the second coming of Jesus (pbuh) and the Holy Qur'an has not negated this like it rebutted the claims of Trinity and the crucifixion.[/b]

First, I would appreciate the verses be cited.  Regarding why the Qur'an has not rebutted the claims of the Second Coming, I would have to say that I find them a bit hard to buy.  We don't know for sure what the beliefs were.  We don't know if this belief had/has any great consequence that the Qur'an would have negated.  In other words, is this belief detrimental to the entirety of the Message of God?  Was this even a priority to tackle?  We can only conjecture as to why the Qur'an has not spoken on this issue, positively or negatively.  Because the Qur'an does not negate something, does that make the belief valid?  God sent His Message to mankind, that is what we are supposed to believe.  In other words we have been given the doctrine to follow anything outside of this doctrine isn't really part of the Message of God.  Correct?

Let me add that the two concepts are grave matters to the very foundation of Islam:

1. Trinity = Shirk.  Co-deifying others with God.
2. Crucifixion = Shirk.  Because through this act salvation is achieved.  In other words a man, through his flesh saves the world rather than God's mercy or justice.  So the powers of salvation are transferred to sacrifice rather than belonging to God.
3. Second Coming = (fill in the blanks and explain the harm)

Mr. Hanif writes:

[b]This shows that the Holy Qur'an has tacitly endorsed the second advent of Jesus (pbuh). If it were against the divine principles and scheme,the Holy Qur'an would have talked about it.[/b]

I respectfully disagree.  Because I don't say "no" to something does that mean I approve of it?  I think that's a bit of a stretch.  If there were such an endorsement, the Qur'an may have inconspicuously alluded to it.  Instead it is completely silent regarding the issue.  Is that approval?  Also, please explain how the return of Jesus would be "against the divine principles and scheme?"

Mr. Hanif writes:

[b]He further elightened me that the second advent of Jesus (pbuh) will have nothing to do with the Muslims. It means that the Muslims would not be required to profess faith in him.[/b]

If it has nothing to do with Muslims then it has nothing to do with God's message, right?  Why is it incumbant upon us to believe in the first Jesus but not his second appearance?  If he returns to rectify the corrupted message of Christians then surely he'd be reinforcing the message of Islam to them.  How could that have nothing to do with Muslims?  How could we not profess faith in such a man who is a Prophet of God?

Both Zest and Aslam raise some very good points, that I hope will be discussed.

It seems to me that this concept is attempting gel in with the ahadith we have regarding this issue.  However, to me, so far it does not harmonize with the ahadith nor the Qur'an.

I look forward to comments.

Wassalam

Edited by - ronnie on January 12 2004  12:12:58[/quote]

Mode

Check here to be notified by email whenever someone replies to your topic

Show Preview