A CLOSER LOOK AT CHRISTIANITY

--
- - -
Translate:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_m&sl=auto&tl=ms&u=http://aydnajimudeen.blogspot.com/
- - - -
Was Jesus sent to be crucified?
One of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity relates that Jesus died
and allowed for the shedding of his blood forthe sake of granting
forgiveness to people. In other words Jesus died on the cross as a
sacrifice for our sins. Let us investigate this topic from the Bible,
and find out whether Jesus was sent to be crucified and whether he was
crucifiedat all.
Willingness of Jesus Christto die for our sins
Peter and the two sons ofZebedee were with Jesus Christ before the
elders of the people and the chief priests came to takehim to be
crucified. Jesus at this point talked to Peter and the two sons
ofZebedee as in Matthew 26:38 "Then saith he untothem, My soul is
exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry yehere, and watch with
me." Then Jesus went a little further away from them and prayed to God
as in Matthew 26:39 "Andhe went a little farther, and fell on his
face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from me:nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
It is very clear from the above verse in Matthew 26:39 that Jesus had
no intention of dying. In thisverse it is shown that Jesus was praying
strongly (Matthew mentions Jesus repeatingthis prayer three times) to
have this death removed from him. Had Jesus Christ been sent to be
crucified, he would not have hesitated to be killed at all.
God answered the prayers at Jesus Christ
After Jesus made the above mentioned prayer he was answered by God
according to Hebrews 5:7"Who in the days of his flesh, when he had
offered up prayers and supplications with strongcrying and tears unto
him that was able to savehim from death, and was heard in that he
feared." These words clearly showwhen Jesus was praying strongly to
God, God granted him his request. The words "heard in that he feared"
(Hebrews 5:7) mean that God granted him what he requested. So the
above verse showswhen Jesus asked of God to "let this cup pass
from"(Matthew 26:39) him, Godresponded to his prayer and saved him
from death or crucifixion.
Why would Jesus have to die on the cross?
According to the Christiandoctrine, Jesus died on the cross as a
sacrifice forour sins. Every human is born with sins, or all humans
will eventually sin, and therefore it was necessary that someone as
pure as Jesus would becrucified to nullify these sins. The question
is; whydoes anyone have to die for our sins when God, the all
merciful, could as easily grant us forgiveness if we asked for it? Why
does He have to make someone suffer for our sins or for someone else's
sins? Isn't that unjust of Him? According to the Bible the way to
redemption could be obtained without the need for sacrifice. The Bible
says:
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not
bear theiniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon
him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Ezekiel 18:21
But if the wicked will turn fromall his sins that he hath committed,
and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right,he
shall surely live, he shall not die.
Clearly the soul that sins shall die. Clearly, no one shall bear the
iniquity (sins) of others. So Jesus cannot bear the sins of others
either. If one is righteous then it shall be upon him, and if one
commits a sin then it shallbe upon him, and not on Jesus. Finally, the
way to repentance and forgiveness is by turning from all sins, doing
what is right, and keeping the commandments.
Also we see the same message given by Solomon. He says in the book of
Ecclesiastes 12:13"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments:for this is the whole duty of man."
This is the whole message, and this is the conclusion of messages. It
is that one should fear God, keep Hiscommandments, and nothing else.
Again in II Chronicles 7:14"If my people, which are called by my name,
shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from
their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive
their sin, and will heal their land" This clearly states that to seek
forgiveness from God we have to humble ourselves, pray, seek God,and
turn away from wickedness.
Finally the Bible says in I Samuel 15:22 "And Samuel said Hath the
LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying
the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and
to hearken than the fat of rams." This clearly states that obeying God
is better than sacrifice whether this sacrifice is of objects,
animals, or humans, or any other type. What God likes is for us to
heed and obey Him, and if that is what God likes then it is not of Him
to come later and change His mind and His ways. God says in the Holy
Qur'an, "Verily God isAll-Knowing, All-Wise" (9:28).
Now that we have seen this, Christians say that Jesus has changed some
of these laws. Did Jesus come to change laws? Let's look at what Jesus
says. In Matthew 5:17"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Jesus clearly
states that he was not sent to abolish the law, the law of which had
already existed. What is mentioned above cannot be discounted. Then
Jesus continues to say, in Matthew 5:18 and 19 "Forverily I say unto
you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore
shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so,
he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever
shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom
of heaven." Jesus here asserts that not even as much as a tittle (dot)
shallpass from the law. Every thing is kept the way it was. This is
why the previous laws cannot be removed or discarded, and those who
willfully change these laws "he shall be called the least inthe
kingdom of heaven."
Is Jesus the same as God?
In John 10:30 Jesus said,"I and my Father are one"This verse,
according to Christians, shows God and Jesus Christ to be same. On the
other hand, we read in John 20:17,"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not;
for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say
unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and
your God." Here Jesus stated that there was a distinction between him
and God. In other words that Jesus himself had a God. Also, Matthew
27:46"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That isto say, My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me?" Here Jesus Christ cried in loud voice callingfor
his God.
These are two different and opposite ways Jesus relates himself to
God. The first one, he and God are one, and the second; he refers to a
higher authority than him, which is God. Now assuming that both are
correct statements then we have a contradiction. If, for example,
Jesus Christ was God himself as in John 10:30 then it would be more
appropriate for him to say " .and to myself and your God." in John
20:17, or "Myself, Myself, why hast thou forsaken me?" in Matthew
27:46. If, on the other hand, one of them is wrong and the other is
correct then we have to discard the one we believe to be incorrect!
Since God doesnot make mistakes then we no longer believe the Bible is
the word of God (because we believe there is a contradiction of God's
words in the Bible).
A third possibility is that we have to look at how we can interpret
the words of Jesus in those verses. As far as John 20:17 and Matthew
27:46 it is very clear Jesus had aGod whom he prayed to and Whom had a
higher authority than his own. We can back this up with other verses
from the Bible that say, "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I
hear; I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own
will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5:30) Also
Jesus said,"...for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). If Jesus
and God were the same then he would not have said what he said in the
above verses.
Now, the only verse that can be interpreted is John 10:30. It is the
only one that does not render itself clear. The only way John 10:30
could be interpreted such that it does not contradict all the other
verses is by saying that Jesus meant he and God had something in
common.
To find out what the common grounds were, we have to look at the
context in which this verse came:
John 10:27 My sheep hearmy voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
John 10:28 And I giveunto them eternal life; and they shall never
perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. John 10:29 My
Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to
pluck them out of my Father's hand. John 10:30I and my Father are one.
As can be seen from John 10:28 and John 10:29 Jesus was telling the
Jewsthat he and God share something in common, and it was: no one can
pluck the faithful from either of their hands. Thiswas the common
factor between Jesus and God in this case, and not that Jesus was
himself God, or that they were exactly the same.
Let us go on to see what Jesus says in John 10:
John 10:31 Then the Jewstook up stones again to stone him. John 10:32
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father;
for which of those works do ye stone me? John 10:33 The Jews answered
him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and
because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. John 10:34 Jesus
answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and
the scripture cannot be broken; John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the
Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest;
because I said, I am the Son of God?John 10:37 If I do not the works
of my Father, believe me not. John 10:38 But if I do, though ye
believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that
the Father isin me, and I in him. John 10:39 Therefore they sought
again to take him:but he escaped out of their hand, John 10:40 And
went away again beyond Jordan ...
In John 10:31 we see thatthe Jews misunderstood what Jesus had meant
by"I and my Father are one." (John 10:30). And inJohn 10:33 they
accused him of blasphemy. Now, had Jesus been God, or had he and God
been one in a literal sense thenhe wouldn't have hesitated to clarify
the matter at that point. Jesus at that point said,"Is it not written
in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" What he was trying to say was that
if the Jews called "I and my Father are one" blasphemy then they
should call what waswritten in their law "Ye are gods" blasphemy too.
The reasoning behind this is "Ye are gods" does not mean that you, the
Jews, are Gods, it is rather an expression. It just means that you are
godly people. The same applies to "I and my Father are one." It does
not mean that Jesus is God or that he and God are the same literally.
It's just an expression. (The same goes for calling himself "the Son
of God." This statement should notbe taken literally either).
The Holy Qur'an says, " ... Nothing whatsoever (is there) like the
like of Him, and He (alone) is All-Hearing and All-Seeing" (42:11).
Nothing at all is like God, not Moses, not Jesus, not Muhammad, and
certainly nothing of His creation.
Is Jesus the Son of God?
One of the fundamental beliefs in Christianity is the literal sonship
of Jesus Christ to God. This belief comes from the verse in John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life."Also in I John 5:1"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ
is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him
also that is begotten of him." these verses clearly state that Jesus
is the only begotten, and born Son of God.
Let us look at other verses from the Bible to find out whether Jesus
was the only begotten son of God, or that there were more than one.
Alsolet us investigate whether Jesus was the only one born of God.
Finally, let us investigate whether the word begotten is to be taken
literally.
Was Jesus the only begotten son of God?
In the book of Psalms 2:7 we find "I will declare the decree: the LORD
hathsaid unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."
David, in this verse, is saying that God had told him he was the son
of God and God has begotten him. Clearly Jesus is not the only
begotten son of God.
Of course, one could say that although Jesus was not the only begotten
son of God, he had no human father in contrast to David who had a
human father. That is true! Since Jesus had no human father it makes
the relationship betweenhim and God a closer one. The question is
whatabout Adam? Adam had neither human father nora human mother, and
according to the Bible he too was the son of God. The Bible says, "And
Jesushimself began to be about thirty years of age,being (as was
supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23)
The Bible goes on to mention the supposed genealogy of Jesus Christ.
At the end of this genealogy the Bible comes to Adam, and it says,
"Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the
son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38)
So Adam is also the son ofGod. According to the assumption: "because
Jesus had no human father then he is closer toGod than David who had a
human father," we can safely conclude that Adam is better than Jesus
because he did not have a human father or mother.
The truth is Jesus and Adam do not differ in God's sight. They were a
mere creation of God. The Holy Qur'an says in clear terms, "Verily,
similitude of Jesus with God is as the similitude ofAdam; He created
him outof dust then said He unto him BE, and he became." (3:59)
Who was Jesus if not the literal son of God?
According to the Bible in Matthew 21:11 "And the multitude said, This
is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." This was Jesus. He was a
prophet of God, He was sent like other prophets to deliver the message
of his ONE and only ONE God (glory be to Him). Also, in Luke 24:19 the
Bible says"And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him,
Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and
word before God and all the people."
Jesus was a true messenger of God Almighty. He was sent by Him to
deliver His will, The Bible says in John 5:30 "I can of mine own self
do nothing: as I hear,I judge: and my judgment is just; becauseI seek
not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
These are the true characteristics of a prophet. They do as they are
commanded. They are sent to deliver a message, and the only difference
between themand other humans is their utmost righteousness, "mighty
indeed and word" (Luke 24:19) They are the best of all the people of
their time. They are the only ones who could bear andact upon the
commandments of God completely and fully. They are loved by God
because of that, and theirnearness to God comes from that.
The same applies to all other prophets. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ismael,
Isaac, Jacob, Jonah, Moses, Jesus, Jonas, Muhammad and all the other
prophets shared the same qualities. The qualities of those who could
withstand all formsof tribulations in God's name. They all fully
abided by what God has commanded them. The Qur'an says, "Say: (O' Our
Apostle Muhammad!) (unto the People) 'We believe in God and what hath
been sent down to us, and what hath been sent down to Abraham and
Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Tribes, and what was given to
Moses, and Jesusand the Prophets from their Lord, we make no
difference between any of them, and we unto Him are muslims"' (3:84).
(Note that "what was given to Moses, and Jesus" is not the same as the
current Bible written by Paul, John, Luke, Matthew, and so on. Rather
they were the true books of Moses and Jesus. These are not to befound
today.)
Oneness of God
One of the main doctrines in Christianity isthe trinity. This idea
comes from I John 5:7"For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This verseindicates that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one. These
words are John's words and not Jesus words nor God's, but according to
the Christians John was inspired by God, and thatis the reason for
taking his words as the truth. Let us investigate the Bible to see if
God is One and only One, or that He is, or they are three in one.
* tobe contineud...


- - -
And Allah knows best./

Ruling on eating balut (egg containing a dead chick)

--
- - -
Translate:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_m&sl=auto&tl=ms&u=http://aydnajimudeen.blogspot.com/
- - - -
Belut is a fertilized duck or chicken egg that contains a
nearly-developed embryo. This egg is boiled and eaten in the shell.
The prevalent belief here in the Philippines is that it contains a
high level of protein and is good for the heart. It is sold in
themarkets and streets of the Philippines. What is the ruling on
eating this kind of egg?.
Praise be to Allaah.
The description of this egg on some websites is as follows:
Development of the chick usually takes 28 days, but balut is an egg
that has been incubated for only 18 days, during which they get a real
embryo with a primitive skeleton.
When the egg reaches the age of 16-20 days, it is ready to be taken to
market, where it will be boiled for thousands of customers who enjoy
this food. This depends on the size of the egg. The egg that is 18
days old is the best. The sellers wash the eggs thoroughly with
sponges, then when they are perfectly clean, they are put in a pot
andboiled. End quote.
With regard to the ruling on eating the egg with the embryo that is
not fully developed, the ruling is that it is haraam, because it comes
under the heading of eating maytah (something that has died without
being slaughtered properly). Eating maytah is definitely haraam
according to Islam.
The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were asked
about the ruling on eating this egg and they ruled that it is haraam.
They were asked:
When we visited the Philippines, we noticed that the people of that
country commonly eat a dish they call balut. This is a chicken egg
that is placed in an incubator until it develops the form of a small
chick with all its features. Three days before the egg is peeled, they
cook the egg in water until it is done, then they break the egg and
eat the chick that is inside it.
Please advise us of the ruling on eating this food.
They replied:
If the situation is as described, then the chickis regarded as maytah
(something that died without being properly slaughtered) and it is not
permissible to eat it, because it had taken shape inside the egg, and
the prohibition on maytah is something that is well known and well
established in Islam.


- - -
And Allah knows best./

Ruling on feeding dried blood to chickens

--
- - -
Translate:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_m&sl=auto&tl=ms&u=http://aydnajimudeen.blogspot.com/
- - - -
What is the ruling on chickens if they are fed dried blood? A lot of
chickenfeed that chickenfarmers buy to fatten their chickens, both in
this country and abroad,contains dried blood, because in it there is a
kind of protein that helps chickens grow.
Praise be to Allaah.
With regard to feeding chickens or other animals that may be eaten
with impure substances (najasah) such as blood and the like, if it is
a small amount, that does not matter and it does not make them haraam
or make them jallaalah (animals that feed on filth and dung); rather
the jallaalah should be detained until it becomes pure and clean,if
most of its food is impure (najis).
But if only a small amount of the animal's food is impure (najis),
then it does not have any impact and it does not make the animal
haraam, so long as the ratio is 20% or 30% and so on. This does not
matter. Rather what makes it haraam is if the ratio is more than that
- 60% or 70%. If this is the ration, then the animal is regarded as
jallaalah, so it should be detained so that it can be given good and
pure food andwater. If it has been detained for a suitable number of
days, then it becomes pure and is halaal. This applies if theimpure
material is the majority of what it eats. The time for detaining
animals varies. Chickens should be detained for three days, and that
is enough for them to be fed good food and goodwater. Other animals,
such as sheep, cattle andthe like should be detained for longer
thanthat, such as seven days or more, so that they canbe given good
food and water, and their flesh becomes good (halaal) after that. We
have asked many of those who have knowledge of this matter, and they
said that what is fed to chickens of dried blood is a small amount in
comparison to other, pure food.


- - -
And Allah knows best./

Ruling on eating chicken that was fed hormones or ground meat

--
- - -
Translate:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_m&sl=auto&tl=ms&u=http://aydnajimudeen.blogspot.com/
- - - -

Does the meat of chickengrown by giving steroidsis halal evenif it is
slaughtered correctly?
Praise be to Allaah.
If the manufactured food or medicines did not contain anything harmful
or impure (najis), there is nothing wrong with eating chickens to whom
they were fed, if they have been slaughtered in the proper shar'i
manner by a Muslim or a kitaabi (i.e., Jew or Christian).
But if the feed or medicine is harmful to man, and will make him sick,
for example, it is haraam to feed them to chickens and to eat those
chickens, because Allah says (interpretationof the meaning):
"and do not throw yourselves into destruction"
[al-Baqarah 2:195].
And the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said:
"There should be neitherharming not reciprocating harm." Narrated by
Ibn Maajah (2431) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Irwa'
al-Ghaleel (896).
If the feed is naajis (impure), such as meat from animals that died
without being slaughtered properly (maytah) or blood and so on, that
may be put inthe feed, then the matter is subject to further
discussion.
Is most of the feed is made from those impuresubstances or from taahir
(pure) things suchas grains and the like?
If most of the feed is pure, it is permissible to eat it, and there is
nothing wrong with that.
But if most of its feed is naajis (impure) -- this is what the
scholars call "an animal that feeds onfilth" -- it is not permissible
to eat unless it has been detained andfed with taahir food thatwill
make its meat good.
Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen said in al-Sharh al-Mumti' (11/298):
The animal that feeds onfilth is one whose food ismostly impure (najaasah).
There are two scholarly views concerning this: one view is that it is
haraam because it has been nourished by impure matter that has an
effect on its meat.
The other view is that it is halaal. This is based onthe idea that
impure things become pure when they undergo a transformation. They
said: The impurity that it ate has been transformed into blood, flesh
and the like that grows in the body, so it is taahir. End quote.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) forbade the
milk of an animal that feeds on filth or impurity, but if the animal
is detained until it becomes pure, then it is halaal according to
Muslim consensus, because before that the effect of the impurity could
be seen in its milk, eggs and sweat, so it gave off a rotten and evil
stench. Once that is removed, it becomes taahir (pure). If the ruling
is established for a reason, it ceases to apply once that reason isno
longer present.

- - -
And Allah knows best./