HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ijaz@ccu.UManitoba.CA (Tahir Ijaz)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: JESUS HAS DIED - The Hadiths -Part III.
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:29:13 GMT
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Originator: zeeshan@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Zeeshan Hasan -Moderator)
X-Posted-From: occs.cs.oberlin.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


Part III:                    PROPHET JESUS HAS DIED:  THE HADITH
****************************************************************




The fact that Jesus (peace be upon him) is dead is  clearly  men-
tioned in the sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him).

These will be outlined below:

1) "If Jesus and Moses had been alive, they  would  have  had  no
choice  but  to  follow me." (Kathir vol II, p 245 and al yawaqit
wal Jawahir, part 2, page 24).

2)  "Jesus son of Mary lived for 120 years, and I see  myself  as
only entering upon the beginning of the sixties." (Kanz al Ummal,
part 6, p.120).

3)  In Bukhari, it is reported that in the spiritual event  known
as  the  miraj,  the  Prophet  saw  Yahya and Jesus in the second
heaven. If Yahya is dead, then Jesus is dead, for the dead do not
keep company with the living.

4)  In Bukhari, it is recorded that after the death of  Muhammad,
some  of  the companions, among them Umar ibn al-Khattab, doubted
he was really dead. However, Abu Bakr, ascended to the pulpit  in
the  Mosque  and  recited  the Quranic verse:  Muhammad is only a
Messenger.  All Messengers before him have passed  away.   If  he
dies, or is killed, will you then turn upon your heels? (3:145).

After the short speech and recitation of this verse, the  compan-
ions  realized that indeed, the Prophet Muhammad had passed away.
NO ONE OBJECTED THAT JESUS OR ANY OTHER  PROPHET  HAD  NOT  DIED.
EVERYONE  ACCEPTED  AND  CONFIRMED THE DEATH OF ALL PREVIOUS PRO-
PHETS.  THIS WAS THE FIRST IJMA OR CONSENSUS OF THE  MUSLIM  COM-
MUNITY.

5)  The family of the Prophet Muhammad were also  agreed  on  the
death  of  Jesus.   Imam Hasan, recounting the events relating to
the death of Ali, stated, "he (Ali) died during the 27th night of
the month of Ramadan, the same night that the spirit of Jesus was
raised to heaven." (Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad, vol III Page 26).

The words of the Prophet, his family, and his companions all  in-
dicate that Jesus passed away like all mortals.



Dr. Tahir Ijaz, M.D.
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
From: cl056@cleveland.freenet.edu (Hamaza H. Salah)
Subject: Al Baqarah #143
Originator: zeeshan@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Zeeshan Hasan -Moderator)
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:05:51 GMT
X-Posted-From: occs.cs.oberlin.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Found this interesting fact about this verse in Sorat Al-Baqarah:

143. And thus We have made you a medium (just) nation that you
may be the bearers of witness to the people and (that) the
Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you; and We did not make
that which you would have to be the qiblah but that We might
distinguish him who follows the Apostle from him who turns back
upon his heels, and this was surely hard except for those whom
Allah has guided aright; and Allah was not going to make your
faith to be fruitless; most surely Allah is Affectionate,
Merciful to the people.
     
Note that the total number of verses in this Sorat is 286.
Half of it is 143, which is the number of this verse.  This
verse also says "And thus we have made you a  m e d i u m  
nation."  

"Can't they study the Quran?  And if it were not the words of 
God, they would have found so many differences and disputes."
-- 
                  ___________________ cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu _____________
                 (______   _  |   _  |_
_____ H A M Z A ________) |-| |_ |-| | |
From: srose@mizar.usc.edu (Steve Rose)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: What is  H a m a s  ??
Date: 4 Jan 1993 12:57:34 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: srose@mizar.usc.edu (Steve Rose)
NNTP-Posting-Host: spiff.gnu.ai.mit.edu
Keywords: justice humanity Truth
Originator: gwydion@spiff.gnu.ai.mit.edu

Assalamu alaykum.

I was disturbed to read about an attempt to justify murdering people based
upon a distorted understanding of the Holy Quran, and gladdened to read
of attempts of Muslims (specifically Basalat Ali Raja) to attempt to
clarify the situation.

I am just beginning to read the Holy Quran, but from my limited reading so
far, it seems very clear that the Message was one of respect for any 
"people of the book": which seems to specifically include Jews and Christians.
To use the term "Mushriqeen" which apparently means idolators/unbelievers
to apply to Jews or Christians seems to be contrary to what I understand
as the Message of the Quran.

This Message seems to be one of unity, oneness, and justice.  I have no
problem with people fighting against injustice - whether committed by the
state of Israel, the state or Iraq, the state of Serbia, or the United States.
In fact, as a progressive Jew, I have on numerous occasions fought against
injustices committed by Israel and by the United States.  I have worked for
a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, which seems to offer at least
some possibility of justice for both peoples.

I have great problems, however, with people who attempt to justify murderous
behavior on either side by references to their holy books (this is true
whether the murder is by kidnapping and stabbing to death or by shooting to
death of a 7 year old girl).  My guess is that Moses, Jesus, and Muhammed 
(may peace be upon all of them) would have problems with this as well.

Yours truly,

Steve Rose



Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
From: "A. R. Abid" <aa2g+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Info needed
Originator: zeeshan@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Zeeshan Hasan -Moderator)
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:29:54 GMT
X-Posted-From: occs.cs.oberlin.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

I need info about translation(s) in english of Quranic verses. The
verses must be classified into different subjects. I know of one such
book by Taj Company (Pakistan) called "Quranic Verses". Does anyone know
of translation(s) by other publisher(s)/author(s)?

All help will be greatly appreciated.




Thank you

A. R. Abid
aa2g@andrew.cmu.edu
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:07:22 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <Jan.6.01.43.17.1993.2716@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
revc@garg.campbell.ca.us (Bob Van Cleef) writes:

|> I have seen NOTHING in the teachings on birth control that makes sense
|> in the end. If I KNOW my wife cannot get pregnant, for whatever reason,
|> then I know the sexual act is not open to procreation. That appears to
|> me to violate the "letter of the law." Where does the _artificial_ 
|> constraint come from? What is artificial? ANY act to prevent procreation
|> would be wrong if ALL sexual acts MUST be open to procreation.

Hi, Bob-

The hub of the argument for NFP and against contraception 
is that there's a difference between 
	destroying or suppressing a good thing (fertility/procreation)
and
	simply noting the absence of that good thing.

Although I liked Steve's response, his use of the word "artificial" can be
misleading, because the problem with contraception is not the use of 
"artificial"/technological means vs. "natural"/simple means.   Rather, the
problem with contraception is that it -- by an express act -- suppresses or
destroys fertility.   NFP, on the other hand, accomplishes the purpose of
avoiding conception not through any positive act, but by *not* doing certain
acts; that is, by not having intercourse during the fertile time.  Since 
omitting a good act (with sufficient reason) is morally permissible, NFP (when
used with sufficient reason) is considered permissible by the Church.

I'm sure some folks will still not agree with the teaching, but I hope this 
helps to make the issue clearer.

---
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu, Usenet addict, INTP
See you at the March for Life Jan 22 in DC!
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Preaching to the Moderns
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:48:06 GMT

In article <Dec.24.02.19.31.1992.15706@geneva.rutgers.edu>, you write:
|> 1:18  Why is the virgin birth important to the Christian faith?  Jesus
|> Christ, God's Son, had to be free from the sinful nature passed on to
|> all other human beings by Adam.  Because Jesus was born of a woman,
|> he was a human being; but as the Son of God, Jesus was born without any
|> trace of human sin.  Jesus is both fully human and fully divine.

Well, since I believe that Adam's sin is passed on to the next generation
*after* birth, it fails to accomplish its purpose (in this regard).

To avoid Adam's sin it would have been necessary for God himself to raise
Jesus, not his human parents.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: fischer@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (W. T. Fischer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 8 Jan 93 06:00:21 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

In <Jan.6.02.02.28.1993.2914@geneva.rutgers.edu> 
jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John F Nielsen) writes:

>It is immoral for two people who are certifiably 100% sterile to have
>sex. Obviously they would not be having sex for the purpose of procreation.
>If so why?


Because it's fun.


W. T. Fischer

Internet: fischer@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
From: poram%mlsma@att.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dodd and Gandi
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:13:00 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Jan.11.03.56.05.1993.21500@geneva.rutgers.edu> eng10524@nusunix1.nus.sg (RAMASWAMI VISHWANATH) writes:
>
>	This is exacty my qustion - what is the meaning ofthe fact that
>presumably Gandhi would never go to Heaven just 'cos he never accepted 
>Jesus . What then is the reward for all the unselfish deeds that he did
>throughout his life ? He  will still go to hell just cos he did not do
>what Dodd did ? This logic is perplexing and leaves me with very little
>satisfaction in Christianity that has no room for rewarding those who
>really were exemplifying and strived for the good of everyone ; rather
>those who can 'repent' and accept Him as God can be ofrgiven totally ?
Dear Ramaswami
You ask some good questions, which the Bible does not leave
unanswered. Indeed it might be said that the book of Romans
covers the topic. 

God's criteria for entering heaven is a turning away from self
to God and accepting a free gift: because all have sinned and
fallen short of the glory of God (ie failed to make the grade)
then we all need an escape route - because for even the best of
us our own righteousness is as filthy rags. 

What the Bible goes on to say is that without faith it is not
possible to please God at all - and that until a person comes to
the point of accepting Christ they remain under the judgement of
God, as a sinner. 'For the wages of sin is death, but the free
gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ'. 

Jesus Christ is God's chosen means of getting to him : 'I am the
way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the father but
by me' (John 14.6)
I think that a comparison between the life of Dodd and the life
of Gandhi as to which of them is a more suitable candidate for
heaven is misleading: since we do not attain heaven by our
works. (Interesting one of the top Nazis von Ribbentrof also was
saved immediately prior to his death after a life of crimes against
humanity.)
Since God does not save us according to our merits, we should not
expect only the best people to attain salvation - it is by grace
that he has mercy on whom he wills. My appeal to you is to avail
yourself of the opportunity: seek the Lord while he may be
found.

>WHERE then is the incentive for people to be good rather than just use 
>Christ as a crutch and go to Heaven ? Does this also not mean that
>CHRISTIANS can be in a sense seen as selfish in that whatever good they
>do it is boarne out of their desire to ultimately escape the dungeons of
>hell rather than out of true need to be good to their friends and so
>forth ?
It is also Christian experience that we do not generally become
worse people after we are saved. God actually does a work in our
hearts, putting the spirit of sonship within us so that we feel
affinity for God and his purposes and kinship with other
christians. And we are called to be a people of good deeds.
Read the book of Romans - and feel free to get back to myself
with any queries. Hope this helps.

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Evangelizing  Jewish Friends
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:52:03 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

I just wanted to let people know of the existence of alt.messianic
in case they didnot already know.

It's a good forum for this kind of thing and if you're interested then
please read my advertisement there.

Thanks

Vijay (ucakrvb@uk.ac.ucl)
From: shetler@eemips.tamu.edu (Joy Shetler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Gospel According to me
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:22:24 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University

In article <Jan.5.03.30.22.1993.1060@geneva.rutgers.edu> labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com writes:
>When witnessing, most of the Christians always says "According to the
>Gospel of Matthew, MArk Luke & John..this...& that...etc" at least
>that's how a brother witness to me....he quoted a lot of stuff from the
>Gospel of M,M,L,J....but nothing about what God has done to
>him..........

I think a lot of this approach comes from 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul
explains the importance of using the scripture.  Sometimes it is easy
to forget that we are to base our lives on what we interpret God's word
to say to us with the light that we are given.

>In my opinion (again only my opinion) We better start
>telling the GOSPEL according us, individually...what God has done to our
>lives, Our experience with God etc..etc...Matthew,Mark,Luke or John
>cannot speak for us, Only us can tell others what God has done in our
>own lives.....I think you can effectively witness to others if you tell
>the Gospel According to you...... 

Yes, I agree that we also need to bring our personal testimony into everything
we do.  We need to not only tell others of the great work that God has done
in our lives but live so that others can see Christ in us.  That usually means
a lot more than warming a pew and involves not so much sacrificing our personal
wants and desires as much as LIVING as God intended us to live.  Very few
needy people are going to be moved through the self-effort of somebody bragging
about their lives.  Somehow this has to be mixed with prayer, God's timing for
that individual, and people who can truly love the person that is being
"witnessed" to. 

Joy Shetler, Texas A&M University
From: kwyatt@ccscola.columbiasc.ncr.com (Kershner Wyatt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:07:41 GMT
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC

In article <Jan.5.03.44.49.1993.1320@geneva.rutgers.edu> rainbow@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Donita Thompson) writes:
>What really blew me away this morning during his interview was
>when he said that "because I have found Jesus, I get to go to
>heaven." WHAT??!!!
>Imagine the 3 little dead boys' faces when Dodd shows up at the
>Pearly Gates!
>[I'm sure all of us will be in for some surprises.  One may doubt the
>reality of some claimed conversions -- whether they are based on a
>real Christian repentance.  But I hope you are not suggesting that
>child molestation is unforgiveable.  --clh]

I have to agree with clh here.  I, like everyone else, have my own opinions
about good and bad and where I fit in the great scheme of things.  It is not
my place to determine whether a person deserves to go to Heaven or not, it
is the Lord's decision and standards which determine it.  I have days
when I feel that the Lord is in everything I do, but there are many times
when Satan is definitely placing doubt, concern, and mistrust in me.  I hope
that when the time comes that I will have earned eternal salvation, yet I 
falter much more in my faith than I would like to admit.

Now when I look at someone facing execution or suicide, I always wonder what
goes through their mind.  Are they at peace with the Lord?  Are they certain
of salvation or in some respects - that there isn't a hell?  I believe
wholeheartedly in both places and I wouldn't want to take a chance that it's
a bunch of stuff and find out otherwise.

If these criminals say that they feel in their heart that they are saved, that
is between them and the Lord -- not for me as a fallible human to determine.


-- 
Kershner Wyatt
kwyatt@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com

My opinions are my own and aren't necessarily my employer's.
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ?'s
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:47:17 GMT

In article 6107@geneva.rutgers.edu, shrum@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Rick Shrum) writes:
> Some questions:
> 
> 1) The concept of eternity; I mean God has *always* existed. I find it
>    hard to imagine there being no beginning.

I'll take a stab at this one...

The Bible makes claims that point toward the transcendence of God, that  
he exists in dimensions apart from our experience. One of those claims is
of his existence "prior to" or "apart from" the existence of the universe. 
Since time as we know it originated at the big bang, existence apart from 
the big bang implies additional dimensions of time. If this is true and 
God exists in multiple dimensions of time, then the whole concept of a 
"begining" becomes absurd. In two dimensions of time, where is the "begining"
of a plane? In three dimensions, where is the "begining" of a sphere? The 
whole question "who created God" implies a linear timeline, an invalid
assumption if transcendence is one of his attributes.

---
Dave Weaver                | "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |  gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)
From: pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ?'s
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:59:07 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <Jan.7.01.27.14.1993.6107@geneva.rutgers.edu> shrum@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Rick Shrum) writes:
>Some questions:
>
>1) The concept of eternity; I mean God has *always* existed. I find it
>   hard to imagine there being no beginning.

Well, yes. I think it's fundamentaly impossible for us to really
comprehend the attributes of god, particulalrly those that are
incommunicable (unable to be inherent in non-god beings). I find it
hard to imagine no end, infinity, or unchangeability either. I find
it hard to comprehend myself (in God's image) but I can get a bit farther.
We can think about God, but we can't think about God like God thinks about
God. ( a statue can look like me, but it is impossible to be like me
in certain specific ways)

>2) If God is unchanging, why did he seem so much more harsh in the OT?

1) Jesus talks more about hell than anyone else in the bible.
2) God, didn't change, but the historical situation changed. Christ's
death and ressurection gives life to the world, and it lives on borrowed
"church time" ( to obfuscate a bit, sorry). Also, the OT might not really
be as harsh as you think. Our ideas of harsh have to be informed by
what God considers "harsh".

>3) On the cross, Jesus asked why God had forsaken him. Didn't he have
>   total faith?

Our moderator's response was a good one.

paul duggan
From: vek@allegra.att.com (Van Kelly)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Protestant convent?
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:41:23 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, USA

The Evangelical Fellowship (a Lutheran group in Germany) runs a string
of Deaconries in Germany, the U.S., Japan, and maybe elsewhere.  The
deaconesses do not live a strictly cloistered lifestyle, but they do
live communally, wear habit-like uniforms, and practice rigorous
disciplines of simplicity.  Their deaconry in my home town hosts a
summer camp, nursing home, retreat center, concert series (sort of),
Bible conferences, and bookstore.  They also run a sort of "novice"
program for young women, though not specifically focussed on producing
more deaconesses; i.e., further training beyond their "novitiate" is
required to become a deaconess, and relatively few novices complete
this additional training.


Van Kelly
AT&T Bell Laboratories
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: CREMATION
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:01:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

In article <Jan.3.21.30.49.1993.28033@geneva.rutgers.edu> SECBH@cunyvm.bitnet writes:
>As his body was incredibly cachexic and disfigured
>they felt that they would have to have it cremated so that the
>mother would not question their story based on the appearance
>of his corpse.
>
>After this was done they proceded to attempt to arrange the funeral.
>The family were Irish Catholics.  The parish priest not only refused
>to allow a funeral in the church, but until shortly before the
>beginning of the wake refused to even come to the funeral parlour
>or to agree to conduct a graveside ceremony.

What you seem to be saying (correct me if I am wrong) is that
the body was first cremated and THEN they asked for a funeral.
I am sure it is not just with Catholics that the usual way is
to have things the other way round. The cremation is taken to
be the equivalent of the interment - you do not first bury
someone, then have a funeral in the graveyard.

In any case, since they knew the man was dying, why did they
not make arrangements with the priest in advance? If he were a
believing Catholic, surely he would have wanted to receive the
sacraments before his death. These days the Church is
tightening up on people who don't really believe or practice,
but just want to employ it for a bit of prettification, so I
should think the priest would be right to be annoyed that they
didn't even contact him until after the body was burnt.

The funeral service is a particular service of blessing with
the body present. It is not a sacrament or a necessary thing
for salvation. Since in this case it was clearly against
accepted practice to hold a funeral, why couldn't they have
just asked for a solemn requiem mass, which can be held at any
time?

Matthew Huntbach

[I think we've had as much discussion of cremation as makes sense, but
I agree with Matthew's point that the discussion seems to have missed
this distinction.  I looked again at the canon that David Cruz-Uribe
posted.  It does seem to envision funeral services taking place at the
point of cremation, as you say.  On the other hand, I'm not convinced
that this clarification alone resolves the problem that SECBH
complained about.  The complaint was more about the priest's attitude
than anything else.  --clh]