Is The Passion offensive to Muslims?

[skjpm]

Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, but they don't believe he died on the cross. They believe his prayers in the Garden were heard by God and answered, and thus, someone else died in Jesus' place. The Passion paints an entirely non-Muslim view of Jesus, and I wonder if there have been any comments from the Islam community.

I'm not sure which forum this should go in, but I've read posts on the Passion in this one.

[DrWeird]

1. How about the lounge.

That's where the jokes go.

[skjpm]

4. What's the joke? eom

[NWHarkness]

2. How does that offend Muslims?

It merely presents a point of view they don't agree with.

[skjpm]

3. Well, maybe not offensive, exactly

but it shows that their views are not worth serious consideration. Only "our" texts are holy--theirs can be ignored when trying to present a "true" picture of Jesus.

[DrWeird]

5. You know that muslims believe in the second coming, right?

And that they have the utmost respect for christians?

At least as far as dogma is concerned.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[_Jumper_]

20. Where does Islam say that?

n/t

[jimsteuben]

22. Check your Koran

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

Don't misunderstand me. I know that there are similar passages of divinely-ordained murder in the Bible, and that there are modern schools of Islam which eschew violence against us infidels, but let's not kid ourselves about who Mohammad actually was. He was not merely a swarthier version of Jesus, but created a religion that from the start was more like an Amway program for pirates. Read _Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries_ by Paul Fregosi (Prometheus Books: 1998).

[_Jumper_]

26. Context?

I am told that they were specific political messages made in a climate of conflict. Muhammad was a politician, not a "prophet." He said what was convenient at the time and it was convenient to say such things at some points. Moreover, the famous first quote was taken out of context. It was a statement of what military action to take as a last resort. I am being mislead? Was he making general statements about Islamic beliefs?

Idolaters refers to pagans, not Christians.

[Sufi Marmot]

29. I've read Fregosi - it's incredibly slanted...

Basically he documents the expansion of Muslim empires into Europe, with all the attendant massacres and bloodshed, and tries to argue that because Islamic empires conquered new territories, that Islam itself is a bloodthirsty religion. Lots of gory details about piles of skulls of conquered Christian knights who refused to convert to Islam - mostly during the Ottoman expansion. Of course the flaw in his argument is that he fails to separate religion from imperial expansion. And he glosses over the Crusades entirely - basically he tries to make a special case out of Islam, when the entire history of the world is rife with similar behavior.

Even a cursory reading of history will reveal that adherents of EVERY major religion conducted (what we today would consider) atrocities in the context of imperial expansion and territorial conquest. Hell, Buhhdist kingdoms faught all over China and Central Asia.

You might consider reading Karen Armstrong's Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World for a somewhat more balanced look at the tension between Islamic, Christian, and Jewish factions, including examples of Muslim tolerance of Christian kingoms in the Holy Land.

-SM

[GreyV]

30. Islamic Intolerance...

Look at the expansion of Ottoman empire during 16th and 17th century. Most of the territories conquered by the Ottomans were previously held by Christians. All Churches were left alone, as well any non-Muslims who wished to remain there. No forced conversion occurred. In case of Balkans, some people even greeted Muslim conquerers as saviors because their own "nobles" were mistreating and taxing them to death. Non-Muslims could not hold any higher government positions, except in special cases and had to pay slightly higher taxes, but that was it. Once those territories were retaken by Christians anything Muslim was slaughtered or destroyed. Including any and all mosques, schools, and government buildings. Any Christian converts to Islam were made examples of ...mostly beheaded or put into slavery. Later on when the territories where conquered again by the Ottomans, as in the case of western Balkans, all churches were left alone as well any non-Muslims. No revenge. Nothing. This went on for almost 400 years. So much for Islamic intolerance. Who saved the Jews when European Christians began their infamous "Spanish Inquisition"? Ottomans that's who.

[PsychoDad]

42. Please check your sources...

And please use in context..
"..drive them out of the places whence they drove you out." 2:191
This is a statement that to take back from the Meccans, what was taken from the Muslims, Total war was needed. The Meccans had driven the Muslims from their homes because the Muslims worshiped one God, and denounced the 300 idols of the Meccans. If someone had driven you by force from your home and killed members of your family, what would you do?
And notice the very next verse.
"But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." 2:192
If those who fought with muslims wished to cease hostilities, The muslims were compeled to stop and forgive.

We read in Surah 2, verses 190 – 193 of the Qur’an:
*{Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. Allah does not love those who practice aggression.
The aggressors against you should be killed wherever you come across them and expel them from where they expelled you.
Fitna (persecution and oppression) is worse than killing. Do not fight them in the Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there. But if they do fight you, then kill them. That is how the disbelievers should be repaid.
But if they cease, Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

This was the first verse concerning fighting, which was revealed in Madinah. Ever since it was revealed, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) used to fight only those who fought him, and he avoided non-combatants. It was pure self-defense after enduring oppression for years. This passage should be compared with Surah 9, verse 36:
*{… and fight against the Mushrikun (polytheists) collectively as they fight against you collectively}*

And 5:54 is just wrong... The real verse 5:54 states-
O you who believe! Whoever from among you turns back from his religion (Islâm), Allâh will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers, fighting in the Way of Allâh, and never afraid of the blame of the blamers. That is the Grace of Allâh which He bestows on whom He wills. And Allâh is All­Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All­Knower.

And "fighting in the Way of Allah had some very clear rules of engagement". Those being:

No mutilating the dead
No Theft of captured goods
No killing of women, children and elderly people who do not participate in warfare
No killing of priests and residents of houses of worship near the battlefields
No burning or chopping down trees or crops
No killing animals for no real benefit

Hope this helps to explain the context of the verses.
Peace

[GreyV]

45. Don't bother.... He's gone...

Just another drive-by-posting. These people have their own extremist agenda, and I don't think anybody can do anything about that.

[Exultant Democracy]

51. It is very well documented that for conquerors the

Muslims showed remarkable restraint considering the period of time in which the majority of their expansion took place. Where the Christian used Inquisition to enforce religious conformity, the Muslims used a virtually bloodless system that mostly dealt with taxes. Christians and Jews converted to Islam in droves, not because of fear for their life, but out of concern for their pocket books.

If you are going to read a book that is trash, then I suggest reading some real history to, so that you can understand the whole truth. The Muslims have spilled far less blood then any of the other people of the book, and they aren't even close to catching up.

[brainwashed_youth]

6. *sigh*

It's a movie based on the New Testament, not the Koran.

Ya know, I've finally figured out why all these people are upset with Mel's film. They don't have a problem with the film, they have a problem with the New Testament. They really are offended when somebody doesn't make a movie the way they think it should be. It's sad to say most of this comes from the Left.

*sigh* Sometimes the idiot lefties make the right look good

[DrWeird]

7. Seems more like it's based on antisemitism.

Specifically the passion plays that fueled antisemitism for hundreds of years.

It's not really based on the new testament, since they leave out the important bits like:

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23 v 34)

If people get upset because we attack the movie, then I say good. Fuck em.

People who get their spirituality from a two hour jaunt in a shopping mall movie theater deserve to be offended.

[brainwashed_youth]

8. wrong again

Gibson leaves that part in the movie. And passion plays only fueled the antisemitism for those who were already antisemitic. Really, I used to be willing to listen to people who said the film might be anitsemitic.....now I just laugh at them. I mean, I've heard Jew after Jew after Jew say this film is not antisemitic.

[cally]

9. The movie is based on Mel Gibson's and a specific

sect of Catholicism's interpretation of the New Testament. I haven't seen it, but I know clerics I respect say about the movie. I know many think this is the Christian interpretation of the New Testament but that is not what many clerics are saying.

I personally find it offensive to revive the idea that the Jews killed Jesus. That misinterprets the lessons of the crucifiction and allows too many believers a free pass.

[brainwashed_youth]

12. he's not reviving anything

He's simply telling the story of the Passion. If that offends you, than that's your problem.

Nobody is gonna come out of that movie feeling antisemitic if they weren't antisemitic before they saw it

[cally]

13. It does offend me because

it is not the gospel I know. I understand that you believe differently but I'm deeply offended by your tone that your belief is the only one. You really need to study more and learn that many other Christians believe very differently than the story Gibson portrays.

[ermoore]

14. What Gospel do you know?

Mel based this on Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those are the gospels accepted and cannonized by the vast, vast, vast majority of Christian churches, denominations, and sects. I know there are other gospels (Thomas and probably something different believed by Unitarian Universalists), but these are the "Four Gospels," capital G.

Secondly, he's just telling it like it is in the Gospels. The Gospels do not agree with each other on every single little-bitty detail, but I think most of it isn't really questionable.

And this anti-semitic stuff is nonsense. Most of the people who are really gonna dig on this movie are gonna be the kind of people who really dig on Israel, ie. evangelical Christians. If the movie does paint a picture that isn't exactly favorable to the Jews of Jesus' time, well, then hey, the pharisees did plot to have him crucified and the crowds did cheer for Barnabas' release instead. I mean these are pretty damn crucial things for Christianity, not just the Passion. Jesus had to die, had to be crucified. How do you leave that out?

Finally the dude above is totally right. This fuss is all about people getting upset b/c they don't like someone saying "I'm Christian and this is what I believe and I believe it unconditionally, and I'm sorry if you don't, but you are wrong." And why in the world would Muslims be offended? That is ridiculous. Muslims may (and do) disagree with what happened (like the Resurrection), but that's no reason to get offended (or care if they do). I mean, do you care if a Fundie (or a Muslim) is offended b/c of someone talking about evolution? Would you care if a Muslim, Jew, or Christian was offended because of a movie about the life of the Buddha? C'mon . . .

[cally]

15. It's an interpretation of the gospels

because it's a movie. Some parts of the Bible are emphasized and others not. It's a group of folks visualization of the story of Jesus and conveys their own beliefs. I don't believe that a movie interpretation has the same weight as the Bible, do you? I have no problem with any group of believers stating their own beliefs. I do care if others are offended. More so since many Christian groups have worked decades to build bridges to other faiths.

[ermoore]

17. Fine, but . . .

No two interpretations are the same, so how do you expect to never offend anyone. I mean, are you never supposed to make a movie that contains something that others are offended by or disagree with? How can you control or predict or even know what will offend people? Anything you do will offend someone.

I doubt you particularly care that many people are offended by the nudity, language, violence, etc. that fill so many other movies today. Where's your outrage there?

The fact is you don't care about people who are offended by movies by Kevin Smith or David Lynch b/c those people are (and I hate to generalize here, but . . .) Christians, stiffs, puritans, close-minded, etc.

And no one is saying that Mel's movie has the same weight as the Bible or that it is divinely inspired. And what does this have to do with ecumenical or interfaith programs? Does Mel have the Disciples insulting the Buddha's mother or something? Does the Holy Spirit steal Ganesh's sweets or beat Muhammed in a game of 21?

[SonofMass]

46. You are out of place here. Stop using common sense.

You are making too much sense for this thread.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cally]

25. Oh great!

Pussy? Yeah, I'm a woman and extremely offended by your use of pussy to denigrate my ideas.

[Ysabel]

35. arrrrrgh...!!!

please take debate class 101 over again...

p.s. - just to make myself clear - that was for the pussy comment - damn it...!

[Trajan]

47. Im not worried about offending you ...

The gospels are nothing but hogwash ...

and Mel Gibson is a dumbshit fanatic ...

There: .. I hope you are not offended by my free speech rights ...

Swords and Torches anyone ? ...

[BiggJawn]

54. Good thing you didn't say "Fairy Tales"...

or your thread would be locked. Just saw that from Skinner himself.

Hmmm....That's MY favourite epithet for the writings that have brought more misery into the world than anything..."Faerie Tales"

[Exultant Democracy]

52. What a joke

OK I just have to point out one thing.

"And this anti-semitic stuff is nonsense. Most of the people who are really gonna dig on this movie are gonna be the kind of people who really dig on Israel, ie. evangelical Christians. "

You do understand why the fundies "dig" Israel, it isn't because they like Jews. They believe that it is important to get all the Jews there so that Armageddon will start up and the vast majority of the Jews will die right there, and few that survive will stop being Jews and become Christians.

I'll even simplify that for you. The fundies "dig" Israel, because they can't wait to see the end of the Jews. I think that it is fair to say that anyone that looks forward to the end of the Jews (especially with most of them getting slaughtered) can be considered anti-Semitic.

[ermoore]

57. Are you serious?

Yeah, evangelical Christians support Israel because "they can't wait to see the end of the Jews." Hole-lee cow. I can't believe an intelligent person wrote this! (or did they?) Do you know anything about conservative evangelican Christians?

The evangelical support of Israel stems more from Biblical prophecy that ties the existence of the state of Israel to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Rapture, the Second Coming, all that Revelations jazz won't happen unless there is a state of Israel in the Holy Land.

I suppose the end of the world would also mean the end of the Jews, but it pretty much means the end of everything and is certainly not anti-semitic. It certainly isn't fair of you to say the root of this is a desire to see the end of the Jews.
A few years ago, Netanyahu said that American evangelical protestants were "Israel's best friend" (that quote might not be word-for-word).

Here's a worthwhile article on the subject from Beliefnet.com: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/106/story_10687_1.html
It's pretty good. Here's a money quote:
"Essentially, says Beliefnet columnist Richard Land, a Southern Baptist leader with close ties to the Bush Administration, evangelicals support Israel because they believe "God blesses those that bless the Jews and curses those who curse the Jews. Consequently, we believe America needs to bless the Jews and Israel, because if we bless the Jews and support Israel, God blesses us. And if we don't, God curses us."

The point of this is that these are people who would tend to have low opinion of anti-semitism.

[GreyV]

58. Point of your reply was?

...

[Exultant Democracy]

60. During the rapture the Christians get to go to heaven

While the Jews (unless they convert at the end) get to go to hell according to the gospels. If you ask a Jew if he thinks that it is cool that he can either go to hell or convert at the end of day, I will bet that he doesn't find that to be a very friendly choice. The evangelical Christian support Israel for their own reasons, and the Israelis welfare is not one of them. What they believe to be the rapture and the second coming of Christ is in no way a Jew friendly ideal.

Yes perhaps the end of days is the end of everything, but you have to accept the fact that at the end of days as outlined by the fundies, all Jews that stay Jewish have to go to hell.

Also you last sentence does not make much sense at all, so I will assume it is just poorly worded, because I think all reasonable people have a low opinion of anti-semitism.

edit: And as for your first sentence, Yale begs to differ.

[roguevalley]

62. Don't over look this either. Mad Max Gibson was asked what would

get you into heaven. He said if you don't belong to the
Catholic Church, you aren't going to heaven, you're
going to hell. His wife is Episcopalian. They asked him
if she was going to hell.

MEL: "If you don't belong to the Catholic Church, you will
go to hell when you die."

So I guess it explains where he feels, after his exhaustive
reading of the gospels where Jews are going when they die.
What makes me laugh out loud is this: The Protestants and
other limp dimwits promoting his movie are going there too.

And this beggars the big question: If Jesus is a Jew, is he
in hell too?

If I remember it correctly, Jesus included, not excluded.
He even sat down with prostitutes, which means most of the
Evangelicals/Fundamental dimwits would have a place at his
table.

[ermoore]

63. Not everyone is a pluralist.

"If you don't belong to the Catholic Church, you will
go to hell when you die."

So what's wrong with that? Oh yeah, it's factually wrong, but I mean, what's wrong with Mel believing that? You know, pluralists actually make up a minority of the Earth's population. (And by "pluralists" I mean people who believe that all world religions can lead to salvation).

Mel is wrong. Non-Catholics will also get into Heaven, at least I think so. Mel thinks every religion besides Catholicism is wrong. Many people agree with him. Many other people think that Protestantism is the only right religion. Other people think that Islam is, or that Buddhism is, or Hinduism is, etc. You apparently think that only Pluralism is right and everything else is wrong, and people who don't adhere to Pluralism are (for lack of a better word) *ssh*les.

And, LC, it's the same thing with evangelical Christians. Yeah, some of them think that Jews (or any other people) who do not accept Christ as their Lord will go to Hell. That doesn't make them anti-semitic and eagerly awaiting the Rapture (and the End) is different from eagerly awaiting the end of the Jews (and everything else).

And yeah, for a lot of Christians Jews who don't convert will go to Hell. And so will Muslims, Hindus, etc. And the same applies for almost every major world religion. I'm not offended because hundreds of thousands (if not more) of Buddhists think bad things are gonna happen to me after this life. Why would I think any less of them for this?

Evangelical Christians really dig on this: "God blesses those that bless the Jews and curses those who curse the Jews. Consequently, we believe America needs to bless the Jews and Israel, because if we bless the Jews and support Israel, God blesses us. And if we don't, God curses us." That's a quote from the article I linked to several posts up. Whether or not their motives are selfish, many Christians really do have goodwill towards Israel.

I think this post is kinda going off on a tangent so I'm going to bed now. Catch yall tomorrow.

[roguevalley]

61. Show me a single instance outside of the biblical story where

the Romans EVER let a crowd choose between prisoners
to be crucified. Give me one instance. Can't.

Romans who had become Christians wrote the gospels
and they shed the blame for killing Jesus to anyone
but themselves. Romans killed Jesus. No one else had
the power.

[brainwashed_youth]

18. what is the gospel you know

the gospels I know are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That's what Gibson is basing his movie on.

[ermoore]

21. Another thing.

Cally, I don't wanna seem like I'm picking on you, you just say more interesting (or provacative to me) things.

Why are you so offended that the dude's tone suggests that he believes his belief is the only one? I take it more like (and I may be wrong here), he doesn't think that his belief is the only thing people believe, just that when it comes right down to it, his is the only one that is right or True (objectively speaking). Obviously, this isn't something that can ever be proven one way or the other (at least on this earth), but that's why faith is so important in any religion.

Personally, I don't have any problem with this. I mean, I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm actually probably a lot closer to a . . . dude, I hate it when I forget the freakin' word . . . but I like to think that people of other religions (but maybe not all religions) won't find themselves burning in Hell. Anyways, the point is that I'm not at all offended that my cousin disagrees with me. He probably thinks I'm going to hell (and has pretty much told me that), but why would I be offended by that? So many Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc., agree with him, but I don't think any less of them. It's not a matter of Fundamentalism, it's a matter of belief. And people believe different things. I don't get offended when people believe different things than I do. Why do you get offended because someone believes differently than you?

This isn't a matter of open-mindedness, people believe what they believe for so many different reasons. It really pisses me off when people (usually liberals) condescend to people of faith by saying they're close-minded or some other such shit. I think I've ranted a bit and this might be a little not-put-together-so-well, but I hope you understand my meaning. Gracias duder.

[Fescue4u]

10. Muslim didnt exist during that time

If I understand Islam correctly, they didnt come along for another 500 years or so.

Besides, if it did offend Muslims, Im sure we would have heard about by now. NO doubt the Muslim Clerics would be banging their murder drums, and putting out contracts on Gibson.

[blondeatlast]

56. Neither did Christianity!

:evilgrin:

[arewethereyet]

16. I think muslims are angrier about "Max Max" than this picture

Just don't show Mohammad eating bacon and eggs

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. So what?

Then they should make another movie about Mohammed. It might be cool. Perhaps they could learn something from watching this and we could learn from that.

[PsychoDad]

32. There is a good movie about Muhammad.

Check out "The Message"

The Message (1976)
Mohammed: Messenger of God

After seeing a vision of the Angel Gabriel, Mohammad calls to the people of Mecca to cast aside the 300 idols of Kaaba and worship only one God. Starring Anthony Quinn and Irene Papas, this breathtaking historical epic about the birth of the Islamic faith took six years to prepare and more than a year to film. It received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Score.

Starring: Anthony Quinn, Irene Papas ...
Director: Moustapha Akkad
Category: Drama
Format: Widescreen ...
Language: English
Subtitles: None

[GreyV]

33. Great movie.

...

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Hence the reason why I said another

I always like Anthony Quinn movies.

[eissa]

48. So.......

"The Message" (which was indeed a good film), and "Moses" (which airs every year around Easter time) are considered epic masterpieces and bestowed with awards, but any film based on the New Testament (aside from "The Last Temptation of Christ" featuring a horny Jesus) is considered anti-Semitic?

I'm no fan of Mel's -- at least not lately, and I don't plan on seeing this movie. However, I'm quite startled by all this "outrage" over this film and feel it reflects badly on those of us on the left who subscribe to a "live and let live" attitude.

[fujiyama]

24. Offensive to Muslims?

That's about the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

The film is Mel Gibson's vision of the events of the last several hours of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). The film isn't devinely inspired. It's a film. It's a film based on a book. That's about all it is. To some this book represents a lot. To others it doesn't. To me, I'll be honest -- it doesn't. It's like saying, should the LOTR trilogy offend Hobbit fans, because it makes the Hobbit seem more trivial...That obviously wasn't the point of the trilogy. The point was to tell the story of the LOTR. Or better yet, it's like if Peter Jackson made only the last hour of the ROTK.

But back to the topic, first of all Islam didn't even exist at the time. Islam was invented, concocted, whatever you want to call it, some 500 years later through Muhammad's "devine inspiration" which is told in the Koran (or maybe I'm a little off). The Koran has no bearing on the Bible as far as I know. Gibson's faith is based on the NT and his film is based on that faith.

I myself am obviously no Theologan and cannot comment on whether the film is anti Semitic per se. Certain aspects may be seen that way. I personally haven't seen it and can't say. It does look like it's quite an achievement, artistically.

Unfortunately, these Passion Plays have aroused hatred of Jews in the past and that is a possibility in Europe especially, where there has been a rise in Anti Semitism. If anything Islamic fundamentalists could take advantage of the possibility that certain scenes may be considered inflammatory toward Jews.

[regnaD kciN]

43. Not "divinely inspired"...? Not to Mel...

The film is Mel Gibson's vision of the events of the last several hours of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). The film isn't devinely inspired.

Gibson has said in interviews that "the Holy Ghost was guiding me" in the making of the film. He has also said that opposition to it (including critical news stories about anti-semitism in the script) was part of an organized effort by the devil to keep people from seeing the film and finding salvation.

:crazy:

Of course, he didn't mention that the set had been struck by lightning twice during the shooting, including once when it hit the actor playing Jesus...

[maggrwaggr]

27. has anyone, here or elsewhere, actually SEEN this movie?

never in my life have I seen a movie get so much advance free publicity.

Not even "Last Temptation of Christ" got this much press before anybody actually saw it.

[cally]

28. I have not seen the movie

I think only a select few have seen it thus far. I don't plan to see the movie.

[PsychoDad]

31. I cannot see where it would be offensive.

I don't find it so... While Islam and Christanity do differ on some of the particulars of Isa's(pbuh) (arabic for Jesus) death and resurection, This movie is the telling of the story of the Prophet Isa (Jesus) as seen from the perspective of the Christian gospels.

Either way, IMHO, the passion still makes for a fine story, a story about bravery, self sacrifice and willingness to die for the love of others. Like many things in the life of the Prophet Isa, which Islam and Christanity may or may not agree with, it deserves to be looked at in a deeper universal context.

If only we could love a stranger enough to give up our life for them. To me that is the heart of the message, and resonates with Jesus' gospel wither you are Muslim or Christian.

Peace

[DemBones DemBones]

37. Great comments! Am I correct to think that you

are Muslim?

[PsychoDad]

38. Yes. :)

I am Muslim :) Not always a very good one tho :blush:

[DemBones DemBones]

39. Do Muslims think that Jesus was

not nailed to a cross because they think he was nailed on a post with his hands above his head? I know that's another view, and one accepted by some Christians. Or is it something else? ( Perhaps the initial poster was incorrect about Muslims not believing Jesus died on a cross, but I don't think you stated otherwise.)

I know that Muslims have reverence for the Virgin Mary, as well as for Jesus, which interests me, too. Does Islam teach that she was always a virgin, or just when she conceived?

[PsychoDad]

40. Good questions.

Hopefuly I can give equally good answers.

The original poster was correct, most Muslims belive that Jesus'(peace be upon him) prayer in the garden was answered by God, and he was spared the horror of the crucifixion, (as many early gnostic sects also belived) and was taken into heaven, to return one day and fulfill his messianic mission.

In Islam Jesus is accorded a dignity which is given to no other. The Quran speaks of the Virgin Birth, calls Jesus God's Word and a spirit from Him. The Quran declares that He is "eminent in this world and the next, and one of those who approach God's presence" The Quran also acknowleges the miracles of Jesus.

Although Mary's conception was by divine decree, as a sign of Jesus' special place among the prophets, he was still human. In Islam, God has no partner, Is eternal and "begets not nor was he begotten".
(A note of interest here: The term "he" is only a gramatical convention. She would also be as correct..."It" Is better, but so impersonal. The Term "Allah" The God, is neither male nor female. In Islam God has no gender.)

As far as I know, The Quran is silent on wither or not Mary had more children. I think most Muslims would concur that she probably did, and that Jesus grew up as a pretty normal child in a normal family. :)

There is quite a bit here on Jesus in the Quran and Hadith (The sayings of Muhammad (pbuh)) If you are interested in more:
http://islamonline.diaryland.com/older1.html

[JCMach1]

34. This is a silly idea (about being offensive)... the grandson of

our Emir attends our daughter's school in the UAE. He and his family attended the school nativity play which their child was in (as well as mine). And yes the songs included the died on the cross and risen from the dead stuff.

I find the idea a little laughable.

[DemBones DemBones]

36. Wow! A school-sponsored nativity play!

Now THAT is radical. We used to be able to have those here in the U.S., until the courts decided they might offend someone. Now it's all "Season's Greetings," snowmen, and "Jingle Bells" instead of letting all the kids celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. No "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukkah," no manger scenes, no spinning dreidels, no Christmas carols (only holiday songs) and no potato latkes.

Why kids can't be allowed to learn about specific religious holidays while learning about all religions, I don't understand. I've always thought it was good for kids to learn about different cultures, which includes learning about different religious traditions. They should also be learning that some people don't practice any religion and they can be good people, too.

[JCMach1]

41. My kids go to a British System private school here in the UAE

And yes, it's a bit like a real British private school. The kids have houses (my daughters are in Burton House). And yes, the do have assemblies where prayers are said in addition to the nativity play.

They also learn quite a bit about Islam in their Arabic classes.

[itcfish]

49. Muslims

Have Jesus on almost the same level as Mohammed. Jesus is thier prophet, not the son of God. Muslims name their children Jesus, (Issa) and Mary (Mariam) Isnt Mary mentioned more in the Koran than in the Bible? Can't see how it would offend them.

[eissa]

50. True

It was always annoying to the priests in the Middle Eastern churches my family attended in the old country that their congregation would refer to Christ simply as Jesus, while Muslims would always follow with "peace be upon him."

Parents with sick children wouldn't think twice about bringing the child to a priest to say a prayer for them. They may not have believed, but they respected. Sad that the religion has been hijacked by radicals. It would be like the world thinking all Christians are like Pat Robertson or Tom Delay.

[LeahMira]

53. Why would it be?

Islam was founded quite a while after Christianity, so it would seem that they have no dog in this fight.

[skjpm]

55. Muslims believe that the Koran tells the true story of Jesus

The fact that it was revealed about 700 years after Jesus doesn't make the Koran any less true, if it was, in fact, revealed to Muhammad directly by God. Thus, a story of Jesus which doesn't take into account God's version of the events as revealed to Muhammad would potentially be offensive. Why use the New Testament as a source when it was written by men, when you could use the Koran which was written by God?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[_Jumper_]

65. Can anyone believe that a DU'er actually posted that?

Yeah, hate 1.2 billion people because of what one dictator did. :eyes:

Jews don't have to see it either but they are "different" than Muslims, right? :eyes:

[FDRrocks]

64. the passion is generally offensive...

the depiction in the bible of the last day of christ isn't even consistent. This film itself takes liberties. Even those who believe the bible should be stricken by the amount of pretentiousness.