India must not legitimise Israel with Modi’s visit : gulfnews

[Hindustani78]

Again I never disputed the fact that Jesus (PBUH) was never born from the land of Palestine However, in your previous message you specifically proclaimed that Jesus (PBUH) was from Nazareth which is a city in Israel and this is supported by the Holy Quran and the Bible. Obviously, now you have conceded that the place of birth was never mentioned in the Holy Quran. In addition scholars can have an opinion on a topic, however its just an opinion not 100% guaranteed to be correct. You can personally believe in the conjecture that he was born in Nazareth, however don't characterized this as a linkage to Islam. He may have been born in Bethlehem, however again not mentioned in he Hadith or the Holy Quran. You did not argue on the case of Nasrani because I can now assume that you have accepted the logical argument that Christians are called Al-Nasara. If you require further confirmation, then please ask a member who understands and reads the Holy Quran to translate the verse 5:14 in the link below. Since I can read the Holy Quran, it clearly states Nasara, however for a true and fair view ask another member for verification

Surat Al-Ma'idah - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم

I was just saying that he was grown up in Nazareth and started preaching gospel from Nazareth and the Yehudis who accepted his Gospel were known as Nazarene in Aramic language.

Christian term is relatively new. Whoever believes that Jesus is Messiah(Christ) those people are called Christians, the term al-Masih (the Messiah) occurs in the Qur’an eleven times.

3:45 - [And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ].

****************
Modi's Israel visit amounts to abandoning Palestine: CPI-M | Zee News

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj has announced that Modi will go to Israel at a mutually agreed date. This will be the first time an Indian prime minister visits Israel.

"The significance of such a visit would be that the close strategic relationship existing between the two countries will be given an official stamp," the editorial said.

Then deputy prime minister LK Advani had visited Israel in 2000. India established full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992.

The Communist Party of India-Marxist pointed out that the current Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu was "dominated by rightwing and Jewish extremist parties.

"Modi will be visiting Israel when the Netanyahu government is aggressively going ahead with nullifying any possibility of a political settlement with the Palestinian leadership...

"While formally maintaining India's long-standing position of support to the cause of the Palestinian people, the Modi government is now openly working to undermine this stand...

"The initiative to put Indo-Israel ties on a new footing is in line with the overall foreign policy direction of the Modi government which is to entangle India fully in the geo-political strategy of the US...

"(The visit) will signal the abandonment of India's steadfast commitment to an independent Palestinian state."

 

[drunken-monke]

probably much before that as well.

May be since the time of Indira Gandhi being Prime Minister.. Remember Kahuta facility bombing plan??

 

[Rasengan]

I'm only responding to this specific part of your post. I have to point out that among christians in India, just as with muslims and hindus, sects exist not so much on the basis of theological questions, but based on who they were before entering that religion. For example, the Nazranis of Kerala were originally from a certain prominent hindu brahmin family, who converted into christianity in the first century AD. It was their lineage that made them want to stand apart from other christians, not really any theological positions. They do claim to have been converted by St Thomas, but doubts have been cast on that claim. (I don't really know much about it.)

Your assumption is correct in reference to the notion that the Nasrani proclaim to originate from a number of certain prominent Hindu Brahmin families in Kerala who converted to Christianity through Saint Thomas in the first century AD. This characteristic can be described to be similar to the various Sufi orders who claim there lineage from the Sahaba or the famous Sheikhs. However just because they adhere to the belief that Jesus (PBUH) was born in Nazareth, does not necessarily mean that this factoid is correct. Partly because the composition of the Bible was completed during the reign of Constantine which occurred centuries after the apparent Crucifixion of Jesus (PBUH) and it was called the First Council of Nicaea. This is important because a consensus was reached on what exactly would be accepted and rejected in the Bible. The first written text to describe Saint Thomas visit to India was in the 3rd century AD, which was the same period when the First Council of Nicaea took place. Therefore the Christians of Kerala could have only called themselves Nasrani in homage to Jesus (PBUH) birth in Nazareth, when the the completed book of the Bible reached them in the 3rd century AD.

I was just saying that he was grown up in Nazareth and started preaching gospel from Nazareth and the Yehudis who accepted his Gospel were known as Nazarene in Aramic language.

This could be a possibly true since the Aramic written text has no linkage to the language used in the Holy Quran.

Christian term is relatively new. Whoever believes that Jesus is Messiah(Christ) those people are called Christians, the term al-Masih (the Messiah) occurs in the Qur’an eleven times.

The term Al-Masih is in reference to Jesus (PBUH) becoming a Prophet of Islam, hence why it is mentioned 11 times in the Holy Quran.

 

[Hindustani78]

Your assumption is correct in reference to the notion that the Nasrani proclaim to originate from a number of certain prominent Hindu Brahmin families in Kerala who converted to Christianity through Saint Thomas in the first century AD. This characteristic can be described to be similar to the various Sufi orders who claim there lineage from the Sahaba or the famous Sheikhs. However just because they adhere to the belief that Jesus (PBUH) was born in Nazareth, does not necessarily mean that this factoid is correct. Partly because the composition of the Bible was completed during the reign of Constantine which occurred centuries after the apparent Crucifixion of Jesus (PBUH) and it was called the First Council of Nicaea. This is important because a consensus was reached on what exactly would be accepted and rejected in the Bible. The first written text to describe Saint Thomas visit to India was in the 3rd century AD, which was the same period when the First Council of Nicaea took place. Therefore the Christians of Kerala could have only called themselves Nasrani in homage to Jesus (PBUH) birth in Nazareth, when the the completed book of the Bible reached them in the 3rd century AD.

Jesus started preaching from Nazareth and his followers were called as Nazarene.But Jesus was born not far from Jerusalem and that city is Bethleham.

19:16- And mention, [O Muhammad], in the Book [the story of] Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east.

 

[Rasengan]

Jesus started preaching from Nazareth and his followers were called as Nazarene.But Jesus was born not far from Jerusalem and that city is Bethleham.

What evidence is there to suggest that Jesus (PBUH) started preaching from Nazareth? Your argument in response would be from the Bible as stated by the various disciples of Jesus (PBUH). However, like I mentioned previously the composition of the Bible was completed during the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The content on what was to be accepted and rejected in the Bible was decided in this period. So from an outsider's prospective the birth place of Jesus (PBUH) and his initiation of first preaching in Nazareth could been made up, after all anomalies do occur when there is a huge gap in relation to the time period of the event and its report in written text. The same application can be used in the case of Troy, where the only written text compiled on the event of the civil war was by Homer, who lived 400 years after the destruction of Troy....hence why a number of historians regard it as a Greek myth. Furthermore the followers of Jesus (PBUH) who called themselves Nazarene only came into existence in the 4th century, which is 100 years after the First Council of Nicaea.

 

[Hindustani78]

What evidence is there to suggest that Jesus (PBUH) started preaching from Nazareth? Your argument in response would be from the Bible as stated by the various disciples of Jesus (PBUH). However, like I mentioned previously the composition of the Bible was completed during the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The content on what was to be accepted and rejected in the Bible was decided in this period. So from an outsider's prospective the birth place of Jesus (PBUH) and his initiation of first preaching in Nazareth could been made up, after all anomalies do occur when there is a huge gap in relation to the time period of the event and its report in written text. The same application can be used in the case of Troy, where the only written text compiled on the event of the civil war was by Homer, who lived 400 years after the destruction of Troy....hence why a number of historians regard it as a Greek myth. Furthermore the followers of Jesus (PBUH) who called themselves Nazarene only came into existence in the 4th century, which is 100 years after the First Council of Nicaea.

Jesus was grown up in Nazareth and started preaching the word of God from Nazareth and later came to Jerusalem. In Tafsir Ibn Kathir , there are more details.

 

[Rasengan]

Jesus was grown up in Nazareth and started preaching the word of God from Nazareth and later came to Jerusalem. In Tafsir Ibn Kathir , there are more details.

Again you are talking about Imam Ismail Ibn Kathir who was a famous Shafi'i scholar in the 14th century. How exactly can any commentator in the world write something 100% guaranteed on an event which took place 14 hundred years before there existence...not a logical or sound argument. Imam Ibn Kathir can have an opinion however it does not necessarily mean that its correct. No scholar has this power in Islam where there opinion is regarded as factual without looking at both the Hadith and the Holy Quran. This is the main reason why ISIS and Al Qaeda are outside the traditional realms of Islam, because they believe that there opinion is correct without consulting both the Hadith and the Holy Quran. You have yet to provide any proper evidence that he was preaching the word of God from the city of Nazareth.

 

[Hindustani78]

Again you are talking about Imam Ismail Ibn Kathir who was a famous Shafi'i scholar in the 14th century. How exactly can any commentator in the world write something 100% guaranteed on an event which took place 14 hundred years before there existence...not a logical or sound argument. Imam Ibn Kathir can have an opinion however it does not necessarily mean that its correct. No scholar has this power in Islam where there opinion is regarded as factual without looking at both the Hadith and the Holy Quran. This is the main reason why ISIS and Al Qaeda are outside the traditional realms of Islam, because they believe that there opinion is correct without consulting both the Hadith and the Holy Quran. You have yet to provide any proper evidence that he was preaching the word of God from the city of Nazareth.

I have already provided you the evidence and talked about Ibn Kathir , the basis of Ibn Kathir work is based Quran and Hadiths since the time of the Prophet. Ibn Kathir work is based Two Sahihs [(Al-Bukhari and Muslim) and the Four Sunan [Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasai and Ibn Majah] and from the narration of Ahmad bin Hanbal . Do you think that Scholars were not well versed about the Hadiths ?

ISIS and Al Qaeda are the result of the Baath politics and the cold war tactics.

 

[Rasengan]

I have already provided you the evidence and talked about Ibn Kathir , the basis of Ibn Kathir work is based Quran and Hadiths since the time of the Prophet. Ibn Kathir work is based Two Sahihs [(Al-Bukhari and Muslim) and the Four Sunan [Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasai and Ibn Majah] and from the narration of Ahmad bin Hanbal . Do you think that Scholars were not well versed about the Hadiths ?

Provide me a quote and book page of Ibn Kathir narrating in his book that Jesus (PBUH) was preaching in Nazareth and was actually born there. Because its not mentioned in the Quran and I have actually just read his book on google where he specifically states that Mary gave birth outside of Nazareth. This was because she came from a pious noble family and she became pregnant without marrying any man, therefore she had a fear and anxiety of facing abuse from the local population. Hence why she gave birth under a dry palm tree as stated in the Quran. So the actual birth of Jesus (PBUH) did not occur in the city of Nazareth Now please show where the Quran or the Hadith states that he preached in Nazareth?

ISIS and Al Qaeda are the result of the Baath politics and the cold war tactics.

ISIS and Al Qaeda are considered Takfiri and Kharijites. Any traditional Muslim can understand this perfectly well.

 

[Hindustani78]

Provide me a quote and book page of Ibn Kathir narrating in his book that Jesus (PBUH) was preaching in Nazareth and was actually born there. Because its not mentioned in the Quran and I have actually just read his book on google where he specifically states that Mary gave birth outside of Nazareth. This was because she came from a pious noble family and she became pregnant without marrying any man, therefore she had a fear and anxiety of facing abuse from the local population. Hence why she gave birth under a dry palm tree as stated in the Quran. So the actual birth of Jesus (PBUH) did not occur in the city of Nazareth Now please show where the Quran or the Hadith states that he preached in Nazareth?

I have already quoted you from Ibn Kathir regarding the birth of Isa Ibn Maryam. Isa Ibn Maryam was born to Virgin Maryam and this is part of the belief system and that place was in Palestine and its Bethlahem and from Bethlahem they have migrated to Nazareth. Herod was the king during that time.


(22. So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place.) (23. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a date palm. She said: "Would that I had died before this, and had been forgotten and out of sight!'')

"This took place eight miles from the Sacred House of Jerusalem in a village that was known as Bayt Al-Lahm (Bethlehem).'' I say, there are Hadiths about the Isra' (Night Journey of the Prophet ) that are reported by An-Nasa'i on the authority of Anas, and Al-Bayhaqi on the authority of Shadad bin Aws, that say that this took place at Bait Al-Lahm.

24. Then he cried unto her from below her, saying: "Grieve not: your Lord has provided a Sariy under you.'') (25. "And shake the trunk of date palm towards you, it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon you.'') (26. "So eat and drink and rejoice. And if you see any human being, say: `Verily, I have vowed a fast for the Most Gracious so I shall not speak to any human being today.,'')

When did Isa Ibne Maryam returned back to Jerusalem ?

By the way we are talking here about the tribes of Middle East.

 

[Rasengan]

I have already quoted you from Ibn Kathir regarding the birth of Isa Ibn Maryam. Isa Ibn Maryam was born to Virgin Maryam and this is part of the belief system and that place was in Palestine and its Bethlahem and from Bethlahem they have migrated to Nazareth. Herod was the king during that time.

Your statements seem to change quite often, because originally you advocated the notion that Jesus (PBUH) was born in Nazareth. Currently you are now riposting the idea that the place of birth is in Bethlehem and they later on migrated towards Nazareth.

Ibn Kathir specifically states that Maryam was born in Nazareth and when she became pregnant with Jesus (PBUH) she decided to leave the city and not face any potential abuse since she was not married. She then gave birth under a dry palm tree. I have read the book 'Stories of the Prophets By Ibn Kathir' translated by IslamKotob, where as your information comes from a website which I have just gone through

http://www.qtafsir.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2686

In this same link the scholars have articulated themselves that there opinions differ on the location of birth and have provided various narrations. This is why I purposely mentioned to you previously that a scholar can have an opinion, but this does not necessarily mean they are 100% correct. The Hadith will not be considered authentic if the narration does not correlate with the teachings of the Quran and its ongoing debate amongst the ulema. The only agreeable assertion we have of each other is on the idea that Jesus (PBUH) was born in Palestine.

I don't know exactly when Jesus (PBUH) returned back to Jerusalem only Allah know's best.

By the way we are talking here about the tribes of Middle East.

Never understood this point, please elaborate further.

 

[Hindustani78]

Your statements seem to change quite often, because originally you advocated the notion that Jesus (PBUH) was born in Nazareth. Currently you are now riposting the idea that the place of birth is in Bethlehem and they later on migrated towards Nazareth.

Ibn Kathir specifically states that Maryam was born in Nazareth and when she became pregnant with Jesus (PBUH) she decided to leave the city and not face any potential abuse since she was not married. She then gave birth under a dry palm tree. I have read the book 'Stories of the Prophets By Ibn Kathir' translated by IslamKotob, where as your information comes from a website which I have just gone through

http://www.qtafsir.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2686

In this same link the scholars have articulated themselves that there opinions differ on the location of birth and have provided various narrations. This is why I purposely mentioned to you previously that a scholar can have an opinion, but this does not necessarily mean they are 100% correct. The Hadith will not be considered authentic if the narration does not correlate with the teachings of the Quran and its ongoing debate amongst the ulema. The only agreeable assertion we have of each other is on the idea that Jesus (PBUH) was born in Palestine.

I don't know exactly when Jesus (PBUH) returned back to Jerusalem only Allah know's best.

My statement hasnt changed , i think you are not getting my point.

I have said you the relation between the name Nasarani and Nazareth and its like a Geographical term.

Prophet Zakariya was the priest of Jerusalem and even guardian of Maryam and the place close from Jerusalem is Bethlahem. And she returned back to Jerusalem with a new born Isa ibn Maryam from Bethlahem and she was asked to leave Jerusalem and that time Maryam, Yusuf and new born Isa ibne maryam migrated to Nazareth.

And when Isa Ibne Maryam came to Jerusalem from Nazareth along with Maryam, He was called Isa Ibne Maryam Nazrani( from Nazereth) by the people.

Never understood this point, please elaborate further.

Saying that all those tribes were Middle Eastern. Prophet Ibrahim story in Quran do explain about the tribes and traditions, culture of his tribes.