CELESTIAL ORGANIZATION

The information the Qur'an provides on this subject mainly deals with the solar system. References are however made to phenomena that go beyond the solar system itself: they have been discovered in recent times. There are two very important verses on the orbits of the Sun and Moon:
--sura 21, verse 33:
"(God is) the One Who created the night,and day, the sun and the moon.  Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."
--sura 36, verse 40:
"The sun must not catch up the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."
Here an essential fact is clearly stated: the existence of the Sun's and Moon's orbits, plus a reference is made to the traveling of these bodies in space with their own motion. A negative fact also emerges from a reading of these verses: it is shown that the Sun moves in an orbit, but no indication is given as to what this orbit might be in relation to the Earth. At the time of the Qur'anic Revelation, it was thought that the Sun moved while the Earth stood still. This was the system of geocentrism that had held away since the time of Ptolemy, Second century B.C., and was to continue to do so until Copernicus in the Sixteenth century A.D. Although people supported this concept at the time of Muhammad, it does not appear anywhere in the Qur'an, either here or elsewhere.
 
 

The Existence of the Moon's and the Sun's Orbits.

    The Arabic word falak has here been translated by the word  'orbit'; many French translators of the Qur'an attach to it the meaning of a 'sphere'. This is indeed its initial sense. Hamidullah translates it by the word 'orbit'. The word caused concern to older translators of tne Qur'an who were unable to imagine the circular course of the Moon and the Sun and therefore retained images of their course through space that were either more or less correct, or hopelessly wrong.
Si Hamza Boubekeur in his translation of the Qur'an cites the diversity of interpretations given to it: "A sort of axle, like an iron rod, that a mill turns around; a celestial sphere, orbit, sign of the zodiac, speed, wave . . .", but he adds the following observation made by Tabari, the famous Tenth century commentator:
"It is our duty to keep silent when we do not know." (XVII, 15).
This shows just how incapable men were of understanding this concept of the Sun's and Moon's orbit. It is obvious that if the word had expressed an astronomical concept common in Muhammad's day, it would not have been so difficult to interpret these verses. A new concept therefore existed in the Qur'an that was not to be explained until centuries later.
 
 

1. The Moon's Orbit.

 Today, the concept is widely spread that the Moon is a satellite of the Earth around which it revolves in periods of twenty-nine days. A correction must however be made to the absolutely circular form of its orbit, since modern astronomy ascribes a certain eccentricity to this, so that the distance between the Earth and the Moon (240,000 miles) is only the average distance. We have seen above how the Qur'an underlined the usefulness of observing the Moon's movements in calculating time (sura 10, verse 5, quoted at the beginning of this chapter.) This system has often been criticized for being archaic, impractical and unscientific in comparison to our system based on the Earth's rotation around the Sun, expressed today in the Julian calendar.
 This criticism calls for the following two remarks:
a) Nearly fourteen centuries ago, the Qur'an was directed at the inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula who were used to the lunar calculation of time. It was advisable to address them in the only language they could understand and not to upset the habits they had of locating spatial and temporal reference-marks which were nevertheless quite efficient. It is known how well-versed men living in the desert are in the observation of the sky; they navigated according to the stars and told the time according to the phases of the Moon. Those were the simplest and most reliable means available to them.
b) Apart from the specialists in this, most people are unaware of the perfect correlation between the Julian and the lunar calendar: 235 lunar months correspond exactly to 19 Julian years of 365.25 days. Then length of our year of 365 days is not perfect because it has to be rectified every four years (with a leap year): With the lunar calendar, the same phenomena occur every 19 years (Julian). This is the Metonic cycle, named after the Greek astronomer Meton, who discovered this exact correlation between solar and lunar time in the Fifth century B.C.
 

2. The Sun.

 It is more difficult to conceive of the Sun's orbit because we are so used to seeing our solar system organized around it. To understand the verse from the Qur'an, the position of the Sun in our galaxy must be considered. and we must therefore call on modern scientific ideas. Our galaxy includes a very large number of stars spaced so as to form a disc that is denser at the centre than at the rim. The Sun occupies a position in it which is far removed from the centre of the disc. The galaxy revolves on its own axis which is its centre with the result that the Sun revolves around the same centre in a circular orbit. Modern astronomy has worked out the details of this. In 1917, Shapley estimated the distance between the Sun and the centre of our galaxy at 10 kiloparsecs i.e., in miles, circa the figure 2 followed by 17 zeros. To complete one
revolution on its own axis, the galaxy and Sun take roughly 250 million years. The Sun travels at roughly 150 miles per second n the completion of this. The above is the orbital movement of the Sun that was already referred to by the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago. The demonstration of the existence and details of this is one of the achievements of modern astronomy.
 

Reference to the Movement of the Moon and the Sun

in Space With Their Own Motion.

 This concept does not appear in those tranislations of the Qur'an that have been made by men of letters.  Since the latter know nothing about astronomy, they have translated the Arabic word that expresses this movemcnt by one of the meanings the word has: 'to swirn'. They have done this in both the French translations and the, otherwise remarkable, English translation by Yusuf Ali. The Arabic word referring to a movement with a self-propelled motion is the verb sabaha (yasbahuna in the text of the two verses). All the senses of the verb imply a movement that is associated with a motion that comes from the body in question. If the movement takes place in water, it is 'to swim'; It is 'to move by the action of one's own legs' if it takes place on land. For a movement that occurs in space, it is difficult to see how else this meaning implied in the word could be rendered other than by employing its original sense. Thus there seems to have been no mistranslation, for the following reasons:
--The Moon completes its rotating motion on its own axis at the same time as it revolves around the Earth, i.e. 29.5 days (approx.), so that it always has the same side facing us.
--The Sun takes roughly 25 days to revolve on its own axis. There are certain differences in its rotation at its equator and
poles, (we shall not go into them here) but as a whole, the Sun is animated by a rotating motion.It appears therefore that a verbal nuance in the Qur'an refers to the Sun and Moon's own motion. These motions of the two celestial bodies are confirmed by the data of modern science, and it is inconceivable that a man living in the Seventh century A.D.--however knowledgeable he might have been in his day (and this was certainly not true in Muhammad's case)--could have imagined them. This view is sometimes contested by examples from great thinkers of antiquity who indisputably predicted certain data that modern science has verified. They could hardly have relied on scientific deduction however; their method of procedure was more one of philosophical reasoning. Thus the case of the Pythagoreans is often advanced. In the Sixth century B.C., they defended the theory of the rotation of the Earth on its own axis and the movement of the planets around the Sun. This theory was to be confirmed by modern sciece.  By comparing it with the case of the Pythagoreans,it easy to put forward the hypothesis of Muhammad as being a brilliant thinker, who was supposed to have imagined all on his on his own what modern science was to discover centuries later. In so doing however, people quite simply forget to mention the other aspect of what these geniuses of philosophical reasoning produced, i.e. the colossal blunders that litter their work. it must be remembered for example, that the pythagoreans also defended the theory whereby the Sun was fixed in space; they made it the centre of the world and only conceived of a celestial order that was centered on it.
It is quite common in the works of the great philosophers of antiquity to find a mixture of valid and invalid ideas about the Universe. The brilliance of these human works comes from the advanced ideas they contain, but they should not make us over look the mistaken concepts which have also been left to us. From a strictly scientific point of view, this is what distinguished them from the Qur'an. In the latter, many subjects are referred to that have a bearing on modern knowledge without one of them containing a statement that contradicts what has been established by present-day science.
 

The Sequence of Day and Night.

At a time when it was held that the Earth was the centre of  the world and that the Sun moved in relation to it, how could any one have failed to refer to the Sun's movement when talking of the sequence of night and day? This is not however referred to in the Qur'an and the subject is dealt with as follows:
--sura 7, verse 54:
"(God) covers the day with the night which is in haste to  follow it..."
--sura 36, verse 37:
"And a sign for them (human beings) is the night.  We strip it of the day and they are in darkness."
--sura 31, verse 29:
"Hast thou not seen how God merges the night into the day and merges the day into the night."
--sura 39, verse 5:
 "...He coils the night upon the day and He coils the day upon the night."
 The first verse cited requires no comment. The second simply provides an image. It is mainly the third and fourth verses quoted above that provide interesting material on the process of interpenetration and especially of winding the night upon the day and the day upon the night. (sura 39, verse 5)
 'To coil' or 'to wind' seems, as in the French translation by R. Blachere, to be the best way of translating the Arabic verb kawwara. The original meaning of the verb is to 'coil' a turban around the head; the notion of coiling is preserved in all the other senses of the word. What actually happens however in space? American astronauts have seen and photographed what happens from their spaceships, especially at a great distance from Earth, e.g. from the Moon. They saw how the Sun permanently lights up (except in the case of an eclipse) the half of the Earth's surface that is facing it, while the other half of the globe is in darkness. The Earth turns on its own axis and the lighting remains the same, so that an area in the form of a half-sphere makes one revolution around the Earth in twenty-four hours while the other half-sphere, that has remained in darkness, makes the same revolution in the same time. This perpetual rotation of night and day is quite clearly described in the Qur'an. It is easy for the human understanding to grasp this notion nowadays because we have the idea of the Sun's (relative) immobility and the Earth's rotation. This process of perpetual coiling, including the interpenetration of one sector by another is expressed in the Qur'an just as if the concept of the Earth's roundness had already been conceived at the time-which was obviously not the case.
Further to the above reflections on the sequence of day and night, one must also mention, with a quotation of some verses from the Qur'an, the idea that there is more than one Orient  and one Occident. This is of purely descriptive interest because these phenomena rely on the most commonplace observations. The idea is mentioned here with the aim of reproducing as faithfully as possible all that the Qur'an has to say on this subject.  The following are examples:
--In sura 70 verse 40, the expression 'Lord of Orients and Occidents'.
--In sura 55, verse 17, the expression 'Lord of the two Orients and the two Occidents'.
--In sura 43, verse 38, a reference to the 'distance between the two Orients', an image intended to express the immense size of the distance separating the two points. Anyone who carefully watches the sunrise and sunset knows that the Sun rises at different point of the Orient and sets at different points of the Occident, according to season. Bearings taken on each of the horizons define the extreme limits that mark the two Orients and Occidents, and between these there are points marked off throughout the year. The phenomenon described here is rather commonplace, but what mainly deserves attention in this chapter are the other topics dealt with, where the description of astronomical phenomena referred to in the Qur'an is in keeping with modern data.
bilal2772@gmail.com

ISLAM AND HUMAN CLONING

ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN CLONING

Dr. Abdulaziz Sachedina, University of Virginia
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~aas/article/article4.htm
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~aas/issues/cloning.htm

It is obvious that in light of the limited knowledge that we have about who would be harmed by cloning or whose rights would be violated, Muslim legal rulings are bound to reflect a cautious and even prohibitive attitude to the cloning beyond treatment of infertility or assessment of genetic or other abnormalities in the embryo prior to implantation.

---

HUMAN CLONING: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE

Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi
http://www.crescentlife.com/wellness/human_cloning_islamic_perspective.htm

However, cloning should not be used as an alternate way of human production, even on a small scale. In my opinion, a full-fledged use of cloning technology is haram [prohibited] because it may cause three major problems:

* It may cause danger to the human personality
* It may cause danger to human dignity and honor
* It may cause danger to human family and society

---

CLONING: ISLAMIC VIEW

IOMS, Recommendations of the 9th Fiqh-Medical Seminar
http://www.crescentlife.com/wellness/cloning_islamic_perspective2.htm

Ordinary human cloning, in which the nucleus of a living somatic cell from an individual is placed into the cytoplasm of an egg devoid of its nucleus, is not to be permitted. If exceptional cases emerge in the future, they should be considered to verify compliance with the Shari'ah [Islamic law].

---

CLONING: FRIEND OR FOE

Ayman Nawash, Islamonline.net
http://www.islamonline.net/iol-english/dowalia/techng-15-10/techng1b.asp

Regarding the question of permissibility, the majority of the council members after discussion reached the conclusion that cloning is permissible in case of plants as well as in case of animals except human beings. The extension of cloning to human beings would create extremely complex and intractable social and moral problems. Therefore cloning of human beings cannot be permitted.

---

ARGUMENTS FOR & AGAINST THE MANMADE GENESIS OF LIFE

Active-Islam.com
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/education/0000053.php

Some Arguments against Human Cloning

* God is the Creator not humans. We have no right to interfere with God's plan.
* Loss of Kinship - as the clone does not really have an identifiable mother or father.
* Harmful to Society/nature - may have grave consequences if this ability was to create superior beings.
* May cause disruption in nature, due to possibilities of overpopulation and famine.
* Unnatural - a way of reproduction that is contrary to what God has given humans.

Arguments for Cloning

* Cloning is a form of creation that is created from materials we have, rather than from nothing - which is Gods ability only.
* Islam encourages research and investigation.
* Cloning Technology can be used for good purposes - new cures for diseases and conditions.

---

LEGAL COMMITTEE IS TOLD OF EFFORTS TO REACH CONSENSUS IN FORMULATING CONVENTION AGAINST HUMAN CLONING

M2 PRESSWIRE, 10/28/02

ELFATIH ERWA (Sudan), speaking for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the inconclusive nature of scientific research into cloning techniques raised serious concerns whether those techniques could be carried out successfully on a human being. Opposition to human cloning also stemmed from the underlying fears that the technique could fall into the hands of some unscrupulous elements who could abuse it for their nefarious purposes.

The group of Islamic States felt that the Ad Hoc Committee should be requested to proceed, as a matter of urgency, with the preparation of a draft text on the subject. It believed that with the completion of the draft, negotiations should continue to address the issues relating to therapeutic cloning. The group strongly encouraged other cloning techniques to produce DNA molecules, organs, plant tissues and cells other than human embryos. It believed that such techniques should be permitted.

---

MALAYSIA'S ISLAMIC DECISION-MAKING BODY BANS HUMAN CLONING

JASBANT SINGH, Associated Press, 3/13/02

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Malaysia's highest religious decision-making body has banned human cloning, saying the procedure is "unnatural and totally against Islam."

Ismail Ibrahim, head of the Muslim clerical council with powers to issue a decree, or fatwa, said that the council held several discussions with local Islamic scholars before arriving at a unanimous decision. "Human cloning has generated a lot of interest around the world," Ismail told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "We do not have problems with cloning of animals or even food, but human beings are a completely different issue…"

Islam forbids human cloning since it goes against the laws of natural reproduction, Ismail said.

Verses in the Koran, Islam's holy book, "say that the creation of human beings is brought through the reproductive seeds of a husband and wife," Ismail said. "Any procedure that does not meet this criteria is unnatural and totally against Islam…"

---

TUNISIA CALLS FOR ARAB TREATY TO BAN HUMAN CLONING

Agence France Presse, 3/3/99

CAIRO - Tunisia called Wednesday for a treaty banning human cloning in Arab countries, the Arab League said. Tunisia's Health Minister el-Hadi Mehanna made the proposal during a meeting here of Arab League health ministers, who agreed to form a committee to draft such a treaty.

Leading clerics in Arab countries have denounced cloning as contrary to Islam…

---

ARAB DOCTOR URGES MOSLEM COUNTRIES TO BAN HUMAN CLONING EXPERIMENTS

Agence France Presse, 1/10/98

DUBAI, - A medical professor from the United Arab Emirates has called on Moslem governments not to allow Western researchers to carry out human cloning experiments banned in their own countries, newspapers reported here Saturday.

Governments "should ban any research organization or scientist, local or foreign, who seeks to use Islamic countries as an arena for carrying out illegal experiments on human cloning," said Maamun al-Shaqfa, professor of medicine at the medical faculty here. Shaqfa was speaking at a seminar in the UAE emirate of Sharjah organized in response to Chicago-based scientist Richard Seed's announcement Wednesday that he intended to pursue human cloning in the United States or anywhere else in the world he was allowed to.

"Islam is not opposed to scientific research, but authorization of any experiment is not recommended unless the sharia (Islamic law) pronounces on its legality or illegality," Shaqfa said.

"Human cloning is inadmissible because it destroys the basic social concepts of the family, married life and parenthood," said Mohammed al-Morsi Zahra, doyen of the faculty of theology and law at the UAE university…

-----

CAIR
Council on American-Islamic Relations
453 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C.  20003
Tel: 202-488-8787, 202-744-7726
Fax: 202-488-0833
E-mail: cair@cair-net.org
URL: http://www.cair-net.org

Did God die on the cross?

Unravelling the Trinitarian confusion on the death or survival of “God” on the cross

          Standard Trinitarian theology teaches that in the incarnation of Jesus he existed in two natures—divine and human. These two natures are inseparable in the incarnation in the Son of God who is the second person of the Triune Godhead. Thus Jesus was the Son of God with two natures simultaneously, that is, human and divine. Almost all Christians of every denomination today believe that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross. The question that has remained controversial and without a clear definite answer regarding Jesus’ alleged crucifixion amongst Christians is the nature of Jesus’ death on the cross i.e. did he die only in his human nature or both natures together? Did God actually die on the cross? Logically, the answer should be yes (credit is due to Dr. Shabir Ally for the following formula):

A. Jesus is God

B. Jesus died

C. Therefore, God died.

Most Christians however will be horrified at such a conclusion, frown upon it and will normally counter that God did not actually die. That which died on the cross was really just the flesh. The problem with this apologetic position is that it separates the two natures of Jesus as taught in traditional Trinitarianism. Theologians have described this excuse as Nestorian in kind which was declared a heresy by the Catholic church centuries ago. Saint Cyril in his twelve anathemas against Nestorius as proposed and accepted at the Council of Ephesus stated:

“If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema.” [1]

The twelfth anathema (denunciation) describes God as experiencing and tasting death. Thus the Council of Ephesus would not have entertained the idea that the suffering underwent by Jesus on the cross was exclusively experienced by the human nature/flesh and the divine untouched. The celebrated Archbishop Fulton Sheen who was a notable Catholic theologian and voice in America said in a meeting in Dublin, Ireland:

“You ask, for instance, “Did God die on the Cross?” The answer, happily, is Yes — as I have said the first answer is usually right. But if you go on and ask “What happened to the universe while God was dead?” nearly all abandon the great truth to which they have just assented, and explain that it was not God who died on the Cross but the human nature God the Son had assumed: which roughly is the Nestorian heresy, condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, one year before St. Patrick landed for the conversion of your ancestors and mine. The true answer, you may say, sounds not so very different from the heresy: need we bother the young with technical distinctions of this sort? But upon this distinction our redemption depends and the young are quite capable of seeing the distinction, and of rejoicing in it.” [2](bold emphasis added)

But there is no shortage of dissenting voices among other Christians. Calvinist theologian and pastor, R. C. Sproul is one such individual who rejects and denounces the notion that God truly died on the cross:

“We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ. Somehow people tend to think that this lessens the dignity or the value of the substitutionary act, as if we were somehow implicitly denying the deity of Christ. God forbid. It’s the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn’t capable of experiencing death.” [3]

It should be noted that in the above one detects some confusion on Sproul’s part. Though he rejects the idea that God actually died, he affirms in the same paragraph that the God-man died. If the God-man died then God should have experienced death too unless Sproul considers it valid to break the two natures and separate them which we have already seen is antithesis to Trinitarianism.

In his book Discovering the God Who is Sproul writes:

“If God is immutable, can he die? The obvious answer is no.” [4]

It would seem that Sproul does indeed affirm that God did not in fact die on the cross.

A Catholic apologist who claims to be a lecturer in philosophy at a university denies the claim that Jesus’ divinity in any way experienced death:

“This is not a matter of argument, but a dogma of the Church. Not only ‘only the human nature of Christ died’ but only his body died. Death means death of the biological body. The human soul of Christ (which has a human will and a human intellect) did not die, nor can it die. It “descended unto dead, and on the third day rose again” upon uniting with His body.” [5]

In this Catholic apologist’s mind God did indeed die but only in his human nature as he says, “here is my position: There is no question that God died, but it doesn’t mean that the Divinity of Christ also died. God died only in his human nature.”

The Methodist theologian Charles Wesley had no compunction however, to declare in his hymn that the immortal God died (bold emphasis mine):

And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain?
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

’Tis mystery all: th’ Immortal dies!
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more.
’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore;
Let angel minds inquire no more.

He left His Father’s throne above,
So free, so infinite His grace!
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race.
’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!
’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!

Calvinist theologian Dr. Francis Nigel Lee who is Professor of Systematic Theology and Caldwell-Morrow Lecturer in Church History at the Queensland Theological College opposes the idea of a dying God and vehemently criticises Wesley’s suggestion that the immortal God died:

“Wesley the Arminian later resurrected Theopaschitism. A few ill-chosen lines in his otherwise great hymn And can it be?, reveal this heresy. Here are those lines. (1) Amazing grace! And can it be – that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?”; (2) “’Tis mystery all! The immortal dies”; and (3) “Emptied Himselfof all love.”

The fact is, however, it was not God but Wesley who died! God did not die – because He cannot die (First Timothy 1:17 & 6:14-16). To claim with Wesley that “the immortal dies” – is like claiming that God Who is Light could become darkness (contra First John 1:5b).” [6]

Centuries earlier the father of the Reformation, professor of systematic theology Martin Luther opposed the idea that it was only the man that died and affirmed that God too died in no uncertain terms in his comments on John 3:16:

“Someone might ask: “How is it possible for the Son of man to save us and give us eternal life?” Another might ask: “How could God allow his only Son to be crucified?” Certainly it’s reasonable to say that the Son of Man died on the cross, but to say that a man can give us eternal life doesn’t make sense. It also doesn’t seem reasonable that God would let his own Son die for the world. But we must remember that when we speak about Christ, we are not speaking about a mere human being, but one person with two natures—human and divine. All of the characteristics attributed to these two natures can be found in this one person, Jesus Christ. Therefore, we can say that the Son of Man created heaven and earth, and we can also say that the Son of God created heaven and earth. We shouldn’t divide Christ into two separate natures, as the heretics do. They claim that it wasn’t the Son of God, but only Mary’s son, who suffered and died for us.

This passage, however, clearly states that God gave his Son for the world. When Christ was handed over to Pilate to be crucified and was led by Pilate to the judgment hall, Pilate took hold of the hand of not only a human being, but also God. That’s why Paul said that if the people of Jerusalem had known, they wouldn’t have crucified the Lord of glory—the one all creation adores (1 Corinthians 2:8). Therefore, it was not only the Son of Man, but also God’s Son who was conceived by Mary, suffered and died, was buried, descended into hell, and was raised again from the dead.” [7]

Christian Chinese evangelist preacher Witness Lee affirms the death of God on the cross in his book The Crystallization of the Epistle to the Romans:

“Also, Christ’s flesh, His humanity, was the incarnation of God, so when this humanity was dying on the cross, God was also there. Hebrews 9:14 shows that Christ did not die on the cross merely as a man. He also offered Himself to God by the eternal Spirit. The eternal Spirit was with Him and strengthened Him to die.” [8]

Elsewhere, in his The History of God in His Union with Man Lee writes:

“In John 8:26 the Lord Jesus said, “He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone.” God the Father sent Christ, but the Lord said that He who sent Him was with Him. When the Son came, the Father came with Him. When the Lord Jesus was traveling on this earth, he was traveling with the Father. He said that the Father had not left Him alone. Thus, when He was praying in Gethsemane, the Father was there. When He was dying on the cross, He was dying there with the Father. Jesus the Man was dying on the cross with God. Charles Wesley wrote a hymn with a line that says, “Amazing love! how can it be/ That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?” (Hymns, #296). This means that our  God died for us. When Christ died on the cross, that was God dying for us. Christ died with God because God never left Him alone. Even in His crucifixion, God was with Him.” [9] (emphasis added)

What we see in the above is not only an affirmation that God died on the cross, but it would also seem that Witness Lee is conflating the Father with Jesus and is implying that the Father experienced death with Jesus on the cross. In Lee’s zeal to affirm God’s death on the cross he has inadvertently committed the heresy known as patripassianism,that is, the notion that the Father suffered or died.

Lutheran theologian Dr. George Murphy affirms the theological understanding conveyed by the Catholic apologist cited above that God in a way did experience death, but His divinity or divine nature was precluded from any suffering.

“In spite of these common assumptions about divine immutability, impassibility, and imperishability, Christians have said that in some real sense God suffered and died on the cross. Early in the second century Ignatius of Antioch spoke of this as”the passion of my God,” and about a hundred years later Tertullian wrote,”It is a part of the creed of Christians even to believe that God did die, and yet that He is alive for evermore.”

The theological tradition interpreted the claim that God is truly present in the human Jesus with the idea that two natures, divine Word. The accompanying doctrine of communication of attributes in the personal union then allowed properties of either of the two natures to be spoken of in connection with the person of Christ. Mary could be said to be theotokos,”God-bearer,” even though the divine nature did not have its beginning in Mary’s womb. In a similar way it could be said that the crucified was”one of the Holy Trinity,”even though the divine nature was not nailed to the cross.” [10]

Though Murphy affirms that God died on the cross he denies that the divine nature was in any way harmed. How is it meaningful to say that God died but His God nature did not die? If one affirms that only the human part dies and not the divine part then one is splitting them in two and as Archbishop Sheen stated this is akin to Nestorianism. Reiterating the same view as Murphy’s a popular Christian website writes:

“His body really did die. The Roman soldiers made sure of that. They were experts at killing people.

Jesus Christ’s physical body was 100-percent human, not just part human. Our bodies can die, and so could his. When we die, our physical body dies, but our soul and spirit remain. They are eternal; they never die. The same is true of Jesus Christ. His physical body died, but his inner self is eternal and did not die.” [11]

Contradicting Murphy and the others, another Lutheran theologian Carl E. Braaten writes:

“We hear the same idea in a Lutheran hymn: “O great distress! God himself lies dead. On the cross he died, and by doing this, he has won for us the realm of heaven.”

What then have we learned from Luther? (1) The meaning of the word “God” is determined by its reference to the person of Jesus. (2) When Christians think about God in connection with jesus, it must be remembered that this person was crucified, so that God must henceforth be encountered in the cross of Jesus Christ.  (3) The death of Jesus was not an event that affected only his humanity, but also his divinity. Hence it is necessary to say, from a Christian point of view, that God died on the cross and not only a human being.” [12](emphasis added)

According to Braaten the one that suffered and died on the cross was not only the human Jesus, but also the divine Jesus.

Witness Lee in fact affirms that both divine and human natures died:

“The death of Christ on the cross was all-inclusive. Not only did man die there, but God also died there. God died on the cross in order to be released…God in Christ died on the cross.

Our wonderful Jesus is God and man; He is a God-man. When He died on the cross, both God and man died there…It is not a small thing that Jesus died on the cross, because when Jesus died, God died in him and man died in him.” [13] (emphasis added)

In the above discussion we may list down the various views that we have seen as follows:

1) God did not die at all.

2) God died which was experienced only by His human nature.

3) God did not die. Only his human flesh did.

4) God died in both human and divine nature together.

5) God died as experienced by both the Father and the Son.

Many a time it is commonplace to hear Christian apologists accusing Muslims of being uncertain as to what exactly happened on the cross according to our Islamic tradition. They would point to the fact that our traditions suggest multiple different personalities being crucified in Jesus’ stead. We concede that in our classical commentaries there are various different ways of interpretations regarding Jesus’ alleged crucifixion. What many Christians fail to realise is that they have an even more fundamental problem in their traditions namely who and what exactly died on the cross? Even amongst Trinitarians as we have seen completely divergent and contradictory views are posited regarding who exactly was the one that suffered on the cross. Is it more blasphemous to say that someone else was crucified other than Jesus or to say that God Himself truly died when most agree that He is immutable and can never die?  Is there anything worse than a false witness against God’s being? How does one reconcile the idea of God dying with the clear verse that denies any possibility of God dying in 1 Timothy 6:16 which states that “He alone can never die, and he lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him. No human eye has ever seen him, nor ever will. All honor and power to him forever! Amen.” Benedictine monk Antoine Augustine Calmet in the Calmet’s Dictionary of the Bible states under the entry on immortality, “God is absolutely immortal; he cannot die…Holiness is the root of immortality, but God only is absolutely holy, as God only is absolutely immortal. All imperfection is a drawback on the principle of immortality: only God is absolutely perfect; therefore, only God is absolutely immortal.” [14] Professor of Divinity, John Brown in his A Dictionary of the Holy Bible writes under the entry on immortality, “that which doth not and cannot die. God is immortal , and only has immortality; he hath life in and of himself, and is infinitely secure against death, hurt, or ruin of any kind, 1 Tim. i. 17. vi. 16.” [15] Trinitarian semantics gymnastics will not resolve the issue as we have seen in the discussion. Their word games only confound their predicament further and complicate matters even more leading them to drastically contradictory views.

We will close our discussion with the following footage which is an excellent and practical example of Trinitarian bewilderment:

References:

[1] Anon. (n.d.). The Council of Ephesus – 431 A.D. Retrieved fromhttp://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum03.htm#Twelve%20Anathemas%20Proposed%20by%20Cyril%20and%20accepted%20by%20the%20Council%20of%20Ephesus

[2] Sheen, F. J. (1953). Are We Really Teaching Religion?. Retrieved fromhttp://ewtn.com/library/HOMESCHL/TCHREL.HTM

[3] Sproul, R. C. (2012, March 23). Did God Die on the Cross?. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ligonier.org/blog/it-accurate-say-god-died-cross/

[4] Sproul, R. C. (1995). Discovering the God Who is: His Character and Being, His Power and Personality. Ventura, California: Regal. p. 112

[5] Anon. (2012, December 18). Exposing and Refuting the errors of Isahel Alfonso. Retrieved from http://catholicposition.blogspot.com/2012/12/exposing-and-refuting-heresy-of-isahel.html

[6] Lee, F. N. (n.d.). Did God Die on Calvary?. Retrieved fromwww.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/dgdoc/dgdoc.pdf

[7] Luther, M. (2005). Faith Alone: A Daily Devotional. James Galvin (ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

[8] Lee, Witness (1994). The Crystallization-Study of the Epistle to the Romans. Anaheim, California: Living Stream Ministry. p. 29

[9] Lee, Witness (1993). The History of God in His Union with Man. Anaheim, California: Living Stream Ministry. p. 15

[10] Murphy, G. L. (2003). The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International. p. 40

[11] Anon. (n.d.). If Jesus is God, how could he die? If Jesus died on the cross, then how can he be alive today?. Retrieved from http://christiananswers.net/kids/ednk-jesusalive.html

[12] Braaten, C. E. (2011). Who is Jesus? Disputed Questions and Answers. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. p. 96

[13] Lee, Witness (2000). Enjoying the Riches of Christ for the Building Up of the Church as the Body of Christ. Anaheim, California: :Living Stream Ministry. p. 10

[14] Calmet, A. A. (1830). Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible, Vol. 1. London: Holdsworth and Ball. p. 729

[15] Brown, J. (1816). A Dictionary of the Holy Bible, Vol. 2. Albany: R.C. Southwick. p. 18

Biblical Taqiyyah (Dissimulation)

          Biblical Taqiyyah (Dissimulation)

The Bible teaches and promotes dissimulation

To accuse Islam of teaching dissimulation(taqiyyah) and its adherents of practising it is one of the most common tactics employed by critics and detractors of Islam in their relentless crusade to demonise Islam. Many Christians gladly hop on the bandwagon peddling the mantra at every street corner, shouting to one and all, “Muslims do taqiyyah. Never believe them!”.  Do Christians never lie? “No, real Christians will not lie!” answers the deluded cultic Christian. The more edified ones will concede saying, “yes, Christians do lie as well, but the difference between Islam and Christianity is that the Bible does not teach or promote lying in any way while the Qur’an and Sunnah do.” Really? Even a “white lie” is sinful according to the Bible? “Yes, even a white lie is wrong. No such thing as a white lie!” says the confident Christian.

In this article we will not concern ourselves with what taqiyyah truly means in Islam and whether its representation by its critics is accurate or not. That execrcise can be done at a later date. In the meantime, it is sufficient to mention here that most Muslims have never heard of the term in their entire life as is readily admitted by so called ex-Muslims themselves (refer to the video at the end of the article). In this article we will unpack the question of whether the Bible is truly immune from promoting dissimulation or deception. Our first subjects are Shiphrah and Puah, the midwives of Exodus 1. Who were these fine women exactly? Let us turn to Exodus 1:15-22.

The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah,“When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.”The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this? Why have you let the boyslive?”

The midwives answered Pharaoh, “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive.”

So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous.And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.

Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: “Every Hebrew boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live.” (Exodus 1:15-22)

In summary, Pharoah instructed Shiphrah and Puah to murder newborn Hebrew male babies. They did not follow through with the order as they feared God. They let the boys live. The Phraoah found out that they did not complete their task and summoned them to answer for their failure. They feigned innocence and ignorance by deceiving the king that they could not reach the women on time when they gave birth. Their lives were clearly spared by their deception and God rewarded them for their deed without reproaching their lie in any way. Is this not a clear example of dissimulation? President of the Multnomah Bible College and Biblical Seminary in Portland, Oregan, Dr. Daniel R. Lockwood writes:

“The faith of the midwives, named Sephirah and Puah, is a breathtaking story (Exod. 1:15-22). Pharoah personally gives them their ghoulish assignment, probably to discourage any disobedience. But surprisingly they conspire to disobey Pharaoh and deceive him. And their plan works.

….

Furious, Pharoah declares an all-out genocide on Hebrew male infants. Yet he accepts the midwives’ story with little investigation, and we are privy to the reason why. These women fear the Lord and obey him; and, though the likely expect to die, God favors them with both life and prosperity.” [1] (emphasis added)

Embryology in the Qur'an

From: The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, Vol.18, Jan-June 1986, pp.15-16

A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an

Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C.
The Department of Anatomy, University of Toronto, Canada. Address all correspondence to: Keith L. Moore, Ph.D, F.I.A.C., Professor of Anatomy and Associate Dean Basic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M55 IAB, Canada

Statements referring to human reproduction and development are scattered throughout the Qur'an. It is only recently that the scientific meaning of some of these verses has been appreciated fully. The long delay in interpreting these verses correctly resulted mainly from inaccurate translations and commentaries and from a lack of awareness of scientific knowledge.
Interest in explanations of the verses of the Qur'an is not new. People used to ask the prophet Muhammad all sorts of questions about the meaning of verses referring to human reproduction. The Apostle's answers form the basis of the Hadith literature.
The translations(*) of the verses from the Qur'an which are interpreted in this paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani, a Professor of Islamic Studies inKing Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

"He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness."

This statement is from Sura 39:6. We do not know when it was realized that human beings underwent development in the uterus (womb), but the first known illustration of a fetus in the uterus was drawn by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century. In the 2nd century A.D., Galen described the placenta and fetal membranes in his book"On The Formation of the Foetus." Consequently, doctors in the 7th century A.D. likely knew that the human embryo developed in the uterus. It is unlikely that they knew that it developed in stages, even though Aristotle had described the stages of development of the chick embryo in the 4th century B.C. The realization that the human embryo develops in stages was not discussed and illustrated until the 15th century.
After the microscope was discovered in the 17th century by Leeuwenhoek descriptions were made of the early stages of the chick embryo. The staging of human embryos was not described until the 20th century. Streeter (1941) developed the first system of staging which has now been replaced by a more accurate system proposed by O'Rahilly (1972).
"The three veils of darkness" may refer to: (l) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall; and (3) the amniochorionic membrane (Fig. 1). Although there are other interpretations of this statement, the one presented here seems the most logical from an embryological point of view.

Figure 1. Drawing of a sagittal section of a female's abdomen and pelvis showing a fetus in utero. The "veils of darkness" are: (1) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall, and (3) the amniochorionic membrane.

"Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest."

This statement is from Sura 23:13. The drop or nutfah has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest"). This interpretation is supported by another verse in the Qur'an which states that "a human being is created from a mixed drop." The zygote forms by the union of a mixture of the sperm and the ovum ("The mixed drop").

"Then We made the drop into a leech-like structure."

This statement is from Sura 23:14. The word "alaqah" refers to a leech or bloodsucker. This is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24 when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus, in the same way that a leech clings to the skin. Just as the leech derives blood from the host, the human embryo derives blood from the decidua or pregnant endometrium. It is remarkable how much the embryo of 23-24 days resembles a leech (Fig. 2). As there were no microscopes or lenses available in the 7th century, doctors would not have known that the human embryo had this leech-like appearance. In the early part of the fourth week, the embryo is just visible to the unaided eye because it is smaller than a kernel of wheat.

	Figure 2. Top, a drawing of a leech or bloodsucker.  Below, a drawing of a 24 day-old human embryo. Note the leech-like appearance of the human embryo at this stage.
	Figure 3. Left, a plasticine model of the human embryo which has the appearance of chewed flesh. Right, a drawing of a 28 day-old human embryo showing several bead-like somites which resemble the teeth marks in the model shown to the left.

"Then of that leech-like structure, We made a chewed lump."

This statement is also from Sura 23:14. The Arabic word "mudghah" means "chewed substance or chewed lump." Toward the end of the fourth week, the human embryo looks somewhat like a chewed lump of flesh (Fig. 3). The chewed appearance results from the somites which resemble teeth marks. The somites represent the beginnings or primordia of the vertebrae.

"Then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones in flesh."

This continuation of Sura 23:14 indicates that out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.

"Then We developed out of it another creature."

This next part of Sura 23:14 implies that the bones and muscles result in the formation of another creature. This may refer to the human-like embryo that forms by the end of the eighth week. At this stage it has distinctive human characteristics and possesses the primordia of all the internal and external organs and parts. After the eighth week, the human embryo is called a fetus. This may be the new creature to which the verse refers.

"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."

This part of Sura 32:9 indicates that the special senses of hearing, seeing, and feeling develop in this order, which is true. The primordia of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.

"Then out of a piece of chewed flesh, partly formed and partly unformed."

This part of Sura 22:5 seems to indicate that the embryo is composed of both differentiated and undifferentiated tissues. For example, when the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiated. It later differentiates into the muscles and ligaments attached to the bones.

"And We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term."

This next part of Sura 22:5 seems to imply that God determines which embryos will remain in the uterus until full term. It is well known that many embryos abort during the first month of development, and that only about 30% of zygotes that form, develop into fetuses that survive until birth. This verse has also been interpreted to mean that God determines whether the embryo will develop into a boy or girl.

The interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D., or even a hundred years ago. We can interpret them now because the science of modern Embryology affords us new understanding. Undoubtedly there are other verses in the Qur'an related to human development that will be understood in the future as our knowledge increases.

(*) Even though the translations of the verses of the Qur'an in the above paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani, the links to the translations in this page are fromYusuf Ali Qur'an Translation (http://qibla.msa.upenn.edu/alim_online/yali_trans/yasurahl.htm) presented by the Alim Online since Sheik Zendani's translation is not available on the internet. (MSA-UTK)

Many thanks to Dr.Jamal Badawi who have brought this article to us.

മുംബൈ ആക്രമണ ദൃശ്യങ്ങള്‍ ‘കാര്‍ട്ടൂണ്‍’

മുംബൈ ആക്രമണ പദ്ധതി വിജയിച്ചതില്‍ തന്റെ ആദ്യ ഭാര്യ ഷാസിയ ഇ-മെയിലിലൂടെ അഭിനന്ദനം അറിയിച്ചിരുന്നതായി ഹെഡ്‌ലി ചിക്കാഗോ കോടതിയില്‍ വെളിപ്പെടുത്തി. ഇ-മെയിലില്‍ മുംബൈ ആക്രമണ ദൃശ്യങ്ങളെ “കാര്‍ട്ടൂണ്‍” എന്നും പദ്ധതി വിജയിച്ചതിനെ “ഗ്ര്വാജേഷന്‍” എന്നുമുള്ള കോഡുകളിലൂടെയാണ് ഷാസിയ മെയിലില്‍ വിവരിച്ചിരുന്നത്.

ദിവസം മുഴുവന്‍ താന്‍ “കാര്‍ട്ടൂണ്‍” (ആക്രമണം) കാണുകയായിരുന്നു എന്നും ഹെഡ്‌ലിയെ ഓര്‍ത്ത് അഭിമാനം തോന്നുന്നു എന്നും പറയുന്ന അഭിനന്ദന സന്ദേശത്തില്‍ ഹെഡ്‌ലിയുടെ “ഗ്രാജ്വേഷന്‍” (ആക്രമണ വിജയം) വളരെയധികം അഭിമാനത്തോടെയാണ് കണ്ടിരുന്നതെന്നും ഷാസിയ എഴുതിയിരുന്നു.

മുംബൈ ആക്രമണം ആരംഭിച്ചപ്പോള്‍ തന്നെ നിരവധി പേര്‍ അഭിനന്ദനം അറിയിച്ചിരുന്നു എന്നും ഹെഡ്‌ലി കോടതിയില്‍ പറഞ്ഞു. തഹാവുര്‍ റാണയുടെ വിചാരണയുടെ നാലാം ദിവസമാണ് ഹെ‌ഡ്‌ലി ഈ വെളിപ്പെടുത്തല്‍ നടത്തിയത്.

ഹെഡ്‌ലിയുടെ ആദ്യ ഭാര്യയ്ക്ക് ഡെന്‍‌മാര്‍ക്ക് ആക്രമണ പദ്ധതിയെ കുറിച്ചും അറിവുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. ഹെ‌ഡ്‌ലിക്ക് ഡെന്‍‌മാര്‍ക്കില്‍ നിന്ന് ഫ്രാങ്ക്‌ഫുര്‍ട്ടിലേക്കും ദുബായിലേക്കും പാകിസ്ഥാനിലേക്കും ഇവര്‍ ടിക്കറ്റ് ബുക്ക് ചെയ്തിരുന്നു.

നവംബര്‍ 26 ന് മുമ്പ് രണ്ട് തവണ മുംബൈയില്‍ ആക്രമണം നടത്താന്‍ ലഷ്‌കര്‍ ശ്രമിച്ചിരുന്നു എന്നും ഹെഡ്‌ലി വെളിപ്പെടുത്തിയിരുന്നു. 2008 സെപ്തംബറില്‍ ആക്രമണകാരികള്‍ വന്ന ബോട്ട് പാറയിലിടിച്ചു തകര്‍ന്നത് പദ്ധതി പരാജയപ്പെടാന്‍ കാരണമായി. എന്നാല്‍, ബോട്ടിലുണ്ടായിരുന്ന ആര്‍ക്കും ജീവാപായമുണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല. രണ്ടാമത്തെ ശ്രമം ഒക്ടോബറില്‍ ആയിരുന്നു എന്നും ഹെഡ്‌ലി വെളിപ്പെടുത്തുന്നു.