c++ cast: May 2010

Monday, May 24, 2010

Please help me smart people in math!!!!?

OKay.. this is the problem...

a. you are standing 12 feet from a light source 18 feet above the ground. if you are 6 feel tall, what is the lenght of the shadow that you will cast?

b. what will happen to the lenght of your shadow as you walk away from the light source? support your answers...

c. if you walk twice as far away from the light, will your shadow be twice as long?

please i really need help...

Please help me smart people in math!!!!?
I can`t draw a diagram on here, but I hope this will help:

Let the length of the shadow be x feet, so you have two similar right angled triangles, the legs being 18 and (12 + x) and in the other one, 6 and x. So:

6/x = 18/(12 + x) {both are the tangent of the angle of incination of the light at the end of the shadow} So:

6(12 + x) = 18x, so

72 + 6x = 18x, so

72 = 12x, so

x = 6.

Hope this helps, and I`ll let you try the next two parts, Twiggy.
Reply:To solve this problem, picture a right triangle as follows:

The light pole is the vertical leg. Its length is 18 feet.

The hypotenuse is the beam of light touching the top of your head and continuing to the tip of your shadow. We do not need to know its length.

The horizontal leg is the stretch of ground from the base of the light pole to the tip of your shadow. Its length is 12 feet plus the length of your shadow, which we'll call S.

Now, consider a similar triangle (one with the same angles as the first) with the vertical leg being a person (6 feet in length), and the horizontal leg being just the shadow (length S).

Because the angles on these two triangles are the same, the lengths of their sides will be proportionate: Thus the length of each side on the first triangle will be (18/6) = 3 times the length of the corresponding side on the second triangle.

So, 3 times the length of the shadow (the horizontal leg of triangle 2), or 3*S is equal to the length of 12+S (the horizontal leg on triangle 1).

With some simple algebra,

3*S = 12 + S =%26gt;

2*S = 12 =%26gt;

S = 6

we see that S, the length of the shadow, is 6 feet.

In response to part B, the shadow gets longer. Consider if you were 16 feet from the light pole. Then all of our information from before would remain the same, except for the length of the horizontal legs. Apply the same algebra with 16 feet instead of 12 feet, and you get:

3*S = 16 + S =%26gt;

2*S = 16 =%26gt;

S = 8,

so the shadow is now 8 feet long.

The further you move from the light pole, the more this will increase.

Finally, to address part C, if you are twice as far from the light pole, we use the same method, substituting 24 for 12 this time. Hence

3*S = 24 + S =%26gt;

2*S = 24 =%26gt;

S = 12.

Since the shadow is now 12 feet long, the answer is yes.

It's not as easy to explain it, in my opinion, without drawing a picture, but I hope this helps anyway.

I need quick stage make-up remover!?

Hi guys,

Here's the deal I'm in a community theater production of Snowwhite and the Seven Dwarfs and we open next week and go through till October somthing but the problem is that one of the days where we're doing three show, 10:30, 1:00, and 3:00, is also the day of my HOMECOMING DANCE! The shows about three hours long including intermisson so I've execpted the fact that I'm gonna have to mostly get ready at the theater if I want to be home when my date comes to picks me up. Some of my gal pals in the cast said they would do my hair for me but my make up is the problem. I'm the Walking Talking Magic Mirror so I'm gonna have lot's of heavy goffy make up that I'm gonna need to take of right after curtin call so I can put on my dance make up. Dose anyone know somthing that is

a) a portable make up remove (like wipes in a contaner)

b) can do a through but fast job on heavy make up

c) is gentle enough to use on someone with sensitive skin!

Thank You

I need quick stage make-up remover!?
Neutrogena makes a pre-moistened makeup removing wipes (can't remember the exact name). You can find them in any drug store, in with the facial care products. I have used them to remove stage and opera makeup. I have never had any problems with them. They are fast and work well.
Reply:Albolene.

Albolene.

Albolene.

You cannot find a better Theatrical Makeup remover.

One Caveat: after you wipe it off use an Astringent such as Witch Hazel, otherwise it will give your face a rather oily sheen that can take hours to wipe off.

Or maybe it is just my face.

In any case: Alboline. You can find it at Walgreens or Sav-On or your nearest drugstore in the skincare aisle. It is a white jar with a blue lid.
Reply:Baby wipes. I kid you not.
Reply:unfortunetely you will need some water and some sort of sponge, but Noxema works really well. I have used in between scenes when i change charaters and I have only 2 minutes to remove and reapply my makeup... so that is my suggestion. Good Luck and have fun at homecoming!
Reply:See if you can find Abalone Cream, it is an excellent makeup remover. Or use cold cream, then cleanse with sensitive skin Sea Breeze. Lots of luck, Doc
Reply:Neutragena has some really good products. Maybe you caould ask your date to pick you up from the theatre. That way you have more time.
Reply:A jar of coconut oil - the kind that's hardened. A little goes a long ways and it's the quickest ever, cheapest, and will last you forever.
Reply:Ben Nye makes some time of remover. I think you can get anywhere Ben Nye stuff is sold. It's like in a 4oz bottle but a little goes a long way, but works really well. It's kinda expensive but worth it, just put it on a cotton make-up pad and wipe away.

p.s. if you don't know a place that sells it then ask one of your directors one of them should know where to get some. Break a leg!

petal

Who is to blame?

Katrina kills a lot of people, displaces a lot more, and people have cast their blames in various directions. Who is to blame?

a) George Bush Jr; the President didn't act properly, didn't take it seriously, didn't send enough resources to the region or?

b) State Officials; didn't have or get the resources to the people, didn't communicate with the federal or local government and let everyone down?

c) Local officials; Mayor, Police Chief and others in the region didn't get people evacuated, didn't tell people to evacuate in time, didn't get federal officials involved in time?

d) The people; they didn't evacuate when told, didn't have ample supplies, didn't have ample transportation and suffered the worst?

My only remaining comment is in all the news stories and editorials last year about Katrina - I saw no one blaming the people? I choose "D" because I believe we are responsible for ourselves; but what do you choose?

Who is to blame?
C and D

Did you see all the buses just floating there?

and D because I think they knew there was going to be looting so why not wait for all the gun owners to flee...then go in and get their stuff
Reply:Yes Bush and his HUGE HURRICANE GENARATIN' MACHINE

And those idiots STILL voted for Nagin. Report It

Reply:a) George Bush Jr; the President didn't act properly, didn't take it seriously, didn't send enough resources to the region or?

b) State Officials; didn't have or get the resources to the people, didn't communicate with the federal or local government and let everyone down?

State Officials knew how much it would cost and didn't presure the Federal Government for aid. G.W.B. also was informed as early as 2000 and did nothing to help
Reply:Its a little bit of all... but mainly D.

People knew that it was going to hit but did not leave. The reason that the news pinned the blame on A-C is because, as everyone knows, the media is a business. They will only report on what people want to hear and gear it to make it more interesting. If they had blamed the people that didn't leave, people would not have felt bad, therefore they would stop watching news and reading papers about it.... lowering the advertising profits for the news and media outlets.

By portraying the victims as helpless people abandoned by their government, they received much more sympathy and much more media attention (meaning people wanting to watch more news about it.)

It is the same reason that the news inflates stories such as bird flu, terrorist plots, and big storms (such as snow) that never actually hit.

I am not saying that these people were not victims and many of them had no choice.. but in many cases it was their own fault for not leaving when they had the opportunity.
Reply:that is an interesting question

I can not lay blame on any one person or organization but I do agree that people need to take more responsibility for their own life. People always look for somebody else to blame when they should suck it up and realize that they need to take responsibility for their choices.
Reply:I seriously disagree with your reason. Your choice would have been correct if EVERYONE possessed the same resources. The majority of the individuals that were able to evacuate had the resources (money, property, etc.) to do so.

However, our President took an oath to protect all of us. To protect the rich (which he does very well), to protect the middle class, and to protect the poor. His performance concerning the last two groups is ridiculously low. I'm sure you have heard, "that with great power, comes great responsibility." It is the responsibility of our president to ensure our safety through proactive or reactive action.

If (D) is correct, you could be beaten and robbed by an individual, and it is your responsibility to correct the situation, not the police office that witnessed the crime.
Reply:"If people really wanted to get out of there, they would have found a way" Wow Bob T, that is dynamic and inspirational. Man, you're singing the praises of the human spirit. If you could walk fifty miles to get out of such destruction, death, and sadness, I guess anyone could. I guess if you would have had kids, you would have put them on your back. If you would have had elderly parents, you would stack them on top of the kids. Your indomitable spirit and ex-cheerleader skills,would have made the fifty miles a simple "walk on the beach". Since life is just a simple exercise in mind over matter, you must be rich with your mental cure for cancer. Unfortunately Bob, all of us aren't supermen. All of us can't just will ourselves to ignore the horrors that were wittnessed in New Olreans. Especially, when help was expected, and loved ones were missing. Though this may sound moronic, the rest of us (on this planet) are just mere mortals. We can't summon our super powers at the drop of a dime.
Reply:C and D

the order is arguable

futeach is a moron

if people really wanted to get out of there

they would have found a way

**** i would have walked 50 miles myself to get the **** out of there
Reply:same I choose D because they should o been ready like savin

extra food long befor the happening. even when they know that its

very likely they have a hurrican they still were not ready!! Thats

there fault!!! Then the government takes money out of our pay-

checks to give to them!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply:Answer lies in all 4
Reply:all the above will be blaming themselves in some way. If only we did.

well they didn't so now is the time to start thinking about helping these people get their lives and homes back. gee Tommygirl if it was you would you be moaning about your pay what has happen to unity in your country?
Reply:Why does there have to be someone to blame? I thought it was just a big storm.

Should we start blaming people for random acts of nature. What about shark attacks? Lets blame Donald Trump for Sharks. Why not he's rich and has silly hair.

More on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?

Julius Rosenberg (May 12, 1918 – June 19, 1953) and Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg (September 28, 1915 – June 19, 1953) were American Communists who received international attention when they were executed for passing nuclear weapons secrets to the Soviet Union.

In the 1990s, Soviet communications decrypted in the VENONA project were released which supported the general allegations of espionage by Julius, though not supporting the specific charges on which the Rosenbergs were convicted. Also supporting the conviction were Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's posthumously published memoirs.

Contents [hide]

1 Background

2 Trial and conviction

3 Execution

4 Posthumous revelations

5 Controversy

6 The Rosenbergs' children

7 Notes

8 See also

9 Further reading

10 External links

[edit] Background

Julius Rosenberg was born to a Jewish family on May 12, 1918 in New York City. He became a leader in the Young Communist League where, in 1936, he met Ethel, whom he married three years later. He graduated from the City College of New York with a degree in electrical engineering in 1939 and in 1940 joined the Army Signal Corps, where he worked on radar equipment.

Ethel Greenglass was born on September 28, 1915, in New York City, also to a Jewish family. She was an aspiring actress and singer, but eventually took a secretarial job at a shipping company. She became involved in labor disputes and joined the Young Communist League, where she first met Julius. The Rosenbergs had two sons.

According to his former KGB handler, Alexander Feklisov, Julius Rosenberg was originally recruited by the KGB on Labor Day 1942, by former KGB spymaster Semyon Semyonov.[1] Julius had been introduced to Semenov by Bernard Schuster, a high ranking member of the Communist Party USA as well as Earl Browder's personal KGB liaison. After Semenov was recalled to Moscow in 1944, his duties were taken over by his apprentice, Alexander Feklisov.[1]

According to Feklisov, Julius was his most dedicated and valuable asset, providing thousands of classified reports from Emerson Radio including a complete proximity fuze, the same design that was used to shoot down Francis Gary Powers's U-2 in 1960. Under Feklisov administration, Julius Rosenberg is said to have recruited sympathetic individuals to the KGB’s service, including Joel Barr, Al Sarant, William Perl and Morton Sobell. [2]

According to Feklisov's account, he was supplied by Perl, under Julius Rosenberg’s direction, with thousands of documents from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics including a complete set of design and production drawings for the Lockheed's P-80 Shooting Star. Feklisov says he learned through Julius that his brother-in-law David Greenglass was working on the top secret Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, and used Julius to recruit him.[1]

During World War II, the USSR and the US became allies in war, but the US government was highly suspicious of Joseph Stalin's intentions. As such, the Americans did not share information or seek assistance from the Soviet Union for the Manhattan Project. However, the Soviets were aware of the project as a result of espionage penetration of the US government and had made a number of attempts to infiltrate its operations at the University of California, Berkeley. A number of project members—some high-profile, others lower in rank — did voluntarily give secret information to Soviet agents, many because they were sympathetic to communism[citation needed] (or the Soviet Union's role in the war) and did not feel that the US should have a monopoly on atomic weapons [3]

After the war, the US continued to resist efforts to share nuclear secrets, but the Soviet Union was able to produce its own atomic weapons by 1949. Its first nuclear test, "Joe 1", shocked the West in the speed it was produced. It was then discovered in January 1950 that Klaus Fuchs, a German refugee theoretical physicist working for the British mission in the Manhattan Project, had given key documents to the Russians throughout the war. Through Fuchs' confession, US and UK intelligence agents were able to make a case against his "courier", Harry Gold, who was arrested on May 23, 1950. A former machinist at the top-secret Los Alamos laboratory, Sgt. David Greenglass, confessed to having passed secret information on to the USSR through Gold as well. He testified that his sister, Ethel Rosenberg, and her husband, Julius, had also passed secrets. Another accused conspirator, Morton Sobell, fled to Mexico City, but was later deported back to the United States for trial.

[edit] Trial and conviction

Police photograph of Julius Rosenberg after his arrest.

Mugshot of Ethel Rosenberg.The case against the Rosenbergs and Sobell began on March 6, 1951. The prosecution's primary witness, David Greenglass, stated that his sister Ethel typed notes containing US nuclear secrets in the Rosenberg apartment in September 1945. He also asserted that a sketch he made of a cross section of the implosion-type atom bomb (the one dropped on Nagasaki as opposed to the "gun method" triggering device that was in the one dropped on Hiroshima) was also turned over to Julius Rosenberg at that meeting.

From the beginning, the trial attracted a high amount of media attention, and like the trial of Alger Hiss, generated a largely polarized response from observers, some of whom believed the Rosenbergs to be clearly guilty, and others who asserted their innocence.

Although the notes typed by Ethel apparently contained little that was relevant to the Soviet atomic bomb project, this was sufficient evidence for the grand jury to indict Ethel and enough for the jury to convict on the conspiracy to commit espionage charge.

It is believed that part of the reason Ethel was indicted along with Julius was so that the prosecution could use her as a 'lever' to pressure Julius into giving up the names of others who were involved. [4] If that was the case, it did not work. On the witness stand, Julius asserted his right under the Fifth Amendment to not incriminate himself whenever asked about his involvement in the Communist Party or with its members. Ethel did similarly. Neither defendant was viewed sympathetically by the jury.

The role played by Assistant United States Attorney Roy Cohn, the prosecutor in the case, is controversial, since Cohn stated in his autobiography that he influenced the selection of the judge, and pushed him to impose the death penalty on both Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.

The Rosenbergs were convicted on March 29, 1951, and on April 5 were sentenced to death by Judge Irving Kaufman under section 2 of the Espionage Act, 50 U.S. Code 32 (now 18 U.S. Code 794), which prohibits transmitting or attempting to transmit to a foreign government information "relating to the national defense." The conviction helped to fuel Senator Joseph McCarthy's investigations into anti-American activities by US citizens. While their devotion to the Communist cause was well documented, the Rosenbergs denied the espionage charges even as they faced the electric chair.

The couple were the only two American civilians to be executed for espionage-related activity during the Cold War. In imposing the death penalty, Judge Kaufman noted that he held them responsible not only for espionage but also for the deaths of the Korean War:

“ I consider your crime worse than murder...I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-Bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason. Indeed, by your betrayal you undoubtedly have altered the course of history to the disadvantage of our country. No one can say that we do not live in a constant state of tension. We have evidence of your treachery all around us every day for the civilian defense activities throughout the nation are aimed at preparing us for an atom bomb attack.[5] ”

Their case has been at the center of the controversy over communism in the United States ever since, with supporters steadfastly maintaining that their conviction was an egregious example of persecution typical of the "hysteria" of those times (see McCarthyism) and likening it to the witch hunts that marred Salem and medieval Europe (a comparison that provided the inspiration for Arthur Miller's critically acclaimed play, The Crucible).

At the time, some Americans believed both Rosenbergs were innocent or received too harsh a punishment, and a grass-roots campaign was started to try to stop the couple's execution. Other Americans felt that the couple got what they deserved. Pope Pius XII appealed to President Dwight D. Eisenhower to spare the couple, but he refused on February 11, 1953, and all other appeals were also unsuccessful.[1]

[edit] Execution

The couple were executed at sundown in the electric chair at Sing Sing in Westchester County, New York, on June 19, 1953(Delayed because of the Rosenbergs appeal to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit). (Originally scheduled for later in the evening after the start of the Jewish Sabbath, their lawyer, Manny Block, filed a complaint that this offended their Jewish heritage -- so the execution was scheduled before sunset.) Reports of the execution state that Julius died after the first application of electricity, but Ethel did not succumb immediately and was subjected to two more electrical charges before being pronounced dead. The chair was designed for a man of average size; and Ethel Rosenberg was a petite woman: this discrepancy resulted, it is claimed, in the electrodes fitting poorly and making poor electrical contact. Eyewitness testimony (as given by a newsreel report featured in The Atomic Cafe) describes smoke rising from her head.

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg are interred at Wellwood Cemetery in Pinelawn (Suffolk County), New York.

[edit] Posthumous revelations

In 1995, the National Security Agency publicly released documents from the VENONA project, an effort to decrypt intercepted communications between Soviet agents and the NKVD/KGB. A 1944 cable from New York to Moscow clearly indicates that Julius Rosenberg was engaged in espionage for the Soviet Union, though the importance of his effort is not clear, particularly considering that the Soviets were receiving information on the Atomic bomb from Klaus Fuchs, Donald Maclean and Theodore Hall. Ethel's involvement is not clear from the VENONA transcripts. A document from November 27, 1944 [2] specifically about Ethel lists her as a "fellowcountryman" and claims that she was aware of Julius' work. Ethel was apparently never assigned a code name — the only reference to her states she "does not work." Julius was always referred to as "ANTENNA" or "LIBERAL" — which has cast doubt onto his significance and involvement. In his memoirs, published posthumously in 1990, Nikita Khrushchev praised the pair for their "very significant help in accelerating the production of our atomic bomb." Whether this was in fact the case, however, has been disputed [6]

Faced with the VENONA transcripts and periodic revelations from former Soviet intelligence officials and archives, most critiques of the Rosenbergs' prosecution today centers on the usefulness of classified nuclear information provided by the Rosenbergs to the Soviet Union, the severity of their punishment, and the fact that not all Soviet spies were caught, and not all who were caught were prosecuted by the U.S. government. David Greenglass claimed that the atom bomb information believed to be given to the Soviets by Greenglass was quite poor in comparison to the information given by Fuchs, who had a much more intimate understanding of the research being done (revealed by records of Fuchs' detailed transmissions in selective releases from Soviet archives). There was also significant information provided independently of Fuchs by the young scientist Theodore Alvin Hall, as well as a number of other agents, the identities of whom have not yet been fully established.

Fuchs's data were the most valuable of all the Soviet atomic spies, giving a range of specific information on everything from nuclear physics details, production of the plants for uranium enrichment, and the exact values for the bomb design itself.[7] However, it was standard Soviet intelligence policy to use several intelligence sources if at all possible, as any information the Rosenbergs provided could serve as a control to check the accuracy of other intelligence.[1]

David Greenglass was spared execution in exchange for his testimony. More importantly, his wife, who according to the Venona decrypts was given a code name, was never even indicted. He spent 10 years in prison and was released in 1960, and has lived under an assumed name since his release. Decades later, in late 2001, Greenglass recanted and claimed that he had committed perjury when he testified about the typing activity of his sister Ethel. Greenglass said he chose to falsely testify against his sister in order to protect his wife and children.

[edit] Controversy

The Rosenberg case has always been a controversial issue, with opinion dividing along ideological lines. There are a number of points of contention which still hold, even after the VENONA revelations.

Ethel Rosenberg’s Involvement: While the preponderance of evidence indicates that Julius was involved in Soviet espionage, the record is unclear for Ethel. The VENONA transcripts are ambiguous as to Ethel's involvement, and her brother, David Greenglass, a key prosecution witness, later told his biographer Sam Roberts that he had perjured himself to lessen his own sentence and to help his wife avoid jail time. [3]

The Trial: There are many experts who have alleged that the political air of the time, and the seemingly pre-trial held beliefs by Judge Kaufman made it nearly impossible for the Rosenbergs to have had a fair trial by an impartial jury. The Rosenberg lawyer, Emanuel Bloch, also made a number of massive legal blunders (such as moving to impound Exhibit 8--a Greenglass sketch purporting to show a cross section of the implosion-type atom bomb, thereby in effect acquiescing in the prosecution's charge that the sketch was in fact the "secret of the atom bomb" and also not cross-examining Harry Gold, who in later trials was found to be highly unreliable) suggesting either his incompetence or inability to cope with such a high-profile trial. Also, prosecutor Roy Cohn influenced the choice of Kaufman as judge.

The Sentence: The imposition of the death sentence upon the Rosenbergs has been the most controversial aspect of the case, as they were sentenced far more harshly than any other "atomic spies." Klaus Fuchs, who spied for many more years than the Rosenbergs, provided far more sensitive nuclear information to the Soviet Union, and was caught, confessed, tried, convicted, and sentenced in the United Kingdom, received 14 years in jail, which was the maximum penalty in that nation for passing military secrets to friendly nations. In 1950 the Rosenbergs' conspiracy charge was prosecuted in the United States in the context of the Cold War and the concurrent Korean War, with Judge Kaufman placing culpability on the couple for the Korean War. It is not clear that the prosecution proved that the Rosenbergs' activities had caused the Korean War, even if they had given the Soviet Union the secret of the atomic bomb.

[edit] The Rosenbergs' children

The Rosenbergs' two sons, Robert and Michael, were orphaned by the execution, and no relatives dared adopt them for fear of ostracism or worse. They were finally adopted by the songwriter Abel Meeropol and his wife Anne. Abel Meeropol (under the pen name of Lewis Allan) wrote the classic anti-lynching anthem "Strange Fruit," made famous by singer Billie Holiday. He also co-wrote (with Earl Robinson) "The House I Live In", made famous in a short film starring Frank Sinatra to promote the war effort under a theme of tolerance for all types of Americans. (This song has a line referring to "My neighbors white and black" which was omitted from the film and Frank Sinatra's recorded versions. In the film all the characters, even the members of Sinatra's band are white.) Robert and Michael co-wrote a book about the experience, We are Your Sons: The Legacy of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg (1975), and Robert wrote another book in 2004, An Execution in the Family: One Son's Journey. In 1990, Robert founded the Rosenberg Fund for Children, a non-profit foundation which provides support for children whose parents are Leftist activists involved in court cases.

Michael's daughter, Ivy Meeropol, directed a 2004 documentary about her grandparents, Heir to an Execution, which was featured at the Sundance Film Festival.

[edit] Notes

^ a b c d Feklisov, Aleksandr; Kostin, Sergei (2001). The Man Behind the Rosenbergs. Enigma books. ISBN 1-929631-08-1.

^ Feklisov, Aleksandr; Kostin, Sergei (2001). The Man Behind the Rosenbergs. Enigma books, 140-147. ISBN 1-929631-08-1.

^ See Joseph Albright and Marcia Kunstell, Bombshell, Times Books, 1997 (ISBN 0-8129-2861-X) with reference to Theodore Alvin Hall and Saville Sax and their motives.

^ Roberts, Sam (2001). The Brother: The Untold Story of the Rosenberge Case. Random House, 425-426,432. ISBN 0-375-76124-1.

^ Judge Kaufman's Statement Upon Sentencing the Rosenbergs on the site of the University of Kansas City-Missouri School of Law. Accessed 28 September 2006.

^ "KGB agent says Rosenbergs were executed unjustly", 1997-03-06. Retrieved on 2006-09-25.

^ The content and value of Fuchs's data for the Soviet program is discussed thoroughly in David Holloway's, Stalin and the bomb : the Soviet Union and atomic energy, 1939- 1956 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994). Holloway based his assessment of the value of Fuchs's data in particular from the intelligence transcripts and the reactions of key Soviet personnel—especially Igor Kurchatov—to Fuchs' data. The exact use of espionage information by the Soviets was somewhat complicated, due to mutual distrust of the espionage data and the Soviet scientists themselves by Stalin and Beria: see Soviet atomic bomb project for more information.

[edit] See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

Rosenberg trialSoviet atomic bomb project

Lee Harvey Oswald; the Rosenbergs' case is thought to have spurred his interest in Marxism [4]

Atom Spies

Cultural references to the Rosenbergs

[edit] Further reading

Feklisov, Aleksandr, and Kostin, Sergei, The Man Behind the Rosenbergs, Enigma Books (2001)

Ronald Radosh and Joyce Milton, The Rosenberg File: A Search for the Truth, Henry Holt (1983), hardcover, ISBN 0-03-049036-7

Robert and Michael Meeropol, "We Are Your Sons, The Legacy of Ethel and Julius Rosenber," Second Edition, University of Illinois Press, 1986. [chapter 15 is a detailed refutation of Radosh and Milton's scholarship], hardcover ISBN 0-252-01263-1

Robert Meeropol, "An Execution in the Family," St. Martin's Press, 2003.

Tema Nason, Ethel: The Fictional Autobiography of Ethel Rosenberg (originally published by Delacourt, 1990, ISBN 0-440-21110-7, paperback by Dell, 1991, same ISBN, and by Syracuse, 2002, ISBN 0-8156-0745-8), a fictional account of Ethel's life and intuitively included things that came out in later accounts.

[edit] External links

Photo of Ethel Rosenberg's grave

Photo of Julius Rosenberg's grave

Timeline of Events Relating to the Rosenberg Trial.

Ethel's brother says he trumped up evidence.

Project Venona messages.

Rosenberg FBI files (summary only)

Heir to an Execution — An HBO documentary by Ivy Meeropol, the granddaugther of Ethel and Julius.

A statement by the Rosenberg's sons in support of their exoneration

An Interview with Robert Meeropol about the adoption

Mujeres Riot: Ethel Rosenberg (in Spanish, includes numerous photos)

National Committee to Reopen the Rosenberg Case

Annotated bibliography for Ethel Rosenberg from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues

Annotated bibliography for Julius Rosenberg from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and...

Categories: Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements | Soviet spies | Cold War spies | History of anti-communism in the United States | Nuclear secrecy | McCarthyism | Venona Appendix A | American criminals | Disputed convictions leading to execution | Sing Sing prison | City University of New York people | Jewish American history | Married couples | People executed by electric chair | Executed spies | 1915 births | 1918 births | 1953 deaths | People from New York City | People executed in the US

More on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?
Gosh, got any more on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?
Reply:And your question is?

They betrayed their country, proved. They gave away secrets, proved. They committed treason, proved. They were executed as traitors. So what is the problem?
Reply:It appears that you have all that you need to know.
Reply:A sphincter says, "What?"

If you got into a fight with Ron Weasly, would you...?

a. be afraid to have a spell cast on you that you couldn't counter?

b. be afraid that Hermoine would come to his rescue and whoop your behind?

c. wipe the floor with the wimp cause that kid is the biggest loser?

If you got into a fight with Ron Weasly, would you...?
I have to go with C. Lets see the flags down on me people; I'm ready.
Reply:B. Hermione kicks butt! lol
Reply:B
Reply:b
Reply:B. that chick is crazy.
Reply:heck no, man, It would be a tie because we are both natural redheads and you know what they say about redheads, temper temper. LOL, JK......

nah, Id be more afraid of his wife to be, she's dangerous. :P
Reply:d. i would make out with him, lol, he's way cute, cuter than harry, by far!!!!

Once upon a time in a land far away?

a frog hopped on to a princess's lap and said "Elegant Lady I was once a handsome prince and an evil witch cast a spell on me, One kiss from you and i will turn back into the dapper prince i once was and then my sweet we can marry and set up house keeping with my Mother in your Castle where you can satisfy my needs, prepare and serve my meals, clean my clothes, bear my children and be forever greatful and happy doing so,

That night as the Princess dined sumptuously on lightly sauteed frogs legs

seasoned in a white wine and onion cream sauce she chuckled and thought to herself

I dont F.U.K.C.I.N.G think so

Once upon a time in a land far away?
Was she satisfied by the frog ?
Reply:LOL !!! very funny Report It

Reply:One simple warning sig should come with the Princess:

"This ********* bites!"

garden sheds

Jennifer Hudson to play Billie Holiday in Film??????

The director who cast Diana Ross as Billie Holiday is considering doing a remake of this film to provide audiences with a holistic picture of this amazing woman. (He wants to deal the sensitive matters of her personal life, her being misused and raped by her manager and her issues with bisexuality).

I thought that Diana did a "decent" job with Billie Holiday although they look and sound nothing alike. (Diana was placed in that leading role b/c of her mega-star status in the 70's)

My QUESTION FOR YOU:

1. We all know that Jen won an Oscar for her role as Effie in Dream Girls, but do you think she is ready to take on a COMPLEX character like Billie Holiday.

2. Besides the fact that both women are "thick" they look nothing alike and sound nothing alike. Jenn's style is gospel and Billie's style is more of an eclectic jazz sound. In my view Billie's closest "vocal" match would be Anita Baker, Roberta Flack, India Ire, Eryka Badou or Jill Scott!!

What are your thoughts???

Jennifer Hudson to play Billie Holiday in Film??????
You make some awesome points. I think Jen's a great actress, but her and Billie aren't even comparable musically/lookwise. Maybe she'll brow me away, I think she's cool, but totally different from Holiday.

I would love to see a more true to life story of Billie, I sure hope those folks know what they're gettin into.
Reply:Diana Ross has aready played Billie Hoilday; so let be. By the way that was a good movie.
Reply:Jennifer is a great actress she was able to set the world on fire with her performance in Dream Girls. I personally think she is ready for this part this gives herself the chance to prove that she is not just rnb but she is jazz to and that she can do it. Yes, it is true that her and Billie look nothing alike but Diana Ross really didn't favor Billie either, Billie looked way, way, way better than Diana so why couldn't Jennifer do it. She has already shown what she is capable of.
Reply:The artist who sounds more like Billie Holiday would be Chrisette Michele. Listen to her CD I Am. She also could play her in a movie. I hope she gets an opportunity to audition.

God, people who do and don't, and Whys and Hows.?

3 Part Answer.

~ Is there a God, Yes or No? ~

If yes:

A. Why do you think so?

B. Is there some sort of compelling text (direct quote) to back it up?

C. Was there a time in your life when you didn't?

If no:

A. Why do you think not?

B. Is there some sort of proof or data to support your answer?

C. Was there a time in your life that you did believe?

Please don't judge me for asking. Please answer each part, (A-B-C.) I think we can all benefit from knowing what motivates people in this area and enable more current rebuttals for another time. So in other words be nice, it's a survey, tell me your story.

PS. to ensure that this doesn't get personal I won’t choose a best answer, I am however going to leave it up to the voters. I encourage you all to keep checking in on this question for when it does go "in voting," cast your votes. That's the part I'm most interested in anyhow.

God, people who do and don't, and Whys and Hows.?
Yes there is a GOD in heaven and JESUS son of GOD.

A .Because i am a living miracle and JESUS changed me so much.

B.The bible

C.i get a lot hit by devil lies but i know i am saved.

U can be too.

GOD loves u so much that he sent his son JESUS to die for u to reconcile u back.

John 3:16 says "For GOD so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoso ever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life".Ask JESUS to come into your heart and forgive ur sins and cleanse ur past with his blood.

With a simple prayer like above u can be saved.
Reply:No, I do not believe so.

A. I've never seen any direct or circumstantial evidence.

B. No.

C. Yes, until I was around 34 or so.
Reply:i'm sorry. when i graduated from college i decided i wasn't ever going to answer another essay question, especially one in three parts.

it was a moral decision, and one i will have to stand by.

no....i won't tell you why in three parts, either.
Reply:i do believe there is a God but i really don't understand why everyone compares everything to Christianity. There are many other religions out there that no one gives a crap to learn more about. If they did, then probably they'd realize that there is a God but the teachings of Christianity are just not the right ones for them.
Reply:A. No.

B. There's no reason to postulate any god since there is no evidence for it. However, there is an entire universe of evidence for Nature itself. Religious people want to say that 'God' created the Universe but nothing created 'God'. To postulate an all powerful being creates more questions than it answers AND there still remains no evidence for such a being. I say that the Universe has always existed in one form or another and no 'super-being' is necessary for us to be here. The nature of the Universe must be potentially life creating naturally.

C. Yes, I used to be Christian until I studied the Bible and realized that it really makes no sense.
Reply:no

A- the world can be explained easier without one

B- No its impossible to disprove god, but their is lack of evidence, and nonbody i the modenr time has ever seen, measured, or legitimately interacted with it. Generally an explanation for "that which doesnt exist"

C- Yes when i was young and was afraid not to, and didnt know you couldnt.
Reply:No, there are *no* Gods at all.

A. *NO* Evidence (and science is discounting Bible accounts.)

B. Self-evident - there is, simply, none. (it's up to the claimant.)

C. No - Born atheist (as are we all), never indoctrinated.

Please help me smart people in math!!!!?

Will you vote in a mock election...?

If an election were to be held giving you the option to choose between three candidates of equal qualification and character in all respects except for their religious affiliations, how would you cast your votes in the following three example races?

Example #1: (a race for the Senate)

Candidate A is a........ Southern Baptist

Candidate B is a ....... Born Again Christian

Candidate C is a ....... Roman Catholic

Example #2: (a race for the House of Representatives)

Candidate A is a........ Jew

Candidate B is a ....... Muslim

Candidate C is a ....... Mormon

Example #3: (a race for Circuit Court Judge)

Candidate A is a........ Wicca

Candidate B is a ....... Pagan

Candidate C is a ....... none

Which religions affiliated individuals would you trust most to represent you politically in these three election decisions?

Please step into the voting booth and make your three selections.

Will you vote in a mock election...?
I cannot in good conscience participate in this type of election.

IMO-Selection of a candidate based solely on a declared religious affiliation is dangerous and irresponsible.

Thank you for asking...and I understand that my failure to participate in the election forfeits my right to complain about the new establishment.

Blessings to you and yours.
Reply:I say an atheist for President, Senate, Congress etc. is the only way we will ever be unbiased!
Reply:IF everyone was really equal in all qualifications and all represented my outlooks equally, I suppose I'd have to flip a coin, or vote for the cutest, or who had the best name. Religion would, at most, weigh no more heavily than how cute he was. I vote on issues.
Reply:#1 Pencil in D

#2 Pencil in D

#3 Pencil in D
Reply:what a nasty question. asking us to judge people on their religion alone. oh well, it's interesting though...

1 C

2 A

3 C

2 is really tough.
Reply:I don't vote for someone based upon their religion.

I vote based upon their adherence to the Constitution and their understanding of individual freedom.
Reply:I don't vote based upon religious beliefs. I vote honesty, integrity, and having the tools to get the job done fairly. There are so many hypocrites and religious nuts to base a decision on someones claims rather than their record is asking for trouble or a vote for Hillary in my opinion.
Reply:If they're all equal, and they've all made their religious affiliations (or lack thereof) known to the media, then they're all horrible. Which one's the third party candidate? I'm voting for him; that's what I normally do when I don't like my options.
Reply:I guess it would depend on where you are voting. Good luck if you are voting in the United States. What with screwed up dimpling on ballots. And did anyone show up? Could they even get there? As for me, I screwed up my ballot... I voted for balanced democracy.

Looking over the answers people gave, it really looks like a bad bar joke.

A Catholic, a Jew and a Pagan walk into a bar...
Reply:Good news everyone!

This text is too small for me to read. The ballot is confusing!

Huh? Oh I'm supposed to bash the polls AFTER I vote? Whoops.

Okay, then here's how I would vote:

1.) C

2.) C

3.) C
Reply:I will vote for the Jew the Catholic and the Pagan.
Reply:C probably not strong in their faith (don't know many catholics that are fanatical

A same reason

C no faith blinding their decision making, they would hopefully go on what's right and legal
Reply:#1--C

#2--C

#3--C
Reply:1 - C

2 - A

3 - C
Reply:example 1 doesn't make much sense as all 3 could be born again Christians. For the sake of argument, let's say:

1. B

2. A

3. C
Reply:1. C, but I don't care.

2. B, but I don't care.

3. A. Wicca

I think it's funny how everyone picked C for the last choice, except for one person who picked B.

I would pick the Wiccan so he/she can show how the religion is not evil, and disprove all myths about it.

I would also pick him/her because a few ideas they hold dear include "An it HARM NONE, do as ye will" and the three-fold law of karma. They are more accepting and peaceful than many people. (ooh peaceful! how many of you are against the war under the bush administration?)
Reply:I would vote for people based on the issues.

Voting for people based on thier religion is even stupider than voting for someone based on thier political party.

voting based on religion makes you an idiot no better than a sheep.

Voting based on a candidate's party makes you a sheep.

One needs to look at the issues themselves and make an intelligent decision not based on the rhetoric put out by a giant douche or a turd sandwich.
Reply:1) C

2) A

3) C

garden design

Italian high school musical?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Which outfit for first day of school?

Gonna be a freshman. I bought a ton of American Eagle clothes.

I wanna wear these jeans: http://www.ae.com/web/browse/product.jsp...

But which top should I wear with them for the fist day of school?

A) http://www.ae.com/web/browse/product.jsp... (I have that polo in gold crest, avacado green, and teal glaze, so pick a color)

B) http://www.ae.com/web/browse/product.jsp...

C) http://www.ae.com/web/browse/product.jsp... (orange tassel)

D) http://www.ae.com/web/browse/product.jsp... (paisley green)

E) http://www.ae.com/web/browse/product.jsp... (cast iron grey)

F) http://www.ae.com/web/browse/product.jsp... (white)

Pick your fave please!!

Which outfit for first day of school?
i didnt see them, but just wear something that you feel comfortable in. As a freshman you always want to look cool and not so young right? i know bcuzz i was a freshman last year =), but yeah.. just wear something that you feel secure with, also check the weather report! =)
Reply:the jeans(obvisouly..) and A(teal glaze!)
Reply:ae copies everything that abercrombie and hollister make but i would have to go with F its cute and like the only that will really match, all the other shirts would look better with dark denim
Reply:I like (C)
Reply:i think you should wear c
Reply:defienitly c !!!!!
Reply:D
Reply:D and B
Reply:i like C the best

%26amp; it's so cute that i think i might have to go buy it
Reply:my fav with that is F because it looks layed back and something you can where with anything
Reply:my fav is C
Reply:i think those cute jeans would go great with "D"
Reply:those jeans are really nice and i like the polo in the gold crest....also try to pair it with some gold bangles or a long necklace and maybe some dangling earrings...I think it would make a really awesome outfit!!!

%26lt;333 good luck!!!
Reply:D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply:I like E

And I like A (in the teal glaze)

All of them are cute

but I think those ones stand out the best!
Reply:defineatly B!! i'm not into the whole fashion thing..i'm to much of a tomboy to be...and i'm a sophmore this year..but what i do know about fashion is that purple is the "IN" color this fall and it's just an awesome shirt..i would even wear that!! and i think that with the jeans in that lighter wash it will look really nice and slimming..very nice welcome to high school feel to it!! hope this helps!!
Reply:I love B
Reply:i think you would look best in f!
Reply:I like B. I actually think that I have those jeans, they work well with my high tops =D
Reply:ok so we took a vote and we like D. If something happens thought ( like you don't like it or it gets ruined) you should wear the pink polo it's simple and you'll still be cute and comfortable!
Reply:e i have those jeans and i love to wear greys with them
Reply:wear the polo and get a funky tank to layer for underneath and have the colors show a little on the bottom.
Reply:(A) in teal glaze i have the exact same top, but ima wear it with Hollister skinny jeans 4 the first day of school!!

-u have good taste in clothes
Reply:Hey Stephi... Well i know u must be excited!! umm now i will tell u to go comfotable.. to begin with the first day or so most people dont really see what u be wearing everyone be crazy about the classes and most dont even show up to class till the 3rd day or sooo.. ur outfits are very nice i like the polo style baby blue shirt... but then again just go comfortable and never with the best outfit.. just enjoy seeing the people in ur classes and when day 3 comes u can start showing off!! but ur personality is what will really leave an impression!! good luck n enjoy~~!!
Reply:b or c
Reply:my fav is choice "f"
Reply:i think the white one is really cute and i would wear that. i will be a freshmen and i am going to try the same thing, i think they are all cute tho. luv the jeans

What is the status of Christ in Islam ?

Christ in Islam

by Ahmed Deedat

In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate

--------------------------------------...

Chapter One : Christian Muslim Responses

--------------------------------------...

Debate on TV

At the end of the debate - "Christianity and Islam" - which appeared on the SABC-TV program "Cross Questions" on Sunday 5th June 1983, the Chairman, Mr. Bill Chalmers commented: "I think it can be said from this discussion that there is, at present, somewhat more accommodation on the Islamic side for the founder of Christianity than there is on the Christian side for the founder of Islam. What the significance of that is, we leave it to you, the viewer, to determine, but I do think you will agree that it is a good thing that we are talking together."

"Bill" as he is popularly addressed, without any formalities, on all his programs, by all his panelists, is extremely charming and stupendous in his humility. He is a picture of what the Holy Quran portrays of a good Christian:

"...And nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say: 'We are Christians': because among these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world. And they are not arrogant." (The Holy Quran 5:82)

Jesus - His Status

Were the Muslims on the panel trying to placate the viewers out policy, deceit or diplomacy? Nothing of the kind! They were only articulating what God Almighty had commanded them to say in the Holy Quran. As Muslims, they had no choice. They had said in so many words: "We Muslims believe, that Jesus was one of the mightiest messengers of God that he was the Christ, that he was born miraculously without any male intervention (which many modern-day Christians do not believe today), that he gave life to the dead by God's permission and that he healed those born blind and the lepers by god's permission. In fact, no Muslim is a Muslim if he or she does not believe in Jesus!"

Pleasant Surprise

Over 90% of the people who witnessed this debate must have been pleasantly, but skeptically, surprised. They might have not believed their ears. They must have surmised that the Muslims were playing to the gallery - that they were trying to curry favor with their fellow Christian countrymen; that if the Muslims would say a few good words about Jesus, then in reciprocation the Christians might say a few good words about Muhammed (may the peace and the blessings of God be upon all His righteous servants, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed...etc.); that I scratch your back and you scratch my back - which would be a sham or hypocrisy.

Hate Cultivated

We cannot blame the Christians for their skepticism. They have been so learned for centuries. They were trained to think the worst of the man Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, and his religion. How aptly did Thomas Carlyle say about his Christian brethren over a hundred and fifty years ago: "The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammed) are disgraceful to ourselves only." We Muslims are partly responsible for this. We have not done anything substantial to remove the cobwebs.

Ocean of Christianity

South Africa is an ocean of Christianity. If Libya boasts the highest percentage of Muslims on the continent of Africa, then the Republic of South Africa would also be entitled to boast the highest percentage of Christians. In this ocean of Christianity the R.S.A. - the Muslims are barely 2% of the total population. We are a voteless minority - numerically, we count for nothing; politically, we count for nothing; and economically, one white man, as Oppenheimer, could buy out the whole lot of us, lock, stock and barrel.

So if we had feigned to appease, we might be excused. But no! We must proclaim our Master's Will; we must declare the Truth, whether we liked it or not. In the words of Jesus: "Seek ye the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32).

--------------------------------------...

Chapter Two : Jesus in the Quran

--------------------------------------...

Christians Unaware

The Christian does not know that the true spirit of charity which the Muslim displays, always, towards Jesus and his mother Mary spring from the fountainhead of his faith - the Holy Quran. He does not know that the Muslim does not take the holy name of Jesus, in his own language, without saying Eesa, alaihi assalam ("Jesus, peace be upon him")

The Christian does not know that in the Holy Quran Jesus is mentioned twenty five times. For example:

"We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit" (The Holy Quran 2:87)

"O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary..." (3:45)

"...Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of god..." (4:171)

"...And in their foot steps we sent Jesus the son of Mary..." (5:46)

"And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous." (6:85)

Jesus - His Titles

Though Jesus is mentioned by name in twenty-five places in the Holy Quran, he is also addressed with respect as: Ibn Maryam, meaning "The son of Mary"; and as the Maseeh (in Hebrew it is the Messiah), which is translated as "Christ". He is also known as Abdullah, "The servant of Allah"; and as Rasul u Allah, the messenger of Allah.

He is spoken of as "The Word of God", as "The Spirit of God", as a "Sign of God", and numerous other epithets of honor spread over fifteen different chapters. The Holy Quran honors this mighty messenger of God, and the Muslims have not fallen short over the past fourteen hundred years in doing the same. There is not a single disparaging remark in the entire Quran to which even the most jaundiced among the Christians can take exception.

Eesa Latinised to "Jesus"

The Holy Quran refers to Jesus as Eesa, and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his "Christian" name. Actually, his proper name was Eesa (Arabic), or Esau (Hebrew); classical Yeheshua, which the Christian nations of the West latinised as Jesus. Neither the "J" nor the second "s" in the name Jesus is to be found in the original tongue - they are not found in the Semitic languages.

The word is very simply "E S A U" a very common Jewish name, used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called "Genesis". There was at least one "Jesus" sitting on the "bench" at the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Josephus the Jewish historian mentions some twenty five Jesus' in his "Book of Antiquities". The New Testament speaks of "Bar-Jesus" a magician and a sorcerer, a false prophet (Acts 13:6); and also "Jesus-Justus" a Christian missionary, a contemporary of Paul (Colossians 4:11). These are distinct from Jesus the son of Mary. Transforming "Esau" to (J)esu(s) - Jesus - makes it unique. This unique (?) name has gone out of currency among the Jews and the Christians from the 2nd century after Christ. Among the Jews, because it came to be a name of ill - repute, the name of one who blasphemed in Jewry; and among the Christians because it came to be the proper name of their God. The Muslim will not hesitate to name his son Eesa because it is an honored name, the name of a righteous servant of the Lord.

--------------------------------------...

Chapter Three : Mother And Son

--------------------------------------...

Mary Honored

The birth of Jesus Christ is described in two places of the Quran - chapter 3 and chapter 19. Reading from the beginning of his birth, we come across the story of Mary, and the esteemed position which she occupies in the House of Islam, before the actual annunciation of the birth of Jesus is given:

"'Behold'! the angels said: 'O Mary! God hath chosen thee and purified thee, and chosen thee above the women of all nations" (3:42)

"Chosen thee above the women of all nations." Such an honor is not to be found given to Mary even in the Christian Bible! The verse continues:

"O Mary! Worship thy Lord devoutly: prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down." (3:43)

Divine Revelation

What is the source of this beautiful and sublime recitation which, in its original Arabic, moves men to ecstasy and tears? verse 44 below explains:

"This is part of the tidings, of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Muhammad!) by inspiration: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point)." (3:44)

Mary's Birth

The story is that the maternal grandmother of Jesus, Hannah, had hitherto been barren. She poured out her heart to God: If only God will grant her a child, she would surely dedicate such a child for the service of God in the temple.

God granted her prayer and Mary was born. Hannah was disappointed. She was yearning for a son, but instead she delivered a daughter; and in no way is the female like the male, for what she had in mind. What was she to do? She had made a vow to God. She waited for Mary to be big enough to fend for herself.

When the time came, Hannah took her darling daughter to the temple, to hand over for temple services. Every priest wanted to be the god-father of this child. They cast lots with arrows for her - like the tossing of the coin - head or tail?

eventually she fell to the lot of Zakariya, but not without a dispute.

The Source of His Message

This was the story. But where did Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, get this knowledge from? He was an Ummi, Arabic for "unlettered". He did not low how to read or write. He is made by God Almighty to answer this very question in the verse above, by saying that it was all by divine inspiration. "No!", says the controversialist. "This is Muhammed's own concoction. He copied his revelations from the Jews and Christians. He plagiarized it. He forged it."

Knowing full-well, and believing as we do, that the whole Quran is the veritable Word of God, we will nevertheless agree, for the sake of argument, with the enemies of Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, for a moment, that he wrote it. We can now expect some cooperation from the unbelievers.

Ask him: "Have you any qualms in agreeing that Muhammed was an Arab?" Only an ignorant will hesitate to agree. In that case there is no sense in pursuing any discussion. Cut short the talk. Close the book!

With the man of reason, we proceed. "That this Arab, in the first instance, was addressing other Arabs. He was not talking to Indian Muslims, Chinese Muslims, or Nigerian Muslims. He was addressing his own people, the Arabs. Whether they agreed with him or not, he told them in the most sublime form, words that were seared into the hearts and minds of his listeners that Mary the mother of Jesus, a Jewess, was chosen above the women of all nations. Not his own mother, nor his wife nor his daughter, nor any other Arab woman, but a Jewess! Can one explain this? Because to everyone his own mother or wife, or daughters would come before other women.

Why would the prophet of Islam honor a woman from his opposition! and a Jewess at that! belonging to a race which had been looking down upon his people for three thousand years? Just as they still look down upon their Arab brethren today."

Sarah and Hagar

The Jews learn, from the Bible, that their father, Abraham, had two wives Sarah and Hagar. They say that they are the children of Abraham through Sarah his legitimate wife; that their Arab brethren have descended through Hagar, a "bondwoman", and that as such, the Arabs are an inferior breed.

Will anyone please explain the anomaly as to why Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, if he is the author, chose this Jewess for such high honor? The answer is simple, he had no choice he had no right to speak of his own desire. "It is no less than an inspiration sent down to him." (53:4)

The Chapter of Maryam

There is a Chapter in the Holy Quran, named Surat u Maryam "Chapter Mary", named in honor of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him; again, such an honor is not to be found given to Mary in the Christian Bible. Out of the 66 books of the Protestants and 73 of the Roman Catholics, not one is named after Mary or her son. You will find books named after Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul and two score more obscure names, but not a single one is that of Mary!

If Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, was the author of the Holy Quran, then he would not have failed to include in it with Mary, the mother of Jesus, his own mother Aamina, his dear wife Khadija, or his beloved daughter Fatima. But No! No! This can never be. The Quran is not his handiwork!.

--------------------------------------...

Chapter Four : The Good News

--------------------------------------...

" 'Behold!' the angels said: 'O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him: his name will be Jesus, the son of Mary; held in honor in this world and the hereafter; and (of the company of) those nearest to Allah." (3:45)

"Nearest to God," not physically nor geographically, but spiritually. Compare this with "And (Jesus) sat on the right hand of God." (Mark 16:19). The bulk of Christendom has misunderstood this verse as well as many others in the Bible. They imagine the Father (God) sitting on a throne, a glorified chair, and His Son, Jesus, sitting on His right hand side. Can you conjure up the picture? If you do, you have strayed from the true knowledge of God. He is no old Father Christmas. He is beyond the imagination of the mind of man. He exists. He is real, but He is not like anything we can think of, or imagine.

In eastern languages "right hand" meant a place of honor, which the Holy Quran more fittingly describes as "In the company of those nearest to Allah." The above verse confirms that Jesus is the Christ. and that he is the Word which God bestowed upon Mary. Again, the Christian reads into these words, a meaning which they do not carry. They equate the word "Christ" with the idea of a god-incarnate; and the "Word" of God to be God.

"Christ" Not a Name

The word "Christ" is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic Maseeh. Root word masaha, meaning "to rub", "to massage", "to anoint". Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translated Grecian form, "Christ" seems unique: befitting Jesus only.

Christians like to translate names into their own language; like Cephas to "Peter" , Messiah to "Christ". How do they do that? Very easily. Messiah in Hebrew means "Anointed". The Greek word for anointed is Christos. Just lop off the 'os' from Christos, and you are left with "Christ"; a unique name!

Christos means "Anointed", and anointed means appointed in its religious connotation. Jesus, peace and blessing be upon him, was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God's Messenger. Every prophet of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the "anointed" ones. In the original Hebrew, he was made a Messiah. Let us keep to the English translation "anointed."

Not only were prophets and priests and kings anointed (Christos-ed), but horns, and cherubs and lamp-posts also.

"I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar ..." (Genesis 31:13)

"If the priest that is anointed do sin ..." (Leviticus 4:3)

"And Moses... anointed the tabernacle and all things that was therein..." (Leviticus 8:100)

"..the Lord shall...exalt the horn of his anointed" (I Samuel 2:10)

"Thus saith the Lord to his anointed to Cyrus..." (Isaiah 45:1)

"Thou art the anointed cherub..." (Ezekiel 28:14)

There are an hundred more such references in the Holy Bible. Every time you come across the word "anointed" in your Bible, you can take it that that word would be christos in the Greek translations, and if you take the same liberty with the word that the Christians have done, you will have Christ Cherub, Christ Cyrus, Christ Priest and Christ Pillar, ...etc.

Some Titles Exclusive

Although, every prophet of God is an anointed one of God, a Messiah, the title Maseeh or Messiah, or its translation "Christ" is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. This is not unusual in religion. There are certain other honorific titles which may be applied to more than one prophet, yet being made exclusive to one by usage: like "Rasulullah", meaning "Messenger of God", which title is applied to both Moses (19:51) and Jesus (61:6) in the Holy Quran. Yet "Rasullullah" has become synonymous only with Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, among Muslims.

Every prophet is indeed a "Friend of God", but its Arabic equivalent "Khalillullah" is exclusively associated with Father Abraham. This does not mean that the others are not God's friends. "Kaleemullah", meaning "One who spoke with Allah" is never used for anyone other than Moses, yet we believe that God spoke with many of His messengers, including Jesus and Muhammed, may the peace and blessings of God be upon all His servants. Associating certain titles with certain personages only, does not make them exclusive or unique in any way. We honor all in varying terms.

Whilst the good news was being announced (verse 45 above) Mary was told that her unborn child will be called Jesus, that he would be the Christ, a "Word" from God, and that...

"He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous." (3:46)

"At length she brought the (babe) to her people carrying him. They said: 'O Mary! truly a strange thing has thou brought!'. 'O sister of Aaron!, thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!' " (The Holy Quran 19:27-28)

Jews Amazed

There is no Joseph the carpenter here. The circumstances being peculiar, Mary the mother of Jesus had retired herself to some remote place in the East (19:16). After the birth of the child she returns.

A. Yusuf Ali, comments in his popular English translation of the Quran:

"The amazement of the people knew no bounds. In any case they were prepared to think the worst of her, as she had disappeared from her kin for some time. But now she comes, shamelessly parading a babe in her arms! How she had disgraced house of Aaron, the fountain of priesthood!

"Sister of Aaron": Mary is reminded of her high lineage and the unexceptionable morals of her father and mother. How, they said, she had fallen, and disgraced the name of her progenitors!

What could Mary do? How could she explain? Would they, in their censorious mood accept her explanation? All she could do was to point to the child, who, she knew, was no ordinary child. And the child came to her rescue. By a miracle he spoke, defended his mother, and preached to an unbelieving audience."

Allah azza wa jall says in the Quran:

"But she pointed to the babe. They said: 'How can we talk one who is a child in the cradle?' He (Jesus) said: 'I am indeed a servant of Allah (God) : He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet: 'and He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. '(He hath made me) kind to my mother, and not overbearing or unblest; 'So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life again)'!" (19:29-33)

His First Miracle(s)

Thus Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, defended his mother from the grave calumny and innuendoes of her enemies. This is the very first miracle attributed to Jesus in the Holy Quran that, he spoke as an infant from his mother's arms. Contrast this with his first miracle in the Christian Bible which occurred when he was over thirty years of age:

"And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.' His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." (John 2:110)

Since this miracle, wine has flowed like water in Christendom. Many reason that what was good for the Master is good enough for them. Jesus was no "kill-joy" they say. Didn't he make good potent wine, that even those "well drunk", those whose senses had been dulled could make out the difference ? "That the best was kept for the last.". This was no pure grape juice. It was the same wine that, according to the Christian Bible, enabled the daughters of Lot to seduce their father (Genesis 19:32-33).It was the same wine which the Christian is advised to eschew in Ephesians 5:18 - "And be not drunk with wine..."

It is that innocent (?) 1% potency that eventually leads millions down into the gutter. America has 10 million drunkards in the midst of 70 million "born-again" Christians! The Americans call their drunkards "Problem Drinkers". In South Africa, they are called "Alcoholics"; drunkard is too strong a word for people to stomach.

But the Prime Minister of Zambia, Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, does not hesitate to call a spade a spade. He says, "I am not prepared to lead nation of drunkards", referring to his own people who drink intoxicants.

Whether the water "blushed" or not "seeing" Jesus, we cannot blame him or his disciples for the drinking habits of his contemporaries. For he had truly opined, "have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). Mankind had not reached the stage of receiving the whole Truth of Islam. Did he not also say "You cannot put new wine into old bottles"? (Matthew 9:17).

"Mother" or "Woman"?

According to St. John, in the fourth verse above, describing the marriage feast at Cana, we are told that Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, behaved insolently towards his mother. He calls her "woman," and to rub more salt into the wound he is made to say "what have I to do with thee?" What connection is there between you and me, or what have I got to do with you? Could he have forgotten that this very "woman" had carried him for nine months, and perhaps suckled him for 2 years, and had borne endless insults and injuries on account of him? Is she not his mother? Is there no word in his language for "mother"?

Strange as it may seem, that while the missionaries boast about their master's humility, meekness and long-suffering, they call him the "Prince of Peace" and they sing that "he was led to the slaughter like a lamb, and like a sheep who before his shearer is dumb, he opened not his mouth", yet they proudly record in the same breath, that he was ever ready with invectives for the elders of his race, and was always itching for a showdown i.e. if their records are true:

"Ye hypocrites!"

"Ye wicked and adulterous generation!"

"Ye whited sephulcres!"

"Ye generation of vipers!"

and now to his mother: "Woman..."

Jesus Defended

Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, the Messenger of God, is made to absolve Jesus from the false charges and calumnies of his enemies.

"And He (God Almighty) hath made me (Jesus) kind to my mother, and not overbearing or unblest" (19:31).

On receiving the good news of the birth of a righteous son Mary responds:

"She said: 'O My Lord! how shall I have a son, when no man hath touched me?"

The angel says in reply:

"He said: 'Even so: Allah (God) createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a matter He but sayth o it 'Be,' and it is! And Allah (God) will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Torah (Law) and the Gospel," (3:47-48).

--------------------------------------...

Chapter Five : Quranic and Biblical Versions

--------------------------------------...

Meeting the Reverend

I was visiting the "Bible House" in Johannesburg. Whilst browsing through the stacks of Bibles and religious books, I picked up an Indonesian Bible and had just taken in hand a Greek - English New Testament, a large, expensive volume. I had not realized that I was being observed by the supervisor of the Bible House. Casually, he walked up to me. Perhaps my beard and my Muslim headgear were an attraction and a challenge? He inquired about my interest in that costly volume. I explained that as a student of comparative religion, I had need for such a book. He invited me to have tea with him in his office. It was very kind of him and I accepted.

Over the cup of tea, I explained to him the Muslim belief in Jesus, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. I explained to him the high position that Jesus occupied in the House of Islam. He seemed skeptical about what I said. I was amazed at his seeming ignorance, because only retired Reverend gentlemen can become Supervisors of Bible Houses in South Africa. I began reciting from verse 42 of chapters 3 of the Holy Quran:

"'Behold!' The angels said: 'O Mary, Allah hath chosen thee...'"

I wanted the Reverend to listen, not only to the meaning of the Quran, but also to the music of its cadences when the original Arabic was recited. Rev. Dunkers (for that was his name) sat back and listened with rapt attention to "Allah's Words".

When I reached the end of verse 49, the Reverend commented that the Quranic message was like that of his own Bible. He said, he saw no difference between what he behaved as a Christian, and what I had read to him. I said: "that was true". If he had come across these verses in the English language alone without their Arabic equivalent, side by side, he would not have been able to guess in a hundred years that he was reading the Holy Quran. If he were a Protestant, he would have thought that he was reading the Roman Catholic Version, if he had not seen one, or the Jehovah's Witness Version or the Greek Orthodox Version, or the hundred and one other versions that he might not have seen; but he would never have guessed that he was reading the Quranic version.

The Christian would be reading here, in the Quran, everything he wanted to hear about Jesus, but in a most noble, elevated and sublime language. He could not help being moved by it.

In these eight terse verses from 42 to 49 we are told:

(a) That Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virtuous woman, and honored above the women of all nations.

(b) That all that was being said was God's own Revelation to mankind.

(c) That Jesus was the "Word" of God.

(d) That he was the Christ that the Jews were waiting for.

(e) That God will empower this Jesus to perform miracles even in infancy.

(f) That Jesus was born miraculously, without any male intervention.

(g) That God will vouchsafe him Revelation.

(h) That he will give life to the dead by God's permission, and that he will heal those born blind and the lepers by God's permission, ... etc.

"Chalk and Cheese"

The most fervent Christian cannot take exception to a single statement or word here. But the difference between the Biblical and the Quranic narratives is that between "chalk and cheese". "To me they are identical, what is the difference?" the Reverend asked. I know that in their essentials both the stories agree in their details, but when we scrutinize them closely we will discover that the difference between them is staggering.

Now compare the miraculous conception as announced in verse 47 of the Holy Quran with what the Holy Bible says:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, (as husband and wife) she was found with child of the holy ghost."(Matthew 1:18)

Master Dramatizer

The eminent Billy Graham from the United States of America dramatized this verse in front of 40,000 people in King Park, Durban, with his index finger sticking out and swinging his outstretched arm from right to left, he said: "And the Holy Ghost came and impregnated Mary!" On the other hand St. Luke tells us the very same thing but less crudely. He says, that when the annunciation was made, Mary was perturbed. Her natural reaction was :

"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1:34) meaning sexually.

The Quranic narrative is:

"She said: O my Lord! how shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" (3:47) meaning sexually.

In essence there is no difference between these two statements "seeing I know not a man" and "when no man hath touched me". Both the quotations have an identical meaning. It is simply a choice of different words meaning the same thing. But the respective replies to Mary's plea in the two Books (the Quran and the Bible) are revealing.

The Biblical Version

Says the Bible:

"And the angle answered and said into her : 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" (Luke 1:35)

Can't you see that you are giving the atheist, the skeptic, the agnostic a stick to beat you with? They may well ask "How did the Holy Ghost come upon Mary?" "How did the Highest overshadow her?" We know that literally it does not mean that: that it was an immaculate conception, but the language used here, is distasteful. Now contrast this with the language of the Quran:

The Quranic Version

"He said (the angel says in reply): 'Even so: Allah (God) createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!' " (3:47)

This is the Muslim concept of the birth of Jesus. For God to create a Jesus, without a human father, He merely has to will it. If He wants to create a million Jesus' without fathers or mothers, He merely wills them into existence. He does not have to take seeds and transfer them, like men or animals by contact or artificial insemination . He wills everything into being by His word of command "Be" and "It is".

There is nothing new in what I am telling you, I reminded the Reverend. It is in the very first Book of your Holy Bible, Genesis 1:3 "And God said..." What did He say? He said "Be" and "It was". He did not have to articulate the words. This is our way of understanding the word "Be", that He willed everything into being.

Choice for His Daughter

"Between these two versions of the birth of Jesus, the Quranic version and the Biblical version, which would you prefer to give your daughter ?" I asked the supervisor of the Bible House. He bowed his head down in humility and admitted "The Quranic Version."

How can "a forgery" or "an imitation", as it is alleged of the Quran, be better than the genuine, the original, as it is claimed for the Bible? It can never be, unless this Revelation to Muhammed is what it, itself, claims to be viz. The pure and holy Word of God! There are a hundred different tests that the unprejudiced seeker after truth can apply to the Holy Quran and it will qualify with flying colors to being a Message from on High.

Like Adam

Does the miraculous birth of Jesus make him a God or a "begotten" son of God? No! says the Holy Quran:

"The similitude of Jesus before Allah (God) is that of Adam; He created him from dust then said to him: 'Be', and he was." (3:59)

Yusuf Ali, comments in his notes in the Quran translation:

"After a description of the high position which Jesus occupies as a prophet in the preceding verses we have a repudiation of the dogma that he was God, or the son of God, or any thing more than man. If it is said that he was born without a human father, Adam was also so born. Indeed Adam was born without either a human father or mother. As far as our physical bodies are concerned they are mere dust.

In God's sight Jesus was as dust just as Adam was or humanity is. The greatness of Jesus arose from the divine command 'Be': for after that he was more than dust a great spiritual leader and teacher"

The logic of it is that, if being born without a male parent entitles Jesus to being equated with God, then, Adam would have a greater right to such honor, and this no Christian would readily concede. Thus, the Muslim is made to repudiate the Christian blasphemy.

Further, if the Christian splits hairs by arguing that Adam was "created" from the dust of the ground, whereas Jesus was immaculately "begotten" in the womb of Mary, then let us remind him that, even according to his own false standards, there is yet another person greater than Jesus, in his own Bible . Who is this superman?

Paul's Innovation

"For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God... Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life..." (Hebrews 7:1,3)

Here is a candidate for Divinity itself, for only God Almighty could possess these qualities. Adam had a beginning (in the garden), Jesus had a beginning (in the stable); Adam had an end and, claim the Christians, so had Jesus "and he gave up the ghost". But where is Melchisedec? Perhaps he is hibernating somewhere like Rip Van Winkel (a fairy tale character who slept for many ages.)

And what is this "Hebrews"? It is the name of one of the Books of the Holy Bible, authored by the gallant St. Paul, the self appointed thirteenth apostle of Christ. Jesus had twelve apostles, but one of them (Judas) had the Devil in him. So the vacancy had to be filled, because of the "twelve" thrones in heaven which had to be occupied by his disciples to judge the children of Israel (Luke 22:30).

Saul was a renegade Jew, and the Christians changed his name to "Paul", probably because "Saul" sounds Jewish. This St. Paul made such a fine mess of the teachings of Jesus, peace blessings be upon him, that he earned for himself the second most coveted position of "The Most Influential Men of History" in the monumental work of Michael H. Hart: The 100 or The Top Hundred or the Greatest Hundred in History. Paul outclasses even Jesus because, according to Michael Hart, Paul was the real founder of present day Christianity. The honor of creating Christianity had to be shared between Paul and Jesus, and Paul won because he wrote more Books of the Bible than any other single author, whereas Jesus did not write a single word.

Paul needed no inspiration to write his hyperboles here and in the rest of his Epistles. Did not Hitler's Minister of Propaganda Goebbels say: "The bigger the lie the more likely it is to be believed'? But the amazing thing about this exaggeration is that no Christian seems to have read it. Every learned man to whom I have shown this verse to, seemed to be seeing it for the first time. They appear dumbfounded, as described by the fitting words of Jesus:

"...seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matthew 13:13)

The Holy Quran also contains a verse which fittingly describes this well cultivated sickness:

"Deaf, dumb and blind, will they not return (to the path)." (2:18)

The Sons of God

The Muslim takes strong exception to the Christian dogma that "Jesus is the only begotten son, begotten not made". This is what the Christian is made to repeat from childhood in his catechism. I have asked learned Christians, again and again as to what they are really trying to emphasize, when they say: "Begotten not made".

They know that according to their own God given (?) records, God has sons by the tons:

"...Adam, which was the son of God."(Luke 3:38)

"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair... And when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them..." (Genesis 6: 2,4)

"...Israel is My son, even My firstborn:" (Exodus 4:22)

"...for I (God) am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn." (Jeremiah 31:9)

"...the Lord hath said unto me (David): 'Thou art My son: this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms 2:7)

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 18:14)

Can't you see that in the language of the Jew, every righteous person, every Tom, Dick and Harry who followed the Will and Plan of God, was a "Son of God". It was a metaphorical descriptive term commonly used among the Jews. The Christian agrees with this reasoning, but goes on to say: "but Jesus was not like that". Adam was made by God. Every living thing was made by God, He is the Lord, Cherisher and Sustainer of all. Metaphorically speaking therefore God is the Father of all. But Jesus was the "begotten" son of God, not a created son of God ?

Begotten Means "Sired"!

In my forty years of practical experience in talking to learned Christians, not a single one has opened his mouth to hazard an explanation of the phrase "begotten not made". It had to be an American who dared to explain. He said : "It means, sired by God." "What!?" I exploded : "Sired by God?" "No, no!" he said, "I am only trying to explain the meaning, I do not believe that God really sired a son."

The sensible Christian says that the words do not literally mean what they say. Then why do you say it? Why are you creating unnecessary conflict between the 1,200,000,000 Christians and a thousand million Muslims of the world in making senseless statements?

Reason for Objection

The Muslim takes exception to the word "begotten", because begetting is an animal act, belonging to the lower animal functions of sex. How can we attribute such a lowly capacity to God? Metaphorically we are all the children of God, the good and the bad, and Jesus would be closer to being the son of God than any one of us, because he would be more faithful to God then any one of us can ever be. From that point of view he is preeminently the son of God.

Although this pernicious word "begotten" has now unceremoniously been thrown out of the "Most Accurate" version of the Bible, the Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.), its ghost still lingers on in the Christian mind, both black and white. Through its insidious brainwashing the white man is made to feel superior to his black Christian brother of the same Church and Denomination. And in turn, the black man is given a permanent inferiority complex through this dogma.

Brain-washed Inferiority

The human mind can't help reasoning that since the "begotten son" of an African will look like an African, and that of a Chinaman as a Chinese, and that of an Indian like an Indian: so the begotten son of God aught naturally to look like God. Billions of beautiful pictures and replicas of this "only begotten son of God" are put in peoples hands. He looks like a European with blonde hair, blue eyes and handsome features like e one I saw in the "King of Kings" or "The Day of Triumph" or "Jesus of Nazareth". Remember Jeffrey Hunter? The "Savior" of the Christian is more like a German than a Jew with his polly nose. So naturally, if the son is a white man, the father would also be a white man (God?). Hence the darker skinned races of the earth subconsciously have the feeling of inferiory ingrained in their souls as God's "step children". No amount of face creams, skin lighteners and hair straighteners will erase the inferiority.

God is neither black nor white. He is beyond the imagination of the mind of man. Break the mental shackles of a Caucasian (white) man-god, and you have broken the shackles of a permanent inferiority. But intellectual bondages are harder to shatter: the slave himself fights to retain them.

--------------------------------------...

Chapter Six : Answer to Christian Dilemmas

--------------------------------------...

"Christ in Islam" is really Christ in the Quran: and the Holy Quran has something definite to say about every aberration of Christianity. The Quran absolves Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, from all the false charges of his enemies as well as the misplaced infatuation of his followers. His enemies allege that he blasphemed against God by claiming Divinity. His misguided followers claim that he did avow Divinity, but that was not blasphemy because he was God. What does the Quran say ?

Addressing both the Jews and the Christians, Allah says:

"O People of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah (God) aught but the truth. Christ Jesus son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah (God), and His Word, which he bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah (God) and His messengers..." (4:171)

Going to Extremes

"O People of the Book" is a very respectful title with which the Jews and the Christians are addressed in the Holy Quran. In other words, Allah is saying "O Learned People!", "O People with a Scripture!" According to their own boast, the Jews and the Christians prided themselves over the Arabs, who had no Scripture before the Quran. As a learned people, Allah pulls up both the contending religionists for going to either extremes as regards the personality of Christ.

The Jews made certain insinuations about the legitimacy of Jesus and charged him of blasphemy by twisting his words. The Christians read other meanings into his words; wrench words out of their context to make him God.

The modern day Christian, the hot - gospeller, the Bible thumper, uses harsher words and cruder approaches to win over a convert to his blasphemies.

He says:

(a) "Either Jesus is God or a liar"

(b) "Either Jesus is God or a lunatic"

(c) "Either Jesus is God or an impostor"

These are his words, words culled from Christian literature. Since no man of charity, Muslim or otherwise, can condemn Christ so harshly as the Christian challenges him to do, perforce he must keep non-committal. He thinks he must make a choice between one or the other of these silly extremes. It does not occur to him that there is an alternative to this Christian conundrum.

Sensible Alternative

Is it not possible that Jesus is simply what he claimed to be, a prophet, like so many other prophets that passed away before him? Even that he is one of the greatest of them, a mighty miracle worker, a great spiritual teacher and guide - the Messiah!. Why only God or Lunatic? Is "lunacy" the opposite of "Divinity" in Christianity? What is the antonym of God? Will some clever Christian answer?

The Quran lays bare the true position of Christ in a single verse, followed by a note by Yusuf Ali's:

"That he was the son of a woman, Mary, and therefore a man;"

"But a messenger, a man with a mission from Allah (God), and therefore entitled to honor."

"A Word bestowed on Mary, for he was created by Allah's word 'Be', and he was;"(3:59).

A spirit proceeding from Allah (God), but not Allah: his life and mission were more limited than in the case of some other messengers, though we must pay equal honor to him as a prophet of Allah. The doctrines of Trinity, equality with God, and sons, are repudiated as blasphemies. Allah (God) is independent of all needs and has no need of a son to manage His affairs. The Gospel of John (whoever wrote it) has put a great deal of Alexandrian Gnostic mysticism round the doctrine of the Word (Greek, Logos), but it is simply explained here."

Jesus Questioned

Reproduced below are verses 119 to 121 from the Chapter of Maeda (chapter 5 of the Quran) depicting the scene of Judgment Day, when Allah will question Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, regarding the misdirected zeal of his supposed followers in worshipping him and his mother: and his response,

"And behold! Allah will say: 'O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?' He will say: 'Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

'Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.

'If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servant: If Thou dost forgive them, Thou art the Exalted in power, the Wise.'"

(5:116-118)

Claimed No Divinity

If this is the statement of truth from the All-Knowing, that "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'", then how do the Christians justify worshipping Jesus?

There is not a single unequivocal statement throughout the Bible, in all its 66 volumes of the Protestant versions, or in the 73 volumes of the Roman Catholic versions, where Jesus claims to be God or where he says "worship me". Nowhere does he say that he and God Almighty "are one" and "the same person."

The last phrase above "one and the same person" tickles many a "hot-gospeller" and "Bible-thumper," not excluding the Doctor of Divinity and the Professor of Theology. Even the new converts to Christianity have memorized these verses. They are programmed to rattle off verses out of context, upon which they can hang their faith. The words "are one" activates the mind by association of memories. "Yes", say the Trinitarians, the worshippers of three gods in one God, and one God in three gods, "Jesus did claim to be God!" Where?

Reverend at the Table

I had taken Rev. Morris D.D. and his wife, to lunch at the "Golden Peacock." While at the table, during the course of our mutual sharing of knowledge, the opportunity arose to ask, "Where?" And without a murmur he quoted, "I and my father are one" to imply that God and Jesus were one and the same person. That Jesus here claims to be God. The verse quoted was well known to me, but it was being quoted out of context. It did not carry the meaning that the Doctor was imagining, so I asked him, "What is the context?"

Choked on "Context"

The Reverend stopped eating and began staring at me. I said, "Why? Don't you know the context?", "You see, what you have quoted is the text, I want to know the context, the text that goes with it, before or after." Here was an Englishman (Canadian), a paid servant of the Presbyterian Church, a Doctor of Divinity, and it appeared that I was trying to teach him English. Of course he knew what "context" meant. But like the rest of his compatriots, he had not studied the sense in which Jesus had uttered the words.

In my forty years of experience, this text had been thrown at me hundreds of times, but not a single learned Christian had ever attempted to hazard a guess as to its real meaning. They always start fumbling for their Bibles. The Doctor did not have one with him. When they do start going for their Bibles, I stop them in their stride: "Surely, you know what you are quoting?", "Surely, you know your Bible?" After reading this, I hope some "born-again" Christians will rectify this deficiency. But I doubt that my Muslim readers will ever come across one in their lifetime who could give them the context.

What is the Context?

It is unfair on the part of the Reverend, having failed to provide the context, then to ask me, "Do you know the context?" "Of course," I said. "Then, what is it?" asked my learned friend. I said, "That which you have quoted is the text of John chapter 10, verse 30. To get at the context, we have to begin from verse 23 which reads:

23. "and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade." (John 10:23).

John, or whoever he was, who wrote this story, does not tell us the reason for Jesus tempting the Devil by walking alone in the lion's den. For we do not expect the Jews to miss a golden opportunity to get even with Jesus. Perhaps, he was emboldened by the manner in which he had literally whipped the Jews single-handed in the Temple, and upset the tables of the money changers at the beginning of his ministry (John 2:15).

24. "The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." (John 10:24).

They surrounded him. Brandishing their fingers in his face, they began accusing him and provoking him; saying that he had not put forth his claim plainly enough, clearly enough. That he was talking ambiguously. They were trying to work themselves into a frenzy to assault him. In fact, their real complaint was that they did not like his method of preaching, his invectives, the manner in which he condemned them for their formalism, their ceremonialism, their going for the letter of the law and forgetting the spirit. But Jesus could not afford to provoke them any further there were too many and they were itching for a fight.

Discretion is the better part of valor. In a conciliatory spirit, befitting the occasion:

25. "Jesus answered, I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,"

26. "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." (John 10:25-26).

Jesus rebuts the false charge of his enemies that he was ambiguous in his claims to being the Messiah that they were waiting for. He says that he did tell them clearly enough, yet they would not listen to him, but:

27. "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."

28. "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand."

29. "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.." (John 10:29).

How can anyone be so blind as not to see the exactness of the ending of the last two verses. But spiritual blinkers are more impervious than physical defects. He is telling the Jews and recording for posterity, the real unity or relationship between the Father and the son. The most crucial verse:

30. "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30).

One in what? In their Omniscience? In their Nature? In their Omnipotence? No! One in purpose! That once a believer has accepted faith, the Messenger sees to it that he remains in faith, and God Almighty also sees to it that he remains in faith. This is the purpose of the "Father" and the "son" and the "Holy Ghost" and of every man and every woman of faith. Let the same John explain his Gnostic mystic verbiage.

"That they all may be one as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us..."

"I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one..."(John 17:20-22)

If Jesus is "one" with God, and if that "oneness" makes him God, then the traitor Judas, and the doubting Thomas, and the satanic Peter, plus the other nine who deserted him when he was most in need are God(s), because the same "oneness" which he claimed with God in John 10:30, now he claims for all "who forsook him and fled" (Mark 14:50). All "ye of little faith" (Matthew 8:26). All "O faithless and perverse generation" (Luke 9:41). Where and when will the Christian blasphemy end? The expression "I and my Father are one," was very innocent, meaning nothing more than a common purpose with God. But the Jews were looking for trouble and any excuse will not do, therefore,

31. "Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,"

32. "but Jesus said to them, I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33. "The Jews answered him, saying : 'For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself a God.'" (John 10:31-33).

In verse 24 above the Jews falsely alleged that Jesus was talking ambiguously. When that charge was ably refuted, they then accused him of blasphemy which is like treason in the spiritual realm. So they say that Jesus is claiming to be God "I and the Father are one". The Christians agree with the Jews in this that Jesus did make such a claim; but differ in that it was not blasphemy because the Christians say that he was God and was entitled to own up to his Divinity.

The Christians and the Jews are both agreed that the utterance is serious. To one as an excuse for good "redemption", and to the other as an excuse for good "riddance". Between the two, let the poor Jesus die. But Jesus refuses to co-operate in this game, so:

34. "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods'?"

35. "If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came --and the Scripture cannot be broken--,"

36. "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God's Son'?" (John 10:34-36).

Why "Your Law"?

He is a bit sarcastic in verse 34, but in any event, why does he say: "Your Law"? Is it not also his Law? Didn't he say: "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law of the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill (the Law). For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one Jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:1718).

"You are Gods"

"You are gods:" He is obviously quoting from the 82nd Psalm , verse 6, "I have said, ye are gods: and all of you are the children of the most High."

Jesus, continues: "If he (i.e. God Almighty) called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (meaning that the prophets of God were called 'gods') and the scripture cannot be broken..." (John 10:35), in other words he is saying: "you can't contradict me!" Jesus knows his Scripture; he speaks with authority; and he reasons with his enemies that: "If good men, holy men, prophets of God are being addressed as 'gods' in our Books of Authority, with which you find no fault, then why do you take exception to me? When the only claim I make for myself is far inferior in our language, viz. 'A son of God' as against others being called 'gods' by God Himself. Even if I (Jesus) described myself as 'god' in our language, according to Hebrew usage, you could find no fault with me." This is the plain reading of Christian Scripture. I am giving no interpretations of my own or some esoteric meaning to words!

--------------------------------------...

Chapter Seven : "In The Beginning"

--------------------------------------...

"Where does Jesus say: 'I am God,' or 'I am equal to God,' or 'Worship me'?" I asked the Rev. Morris again.

He took a deep breath and took another try. He quoted the most oft-repeated verse of the Christian Bible - John 1:1.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Please note, these are not the words of Jesus. They are the words of John (or whoever wrote them). Acknowledged by every erudite Christian scholar of the Bible as being the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria, who had written them even before John and Jesus were born. And Philo claimed no divine inspiration for them. No matter what mystical meaning that Philo had woven around these words (which our John has plagiarized), we will accept them for what they are worth.

Greek not Hebrew

Since the manuscripts of the 27 Books of the New Testament are in Greek, a Christian sect has produced its own version and has even changed the name of this selection of 27 Books to Christian Greek Scriptures ! I asked the Reverend whether he knew Greek? "Yes," he said, He had studied Greek for 5 years before qualification. I asked him what was the Greek word for "God" the first time it occurs in the quotation "and the Word was With God"? He kept staring, but didn't answer. So I said, the word was Hotheos, which literally means "The God".

Since the European (including the North American) has evolved a system of using capital letters to start a proper noun and small letters for common nouns, we would accept his giving a capital "G" for God; in other words Hotheos is rendered "the god" which in turn is rendered "God".

"Now tell me, what is the Greek word for "God" in the second occurrence in your quotation - "and the Word was God"? The Reverend still kept silent. Not that he did not know Greek, or that he had lied, but he knew more than that; the game was up. I said : "the word was Tontheos, which means "a god".

According to your own system of translating you aught to have spelt this word 'God' a second time with a small 'g' i.e. 'god', and not 'God' with a capital 'G'; in other words Tontheos is rendered "a god". Both of these, "god" or "a god" are correct.

I told the Reverend: "But in 2 Corinthians 4:4 you have dishonestly reversed your system by using a small 'g' when spelling 'God' "(and the devil is) the god of this world." The Greek word for "the god" is Hotheos the same as in John 1:1. "Why have you not been consistent in your translations ?" "If Paul was inspired to write hotheos the God for the Devil, why don't you use that capital 'G'?"

And in the Old Testament, the Lord said unto Moses: "See, I have made thee a god to Pharoah" (Exodus 7:1). "Why do you use a small 'g' for 'God' when referring to Moses instead of a capital 'G' as you do for a mere word 'Word' - "and the Word was God."?

"Why do you do this? Why do you play fast and loose with the Word of God?" I asked the reverend. He said, "I didn't do it." I said, "I know, but I am talking about the vested interests of Christianity, who are hell-bent to deify Christ, by using capital letters here and small letters there, to deceive the unwary masses who think that every letter, every comma and full stop and the capital and small letters were dictated by God (Capital 'G' here!)."

--------------------------------------...

Chapter Eight : What is Left

--------------------------------------...

Three Topics

It can hardly be expected in a small publication of this nature that one can deal with all the references about Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, interspersed throughout the fifteen different chapters of the Holy Quran. What we can do is to give a quick glance to the index page reproduced from the Quran earlier in this letter.

Here we find three significant topics, not dealt with yet in our discussion:

Not crucified, (4:157).

Message and miracles,(5:113, 19:30-33).

Prophesied Ahmed, (61:6).

Regarding the first topic, "not crucified", I had written a booklet under the heading "Was Christ Crucified?" some twenty years ago. The book is presently out of print, and further, it needs updating, for much water has passed under the bridge since it first saw the light of day.

As regards the third topic mentioned above, "Prophesied Ahmed", I propose to write a booklet under the title "Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, the Natural Successor to Christ" after I have completed "Was Christ Crucified?", I hope to complete both these projects soon, Insha Allah! (Arabic: "By the will of Allah").

The Way to Salvation

We are now left with Topic No. 2, "Message and miracles". The message of Jesus was as simple and straight forward as that of all his predecessors as well as that of his successor Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, namely "Believe in God and keep His Commandments". For the God who inspired His Messengers, is an unvarying God and He is consistent: He is not the "author of confusion" (1 Corinthian14:33).

A law abiding Jew comes to Jesus seeking eternal life or salvation. In the words of Matthew:

"And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:16-17)

You will agree, that if you or I were that Jew, we would infer from these words that, according to Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, salvation was guaranteed, provided we kept the commandments without the shedding of any innocent blood. Unless, of course Jesus was speaking with tongue in cheek; knowing full well that his own "forthcoming redemptive sacrifice", his "vicarious atonement" (?) for the sins of mankind, was not many days hence.

Why would Jesus give him the impossible solution of keeping the Law (as the Christian alleges) when an easier way was in the offing? Or did he not know what was going to happen, that he was to be crucified ? Was there not a contract between Father and Son, before the worlds began, for his redeeming blood to be shed? Had he lost his memory? No! There was no such fairy tale agreement as far as Jesus was concerned. He knew that there is only one way to God, and that is, as Jesus said, "keep the Commandments"!

Miracles, What They Prove

Regarding his miracles: the Holy Quran does not go into any detail about blind Bartimus or about Lazarus or any other miracle, except that he (Jesus) defended his mother as an infant in his mother's arms. The Muslim has no hesitation about accepting the most wondrous of his miracles - even that of reviving the dead. But that does not make Jesus a "God" or the begotten "Son of God" as understood by the Christian.

Miracles do not prove even prophethood, or whether a man is true or false. Jesus himself said:

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."(Matthew 24:24)

If false prophets and false Christs can perform miraculous feats, then these wonders or miracles do not prove even the geniuses or otherwise, of a prophet.

John the Baptist, according to Jesus, was the greatest of the Israelite prophets. Greater than Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah and all, not excluding himself: in his own words:

"Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist..." (Matthew 11:11)

Not excluding Jesus: because, was he not born of a woman - Mary?

The Baptist, greater than "all", yet he performed not a single miracle! Miracles are no standards of judging truth and falsehood.

But in his childishness, the might Christian insists that Jesus is God because he gave life back to the dead. Will reviving the dead make others God too? This perplexes him, because he has mentally blocked himself from the miracles of others who outshine Jesus in his own Bible. For example, according to his false standard:

Moses is greater than Jesus because he put life back into a dead stick and transmuted it from the plant kingdom to the animal kingdom by making it into a serpent (Exodus 7:10).

Elisha is greater than Jesus because the bones of Elisha brought a man back to life merely by coming into contact with the corpse (2 Kings 13:21).

Need I illustrate to you a catalogue of miracles? But the sickness persists - "it was God working miracles through His prophets but Jesus performed them of his own power." Where did Jesus get all his power from? Ask Jesus, and he will tell us:

Power not His Own

"...All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18)

"...I cast out devils by the Spirit of God then the kingdom of God is come unto you." (Matthew 12:28)

"I can of mine own self do nothing " (John 5:30)

"I with the finger of God cast out devils" (Luke 1 1:20)

Borrowed Power

The "power" as he says is not his, "it is given unto me". Given by whom? By God, of course! Every action, every word he attributes to God.

Lazarus

But since so much is made of Jesus' mightiest miracle of reviving Lazarus from the dead, we will analyze the episode as recorded in John's Gospel. It is astonishing that none of the other Gospel writers mention Lazarus in any context. However, the story is that Lazarus was very sick, his sisters Mary and Martha had made frantic calls for Jesus to come and cure his sickness but he arrived too late, actually four days after his demise.

He Groaned

Mary wails to Jesus that had he arrived in time, perhaps her brother would not have died; meaning that if he could heal other peoples' sicknesses, why would he not have healed her brother, a dear friend of his. Jesus says that "even now if ye have faith, ye shall see the glory of god." The condition was that they should have faith. Didn't he say that faith could move mountains?

He asks to be taken to the tomb. On the way, "he groaned in the spirit". He was not mumbling; he was pouring out his heart and praying to God. But while he sobbed so bitterly his words were not audible enough for people around him to understand. Hence the words "he groaned". On reaching the grave, Jesus "groaned" again; perhaps, even more earnestly and God heard his groaning (his prayer), and Jesus received the assurance that God will fulfill his request. Now, Jesus could rest assured and command that the stone which was barring the tomb, be removed so that Lazarus could come back from the dead. Without that assurance from God, Jesus would have made a fool of himself.

Avoiding Misunderstanding

Mary thinks of the stink because her brother had been dead for four days! But Jesus was confident and the stone was removed. Then he looked up towards heaven and said:

"Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me." (John 11:41-42)

What is all this, play - acting? Why all the drama? Because he know that these superstitious and credulous people will misunderstand the source of the miracle. They might take him for "God". Giving life to the dead is the prerogative of God alone. To make doubly sure, that his people do not misunderstand, he speaks out loudly that the "groaning" was actually his crying to God Almighty for help. The prayer was incoherent as far as the bystanders could discern, but the Father in heaven had accepted his prayer, viz. "thou hast heard me".

Furthermore, he says, "thou hearest me always"; in other words, every miracle wrought by him was an answer by God Almighty to his prayer. The Jews of his day understood the position well, and they "glorified God", as Matthew tells us of another occasion when the Jews exclaimed "for giving such power unto men" (Matt. 9:8).

In fact, Jesus gives his reason for speaking loudly. He says, "that they may believe that thou has sent me." One who is sent is a messenger, and if he be sent by God, then he is a Messenger of God i.e. Rasulullah. Jesus is referred to in the Quran asRasulullah ("Messenger of Allah").

Alas, this attempt by Jesus to prevent any misunderstanding, as to who really performed the miracle, and that he was in fact only a messenger of God, failed. Christians will not even accept the unambiguous disavowal of Jesus, nor the testimony of Peter, the "Rock" upon which Jesus was supposed to build his Church. Peter truly testified:

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, A man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know. " (Acts 2:22)

Case Not Hopeless

This very same message is repeated by God Almighty in the Holy Quran, following the annunciation. In verse 49 of chapter 3, Allah makes it clear that every sign or wonder that Jesus performed was "By Allah's leave," by God's permission. Jesus says so, Peter says so and God says so; but the stubborn controversialist will not listen: prejudice, superstition and credulity die hard. Our duty is simply to deliver the Message, loud and clear, the rest we leave to God. The case is not altogether hopeless for Allah tells us in His Holy Book:

"And among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors." (3:110)

"Among them", meaning among the Jews and the Christians, there are two types of people; the one group described as people of faith to whom this book is addressed, and the other as rebellious transgressors. We must also find ways and means of getting at them. Our literature is eminently suited to cater for all. Pass them on to your non - Muslim friends after reading.

Open the Holy Quran and make your Christian friends and acquaintances to read the verses discussed in this book. Then we can truly conclude:

"Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary:

(it is) a statement of truth, about which

they (vainly) dispute.

"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah

(God) that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him!

when He determines a matter, He only says to it,

'Be', and it is.

"Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord:

Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight." (19:34-36)

--------------------------------------...

This is an authorized modification of the original English text.

For more free publications, please contact:

Islamic Propagation Centre International

124 Queen Street , Durban, 4001 Republic of South Africa

Telephone (027-31) 306-0026. Telex (095) 6-21815 IPCI SA

Telefax (027-31) 304-032

What is the status of Christ in Islam ?
Masha'allah!
Reply:It's really interesting. I benefited a lot especially the parts taken from the bible. But not all the people could understand and feel the truth about this, I think only those who God wants them to understand could think and speculate. I appereciate what you have introduced here. Don't give up! Report It

Reply:Great work n research

.

Mashallah Report It

Reply:Christ has died

Christ has risen

Christ will come again

in Glory to judge the living and the dead

and HIS kingdom will have no end.

Alleluia Alleluia Alleluia! Report It

Reply:Look God never separate for each and every one but people of different community devide it acoording to their rules and regulation of their community so never confuse about this God is only on of them and having the same glance for all so dear accepts this truth and enjoys your life....

http://www.eplot.com.au
Reply:Can you spell 'spam'? Take it to a blog, you're in the wrong place!
Reply:You posted this in the wrong section.
Reply:This is what God said about the issue :

"Say: we believe in God and in what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il: Isaac, Jacob and The Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus and the Prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another, among them, and to God do we bow our will (in Islam)." (Qur'an, Al-Imran 3:84)
Reply:That's not a question. That's a copy-and-paste article.
Reply:How can man be God and how the hell God can have a human son. The idea of God have son was totally pagan. It came from the greeces ideology of the family of God (Zeus). Jesus is not more than just human being. He was born, married and died like other people. In bible, not only Jesus who was mentioned as son of God. How about Adam, Ephraim, David, Israel and lot of other people. They were said to be son of God but yet they we just like other human beings. The term son of God only refers to His messenger. No body is immortal. And there are no proof of the existance of God.
Reply:Thank you for the information. I have a much better understanding of how Muslims view Jesus. Jesus taught love and understanding. I wonder though, why Muslims don't feel that God is powerful enough to have created a human image of himself in Jesus? Why do you think it is not possible when the bible came long before the Quran? Do you not feel that Mohammed altered the bible and made the quran to his own liking? How could Mohammed have known what is stated in the Quran as a fact when it is different from the book before it? No disrespect intended. I am quite curious and you sound very intelligent. Please feel free to e-mail me. I would like to learn more. Thank you and God bless you!
Reply:First of all, I am NOT going to read that novel even if you want me to.

Anyways, the Quran states taht Jesus (Isa in Arabic) is not the son of God but was just created by God via the Holy Spirit (angel Gabriel) just like Adam was created. The qruan says that God jsut said "BE" and Jesus was. Just like Adam. the Gospel of John refers to Adam as the son of God. The Qruan doesnt like the notion of Jesus being God's son since it must mean that God had sex with a mortal, an act that is below Him. Jesus was still created by God and had a virging birth but is not the Son like in Christianity.

Jesus is also said to return and kill pigs and break the cross since God loved Jesus too much to let Jesus be crucified. He was raised up into heaven instead. Other than that, Jesus is a respected prophet just like Muhammad, but his Gospel message is not the original and canot be trusted like the Quran.
Reply:jazakallah khayran brother

but i think that it was too long to read.
Reply:ok
Reply:he has a high status in Islam. He is one of the most important prophets. Muhammad didn't alter the bibleto make it the Quran...he didn't even write it! it was written by God and hasn't been changed over the centuries despite many tries. Storge, you're assuming things.
Reply:Your question is too long but Ameen.
Reply:So why this long thesis?

You could have directed interested folks to a website...or something.

Christianity is all about love for each other; your long thesis shows that you are inconsiderate and egoistic; if all Muslims think like you, then they ignore the true message of Christ.

Now go do the right thing!
Reply:First of all, without Jesus, you can not enter heaven. He is the Son of God and Savior of the world. The muslims think He was just a prophet but He is more. Deedat argues against Him and wants you to be blinded and go to hell with him. Islam is a religion which began from mohammad and based only on muhammad. The muslims do not believe any other prophets writings and he isnt even a real prophet. Jesus confirmed the scriptures. God is powerful enough to keep His word from corruption. God never needed an illiterate man from pagan mecca who never worshipped Him or followed His commandment. He never cared to follow the gospel or torah as a Christian or Jew. Muhammad is a perverted liar who wants you to listen to satan. to memorize the quran and kill the infidels and force them to submit to a religion of terrorism and fear.

No one is impressed with your copy and paste skills, I hope you are able to read and research for yourself that there were no other muslims before muhammad and muhammad never knew God or received a message from God.
Reply:This is from the Islamic Propagation Centre?

That should more accurately be called the Islamic Propaganda Centre.

Christianity, as the name denotes, is founded on the Rock, who is Jesus Christ. And no, Jesus is not Isa as defined by Islam.

Isa was created, not eternal. He did not create anything.

Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the eternal Creator. - Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:16, Revelation 2:8

Isa is a created human.

Jesus was God incarnate. - John 10:30-33

Isa is NOT the Lamb of God who was slain.

Jesus IS the Lamb of God who was slain. - John 1:29, John 1:36, Revelation 5:6

Isa will not return until Judgment Day.

Jesus WILL return before Judgment Day. - Matthew 25:31, John 14:3

Isa prophesied the coming of Mohammad.

Jesus warned of prophets that will come. - Matthew 7:15, Matthew 24:11

Isa did NOT send the Holy Spirit.

Jesus sent the Holy Spirit - John 15:26

Salvation is found only in the Five Pillars of Islam.

Salvation can only come through Jesus. - Acts 4:10-12

Isa is a slave to Allah.

Jesus is by on the right-hand of the Father. - Matthew 26:64, Mark 12:36, Mark 16:19, Acts 5:31

Isa did not die on the cross, and was not resurrected.

Jesus died on the cross and rose on the third day.- Romans 14:9

Isa is predicted to return in the end times but to break the cross, deny that he is the son of god and point worship to the Islamic Messiah The Mahdi.

Jesus will return to save Israel from her enemies and establish the Throne of David and rule with a rod of iron.- Revelation 19:15

Isa is a prophet like Mohammad and like Moses.

Jesus is the "I AM" who was before Mohammad, before Moses, and before Abraham - John 8:58

Isa is NOT God in the flesh.

Jesus is God in the flesh. - John 1:14

Isa CANNOT be worshiped for He is NOT God.

Jesus is God and worthy of worship. - Matthew 14:33

Isa is not fit to be any kind of intercessor.

Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. - 1 Timothy 2:5

Isa will judge by the laws of Islam, not by the Gospel.

Jesus will judge in righteousness according to response to the Gospel. - 1 Peter 4:5-6, Acts 17:31

Isa is simply another prophet.

Jesus is the Almighty. - Revelation 1:8

Isa returns in yellow garments, not white.

Jesus returns in garments stained with blood. - Isaiah 63:2-4, Revelation 19:13

Isa lands on a minaret in Damascus, Syria.

Jesus sets foot on the Mount of Olives - Zechariah 14:4

Isa returns on the wings of two angels.

Jesus returns riding a white horse. - Revelation 19:11

Isa is not pierced when He returns (like the Bible teaches).

Jesus bears His scars when He returns. - Revelation 5:6, Zechariah 13:6

Isa will marry a woman and have children

Jesus will marry the Bride (His church) - Revelation 21

Isa will break every cross.

Jesus will come to reign. - Revelation 11:15

Isa will kill all the Jews and Christians at Armageddon.

Jesus will save the Jews from the Antichrist. - Isaiah 63:1

Jesus will gather His elect before the tribulation. - John 14:3, 2 Thessalonians 2

Jesus will destroy the armies of the enemies of His people - Revelation 19:2

Isa will die forty years after his return.

Jesus is alive for ever more - Revelation 1:18

Isa was not the Son of God. Allah has no son!

Jesus IS the Son of God.- Mark 1:1

Isa was the son of Mariam, the sister of Moses."

Jesus was the son of Mary, the lineage of King David.- Matthew 21:9

Isa is NOT the greatest prophet - Mohammad is!

The greatest prophet was John the Baptist, who testified Jesus being the Lamb of God. - Luke 7:28
Reply:Really I don't understand your question but I think you mean what is the equivalent of Christ in the Muslim religion so I would say that the equivalent is Mohoma (Muhammad).
Reply:In Islam Christ is just a liar because he is the Son of God and said so. The Bible also says all lairs have their place in the Lake of Fire and eternal torment. The Koran says Christ is not divine not the Son of God but only a prophet and second to Mohammad in importance.

One of the two must be a liar and will be suffering eternal torment in the Lake of Fire.

Take your pick, one rose people from the dead and arose himself and the other butchered people and spread death. Choose well because you will be spending eternity with the one you choose
Reply:Jesus is thee Son of GOD and islam denies it.

Islam denies the resurrected christ. islam lies.

Islam is the black horde of revelations in the Word of GOD.

Islam is deceitful and treacherous.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Please help me smart people in math!!!!?

I need quick stage make-up remover!?

Who is to blame?

More on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?

If you got into a fight with Ron Weasly, would you...?

Once upon a time in a land far away?

Jennifer Hudson to play Billie Holiday in Film??????

God, people who do and don't, and Whys and Hows.?

Please help me smart people in math!!!!?

Will you vote in a mock election...?

Italian high school musical?

Which outfit for first day of school?

What is the status of Christ in Islam ?

c++ cast

Blog Archive

About Me