The King of the Jews

Subject : The KING of the Jews

Posted Date: : 21 Aug 2007, 18:00 on MySpace

King David's WORDS from a Muslim Point of VIEW

Psalms cx: i

" YaHWaH said to My ADON,

   Sit at MY right until I place,

  Thine enemies a footstool under thy feet."

YaHWaH is the eternal, everliving God.

ADON is the Lord of David, the King of the Jews foretold.

Every prophet has foretold his coming.

And he is the ADON that every Jew ever looks for in his coming, in the belief that with him all of their enemies would be vanquished.

When Jesus (as= peace be upon him) came, the Jewish priests asked of him…. "Are you the Lord (Adon) of David?" And Jesus (as) …. (Mathew xxii) … repudiated the Jews by his asking them a question in response to their question… he said: "How could David call him 'My Lord' if he were his son?"

The Christian interpretation of this encounter is a wonder to behold… and we will return to it later. First it is interesting to note some things about our World… that we inhabit.

EINSTEIN's WORLD (not necessary to be read unless you are Christian)

Einstein, isn't it funny how we forget his first given name, Albert? To everyone he is just Einstein, because of how he made science interesting. His theories were the birth of Sci-Fi, a whole genre of AV stimulation. And that's forgetting the very real impact he had on Science.

Anyway it was Einstein who said among other things: "Isn't it a wonder that the we are both able to comprehend the World about us, and that furthermore that the World is comprehensible!"

Of course, I paraphrase because my scholarship can only go so far.
As Allah t'ala (the one God) in the Qur'an says…. "No change will you find in the Sunnat-Allah"… in the ways of God, in the laws of God. That the laws of creation that hold here in myspace, hold too in your living room from whence you might be reading this.

So since this is evident to most of us that the World is comprehensible, even in spite of the incomprehensible acts of me, and it is so because God has ordained that it be so, then wouldn't you think that the same principles would apply to the One Who Created?

If the Creator himself were incomprehensible. Wouldn't His creation be likewise a reflection of that: incomprehensible? 

If the Creator were One, known to be One, then why would He endeavour to shroud his Unity in mystery… in incomprehensibility… and instead dain to apply the principles of comprehensibility to His Creation… the World?

The Qur'an also testifies that God is the ONE who sees all things and yet nothing can see HIM, and that HE is the ONE that comprehends everything and that nothing can truly comprehend HIM. And yet HE is the ONE Creator, like unto no other.

Ali Shariati and the Pillars of Unbelief…

Belief and Unbelief have contradictory characteristics. Unbelief is typically used to keep people oppressed and ignorant. True Belief engenders a love of knowledge, of clarity in words and thought. Unbelief is characterized by complexity, vagaries of ideas that defy to be understood and a lack of clarity. And it is because of these ideas that fail in being understood… that ignorance is cherished, that acceptance of un-understanding flourishes.

God is ONE, the Creator and Originator of the Heavens and the Earth. And HE has begotten no Son!

What the Christians SAY…about the ADON of David

When Jesus (as) was asked …. "Are you the Lord of David?"He replied: "How could David call him 'My Lord' if he were his son?"…

"Jesus says if he is the son of David, how can he be his Lord at the same time? This is a perfect example of the Christian ideal of the human/divine nature of Jesus - 100% man and 100% God. This is the only way that he could be "the son of david, and the lord of david" at the same time."

So the Christians say that in answering the question of the Jews, Jesus (as) evades the question? Doesn't answer it? Or answers it without really answering it? Your guess of what they mean by this is probably better than mine.

What Jesus (as) Said and Did Not Say…Jesus did not say what the Christians assert as their belief.

He was approached by the Jews who were monotheistic, and he denied that he was the LORD of David. He did not espouse the Christian belief, even though he knew that his fellow Jews believed in One God, and if he (as) held a differing view them would he not have corrected them in that erroneous view?

 And even if we accept the Chrisitan interpretation we are still left with the dilemma of who is sitting on the right side of God?
Of course the Christians would purport that God is on the right side of God, in complete incomprehensibility.
Confusing isn't it?

BUT...

What cannot be disputed is the fact that Jesus (as) denied being the Adon (Lord) of David, by his not assenting to it in the direct manner afforded to him by such a direct question. Did he (as) fear the Jewish Priests, but if he were a god how can that be?

 And if we discount the Trinitarian concept then we are still left with the question of why he denied it in such a manner, why so cryptically?

Effectively, he denied both his Kingship and he denied the Kingship of any other Jew… of any other descendant of David. 
No son of David could be the King of David!

Why answer a direct question with another more cryptical question?

The Christians might see evidence of a hidden agenda in such a reply, but the most obvious reason for doing so is that it is a rhetorical question.

Jesus (as) replies as such because he insinuates and repudiates the Jewish priests  for the question because they know the answer full well. They knew that no Jew could be the Lord of David. That no Jew could be the King of the Jews!

So Who is the King of the Jews?

Who is the last messenger sent by God to Mankind?

In the study of the life of our beloved Prophet, Muhammad (saw), we find the similar assertion that the Jews of Medina were in fact awaiting his imminent arrival and knew him better than their own sons. His characteristics were foretold in their books and yet they were bent on denying him.

And this is precisely why Jesus (as) rebukes the Jews with that conundrum, to frighten them into sense.

  

I believe that it is Muhammad (saw) the seal of the Prophets… who fulfilled the prophesy of Zachariah… and came with the true Kingdom of God on this Earth.

That the Jews denied and belied him… is no matter… they denied, belied and tried to kill Jesus (as) the son of Mary, but to no avail. If they study their books… then they should know the truth of Muhammad… and like so many other Jews will have to accept him as their King.

Shafees

I ask my Lord ..the ONE TRUE GOD to forgive me the utterances I have done here in the service of HIS truth.  Ameen.

Promitory

Promitory 

Point me the way

And I shall follow thee

O my promitory

Although my appreciation of thee

Is necessarily 2D

You are forever in my sights 

Sometimes I err

And forget your existence 

But then you bring me back to my self

Then I pinch thee. 

But when you bring good my way

I indulge, but do not call thee hero. 

And where my brains cannot justify a path

Then I ascribe to thee all that is irrational and prescient

Thee art the fall guy. 

Ever ready to take the blame

Silent

Yet so vital. 

My first sense 

(C) Shafeesthoughts 12 October 2017

MSBachelani

Promitory is artistic license. 

There is no such word in the English Language, but for me it fits. 

the Rushdie Question

The Rushdie Question. 

I remember in, or around 91, when I was secretary of Bath Islamic Society, I was asked to a school to present on

Islam. 

At that time, Abid Karim asked me what my response would be if I was asked about what should be done to Mr Rushdie. I said that I could not avoid, or meander around, the question and would state it as I saw it. 

On the day, in the Q&A that followed the presentation, I was asked what I thought should be done with Mr Rushdie and I said as I said I would:

"He should be killed". 

A stunned silence followed. 

It was a statement of fact concerning my belief. It was not an advocated position and I was clear in my mind that I was not suggesting that I, or anyone else, do it. 

But what I was stating was that the honour of the man that he impeached in the vilest terms was worth more that his life. 

I knew, even then, that the arguments concerning apostasy bore no weight here. To argue so is to argue about the legitimacy of the action. But the action is purely raw emotion. 

In the decades that followed I have not really worried about the issue, but after two turbulent decades it might be prudent to revisit the arguments and see how a maturer me might frame them. 

Of course the old arguments are one of freedom of speech vs freedom of belief. 

That Rushdie was exercising his right to freedom of speech and that the resultant Muslim backlash was medieval. To the Western mind it recalled the inquisition, and the storm surrounding the age old question of religion and science. 

Never mind that Muslims were always advocates of Science and the Scientific processes. All religions were tagged with the medieval line, and standing against freedom of expression just proved it. 

As many commentators have previously said, the Khomeini fatwa and the price on Rushdies head, was a dramatic political statement made by Iran to curry favour with Muslims worldwide. It had no legal basis, because apostasy laws relate to Muslims living in the Muslim sphere. They are there to protect the community from false converts, then sowing the seeds of doubt. 

It's clear that Rushdie was neither a true Muslim, nor living within the Muslim sphere. Indeed his ramblings rather than causing doubt, increased our faith. 

But that did nothing to address the insult that he heaped on the Messenger, and our faith. 

And so once again I affirm my statement, "that he should be killed". 

This is not advocating an action. But it is a reflection of the hurt and anger that he has caused to our community. 

His life and works are not worth even the semblance of a memory of one who taught nobility and respect. 

You cannot fight disrespect with respect, such things just do not add up. And so if someone disrespects me, and my beliefs, then whilst I am honour bound to respect their lives and their persons- in order to be commensurate- I do not need to show that respect in the words that I use against them. 

And I cannot malign their character as they have done with one who was never impuned in his time, and by his enemies. And so I simply state: "his life is worthless".

That when he dies, and GOD takes him, that I will not cry. I will rejoice that his judgment has come, and he is alone with his actions and deeds, and they will haunt him. 

Shafees