Obama, The Messiah Speaks?

Does it even matter anymore? Christian, Muslim, Jew...just different mythologies, same basic outline of beliefs- God/Allah is good, stuff against teachings=bad.  Admittedly it's a lot more complicated than that...but I feel there are common underlying messages.

Isn't there some kind of rule in religion that you're not supposed to deny it or whatever?  Otherwise you're screwed. Or is that just a Christian thing?

Although if he really was Muslim the reaction of the (Christian) public would be hilarious.

~Zoo

Deny what?  That you really are the Messiah? 

Well, considering he has Muslim names, a Muslim father and at one point attended a Muslim school, the fact that he is now our President elect and will soon be the President, I have to say, at this point, the word Muslim is not that important anymore when talking about Obama. At least not till something happens where Muslim people will somehow make it seem it was because they see him as a Muslim, but I'm just going for worst case scenario here.

WHo cares?  It was not an issue for me during the election.  Hitler can call you "buddy", but that does not make you his friend.

I dont care his religion (and if he is muslim, so what?).  I care about his policies.  They are looking bad enough as is.

(Besides, if he really was Muslim, they would have a Fatwa out on him for his stand on Abortion).

Ok, some clarifications before this escalates:

1. Islam does NOT have a head. It is not an organised religion like Roman Catholic Christianity. Nobody speaks for all of Islam.

2. Louis Farrakhan is not a Muslim and the "Nation of Islam" is not Islamic. For example Farrakhan's little sect teaches that G-d appeared manifested as a man and that blacks are superior to whites. Both are heretical in (real) Islam.

3. (Real) Islam teaches that Jesus was the Messiah and will return.

4. According to Islamic law the child of a Muslim father is a Muslim. Converting to any other religion is forbidden for a Muslim. Barack Obama is a Muslim per Islamic law and an apostate because he sees himself as Christian. (Ironically Obama's church is probably closer to Farrakhan's "Islam" than to real Christianity, but that is beside the point.)

This is one of the rare occasions that we agree Leauki ...

thanks for the clarification ... i was going to do that but you did a good one ... not perfect ... but good .

why not perfect? here is why:

As a Devine Axiom (that is my own awkward translation of the arabic word " Hadith Qudsy" which means a principle revealed to the prophet and he delivered it in his own words .. as opposed to Qura'n which was delivered in the exact words in which it was revealed) states, All people are born muslims (God called it the "innate religion" of humans) and when they reach maturity they or their parents make them otherwise....

accordingly, Obama was considered a muslim (as any other human) till he reached maturity (i.e. 13-16 yrs old)... after that whatever he does or his mother told him to do determines which religion he belonged to.

As far as i know from the media his mother was non-practicing christian (btw,his father was a non practicing muslim) and he started thinking about religion only when he went to Columbia in NY ... but never actually practiced anything till he was in Chicago)

so according to Islamic rules .. as an adult Obama was never a muslim

that is why your comment is not perfect

I just like to add one thing ... why did people make a big deal of this issue? did they really think that if Obama was a Muslim ... that makes him a friend of Muslim people? ... if that is the case then they really dont know what they are talking about. the muslim world is full of Muslim presidents and Kings ... and muslim people hate all of them ... i really cant think of ONE muslim leader that muslim people support or like ....

and people here in the USA think Obama (if he really was a muslim) would be the first???? ... how wishful-thinking can you get?????... it is not the religion of a person or of a leader that counts ... it is the action regadless of the religion.

Ok, let's do some nitpicking.

I know of the hadith qudsi. They are statements allegedly made by Muhammed outside the Quran. "Quds" (QDS) means "holy" (compare Hebrew QDSh, "qadosh" and Aramaic "qadish"). "Hadith" (HDTh) in ancient Arabic means "news", the plural ("ahadith"?) means "narative", related to Aramaic HDTh and Hebrew HDSh ("hadash") "new". They are part of the overall Ahadith.

However, Shiites don't accept most of them as true. That's one problem with using them to define Muslims.

Another problem is that Muhammed used the word "Muslim" to describe three slightly different concepts. As you know the word "Muslim" literally means "someone who is submitted" (passive noun of the root SLM = "peace" or "submission"). The term "Muslim" describes a pure monotheist who arrives at the conclusion that there is one G-d, one creation, and one end of the world; a monotheist who believes in the prophets of Judaism before Jesus' and Muhammed's time, and a monotheist who accepts Muhammed as the last prophet.

It is the first type of "Muslim" that is regarded as the "innate" religion of humans. Islam does not believe that children have a chance of knowing automatically that Moses and Muhammed are prophets.

However, this thread was definitely about the third meaning of "Muslim". Perhaps we should use the word "Muhammedan" instead.

In Islam a father has the duty to teach his children religion. That's why a Muslim father has special relevance, especially in Shia Islam.

A Christian and (religious) Jew, despite the (alleged) fact that they were Muslims (first type) before their parents taught them otherwise, are not apostates. But the son of a Muslim father is, unless his father never taught him religion.

I disagree with your translation "divine axiom". "Holy narrative" is a better translation, I think.

King Cyrus of the Iranians was a Muslim (first type), Moses was a Muslim (second type), and Muhammed's followers were Muslims (third type). (You will find a reference to the first in Sura 18.)

First regarding the Shia', they have their own way of understanding things .... so... i am talking about the main-stream Islam.

second... we agree again ... that is terrible ... isnt it?

and since his father never practiced Islam (as they say) and he left him when he was 1-2 yrs old and never taught him anything... then, islamically, as an  adult responsible for his actions, he was never a muslim ... and muslims do not consider him apostate (btw, this is Alazhar's ruling .. and they are the authority on all islamic matters.... you and I cant' argue too much with them )

your translation is more poetic ... but "Ahadith Qudsia" are more than narratives ...they are treated as fundmental principles. but that is a philosophical argument ...

Don't need to be a Muslim to be the object of a Fatwa, if I'm not mistaken.

well I care because he has come out, on the record, saying he's a Christian and if he's hiding something about his religious belief or his past (which we already know very little) then he's lied to us.  I know, I know, it's not the first time a politician has lied....but he SAYS he's a Christian and we know what the bible says about lying.  Credibility, character and integrity are very important in my book. 

Leauki,

Thanks for the low-down on Islam. 

I'm not getting the fact you're calling Moses a Muslim when in fact he was a Hebrew.  What are you trying to say because I'm not getting it. 

I'm wondering about Obama's "Christianity" and have since the get go.  I'm wondering if he's just not using religion to help him in government.   I'm wondering if somewhere he looked ahead and thought he needed a religion to help him get to where he needed to be.  Just a gut feeling I have because what he's saying and what he's doing is not meshing as far as Christianity is concerned.  There's something odd about this whole thing.   Even some of his own liberal media are starting to get creeped out. 

When you study prophecy and the book of Revelation it's obvious that religion mixed with government will be a force working together in the last days.  I'm not talking religion in a good way either.  It will be religion using government and government using religion.  In other words they will be bed partners.   

oh and one more thing Leauki.....have you ever heard of a Jewish man named of Dr. Michael Rydelnik? 

I know you asked Leauki, forgive me, but this man is not Jewish.  He is a Christian.   Once a Jew adopts another faith he no longer speaks for Judaism.  Of course, he is always welcome to return, but until he does he is an apostate.

Be well.

Well I very recently heard his story as he told it and thought it was quite interesting.  He made some excellent points using the OT that I hadn't even thought of before.  He even used a scripture that Leauki and I discussed at length. 

He didn't want to believe in the whole Christianity thing.  He wanted to disprove it for the sake of his mother.  He thought his mother was being deceived by the Christians. 

I would call him a Jewish Christian.  I don't believe he was leaving his heritage.  All he did was accept the Jewish Messiah as was expected. 

According to the Quran anyone who lived before Jesus and believed in one god, one creation, the day of judgement, that the Messiah will come, and the prophets of the Hebrew Bible was a Muslim.

Then those who believed that Jesus was a prophet and the Messiah (but not the son of G-d) were Muslims.

And then finally those who believed that Muhammed was a prophet are Muslims.

Moses nationality has nothing to do with it.

There is a third type of Muslim, namely those that believe in one G-d, creation and end, but have never had a chance to hear of the prophets. They are Muslims too.

You have to distinguish between "Muslim" (the follower of Muhammed) and "Muslim" (the Arabic word).

In Arabic (and Hebrew) the root SLM means "peace". "Islam" (ASLM, "A" is an Alef, i.e. a glottal stop) is the infinitive of a verb derived from "peace" and means "to submit" (or "submission"); meant is "submission to G-d's will". A "Muslim" (MSLM) is someone who is submitted (or submits), i.e. someone who practices "Islam" ("submission to G-d's will").

Anyone who submits to G-d's will as much as he can is a Muslim.

Note that all the Arabic terms related to Islam actually mean something completely normal. They are normal words:

Islam = submission

Muslim = someone who submits (or is submitted)

Muhammed = someone to be praised (as a name), from HMD = praise; formed the same way as "Muslim"

The M thing is normal in Semitic languages. You put an M in front of a root and you get the/a passive noun:

KTB (root for "write") -> MKTB ("miktav" = "letter", in Hebrew)

ERB (root for "west", E is Ayin) -> MERB ("maghreb" = "the west", in Arabic)

ok, so this is all according to the Quran? 

This is no diff than many non-Muslim groups out there.  There are many religions who believe Jesus was a prophet or teacher, and sent by God but not the Son of God. 

First I wonder how they know God's will?  I mean look at the radicals.  They are killing non-believers or even peaceful Muslims and saying it's God's will.  They are even blowing themselves up saying it's God's will.   Well maybe the Peaceful Muslims (who are attacked by the radicals) may think that it's God's will for them to live.  Diff in opinion for sure. 

 Second how do they determine how much is "as much?"   That's the problem I have with all works based religions regardless of denomination.  It doesn't seem like a very fair God to have left us with no barometer telling us how much is "good enough?"  What we think may be "good enough" may be surprising (rightly so)  when we get on the other side. 

Just some thoughts. 

Pretty much, yes.

That's true, and Muhammed was a follower of one of them.

Christianity also evolved out of one of those groups.

Jesus had a big impact.

They know what G-d's will is the same way you and I do. They believe they are right.

But then I wouldn't call the terrorists "Muslims" ("people submitting to G-d's will"). In my experience the true believers (in Islam) are those that don't constantly refer to themselves as "Muslims".

Compare Damanga (http://www.damanga.org/) to the "Muslim" Brotherhood. The one is an Islamic charity for the people of Darfur who believe in peace and helping the poor and who don't have a "military wing". The other is the terrorist organisation that killed Egyptian president Anwar Saddat for making peace with Israel.

You misunderstood "too much". I meant the quite objective standard of not knowing of the Bible or the Quran. A hermit in Mongolia who has never in his life had a chance to hear of the Bible or the Quran can nevertheless be a Muslim if he believes in one god, one creation, and an end of days.

Zoroastrians were also Muslims and they had no direct connection to any of the prophets. But they didn't doubt that the prophets were real when they heard of them.

Of course he is Jewish. He no longer practices or believes in the Jewish faith, but he remains Jewish, just like Christian Germans are Germans.

He doesn't speak for Judaism, obviously, but he is, to quote Chabad's Web site (article about people trying to quit Judaism) "Jewish as Moses and Ariel Sharon".

I understand the party line on this, and it may be so from a genetic or matrilineal sense, but from a religious practice and belief sense, I don't think so.  One of Chabad's missions is to find people and help them 'return' to the faith.  Question, how can they return if they never left?

To me Sodaiho, it's like going back to the world after visiting heaven whether you're Jew or Gentle making this type of decision. 

Once you've seen the light (Jesus) , it's impossible to return to the darkness for any length of time because you already know what's on the other side waiting for you. 

That's the best way I can describe it. 

But faith is subjective.

Muslims believe that Jews lost their faith when they refused to accept Jesus as prophet and Messiah.

Christians believe that Jews should have accepted Jesus as Messiah and son of G-d.

Qaraites (Jewish such) believed that Jews shouldn't have accepted the oral Torah and Talmud as G-d's truth.

Samaritans believe that Jews shouldn't have accepted Nevi3im and Ketuvim (Hebrew Bible following the Torah).

Mandaeans believe that the Israelites prayed to the wrong god ever since before the Exodus.

But a Jew is still a Jew and that's the only thing that matters. If the Jewish religion is true, what a Jew believes doesn't change his status of being a Jew.

The problem is that so-called Messianic Jews go around masquerading as authentic Jews, yet they have zip status within the tradition and their message is always suspect as it is the message of another faith.  We could say they are Jews but not Jewish, perhaps.

KFC, You see Jesus as your light, wonderful, may you be a blessing.  Jews see God as the light. May we all be a blessing.

Be well.

BTW, that party line is pure PC.  Here is the complete responsa on the subject:

 (I apologize for the legnth)

CCAR RESPONSA

(Central Conference of American Rabbis)

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

 68. Status of a "Completed Jew" in the Jewish

Community

QUESTION: There are a number of individuals in the 

 

 

 community who consider themselves as "completed Jews" or "Messianic Jews"; they accept Jesus as their savior, but, nevertheless, still feel Jewish "in their hearts." How should the congregation view such individuals? (Rabbi A. S. Task, Greensboro, NC)

ANSWER:

 

 nevertheless, remained Jewish (Isaac ber Sheshet; Simon ben Zemah of Duran, but on some occasions he did not grant this status; Solomon ben Solomon; Zemah ben Solomon).

(2) Those who considered the apostate as Jewish only in matters of 

matrimony (and so their offsprings were Jewish), but not in any other area (Samuel de Medina).

(3) Marranos (anussim) were non-Jews in every respect including 

matters of marriage; their children were not considered to be Jews (Judah Berab, Jacob Berab, Moses ben Elias Kapsali, etc.).

(4) An apostate was worse than a Gentile (ben 

Veniste, Mercado ben Abraham).

(5) Descendants of the Marranos who have been 

baptized were like Jewish children who have been taken captive by non-Jews, and their children are Jewish (Samuel ben Abraham Aboa).

A full discussion of the problem may be 

found in H. J. Zimmel's Die Marranen in de Rabbinischen Literatur pp. 21 ff. One extreme position was held by Solomon ben Simon Duran (Rashbash Responsa #89) who felt that not only the apostate but also the children would continue to be considered Jewish forever into the future as long as the maternal line was Jewish. He also felt that nothing needed to be done by any generation of such apostates when they returned to Judaism. No ritual bath or any other act was considered necessary or desirable. In fact, he emphasized that no attention be given to their previous state, for that might discourage their return. Rabbenu Gershom similarly urged the quiet acceptance of all who returned to Judaism (Mahzor Vitry pp. 96, 97).

The 

other extreme has been presented by Hai Gaon as cited in a slightly different fashion by Rashi (in his commentary to Kid. 68b and Lev. 24.10). He felt that any returning apostate, or the children of a Jewish mother who had apostasized, were potentially Jewish but must undergo a process akin to conversion if they wished to become part of the Jewish community. That point of view was rejected by most later scholars, as for example, Nahmanides (in his commentary to Leviticus 24.10; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268.10 f; Ezekiel Laudau, Noda Biyehuda #150, etc.). We, therefore, have two opposing positions in rabbinic literature; both, of course, represented reaction to particular historic conditions. Solomon ben Simon of Duran wished to make it easy for a large number of Marranos to return to Judaism; unfortunately this did not occur. Even when it was possible for Jews to leave Spain, the majority chose to remain. Rashi's harsh attitude probably reflected the small number of apostates who were a thorn in the side of the French community. The later tradition chose a middle path and encouraged the apostate's return along with some studies, but without a formal conversion process. Even if an apostate indicated no desire to return to Judaism, he would, nevertheless, be considered as part of the Jewish people (San 44a). A summary of special laws which were applied to apostates would include a number of matters mainly connected with family law. The marriage of an apostate who left Judaism under duress, if performed according to Jewish law, was valid (Yeb 30b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 44.9). The rules of divorce when apostates were involved were modified; such individuals were not considered to be reliable witnesses except in the case of an agunah. Penalties could be imposed on their inheritance (Kid. 18a) although they did possess the right of inheritance (B. B. 108a, 11a). Normal mourning rites should not be observed for such persons (M. San. 6.6; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 345.5). Clearly apostates stood outside the community in all but relatively few matters until their repentance.

Each of these cases cited above, of course, dealt with apostasy under 

greater or lesser duress. Outside pressures played a major role in the lives of the individuals involved. This is not the case with the "Completed Jew." We would, therefore, be stricter with her than with individuals who were forced into a position of becoming Christian. For us such modern willing apostate is a non-Jew. In this matter we would disagree with the Talmud and later tradition (Bech. 30b; see "An Apostate Proselyte," American Reform Responsa, #71 for further references).

We can not, and should not, exclude such individuals from 

attendance at services, classes or any other activity of the community, for we always hold the hope that they will return to Judaism and disassociate themselves from Christianity. But they should be seen as outsiders who have placed themselves outside the Jewish community. This should be made very clear to them and to the Jewish and general community, especially as many such individuals are active proselytizers . Such individuals should not be accorded membership in the congregation or treated in any way which makes them appear as if they were affiliated with the Jewish community, for that poses a clear danger to the Jewish community and also to its relationships with the general community. We certainly do not want these individuals to speak for Judaism in any public forum. In conclusion, we should make the distinction between ourselves and these individuals very clear to them, to the Jewish community and to the general community around us.

First, God's will is clearly stated in His Books as commands and guidelines. and the barometer is very simple KFC:

1- As a minimum ... fulfill the commands

2-Follow the guidelines AS MUCH AS YOU CAN without violating the commands (He said that He does not ask from anyone more than what they can bear ... no fooling here ... He knows what everyone can bear   )

3- The more you perfect your following of the commands and guidelines the more you will be rewarded ...

4- All good deeds are rewarded 10 times over as a minumum (all the way to 700 times and MORE).

how could it be more simple and clear?

See TA I can't see how these two statements mesh.  How do you know how much is "as much as you can?" 

Where's the measurement or the line we need to cross to show we are, indeed, good enough?   What happens when God says......"you thought you did as much as you could but you really fell short.  You deceieved yourself into believing you did enough when in fact your attemps were pitiful." 

That's why Jesus said there is none good but God.  All thru the OT it says no one did it right.  Even Abraham was justified because of his faith in the one who would come.  He wasn't justified in himself because he was "good enough."

See starting with the OT and moving forward many tried and failed at the attempts to keep God's law, because it was impossible to keep.  The law was only to show the Jews that yes, they indeed all fall short and that one day a Messiah would come and take their place.  He was the only one who would ultimately keep the law perfectly and so our righteousness is not found in ourselves but in the one who took our place. 

For me, as A Christian, it's his righteousness I'm judged on, not my own, because I can NEVER bee good enough.  There is no "as much as you can" in my vocabulary.  Jesus did it all perfectly. 

And that's already where the problem starts. What commands?

When G-d gave orders to some desert people, how are we to know which of those orders also applies in the north? (How do you fast all day on the north pole?)

And what if other people don't care about G-d's commands, make up stories about Him having changed His mind (He just didn't tell anybody), and then oppose you?

With that I agree.

That is irrelevant. We should follow G-d's wish not because we will be rewarded for it but out of respect for His love for us.

Islam and Christianity are full with promises of rewards for believers. A real believer doesn't need a reward or a promise.

And that's even more problematic. Why would I care how much interest my investment in G-d will produce? If I believe and do what G-d wants because of my love for G-d (and His love for me), why does He promise me a reward? Does He expect a reward from me for His faith in me and His good deeds for mankind?

People do what they believe G-d wants them to do because they expect a reward or because it is convenient to do so. There are long essays describing the first (which applies very much to Islam and Christianity) and most people don't even realise the futility of trying to explain that doing good deeds for a reward is a moral imperative.

The little I give to charity I do not give because I will be rewarded for it (and I don't believe I will be) but because Jewish law says that I have to try to improve the world. It's not a joy for me to give because I want to keep my money and spend it on nice things I enjoy.

If the world was perfect and nobody needed charity I would be happy because I wouldn't have to give.

Comon KFC, everyone knows how much he/she can do .. and remember... He said " no deed is rewarde more than obeying my commands" ... and there is no "how much in that" ... you dont steal ... you dont have sex outside marriage ... you dont lie .. you dont kill ... etc. these are things you either do or you dont. other guidelines .... the more you do the better ... simple KFC ... dont complicate it. And i am not talking from the hip here:

One time a non-muslim came to the prophet and asked him what does he have to do to become a Muslim and what would he get from God for it?

the prophet told him the 5 pillars (Belief in one God and His messengers, Prayer 5 times,  Fast Ramadan, Pay Zakat, and Hajj if you can afford it) ... and do a little more of each if you can ... the man said is that it? the prophet said yes.

the man said "By god, i will not do any more than those five things" then the man left. ... the prophet said " he will be successful if he is truthful.

so you see KFC ... God is very generous ... and He only asks for being honest in obeying the commands ... the rest is a bonus ... the more you do the more you will to get.

and you are correct in that no matter what we do ... we dont  even do enough in response to his bounties on us in this life .. let alone in the hearafter. but he doesny ask for a reward or a price for those bounties KFC. He only ask that we accknowledge his existence by obeying his commands ... nothing else ... anythng else we do He considers it an extra effort on our part to please Him ... and He gives a huge bonus for that ...

that is the job of prophets and messengers and after them scholars to make jugments on those circumstances and situations .... ... he could have sent His books by Angels dropping it on a Moutain somewhere and tell people go and read and follow it ... he sent prophets and messengers to make sure that people have a realistic way of following the commands and the guidelines

ooh Leauki .... you and KFC are complicating it ....

what you said is the ultimate goal ... but how many of us achieve that??? ... you know what he said regarding that?

he said "of those ther will be many in the beginning ... and very few at the end..."

so yes Leauki ... that is the ideal ... but he knows that those are very few especially nowadays ...