Was Jesus Christ Married?

re bharath

``Muslims recognizing Jesus as prophet is not a valid excuse, the cover-up doesn`t work.``

What cover up?????? I accepth that my English is bad, but i am shock to see INDIAN pandoo wondering whether this article is about Jesus or not.Keeping in mind, many indian like to call english as their first language rather then hindi.

Raw dust asks ``what did your critical analysis of Mohammad`s sex-life tell you? anything?``

c`mon, this is not a sex forum, no one ask you about your dad`s sex life then why interrested in others. The so called brillient book The davici code was written by a christain himself. Although his points were weak but his work was influencial to most illiterate people.

For instance, we all know Muslims` Scholars were the best at the time when Europe was struggling and was in its Dark Age. There are countless number of scientist, Philosophers etc not only muslims but of other religion as well and none has expressed his/her views what dan brown presented in his book. If this is what YOU all thing is the cover up then why GREAT people of that time havn`t talk about this subject.

Be aware of the fact that millions of books were brought from many part of the world and they were all translated and kept in the arabian libraries (sorry hindi pandu, you had nothing except kamasutra book in your library). Are you all telling us that muslims who consider JESUS as their Prophet didn`t care about their Prophet`s bloodline if this was some where to the Truth.

re#82
Raw dust asks ``what did your critical analysis of Mohammad`s sex-life tell you? anything?``


Your question has been repeatedly asked...see earlier posts...


The answer:
Gill Sahib`s is not interested in applying his critical analysis a.k. a. rational thinking on the personal life of Mohamed. Out of bounds.........he is only interested in the personal life of poor Jesus. It is fair game....it doesn`t matter if some Christians feel sensitive about this.



He has adopted a multipronged strategy to counter such questions:

1. Going to the victim mode and appearing tearful

2.Putting down the questioners, questioning the integrity of people
who ask such questions by pretending a moral high ground

3.Pointing out that the article is about Jesus :-)


Muslims recognizing Jesus as prophet is not a valid excuse, the cover-up doesn`t work.


We all know Gill sahib promotes a tolerant version of Islam and condemns evil practices in his society. But then if one writes a critical/ rational piece on some one else`s religion, the writer should be prepared to apply the same yard sticks to his own religion. For example if a Hindoo had a written an article like the above, non-Hindoos would have pointed out the supersitions and other stupidities of Hindoo society.

``Many of us who do not want to lose faith simply refuse to poder on such issues. I think it is wothwhile to think critically about them. ``

re: Freethinker:
what did your critical analysis of Mohammad`s sex-life tell you? anything?

Many of us who do not want to lose faith simply refuse to ponder on such issues. I think it is worthwhile to think critically about them. (spelling corrections mine)

and then there are many of us who have wandered away from faith, and have pondered on these questions critically and have returned to faith. i guess it`s easy enough for `free-thinking`, `critical` people to reduce those of faith to a black and white world, just as it is for `believers` to do that to `heretics.`

then again, nobody`s perfect.

all the best.

jang:

I know that religion is a sensitive topic whether it`s your own (or the one in which you were born) or some other. I do not criticise any religion because I have an axe to grind. A time comes in one`s life (it came quite late in mine) when one starts looking objectively at the things one had been believing in uncritically and as a matter of blind faith. For instance, why did miracles occur so frequently and so regularly in the past? Why don`t they occur now? Why God revealed Himself regularly to the prophets and other people in the past and why is He so remote now? Why Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the last prophet and no other prophet would come after him? So on and so forth.

Many of us who do not want to lose faith simply refuse to poder on such issues. I think it is wothwhile to think critically about them.

Mohammad Gill

Gill saab,

Its just that you are a muslim and that is why when you write critical pieces about other religion characters, you are bound to get flak. Anyways look forward to your next article ``did radha and krishna consumate their relationship?``

cheers

Please forget the ENLIGHTENMENT philosophers for explanations in metaphysics. Their paradigm will lead you nowhere. All the same , try to grasp the paradigm of Christianity and its relationships with the concept of forgiveness, eternal life, the christian concept of death as transition, the presence of Grace and the communion of Saints. Then you may understand why we think so differently and what is a Miracle.

To sum up, please read the Apostle`s Creed with all its references and foot notes from
``Cathechism of the Catholic Church``, Published by Theological Publications in India 1994. It may help you to rationalise our perspective and belief.

Cheerios

Ijaz_gul:

I enjoyed reading your post. The verse at the end of your post haunted me constantly in the past when I read the explanations of Virgin Birth, Immaculate Conception, Trinity, etc. They are so convoluted. It appears as if God created this world for stage-playing His various dramas.

I have been thinking about writing on ``Miracles`` for a long time. Long before I read The Da Vinci Code and thought of writing ``Was Jesus Married?`` Somehow, I couldn`t sit down and start writing in a coherent manner. Before, I start writing on any subject, I usually have a tentative outline in my mind. For writing on miracles, I haven`t developed any outline yet. When I started reading about Peter, I felt once again motivated to tackle this topic. Raising people from dead was ascribed to Jesus Christ and it didn`t tickle me even slightly because it is so widely believed (blindly?). There was nothing new in it. But Peter was quite another thing. So I thought I should tackle this topic. My initial enthusiasm has started wearing off again. I don`t really know if I will write on it any time soon although I think I have sufficient material for this project not only in the perspective of Christianity but Islam also. Ghazali fascinated me quite a bit and he had expressed strongly on miracles. Ibn Rushd had his own ideas on miracles which were not quite Ghazalian but opposed to what Ghazali had written. On the philosophical side, there were Hume and Russell. With regards,

Mohammad Gill

History and Research are two different subjects. Whereas history can be biased and fabricated, research is objective. So to think that historians despite all the distortions they live in and the biases they carry can sift evidence and inductions framed by their kind as conclusive is bad research and nothing to do with explanations, theories or hypothesis as mentioned by you. These are mere conspiracy theories and a positivist scientist would never dare to speculate.

Its so easy to distort religious history. Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah to be born in the house of David and was therefore a born JEW. He had to follow all the Jewish Commandments and was thus circumcised. The only extent to which it refers to sexuality is male or female. Taking this incident to induce that Christ married is too far fetched. Few readings from biased historians will not help.

Maghas ko bagh mein janey na dijey
Ke na haq khoon parwanoan ka ho gha

Cheerios

I am eager to read what you write on miracles.

ana, Ijaz_Gul, and other readers:

There doesn`t seem to be any definitive historical evidence (in as much as I know) that Jesus was married or that he was not married. I give hereunder extensive quotations from two books.

From ``Peter, Paul, & Mary Magdalene,`` by Bart D. Ehrman, p. 248:

``So what does the historical evidence tell us about Mary and Jesus? As we have seen, it tells us almost nothing - certainly nothing to indicate that Jesus and Mary had a sexual relationship of any kind. When I tell this to an audience, I inevitably have one or two people raise their hands to ask, ``Isn`t it possible, though, that they were married?`` And I reply that of couse it`s possible - just as it`s possible that Jesus was married to Susanna, or to Mary of Bethany (who also gets mentioned several times in the Gospels - far more frequently, in more than one Gospel, during Jesus` ministry), or to her sister Martha, or to one of the other women mentioned in the New Testament. Or that he was married to someone who isn`t named at all. Or that he was gay. Why not? It`s possible. But historians have to deal not only with what`s possible but also what`s probable. Was Jesus probably intimate with Mary? Or Susanna? Or Peter? Well, how would we know? We need evidence.``

From ``Was Jesus Married?`` by William Phipps, pp. 68-69:

``How far have we progressed in answering the central question: Was Jesus married? The New Testament assumes that Jesus had normal sexuality and sexual desire, both of which are essential for humanness and prerequisite to marriage. Those biosocial qualities were indicated in the following ways: Jesus` male foreskin was cut; his general and individual relationships to the opposite sex display no sexual phobias; and his maturity was gained through exposure to the inevitable temptations of manhood. Jesus unreservedly approved of conviviality and connubiality and did not suggest that either was defiling per se. In view of no overt evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable that the silence of the New Testament should be interpreted to mean that Jesus internalized the Jewish mores pertaining to sex and marriage............

Unless other ancient texts are discovered that contain relevant information, it is unlikely that students of early Christianity will arrive at a general consensus on who Jesus married. While the question whom Jesus married is intriguing, it is not nearly as significant for the church as is an affirmative answer to the basic question of marriage. The positive arguments of this chapter coupled with the documented material in the next mean that Jesus most probably was married to a Galilean woman in the second decade of life.``

Magdala, a village to which Mary belonged, was in Galilee.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 68

Mahamodda jee,

If India has ten such things of shame you have 100s. For example you call yourselves the land of Pure. Look at this.

http://dawn.com/2006/06/09/SlideShow/pic13.jpg.

Open sewarege on sadaks in the land of Pure. You see these sewerage photos everyday in your newspapers. So much Purity for the Land of Pure.

Freethinker excuse me for asking -- what a decent scientist like you is doing in the red light district of world religions.......

ana:

I do appreciate your fair criticism of my viewponit. It is not easy to discuss religion and religious matters; there is always a risk that some feelings might get hurt.
What I presented in the article was a different point of view than the traditional. You metioned a miracle in your post. In fact that is another topic on which I want to write First I have to take a breather and gather my senses together. I am presently reading about the miracles performed by Apostle Peter. They are amazing. Of course, miracles are common almost in all religions. Prophet Muahammad broke the moon yet it is still in one piece. But Apostle Peter raised so many deadbodies and gave them life that it really is amazing. Please understand, I respect your beliefs but that should not mean, I should not write on such topics from a rational viewpoint. I do not know whether you would agree with me, it is much more difficult to lose faith than to keep it.
I do appreciate you giving me a different perspective and I will try to get the book ``history of the orthodox church.`` I am currently reading 2-3 books on Christianity. I don`t know how long I will be able to keep my interest alive.

Mohammad Gill

#69, ana {_``celibacy is not just `venerated` in christianity alone``}

Celibacy should be mandatory for all religious fundos, including but not limited to the following:

RSS/BJP/VHP/JS/SP/BD/SS/HM LeT/AlKayda/JeI/JUI/MMA/SeS/LeJ/JeM/Wahabbis/ISNA/ICNA/CAIR
KKK/Knights Templars/SJ/SM/Dominicans/Franciscans/Maronites/JWs/CS/IRA/Orangemen
JDL/Likud/Hagana/Irgun/Stern Gang/Hadassa/Motza ballers

p. s. to previous post.

greetings, ijaz gul and double cc. nice to `see` you here too. take good care.

gill sahib,

i don`t believe that you wrote this article out of malice. i do believe that you have provided chowk readers with a distortion of the facts, or if you will, an alternate story that is not grounded in extensive research.

celibacy is not just `venerated` in christianity alone. furthermore, celibacy is not for everyone, i believe christ thought the same way as well. his first miracle was performed at a wedding, the wedding of cana, which shows that he didn`t have an aversion towards the idea of marriage.

i was reading a church scholar`s writing the other day and was struck by what she said. that the church had no reason to hide the fact that jesus was married. there is no conspiracy here. jesus knew what he had to accomplish in human form, he knew what his purpose was, and marriage did not fit into `the plan`. celibacy was practiced by some jews, one of them being the prophet jeremiah. so it is not christianity alone in which celibacy is practised.

i don`t know what more can be said that would be beneficial from my part. i could provide you with articles which take the fiction of brown and contrast that with facts according to church historians, but it is these very `orthodox` historians that you seem to be contrary to in this article. to rely on teabing, to rely on the gnostics, to rely solely on apocrypha is to take an interest in christianity in terms of debunking it. you are not doing it maliciously, but unfortunately what you mean as no disrespect to the christian faith, may be seen as others precisely as disrespect. different perspectives.

if you haven`t already, and you are interested, bishop kallistos ware`s a history of the orthodox church is a very good study of the beginnings of the church. according to brown `the new vatican power base` dates as far back as the 4th century. if you read ware, you might discover that there was no such thing as a vatican power base in the 4th century. i would bring some documents here but i do not wish to do that without permission of those who wrote them.

as some have pointed out, the da vinci code is just a fiction, a fast-paced mystery, and controversy sells. but more than a few folks are taking this fiction to be fact, and believable, as you yourself have written. i know of orthodox families who are going to watch this film, but then they will also talk about it with their young ones which is a good thing. the da vinci code can hardly claim to be educational, about da vinci, or about jesus, but for some, this is as far as they`re willing to go in terms of their information. if this novel can bring about positive discussions that could only be good. the question remains, what is positive, and for whom?

i think i may have exhausted myself on this topic for now.

take good care, and salamat raheN
ana

For all the lovely Hindus here you go ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5058840.stm

Re: # 62
Mohammad Saab Jee,
Tussey mere sawal da jawaab nahee ditta, khallee mainu gaala kudd dittiya.

Khair Chuddo, I thought that you were a sport, but it seems that you are not interesting in having a free-thinking post. Maybe you are a wanna-be ``freethinker``. All you care about it what you think on the subject matter.

My previous apology was something that I offerred to you genuinely, regarding some Hindu woman whom you were friendly with.

Please explain and show me what you meant by Trash(Kachra). Can you please help me to understand? Maybe there is something that I can learn and improve today. I am always open for positive criticism.

BTW, Salimdost, whom many regard as an authority on Islam on Chowk, has already answered my question humbly(partial it maybe).

I sincerely hope that you are a sport and not like that Mooch Marror DG-Police KPS Gill.

Dillidost #56 and earlier #37 {``What would be your reaction if Dan Brown wrote a book about his marriage to Ayesha? Salman Rusheed was almost killed for merely writing about Prophet.
No disrespect, but dont think that Muslims have concepts of rationale thought and inquisitiveness as Westerners do or for that matter Indians. ``}

and {``By the same logic, people can question if Prophet Mohmamad received his voices from Allah or not?????? ``}


Dillidost,
People HAVE written books claiming much more and casting even more sinister allegations concerning the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Dante in his ``Inferno`` placed Mohammed (PBUH) in the deepest part of hell along with Hazrat Imam Ali. Washington Irving wrote several insulting accounts of his life. They are all gone, but his name lives on. Those who get emotional and violent over such stupidities are themselves stupid. Salman Rushdie, Dante, Washington Irving, and others can write what they want and we should read and refute or simply ignore their biased views - but they have every right to write what they like and we have every right to disagree or ignore. Violence and anger just gives them more credibility and exposure.

As for questioning the validity of the Holy Prophet`s (PBUH) messages from Allah, you have every right to be dubious. In fact, his messages/visions from God, delivered through the Angel Gabriel that constitute the Holy Koran, are the most convincing aspects of his truthfulness, veracity, and honesty. The man was illiterate and came up with this very sophisticated and literary revelation. Anybody else, insecure his own shortcoming, would have claimed ownership of this scripture. Also, considering the primitive society of Arabia, anyone else with such a gift would have used it for personal gain and advantage. Claiming to be a ``messenger`` of Allah, a servant of Allah - a mere errand boy or chaprasi, is certainly not gaining any advantage, wealth, or power. The Holy Prophet`s life is there as an example of selflessness, sacrifice, and commitment to uniting mankind under one God. Of course, people are welcome to disagree. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), when his mission was in its infancy and he was politically, economically, and militarily weak, faced more disagreement from his own family, his own tribe, his own city, and his own society - far more than he faces today. His name and his mission live on. I thank God for giving us this wonderful man as an example for mankind. Thanks.

Ijaz-gul:

Thanks for your feedback. I do not claim any authoritative status in as much as Christology is concerned. I believe religion was created by man (humans) for a mundane purpose. Man needed a superpower(s) to invoke in time of need because he found himself so insecure. Different groups of people created their gods and supernatural deities according to their imagination and customs. They gave names to their deities in their own languages. In the Abrahmic religions, God is the God of Jews because they claimed to be the chosen people of God. I personally believe that we, the humans, should try to understand how these religions began and evolved over a period of time. In this way, the religious tension that exists these days may be alleviated. I may be wrong but if nothing else, trying to find the truth is not an unworthy undertaking.

I confess that I had a slight bias against tradition. Tradition has suppressed all other dissident historical literature. The statements that I made in my essay were supported by genuine (and not contrived) references. I also highlighted the speculative aspects of the possibility of Jesus` marriage in the essay. Let me reproduce the following extract:

``In view of her important visibility in the Christ saga, many did believe she was indeed the wife of Jesus Christ. BLL however only hypothesized as follows: “Perhaps the Magdalene – that elusive woman in the Gospels – was in fact Jesus’ wife. Perhaps their union produced offspring. After the crucifixion perhaps the Magdalene, with at least one child, was smuggled to Gaul – where established Jewish communities already existed and where, in consequence, she might have found a refuge. Perhaps there was, in short, hereditary bloodline descended directly from Jesus. Perhaps the bloodline, supreme sang real, then perpetuated itself, intact and incognito, for some hundred years…”

This hypothesis was given a more concrete and positive form by Brown in his novel. According to his narration effectively, “The Holy Grail is not a physical chalice as is commonly believed; it is a woman named Mary Magdalene who was Christ’s wife…At the time of crucifixion, she was pregnant with Christ’s baby daughter. After the crucifixion, she fled to Gaul where she was sheltered by the Jews of Marseilles. Her daughter after birth was named Sarah,” (4).``

My bias toward the possibility of Jesus` marriage arose from the fact that marriage is more natural than celibacy. In the prevailing practices of Judaism at the time of Christ, marriage was the usual practice. Celibacy is so much venerated in Christianity which seems unrealistic. Marriage is needed if for no other purpose than propagation of the human race.

It would have been very beneficial if other interactors, like you and ana, had discussed the issue in its true perspective. I want to assure the readers that the essay was not written out of malice and disregard. Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Marriage has frequent references in Scriptures. Yet when Jesus Christ spoke if it in reference to a divorce and celibacy. He said,

``Not all men can recieve this saying [celibacy], but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and then there are who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God``
Gospel of St. Matthew`s 19:12

Later St Paul in his letters laid particular emphasis on this divine aspect of celibacy. So as a Christian, I would always doubt these conspiracy theories be it the Code or the Last Temptation of Christ.

Commenting on the evolution of the Christian Church is not as simplified as appears in this article by Gill written perhaps in a hurry and with a uni focus. Being a scholar, he should have followed the inductive theories on both sides of the spectrum and perhaps concluded with as many speculations. He shows clear bias, lack of method and lack of knowledge.

Nice to see you Ana

Cheerios

Re: # 62

You wrote:

Let me tell you one last time that I don`t care what you write because it is nothing but trash. And I am not interested in it.

I respond:

Let me tell you one last time that I don`t care what you write because it is nothing but trash. And I am not interested in it.

P.S: I read 2 of your articles. One was on Salim Ali (I liked it) and other one is this one. As for Jihadi comment, I am not sure whether you are a jihadi or not. I know by experience that there are many good-sounding, English speaking, suit-wearing Jihadis (from Pakistan). Rational thinking applies not just to others for oursleves as well. I was impressed with your alma mater (Imperial College) but there could be exceptions. As Einstein said `` It`d be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrappd inside it``.

It was very clear who`s thinks how. I repeat it for your convenience: My wife is a virgin, others` wives are whores! Rational thinking applies to judge others, not me, coz I am beyond judgement! We can kill others for slanderous comments on my prophet/religion but we can say anything to slander others (under the guise of freethinking)! That`s why (perhaps) Secular Web refused to publish this crap.

Delhiwala & VRV
:
The title of the article is ``Was Jesus Christ Married?`` I have tried responding to the questions which were relevant to my article and were pertinent. You are bringing in Mohammad and issues related to him in your discussion, which have nothing to do with my article. If you believe your issues are so very important why don`t you write about them yourself. You believe I am a half-educated person, so be it. You are better-educated and better-informed about those issues; so go ahead and write about them. I don`t take writing assignments from others.
I am fairly certain that you guys haven`t read the article, or at least haven`t read read it carefullly, because you`re not interested in that - your intent is to make personal attacks and degrade a person simply because he has ties with Pakistan and is a born Muslim - and hence a jihadi (in a degrading sense) and a fair game. Let me tell you one last time that I don`t care what you write because it is nothing but trash. And I am not interested in it.

Delhiwala:

If I remember correctly, you apologized from me once before for your trash writing. Aplogy doesn`t mean a thing if you do not desist from trash writing.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 56
Readers: I am merely asking a question. In no way I am making fun of any Religion.
I understand that some readers with agendas might use my post to make fun but it is not my intention.
- thank you

Re: # 59

Thanks Salimbhai.

Desert and cool place. Yes sounds logical.

I am expecting the freethinker to come out his paralysis and respond to our Delhiwala.

#58, VRV,
If Allah prefers to talk from a cave He can do that because He is Almighty. :)

In the heat of Arabia, a cave is a nice cool place - not just for bats, foxes, or devils. :)

Also, it was the Angel Gabe who spoke to Mo (PBUH) and not Allah himself. But then, the whole thing could have been a vision instead of reality - who knows?

Re: # 56

Delhiwala saab,

I don`t think Mo was a cave-dweller. Moreover Allah is not a bat, fox nor a devil to be inside and talk from a cave. Why dont you use your free-thinking and specualte as to why he(?) chose to speak from a cave.

Re: # 56

He can`t answer that or it looks like he is blind. Pl send your query in Braille.

Re: # 50
By the same logic, people can question if Prophet Mohmamad received his voices from Allah or not??????

Right.....

#54, Didn`t you watch Big Love?

Was Jesus married? Was Mohammed a Mormon?

Re: # 52

Delhiwala ji,

I dont know that language. Wud u pl expalin it to me?

Folio.

Re: # 48
neem haqim khatra-e-jaan...

Jay1 #22 {``We know how murderous the church is...(all mono-theistic religions are)...the inquisition in spain under torquemada is all too well documented to deny...
And so is the islamist ``wahabi purity drive underway now...
What europe did 400 years ago..muslims are doing now..
it is the darkest hour befoe the muslim dawn....
hope they re-capture their lost renaissance ...cordoba in spain! ``}

Jay,
I found your post very interesting and quite convincing. You are so right about the ``institutionalized`` monotheistic religions - Catholicism, Mormons, Wahabbis, etc..
We all know that the Catholic Church, manifested by the power of Rome during the last days of the pagan Roman Empire, as it was reinforced by the conversion of Constantine ``the Great,`` is nothing but an organization dedicated to maintenance of the myth. When you require councils, voting, state protection, inquisitions, crusades, burning at the stake, and organizational discipline with a definite hierarchy, you are left with a very worldly religion. Everything about the Catholic religion is manufactured by men, first Jews, then Roman, using Hebrew foundations, buttressed with Greek and Roman flavors and prejudices. You are so right about Islam being at the crossroads where Christianity was in the 1600s. Cordoba, Palermo, and even ancient Baghdad are sad reminders of a paradise lost by Muslims - when they were able to think rather than fume.

Here is a discussion of the article from a friend of Mine; he sent it by e-mail, not by an intention of publication. I am posting his comments with his permission.

Dear Akram:

How do we make our case to prove if Jesus was married? Here in your article, and I liked your article, we start out saying that Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene on her lips, which he might have, but that doesn’t prove that he was married to her. May be the disciples got offended because they felt that he shouldn’t have kissed a woman whom he was not married to.

I think this whole discussion is speculative and so was Jesus. We can only prove his marriage inductively by comparing it with the Jewish traditions and customs of those times, as most of the other writers on the subject have done.

As far as I am concerned there is no relationship between Christianity and Jesus although the use of his name is the main source of money for the evangelists and religious leaders.

I am not convinced with the biologic impossibility of virgin birth either. The same history that speaks of virgin birth also says that before Mary became pregnant with Jesus, she was a close friend of Joseph and that she used to visit him and bring him food in the cave where he used to live. That says it all. Joseph had many more kids by Mary after Jesus. Why one kid by the Holy Spirit and the remaining by Joseph?

There are too many stories. Either they are all correct or they are all fake. Most probably they are all fake. Jesus resurrected so many dead and finally was resurrected himself. Perhaps people believed in resurrection in those days without ever investigating it like the Muslims believed in Jinns. Both of these concepts never got erased from the annals of history.

Christians believe Jesus died on the Cross, Muslims say: no, he did not die on the Cross, he was raised to heaven and the Qadianis believe in neither. They say Jesus lived a long life, had kids and his final resting place is in Srinagar, Kashmir. There are books on this subject in the library.

So Akram, whom would you believe?

Iftikhar

Re: # 45

Zynab story is really interesting!

That sounds like truth coz we have a story in the Outlook about the FILs (Father-in-laws) romancing the DILs in UP (Imrana types). The women in UP told the correspondent that she is not the only case but every town and village had such stories of FILs ogling the DILs. The latest one in Orissa has similar story and the issue became so big that the imams in Orissa called it an interference in theri faith.

(The story is this: a FIL de-flowered his DIL. Local imam asked the husband the girl to Talaq her so that she would be the lawful wife of her erstwhile FIL!. When local court overtruned this, the religious heads and Muslim brethern agitated that the courts are interfering in their faith!).

Your story perhaps is the reason why it`s the religious duty to follow the prophet.

Re: # 37

Delhiwala Saab,

This freethinking is limited to commenting about others` wives not one own.

My wife is pure, others are whores!

#18 by freethinker

Author, you are mistaken in surmising what I believe and highly inaccurate in your perception of what I think of your motives. Your motives may be genuine but that is neither here nor there. Matters of “belief” by definition require a suspension of logic – whether or not logical explanation be present for whatever is observed. I disagree with your implication that religion is a natural need like hunger or thirst and that it is part of man’s evolution. There are plenty of examples out there where individuals needed no formal religion – what to say of “religious” doctrines – and went on to live long, happy and productive lives. An argument can be made that the “need” for religion is a need learned from others through emulation by those who are too weak to think independently, and driven by a need to belong if not from an outright fear of being left out! The level of formal education seems to have the least to do with such a “need”. Your perception that this site is teeming with “Islam haters” is also challengeable. There is plenty of established evidence out there for legitimately questioning some of what gets accepted as gospel truth by the likes of some “Islam pushers” (to coin that loose term) at this site. However, what this site appears to really be teeming with are individuals who are highly selective in what they choose to look at – people who invariably refuse to face the truth when the truth is uncomfortable – be it the sordid deeds of coreligionists or of Jinnah or of ISI or any other entities – and who instead are prone to fall into a “victim” mode! I disagree with the statement that questioning faulty basic premises amounts to being anti-Islamic – but such ``knee-jerk`` reaction is not atypical. The truth about Rushdie hurts but it is the truth nevertheless as is the reality of mass tolerance for that outrage.

Re: # 38

Bharat. Njoy this cartoon.

http://armyinkashmir.nic.in/images/big_cartoon29.jpg

RE#42 by shobig_sifar

Once again ...either Islamists don`t answer the questions........or hide behind some long-winded non-answers.....and if the push comes to shove you can always accuse the kafirs of bigotry...intolerance ...islamophobia......etc:-))))) very convenient......


I do not practice any particular religion but wish to respect every one`s belief as long as they play by equal rules.




Mohamed got sexually attracted towards his adopted son`s wife Zaynab....because of this his adopted son had to divorce her so that Mohamed could marry her....conveniently ... in order not to be condemned for sexual immorality, Mohamed produced a `revelation` from `Allah`, making adoption illegal and thus removing the argument against him:-)


Irrespective of whatever explanations Islamists may provide on behalf of Mohamed......



THE QUESTION IS IF SOME ONE WRITES A NOVEL ON THE ZAYNAB STORY...WOULD THE ISLAMISTS ALLOW OR PRACTICE SUCH ``FREE THINKING`` ? WILL THEY BE ``RATIONALLY`` ANALYZING THE STORY?



FIRST OF ALL ..............WOULD THEY ALLOW AN AUTHOR WHO WRITES SUCH A NOVEL TO WALK FREELY ON THIS EARTH??????????????

Gill sahib,

It`s nice to see someone studying Christianity or trying to understand it and then writing their opinion about it. I hope you find whatever you are trying to.

On a side note: I watched the movie and enjoyed it since I did not read the book. On the other hand my wife read the book and did not enjoy the movie as she stated that a lot had been left out.

The two of us are practicing Christians, Catholics to give you a better idea. However it never occurred to me that I should not watch this movie because it is trying to defame Christianity or better, create controversy. Hey the religion survived “Crusade’s” than this is peanuts to such a thing.

Dan Brown has a right to express his feelings however the movie does not sway my belief. For me religion is something more mental whereas I feel peace when I pray, peace that I may not get anyway else. I guess it is addictive because one needs peace and in this busy world I can only find peace in one place.

Ana, nice to see you.

Mr Gill,

If you are seriously interested in learning about Christianity, may I suggest,

A History of ChristianThought, by Paul Tillich.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671214268/sr=8-5/qid=1149625264/ref=pd_bbs_5/103-5960377-6524621?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Re: # 40 What Muslims believe by and large, or how they act int their day-today life is another debate best left for another day...and I am no one to lay any claims on behalf of 1.5 billion people of the world and on their rationale ...as for your question, I have already answered it; that religions eventually develop into mythology...that`s when intolerance and the concept of blasphemy in its current form sneaks in...

Re: # 31 No offence to anybody`s idealogy, and indeed Prophet Isa (AS) is as respectable and sacred a figure for me as He is for any Christian, and Dan Brown`s claims may not necessarily accord with what my religion infers about him, if it does. But the thing is even if his lineage is still alive, why should that make any difference to Christianity or its followers, Catholics and Protestants alike? Isn`t it the message that should hold ultimate importance rather than the messenger and his personal life? Even if the latter were to be, I believe `marriage` has never been a sin or an atrocity in Christianity...

Re: # 36
Question is what does Muslims believe/practice in their day-to-day lives?
I have heard your logic before many a times.

What would be your reaction if Dan Brown wrote a book about his marriage to Ayesha? Salman Rusheed was almost killed for merely writing about Prophet.

No disrespect, but dont think that Muslims have concepts of rationale thought and inquisitiveness as Westerners do or for that matter Indians.

Such like tabu subjects would be dismissed as either blasphemy or work of Satan. And then you would quote me a Hadith stating that Islam means peace and Light to the world.

Re: # 26 I am too complicated (for myself) yet simple for you...

so Kaura confesses he dwells in a world of hallucinations, his comlexity being one of them. End of story Gill sahib. :)

Gill Sahib,
Free thought should always be welcomed......

The historical Jesus was a good man ...a man of peace, and a gentleman.....whether he was married or not is immaterial.......he will always be worshipped by the Christians and respected and loved by the rest of humanity.......


HOWEVER, your ``free thought`` doesn`t go too far when it comes to Islam...and prophet Mo :-)......it is just nibbling at the periphery.....understandable since you will be suicide bombed...if you try...

Re: # 35
Folio:
I dont expect any answer on this majmoon from our able friend Mohammad. Though, I must say that you cannot put him same bracket as other Jihadis. He is relatively speaking a liberal, considering that he is from Pakistan; it is a compliment.

Re: # 34 Mohammad (SAW), just like Isa/Jesus (AS) was A mere human. That`s what Islam lays emphasis on. Only Allah is the immortal entity. But as Hassan sahib pointed out, as religion gets contorted and develops into a `mythology`, human beings approach the status of Almighty, which is contradictory to the actual teachings of all the monotheistic religions.

And WHO is the Prophet of the west???

I dont believe that God X, God Y or God Z has created us. I go by other rationalists and dont subscribe to the creation stuff. All Abrahamic religions has one basic flaw. The first couple had children. How they multiplied? Interesting! The children must have had sex within the family of considerable combinations, without which there is no multiplication of world population. As for Indian mythology Yama and Yami had similar incestuous relation.

Therefore imaculate conception can be seen in the context of the times when sex is a sin. Had the present writers (from the west) of Bible were to write they would have written about Christ having normal coital relations with many girls b4 his claim to fame.

I dont think that a 6-footer male god had created this world. All religious books and gods are man`s creation. We must have see religious books as documents of the respective times. In India and the west I can rant against any religion and be alive. Can that happen in your homeland, Mr. Gill? So, can we talk in a similar free-thinking environment in a Muslim country about Islam and Mo? Delhiwala had a good question which you cant ignore Mr. Gill. Ignoring such vital question could settle our opinion in favour of Mr. Gill being slectively ignorant about his backyeard and forthcoming about his adapted home. If yes, Peace Be Upon My Ar$e that Mr. Gill is a true free-thinker.

Re: # 32
Now would you hold same belief about Mohmmad Sahib(Prophet) too?
If you called him a mere human what would happen to you.

West is an interesting culture, it lets people in from far-off countries who can come and debate about Christ, but the same people would behead and blow buildings in West if their own Prophet is viewed with same spectacles......

HEAR HEAR. and cheers, mr. Gill.

ana:
Thanks for your further comments. I am learning quite a bit about different points of view; about those who believed Christ was human, about others (docetics) who believed in the divine side only and considered ``Christ as human`` only an appearance, etc. There is much in Christianity (like other religions also) which defies natural laws. It is not only people like me who are skeptical of the traditional Christian beliefs, virgin birth, Immaculate Conception, etc., but many Christians also who fail to make much sense of them. Believe me, I am not writing these things to give you or others, any personal offense. I respect you and your beliefs.
It was nice to have this brief exchange with you. You might teach me some important things about Christianity and I`ll appreciate that. Like Ghalib: ``Ka`aba meray peechay haiy, Kaleesa meray aagay.``
Mohammad Gill

sifar,

i`m not really `back`. i just felt compelled to respond to this article.

no one is asking people to believe in what dan brown has written. the sad fact is that some do believe in what he`s written. i could watch the movie or read the book, but i could also come out with firmer convictions than some do. yeah controversy sells, all right. and with it one sells a little bit of himself/herself. (or a lot)

take good care,
ana

gill sahib,

thank you for your response.

gnosticism was rejected by the church because it denied jesus` human nature, not because it was a threat to their `power.` i think the church could have maintained its `power` if they had embraced it. to the gnostics, christ was only `divine` - one of many divine beings. the gnostics also believe that christ did not die on the cross for the salvation of all, but that he `seemed` to die, and that he appeared to reveal the secret of how to get to heaven to only `a few spiritual elite disciples.`

of course this appeals to those who cannot conceive of jesus being human, or to those few elite who would want to be powerful. i also understand that the story of jesus is seen as fiction just as we view dan brown`s `work` as fiction. but to me, it also makes sense why gnosticism would be rejected.

i really don`t want to spend too much time here. it seems that you are not looking at all sides, but only those that would debunk everything that the gospels state. that is your choice. there isn`t one side of the story, but forgive me for not putting much stock in what you wish to show here on chowk, as there are those who put no stock into christianity.

you also be well. :)
ana

Re: # 21 Welcome (back?) dear lady! It`s nice to see you around after quite a while.

Re: # 8 well, the movie, or the novel for that matter, doesn`t espouse or condemn Christianity. It just presents various takes and views on it, and the ever-mounting controversy that surrounds it. Anything that can make good material for a fictional write-up will gather fame, and controversy sells...that`s what fiction is all about! Nobody is asking people to believe in what Dan Brown has adduced...it is a novel after all!

Re: # 7 Very aptly put forth.

thanks and regards.

#23,

I don`t know what caused you to react and what are you reacting to?!?!

I am too complicated yet simple for you to understand me or form an opinion about my views. So, your tirade against me is amusing.

There is a difference between Christ/anity`s beliefs and ``Christ`s marriage``; and I dind`t know they were interdependent or any relevance.

I wasn`t discouraging you from your quest.......Please do continue.

All i was doing as an interactor of this website is posting my opinion of your piece..... I assume that is why you post your articles on such a site....and I`ve the right to do so.

You mention why your article was rejected:
``.......“Your considerations about, for instance, Jesus’ marital status are speculative.” But the thesis of Jesus’ celibacy is equally speculative.........``

There was a reason. I (obviously not the only one) raise the objection under the same circumstances. You cannot present rumors and gossip as a literary piece.



PS - If you refer to my straight forward posts (It is an old habit, and that you obviously misread) on this site as the basis of your opinion about me and what I world I live...etc., you couldn`t be more wrong.....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

ana:
I respect your beliefs but there is not only one version of the story that I described in the article. Newer facts are coming to light after the discovery of Nag Hamadi`s documents. One should be able at least to see a differing viewpoint. The so called Gnostic Gospels were banned by the Church for centuries because they were perceived as a threat to its power.
I don`t suggest that Jesus was married as a matter of actual fact because I don`t know. So far there is no historical evidence confirming it or contradicting it. There is however a possibility that he was married indeed.
I assure you that my study is not confined only to ``Spong, and the writings you have listed.`` I am trying to understand the broader picture. At least, I am trying and am not depending only on the hearsay.
Be well,
Mohammad Gill

kaurasach:
You want to create a world in which your whims and beliefs reign supreme; everything else which you don`t like or approve should be banned and put under a moratorium. You can have your way ia a world of your own fantasy. But if you are living in the real world, you should learn to live symbiotically with others. There are billions of otrher people living in the world. Many of them may have different ideas than you have.
If some people want to understand how various beliefs came into existence, what`s wrong with it? To you, it may not be worthwhile but to those who are trying to understand these things critically, it may be important.
Think over it.
Mohammad Gill

Hi all..
surprising that such a ghisa pita ``topic``..had to come out from below the carpet now that the code is on big screen..
Truly our (south asian) fora are enslaved by the goras!

Without anyone even realising it.

There is abundant material on the web on this topic.

My able frien Gene Matlock has written a book on it. (we used to correspond often ..emails mostly).

Matlock suggested the jews came out of ancient afghanistan then known as ``Bactria`` by the yoonanis. (greeks).

Zarathrushtra (zoroaster) of the parsis also came from there.

Many jew and kashmirir &pathan surnames are similar.
(matlock has a full table on his site www.viewzone.com)

other similarities with Indians their neighbours are ..
1 - Abraham & sarah (Indian Brahma & saraswati)
2 - the second wife hazra (hagar in bible?) ..saraswati had a tributary named hakra.
(transmutation of life giving rivers as personages) ..
3 - The jewish custom of beheading the sacrificial victim is called ``shizhe``...in plain sanskrit
That is ``shira-ched`` or cutting of the throat.
4 - The jews worshipped a fire god....Indians too were fire worshippers & so were the
iranians..
5 - The jews considered Cyrus (Krush) with respect..The indians had their Krishna.(but this
may be a different non-iranian dark krush...except he was an exception to the generally
very fair indians of the time so as to derive a pseudonym meaning ``dark one`` as he
stood out on that account).
6 - Takth Suleiman implies solomon was in kashmir too. (solomon`s throne or seat)
7 - Ancient Bactrian records mention (Gundaporus) a celebrated carpenter with markings
on his body passing thru eastwards thru bactria.
8 - The jews consider that their ``old home`` was much to the east of judea.
9 - Israelis use the word ``bene`` bani`` etc to indicate a section of their people.
The vedic aryans refer to a class of people called ``Panis`` (phonecians) who were rich
and were traders, but were not arya.
10 - Jesus was ``lost in the wilderness`` for 10 years of his early life and returned as a
grown youth to proclaim revolution.
Many think he was the ``isai-nath`` mentioned in some indian texts who was initiated in
the nath parampara of the naths (Gorakh..gahini..kanif...ending in Nivrutti &
Dnyaneshwar of maharashtra in the middle ages.

So...
No amoke without fire.

We know how murderous the church is...(all mono-theistic religions are)...the inquisition in spain under torquemada is all too well documented to deny...
And so is the islamist ``wahabi purity drive underway now...
What europe did 400 years ago..muslims are doing now..
it is the darkest hour befoe the muslim dawn....
hope they re-capture their lost renaissance ...cordoba in spain!

Jayen

gill sahib,

i think that if indeed you have an interest in learning about christianity then you should rely on more than the writing of spong, and the writings you have listed.

was jesus christ married? no, he was not.

you write:

Such speculations become more credible when they are viewed in the background of concerted efforts of the orthodox Christians to falsely tarnish Mary Magdalene’s character. For if she were not prominent and close to Christ, why would she be character-assassinated in order to preserve the myth of Christ’s celibacy?

this is, with all due respect, an erroneous statement. we, as orthodox christians, believe that it was mary magdalene who christ first appeared to, after his resurrection, and she has been revered by orthodox christians since the beginnings of the church, as one of the female apostles. it was the vatican that declared her a prostitute (recanted centuries later), not the orthodox church. there was no effort by the orthodox to tarnish mary of magdala`s character, and therefore that cannot support the so-called credibility of such speculations.

perhaps you meant something else by orthodox christians, but i can only speculate, as you have by writing this article, that you were referring to those in the orthodox church, as opposed to the vatican or the protestants, and if you had, then you are wrong.

i understand that you wish for open-minded people to read this, but there are open-minded people in this world who are of faith, and see the difference between truth and heresy, and it`s a shame that open-minded, freethinking people such as you cannot see that.

sincerely,
ana

Mr Gill,

It is not a matter of any motives ulterior or not. It is a matter of the ridiculous and cheap (not necessarily you) intellectuals who make crows out of feathers, cause dissent and earn infamy (believing it to be fame). What difference did it make if Christ had a wife or a lover? If it jingles your bells, please continue to research the topic.

However, a hocus pocus literature penned 3 centuries after his death wont give you any reliable clues to his marital status.

As far as religion`s role. Eastern thoughts/religions have a better grasp on the purpose of religion. It is for better individual progress as human beings. It has soothed me and helped me in hard times. If people use it for perversity, it shouldn`t be negated all together. Science should be banned too because it has played roles in advancement and destruction of humanity as well.


Regards,

KS.

The western cultural norm of ``disrespect`` and the subhuman culture that atheists promote makes my stomach turn. I do not understand the fascination of atheists with being at the level of primates. What is wrong with being respectful and loving to your fellow human beings. If being caustic is the only way of getting heard then, there is something sickeningly wrong with this culture.

bjkumar:
Like others, you believe, I am waging a vendetta against religion - any religion. I know that religion will remain in the world for ever; it will evolve like other natural phenomena but it will remain in one form or the other because majority of the people believe that they need it.
I had explained in some detail why I had chosen to write on Christ`s marriage in my last interact; there was no other ulterior motive. I hate ulterior motives. The persona of historical Christ is shrouded in mystery. The concept of virgin birth, for instance, is quite unreal and completely incredible. Hadn`t it tickled your inquisitiveness what makes people believe in it? You don`t have to be necessarily anti-Christ to ponder on such issues; you can do so with an open mind. Similarly, why do you believe in your religious doctrines, if you believe in a religion? You don`t need to depend on what others tell you to believe. Can`t we think about these issues dispassionately? The logic that since religion A is unrealistic or morally bad hence religion B should necessarily be true is fallacious.
Most of the interactors are possessed by anti-Islamic feelings and the others suffer from Hinduphobia, which is ridiculous. A fairminded researcher doesn`t write with a mission to oppose a viewpoint, a belief, a religion, if you will, at all costs. He (she) is more interested in finding out the truth. I do not choose the topics of my articles with the intention of waging a dedicated war against a viewpoint.
Hope this will enable you to understand better why I write and what I write.
Mohammad Gill

hamidm #2 &10

Jesus Christ...you had me laughing aloud in my office...God bless you!

Author, your interact #12 is more illuminating and perhaps more interesting than the body of the main article. Had you not drafted your original write-up for a different publication, it could have been part of the text – it would have been consistent with your by now familiar style, and it certainly would have allowed a less abrupt opening than we see here. However, if the hidden purpose of this article was to stimulate curious thinking in minds of individual members of the ummah in a stealthy way – that very stealth ensures its fate of futility. From all accounts, the types of individuals who consider themselves “defenders of Islam” (and sometimes masquerade as “defenders of Pakistan” – while touting the oxymoronic canard of a “secular” Pakistan) are likely to jump even upon the shadow of a doubt. As you imply, openness to ideas of others is simply one aspect of a generally open mind. As indicated to others, this interactor’s understanding of Islam is minimal, and this interactor, like most people of the world, tends to judge by the actions of some of its adherents and to a lesser extent by what can be (rather unkindly) called the moral cowardice of those adherents who in their hearts know better – but refuse to say so and chose to become part of the problem. It can be argued that you are providing vague hints of light to individuals who have chosen not to see it, who like it that way, and who will not allow anybody to dispute the issue of light or darkness, either. Also, you have chosen a “safe” topic – the chances of the “devoted” Christians coming after you or causing you any harm are minimal. It has been said that members of the Christian faith are like sitting ducks – only capable of gentle protests. It is a different story with the Muslim world (if there is such a thing) – as Salman Rushdie found out the hard way. A few vocal members of the mullahcracy can come after the “doubters” with swords while the vast masses simply collude by staying more silent than a dead door-nail. In fairness to you, at least you are not trying to create fake “culprits” from the past like certain “authors” and interactors at this site frequently do – to provide cover to inexcusable deeds of dead demagogues who nurtured those very seeds of “exclusivity” which bring us to this juncture – and who essentially sold their children to a life of slavery without shedding a single tear drop!

Re: # 9

Fear of Mulavis is wide-spread, even Primi Minister of Pakistan has to declare he is not

Here is what Quran says about ``Mutawafika``

[2:235] And as for those of you who die and leave wives behind, these (wives) shall wait concerning themselves for four months and ten days. And when they have reached the end of their period, no blame shall be attached to you concerning anything that they do with regard to themselves in a decent manner. And Allah is Aware of what you do.

So if you ``mutawafika`` and leave your wife behind and she has to wait for 4 months and 10 days before getting marrying again, as you are not going to come back,

Then you can ask your Mulavi Sahib why jesus is alive up there; if it is the fear of being labelled Qadiani. Also, you can ask Mulvi Sahib why Quran at thirty places mean death for ``mutawafi`` but for jesus it is going up alive to heaven? and that is the only place where your Mulvi sahib insists this word means going up alive. One Last question you ask your Mulvi Sahib, Why Ibn-Abaas, cousin of our Prophet Hadrat Muhammad Sal-ullah-ho-Wa Alahi Wasallam beleived that Jesus had died, as narrated in Sahih Bokhari.

Beware, you will be labelled Qadiani before getting any answer. If this is not clear in Quan, then what is clear.

Is Islam really not clear about death of Jesus?

I couldn`t care less if he was married or not! After all founders of world religions were married. prophet Muhammad few times, Buddha once, Then Moses- I understand several with concubines.

What is important is their message to the followers and the actual practice and not words.
Kamath

Off course Jesus was married, Here is the pciture of real off-spring of Jesus, as posted on Yahoo few days ago.

His real off-springs are in sri-nagar, Kashmir, as reported on May 16, 2006.

http://travel.news.yahoo.com/b/rba_daily/20060516/rba_daily/rba_daily4337

Interactors:

According to a news item, the film “The Da Vinci Code” is banned in Pakistan. In the west, majority of the people have trivialized it calling it ‘fiction’ and ‘fictional.’ The book (and the movie) is a work of fiction in as much as the story in the book is fiction. The critics are calling the issues regarding Jesus and Mary Magdalene and other relating to Christian beliefs fictional. This may not be completely correct.
People in the west are usually inquisitive not only about religion but about every thing. People in the Muslim world, on the other hand, are not inclined to read (what to say of writing any thing) any thing which goes against the traditional beliefs. An insignificant minority which is inquisitive about these matters is simply shut up; they are not allowed to articulate their critical views.
My interest in Christianity began when I started reading Bishop (retired) John Shelby Spong’s books. He has criticized and rejected many fundamental orthodox beliefs of Christianity, such as, the virgin birth, Immaculate Conception, Jesus’ resurrection after death and ascension, concept of a theistic God, etc., etc. I published an article titled “Bishop Spong’s Critique of the Traditional Christianity,” at chowk.com on January 10, 2005. I published a review of his book “A New Christianity for a New World” at chowk.com on August 22, 2004.

After Dan Brown’s book “The Da Vinci Code” was published, I was intrigued by its reviews by numerous critics. So, I borrowed the book from an area library and read it cover to cover, I published an article “Brouha’ha on The Da Vinci Code” at chowk.com on March 28, 2005. From this book, I came to know of Mary Magdalene and his position with Jesus Christ. Brown was sued in a court of law on the charge of plagiarism (from Holy Blood – Holy Grail); the suit was eventually resolved in Brown’s favor. The question whether Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife was debated in the press, news media and it was topic of many books. I was again intrigued and wanted to find some more about the subject. The article under discussion is the result of that quest.
After writing this article, my search continued (still continues). On searching the Internet, I learnt that William Phipps had published a book titled “Was Jesus Married” (quite close to my title of the essay) in 1970. I tried checking if this book was available in any nearby library. In most of the libraries, the book was checked out. It was available in only one library which was at quite a distance from my house (about 15 miles one way); I didn’t have the heart to go there.
I came to know of another book “Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene” by Bart D. Ehrman. My search revealed that this book was also checked out in most of the libraries but was available in the same distant library. It appeared as if every one was reading about Mary Magdalene.
One day, I gathered courage and went to the distant library and borrowed these books.
Majority of the people in the Muslim world are not inclined to read critical reviews of religious issues. Anybody who questions about these issues is considered a blasphemer. Why do we shut the minds of the people? After all, religion is more important than any thing else in the Muslim world, or so it appears. Why are we so defensive about religion?
I am planning to write some more articles about Christianity based on my current critical studies about it. My intent is not to hurt any sensibilities and that is the reason that my style of composition is usually neutral and not deprecatory. There are readers who believe it is pointless to write on these issues. My suggestion to them is not to waste their time reading such articles. I am addressing the readers who have open minds.
Mohammad Gill

Re: # 3
> So it doesn`t matter Jesus was married or not when God didn`t care to give him the status
> more than a Imam...
Yeah right ....

After all - how can one even compare Jesus with Mo.. Lets see JC`s score:
Paedophilia = 0
War = 0
Beheadings = 0
Rape = 0
Robbery = 0
And the worst of all - decides to sacrifice himself - so that others can learn from his life...

I see dame, where you are coming from ...

JESUS ROCKS



JESUS ROCKS

Well, i see no serious comments on a good researched article.

This issue brought to light by Mr Brown has to be looked at from two perspectives, Historical and Religious.

Historical review of the literature might speculate the Jesus COULD have been married but there is no real credible evidence that his lineage continues to this date.

Religiously the evidence which tries to prove that Jesus was merely an immortal would be dicredited by the Vatican, thus it would never be possible to prove it. ( As is the case with any other religion in the world)
Islam has never been really clear what happened to Jesus but ironically people rely on very unreliable ahadith to believe or prove that he is going to come back. Muslims also look into Quran to prove that he was taken upto Allah and shall return to the earth again. In Sural Al- Imran does the Quran refer to Jesus at the time of him being crucified and uses the word ` Mutawafaina` which literally means `To be taken`- Alive or Dead we cannot say. The conjecture of his return are all written in the ahadith which were collected 200 years after the prophets death, therefore the relibility of that document can be questionnable.

N.B- By the view before anyone gives me a fatwa let me re-assure you that i am not a Qadiani.

i dnt think this topic should disscussed in such a manner........i dnt understand y people write or made movies,ads or cartoons on religion issues....religions r for respect.......people should not follow them blindly but atleast should not make fun of them........this kind of things should be avoided.......n those who do it shold be ashamed of their act.........
vineeta

Gill saheb:

It has happened in all religions. Gradually, the myth develops and normal human beings approach the status of Almighty.

I see it happening in case of Sahaba Karam in Islam. Reading history written by muslim scholars we learn about all the great things they did and never see anything humane about them.

Maulana Maududi wrote a book, ``Khilafat Aur Malokiat``. In this book, he tried to humanize Hazrat Usman. He clearly established that due to his kind heart, hazrat Usman gave a number of important positions to his relatives and thus started the process of Khilafat getting converted to Malokiat.

There was a big resentment among Brelvi muslims who would never listen to any criticism.

Christ was a prophet of Almighty and great man. If he married Mary, then he did not commit any sin. My respect for him and his teaching did not diminish at all. All human being have certain needs like food, clothing and shelter. Since he preached people and a large number of people listened and believed in him as a spiritual leader, I am sure many women would have loved to serve as his wives.

However if one believe that Jesus was Almighty himself then he should not have any earthly human needs including food, water and oxygen.

Was Jesus Christ married? Let us consider:

Perhaps he was not married because:

He had a full head of hair.
He had a peaceful look.
He retained his slim figure.
He had no paternity lawsuits against him.
He could make a comeback.
He WAS a leader and not a follower.

Then again, perhaps he was indeed married because:

He was not a good cook.
He was not much of a writer.
He was not much of a poet.
He had this “lost” look.
He never had much money.
He DID get crucified.

It is absurd and pointless to dissect the life of Jesus. Most of it is written by his followers and missionaries who wanted to convert as many to the fold as possible......

The weapon of the time to convert the illiterate and desperate was to instill fear of the magical and supernatural....to give hope....miracles....etc. So, the followers just did that.....they created the stories.....to make their `prophets` attractive and supernatural....

It worked then in most cases; today the world has changed.....time to move on and try something new.....the missionaries use the same tactics today with little success....bcs what was attractive then is considered stupid today.....

Anyways, who cares if he was married or not.....as if marriage is a sin.....

Again, spend time on his message sans the fluff.......instead of these petty issues....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

well the question is simply naive..``was jesus married ?``...historically no ``peghambar`` died as virgin or was not left alone without a ``zoja`` they were benefited one way or another by miracles (Moajzaat)...but reading through context of gospels it makes little sense but the truth is evident or not is still not in hands...

is there any ``quranic``, ``ahadith`` evidence of the fact of his marriage and descendants...

Well this thing never incidently came in thought `was jesus really married?` or he was taken up before this process like Imam Mehdi. Coincidently they both will appear before Qiyamat. May be there would be a plenty of time to expand their lineage then...

nice research put to compare the beliefs of different religions of same Prophet...Though Esa(Jesus) was not given the privilege to be born in God`s House (Kaaba) when Mariyam came running towards it the Sura Came down ordering Mary:

``THE KAABA IS NOT A PLACE TO GIVING BIRTH TO CHILDREN``
so only Fatima Bint-e-Asad was taken in Kaaba to deliver Ali(a.s) peacefully so that in God`s home shall start the family of god (Ahl-e-Bait)

So it doesn`t matter Jesus was married or not when God didn`t care to give him the status more than a Imam...

gill sahib,

...... i am happy to announce that peter, paul and mary are all doing fine ..... you know that mary was diagnosed with leukemia in 2004, but she got a bone marrow transplant (donated by her husband jesus) and now she is okay .......... i think this year they are going to do a couple of concerts this year ......... in case you are wondering, jesus is the light and sound guy

...... the bigger question is : why did puff the magic dragon need strings and sealing wax and other fancy stuff ?????

....... since we are on the subject of religious hoax