Facts and Figures about our TV Habits

A friend sent the link for these sites to me. I have often heard of many similar studies being done in the US, but many such studies are focused on specific problems, such as violence or obesity. This site gathers information from numerous sources and studies and then presents in the format given below.

If you are a parent or a teacher, then you should pay attention to the information below. There are some serious negative effects from watching too much television.

Children are just as happy, if not more happy, when playing games on the floor by themselves or with their parents. They don’t need most of what is shown on TV. They are able to play. They can have fun without watching explosions, crashes, violence, or people being murdered everyday.

Be wise. Be careful about what you allow your children to watch on TV. Just turn it off and find something else to do. Ask the children what they want to do. Sit on the floor and play. It’s more fun than watching sinetron. Guaranteed.

The information below shows the results from surveys in the USA. But here we have sinetron (soap operas), and lots of new criminal shows and “mystical” shows that are just as frightening, or even more so. America has already shown us the bad results from too much bad TV. So, why are we making the same mistakes again in Indonesia? We need to prepare children for a future where they can be creative and independent thinkers. TV has the opposite effect on them.

You may not be able to control what is shown on TV, but you can make a choice: JUST TURN IT OFF!!!

(All highlights below are mine)

Wassalamu’alaikum wr.wb.,

Gene

Source: tvturnoff.org

I. TV Undermines Family Life

1. Time per day that TV is on in an average US home: 7 hours, 40 minutes

2. Amount of television that the average American watches per day: over 4 hours

3. Time spent daily with screen media for U.S. children age six and under: about 2 hours

4. Percentage of US families with children age 0-6 with at least one television: 99

5. Percentage of US households with 3 or more TVs (2003): 50

6. Percentage of parents who say that if they have something important to do, it is likely that they will use the TV to occupy their child: 45

7. Percentage of Americans who always or often watch television while eating dinner: 40

8. Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: 49

9. Time per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 38.5 minutes

10. Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked, would rather watch TV than spend time with their fathers: 54

II. TV Harms Children and Hampers Education

1. Average number of hours per week that American one year-old children watch television: 6

2. Number of hours recommended by the American Pediatric Association for children two and under: 0

3. Average daily time American children under age two will spend in front of a screen: 2 hours, 5 minutes

4. Average time per week that the American child ages 2-17 spends watching television: 19 hours, 40 minutes

5. Hours of TV watching per week shown to negatively affect academic achievement: 10 or more

6. Hours per week that non-African-American teens (12-17) spend watching primetime TV (8-11 p.m. daily): 5:26

7. Hours per week that African-American teens spend watching primetime TV: 7:37

8. Percentage difference (African Americans vs. non-African-Americans): 40.2

9. Percentage of children ages 8-16 who have a TV in their bedroom: 56

10. Percentage of children age 6 and under who have a TV in their bedroom: 36

11. Percentage of children age 6 and under with a VCR or DVD player in their bedroom: 27

12. Percentage of those children who usually watch television in their bedroom: 30

13. Percentage of television-time that children ages 2-7 spend watching alone and unsupervised: 81

14. Percent of total television-time that children older than 7 spend without their parents: 95

15. Percentage of parents who would like to limit their children’s TV watching: 73

16. Percentage of day care centers that use TV during a typical day: 70

17. Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900

18. Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1,023

19. Percentage of self-professed educational TV that has little or no educational value: 21

20. Chance that an American parent requires children to do their homework before watching TV: 1 in 12

21. Average time per day American children spend in front of a screen of some kind: 4 hours, 41 minutes

22. Percentage of young adults who admit to postponing their bedtime for the internet or TV: 55

23. Percentage of 4-6 year olds in homes where the TV is usually or always left on who can read: 34

24. Percentage of 4-6 year olds in homes where the TV is not usually or always on who can read: 56

25. Amount of time children age 4-6 and under spend daily, on average, with screen media: 2:10 hours

26. Amount of time children age 6 and under spend daily, on average, reading or being read to: 41 minutes

III. TV Promotes Obesity

1. Adults in US technically obese: 1 in 3, or 62 million

2. Percentage of American children who were seriously overweight in 1964: 5; 2003: more than 15

3. Amount of daily moderate physical activity recommended for children: 60 minutes

4. Percentage of young people who report having had no recent physical activity: 14

5. Factor by which men who watch more than 21 hours of TV a week increase their risk of Type 2 diabetes: 2

6. Percentage chance that an overweight adolescent will become an overweight or obese adult: 70%

7. Percentage higher health cost for Kaiser Permanente members with Body Mass Index of 35 or higher: 44

8. Percentage of dollars spent on clothing for men and women’s plus sizes: 23

9. Economic cost of obesity in the United States in 2000: $117 billion

IV. TV Promotes Violence

1. Number of violent acts the average American child sees on TV by age 18: 200,000

2. Number of murders witnessed by children on television by the age 18: 16,000

3. Percentage of youth violence directly attributable to TV viewing: 10

4. Percentage of Hollywood executives who believe there is a link between TV violence and real violence: 80

5. Percentage of children polled who said they felt “upset” or “scared” by violence on television: 91

6. Percent increase in network news coverage of homicide between 1993 and 1996: 721

7. Percent reduction in the American homicide rate between 1993 and 1996: 20

8. Percent increase in number of violent scenes per hour on 10 major channels from 1992 to 1994: 41

9. Percentage of programs that show the long-term consequences of violence: 16

10. Percentage of violent programs that emphasize an anti-violence theme: 4

V. TV Squelches Political Awareness

1. Money spent on ads for the major presidential candidates between June 1, 2000 and September 13: $63 million

2. Money spent on issue ads between January 1, 1999 and August 30, 2000: over $342 million

3. Percentage of those which were attack ads: 61

4. Amount of time broadcasters must provide to candidates free of charge under the 1996 Telecommunications Act: 0

5. Value of public airwaves allocated to broadcasters at no cost under the 1996 Telecommunications Act: $70 billion

6. Amount spent on lobbying by TV broadcasters and the National Association of Broadcasters in 1996: $4 million

7. Number of network news stories about the environment in 1990: 377; 1996: 113

8. Percentage of Americans who can name The Three Stooges: 59

9. Percentage of Americans who can name three Supreme Court Justices: 17

VI. TV Promotes Over-consumption

1. Number of TV commercials viewed by American children a year: 40,000

2. Age by which children can develop brand loyalty: 2

3. Number of TV commercials seen by the average American by age 65: 2 million

4. Percentage of toy advertising dollars spent on television commercials in 1997: 92

5. Amount spent on television advertisements directed at young children in 1997: $1.3 billion

6. Percentage of local TV news broadcast time devoted to advertising: 30

7. Total amount of money spent in 1999 to advertise on broadcast television: $40 billion

8. Net worth of the typical middle-class American household after accounting for debts: less than $10,000

9. Percentage of American children age six and under who have products based on characters from TV shows or movies: 97

Source Key

I. Family Life

1) Nielsen Media Research, 2000. 2) ibid. 3) “Zero to Six: Elecontronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers,” Kaiser Family Foundation, Fall 2003 4) ibid. 5) ibid. 6) ibid. 7) National Institute on Media and the Family, 1999. 8) Fahey, Valery. “TV by the Numbers.” Health. Dec/Jan, 1992: 35. 9) American Family Research Council. “Parents Fight ‘Time Famine’ as Economic Pressures Increase.” 1990. 10) Mango, Jack. “TV in America.” The Official Couch Potato Handbook. Reprinted in Wilson Quarterly. Autumn 1993: 44.

II. Children

1) Hofferth, Sandra L. “Healthy Environments, Healthy Children.” A Report on the 1997 Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Child Development Supplement. University of Michigan, 1998. 2) American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement, August 1999. 3) “Zero to Six,” Kaiser Family Foundation. 4) Nielsen, 2000. 5) US Dept. of Education. “Strong Families, Strong Schools, Building Community Partnerships for Learning.” 1994. 6) Nielsen Media Research, 2000. 7) ibid. 8) ibid. 9) Annenberg Public Policy Center, Media in the Home 2000. 10) “Zero to Six,” Kaiser Family Foundation. 11) ibid. 12) ibid. 13) Kaiser Family Foundation. “Kids and Media @ the New Millennium.” 1999. 14) ibid. 15) US Dept. of Ed., 1994 16) Tashman, Billy. “Sorry Ernie, TV Isn’t Teaching.” New York Times. Nov 12, 1994. 17) Barber, Benjamin. Harper’s. Nov 1993: 41. 18) Nielsen, 2000. 19) Annenberg, Public Policy Center, 2000. 20) Harper’s “Index.” Sept. 1996. 21) Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2000. 22) National Sleep Foundation, Press Release, March 28, 2000. 23) “Zero to Six,” Kaiser Family Foundation. 24) ibid. 25) ibid. 26) ibid.

III. Obesity

1) “America’s Great Big Fat Challenge,” The Washington Post, November 16, 2003 2) “A Not so Minor Risk,” The Washington Post, December 2, 2003 p. F1 3) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity 2001,” 2001. 4) ibid. 5) Harvard School of Public Health. Cited by Associated Press. June 20, 1999. 6) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 7) “America’s Great Big Fat Challenge,” The Washington Post, November 16, 2003 8) ibid. 9)Department of Health and Human Services, 2001

IV. Violence

1) Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Report. “Children, Violence, and the Media.” 1999. 2) American Medical Association. “Physician Guide to Media Violence.” 1996. 3) Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Report. 4) US News and World Report. Apr 8, 1997. 5) MTV national survey. Chicago Tribune. Aug 15, 1993. 6) Budd, Craig, and Steinman. Consuming Environments. Rutgers University Press, 1999. 7) ibid. 8) Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Report. 9) Mediascope. National Television Violence Study. Studio City, CA, 1999. 10) ibid.

V. Overconsumption

1) American Academy of Pediatrics. Cited by National Institute on Media and the Family. “Children and Advertising Fact Sheet.” 2002. 2) McNeal, 1992. Cited by National Institute on Media and the Family, 2000. 3) Clark. “The Want Makers”: 195. Cited in Marketing Madness by Michael Jacobsen and Laurie Mazur: 45. 4) Lamay, Craig, and Newton Minow. Abandoned in the Wasteland: Children, Television and the First Amendment. 1995. 5) Rocky Mountain Media Watch, Denver, 1995. 6) “Children and Advertising Fact Sheet,” Natl. Institute on Media and the Family. 7) Advertising Age. “1999 U.S. Advertising Volume.” Prepared by Robert J. Coen, McCann-Erickson Worldwide. 8) Schor, Juliet. The Overspent American. Basic Books, 1998. 9) “Zero to Six,” Kaiser Family Foundation.

VI. Political Awareness

1) Brennan Center-Wisconsin Study. Political Television Advertising. 2000. 2) Annenberg Public Policy Institute. “Issue Ads @ APPC.” 2000. 3) ibid. 4) Common Cause. Channeling Influence. Washington, DC, 1997. 5) ibid. 6) ibid. 7) Center for Media and Public Affairs Factoids. 8) Washington Post Poll, Washington Post, October, 12 1995. 9) ibid.

RealVision, an initiative to raise awareness about television’s impact on us, is a project of TV-Turnoff Network, 1200 29th Street, NW, LL #1 Washington, DC 20007 P (202) 333-9220 F (202) 333-9221 www.tvturnoff.org

Hukum Mencabut Uban:

Sumber: almanhaj.or.id

Pertanyaan.
Apa hukumnya mencabut uban dan hukum mengubah warnanya (menyemirnya)? Apa pula dalilnya ?

Jawaban.
Mencabut uban hukumnya makruh (dibenci). Demikian pula mengubah warnanya (menyemir) dengan warna hitam hukumnya makruh.

Adapun dalil larangan mencabut uban adalah sebuah hadits dari Amru bin Syu'aib dari bapaknya dari kakeknya, bahwa Nabi Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Janganlah kalian mencabut uban karena uban itu cahaya seorang muslim. Tidaklah seorang muslim tumbuh ubannya karena (memikirkan) Islam malainkan Allah tulis untuknya (dengan sebab uban tersebut) satu kebaikan, mengangkatnya (dengan sebab uban tersebut) satu derajat, dan menghapus darinya (dengan sebab uban tersebut) satu kesalahan"

[Ahmad II/179, 210 –dan ini lafalnya, Abu Dawud No. 4202]

Begitu pula hadits dari Ka'ab bin Murrah Radhiyallahu 'anhu bahwa Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Barangsiapa yang tumbuh ubannya karena (memikirkan) Islan, maka pada hari kiamat nanti dia akan mendapatkan cahaya"

[Tirmidzi No. 1634 –dan ini lafalnya-, dan Nasa'i 3144 dengan tambahan lafal 'fii sabilillah']

Adapun dalil kemakruhan mengubah warna uban dengan warna hitam adalah berdasarkan hadits dari Jabir bin Abdullah Radhiyallahu 'anhu, dia berkata, "Pada hari ditaklukannya kota Mekkah, Abu Quhafah (ayah Abu Bakar Ash-Shiddiq Radhiyallahu 'anhu) dibawa menghadap Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam sedang rambut kepalanya putih seperti kapas, maka Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Bawalah dia ke salah seorang isterinya agar mengubah warna rambutnya dengan sesuatu (bahan pewarna) dan jauhilah warna hitam"[Hadits Riwayat Jama'ah kecuali Bukhari dan Tirmidzi] [1]

Abu Dawud No. 4212 dan Nasa'i No. 5075 telah meriwayatkan sebuah hadits dan Ibnu Abbas Radhiyallahu 'anhu, ia berkata, Rasulllah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam telah bersabda.

"Artinya : Pada akhir zaman nanti akan ada suatu kaum yang menyemir dengan warna hitam seperti arang. Mereka ini tidak akan mencium bau harumnya surga".

Adapun mengubah (menyemir) rambbut dengan inai dan katam [2] maka hukumnya sunnah, dan tidak (memyemir) dengan tumbuhan waros dan za'faron [3]. Hal ini berdasarkan hadits dari Abu Dzar Radhiyallahu 'anhu, ia berkata, Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Sesungguhnya sebaik-baik bahan untuk mengubah (menyemir) uban ini adalah inai dan katam" [Ahmad V/147, 150, 154, 156, 169. Tirmidzi No. 1752. Abu Dawud No. 4205, Nasa'i No. 5062. Ibnu Majah No. 3622]

Dan dari Ibnu Abbas Radhiyallahu 'anhu, ia berkata, 'Pernah ada seorang laki-laki melewati Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam sedang rambut ubannya disemir dengan inai, maka Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Betapa bagusnya ini".

Ibnu Abbas berkata, kemudian laki-laki lain lewat sedang rambut ubannya disemir dengan inai dan katam, maka Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Ini lebih baik dari yang tadi".

Kemudian laki-laki lain lewat sedang rambut ubannya disemir dengan warna kuning, maka Rasulullah Shallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam bersabda.

"Artinya : Ini adalah yang terbaik dari semuanya" [Abu Dawud No. 4211, diriwayatkan juga oleh Ibnu Majah No. 3627]


[Disalin dari kitab Al-As'ilah wa Ajwibah Al-Fiqhiyyah Al-Maqrunah bi Al-Adillah Asy-Syar'iyyah jilid I, Disalin ulang dari Majalah Fatawa 06/I/rabi'ul Awwal 1424H -2003M]
_________
Footnote
[1] Lihat shahih Muslim No. 2102, Sunan Abu Dawud No. 4206, Sunan An-Nasa'i No. 5076 dan 5242, Sunan Ibnu Majah 3642 dan Musnad Ahmad III/316
[2] Sejenis tumbuhan yang menghasilkan waran kemerah-merahan atau kekuning-kuningan, semacam pacar.
[3] Sejenis tumbuhan yang menghasilkan waran kemerahan atau kekuningan.

Who Invented The Trinity?

Source: by Aisha Brown

The three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – all purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as "tawhid" in Islam, this concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical passage known as the "Shema", or the Jewish creed of faith: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus when he said "...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again: "And your God is One God: there is no God but He..." (The Qur'an 2:163).

Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and outside the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – in one divine being.

If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter:

"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity..." (excerpts from the Athanasian Creed).

Let's put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father, plus one person, God the Son, plus one person, God the Holy Ghost, equals one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?

It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.

How did such a confusing doctrine get its start?

Trinity in the Bible

References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.

In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. While this "Great Commission" does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text – that is, not the actual words of Jesus – as can be seen by two factors:

1) baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and

2) the "Great Commission" was found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost – see Mark 16:15.

The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of 1 John 5:7. Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase "... there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is definitely a "later addition" to Biblical text, and it is not found in any of today's versions of the Bible.

It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.

The Doctrine Takes Shape

While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a "divine Son". After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God's revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.

Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third-century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.

A Formal Doctrine Is Drawn Up

When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria – Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop – Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.

Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.

Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Church Puts Its Foot Down

The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism" became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who didn't hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.

It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.

Debate Continues

Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.

The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than "I believe it because I was told to do so." It is explained away as "mystery" – yet the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that "... God is not the author of confusion ..."

The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the preachings of Jesus: "... Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:8)

Islam and the Matter of the Trinity

While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam:

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God" (Qur'an 5:73).

It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name "Allah" as the name of God.

Suzanne Haneef, in her book What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says,

"But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in." (pp. 183-184)

Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.

Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity – God being Three-in-One – is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three.

This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Qur'an sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title "Mother of God" by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verses in the Qur'an most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Qur'an as a "member" of the Trinity, is simply not true.

While the Qur'an does condemn both trinitarianism (the Qur'an 4:171; 5:73) and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary (the Qur'an 5:116), nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Qur'an is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.

In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Qur'an, God's Final Revelation to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages,

"... your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner." (the Qur'an 18:110)

"... take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected." (the Qur'an 17:39)

– because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout ALL His Revealed Scriptures,

"... I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other) ..." (the Qur'an 21:92)

Is Jesus Really God?

Source:

Without a doubt, you have often heard the claim that Jesus is God, the second person in the "Holy Trinity". However, the very Bible which is used as a basis for knowledge about Jesus and as the basis for doctrine within Christianity clearly belies this claim. We urge you to consult your own Bible and verify that the following conclusions are not drawn out of context:

1. God is All Knowing... but Jesus was not.

When speaking of the Day of Judgment, Jesus clearly gave evidence of a limitation on his knowledge when he said, "but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 and Matt 24:36) But God knows all. His knowledge is without any limitations. That Jesus, of his own admission, did not know when the Day of Judgment would be, is clear proof that Jesus is not all-knowing, and that Jesus is therefore not God.

2. God is All-Powerful... but Jesus was not.

While Jesus performed many miracles, he himself admitted that the power he had was not his own, but derived from God. He said, "Verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..." (John 5:19) Again he said, "I can of mine own self do nothing: As I hear I judge, and my judgment is just because I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which has sent me." (John 5:30) But God is not only all-powerful, He is also the source of all power and authority. That Jesus, of his own admission, could do nothing on his own is clear proof that Jesus is not all-powerful, and that therefore Jesus is not God.

3. God does not have a God... but Jesus did have a God.

God is the ultimate judge and refuge for all, and He does not call upon nor pray to any others. But Jesus acknowledged that there was one whom he worshipped and to whom he prayed when he said, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." (John 20:17) He is also reported to have cried out while on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt 27:46) If Jesus were God, then couldn't this be read "Myself, myself, why hast thou forsaken me?" Would that not be pure nonsense? When Jesus prayed the Lord's prayer (Luke 11:2-4) was he praying to himself? When in the garden of Gethsemane he prayed, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt." (Matt 26:36-39) Was Jesus praying to himself? That Jesus, of his own admission, and by his own actions, acknowledged, worshipped and prayed to another being as God, is clear proof that Jesus himself is not God.

4. According to the Bible, God is invisible to humans... but Jesus was flesh and blood.

While thousands saw Jesus and heard his voice, Jesus himself said that this could not be done with God when he said, " No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18) "Ye have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His shape." (John 5:37) He also said in John 4:24, "God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." That Jesus would say that no one had seen or heard God ant any time, while his followers both saw and heard him, is clear proof that Jesus was not God.

5. No one is greater than God and no one can direct Him... but Jesus acknowledged someone greater than himself whose will was distinct from his own.

Perhaps the clearest indication we have that Jesus and God are not equal, and therefore not one and the same, come again from the mouth of Jesus himself who said in John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I." When someone referred to him as a "good master" in Luke 18:19, Jesus responded, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God..." Further more, Jesus drew clear distinctions between himself and God when he said, "I proceeded forth and came from God, neither came I of myself but He sent me." (John 8:42) Jesus gave clear evidence of his subordination to God, rather than his equality with God, when he said in Luke 22:42, "not my will but thine be done," and in John 5:30, "I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which has sent me." That Jesus would admit that he did not come into the world on his own initiative but was directed to do so, that he would acknowledge another being as greater than himself, and that he would negate his own will in deference to affirming the will of another, give clear proof that Jesus is not the Supreme One and therefore Jesus is not God.

Conclusion

The Church recognizes the Bible as the primary source of knowledge about God and Jesus. But since the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is not the Supreme Being and the Supreme Being is not Jesus, upon what basis have you come to believe otherwise?

My brother or sister, the belief that the Supreme Being is a Trinity is false and completely inconsistent with the words of Jesus as presented in the Bible. God is One, not three. He is a perfect unity.

If you are interested in the truth about God and your relationship to Him, we invite you to investigate the religion of Islam.

What is the word of God about Jesus?

A. Regarding the Sonship of Jesus:

That is Jesus, son of Mary, in word of truth, concerning which they are doubting. It is not for God to take a son unto Him. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a thing, He but says to it "Be", and it is. (Qur'an 19:34-35)

And they say, 'The All-Merciful has taken unto Himself a son.' You have indeed advanced something hideous. The heavens are well nigh rent of it and the earth split asunder, and the mountains well nigh fall down crashing for that they have attributed to the All-Merciful to take a son. None is there in the heavens and earth but he comes to the All-Merciful as a servant. (Qur'an 19:88-93)

Truly the likeness of Jesus, in God's sight, is as Adam's likeness; He created him of dust, then said He unto him, "Be", and he was. (Qur'an 3:59)

People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the Truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His word that He committed to Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not 'Three', Refrain, better it is for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him – that He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth, God suffices for a guardian. (Qur'an 4:171)

B. Regarding Jesus being God:

And when God said, 'O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say unto men, "Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God?" He said, 'To You be glory! It is not mine to say what I have no right to. If I indeed said it, You knew it, knowing what is within my soul, and I do not know what is within Your soul; You know the things unseen. I only said to them what You did command me: "Serve God, my Lord and your Lord." And I was a witness over them, while I remained among them; but when You did take me to Yourself the Watcher over them; You are the witness over everything. (Qur'an 5:116-117)

C. Regarding the Crucifixion of Jesus:

And for their unbelief, and their uttering against Mary a mighty calumny, and for their saying 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God'... yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they did not slay him of certainty... no indeed; God raised him up to Him; God is Almighty, All-Wise. There is not one of the people of the Book but will assuredly believe in him before his death, and on the Resurrection Day he will be a witness against them. (Qur'an 4:156-159).

History of the Trinity

Here’s something to read about the formation of the concept of trinity. It was not part of the early church.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/trinity.htm

http://www.apostolic.edu/apostolicpillar/articles/trinity.html

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch11.htm

Highlights from:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch11.htm

Tertullian - the Father Of Christian Trinitarianism

Tertullian (c. 150 - c. 225 A.D.) was the first person recorded by history to use the words trinity (Latin: trinitas), substance (substantia), and person (persona) in relation to God. [92] He was the first to speak of three persons in one substance (Latin: una substantia et tres personae). Tertullian adhered to the economic conception of the trinity. That is, he believed that the trinity exists for the purpose of revelation only, and after this has been accomplished the distinctions between the persons will cease. However, he definitely differed from Irenaeus in that he used the Logos doctrine of the Greek apologists. Tertullian equated the Logos with the Son. He believed the Father brought the Logos into existence for the creation of the world and the Logos was subordinate to the Father. The doctrine of the trinity posed no problem for Tertullian, for his whole theology rested on the thought that the more impossible the object of faith is, the more certain it is. He has been characterized by the statement, "I believe because it is absurd."

Other Early Trinitarians

Tertullian introduced the terminology of trinitarianism and became its first great proponent in the West, but Origen (died 254) became its first great proponent in the East. [97] Origen attempted to fuse Greek philosophy and Christianity into a system of higher knowledge that historians often describe as Christian Gnosticism. He accepted the Greek Logos doctrine (namely that the Logos was a person separate from the Father), but he added a unique feature not proposed until his time. This was the doctrine of the eternal Son. He taught that the Son or Logos was a separate person from all eternity. Furthermore, he said the Son was begotten from all eternity and is eternally being begotten. He retained a subordination of the Son to the Father in existence or origin, but moved closer to the later doctrine of co-equality.

Origen had many heretical beliefs due to his acceptance of doctrines from Greek philosophy, his emphasis on mystical knowledge rather than faith

The Council of Nicea

By the end of the third century, trinitarianism had replaced modalism (Oneness) as the belief held by most of Christendom, although the early views of trinitarianism were not yet in the form of the modern doctrine.

During the early part of the fourth century, a great controversy about the Godhead came to a climax - the clash between the teachings of Athanasius and Arius. Arius wished to preserve the oneness of God and yet proclaim the independent personality of the Logos. Like the trinitarians, he equated the Logos with the Son and with Christ. He taught that Christ is a created being - a divine being but not of the same essence as the Father and not co-equal with the Father. In other words, to him Christ is a demigod.

In effect, Arius taught a new form of polytheism. Arius was definitely not a Oneness believer, and the modern Oneness movement strongly rejects any form of Arianism.

In opposition to Arius, Athanasius took the position that the Son is co-equal, co-eternal, and of co essence with the Father. This is now the view of modern trinitarianism. Therefore, while Tertullian introduced many trinitarian concepts and terms to Christendom, Athanasius can be considered the true father of modern trinitarianism.

When the Arian-Athanasian controversy began to sweep across the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine decided to intervene. Recently converted to Christianity and then making it the accepted religion he felt the need to protect the unity of Christendom for the welfare of the empire. According to tradition his conversion came as the result of a vision he saw just prior to a crucial battle. Supposedly, he saw a cross in the sky with a message saying, "In this sign conquer." Lie went on to win the battle, becoming co-emperor in 312 A.D. and sole emperor in 324 A.D. When the great Arian-Athanasian controversy threatened to divide his newly won empire and destroy his plan to use Christianity in consolidating and maintaining political power, he convened the first ecumenical council of the church, which took place at Nicea in 325 A.D.

Constantine was no paragon of Christianity. In 326 he killed his son, nephew, and wife. He purposely deferred baptism until shortly before death, on the theory that he would thereby be cleansed of all the sins of his life. Durant says of him, "Christianity was to him a means, but not an end… While Christianity converted the world, the world converted Christianity and displayed the natural paganism of mankind." [98]

By establishing Christianity as the preferred religion of the Roman Empire (which ultimately led to it becoming the official state religion), Constantine radically altered the church and accelerated its acceptance of pagan rituals and heretical doctrines. As church historian Walter Nigg says, "As soon as Emperor Constantine opened the floodgates and the masses of the people poured into the Church out of sheer opportunism, the loftiness of the Christian ethos was done for." [99]

When the Council of Nicea convened, Constantine was not interested in any particular outcome, as long as the participants reached agreement. Once this occurred, Constantine threw his power behind the result.

"Constantine, who treated religious questions solely from a political point of view, assured unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new professions of faith. In this way unity was achieved. It was altogether unheard of that a universal creed should be instituted solely on the authority of the emperor… Not a bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing." [100]

Heick divides the participants at Nicea into three groups: a minority of Arians, a minority of Athanasians, and a majority who did not understand the conflict but wanted peace. [101] The Council finally adopted a creed that clearly denounced Arianism but said little in the way of positive trinitarian teaching. The key phrase stated that Christ was of the same essence (Greek: homoousios) as the Father and not just of like essence (homoiousios). Interestingly enough, the modalists (Oneness believers) had first used the chosen word (homoousios) to express the identity of Jesus with the Father. Many who unsuccessfully advocated the use of the latter term (homoiousios) did not really mean that Jesus was different from the Father in substance, but rather they wanted to avoid the Oneness implications of the former term. So the resulting creed was a clear rejection of Arianism, but a not-so-clear rejection of modalism (Oneness).

The original version of the Nicene Creed formulated by the Council of Nicea in relation to the Godhead is as follows:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, i.e., of the nature of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh and assumed man's nature, suffered and rose the third day, ascended to heaven, (and) shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But the holy and apostolic church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when he was not, and that he was made from things not existing, or from another person or being, saying that the Son of God is mutable, or changeable." [102]

There is no clear statement of the trinity in this creed, but it does affirm that Jesus is of one substance with the Father in opposition to Arianism. There is no reference to the Holy Ghost as a separate person in the Godhead, but it merely expresses a belief in the Holy Ghost. This original Nicene Creed indicates a personal distinction between Father and Son and states that the Son is not mutable or changeable. This last phrase is a departure from the biblical doctrine of the Son and supports modern trinitarianism since it teaches an eternal Son. Basically, then, the Council of Nicea has a threefold significance: it is a rejection of Arianism; it is the first official declaration incompatible with modalism (Oneness); and it is the first official declaration supporting trinitarianism.

After Nicea

The trinitarian victory of Nicea was not complete, however. The next sixty years were a seesaw battle between the Arians and the Athanasians. Some participants in the council such as Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, even came out in favor of Sabellianism (Oneness). [103] Arius sent a conciliatory letter to Constantine, which caused him to reopen the issue. A council held in Tyre in 335 actually reversed the Nicene doctrine in favor of Arianism. Athanasius went into exile, and Arius would have been reinstated as a bishop had he not died the previous night. [104]

Athanasius was banished five or six times during this period. Much of the conflict was due to political circumstances. For example, when Constantine's son Constantius came to power he backed the Arians, deposing Athanasian bishops and appointing Arians in their place. The controversy produced vicious political infighting and much bloodshed.

This one is also good if you want to read more:

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/trinity.htm

Saying Amin With Angels

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Angels keep on descending from and ascending to the Heaven in turn, some at night and some by daytime, and all of them assemble together at the time of the Fajr and 'Asr prayers. Then those who have stayed with you over-night, ascent unto Allah Who asks them, and He knows the answer better than they, "How have you left My slaves?" They reply, "We have left them praying as we found them praying." If anyone of you says "Amin" (during the Prayer at the end of the recitation of Surat-al-Faitiha), and the angels in Heaven say the same, and the two sayings coincide, all his past sins will be forgiven."

Sahih Bukhori

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 446: