Judge a faith by its founder, not by its followers
-
Peace Oneway,
You seem to be lost in your own argument. First you said, ?Mohammed's position just doesn't hold up and it seems so obvious to me that I'm amazed any educated person with a desire to seek truth could remain a Muslim. Those who claim Islam is a religion of peace must intentionally ignore very specific instructions in the Quran to the contrary and those who look at Mohammed's life must surely work very hard to defend his indefensible behavior.? But you refuse to tell us exactly what Muhammad?s position is or provide any proof for asserting that an educated person would choose to remain Muslim. Then you claim that, ?I have also studied the life of Jesus Christ. In Him I find no flaw. Yet, Mohammed asks us to believe that Jesus was a mere prophet and not the Son of God as Jesus himself claimed.? Yet you refuse to provide proof for believing that the information in the Bible is an accurate reflection of Jesus or proof for asserting that the Bible is more reliable than the Quranic information on Jesus. So, basically, you would like to make a number of claims, refuse to defend them, yet insist that the members of the forum provide evidence to the contrary. According to the rules concerning the burden of proof, the individual who makes the assumption must provide evidence for their claim, not the other way around. Your first post relies on the assumption that the Bible?s information on Jesus is true while the information in the hadith and Quran on Muhammad is also true. I said that the info in the Bible is probably not true, therefore you have the burden of proof in providing evidence that it is.
In response to your caveat, ?CAVEAT I really don't want to continue debating the merits of Christianity or the validity of the Bible except as required for specific points in the discussion regarding the truthfulness of Islam and of the Quran. I'm spending all my time in this discussion answering questions about the Bible and getting little feedback from Muslims on why they believe the Quran and Islam are true,? I would say that is as good as saying, ?boys are better than girls because girls cry and boys don?t...but I don?t want to talk the reliability of my assertion that boys don?t cry unless you provide evidence to me that girls don?t cry.? Yes you should be spending your time answering questions about the reliability of the Bible considering that it is the crux of your point that Jesus was a great person while Muhammad was the embodiment of evil. We have no reason to spend our time finding proof for you that Islam is true. Stop being lazy and give your evidence already.As to your second point, ?As for the Bible being the literal word of God, you misunderstand the traditional fundamental evangelical Christian view, which is that the Bible should be taken literally as written (e.g. they believe the Earth was literally created in seven days). This is different from believing that the Bible is literally dictated by God, which no Christian I know of believes as we are taught that the Bible is written by men who are inspired by God, but not taking dictation from God, as is claimed for the Quran.? Perhaps you have not spoken with many other denominations of Christians, but I grew up among many denominations of Christianity including Catholicism, all the way from Africa to America. Your definition of ?word of God? is the Baptist standpoint. However, I have spoken to many Christians of various denominations who believe it to be the literal word of God. It should be taken literally b/c it is the literal word of God.
Also, if the Bible is only inspired and it has been altered through time, then who is to say that the Bible you have now was the intended version? Since it was written by men who contradict each other, how can you insist that their account was the true one...and whose account is the right one? You face a number of problems by asserting that the works were merely inspired. -
Peace esimsek100
Peace,
Oneway, you are christian, and have come here to convert us. You've believed that you are on solid ground and have turned every stone to prove muslims wrong.This is my impression of you, if that is indeed the case then come out and say it. The only judge you need to worry about is God.
With all due respect dude, I think oneway made really clear in his posts that he didnt post here to convert us, but to debate, which is a good thing.
I dont know why we always get so nervous when a believer of another faith comes and confronts us with allegedly contradictions and asks us about our understanding of Islam. If he sees contradictions - whats the point? we can tell him why we dont see a contradiction and thats it.I agree with oneway that the picture drawn of Mohammed in the ahadith is a violent one and thus he wonders where is the peace in Islam. And its right, that also in the Quran there are ayas which speak about fighting. In which they connection they stand, how we understand it, thats our turn to explain.
There is a reason why oneway chose this website to start his discussion. We shouldnt react as the traditional muslims - we should be more tolerate in those things.
Best regards
wardaPeace warda,
I'm simply stating my impression. I meant no harm in anyway, and my point was that if oneway is here to convert us, then come out and say it, there is no harm (if he is trying to convert us).
I could've been mistaken, as I said that I browsed through this topic. But I highly doubt I was mistaken-
Surely both Christians and Muslims, like men of all faiths, have done and will continue to do much wrong in the world. That's part of the human condition. So I say judge a faith by its founder and his teachings, not solely by people who claim to be followers of the faith. And when that is applied to Islam, I cannot possibly conclude that there is even a remote chance that Islam is true.
I encourage all on this board to do their homework and prayerfully seek God's guidance in their search for truth. I will check back occasionally as time permits to engage in discussion if reasonable replies warrant it, but I have to admit that I probably won't pay much attention to replies that start with the assumption that Mohammed was a prophet of God without addressing the concerns I raise above.
Oneway's words, in his initial post, suggest to me a seating on higher ground. Of course this could be a problem of written communication.
Peace oneway,
I noticed in one of your replies that you posted this-
Obviously I'm one of many who are curious about Islam because of current events in the world. I have found myself being tempted to hate Muslims because of the overwhelmingly negative image I get from these events (terrorism, cartoon protests, etc.) even though I know not all Muslims think or behave like those involved in these events. So in exploring Islam I have encountered depictions of Mohammed from the hadiths that helped bolster my belief that Islam itself is wrong. Even so, as my faith teaches, I should love Muslims even if I think Islam is completely wrong. It is in that spirit that I am interested in what persuades people in this forum that Islam is right.
If you are interested in finding out the root cause of these problems around the world then I suggest that you read up on politics, economic effects on humans, psychology, and international politics.
These issues have much more relevance, than Islam, to these problems spoiling the world.
These problems are caused by third-world status, ignorance, and provocation.
-
Peace Oneway,
Bravo on keeping your composure while replying to so many.
You stated
I will discuss problems from the Quran in another post later as I'm sure that will become a very lengthy discussion
Cool
I believe the Quran must be subject to a more rigorous test of accuracy, authenticity, and truthfulness because it claims to be the verbatim word of God, dictated to Mohammed.
More rigorous testing does not equate to ignoring the big picture, nor does it equate to a literal understanding of the text.
When Christians refer to the Bible as the "Word of God", most should understand that it is the "inspired" word of God...I think there's room for interpretation and more room than in the Quran because it is basically claimed to be authored by God directly.
The Qur'an was inspired to Muhammad, according to the Qur'an. I'm not sure about any dictation. My understanding is that Muhammad received his guidance the same way all the prophets received their guidance via Gabriel, ie, the God frequency.
All I ask is that those who contribute to this discussion recognize their built-in biases as well and try to state their case for Islam with reason, rather than with faith alone.
Fair enough. I hope I fit the bill.
You're right. I'm sorry. I'm used to much less civil religious discussions elsewhere on the web so I wanted to be clear that I wasn't too interested in entertaining that sort of discussion. I did a poor job of explaining that in my original post, along with my hasty assumption that all Muslims accept the sunnah/hadiths.
You're a humble man/woman. That's admirable. wink
I've found that debating with people who think differently than I do is one of the best ways to sharpen my own beliefs and identify any problems therein.
I've found this method fruitful as well, but only when the debate remains respectful and open. Hopefully, we can all grow from these debates.
I have explored the Baha'i faith in the past, and I think they seek truths that span all religions, but ultimately I think that's too simplistic a view.
Of course, that is your perogative. I, on the other hand, feel that the simpler the view, the more likely it is to be truthful, particularly if that simple truth spans a multitude of cultures and belief systems. What I took issue with regarding the Baha'i faith was their structure, though most of the followers themselves seemed like very good and balanced people.
I want know why you think Islam is true, regardless of what I think (or anyone else thinks) about Christianity or any other faith.
The foundation of Islam, as I;ve understood, sits well with me (despite my spiritual wanderings), and that is
~one creator, one creation
~accountability for one's actions
~original innocence
~regular charity via economic and/or spiritual sustenance
~regular remembrance of GodThese fundamentals do not require a leap of faith, they do not require belief in something that one can never verify. I believe our Creator to be just and merciful, and thus, would equip us with the tools to find the right path, no matter what faith we were spoonfed. Reason happens to be one of those tools, and I have found no belief system whose core is more reasonable.
I hope that helps.
Peace,
Tay -
Hi, ichephren,
Yours are cogent and welcome arguments so I will do my best to begin addressing them. Thanks for your patience.
Peace Oneway,
You seem to be lost in your own argument. First you said, ?Mohammed's position just doesn't hold up and it seems so obvious to me that I'm amazed any educated person with a desire to seek truth could remain a Muslim. Those who claim Islam is a religion of peace must intentionally ignore very specific instructions in the Quran to the contrary and those who look at Mohammed's life must surely work very hard to defend his indefensible behavior.? But you refuse to tell us exactly what Muhammad?s position is or provide any proof for asserting that an educated person would choose to remain Muslim.I do not refuse to tell you exactly the issues I have with the Quran and I will try to do some of that in this post. The problem with my original post was that I did not realize most in this forum reject the hadiths and I anticipated a dialogue and debate about Mohammed as portrayed in the hadiths moreso than in the Quran.
In all honesty, I was a bit taken by surprise that the hadiths are generally rejected here so I was not really ready to launch into a detailed discussion of problems with the Quran. Such discussions, like the discussions I've been having with others here on the Bible, are full of nuance and contextual interpretation that I feel relatively comfortable with in Biblical discussions, but obviously I know less about the Quran or I wouldn't be here. As such, I've been hesitant to focus on specific verses because I want to avoid the pitfalls of taking things out of context, which has been problematic in the Biblical discussions so far.
So, I will do my best here to avoid that after addressing your other specific points below.
Then you claim that, ?I have also studied the life of Jesus Christ. In Him I find no flaw. Yet, Mohammed asks us to believe that Jesus was a mere prophet and not the Son of God as Jesus himself claimed.? Yet you refuse to provide proof for believing that the information in the Bible is an accurate reflection of Jesus or proof for asserting that the Bible is more reliable than the Quranic information on Jesus. So, basically, you would like to make a number of claims, refuse to defend them, yet insist that the members of the forum provide evidence to the contrary. According to the rules concerning the burden of proof, the individual who makes the assumption must provide evidence for their claim, not the other way around. Your first post relies on the assumption that the Bible?s information on Jesus is true while the information in the hadith and Quran on Muhammad is also true. I said that the info in the Bible is probably not true, therefore you have the burden of proof in providing evidence that it is.
Very well. Plainly put, I think the Quranic view on Jesus is illogical and requires a belief that God is neither all knowing nor all powerful. Let me explain.
The Quran teaches that Jesus was a prophet of God and goes to some lengths to clarify that Jesus was only a prophet, not the Son of God.
Ok, lets assume this is correct. If Jesus was a prophet of God, he must have brought a message for mankind. That's what prophets do. Where and by whom was the message of Jesus documented?
In the Quran alone? That doesn't make sense. God would not have conveyed his intended message through Jesus very effectively if the message had to wait for Mohammed to be documented. In fact, there would have been no need for Jesus since God could just use Mohammed to convey everything at once. So, clearly, there must have been some point in Jesus and the message He brought and surely God would not allow that message to be trivially destroyed and corrupted too easily by men.
The message of Jesus was documented by some of his disciples, his closest companions and followers. That documentation is in the books of the New Testament of the Bible.
"But wait," you say, "now you are asking me to believe there is truth in the Bible." Well, unless you believe God is incompetent and could not get His message through the first time around and had to try again with Mohammed, yes, you have to believe that at least some of the truth of God's message through Jesus made it into the New Testament intact in spite of the fallible men who wrote the New Testament.
Now, in their writings, these men, the disciples of Jesus, report what they recall Jesus teaching. The term "Son of God" appears many times in the New Testament in reference to Jesus (47 times in the King James English translation). Is it logical that this important phrase would appear so often, including when Christ is reported to have directly affirmed that he was the Son of God when being interrogated before his crucifixion, if God did not wish that to be part of the message he sent with Jesus?
This is the root of much of my problem with the Quran, and, hence, Islam. Muslims ask us to believe that the Quran is a direct revelation from God to Mohammed. The Quran says Jesus was also a prophet of God to be revered like Mohammed, and yet we are supposed to accept that the message of Jesus was irretrievably corrupted and none of its truths made it into the Bible? That's illogical if we believe that God is all knowing and all powerful.
If God is all knowing, He would know that the message of Jesus would be corrupted in the Bible and He would have either prevented that corruption, because He is all powerful, or He would have waited to communicate through Mohammed, or He would have communicated the Quran through Jesus as Muslims believe he did through Mohammed, or He could have done it any other way He desired, but there is no logic in sending a messenger if it is known a priori that the message will not get through.
Well, clearly Jesus came and clearly even Mohammed says he was a prophet of God. So, will you now tell me that God is neither all knowing nor all powerful because He failed to see to it that His message through Jesus was properly conveyed?
That must be your belief if you believe that the message of Jesus is only conveyed properly through the Quran by Mohammed.
And since that belief would be self contradictory for the Quran, the Quran cannot be correct on that point, hence, it cannot be a direct revelation from God, which makes it false since that is what it claims to be.
Some might argue that the issue of Christ being the Son of God is one issue that the New Testament authors could have gotten wrong, in spite of the frequency of that term being applied to Christ across several different authors in the New Testament. Perhaps some think this point is wrong even though other elements of the teachings of Christ made it into the Bible intact. Well, there are other significant contradictions between Quranic teachings and the teachings of Christ in the New Testament that fail by the same logic.
Mohammed would have made a better case had he rejected Christ as a false prophet. But he borrowed so heavily from the Bible in writing the Quran that he had to endorse Jesus to maintain credibility. If you read the Bible understanding that it predates the Quran, and then you read the Quran, its like reading a plagiarized work that borrows heavily from the original and then inserts details that directly contradict the original.
In response to your caveat, ?CAVEAT I really don't want to continue debating the merits of Christianity or the validity of the Bible except as required for specific points in the discussion regarding the truthfulness of Islam and of the Quran. I'm spending all my time in this discussion answering questions about the Bible and getting little feedback from Muslims on why they believe the Quran and Islam are true,? I would say that is as good as saying, ?boys are better than girls because girls cry and boys don?t...but I don?t want to talk the reliability of my assertion that boys don?t cry unless you provide evidence to me that girls don?t cry.? Yes you should be spending your time answering questions about the reliability of the Bible considering that it is the crux of your point that Jesus was a great person while Muhammad was the embodiment of evil. We have no reason to spend our time finding proof for you that Islam is true. Stop being lazy and give your evidence already.
Fair enough. I argued for the validity of the Biblical description of the message of Jesus, based in part on the Quran's acknowledgement of Jesus as a prophet of God, in my reply to the previous section above.
As to your second point, ?As for the Bible being the literal word of God, you misunderstand the traditional fundamental evangelical Christian view, which is that the Bible should be taken literally as written (e.g. they believe the Earth was literally created in seven days). This is different from believing that the Bible is literally dictated by God, which no Christian I know of believes as we are taught that the Bible is written by men who are inspired by God, but not taking dictation from God, as is claimed for the Quran.? Perhaps you have not spoken with many other denominations of Christians, but I grew up among many denominations of Christianity including Catholicism, all the way from Africa to America. Your definition of ?word of God? is the Baptist standpoint. However, I have spoken to many Christians of various denominations who believe it to be the literal word of God. It should be taken literally b/c it is the literal word of God.
I'm sorry but that is simply incorrect. Any Christian who has spent any time studying the Bible knows that the 64 books of the Bible were written by a number of different men, and with the exception of the book of Revelation and parts of the Old Testament like the Ten Commandments, no one contends that the authors of the Bible were writing down direct revelations from God. Go ask a Catholic priest or any minister or pastor from a Protestant denomination of Christianity whether all the books of the Bible were directly revealed to their authors by God as you claim the Quran was to Mohammed and they will all emphatically tell you, "No."
Also, if the Bible is only inspired and it has been altered through time, then who is to say that the Bible you have now was the intended version? Since it was written by men who contradict each other, how can you insist that their account was the true one...and whose account is the right one? You face a number of problems by asserting that the works were merely inspired.
You face the same problems with the Quran which has been modified through translation to other languages. How can you be certain that those changes did not do material harm to the message? In fact, aren't there some Muslims who claim that it did and only the Arabic version is correct?
Further, why is it so easy for you to believe that the all knowing all powerful God who created the universe could not (or would not) protect the message he sent to mankind through Jesus?
OK, now onto some issues in the Quran pertaining to its endorsement of violence and further teachings that contradict the message of Jesus in the Bible (with the background argument for the validity of Jesus teachings as recorded in the Bible explained earlier in this post).
I've been critical of pasting in third party material because I am more interested in Muslims' personal views here on the righteousness of Islam and, as I've said, I originally anticipated a vigorous discussion of the hadiths regarding Mohammed, but since we're rejecting the hadiths in this forum and I'm being pressed to give specific examples of problems I have with the Quran, I will include an excerpt from an article on the topic that I think is worth reading.
Aside I know - I'm breaking my own rule and I'm sure you'll remind me of that in any replies, but I'm not going to pretend to be a well rounded scholar of the Quran because I am not, so I will have to seek help from those more experienced in the matter than me. Perhaps this is inevitable in this kind of discussion and it may well make much additional discourse here intractable as I expect the responses will include copious pastes from other sources refuting the claims below and that, in turn, will make this into a discussion that few of us will have time to entertain in any reasonable way. I suppose it was quite naive of me at the outset to expect to address issues that have been debated for over a thousand years in this necessarily abbreviated forum. That said, I will press on.
The following is from http//www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2702
...allusions to warfare in the Quran are seen in the surah, ?The Spoils,? dated in the second year of the Hijrah (A.D. 623), within a month after the Battle of Badr
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.... If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them.... And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah?s purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not.... O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty stedfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred stedfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.... It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. Had it not been for an ordinance of Allah which had gone before, an awful doom had come upon you on account of what ye took. Now enjoy what ye have won, as lawful and good, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 839,57,59-60,65,67-69, emp. added; cf. 3326).
Muslim scholar Pickthall readily concedes the context of these verses
vv. 67-69 were revealed when the Prophet had decided to spare the lives of the prisoners taken at Badr and hold them to ransom, against the wish of Omar, who would have executed them for their past crimes. The Prophet took the verses as a reproof, and they are generally understood to mean that no quarter ought to have been given in that first battle (p. 144, emp. added).
So the Quran indicates that at the Battle of Badr, no captives should have been taken. The enemy should have been completely slaughtered, with no quarter given. This very fate awaited the Jewish Bani Qurayzah, when some 700 men were beheaded by the Muslims with Muhammad?s approval (Lings, p. 232). Likewise, members of a clan of the Bani Nadir were executed in Khaybar for concealing their treasure rather than forfeiting it to the Muslims (Lings, p. 267).
Another surah describes how allowances respecting the daily prayers were to be made for Muhammad?s Muslim warriors when engaged in military action
And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you. And when thou (O Muhammad) art among them and arrangest (their) worship for them, let only a party of them stand with thee (to worship) and let them take their arms. Then when they have performed their prostrations let them fall to the rear and let another party come that hath not worshipped and let them worship with thee, and let them take their precaution and their arms. Those who disbelieve long for you to neglect your arms and your baggage that they may attack you once for all. It is no sin for you to lay aside your arms, if rain impedeth you or ye are sick. But take your precaution. Lo! Allah prepareth for the disbelievers shameful punishment. When ye have performed the act of worship, remember Allah, standing, sitting and reclining. And when ye are in safety, observe proper worship. Worship at fixed hours hath been enjoined on the believers. Relent not in pursuit of the enemy (Surah 4101-104, emp. added; cf. 7320).
These verses show that the Quran implicitly endorses armed conflict and war to advance Islam.
Muslim historical sources themselves report the background details of those armed conflicts that have characterized Islam from its inception?including Muhammad?s own warring tendencies involving personal participation in and endorsement of military campaigns (cf. Lings, pp. 86,111). Muslim scholar Pickthall?s own summary of Muhammad?s war record is an eye-opener ?The number of the campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight? (n.d., p. xxvi).
What a contrast with Jesus?Who never once took up the sword or encouraged anyone else to do so! The one time that one of His close followers took it upon himself to do so, the disciple was soundly reprimanded and ordered to put the sword away, with the added warning ?all who take the sword will perish by the sword? (Matthew 2652). Indeed, when Pilate quizzed Jesus regarding His intentions, He responded ?My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here? (John 1836)?the very opposite of the Aqabah pact. And whereas the Quran boldly declares, ?And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you? (Surah 2194; cf. 2260), Jesus counters, ?But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also? and ?love your enemies? (Matthew 539,44). The New Testament record presents a far higher, more noble and godly ethic on the matter of violence and armed conflict. In fact, the following verses demonstrate how irrevocably deep the chasm is between the Quran and the New Testament on this point
Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? (Matthew 544-46).
But I say to you who hear Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful (Luke 627-36).
What an amazing contrast! The New Testament says to love, bless, do good to, and pray for those who persecute you. The Quran says that ?persecution is worse than killing? (Surah 2217)?i.e., it is better to kill your persecutors than to endure their persecutions!
The standard Muslim attempt to justify the Quran?s endorsement of violence is that such violence was undertaken in self-defense (e.g., Surah 4241). Consider the following Muslim explanation
At the time when this surah (Surah 2?DM) was revealed at Al-Madinah, the Prophet?s own tribe, the pagan Qureysh at Mecca, were preparing to attack the Muslims in their place of refuge. Cruel persecution was the lot of Muslims who had stayed in Meccan territory or who journeyed thither, and Muslims were being prevented from performing the pilgrimage. The possible necessity of fighting had been foreseen in the terms of the oath, taken at Al-Aqabah by the Muslims of Yathrib before the Flight, to defend the Prophet as they would their own wives and children, and the first commandment to fight was revealed to the Prophet before his flight from Mecca; but there was no actual fighting by the Muslims until the battle of Badr. Many of them were reluctant, having before been subject to a rule of strict non-violence. It was with difficulty that they could accept the idea of fighting even in self-defence .... (Pickthall, p. 33, emp. added).
Apart from the fact that the claim that Muhammad?s advocacy of fighting was justifiable on the ground of self-defense is contrary to the historical facts (since the wars waged by Muhammad and the territorial expansion of Islam achieved by his subsequent followers cannot all be dismissed as defensive), this explanation fails to come to grips with the propriety of shedding of blood and inflicting violence?regardless of the reason. Muslim scholar Seyyed Nasr seems unconscious of the inherent self-contradiction apparent in his own remark
The spread of Islam occurred in waves. In less than a century after the establishment of the first Islamic society in Medina by the Prophet, Arab armies had conquered a land stretching from the Indus River to France and brought with them Islam, which, contrary to popular Western conceptions, was not, however, forced on the people by the sword (2003, p. 17, emp. added).
In other words, Muslim armies physically conquered?by military force and bloodshed?various nations, forcing the population to submit to Muslim rule, but did not require them to become Muslims! One suspects that, at the time, the distinction escaped the citizens of those conquered countries, even as it surely does the reader.
So there you have part of an argument that the Quran endorses violence, which taken in the context of my earlier arguments regarding the Quran's stance on Jesus, makes clear my belief that the Quran cannot be a revelation from God.
Thanks again for your patience and your consideration.
/oneway
-
-
Greetings, Tay,
Thanks very much for your thoughtful response.
Peace Oneway,
...
The foundation of Islam, as I;ve understood, sits well with me (despite my spiritual wanderings), and that is
~one creator, one creation
~accountability for one's actions
~original innocence
~regular charity via economic and/or spiritual sustenance
~regular remembrance of GodThese fundamentals do not require a leap of faith, they do not require belief in something that one can never verify. I believe our Creator to be just and merciful, and thus, would equip us with the tools to find the right path, no matter what faith we were spoonfed. Reason happens to be one of those tools, and I have found no belief system whose core is more reasonable.
I hope that helps.
Peace,
TayI think we share many of the same core beliefs and I appreciate your personal reflection on what you have gleaned from Islam.
Perhaps the most significant difference in our core views would be the core Christian tenets of salvation by grace alone and the Biblical view of Jesus vs. the Quranic view, which I won't expand on here as I probably already said too much on that topic in my most recent reply to ichephren.
Beyond that I would politely disagree with your statement that your beliefs do not require a leap of faith You already took that leap when you believed in God.
smile
/oneway
-
Peace AhmedBahgat
I see, you believed many Christians use John 81-11 to justify forn and porn because of your personal opinion about Christianity, so you mix everything and post here as it was truth.
Not valid.
(opinions are conjecture, not substantiated by positive knowledge or proofs)
Peace
Peace
I believe he means the chrsitians who work in the porno and sex industry, i think they still visit churches, you know
no, I don't know.
I know this oine for sure, i have met them in australia lol you said you 'think' they visit churches, you were not so sure a few hours ago
Did they say to Usamah they think it is ok in virtue of John 81-11?
you may ask Usamah that question
If not, from where does he imply it?
well, i told you to ask him, I accept the article by him so far yes, you did blindly so far and this is my personal opinion, if you have a refute post it, but i do have an answer that the corrupt christianity as is now has corrupted socities, and is my personal opinion
Still, appart from if he answers my question if I decide to visit that web site, you posted it here addresing Oneway to show him "how confusing Christian you are" (sic) even when you 'believe' Usamah means...and you 'think' they visit...thus, you were not sure, you didn't know and still you used the article to defame Christians.
wrong, i know all this non sense in the bible and how confused the christians about it because i lived with them, I only used usamah english version, all is known ages ago in arabic darling
and i don't defame christianity, it is the truth what truth? the hurt you didn't prove many christians use John to justify forn and porn
but fine if it is proven a lie, i'm happy to drop it if proven a lie
you were who stated it as truth by posting the article and believing it 100%. You are who has to prove it true.
it is the christians socities that proved it true, i donlt need to prove anything then don't post it as it was truth to you as you donlt need to prove anything to me
please browase Usamah web site and leave a coment to him, he is very prompt and will reply to you
,yes, I will probably browse it, thanks.
yeh it is a very good web site as far as i believe
My points are , please, check before asserting, and, there are some misconceptions about Christianity held by people who don't know it well,
excuse me most christians parents have no problem for their daughters as young as thirteen years old to have boy friends and sure have sex with them, can you deny that?
how many christians have mistresses?
example, muslims who attack Christians using the Bible as weapon assuming the Bible is the same for Christians as the Quran is for them which it is not, e.g.
now what you are saying that the christians have no point to be called christians indeed, they surely manipulated their religion
Catholicism has several sources, all of them essential, not only the Bible, also the tradition and the adaptations to the new events in the world through encyclicals , pastoral letters, etc.
Isalm is not far behind, all religions are corrupted and the only thing that is not corrupt is the Quran, so people can do and say what they want and the Quran will stay the same as it did for 1400 years, now I hope the christians don't blabber much about their corrupt bible that they don't hold it as divine laws as you claim
-
Oneway's words, in his initial post, suggest to me a seating on higher ground. Of course this could be a problem of written communication.
That is a fair assessment - my apologies. I was a bit heavy handed in my opening remarks. Hopefully my most recent posts clarify things a bit.
Peace oneway,
I noticed in one of your replies that you posted this-
Obviously I'm one of many who are curious about Islam because of current events in the world. I have found myself being tempted to hate Muslims because of the overwhelmingly negative image I get from these events (terrorism, cartoon protests, etc.) even though I know not all Muslims think or behave like those involved in these events. So in exploring Islam I have encountered depictions of Mohammed from the hadiths that helped bolster my belief that Islam itself is wrong. Even so, as my faith teaches, I should love Muslims even if I think Islam is completely wrong. It is in that spirit that I am interested in what persuades people in this forum that Islam is right.
If you are interested in finding out the root cause of these problems around the world then I suggest that you read up on politics, economic effects on humans, psychology, and international politics.
These issues have much more relevance, than Islam, to these problems spoiling the world.
These problems are caused by third-world status, ignorance, and provocation.
Certainly I agree that all of those things play a role, but I don't believe you can separate Islam from the politics, economics, or psychology of the Middle East because it plays such a crucial role in everything from primary education through government policies in the region, both today and throughout recent history.
-
Peace AhmedBahgat
I see, you believed many Christians use John 81-11 to justify forn and porn because of your personal opinion about Christianity, so you mix everything and post here as it was truth.
Not valid.
(opinions are conjecture, not substantiated by positive knowledge or proofs)
Peace
Fine Elena, I accept that it is not admissable at your end, i was not using it against you anyway, i was using it against someone who is intersted in personal opinions not bloody hard core facts from the scriptures
peace
-
Hello Public
Of course Jesus mission was aborted and not completed, this is what jesus said not me
Jesus Christ teaching is quit substantial, but his short life and the immaturity of his people prevented him from completing the mission on which he had been sent into the world. It is also possible that his mission was by necessity of a limited nature, to pave the way for what was to come. Under either circumstances he had to confess, and that is how it has started
?I had many things to say to you, but you can not bear them now bear them now. When the Spirit comes, he will guide you into the truth?
The Gospel according to John reports the following part of speech which jesus made to his disciples during the Last Supper.
(5) ?But now I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you asks me, 'Where are you going?'?
(6) ?But because I told you this, grief has filled your hearts.?
(7) ?But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.?
( ?And when he comes he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation?
(9) ?sin, because they do not believe in me;?
(10) ?righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me;?
(11) ?condemnation, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.?
(12) "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.?
(13) But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.?
(14) ?He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.?
(15) ?Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.?
By this Jesus is informing his disciples that he is about to leave the world, that he has not accomplished his mission, but that another will come after him to teach the whole truth. That other one is called by various names according to the various versions of the Bible. The RSV calls him Counselor. King James version calls him Comforter. Whatever the title, the ?Counselor? was described by Jesus as the person who
A) would come after him
B) would convince the world of sin and righteousness and judgement
C) would guide mankind into all the truth
D) would not speak on his own authority, but whatever he would hear he would speak
E) would prophecy
F) would glorify Jesus ChristLet?s examine this prophecy of Jesus as reported by John?s Gospel without any preconceived notions, and with perfect objectivity.
Many Christians with minds fully indoctrinated by Church authorities take it for granted that the prophecy refers to the holy Ghost, or the Holy Spirit, and the third person of the ever blessed incomprehensible Trinity. This belief is strengthened by the parenthetical insertion of the title ?the Holy Spirit? after ?Counselor? in John 1425. With the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying as the editors of the RSV Bible admit, it is easy to imagine the interpolation of such title as the Holy Spirit, either as an explanation believed by the original writer, or by any of the numerous manuscript copyist down the centuries as likely intention of Christ. The Holy Ghost or Spirit is one that is believed to have filled the disciples of Jesus and after them the Church authorities, generation after generation until today. What the Church does and says is claimed to be through the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as prophesied by Jesus in the above quoted passage from John?s Gospel
Since Christianity is divided into countless contradictory Churches or sects, it is difficult to see which one of them is the Holy Spirit working. Every one of these Churches claims that it alone is the true inheritor of the church alleged to have been established by Christ when he called Peter ?The rock on which he built his Church. Each Church has fundamental differences with other Churches. Even within the same church, say the Roman Catholic Church, the best organized and most monolithic of them all, we find different and contradictory doctrines an commandments issuing at different periods. Men and women who at one historic period have been excommunicated, condemned and even burnt at the stake, have by the same infallible Holy church been not only reinstated, but also canonized as saints, at other historic periods. The history of Christendom is full of such examples. And all this time we are to believe that the Holy Spirit, who according to Church teaching is God who never errs, is guiding all these conflicting men who issue conflicting doctrines and rulings through the centuries.
The ?Counselor?, Jesus said, would speak on God?s authority and not on his own, That statement alone is enough to demolish the theory that the prophecy refers to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, according to the Christian teaching is God. He could not only be said to be speaking on an authority not his own. This could only be said of mortal man, a man inspired, a prophet. That man would bring clear teachings as to sin, righteousness and judgment. His teachings must be clear and precise, and should be on a permanent record which is not subject to interpolation or change, so that all differences that might arise down the centuries could be resolved by reference to that impeccable record.
Finally, Jesus said, the Counselor would glorify him. Since the departure of Christ from mortal life, it is a historical fact that no one has appeared in any part of the globe who so closely fits expect the Prophet Mohammad. It is he who has claimed, and indeed has achieved, the completion of the mission of Jesus and all previous prophets. The Encyclopedia Britannica calls him ?The most successful of all prophets?. It is he who has convinced the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. It is he who has guided us into all the truth ? for he is the Spirit of the Truth. Indeed even as a youth before he became aware of his future mission he was known by his fellow citizens of pagan Mecca as Al-Amin, i.e. the Truthful. As an elderly man of over sixty, three months before his death, having completed his God-given task he told the assembled multitude, now all Muslims, quoting Allah?s words (for he spoke not on his own authority)
??..This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam. Whoso is forced by hunger, not by will, to sin (for him) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.?
...
Having guided the whole world into all the truth he recited Allah?s own words
?And say "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.?
(81)
Peace
-
I'd like to chime in (I hope ichephren doesn't mind). I wont broach the "violence" issues you presented within the Qur'an (since I know many others will) but I would like to comment on the stuff you said before that.
You seem to be a very humble and patient person. It's rare we find people on both sides who are willing to speak about the issues in such a polite manner. I'm glad. Anyway, onto some of your points
Very well. Plainly put, I think the Quranic view on Jesus is illogical and requires a belief that God is neither all knowing nor all powerful. Let me explain.
The Quran teaches that Jesus was a prophet of God and goes to some lengths to clarify that Jesus was only a prophet, not the Son of God.
Ok, lets assume this is correct. If Jesus was a prophet of God, he must have brought a message for mankind. That's what prophets do. Where and by whom was the message of Jesus documented?
In the Quran alone? That doesn't make sense. God would not have conveyed his intended message through Jesus very effectively if the message had to wait for Mohammed to be documented. In fact, there would have been no need for Jesus since God could just use Mohammed to convey everything at once. So, clearly, there must have been some point in Jesus and the message He brought and surely God would not allow that message to be trivially destroyed and corrupted too easily by men.
From what I can glean from your argument, your main assumption is that Jesus' message was supposed to be transmitted worldwide. If you assume that Jesus' revelation was supposed to delivered to the entire world, then I would agree with you in that we would expect his message to be ensured in reliability by God. But, according to the Qur'an, your assumption is wrong. He wasn't sent to give a message "to mankind," as you put it.
Jesus' story, in many ways, parallels that of countless previous prophets in the Qur'an. Qur'anic prophetic history basically goes like this
- X people are acting immoral/need guidance.
- Y prophet is a member of X people.
- God makes Y a prophet by giving Y revelation to deliver to X people.
- Some of X people listen and take heed.
- Many of X people disbelieve.
We see this same storyline repeatedly throughout the Qur'an and never were these previous prophets referred to as delivering a message "to mankind," that is until the Qur'an itself was delivered to Muhammad.
So once we rid ourselves of this assumption that Jesus was sent for mankind, we realize that it is perfectly logical for Jesus to preach his message to his people, for some of his people to become his followers (his disciples, e.g.) and for later generations to twist/distort/add to/subtract from whatever Jesus said. Not only is this internally consistent with the Qur'an, it is actually consistent with human psychology and history it is an unfortunate fact that after someone dies, lies are attributed to them for various reasons, notably political/financial gain and increase of power. It happened in Judaism, it happened in Christianity, and it even happened in Islam (this is a main reason, by the way, why many on this site reject hadith altogether). With this in mind, it is simply incorrect to say "surely God would not allow that message to be trivially destroyed." The Qur'an speaks of this same thing happening to countless prophets before Jesus. Furthermore, I'm sure you would agree that we humans cannot deem what God "surely" would or would not do. Perhaps, like the Tree in the Garden, God has allowed later generations of people to twist the messages for their own end, as a test.
Even though I'm sure you are aware of this, I'd like to make a point that many people seem to gloss over when engaging an inter-faith dialogue to evaluate a text as contradictory/illogical, we must analyze the text within itself as its own system. This is of utmost importance. Let me give an example of what I'm talking about.
Many Christians I've talked to seem to make the following argument
- The Jesus of the Bible is the correct Jesus
- The Qur'anic Jesus contradicts the Biblical Jesus
- Therefore, the Qur'an has an incorrect view of Jesus, hence making it contradictory to history.
- Therefore, the Qur'an is not divine
I am not saying you, oneway, are making this argument but I'd like to put this idea out there before any of us does argue in this fallacious way. Just because the Bible and the Qur'an contradict doesn't mean that the Qur'an is contradictory. We must look for internal contradictions within each text. The common argument I hear is that since the Qur'an came later in time to the Bible, the Qur'an's propositions must abide by the earlier Biblical propositions. Again, this is false for two reasons
- We can argue about "which bible" we are even talking about since canons have changed.
- More importantly, the Qur'an claims that the followers of Jesus and Moses changed or twisted their scriptures. To say that the Bible is historically accurate and the Qur'an is wrong since it disagrees with biblical accuracy is begging the question, tantamount to circular reasoning.
The message of Jesus was documented by some of his disciples, his closest companions and followers. That documentation is in the books of the New Testament of the Bible.
"But wait," you say, "now you are asking me to believe there is truth in the Bible." Well, unless you believe God is incompetent and could not get His message through the first time around and had to try again with Mohammed, yes, you have to believe that at least some of the truth of God's message through Jesus made it into the New Testament intact in spite of the fallible men who wrote the New Testament.
I have two points to make about this
- It is debatable whether Jesus' message was documented by some of his disciples. Of course it is tradition that Mark was written by Mark, that Matthew was written by the tax collector Matthew, that Luke was written by the physician Luke, etc. Most scholars and theologicans dispute that now, of course. See Q document, the Synoptic problem, the two-source hypothesis, etc. The fact is most scholars agree that, at the earliest, the 4 gospels that we have today, for example, were not written until about 65 years after the death of Jesus. Quite a lot of time. Those are the most generous scholars by the way; other scholars date some of the gospels as late as 120 AD.
- This isn't about God's incompetence. If God gives revelation to a prophet who then delivers that revelation to his people, and his people distort or change his message after he is gone, that does not mean that God was incompetent. You are assuming that God wants to preserve the message for hundreds, indeed thousands, of years. This is mere assumption on your part, of course. If God intended only for a message to be delivered to a prophet's people (as opposed to mankind), there is no reason to believe God should go out of His way to preserve it for longer than a certain predetermined time. Just because you assume that to the be case does not mean the Qur'an is contradictory. I hope you can see that.
Now, in their writings, these men, the disciples of Jesus, report what they recall Jesus teaching. The term "Son of God" appears many times in the New Testament in reference to Jesus (47 times in the King James English translation). Is it logical that this important phrase would appear so often, including when Christ is reported to have directly affirmed that he was the Son of God when being interrogated before his crucifixion, if God did not wish that to be part of the message he sent with Jesus?
"Son of God" does not always imply divinity, of course. Your own Old Testament shows this. Exodus 422 describes Israel as being God's son. Further, John 2017, among many other verses, shows that any one of us could be God's "son" as He is our "Father."
Of course Jesus is referred to as "the only son of God" in several places, notably only in the Gospel of John (meaning not in any of the Synoptic Gospels). One has to wonder why that is the case. In any event, again, just because a text refers to Jesus as the "son of God" doesn't mean that it's correct. You can't assume that just because God sent Jesus with a message, that God preserved that message for all in the future to see and learn from. It goes back again to the assumption that Jesus was sent to mankind. The Qur'an does not claim this; therefore, the Qur'an is not illogical if it says that the message was later added to or corrupted.
I have to emphasize that your argument is not about whether the Qur'an is correct vis a vis the Bible but rather your argument is that the Qur'an itself is internally contradictory. We are not talking about which of the Bible or Qur'an is more true (a subjective argument) but rather whether the Qur'an contradicts itself (an objective argument). When you realize the distinction, you see that there is in fact no contradiction for you are imposing your own biblically-directed assumptions on the Qur'an and then using those assumptions to deem the Qur'an as self-contradictory. Clearly that is fallacious.
This is the root of much of my problem with the Quran, and, hence, Islam. Muslims ask us to believe that the Quran is a direct revelation from God to Mohammed. The Quran says Jesus was also a prophet of God to be revered like Mohammed, and yet we are supposed to accept that the message of Jesus was irretrievably corrupted and none of its truths made it into the Bible? That's illogical if we believe that God is all knowing and all powerful.
If God is all knowing, He would know that the message of Jesus would be corrupted in the Bible and He would have either prevented that corruption, because He is all powerful, or He would have waited to communicate through Mohammed, or He would have communicated the Quran through Jesus as Muslims believe he did through Mohammed, or He could have done it any other way He desired, but there is no logic in sending a messenger if it is known a priori that the message will not get through.
See above for the same points. You can't assume that God would do this or that. If you realize that the Qur'an says Jesus was sent to his people, then anything after his death does not have to necessarily be preserved. Jesus came, delivered his message, died, and it ended, just like it did for many prophets before him. We can talk about other prophets in the Qur'an whose message we don't have. Their message was confined to their people. For example, where are Prophet Hud and Prophet Saleh's message?
Yes, the Qur'an says that Jesus was a prophet just like Muhammad but you seem to not understand the meaning of "revere." The Qur'an does not espouse that we need Jesus' specific message to revere him, just as we don't need Hud or Saleh's message to revere them. We accept them because the Qur'an tells us to do so. This is not internally illogical or contradictory. In fact, the Qur'an stresses that all the prophets' messages were inherently the same worship God and God alone; do good works. In this way, the divine wisdom imparted to all prophets is encapsulated within the Qur'an itself. We take for fact the existence of these prior prophets and respect their roles as such, in the same way we take for fact the existence of angels we don't see either prophets or angels, but since the Qur'an tells us they exist/existed, we accept it and "revere" them as you put it.
Note I'd like to be clear. You won't find many Muslims on this site who "revere" Muhammad or Jesus, etc. Orthodox Muslims will of course disagree with us but you have found a rare site on the internet. Most of us here acknowledge that Muhammad/Jesus/Moses/etc. were mere deliverers of God's message. They weren't perfect human beings and their existence shouldn't distract us from worship of God alone. The Qur'an teaches us to respect the messengers and what they did but to not distinguish between any of them, and certainly not venerate them the way many Orthodox Muslims do.
Well, clearly Jesus came and clearly even Mohammed says he was a prophet of God. So, will you now tell me that God is neither all knowing nor all powerful because He failed to see to it that His message through Jesus was properly conveyed?
That must be your belief if you believe that the message of Jesus is only conveyed properly through the Quran by Mohammed.
And since that belief would be self contradictory for the Quran, the Quran cannot be correct on that point, hence, it cannot be a direct revelation from God, which makes it false since that is what it claims to be.
See above regarding your assumptions and how they do not show that the Qur'an itself is illogical since the Qur'an disagrees with your assumptions in the first place.
Mohammed would have made a better case had he rejected Christ as a false prophet. But he borrowed so heavily from the Bible in writing the Quran that he had to endorse Jesus to maintain credibility. If you read the Bible understanding that it predates the Quran, and then you read the Quran, its like reading a plagiarized work that borrows heavily from the original and then inserts details that directly contradict the original.
Oneway, you seem like an intelligent person. Objectively speaking, surely you can see the false assumptions you are making. Just because the Qur'an came later in time and just because the Qur'an talks about many of the similar subjects/people as the Bible, doesn't mean that the Qur'an plagiarized the Bible. Again, going back to my point about arguing the Qur'an's consistency within itself, you realize that there is no inconsistency at all the Qur'an claims that past prophets were given messages, and that their followers later distorted those messages. Now, if that is the case, for the sake of consistency, what would we expect in other messages like the Bible? We would expect a lot of similar subjects with things added in/changed/taken out. In fact, when comparing the Qur'an and the Bible, we can easily say that is a possible scenario. What you see as "the Qur'an plagiarizing the Bible," I can see as "the Qur'an sounding similar to the Bible because of similar sources, and yet there existing major differences between the two because the original messages were changed to some extent, something which the Qur'an itself claims." There is absolutely no contradiction or internal inconsistency regarding the issue.
You are making a common logical fallacy known in philosophy and debate as cum hoc ergo propter hoc meaning that correlation implies causation. Let me give a common example of such an argument as taught by criminologists
- Ice cream sales are correlated with high crime rates
- Therefore, ice cream causes crime.
Surely, this is fallacious. What this sort of argument fails to take into account is that there is a root source that explains both "ice cream sales" and "high crime rates," namely high temperatures. When it is hot, more people buy ice cream. When it is hot, criminologists have found that more people commit crime (perhaps because of irritation). This does not mean that ice cream is what causes crime.
Applied to our case, you are making a similar fallacy
- The Bible came before the Qur'an
- The Bible and the Qur'an have certain things in common
- Therefore, the Qur'an is plagiarizing the Bible.
This too is fallacious. Just because the Bible and the Qur'an correlate does not mean that one is the cause of the other. Just as "high temperatures" could be the root source of both ice cream sales and crime rates, "God" could be the root source of parts of the Bible as well as the Qur'an. As the fallacy dictates, correlation does not imply causation.
I'm sorry but that is simply incorrect. Any Christian who has spent any time studying the Bible knows that the 64 books of the Bible were written by a number of different men, and with the exception of the book of Revelation and parts of the Old Testament like the Ten Commandments, no one contends that the authors of the Bible were writing down direct revelations from God. Go ask a Catholic priest or any minister or pastor from a Protestant denomination of Christianity whether all the books of the Bible were directly revealed to their authors by God as you claim the Quran was to Mohammed and they will all emphatically tell you, "No."
This is going to turn into a he said-she said but I can vouch that I've talked to many Christians who do in fact believe the Bible to be the literal word of God, not just inspired. You should look up "biblical inerrancy." Many subscribe to it and they believe that the Bible in no way contradicts itself or history or science.
You face the same problems with the Quran which has been modified through translation to other languages. How can you be certain that those changes did not do material harm to the message? In fact, aren't there some Muslims who claim that it did and only the Arabic version is correct?
I think you gravely misunderstand the Arabic text of the Qur'an and its translations. The Qur'an has been translated into many languages but, and this is the key point here, the Arabic is still intact. No one translates a translation of the Qur'an. No one takes a Spanish translation and uses that to translate into English. No, all translations are taken from the original Arabic.
We don't find in any translations a situation like that of a Latin Vulgate. In that case, St. Jerome translated the OT from its original Hebrew into Latin. This Latin Vulgate was later used to translate into other languages. You never see a case like this with the Qur'an. All translations refer to the Arabic so no translation "harms the message" itself for, even after a million translations, the Arabic untranslated is still there for anyone to see.
What you are referring to is a common belief that a translation itself is not the exact same message as the Arabic. This is nothing out of the ordinary and it does not reflect on the original Arabic Qur'an at all. It is simply a fact of translating texts, any texts. Ask any linguist; all translations of all books are mere approximations of the original. There is no such thing as a "direct translation" that means word for word what the original text meant. All translations are filtered through the lens of the translator. This is simply how human language works.
Further, why is it so easy for you to believe that the all knowing all powerful God who created the universe could not (or would not) protect the message he sent to mankind through Jesus?
Again, see above regarding your assumptions. The Qur'an disagrees with your assumption that Jesus was sent for mankind. It is clear you believe Jesus was sent for mankind but you can't impose this conception onto the Qur'an and use it to say that the Qur'an contradicts itself when it disagrees with your assumption in the first place. With your assumption vanished, you will see that as a self-contained system, the Qur'an does not have internal contradictions.
Peace.
-
Hello again public
As I explained above, Jesus said that he had not said all that he wanted to say, but that he that was to come would do so and complete the work. The teachings of Mohammad on sin, on righteousness and on Judgment are embodied in the Quran, a book that is unique in the world in its purity, lack of contradictions and in its inimitability. Since its revelation to the illiterate Mohammad 1425 years ago not one word has changed, and it will not change, by the grace of Allah who is guarding it from the human corruption till the day of Judgment.
Sir William Muir, a well-known critic of Islam, wrote in his book The Life of Mohamet
?There is probably in the world no other book which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text?
and since Sir William Muir, wrote this another 225 years have rolled by and the truth has remained unchanged and pure as it was from day one of its complete revelation.
With regard to the Bible, however, there is not and can not be consistency, for the Bible is not one book but a collection of many books some Christians prefers specific gospels to the others, the Bible also written by numerous writers, many of whom are not even known. There is even disagreement among Christian Churches as to the books which are accepted as canonical i.e. authorized by church elders as to have been inspired, not revealed as the Quran was. The writing even in a single book may be contradictory, as noted in the conversion of Paul as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.
Hugh Schonfield wrote in his book Those Incredible Christian
?Within the covers of the Bile we can meet with forgeries, manipulations and deliberate inventions just as much as outside it. Scholarship is well aware of this; but when a biblical work, especially in the New Testament, is evidently not by the person claiming to be the author everything is done to avid using the word forgery. The same is true of the sayings attributed to Jesus and known not to be genuine. We speak of such books as someone of the Pauline or Petrine school thought, of changed or invented sayings as ?secondary?. If we did not employ evasions it would appear that the Holy Spirit was an accessory of fraud.?
?It is on record, however, that down to the final determination of the canon of Scripture some of the books which are in the Bible were disputed. It was argued by quite orthodox Christians of the early centuries that certain books were not genuine productions of the apostolic authors by whom they purported to have been written. Occasionally the forger?s name was suggested. Paul mentions that in his own lifetime false letters in his name were in circulation. What had to be suited was what deemed to be the interests of the Church. Considerations having nothing to do with truthfulness were at work in the slant given to compositions and in the sentiments contrary to their own attitudes which various persons of note were made to express. All this kind of thing was a commonplace of the propaganda of antiquity, and what we have to appreciate is that it was a commonplace for the early Christians as well. This was the way the game of promotion and indoctrination was played. For those without scruples, who believe that ends justify means, it is so still?
The original or the books of the Bible are absent and unknown, hence the numerous versions. Admittedly the books as at present available are the works of ordinary human writers. However, some words or a divine origin may be discernible. But so mixed are these and so much interpolation has taken place that it is now almost impossible to tell the divine from the human. You cannot tell with any degree of probability which is the word of God and which is the word of a mere human who had a particular school to uphold or a particular axe to grind. Not so the Quran. Every word is Allah?s own. It is a direct speech as revealed, not just inspired, to the Prophet, and exactly as the prophet recited it straight away and faithfully scribes put down immediately and plenty others memorized it.
A Christian Dr. John B. Taylor, Reader in Islamic Studies in the Selly Oak Collages, Birmingham writes in his book Thinking About Islam
?We have established that Muslims do not speak of Mohammad?s writing that Quran, but of his receiving and reciting it. Just as Mohammad himself was conscious of the very special character of the Quranic text, so those Muslims after him took pains t preserve with complete accuracy all the fragments of the Quran. Only two years after Mohammad?s death, with the further loss in battle of those who had already memorized the Quran, the various fragments were collected??.?
?A few years later, in the reign of Uthman, the Third caliph, a final check was made on the text of the Quran. We can tell how careful and scrupulous the early Muslims were by the fact that even variations in pronunciations from one part from the Muslim world to another were disapproved of in the context of reciting the Quran; and so the official text was established in accordance with the dialect of Mecca, and most other versions were destroyed by command of Uthman. Thus we can feel confident the test which was established within a few years of the prophet death?
Those are the view of the Christian critic of Islam. The Quran is the unsullied word of Allah. That is what Jesus meant when he said of him who was to come
?He will not speak on his authority, but whatever he hears he will speak.?
Jesus was insulted not only by his avowed enemies, the Jews, but also unwittingly by those who considered themselves his followers. The Jews accused him of being a child born out of wedlock, and a charlatan. To prove that he was accursed they endeavored to cause his death by crucifixion, a mode of execution considered by them to be damnatory to the soul of the victim. Please see Deuteronomy 21.22.23. They denied that he was their Messiah.
The Christians in their part, in their over zeal, and deluded by subtle wolves in sheep?s clothing, swallowed the teachings of Mithraism, Greek mythology and other contemporary Mediterranean cults, and placed Jesus on the pedestal of a pagan god. Jesus who was the son of man, Ben Adam, as he was fond of calling himself, a Prophet and a servant of God, was debased into a pseudo polytheistic god, and became surrounded with legends of propitiation by blood, legends which were current at the time within the cults of Osiris, Attis Adonis and Mithra. There was nothing new in a god begetting a son. There was nothing new in a ?holy trinity.? There was nothing new in the salvation by blood. All these doctrines were prevalent in the pagan cults in the eastern Mediterranean region before the coming of Jesus Christ and during his lifetime. What was new, strange and revolting was to graft these myths on the very man who came to abolish them.
Death on the cross
It was prophet Mohammad who came and glorified Jesus. He countered the accusations of the Jews, and tore down the pagan trappings with which Jesus was no more illegitimate than Adam, His mother Mary, whom the Jews castigated as a prostitute was given a place of greater honor in the Quran than the Christian Bible. To a people who believed in the creation of Adam with neither father nor mother why should it be difficult to believe in the creation of Jesus without a father??God is able from these stones to raise up the children of Abraham?
To the hostile Jews Mohammad confirmed that Jesus was the Christ foretold in the Jews own scripture. He taught that the Jews were speaking an untruth when they claimed to have inflicted an ignoble death on Jesus by hanging him on a cross
(157)?That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not-?
(15 ?Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-?
(159) ?And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-?
(157)
(15
(159)And to the Christians, a warning to repent which is a mercy for them, was revealed to stop their excesses in their religion
(171) ?O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" desist it will be better for you for Allah is one Allah Glory be to Him (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.?
(172) ?Christ disdaineth nor to serve and worship Allah, nor do the angels, those nearest (to Allah) those who disdain His worship and are arrogant,-He will gather them all together unto Himself to (answer).?
(171)
(172)Modern Biblical research proves this Quranic truth. It is known that there are other Gospels which have different versions of Christ?s passion from that narrated in the four canonical Gospels. The other Gospels were not approved officially by the Church when the Bible was compiles towards the end of the second century. Lately new light has been cast on the beliefs of the early Christians by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, These early Christians knows as Nasoreans or Nazarenes (which tallies with the Quranic name for the follower of Jesus ?Nassara?) were predominant to start with.. The Nazarenes who claimed descent from Jesus?s first disciples came into conflict with Pauline Christians (who follow Paul) and were driven out of Palestine into Syria around 62 AD. The Nazarenes regarded Jesus as a great prophet and righteous man. They accused Paul of heretically substituting Roman customs for the authentic teachings of Jesus and proclaiming him to be God. They refused to celebrate Christmas which they regarded as a pagan feast.
The version of Christ?s Passion contained in the manuscript is that Judas tricked the Jews by substituting another man in place of Jesus. This other man vehemently denied before Herod and Pilate the charge that he claimed to be the Messiah (Christ). According to this version is was Herod, and not Pilat, who took a basin of water and washed his hands of the accused man?s blood to show that he did not find any guilt in him. Then Herod locked up the supposed Jesus for the night; but the next morning he was seized upon by the Jesus who tortured him and ultimately crucified him.
This version of the story of crucifixion makes the pathetic lamentations attributed by canonical Gospels to Jesus on the cross more sensible. For an ordinary unknown man to behave in such a way is excusable. But for the man of God to declare at the time of trial, or even for a leader of a people with guts in him, to cry out aloud in front of a crowd
?My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me??
is to set the least below dignity of a leader.
If the crucified man was Jesus, and if Jesus was God who knew that He had come down to earth in order to be crucified for the sins of humanity, the absurdity would be shattering.
Upton Sinclair wrote in his book A Personal Jesus
?You perceive that those who tell the story cannot make up their mind whether Jesus is God or whether he is man. Truly it is a difficult problem, once you admit such thing as a possibility that God may take on form of a man and come down to earth. When he becomes man, is He man or is He still God? And how can He be betrayed, when He knows He is going to be betrayed? The legend never answers clearly for basically it is an absurdity and there can be no answer, nor even any rational thought on such subject.?
?If Jesus is God, He knows everything in advance. But in that case the procedure means nothing to Him, He is like an actor going through a role, and it must have been a rather tedious role to Omniscience. Is He doing it for the entertainment of children? If so, why not encourage the children to grow up mentally and face the truth? On the other hand, if he is a man and has the mind of a man, then he no longer knows the truth, he no longer posses the comfort of omniscience. The legend requires that we shall believe both these things at the same time; but manifestly, a man cannot know something and at the same time grop half-blindly as we human beings are doing all through our lives.?
The riddle which perplexes honest intelligent readers of the Gospels like Upton Sinclair is resolved by the Nasorean version of the story of crucifixion. By that version Jesus is absolved from cowardice, fickleness and shallowness of faith in God as shamefully and cowardly demonstrated by the crucified man. The fickleness and detection of the disciples as reported in the Gospels also fall into position if we take it that the crucified man was not their Messiah. The disciples are therefore cleared from the charges of cowardice, treachery, falsehood and lack of faith in their leader at the most critical time. The man they sold, denied or doubted was truly unknown to them. He was not their Master.
The ?apocryphal? (hidden Gospel of Barnabas reports that it was Judas who was crucified in the place of Jesus, and the Basildon sect of the early Christians believed that it was Simon the Cyrene who was crucified, not Jesus. According to all three synoptic Gospels it was this man who made to carry the cross for Jesus. Only John makes Jesus carry his cross. This is a significant point.
Other scholars basing their research on the canonical Gospels have different versions of the crucifixion. One such is Biblical scholar Dr. Hugh Scohnfield. who has forwarded his findings in his highly controversial book The Passover Plot. He maintains that it was Jesus who was nailed on the cross, but that he did not die there; he only appeared dead by taking a drug which is described in Matthew?s Gospel as vinegar.
Peace
-
Hello Public
Let's see how Mohammad glorified Jesus peace be upon them. which confirms John passages prophecy about the Comforter
Jesus in the Glorious Quran
The Quran tells us a lot of wonderful things about Jesus. As a result, believers in the Quran love Jesus, honour him, and believe in him. In fact, no Muslim can be a Muslim unless he or she believes in Jesus equal to the belief in Mohammad, peace be upon them.The Quran says that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he spoke while he was still only a baby, that he healed the blind and the leper by God?s leave, and that he raised the dead by God?s leave.
What then is the significance of these miracles? First, the virgin birth. God demonstrates his power to create in every way. God created everyone we know from a man and a woman. But how about Adam, on whom be peace? God created him from neither a man nor a woman. And Eve from only a man, but not a woman. And, finally, to complete the picture, God created Jesus from a woman, but not a man.
What about the other miracles? These were to show that Jesus was not acting on his own behalf, but that he was backed by God. The Quran specifies that these miracles were performed by God?s leave. This may be compared to the Book of Acts in the Bible, chapter 2, verse 22, where it says that the miracles were done by God to show that he approved of Jesus.
Also, note that Jesus himself is recorded in the Gospel of John to have said
?I can do nothing of my own authority?
(John ;530)The miracles, therefore, were done not by his own authority, but by God?s authority.
What did Jesus teach? The Quran tells us that Jesus came to teach the same basic message which was taught by previous prophets from God?that we must shun every false god and worship only the one true God.Jesus taught that he is the servant and messenger of that one true God, the God of Abraham. These Quranic teachings can be compared with the Bible ( Mark 1018; Matthew 2639; John 1428, 173, and 2017) where Jesus teaches that the one he worshipped is the only true God. See also Matthew 1218; Acts 313, and 427 where we find that his disciples knew him as Servant of God.
The Quran tells us that some of the Israelites rejected Jesus, and conspired to kill him, but Allah (God) rescued Jesus and raised him to Himself. Allah will cause Jesus to descend again, at which time Jesus will confirm his true teachings and everyone will believe in him as he is and as the Quran teaches about him.
Jesus is the Messiah. He is a word from Allah, and a spirit from Him. He is honoured in this world and in the hereafter, and he is one of those brought nearest to Allah.
Jesus was a man who spoke the truth which he heard from God. This can be compared with the Gospel According to John where Jesus says to the Israelites
?You are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God?
(John 840)Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. When the angels announced to Mary (peace be upon her) about Allah?s promise that she will have a son, she was surprised, since she was a virgin. ?How can this be?? she thought. She was reminded that it is easy for Allah to create whatever he wills.
?She said My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said So (it will be). Allah createth what He will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only Be! and it is.?
It is not difficult for Allah to do anything he wants. He can create a child with both human parents or only one. No miracle is beyond His power. After all, He had created Adam (peace be upon him) from neither a man nor a woman. He created the rest of us from both man and woman. What is so hard if Allah decides to create a human being from a woman only? He only commands ?Be!? and it occurs.
Some people think that since Jesus, peace be upon him, had no human father then God must be his father. The Quran rejects this view. The position of Jesus with Allah is comparable to the position of Adam with Allah. Just because Adam had no human parent does not mean we should call him the Son of God.
?Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then He said unto him Be! and he is.?
According to the Quran, everyone except Allah are His servants.
?And they say the Beneficent hath taken unto Himself a Son. Assuredly ye utter a disastrous thing, whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall to ruins, that ye ascribe to the Beneficent a son, when it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should chose a son. There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave.?
According to the Quran, Jesus, on whom be peace, performed the following miracles by Allah?s leave
- Spoke while he was only a baby.
- Healed those born blind.
- Healed the lepers.
- Revived the dead.
- Breathed life into a bird made of clay.
In the Quran Allah quotes Jesus, peace be upon him, as saying
?Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird by Allah?s leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah?s leave. And I announce to you what you eat and what you store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you if you are to be believers. And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me. Lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path.?
Again, in the Quran Allah tells us about the situation on the Day of Judgement
?In the day when Allah gathers together the messengers and says What was your response (from mankind)? they say We have no knowledge. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden. When Allah says O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto you and unto your mother; how I strengthened you with the holy Spirit, so that you spoke unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught you the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how you did shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and did blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and you did heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission . . .?
Not all of these miracles are recorded in the canonical gospels, the four gospels contained in the Christian Bible.
The fact that Jesus spoke while he was yet a baby is not written anywhere in the Bible. This should not be surprising, because none of the Gospels can claim to recover every single event in the life of Jesus. Instead, the gospel According to John seeks to emphasize that the events were too many to record.
Similarly, the miracle of breathing life into a bird made of clay is not attested by the Christian Bible. This too should not make us wonder. It is obvious that the writers of the gospels could write down only the tradition that was available to them. Furthermore, they could not write down everything they knew about Jesus for they were writing on papyrus material that were very limited in length.
What is worthy to notice here is that the Prophet Muhammad, may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him, was honest enough to promulgate this information about Jesus and glorify him and his mother virgin Mary. The religion taught by God through Muhammad would deny the divinity of Jesus. Any human being, therefore, who wished to deny the divinity of Jesus would have tried to belittle Jesus. Since Christians looked upon the miracles of Jesus as a proof of his divinity, we might expect that any human being who tries to deny the divinity of Jesus would not have informed people of miracles not previously known to them. He might have even tried to deny some of the miracles recorded in the canonical gospels. On the other hand, the prophet Muhammad honestly conveyed the message delivered to him from Allah.
Allah tells us the truth without fear. Human beings trying to win followers tell us only what is conducive to winning us over. They usually withhold information that could lead to opposite conclusions. On the other hand, Allah informs us about the miracles of Jesus even if people use this information to support their prior commitment to the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. Allah does not need to win worshippers. Those who worship Allah does so for their own good. And those who worship false gods do so to their own detriment.
What Allah emphasizes, though, is that the miracles of Jesus do not prove he was divine. The miracles he performed were a sign, a proof, that he was God?s messenger. He performed them with God?s help and permission. Those who use his miracles as proof of his divinity would choose to forget the following sayings of Jesus
?I can of my own authority do nothing.?
(John 530)They also forget the declaration of Peter
?Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know.?
(Acts 222 KJV)These passages suggest that Jesus did not do miracles on his own. These, rather were accomplished by God?s leave. Allah reminds us of this. Jesus also constantly repeated to his audience that the miracles he performed were by God?s leave.
Peace
-
And finally dear public
They killed him not
It is a fact that any careful impartial reader of the four Gospels which are in the Bible will derive strong evidence to show that the man who was put on the cross did not die on the cross, but only appeared to have died. In those same Gospels there is also overwhelming evidence, in spite of the writers? own belief to the contrary, that it was possible and indeed likely, and that the crucified man was not Jesus Christ at all.
It is a fact that Jesus was not a well-known person a time in Jerusalem. To the people who were hunting for him he was a stranger, a rustic from Galilee. He had been preaching his faith for only two or three years, wandering from place to place with no fixed abode. (Matthew 8.20). During that time he could not have visited Jerusalem more than a few times. The earliest Gospel, Mark, says he had been there only once, while the latest, John, says four times. So little known was he that it is related Judas had to point out to his would ? be captors by pretending to kiss him. Thus it would be nothing unusual if they mistook somebody else for Jesus. The Gospels tell us that when he was arrested all his disciples left him alone and ran away. Even his closest disciple, Peter, denied any knowledge of him, saying
?I do not know this man. ?
It is difficult to believe that among all his disciples who he himself had especially selected with due care; there could not have been a single one who even acknowledge that he knew him. To say that this was in fulfillment of a prophecy s to bow to faith, and to stretch reason to breaking point.
Moreover the answers that the accused gave in court during cross examination were not such as to indicate that he was Jesus Christ. At best the accused prevaricated. All the three synoptic Gospels describing the court scene failed to produce one piece of evidence which would prove the identity of the accused. Luke says that when he was ordered ?If you are the Christ, tell us,? his answer was merely ?If tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer.? When he was asked a point blank question ?Are you the Son of God?? he retorted ?You say that I am.?
Matthew reports
?and the high priest stood up and said, ?Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you.? But Jesus was silent. And the high priest stood up and said, ?I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.? Jesus said to him, ?You have said so. But I tell you hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.??
Mind you, these narratives even in their original form were written decades after the events, and are related by men who sincerely believe that it was Jesus Christ who was crucified, and yet even they have produced the evidence of only one man, Judas, a shady informer; and that evidence was not given under oath in open court, but merely by implication, a kiss purported to indicated Jesus Christ from among a crowed to frenzied mob of fanatics.
When we take into serious consideration this reasoning, together with previously related versions narrated by the Gospels other than those included in the Bible and the ancient manuscripts recently discovered which tell of early Christian beliefs that Jesus was not crucified the truth of the Quran becomes crystal clear.
?But they killed him not, nor crucified him but so it was made to apprear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow. For a surety they killed him not.?
And the Quran was revealed to an unlettered man fourteen centuries ago. Modern Western scholars now accept the Quranic version of the story of Jesus.
The Quran however did not mention the name of the person killed in place of Jesus, in a way it is not important to know, what was important to know that God with His supreme powers will NOT let his servant Jesus Christ to be humiliated, spat at, pissed at, bashed, nailed, spiked then left hanged in the open to die for further humiliation. However regarding the identity of the perpetrator, I lean to believe the hidden Gospel of Barnabas version (214-21, that it was Judas himself who was crucified in place of Jesus.
Peace
-
lol lol
that was bloody funny, he is doing the same copy and paste that annoys him when others do it
double standard it seems, or maybe hypocricy wink
-
CavemanDoctor,
Thanks for an excellent reply.
I appreciate your arguments, but I don't agree with your assessment that only the Quran is intended for all mankind and the message of Jesus was not.
That is your assumption based on your belief in the divine origin of the Quran, which is the very thing we are debating. You are refuting my claims based logic that depends on me being wrong a priori, so what's the point of the discussion? (This is what I was describing in my opening message when I said I didn't want to engage in debates that start with the assumption that the Quran is correct, as I do not believe that it is. As soon as you begin your rebuttal with "According to the Quran..." your argument falls flat.)
That the Quran is constructed to yield to Mohammed the final revelation of God is convenient for Mohammed, but that does not make it true. To Christians it makes it all the more suspect and it reads very much like a device contrived by a man seeking power by claiming to be God's pipeline to mankind. And power is exactly what Mohammed sought with the sword and the Quran.
Jesus said he came for all of humanity according to the Biblical reports. You claim that these Biblical reports are somehow falsified because the Quran, which came later, claims that is the case. Ok, what evidence besides the Quran, which is the subject of our debate, supports that? It is unsupportable without the assumption that the Quran is divine.
In a nutshell, all of Islam seems to boil down to "The Quran says so, therefore that is the truth." You say that the only means by which the Quran may be invalidated is by finding internal contradictions in the Quran. Ignoring for the moment that there are internal contradictions in the Quran, can't you see that this is arguing from faith, not from reason?
You are beginning the argument with the belief that the Quran is true, not seeking to prove whether or not it is true by objective means. That is the fundamental flaw in your rebuttal.
Further, you ignore well established history in your desire to cling to the assumption that the Quran is true. You say that historically the prophets listed in the Quran came only for "their people", not all of mankind, and that many of their messages have been lost.
Again, that the Quran says that does not make it true - that is what we're debating here. Consider Moses and the Ten Commandments. Was that not intended for all of mankind? Has that message from God not persisted through the ages?
Take away your assumption, your faith, that the Quran is true and give me any logical reasoning that suggests it is true.
The same test can be applied to the Bible and you'll have objective history plus predictive prophecies that predate the New Testament that provide strong evidence of the validity of the scriptures therein. Such are not present in the Quran so there is no external means by which to test its validity.
/oneway
-
lol lol
that was bloody funny, he is doing the same copy and paste that annoys him when others do it
double standard it seems, or maybe hypocricy wink
I explained my reasons for doing so and the material I pasted was directly on topic for the discussion at hand unlike the vast majority of garbage you are posting here.
Sadly, spamming this message board with propaganda and casting insults seems to be all you are capable of contributing. I guess you hope your voluminous posts will drown out the reasoned debate in which you are ill equipped to participate. Is that what you learned from the Quran?
You couldn't even keep your promise to "dismiss" me and not address me further, resorting to indirect comments to maintain the ruse of abiding by your own rule.
Pathetic.
-
lol lol
that was bloody funny, he is doing the same copy and paste that annoys him when others do it
double standard it seems, or maybe hypocricy wink
I explained my reasons for doing so and the material I pasted was directly on topic for the discussion at hand unlike the vast majority of garbage you are posting here.
Excuse me, my comment was not directed to you but to the public, mister V
Sadly, spamming this message board with propaganda and casting insults seems to be all you are capable of contributing. I guess you hope your voluminous posts will drown out the reasoned debate in which you are ill equipped to participate. Is that what you learned from the Quran?
Hehe, sounds familiar to me mister V
now for the Quran question, as I informed you earlier that you have been dismissed and you accepted the dismissal, cosnequently i have no answer to to all your silly and ignorant arguments
You couldn't even keep your promise to "dismiss" me and not address me further, resorting to indirect comments to maintain the ruse of abiding by your own rule.
Pathetic.
excuse me, you have been dismissed and my commets was not directed to you but to the public to expose you, leave the itch aside please and again respect your acceptance to the dismissal
dumb bum
-
I owe neither you nor your silly dismissal one iota of respect.
You broke our mutual truce with your cowardly indirect insults after attempting to hijack this entire thread of discussion with page after page of irrelevant postings, many of which border on hate speech they are so incredibly ridiculous in their intentional misrepresentations of Christians and Christianity.
If such ignorant verbal thuggery is tolerated here, then perhaps I've chosen the wrong place to seek respectful discourse with Muslims after all.