Islam has copied (say the Christians and the Jews)

[جوري]

Why don't you do something unusual for you and actually tell us where the dogma of prophets being sinless can be found; in the Qu'ran, in the hadith, in the Bible, where? - please do it in a single screen.

why don't you do us all a favor and look to where you had have asked that question before and at the replies you were given?
further, I don't see how the bible enters in this formula? a book with no credibility nor textual or chronological integrity has no use to validate or invalidate any point!

all the best

[جوري]

pls. remove double post..

:w:

[جوري]

pls. remove double post

[جوري]

Azami in his book "The History of the Quranic text" talks about having access to "the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world" so every other text is not accurate is it. So let us be clear there IS NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY COMPLETE VERSION OF THE QU'RAN dated to the time of the prophet

I love how you fixate on a preface from a book you haven't read and a sentence you repeatedly misconstrue!

surely if you'd read the same book in totality (and not the orientalists claims) you'd have seen that every aya from the Quran is accounted for and dated back to the time of the prophet as it was both an oral and written tradition.. incidentally, have you also read in the same preface that the Hebrew script, transformed with the Jews return from their captivity in Babylon to Palestine, was thoroughly devoid of vowels and in fact remained an oral tradition for two thousand years until the contact with Muslim Arabs spurred them in that regard? xvi

you really are some disgusting piece of work!
and people wonder why we consider you a hypocrite?

why is the madinah Mushaf considered the most 'accurate' in the world.. is rather simple (and this was replied to before, but alas our dear Hugo, suffers from mental ailments) I believe it is called the 7iqd of the kaffir, that disables him from registering queries answered before:

1. Obtain a good mus-haf
Try to obtain a good copy of the Quran whose size is according to your need and never ever replace it so that you will be strong in memorising the parts of the pages and the lines. The mus-haf al-huffaaz (the memorisers’ codex) [i.e. the text of the popular green edition from Madina written by the world famous calligrapher, Ta Ha Uthman] is preferred which starts with the verse at the start of the page and finishes with the last verse, and it is divided up well, whereby the Quran being thirty juz` (parts), every juz` has 20 pages and every page has 25 lines. The King Fahd organization in Medina al-Munawwarah has built a printer for this copy and I advice getting it as it is the most accurate contemporary print.

http://theinsanityofthesane.wordpres...al-experience/

It has nothing at all to do with preservation of the original text, rather in the tashkil and the division of texts..

is there any level this guy won't stoop to..

Have you read the rest of the book dear Hugo? or just like to nit pick what you think you can sink your teeth into and always, unwaveringly come up so empty!

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Hugo]

why don't you do us all a favor and look to where you had have asked that question before and at the replies you were given?further, I don't see how the bible enters in this formula? a book with no credibility nor textual or chronological integrity has no use to validate or invalidate any point!

I take this post to be an admission that you do not know where the dogma of sinless prophets comes from so the claim has so far no credibility not textual or chronological integrity so it invalidates your point

[جوري]

I take this post to be an admission that you do not know where the dogma of sinless prophets comes from so the claim has so far no credibility not textual or chronological integrity so it invalidates your point

Not at all, it just means I am sick of posting the same material over and over for a kaffir who can't register them due to his cognitive conservatism:

if for our dear Muslim members and not you, then I'll post it again:

Infallibility of Prophets

... Were the prophets infallible? If so, why, and what did infallibility mean for them?

Infallibility is one of the necessary attributes of the Prophets. The Arabic word translated ‘infallibility’ is isma, meaning protecting or saving and defending. The word is used in the Qur’an in a variety of derived forms. For example, during the Flood, when the Prophet Noah invited his son to board his ship, the latter replied: I will betake myself to some mountain; it will save me from the water. Noah responded to his son using the active participle of the word: Today there is not a ‘saving one’ from the command of God (Hud, 11.43).
The wife of the ‘Aziz of Egypt, whose name is mentioned as Potiphar in the Bible, uses the same word in, I did seek to seduce him but he firmly ‘saved himself’ guiltless (Yusuf, 12.32). The Qur’an calls believers to hold fast to the ‘rope of God’, that is, the Qur’an and the religion of Islam, using the same word in a different form: Hold fast all together to, and ‘protect’ (against being divided) by, the rope of God (Al ‘Imran, 3.103). Again, we see the same word in the verse, God will ‘defend (protect)’ you from people (al-Ma’ida, 5.67).
A small minority of Muslim scholars have asserted that the Prophets may have committed sins of an insignificant type called zalla, meaning ‘error’ or ‘lapse’, and give, in order to prove their assertion, some examples from the lives of, for instance, Adam, Noah, Abraham and Joseph, upon them all be peace. Before elaborating their cases, it should be noted that even if we attribute some lapses to the Prophets, they are not sins in the meaning of disobedience to God’s Commandments. The Prophets tended to wait for Revelation when they had a question to judge. On rare occasions, however, it happened that they would exercise their own power of reasoning in order to give a judgment as they were the greatest of mujtahids (jurists of the highest rank who can deduce laws from the principles established by the Qur’an and the Sunnah). They might sometimes have erred in their judgments or decisions, but such errors, which were immediately corrected by God, can never be regarded as sins.
Secondly, the Prophets always sought God’s good pleasure in every instant of their lives and tried to obtain what was the best in a matter. If they had rarely missed the best but still caught what was better, this should not be regarded as a sin. For example, suppose a man has to make a choice: whether he will recite the whole of the Qur’an in ten days and give due attention to each verse, or he will finish the recitation in seven days in order to express his deep love of the Word of God. If that man takes the first option without knowing that God’s greater pleasure lies in the second, he will obviously not be regarded as having committed a sin. So, a Prophet’s preference of what is better instead of the best is not a sin, but because of his position before Him, God might sometimes reproach him mildly.
The infallibility of the Prophets is an established fact based on reason and tradition.
Reason requires the infallibility of the Prophets, upon them all be peace, because:
As already explained, the Prophets came to convey to people the Message of God. If we liken this Message or the Divine Revelation to light or pure water, as the Qur’an itself does (al-Ra’d, 13. 17; al-Nur, 24.35), it is absolutely necessary and indispensable to the nature of the Revelation that both the Archangel Gabriel who brought the Revelation, and the Prophet himself who conveyed it to people, should be absolutely pure. Otherwise, that Divine light, the Revelation, would have been extinguished or dimmed, or that ‘pure water’ polluted. Every falling off is an impurity, a dark spot, in the heart. Like Gabriel, the heart or soul of the Prophet is like a ‘polished mirror’ through which the Divine Revelation is reflected to people, or a ‘cup’ from which people quench their thirst for that pure ‘Divine water’. Any black spot on the mirror would absorb a ray of that light; a single drop of mud would be enough to make the water unclear. This would mean that the Prophets did not – God forbid such a thought! – convey the whole of God’s Message. Whereas, in truth, they performed their duty perfectly and left nothing of the Message not conveyed. This is clear from the following verses of the Qur’an:
O Messenger! Convey what has been sent to you from your Lord. If you did not, you would not have fulfilled His mission. And God will defend you from people. Certainly, God guides not the unbelieving people. (al-Ma’ida, 5.67)
Today I have perfected your religion for you, and I have completed My favour upon you, and I have chosen and approved for you Islam as religion. (al-Ma’ida, 5.3)
Secondly, people learn from the Prophets all the commandments and principles concerning belief and conduct. In order that people should learn these commandments in their pristine purity and truth and as perfectly as possible to secure their happiness and prosperity in both worlds, the Prophets must, first, represent, and, then, present them without any faults or defects, for they are guides and good examples for people to follow, as explicitly stated in the Qur’an:
You have indeed in the Messenger of God a beautiful pattern, an excellent example, for anyone who aspires after God and the Last Day, and who engages much in the remembrance of God. (al-Ahzab, 33.21)
There is for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him – there was indeed in them an excellent example for you – for those who aspire after God and the Last Day. (al-Mumtahana, 60. 4,6)
Despite his utmost care not to do anything contrary to Islam and not even to say a single word which is not sanctioned by God, if a Prophet were to utter an untrue word, he would repent for a life-time, or even longer. It is narrated that the Prophet Abraham, upon him be peace, will direct to Moses those who will appeal to him to intercede for them on the Day of Judgment saying he cannot as he spoke allusively three times in his life.1 Although it is not a sin to make an ‘indirect’ reference to the truth when it is more appropriate rather than being direct, Abraham’s repentance of his three allusions will continue in the Hereafter.
Thirdly, the Qur’an commands believers to obey all the orders or prohibitions of the Prophet without exception, and emphasizes that: it is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by God and His Messenger, to have any option about their decision (al-Ahzab, 33.36). It also warns believers that what falls to them when God and His Messenger have given a judgment is only to say, ‘We have heard and obeyed’ (al-Nur, 24.51). Absolute obedience to a Prophet means that the Prophet is right in all his commands and prohibitions.
Prophethood is so great a favor that all the Prophets bore unbearable pains in fulfilling the duty of thanksgiving and were always worried about not having worshipped God sufficiently. The Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, often implored God using the following words:

Glory be to You, we have not been able to know You as Your knowledge requires, O Known One.
Glory be to You, we have not been able to worship You as Your worship requires, O Worshipped One.

The Qur’anic verses which are sometimes mistakenly understood to reprimand certain Prophets for some faults of theirs, or to mean the Prophets seek God’s forgiveness for some sin of theirs, should be considered from this point of view. Besides, God’s forgiveness does not always mean that a sin has been committed. The Qur’anic words of ‘afw – ‘pardon’, and maghfirah – ‘forgiveness’, also mean ‘special favor and kindness and Divine dispensation in respect to the lightening or the overlooking of a religious duty’, as in the following verses:
If any is forced (to eat of them) by hunger, with no inclination towards transgression, God is indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (al-Ma’ida, 5.3)
If... you find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands. For God is All-Pardoning and Oft-Forgiving. (al-Nisa’, 4.43)
Fifthly, sins and pardon have different degrees:

• Sins committed by not obeying the religious commandments, and the forgiveness thereof;
• Sins committed by disobeying God’s laws of creation and life, and the forgiveness thereof;
• Sins in respect of behaving against the rules of good manners or courtesy (adab), and the forgiveness thereof.

A fourth type which is not a sin, is doing something good but not the best, a failure in doing perfectly what is required by the love of, and nearness to, God. This is what some of the Prophets may have done, so it is not a sin in our normal usage of the word for something deserving of Divine punishment.
Tradition also proves the Prophets’ infallibility.
God says in the Qur’an concerning the Prophet Moses:
I cast love over you from Me (and made you comely and loveable) in order that you might be brought up under My eye. (Ta Ha, 20.39)
The Prophet Moses, upon him be peace, was brought up by God Himself and prepared for the mission of Messengership. Therefore, it is inconceivable that he may have committed a sin at any time in his life.
The same is true of all the other Prophets. For example, God’s Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, says of Jesus: Satan could not touch Jesus and his mother at his birth. Jesus was protected from birth until his elevation to the Presence of God, as we also read in the Qur’an:
(Mary) pointed to him [the babe}. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is an infant in the cradle?’ He (Jesus) said: ‘I am indeed a servant of God: He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet. And He has made me blessed wheresoever I be, and enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not over-bearing or a wretched rebel. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I will be raised up to life again.’ (Maryam, 19.29-33)
Jesus, like all the other Prophets, was protected from all kinds of sin from his birth. God’s Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, intended in his childhood to attend two wedding ceremonies at different times but, on each occasion, he was overpowered by sleep which prevented him from attending.2 Likewise, in his youth he helped his uncles with the restoration of the Ka‘ba by carrying stones. Since the stones hurt his shoulders, his uncle, ‘Abbas, advised him to hoist the garment covering the lower part of his body, onto his shoulder to carry the stones on. He just did what he was advised to do, leaving some of the upper part of his legs uncovered, when he fell on his back with his eyes staring fixedly. An angel appeared and warned him that what he had done was improper, saying: ‘This is not befitting for you.’3 For the day was to come when he would order people to be well-mannered and observe Divinely ordained standards of conduct, including covering the thighs.
God’s Messenger says that all the children of Adam make faults and err, and the best of those who make faults and err are the repentant.4 This implies that man is fallible by nature, but it does not mean that all of mankind are ‘condemned’ to erring howsoever. Whether by God’s Will and special protection or, as will be explained below, by His showing the way to be free from errors or sins, even the greatest of saints who continue the Prophetic mission of guiding people may be infallible to some degree.
God promises to protect the believers who fear Him, and to endow them with sound judgment to enable them to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and between right and wrong:
O you who believe! If you fear God, He will establish in you a Criterion (to judge between right and wrong), purify you of all your evils, and forgive you. God is of grace unbounded. (al-Anfal, 8.29)
God made a covenant with the believers that if they obey Him, assist His cause and strive to exalt His Word, by proclaiming His religion, He will help them and make their feet firm in the religion, protecting them against all kinds of deviation (Muhammad, 47.7). God’s protection of believers from their enemies and against committing sins has been made dependent on their support of Islam and struggle to spread it all over the world so that only God is worshipped and no partners are associated with Him either in belief or worship or the creation and rule of the universe. If believers fulfill their covenant with God, God will fulfill His covenant with them (al-Baqara, 2.40). If, by contrast, they break their promise, God will not make them successful (al-Isra’,17.8).
God protects His servants against sins in different ways. He may put some obstacles in their way to sins so they do not sin, or He may establish a ‘warner’ in their hearts, or, if all the other means prove of no use, He may cause, for example, their legs to be broken or their hands unable to hold or grasp. Or He may warn one by putting a verse in his mouth, as He did with a young man during the Caliphate of ‘Umar, may God be pleased with him.
The young man was so strict and attentive in his worship that he performed all his prayers in the mosque. A woman lived on his way to the mosque and tried her hardest for several days to seduce him into making love with her. Although the young man resisted her alluring gestures, the moment came when he took a few steps towards the woman’s house. Just at this point, he felt he was reciting this verse:
Those who fear God, when a thought of evil from Satan assaults them, bring God to remembrance, and lo! they see (aright). (al-A’raf, 7.201)
In the face of this Divine warning, the young man was so ashamed before God of what he was about to do, and felt so overwhelmed by his Compassionate Lord’s preventing him from committing a sin, that he died. When ‘Umar was informed of the incident a few days later, he went to his grave and shouted: ‘O young man. For him who fears the time when he will stand before his Lord, there will be two gardens!’ (al-Rahman, 55.46). A voice from the grave, whether belonging to the young man himself or an angel on his behalf, replied: ‘O Commander of the Believers: God has granted me the double of what you say!’5
This is God’s protection of His sincere servants. He says in one of His Revelations outside the Qur’an:
My servant cannot draw near to me through something else more lovable to Me than the obligations I have enjoined upon him. Apart from those obligations, he continues to draw near to Me through supererogatory acts of worship, until I love him. When I love him, I will be his ears with which he hears, his eyes with which he sees, his hands with which he grasps, and his feet on which he walks. If he asks Me something, I will immediately give it to him; if he seeks refuge in Me from something, I will protect him from it.6
God guides His true servant to good and protects him from all kinds of evil. The servant wills and does what is good and refrains from wickedness. He asks God what is good and whatever he asks is provided for him; he seeks refuge in God from what is bad, and whatever he seeks refuge in God from, he is protected against it.
All the Prophets were infallible. They never committed a sin, minor or major, and their lives were spent doing virtuous deeds. Although God sent numerous Prophets to mankind, the Qur’an specifically mentions only twenty-eight of them. I think it will be proper here to count them in the words of Ibrahim Haqqi, an eighteenth-century Turkish saint and religious scholar, who was also an expert in anatomy and astronomy:
Some have regarded it a religious injunction to learn the names of the Prophets.
God informed us of twenty-eight of them in the Qur’an:
Adam, Enoch, Noah, Hud and Salih;
Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, who is a sacrifice for God.
Jacob, Joseph, Shu‘ayb, Lot and John the Baptist;
Zachariah and Aaron, who is the brother of Moses, who spoke to God.
David, Solomon, Elijah and Job;
Elisha, a kin of Jesus, who was a spirit from God.
Dhul-Kifl and Jonah, who is certainly a Prophet.
The seal of them is the Beloved of God – Muhammad, Messenger of God.
They disagree on the Prophethood of Ezra, Luqman and Dhul-Qarnayn.
Some regard them as Prophets, while others as saints of God.
NOTES
1. Muslim, “Kitab al-Iman,” 326.
2. Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya, 2.350–1.
3. Bukhari, “Kitab al-Hajj,” 42; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya, 2.350.
4. Tirmidhi, “Kitab al-Qiyama,” 49; Ibn Majah, “Zuhd,” 30.
5. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir 3.539.
6. Bukhari, “Kitab ar-Riqaq” 38; Ibn Hanbal, 6.256.

http://www.***********/aqida/infalli...f_prophets.htm

you on the other hand aren't worthy of being dignified with a response, given that it goes completely over your head and for obvious reasons!

[YusufNoor]

Well tell us where we can see a copy of it, this Qu'ran? The fact is that the is an unbridgeable gulf as far as actual manuscripts go, they simply do not exist and the earliest readings from the Qu'ran are on coins or those such as on the dome of the rock. Do you KNOW what 'original' was used to set the type for the Qu'ran on your shelf - what did the printers use? Dr Azami in his book "The History of the Quranic text" talks about having access to "the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world" so every other text is not accurate is it. So let us be clear there IS NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY COMPLETE VERSION OF THE QU'RAN dated to the time of the prophet

i didn't put the time as "the time of the prophet" but at the time of his son in law, Uthman. let's not forget that Abu Bakr initially refused to assemble the Qur'an as a written book.

Technically this is correct but it amounts to dissimulation. Consider the Codex Alexandrinas dated to the 5th century (200 years before the Hijrah); it contains the whole Bible except for a FEW PAGES - go to the British Museum an,nd see it. The point is there are some 6,000 manuscripts of the Bible ranging from complete copies to just a page so it is possible to reconstruct the original. If you look in almost ANY translation they will tell you what manuscripts were used and of course scholars have produced from all these manuscripts a definitive Greek edition and you can search it on-line.

actually, the codex that you refer to includes books NO LONGER considered "inspired by God"

If we now consider the Qu'ran there are almost ZERO early manuscripts because Uthman BURNED them all so there is NO foundation to your remarks.

i dated the "written" Qur'an to the time of Uthmann, that IS the foundation for my remarks

which would be unlike the Bible, and hence not copying the Bible. get it?

We can discuss all this if you wish and I can point out the many ambiguities.

i wrote:

THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY COMPLETE VERSION OF THE BIBLE IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE, IN THE FORM IT IS ACCEPTED BY PROTESTANTS TODAY [AND ONLY THAT FORM], THAT PREDATES THE COMPLETED WRITTEN QUR'AN!

you wrote:

Technically this is correct

is there something wrong with being correct?

you missing the point, whether purposefully or not.

Christians didn't fully and completely decide exactly "what was inspired by the "Holy Spirit" in their Bible in it's original language" until centuries AFTER Muslims KNEW what was contained in the Qur'an in it's original language! THAT is history! that is the TRUTH!

[Hugo]

I love how you fixate on a preface from a book you haven't read and a sentence you repeatedly misconstrue! surely if you'd read the same book in totality (and not the orientalists claims) you'd have seen that every aya from the Quran is accounted for and dated back to the time of the prophet as it was both an oral and written tradition.. incidentally, have you also read in the same preface that the Hebrew script, transformed with the Jews return from their captivity in Babylon to Palestine, was thoroughly devoid of vowels and in fact remained an oral tradition for two thousand years until the contact with Muslim Arabs spurred them in that regard?

What page or section in Dr Azami's book is every Aya accounted for? Perhaps you would like to read what Dr Azami says on page 154 and the para that starts "Earlier we saw how ..." you may think that the transmission was perfect but Dr Azami does not. In the URL you gave us about memorizing what doe it mean when Dr. Yahya al-Ghouthani say get a 'good' copy - are there poor copies, inaccurate copies what does he mean?

If the signs and dots for vowels added to the Arabic text have nothing to do with its preservation what use do they have? If they were added later then what we have now is not what was originally written by the scribes of Mohammed - though of course we cannot know since no textual material of that period exists.

Yes I have read the whole book by Dr Azami - pick any section you like and we can discuss it if you wish - do you have a copy?

[جوري]

What page or section in Dr Azami's book is every Aya accounted for?

Why not sit down and read the book from beginning to end? You either fixate on an ancillary point, ignore the main points and deflect to some faulty conclusion that you desire others arrive to, to be in concert with your own very jaded understanding of the world around you or worse yet complain that it is a 6000 word essay thereby exonerating yourself from having to exert any effort at a paradigm shift and give yourself a considerable free margin to ask the same question again as if no one has seen it from you before?-- Why not simply concede that you have no interest in reading things that challenge your personal convictions and that you are not at all interested in facts rather only vested in all that caters to your own whims-- maybe if you are equally invested in the replies as you're in your rabid quest to pose inane questions you could stop wasting your time and far worse, ours in the process?!

Perhaps you would like to read what Dr Azami says on page 154 and the para that starts "Earlier we saw how ..." you may think that the transmission was perfect but Dr Azami does not.

or perhaps again the problem stems from you not reading in totality and absorbing what is written and then using that abstract at application in ? the paragraph after or before the three words you used, he states '' The Qir'at is sunnah that is strictly adhered to'' and ''the term 'variant' is one I dislike using in such cases because a variant results by definition, from uncertainty. If the original author pens a sentence one way and the sentence is then corrupted due to scribal errors then we have introduced the principal of uncertainty; a subsequent editor who is unable to distinguish the correct wording from the incorrect will place what he believes to be the correct version in the text, whilst citing others in margins. Such is the variant reading. But the Quran's case differs distinctly because the prophet Muhammad, Allah's sole vicegerent for the wahy's reception and transmission, himself taught certain verses in multiple ways. There is no principal of doubt, no fog or confusion, and the word variant fails to convey this. Multiple is far more accurate description, and so in spirit I'll refer here as multiple readings.''

does that sound to you as someone who thinks the transmission isn't perfect? BTW 'variant/Multiple' readings still exist today of the same exact text (again, discussed before) let's have a look at two readings from the same sura:

In the URL you gave us about memorizing what doe it mean when Dr. Yahya al-Ghouthani say get a 'good' copy - are there poor copies, inaccurate copies what does he mean?

I believe the paragraph describes to you in totality what 'perfect' and 'accurate' means, maybe it pays reading it one more time without injecting your own rendition as is always expected from you? or perhaps at a later time you can add this to your ammo along with Azami's comment in the preface to denote something other than what is meant to some poor unsuspecting sap, or better yet on an islamophobic forum (which by the way I think you are far better suited for) and will be hailed as king rather than the board jester you currently are for I imagine like minded individuals will be captivated by your brand of deception and ability to twist words or take out of context to suit your purposes which apparently you have down to an art!

If the signs and dots for vowels added to the Arabic text have nothing to do with its preservation what use do they have? If they were added later then what we have now is not what was originally written by the scribes of Mohammed - though of course we cannot know since no textual material of that period exists.

Not everyone who learns/ memorizes or reads the Quran is a native Arabic speaker, that is what use they serve!
today only 20% of the world's Muslims are Arabs..and if God's promise is to preserve this Quran, we can only be grateful in the fashion it was preserved to make it accessible to ALL Muslims, native Arabs or not!

Yes I have read the whole book by Dr Azami - pick any section you like and we can discuss it if you wish - do you have a copy?

lol.. I find you quite funny.. why don't you work on your comprehension first so when we are discussing a paragraph (as demonstrated above) so we are discussing what is actually written, rather than what you desire had been written?

all the best

[Hiroshi]

brother Hiroshi I have a Q would you please answer it ?

Why some priests do not marry and have children?

Peace, Amat Allah.

1 Timothy 4:1-3 says: "the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry ..."

So the reason that priests in the church do not marry is that they follow the teachings of devils.

[Hiroshi]

you are always wellcome my respcetd brother...

what I meant that there is no phrase such as fell from only two as written :

1_Matthew 27:5 says that Judas Iscariot when he died he hung himself

2_Acts 1 says that, no he jumped off a cliff head first.

and those two (to a normal person who has a sound brain) are impossible to be gathered to make an end for one story ...with all my respect...

anyway , who wants to know the truth would strive sincerely to find it and would open his/her eyes mind and heart to be able to understand ...and as I said before Allah Is The Only One Who Guides and Misguides , got nothing in my hand as a slave and servant of Allah but to show others the way as Allah taught me...

May Allah guide us All...Ameeeeeen

Can you show me any translation of the Bible that says that Judas "jumped" at Acts 1:18?

[Grace Seeker]

Can you show me any translation of the Bible that says that Judas "jumped" at Acts 1:18?

I'll make you a bet that when he looks the word he finds will be some form of the verb "to fall". (Though Wycliff uses "hanged" in Acts 1:18.)

[Grace Seeker]

Reason requires the infallibility of the Prophets, upon them all be peace, because: As already explained, the Prophets came to convey to people the Message of God. If we liken this Message or the Divine Revelation to light or pure water, as the Qur’an itself does (al-Ra’d, 13. 17; al-Nur, 24.35), it is absolutely necessary and indispensable to the nature of the Revelation that both the Archangel Gabriel who brought the Revelation, and the Prophet himself who conveyed it to people, should be absolutely pure. Otherwise, that Divine light, the Revelation, would have been extinguished or dimmed, or that ‘pure water’ polluted.

I just don't find this arugment to be at all convincing. The infallibility of the message might be guaranteed by the infallibility of the prophets, but it does not necessitate the infallibility of the prophets.

If P, then Q. Means that if you have P (an infallible prophet, or rain), then you know you also have Q (an infallible message, or clouds). But just because you have Q (clouds, or an infallible message) does not mean that it is a certainty that you also therefore have P (rain, or an infallible prophet).

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

^If you dont sincerely find the argument to be convincing i doubt anything we muslims will say to you will either

Its basically called "wasting time" and speaking of that, we seem to be wasting each others! and in getting no where.


In conclusion i feel Islaam isnt for you or it isnt for you right now! But we shall try to answer any Qs you have to the best of our knowledge

peace

[M.I.A.]

I just don't find this arugment to be at all convincing. The infallibility of the message might be guaranteed by the infallibility of the prophets, but it does not necessitate the infallibility of the prophets.

If P, then Q. Means that if you have P (an infallible prophet, or rain), then you know you also have Q (an infallible message, or clouds). But just because you have Q (clouds, or an infallible message) does not mean that it is a certainty that you also therefore have P (rain, or an infallible prophet).

I just don't find this arugment to be at all convincing. The infallibility of the message might be guaranteed by the infallibility of the prophets, but it does not necessitate the infallibility of the prophets.

If P, then Q. Means that if you have P (an infallible prophet, or rain), then you know you also have Q (an infallible message, or clouds). But just because you have Q (clouds, or an infallible message) does not mean that it is a certainty that you also therefore have P (rain, or an infallible prophet).

lol you made that a lot more complicated than needs be,
im sure even in imperfection they were within the will of god, they erred on demand lol
just trying to understand what is within gods power.
also i cant seem to seperate P and Q, to me they may not be seperate variables.

[Grace Seeker]

In conclusion i feel Islaam isnt for you or it isnt for you right now! But we shall try to answer any Qs you have to the best of our knowledge

peace

You are right. Islam is not for me, or perhaps, I'm not for Isalm. I believe there is a verse that refers to how Allah calls to Islam those created for it and the rest of us are as doomed as a doubly ****ed predestinated Calvinist would **** someone. (I hope those words about dam - nation don't get bleeped, I used them in the completely proper and appropriate sense of the word.) But don't think of it as a waste od time. I have learned things about Islam and the realities regarding how some Muslims view others of us outside of the Ummah, that I probably never would have learned any other place.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

^Thank you as i honestly believe there was no need to swear/curse in the matters of religion!

I have a Q, since i am quite curious to asking you, what is the reason you joined this forum? Was it particularly to learn about Islaam?

And if so, what have you learnt about Islaam and what is that you agree upon and also what is it that you disagree upon regarding Islaam, maybe we can clarrify any Qs you have properly instead of getting in to geeky discussions

And i have no intention to be harsh or rude with anyone, maybe my text seems so, i apologise if it does.

peace

[Grace Seeker]

also i cant seem to seperate P and Q, to me they may not be seperate variables.

Go here to learn about logic.

[tango92]

I just don't find this arugment to be at all convincing. The infallibility of the message might be guaranteed by the infallibility of the prophets, but it does not necessitate the infallibility of the prophets.

If P, then Q. Means that if you have P (an infallible prophet, or rain), then you know you also have Q (an infallible message, or clouds). But just because you have Q (clouds, or an infallible message) does not mean that it is a certainty that you also therefore have P (rain, or an infallible prophet).

in words you can understand maybe: in christianity you blindly believe. in islam We use our brains. if a prophet is a sinner (and in the bible amongst the worst of people) how can he be taken seriously?

lol if the message cant even inspire the chosen messenger of god to be good what hope for the rest of us?

if it is necessary to believe in the bible you must believe 1=3 then what hope is left for logic? is there even a point discussing anything with a christian?

[Amat Allah]

Peace, Amat Allah.

1 Timothy 4:1-3 says: "the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry ..."

So the reason that priests in the church do not marry is that they follow the teachings of devils.

All Praise and Glory Be to Allah , I never ever heard a Christian say so (the reason that priests in the church do not marry is that they follow the teachings of devils)...

Can you show me any translation of the Bible that says that Judas "jumped" at Acts 1:18?

no, I am not the one who supposed to show you, I am a Muslim and only seeking the knowledge of Qur`aan and Sunnah the knowledge of Allah`s religion which He perfected for us...

you are the one my respected brother who supposed to show me any translation of the bible that says Judas "fell from but not jumped off"... you are the Christian one who supposed to have the knowledge of the Christian books not me... it is your duty to prove for me that your books are right not me...with all my respect...

another 2 Qs:

What was the calling of the prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) and was he a Christian or Jewish?

[M.I.A.]

Go here to learn about logic.

sure im going to do that when i get time,

i just find it funny that you would think the message and the prophet as distinct seperate entities. after all we cannot have one without the other.
as for not needing the prophet to be infallable i agree, but even in error they were perfect and that is not a discussion of logic moreso understanding.
the message was not passed to there tongues, it was engraved within there very being....actually that sort of thinking would change your very view of the world and understanding of god.

im sorry


i followed your link, i failed to see the logical use of iff in this case, it seems highly innapropriate and im not sure what you were trying to prove.
even given the uses of iff i would say that you did not use it suitably.
as far as formulas go, you picked and overly complicated and not that usefull one.

[Grace Seeker]

^Thank you as i honestly believe there was no need to swear/curse in the matters of religion!

Nor I, and I didn't. The proper term for someone being condemned to spend eternity in hell is to say that they have been dam*ed. In that usage it is not a form of swearing or cursing at all, any more than it is to say that those that have been so dam*ed are "going to hell".

I have a Q, since i am quite curious to asking you, what is the reason you joined this forum? Was it particularly to learn about Islaam?

No. Originally, it was because I was participating in another forum where the view of many of the posters was that all Muslims, even if they weren't themselves involved in terrorism, were in agreement with the aims of those who did commit it. From personal experience I knew that it wasn't true, and I had hoped to come here and be resources with information and links to published material by which I could refute those allegations against Islam.

And if so, what have you learnt about Islaam and what is that you agree upon and also what is it that you disagree upon regarding Islaam, maybe we can clarrify any Qs you have properly instead of getting in to geeky discussions

Well, I've learned that while not all are into terrorism, there are more who stand on the sidelines cheering on their efforts than I had from my own personal experience imagined.

I learned that many Muslims have no idea the truth with regard to Christianity and rather than actually read for themselves, read anti-Christian tracts for what they care to learn and prefer to use cut-and-paste methods to engage in futile debate rather than actual conversation to pursue fruitful discussion.

I learned that many see the world through one set of lenses and are unable to even try to consider things in any ways different from what they have always be taught, that most will get more entrenched in their position rather than thoughtful when a non-Muslim disagrees with them and doesn't immediately see things the "true" way.

Of course, this type of personality is something I already knew well from conversations with other Christians, but through this board I learned that religion doesn't change the basic tendencies of human personality.

Lastly, I've learned not to judge a faith by what you encounter online, that actually caring for and being involved in one another's life comes out of face-to-face interactions; whereas, internet friendships may not even be as real as the paper they aren't printed on.


Oh, and I almost forgot, I learned that everything that is wrong with the world, from the source of evil to the lostness of our decadent culture from the prlifieration of Apple computers to the music of ZZ Topp, has at its roots either the USA or all things Christian.

[Grace Seeker]

in words you can understand maybe: in christianity you blindly believe. in islam We use our brains.

You see, that is just an arrogant statement that shows that after all of this time you have yet to take Christianity seriously or even consider what it says. Not that you should have to. But it just becomes comical when you say "in Christianity you blindly believe" and deny the possibility that anything of the sort could happen within Islam.

[M.I.A.]

Of course, this type of personality is something I already knew well from conversations with other Christians, but through this board I learned that religion doesn't change the basic tendencies of human personality.

this is a very important concept in my eyes and something we could talk about for a very very long time.

[tango92]

You see, that is just an arrogant statement that shows that after all of this time you have yet to take Christianity seriously or even consider what it says. Not that you should have to. But it just becomes comical when you say "in Christianity you blindly believe" and deny the possibility that anything of the sort could happen within Islam.

i have considered christianity extensively. do you agree that you must simply believe without proof? furthermore just recently you have said you must believe without even understanding key christian concepts to get into heaven. the fact is intellect is the only thing seperating us from animals. in islam we quote "hear and obey". what we hear we verify it is from Allah (in part this also means checking it actually makes logical sense)

[جوري]

I just don't find this arugment to be at all convincing. The infallibility of the message might be guaranteed by the infallibility of the prophets, but it does not necessitate the infallibility of the prophets.

If P, then Q. Means that if you have P (an infallible prophet, or rain), then you know you also have Q (an infallible message, or clouds). But just because you have Q (clouds, or an infallible message) does not mean that it is a certainty that you also therefore have P (rain, or an infallible prophet).

well, I am not expecting someone who worships a man, thinks three equals to one, that a man can spend the night in prayer then self-immolate to eat sins, or that a man sent to warn people against lewd sins to commit a very similar kind of sin if not worse convincing. Apparently you are in need of some sort of convolution to be convinced, thus the problem dear member lies with your standards and your understanding of the message of God. The rest of what you have written is nonsensical drivel, lay off the Irish in your coffee, there is no need to confabulate with something so simple and clear!

all the best

[Hugo]

in words you can understand maybe: in christianity you blindly believe. in islam We use our brains. if a prophet is a sinner (and in the bible amongst the worst of people) how can he be taken seriously?

If you read the Bible you will find that we are constantly made to think about what it says so belief is anything but blind. I cannot see the same in Islam, I doubt you can even admit that anything in Islam or its history is troublesome. You have decided, that is the right word, that God cannot use anyone but the absolutely righteous so you have put limits on what God can do? Truth is not the sole preserve of the absolutely righteous is it? A simple question, can you critically examine Islam and its history or are you conditions to accept it all without question?

[جوري]

If you read the Bible you will find that we are constantly made to think about what it says so belief is anything but blind.

Then what exactly is your belief based on if not blind acceptance without a single critical thought?

I cannot see the same in Islam,

Well of course you don't!

I doubt you can even admit that anything in Islam or its history is troublesome.

Why not? if the prophet himself already spoke of troubling times in Islamic history in many of his prophecies!

You have decided, that is the right word, that God cannot use anyone but the absolutely righteous so you have put limits on what God can do?

The only limits on god are put by christians, for certainly a god that is human and dies for not being able to take on a couple of provincial oafs is not at all capable is he?

Truth is not the sole preserve of the absolutely righteous is it?

and we have said so much on the previous page.. have you read the story I posted on Moses (the prophet) and zhu ilkhidr who was wiser but wasn't chosen for prophet-hood.. or like usual only interested in the look of your own writing?

A simple question, can you critically examine Islam and its history or are you conditions to accept it all without question?

A simple question is, are you willing to read any comprehensible account or only wish to inject your own conclusions which in fact aren't even your own since you can't quote verses you desire to argue against correctly!

all the best

[M.I.A.]

If you read the Bible you will find that we are constantly made to think about what it says so belief is anything but blind. I cannot see the same in Islam, I doubt you can even admit that anything in Islam or its history is troublesome. You have decided, that is the right word, that God cannot use anyone but the absolutely righteous so you have put limits on what God can do? Truth is not the sole preserve of the absolutely righteous is it? A simple question, can you critically examine Islam and its history or are you conditions to accept it all without question?

god uses everybody, just not in the way we expect most times.
absolutely righteous can be replaced by pious and better serve the purpose and its a more humble term, for humble people.
as for history, well you could turn to any book and gain insight into a moment of time but i doubt any capture the picture as a whole with any reliability. no matter how detailed the explanation of event the fallability of man will mean an incomplete picture.
im not saying history is bogus, im just saying if we all gave an account of the very same day we would all differ.
before you use the last two paragraphs to question the authenticity of the quran, it is not a historical account by anybody other than the prophet muhammed peace and blessings be upon him...and god.

[tango92]

If you read the Bible you will find that we are constantly made to think about what it says so belief is anything but blind. I cannot see the same in Islam,

oh hold on. you thought about it and came to the conclusion that 3=1. for some reason i dont think youve been thinking.

I doubt you can even admit that anything in Islam or its history is troublesome.

i see nothing wrong with any of the quran or hadith. humans will always be subject to mistakes. i know THAT is a major excuse for the discrepancies of your bible but that just reiterates the point. it is MAN MADE!

You have decided, that is the right word, that God cannot use anyone but the absolutely righteous so you have put limits on what God can do? Truth is not the sole preserve of the absolutely righteous is it?

wait a second your wording should be fixed here. i have come to the conlusion through logical reasoning OF WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN NO REPLY, and reading my MIRACULOUS scripture that god WOULD not do such a thing. not that he CAN not do such a thing.

by your line of reasoning. do you believe god is good or evil? dont limit God by saying he is good now!

A simple question, can you critically examine Islam and its history or are you conditions to accept it all without question?

you know nothing of who i am or the journey i have made in life. truth is, if i werent 100% convinced islam was the truth i would not be sitting here.

can you say the same for yourself?

[Hugo]

you on the other hand aren't worthy of being dignified with a response, given that it goes completely over your head and for obvious reasons!

Thank you for the post and I will respond your 3,000 word copied essay though I did wonder if you had actually read it?

1. The essay mostly states things not shows them to be sound doctrine and we see this in the first line where the writer decides that 'infallibility' is a necessary attribute of a prophet. Whether he take that to also mean perfection is never made clear. It is also unclear whether one is born infallible/perfect or that somehow God purges you sins somehow along ones life. It is not made clear in the post but "sinlessness" of the prophets in Islam implies only a protection from errors of judgement in action and character as distinguished from the Biblical doctrine which holds that true sinlessness not only means a freedom from wrong doing but an actual state of heart, soul and mind that reflects all the goodness of God's holiness, love and righteousness.

2. His argument hinges on the word 'isma' and its use or near use in Qu'ranic verses. The argument is weak and in one case Q12.13 the word is used by a pagan (Aziz or Poitipher) about Joseph so here we have a whole dogma based on the word of a pagan? The hadith are hardly referred to and one wonders why this was avoided?

3. The writer then mentions, and it is unavoidable because it is in the Qu'ran, that some prophets committed zalla. Meaning they were just lapses or small errors and God corrected them. It is not possible to defy the written sources of Islam entirely and so the records of the sins of the prophets in the Qur'an and Hadith became watered down into "mistakes (khati'ati)", or "acts of forgetfulness", are constantly used by Muslim writers today to account for these misdemeanours which the Scripture and traditions of Islam record.This is coupled with a list of what what can only I think be described as unavoidable sins. So in Muslim writings we have such things as "There was no intention on the part of Adam to disobey the Divine commandment; it was simply forgetfulness that brought about the disobedience." Similarly, if we take the word istaghfir which, throughout the Qur'an, means to "ask forgiveness" but, in Muhammad's case, it is usually claimed it means to ask "protection (waqihim) from sin. The Hadith openly support the teaching of the Qur'an that Muhammad needed to ask for the forgiveness of his sins and record a prayer of Muhammad, part of which reads as follows:

So please forgive the sins which I have done in the past or I will do in the future, and also those (sins) which I did in secret or in public, and that which You know better than I. None has the right to be worshiped but you. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, p. 403).

4. He further argues that prophets are like mirrors and so must be perfect but surely we are to pass on Gods message and that does not become more true because of who gives it? We then have Mohammed referred to but of course it is circular, Mohammed is perfect because the Qu'ran says so but we only know that because Mohammed told us? He then refers to the traditions the prove infallibility though he does not as far as I can see mention any.

5. We have what to me is are complete oddities which can hardly be more than fable such as it being said that Jesus in his youth helped his uncles with the restoration of the Ka'ba. Or another case where we are told that God may cause someone legs to be broken to avoid sin but why God would be so vicious and selective (why God protect some from sin and not others) is not explained.

Summary and Critique
Early Muslims soon discovered that the Bible taught that Jesus was the only sinless man and confronted with this evidence, deemed it necessary regard all prophets as sinless. Secondly, Islam holds that the scriptures were dictated directly to the prophets so prophets must be of impeccable character for, if they could not keep themselves from error how could they be trusted to communicate God's revelations without error? But logically this is no more than a presupposition that puts a limit on how God may work.

One supposes that the purpose of at-nubuwwa (the prophets) could be defeated if the people to whom they are sent regarded it as permissible for the prophets to commit sins and tell falsehoods, because then they would also think the same about their teachings and their commands and interdictions. Muslim orthodoxy, therefore, drew the logically correct conclusion that the prophets must be regarded as immune from serious errors (doctrine of isma). In short it puts the onus on the prophet not the message. But it was in my view not one which comes from an objective analysis of the teaching of the Qur'an and Hadith and cannot be traced back to the teachings of Mohammed.

[جوري]

Thank you for the post and I will respond your 3,000 word copied essay though I did wonder if you had actually read it?

oh Jimenez crickets .. you'll read and reply?

1. The essay mostly states things not shows them to be sound doctrine and we see this in the first line where the writer decides that 'infallibility' is a necessary attribute of a prophet. Whether he take that to also mean perfection is never made clear. It is also unclear whether one is born infallible/perfect or that somehow God purges you sins somehow along ones life. It is not made clear in the post but "sinlessness" of the prophets in Islam implies only a protection from errors of judgement in action and character as distinguished from the Biblical doctrine which holds that true sinlessness not only means a freedom from wrong doing but an actual state of heart, soul and mind that reflects all the goodness of God's holiness, love and righteousness.

The writer didn't 'decide' on the infallibility of the prophets, he made a conclusive introduction based on evidence he studded the entire page with. Most folks don't present their supporting documents in their opening statements.. it would be rather funny to do otherwise, don't you think? come up with a medical diagnosis without a proper history or convince the jury of guilt by evidence in the opening statement, perhaps you are accustomed to that sophomoric style and it is suitable for your purposes.. but in defense of the writer, he doesn't cater to you personally when writing. Further the subject of Sin vs. error are two separate topics which were in fact discussed before, as I have come to learn reading and comprehension isn't your strong suit.

2. His argument hinges on the word 'isma' and its use or near use in Qu'ranic verses. The argument is weak and in one case Q12.13 the word is used by a pagan (Aziz or Poitipher) about Joseph so here we have a whole dogma based on the word of a pagan? The hadith are hardly referred to and one wonders why this was avoided?

again we notice that you often jump to cut and paste before doing any research to back up your well cuts and pastes.. it doesn't reflect very good on your person, to come with such bravado mentioning things that are not your own intellectual property, and worse yet, not in existence all together.. rather than having this blind faith in your orientalist websites as you do in your man-made bible, why not superimpose it on the Quran, I mean how embarrassing for you?

قَالَ إِنِّي لَيَحْزُنُنِي أَنْ تَذْهَبُوا بِهِ وَأَخَافُ أَنْ يَأْكُلَهُ الذِّئْبُ وَأَنْتُمْ عَنْهُ غَافِلُونَ {13}
[Pickthal 12:13] He said: Lo! in truth it saddens me that ye should take him with you, and I fear less the wolf devour him while ye are heedless of him.

This is all coming from a guy who accuses us of not reading..;D

3. The writer then mentions, and it is unavoidable because it is in the Qu'ran, that some prophets committed zalla. Meaning they were just lapses or small errors and God corrected them. It is not possible to defy the written sources of Islam entirely and so the records of the sins of the prophets in the Qur'an and Hadith became watered down into "mistakes (khati'ati)", or "acts of forgetfulness", are constantly used by Muslim writers today to account for these misdemeanours which the Scripture and traditions of Islam record.This is coupled with a list of what what can only I think be described as unavoidable sins. So in Muslim writings we have such things as "There was no intention on the part of Adam to disobey the Divine commandment; it was simply forgetfulness that brought about the disobedience." Similarly, if we take the word istaghfir which, throughout the Qur'an, means to "ask forgiveness" but, in Muhammad's case, it is usually claimed it means to ask "protection" from sin. The Hadith openly support the teaching of the Qur'an that Muhammad needed to ask for the forgiveness of his sins and record a prayer of Muhammad, part of which reads as follows:

So please forgive the sins which I have done in the past or I will do in the future, and also those (sins) which I did in secret or in public, and that which You know better than I. None has the right to be worshiped but you. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, p. 403).

What is the point of this paragraph? when we have clearly defined that sin (transgression against god) such as in the case of incestuous sex with your daughters isn't the same and can't be made akin to, telling people not to tamper with agriculture and letting nature take its course to the destruction of the crop? perhaps you can tweak your definitions so you are not always making such a fool of yourself!

4. He further argues that prophets are like mirrors and so must be perfect but surely we are to pass on Gods message and that does not become more true because of who gives it? We then have Mohammed referred to but of course it is circular, Mohammed is perfect because the Qu'ran says so but we only know that because Mohammed told us? He then refers to the traditions the prove infallibility though he does not as far as I can see mention any.

The writer assumes that you do other reading on the side of the Quran and Sunnah and don't merely reach for the first anti-Islamic site which can't see fit to even quote you verses correctly to draw the appropriate conclusion on the life and legacy of the prophet!

5. We have what to me is are complete oddities which can hardly be more than fable such as it being said that Jesus in his youth helped his uncles with the restoration of the Ka'ba. Or another case where we are told that God may cause someone legs to be broken to avoid sin but why God would be so vicious and selective (why God protect some from sin and not others) is not explained.

I don't know what criteria you go about distinguishing fables from truth, and again, I can place no weightiness on the opinion of a fellow who worships a man, and thinks that three is akin to one and that god would die, or dam n the earth for not bearing fruit when he supposedly created it or pray to himself, or choose ineffectual apostles or abrogate his commandments, through a charlatan nonetheless.. I mean why would god change his mind? or why would god ask Jews to uphold the sabbath and then fill the seas with fish on such a day you should answer that question before making the leap of who is chosen for what..
The Islamic position is that, it has to do with the core of the self, and it goes back to the creation of Adam from the good and the bad of the earth!

Summary and Critique
Early Muslims soon discovered that the Bible taught that Jesus was the only sinless man and confronted with this evidence, deemed it necessary regard all prophets as sinless. Secondly, Islam holds that the scriptures were dictated directly to the prophets so prophets must be of impeccable character for, if they could not keep themselves from error how could they be trusted to communicate God's revelations without error? But logically this is no more than a presupposition that puts a limit on how God may work.

One supposes that the purpose of at-nubuwwa (the prophets) could be defeated if the people to whom they are sent regarded it as permissible for the prophets to commit sins and tell falsehoods, because then they would also think the same about their teachings and their commands and interdictions. Muslim orthodoxy, therefore, drew the logically correct conclusion that the prophets must be regarded as immune from serious errors (doctrine of isma). In short it puts the onus on the prophet not the message. But it was in my view not one which comes from an objective analysis of the teaching of the Qur'an and Hadith and cannot be traced back to the teachings of Mohammed.

No one really cares for your view and we have demonstrated why and repeatedly. Why not work on quoting verses correctly first before you jump in head first and then make a theological leap based on falsehood?

all the best

[Hugo]

oh hold on. you thought about it and came to the conclusion that 3=1. for some reason i dont think youve been thinking.

Where in the Bible does it say 3=1?

i see nothing wrong with any of the quran or hadith. humans will always be subject to mistakes. i know THAT is a major excuse for the discrepancies of your bible but that just reiterates the point. it is MAN MADE!

I am unclear what you are saying here, the Qu'ran and hadith contain mistakes? We know there are discrepancies in the Bible but that does not mean they can never be reconciled does it? Your Qu'ran was written down not by God but by human hands so man made was it not so why is it alone immune from error? Can you even admit that it might contain a contradiction for example, well the answer is no because you are 100% sure so its impossible for you to be critical?

[Hugo]

i have considered christianity extensively. do you agree that you must simply believe without proof? furthermore just recently you have said you must believe without even understanding key christian concepts to get into heaven. the fact is intellect is the only thing seperating us from animals. in islam we quote "hear and obey". what we hear we verify it is from Allah (in part this also means checking it actually makes logical sense)

I know this was addressed to Grace Seeker but I regard Christianity as a reasonable faith and to a believer it is logical but Christians are constantly reading and re-reading the Bible asking what is God saying but ultimately there is no material evidence to support the notion of God. If there were then it seems to me we have no part in that matter and faith is now unnecessary and God becomes like Gravity and we simply cannot avoid him.

[جوري]

Where in the Bible does it say 3=1?

we don't know, hence we find it so odd you worship a man named jesus, his father and the hovering spirit.

I am unclear what you are saying here, the Qu'ran and hadith contain mistakes? We know there are discrepancies in the Bible but that does not mean they can never be reconciled does it? Your Qu'ran was written down not by God but by human hands so man made was it not so why is it alone immune from error? Can you even admit that it might contain a contradiction for example, well the answer is no because you are 100% sure so its impossible for you to be critical?

He wrote he sees nothing in the Quran or hadith that has any discrepancy, the Quran was revealed by the arch angel, and the hadith has a long chain of narrations and criterion by which we accept those that are tawatur and neglect the ohad, or see if they match the Quran or contradict it.. no such luck with the bible..
it is amazing, you didn't get that from two simple plain English statements he has written?
One wonders why you have such difficulty comprehending simple words? Is it an intellectual challenge, a visual impairment, or simply playing it daftly?

all the best

[جوري]

I know this was addressed to Grace Seeker but I regard Christianity as a reasonable faith and to a believer it is logical but Christians are constantly reading and re-reading the Bible asking what is God saying but ultimately there is no material evidence to support the notion of God. If there were then it seems to me we have no part in that matter and faith is now unnecessary and God becomes like Gravity and we simply cannot avoid him.

Why choose Christianity then and not Zoroastrianism, it is older and more sensical in parts..if your faith doesn't have any logical component, then any religion will do.. especially when your religion is riddled with fables and contradictions!

all the best

[M.I.A.]

I know this was addressed to Grace Seeker but I regard Christianity as a reasonable faith and to a believer it is logical but Christians are constantly reading and re-reading the Bible asking what is God saying but ultimately there is no material evidence to support the notion of God. If there were then it seems to me we have no part in that matter and faith is now unnecessary and God becomes like Gravity and we simply cannot avoid him.

so if god existed it would negate any need for worship of god?
even though thats the only thing he has asked of us, even though he would have no need of us and you would understand that god had no need of us.
interesting.

[Hugo]

does that sound to you as someone who thinks the transmission isn't perfect? BTW 'variant/Multiple' readings still exist today of the same exact text (again, discussed before) let's have a look at two readings from the same sura:

Let me quote from Dr Azami's book:

P32 every year the prophets memory had to be refreshed - why if it is was all written down by dozens of scribes (60 according to Azami), the prophet was infallible and the revelations memorised perfectly by the companions? Also on P36 we read of the prophet sparing no effort in encouraging other to learn the words of Allah and on P58 we have double reward for memorization so there is some inconsistency here.

P73 there are no hadiths inn which the prophet delineates the order of the suras so that is entirely the work of man not God

P76 the Qu'ran was in loose page format so verses could be inserted into it easily so why is God so haphazard in his revelation?

P80 verses were brought to Zaid who recorded it as long as there were two witnesses. Why, if they had all these 'loose pages' and everything was memorised perfectly? P84 also speak of verses being added more or less at random if verified or as Azami put it "enough grounds for certainty". P86 tells of a "Sincere effort as possible to preserve the words of Allah"

P84 we have the compiled Qu'ran put in the state archives though how this fits in with P88 with Hafsa's Suhuf is anyone guess or even if the contents were the same.

P91 we read that an independent Mushaf was prepared and checked and after CORRECTIONS all other copies were BURNED so we now have no way of knowing how accurate or otherwise what we have now is

P96 Utham degreed that all personal manuscripts DIFFERING from his own should be burned so we know that different version were in circulation

P99 we are told that Zaid's scheme was to prepare multiple copies side by side and choose the best

P154 the Qu'ran was revealed in seven dialects so making all that is said above even more fraught with difficulty.

P155 we are told that Allah supplied TWO variants of verses in some cases in 7 dialects

Well I can go on but it is clear beyond doubt if Azami is right that the transmission was anything but simple and straightforward and we now have no way to check it one way or the other and its perfection can only be assumes as dogma not fact.

[Hugo]

so if god existed it would negate any need for worship of god? even though thats the only thing he has asked of us, even though he would have no need of us and you would understand that god had no need of us. interesting.

No, if his existence is proved we would have no choice in that matter in much the same way that we cannot avoid Gravity no matter what we think or believe.

[M.I.A.]

No, if his existence is proved we would have no choice in that matter in much the same way that we cannot avoid Gravity no matter what we think or believe.

i get it, misunderstood you i guess.
by the time god becomes unavoidable there will not be enough time for people to change. those that had belief before will probably be saved, i guess thats what all these warnings are about and also how to live life and accept death for those that will not see that day until they are raised from there graves.

anyway im definately tired of running around in circles and getting nowhere, we seem to know the truth but are still content in arguing for the sake of little gain...doesnt feel like anything constructive ever happens, although im sure we have all learned things in this thread.

[جوري]

Let me quote from Dr Azami's book:

I take it you'd rather the previous post be swept under the rug.. I admire your moxie.. always coming in with renewed vigor after each subsequent public humiliation.. :)

P32 every year the prophets memory had to be refreshed - why if it is was all written down by dozens of scribes (60 according to Azami), the prophet was infallible and the revelations memorised perfectly by the companions? Also on P36 we read of the prophet sparing no effort in encouraging other to learn the words of Allah and on P58 we have double reward for memorization so there is some inconsistency here.

What exactly is the inconsistency, do you mind pointing it out?

P73 there are no hadiths inn which the prophet delineates the order of the suras so that is entirely the work of man not God

Rather it says '' As far as I am aware, there are no hadiths in which the prophet delineates the order of ALL the suras, opinions differ and can be summarized as follows:
1- The arrangement of all the suras as it stands, hearken back to the prophet himself (footnote) see as-suyti-al-itiqan i:176-177, see also ibn dawud, sunan, no 786
this is the opinion that I subscribe to. The counter view disagrees with this, citing the mushafs of certain companions such as ibn Masud and Ubbay b. Kaab) supposedly differ in sura order from the mushaf presently in our hands. 37 (see chapter 13 which is dedicated to the mushaf of ibn masud) and I'd prefer you actually read that before citing pages which you clearly have no integrity to quote correctly or in totality
2- some believe that the entire Quran was arranged by the prophet except for sura 9, which was placed by Uthman (footnote 38) as-suyti-al-itiqan i-177, quoting al baihiqi, see also abu dawud
3- etc.
4- etc

Muslim schlarly opinion unanimously holds that the present arrangement of Surahs is identical to that of 'Uthman's Mushaf' etc. etc.

as to how it is the work of man and not god you are yet to enlighten us to that factor, given there were no computers or archives, and that the order of some events that went in particular suras happened decades apart for anyone to decide that a particular verse belongs in chapter 2 verse 281 as opposed to chapter 98 verse 4, for the suras to flow in context, lyricism, syntax, significance etc.

P76 the Qu'ran was in loose page format so verses could be inserted into it easily so why is God so haphazard in his revelation?

How so? a haphazard revelation would be nonsensical, what you are actually doing is cementing the fact that the order of the verses in their current form is nothing short of a miracle!

P80 verses were brought to Zaid who recorded it as long as there were two witnesses. Why, if they had all these 'loose pages' and everything was memorised perfectly?

Again, what is your question here? Anyone who reads the same page would conclude the painstaking process that went into making sure there were absolutely no errors, two witnesses and super-imposed on that which was already recorded, along with it being an oral tradition. How hard must you think to come up with so many non-questions?

P84 also speak of verses being added more or less at random if verified or as Azami put it "enough grounds for certainty". P86 tells of a "Sincere effort as possible to preserve the words of Allah"

Azami tells you in the previous page on tawatur (an Islamic lexicon) that refers to gathering information from multiple channels and comparing them... the gist is to achieve absolute certainty and pre-requisite.. next page which you love to latch on goes to say (with that information in mind) so we return to sura bara'a where the two concluding verses where verified and entered into the suhauf based solely on Abu Khuzaima's parchment and the obligatory witness, backed by and memorized by Zaid and some other huffaz, but in a matter as weighty ad the Quran how can we accept one parchment and a few companion memories as sufficient grounds for tawatur?.......................................... A conspiracy to invent such verses is irrational because no conceivable benefit could have arisen in fabricating them (footnote) and given that Allah swt personally vouches for the companions, honesty in his book, we can infer that there was indeed sufficient tawatur to sanction these verses!

P84 we have the compiled Qu'ran put in the state archives though how this fits in with P88 with Hafsa's Suhuf is anyone guess or even if the contents were the same.

How can the content not be the same given the state of tawatur, your non-questions are so meek and fickle as your entire state of being!

P91 we read that an independent Mushaf was prepared and checked and after CORRECTIONS all other copies were BURNED so we now have no way of knowing how accurate or otherwise what we have now is

Indeed, and such happens with any work after completion, folks don't hold on to written redundancy.

P96 Utham degreed that all personal manuscripts DIFFERING from his own should be burned so we know that different version were in circulation

Indeed a compiled version differs from loose parchment which can go in any order other than the correct order.. after the painstaking task of preserving it as God intended, there is no point to hold on to any loose copies!

P99 we are told that Zaid's scheme was to prepare multiple copies side by side and choose the best

Rather is says, '' the variations are inconsequential (he actually goes on to put the missing initials which is rather painstaking to do and for any native Arabic speaker as are stated by Azami inconsequential to the meaning of each verse and bear no alterations to the semantics whatsoever Zaid ibn Thabit, findings both readings to be authentic and of equal status retained them in different copies, the inclusion of both side by side would have wrought confusion; alternatively placing one of them in the margin would imply a lesser degree of authenticity. By placing them in DIFFERENT COPIES HE ACCOMMODATED THEM ON EQUAL TERMS '' The modern approach to textual criticism requires that, when variations arise between two manuscripts of equal status, the editor cites one of the two in the core text while the deviations are cosigned to footnotes. This method however is unjust as it demotes the value of the second copy. Zaid's scheme is much fairer, by preparing multiple copieshe sidesteps any implications that this or that reading is superior, given each variant its just due (footnote 35)

P154 the Qu'ran was revealed in seven dialects so making all that is said above even more fraught with difficulty.

The Noble Quran was revealed in one language and that is Arabic. It has only one original Arabic copy. Arabic 1400 years ago had 7 dialects. There exists today one original copy of the Noble in Saudi Arabia today. A copy of this original copy also exists in Turkey today as well.
When the Noble Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, it was revealed in Arabic, and in the Quraishi dialect. The Quraishi dialect is the most proper Arabic dialect that properly uses the Arabic words without altering their sound.
The Quraishi dialect was the most popular dialect in the Middle East at that time, and is today the dialect used among Arabs who speak Proper Arabic. The dialect that books teach at schools is also a Quraishi dialect today.
Back in the Middle East 1400 years ago, the Quraishi dialect was not the only one used among Arabs. There existed 6 other dialects along with it, but as I said, it was the most popular.
It is very important in the Islamic faith that when we recite the Noble Quran, we recite it in the Quraishi dialect or what we call today in the proper Arabic. We can't pronounce for instance "th" as "sa" or "za". We can't pronounce "la" as "laman". We can't pronounce "ja" and "ga", etc...
There are no variances or missing parts in the Noble Quran. These are all false and baseless assumptions by some anti-Islamics. The Arabic dialects had problems with each others, and that's why standardizing the Noble Quran with its original Quraishi dialect was essential to keeping it as a perfect Holy Book: For instance, take the letter "j". Did you know that some Arabs don't pronounce the "j"? They always pronounce it as "g" or "ga".
Take "the" as another example. Some Arabs also don't pronounce "the". They pronounce it as "za".
Another example, and this is an important one in my opinion, is that some Arabs used to have a dialect which originated from Yemen, where they would add "an" at the end of a noun. Take for instance the popular word of today "Taliban", as in the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Taliban" is the same as the Arabic word "Talib" which means "Student".
The Afghans today used the old Arabic dialect from Yemen which dates even older than 1400 years ago when the Noble Quran was revealed. Back then in Yemen, as I said, they used to add the word "an" for nouns. So if they for instance wanted to refer to a stone "sakhr (in Arabic)", then they would refer to it as "sakhran", even though it would be written in Arabic as "sakhr".

P155 we are told that Allah supplied TWO variants of verses in some cases in 7 dialects

a well known example of this is in suret al-fatiha where the fourth verse can be recited as maalik (owner) or malik (king) of the day of judgment. BOTH WORDINGS WERE TAUGHT BY THE PROPHET AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTE MULTIPLE, RATHER THAN VARIANT READINGS.

Well I can go on but it is clear beyond doubt if Azami is right that the transmission was anything but simple and straightforward and we now have no way to check it one way or the other and its perfection can only be assumes as dogma not fact.

I tell you what is clear without a doubt to most people here and anyone who spends the time reading any text which you see fit to twist to suit your agenda.

1- you are an under-educated fool
2- you possess no intellectual integrity
3- you are dishonest in what you quote, banking on the effect that most have no time to clean your crap by going through the painstaking task of correcting all that you misquote, but I am here to expose you whenever chance permits although I don't think your filthy agenda is lost to anyone but yourself and the fools who follow in your footsteps
4- you are unable on your own to come up with material that is worth while, or a conclusion that draws from the premise, which is a conundrum to me this self-proclamation of scholarship when you can't even superimpose what you otherwise cut and paste on what has actually been written (an example of that is demonstrated above) and wherever I have had the misfortune to read your crap and respond to it!
5- You are one incredible hypocrite and I don't even want to bother counting the ways, as I have already lost my fast simply sitting here and replying to you!

[tango92]

No, if his existence is proved we would have no choice in that matter in much the same way that we cannot avoid Gravity no matter what we think or believe.

Youll never see the sun with closed eyes.

and if you opened your eyes to it you could hide from it, at least for a while...........

[Hiroshi]

All Praise and Glory Be to Allah , I never ever heard a Christian say so (the reason that priests in the church do not marry is that they follow the teachings of devils)...

It isn't just me saying it. The Bible says it. Such men have betrayed both God and his word.

no, I am not the one who supposed to show you, I am a Muslim and only seeking the knowledge of Qur`aan and Sunnah the knowledge of Allah`s religion which He perfected for us...

you are the one my respected brother who supposed to show me any translation of the bible that says Judas "fell from but not jumped off"... you are the Christian one who supposed to have the knowledge of the Christian books not me... it is your duty to prove for me that your books are right not me...with all my respect...

Well, I don't believe that any translation says that Judas jumped.

another 2 Qs:

What was the calling of the prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) and was he a Christian or Jewish?

Surah 3:67 says that Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but that he was an upright man and a Muslim. I take this to mean that Abraham submitted himself to God which of course is true.

[Hiroshi]

I'll make you a bet that when he looks the word he finds will be some form of the verb "to fall". (Though Wycliff uses "hanged" in Acts 1:18.)

I didn't know that. But you are right.

The Wycliffe New Testament rendering of Acts 1:18 reads: "And this Judas had a field of the hire of wickedness, and he was hanged, and burst apart the middle [And forsooth this wielded a field of the hire of wickedness, and he hanged, burst apart the middle], and all his entrails were shed abroad."

I wonder if this is more of a paraphrase though. It doesn't look authoritative.

[Amat Allah]

Thank you , my respected brother Hiroshi for answering my Qs and being so kind ,open-minded and respected...May Allah give you the good of this life and the good of the hereafter..Ameeen

It isn't just me saying it. The Bible says it. Such men have betrayed both God and his word.

Yes, but as I know many of the Christian brothers and sisters do not agree with you in this and considering those priests as their examples and that they are worshipping God by being unmarried (are they rejecting one of the bible true verses by this? .and it was really the first time for me to read that unmarried priests are following the teachings of devils, actually it was a shock for me knowing that...O Allah I seek your refuge from being a follower of devils and their teachings... Ameeen

but I could be wrong, cause I don`t see anyone here from the Christians rejecting what you have said about that matter...anyway ,May Allah guide us all Ameeen

Well, I don't believe that any translation says that Judas jumped.

its ok my respected brother, there is no need to prove this for me anymore...Judas died and gone and there is no use of knowing how he died...May Allah give us the good end of this life and hereafter Ameeen

Surah 3:67 says that Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but that he was an upright man and a Muslim. I take this to mean that Abraham submitted himself to God which of course is true.

[/QUOTE]

You are right, it means that Abraham submitted himself to God...May Allah lead your way to the path of the truth and keep you firm on it and all of us Ameeeeen

in shaa Allah you won`t mind me asking more Qs, with all my respect....

Was Abraham (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) a disbeliever? and is he going to hell? and again what was his message and calling?

[Hugo]

By the way there are eye witnesses of revelation coming from the prophet Muhammad pbuh - ever heard of hadiths. You just fail to accept them for whatever reason and instead like to rely on your "sources" eg, wikipedia - the only problem now is that why do you waste your time here? when countless times your bring us the same things and we reply in the same manner. You have asked your question and have recieved an answer. There is zero oppression here. Its you crying as usual because people disagree with you.
peace

Then do something that would be most unlike you and quote a hadith that says that anyone else saw or hear the angel?

[YusufNoor]

Then do something that would be most unlike you and quote a hadith that says that anyone else saw or hear the angel?

you mean like this:

Also from 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, there is that he said, "While we were sitting with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless with him and grant him peace, one day a man came up to us whose clothes were extremely white, whose hair was extremely black, upon whom traces of travelling could not be seen, and whom none of us knew, until he sat down close to the Prophet, may Allah bless with him and grant him peace, so that he rested his knees upon his knees and placed his two hands upon his thighs and said, 'Muhammad, tell me about Islam.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless with him and grant him peace, said, 'Islam is that you witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and you establish the prayer, and you give the Zakat, and you fast Ramadan, and you perform the hajj of the House if you are able to take a way to it.' He said, 'You have told the truth,' and we were amazed at him asking him and [then] telling him that he told the truth. He said, 'Tell me about iman.' He said, 'That you affirm Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day, and that you affirm the Decree, the good of it and the bad of it.' He said, 'You have told the truth.' He said, 'Tell me about ihsan.' He said, 'That you worship Allah as if you see Him, for if you don't see Him then truly He sees you.' He said, 'Tell me about the Hour.' He said, 'The one asked about it knows no more than the one asking.' He said, 'Then tell me about its tokens.' He said, 'That the female slave should give birth to her mistress, and you see poor, naked, barefoot shepherds of sheep and goats competing in making tall buildings.' He went away, and I remained some time. Then he asked, 'Umar, do you know who the questioner was?' I said, 'Allah and His Messenger know best.' He said, 'He was Jibril who came to you to teach you your deen'." Muslim (8) narrated it.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...&ID=879&CATE=1

you like to read books i see. check Imam An Nawai's 40 Hadeeth.

cheers

[Hugo]

i wrote: you missing the point, whether purposefully or not. Christians didn't fully and completely decide exactly "what was inspired by the "Holy Spirit" in their Bible in it's original language" until centuries AFTER Muslims KNEW what was contained in the Qur'an in it's original language! THAT is history! that is the TRUTH!

Let us be clear here there is no known document in Arabic before the 4CE and in contrast Greek and Hebrew were fully written language many thousands of years earlier. Arabic script itself was most likely devised by Christian cops. Of course certain books were accepted as God's word for the Bible because all sorts of literature was circulating at the time and when various Christian councils got together they affirmed what was existing as the cannon they did not pick and choose. If we compare this with the Qu'ran where it is impossible to know if its complete or not since there are virtually no manuscripts earlier than the late 9th century. You can believe it is complete if you wish but it cannot be proven whereas Christians and Jews have thousands of manuscripts some pre-dating Islam by 1,500 years. Amongst these manuscripts, about 6,000 there are estimated to be 30,000 differences although that vast majority are of little significance and none of them affect basic Christian doctrine.

[Hugo]

you mean like this:

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...&ID=879&CATE=1

Thank you for you prompt reply but I cannot locate this hadith using on-line searches (do you know the exact number) as it may simply be a matter of translation - though there are a few similar ones in Muwatta though to me they more often that not it is difficult to know for sure if someone is relating what the prophet said or heard the words themselves.

Would you then accept eyewitness accounts as found in the Bible?

[Hugo]

What exactly is the inconsistency, do you mind pointing it out?

P32 every year the prophets memory had to be refreshed - why if it is was all written down by dozens of scribes (60 according to Azami), the prophet was infallible and the revelations memorised perfectly by the companions? Also on P36 we read of the prophet sparing no effort in encouraging other to learn the words of Allah and on P58 we have double reward for memorization so there is some inconsistency here.

I have asked WHY this was necessary? We continually hear how the Qu'ran is perfect, everyone knew it by heart, it is faultless and so on. So WHY was it necessary for Jibril to refresh the prophet's memory every year? Do you not see that we cannot on the one hand have a supposed infallible prophet and on the other that he has to be constantly reminded?

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings

Nor I, and I didn't. The proper term for someone being condemned to spend eternity in hell is to say that they have been dam*ed. In that usage it is not a form of swearing or cursing at all, any more than it is to say that those that have been so dam*ed are "going to hell"..

Sorry i must have thought you cursed becaused you put these star things **** in your post, where they usually means one curses.

No. Originally, it was because I was participating in another forum where the view of many of the posters was that all Muslims, even if they weren't themselves involved in terrorism, were in agreement with the aims of those who did commit it. From personal experience I knew that it wasn't true, and I had hoped to come here and be resources with information and links to published material by which I could refute those allegations against Islam..

Well glad to hear you are refuting allegations against Islaam : D

Well, I've learned that while not all are into terrorism, there are more who stand on the sidelines cheering on their efforts than I had from my own personal experience imagined..

Yes, Unfortunately

I learned that many Muslims have no idea the truth with regard to Christianity and rather than actually read for themselves, read anti-Christian tracts for what they care to learn and prefer to use cut-and-paste methods to engage in futile debate rather than actual conversation to pursue fruitful discussion..

Yes, i agree, same goes for the hypocrytes who choose to use "Anti-Islaam" sites also!

I learned that many see the world through one set of lenses and are unable to even try to consider things in any ways different from what they have always be taught, that most will get more entrenched in their position rather than thoughtful when a non-Muslim disagrees with them and doesn't immediately see things the "true" way..

lol that sounds geeky "see the world through one set of lenses", Well we all have our beliefs and those who are strong in their faith will often tend to disagree with the opposite, so i advice either you do research yourself and sincerely, and also ask those whom are knowledgeable, if you have Qs ask them, and if you have a problem feel free to disagree and if you feel there will be a looong dialogue due to it then its best to just listen, as they know more about their faith than yourself.

Of course, this type of personality is something I already knew well from conversations with other Christians, but through this board I learned that religion doesn't change the basic tendencies of human personality..

Well ofcourse, and i disagree there.That may not always be the case maybe you also see the "world through one set of lenses" :-\

Lastly, I've learned not to judge a faith by what you encounter online, that actually caring for and being involved in one another's life comes out of face-to-face interactions; whereas, internet friendships may not even be as real as the paper they aren't printed on..

I can agree here, but also disagree : D

Oh, and I almost forgot, I learned that everything that is wrong with the world, from the source of evil to the lostness of our decadent culture from the prlifieration of Apple computers to the music of ZZ Topp, has at its roots either the USA or all things Christian.

I dont really understand what you said there, but okay : D

Peace

[aadil77]

P32 every year the prophets memory had to be refreshed - why if it is was all written down by dozens of scribes (60 according to Azami), the prophet was infallible and the revelations memorised perfectly by the companions? Also on P36 we read of the prophet sparing no effort in encouraging other to learn the words of Allah and on P58 we have double reward for memorization so there is some inconsistency here.

I have asked WHY this was necessary? We continually hear how the Qu'ran is perfect, everyone knew it by heart, it is faultless and so on. So WHY was it necessary for Jibril to refresh the prophet's memory every year? Do you not see that we cannot on the one hand have a supposed infallible prophet and on the other that he has to be constantly reminded?

what does being 'infallible' have to do with revising the Quran? this is a seriously weak point if you're trying to have a go at the infalibility of prophets

prophets although free of sin were not super human with infinite memories or superhero like strength

Do you not believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was infallible?

[Hugo]

Rather it says '' As far as I am aware, there are no hadiths in which the prophet delineates the order of ALL the suras, opinions differ and can be summarized as follows:

The arrangement of all the suras as it stands, hearken back to the prophet himself (footnote) see as-suyti-al-itiqan i:176-177, see also ibn dawud, sunan, no 786 this is the opinion that I subscribe to. The counter view disagrees with this, citing the mushafs of certain companions such as ibn Masud and Ubbay b. Kaab) supposedly differ in sura order from the mushaf presently in our hands. 37 (see chapter 13 which is dedicated to the mushaf of ibn masud) and I'd prefer you actually read that before citing pages which you clearly have no integrity to quote correctly or in totality. 2- some believe that the entire Quran was arranged by the prophet except for sura 9, which was placed by Uthman (footnote 38) as-suyti-al-itiqan i-177, quoting al baihiqi, see also abu dawud Muslim schlarly opinion unanimously holds that the present arrangement of Surahs is identical to that of 'Uthman's Mushaf' etc. etc.

as to how it is the work of man and not god you are yet to enlighten us to that factor, given there were no computers or archives, and that the order of some events that went in particular suras happened decades apart for anyone to decide that a particular verse belongs in chapter 2 verse 281 as opposed to chapter 98 verse 4, for the suras to flow in context, lyricism, syntax, significance etc.

Dr Al Azami's Biblical knowledge is very defective but he is a superior hadith scholar and here he is saying he does not know for sure but has an opinion - notice an opinion that the prophet did it and some companions. But I guess you cannot even let yourself think it is anything but certain such is that fragility of your faith it seems.

[Hugo]

what does being 'infallible' have to do with revising the Quran? this is a seriously weak point if you're trying to have a go at the infalibility of prophets. prophets although free of sin were not super human with infinite memories or superhero like strength. Do you not believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was infallible?

I have written in an earlier post my view on the notion of infallibility of all the prophets and I don't think it is tenable. My point here about the prophets memory being refreshed is the fact that we are told that 60 scribes wrote everything down as soon as a revelation came, companions memorized everything and so on so why was this necessary, did some bits change? In terms of Jesus then Christians regard him as God and so yes we regard him as infallible in his teaching.

[جوري]

P32 every year the prophets memory had to be refreshed - why if it is was all written down by dozens of scribes (60 according to Azami), the prophet was infallible and the revelations memorised perfectly by the companions? Also on P36 we read of the prophet sparing no effort in encouraging other to learn the words of Allah and on P58 we have double reward for memorization so there is some inconsistency here.

If it were refreshed you'd complain, if it weren't you'd complain, if it weren't written down you'd complain, and if it is written down you'd complain. Most sane people who practice a craft, always refresh their skills. It is the way of the world, perhaps you should catch up with the rest, maybe that alone would enable you to formulate better questions-- as it seems you have perfected the art of confabulation!

I have asked WHY this was necessary? We continually hear how the Qu'ran is perfect, everyone knew it by heart, it is faultless and so on. So WHY was it necessary for Jibril to refresh the prophet's memory every year? Do you not see that we cannot on the one hand have a supposed infallible prophet and on the other that he has to be constantly reminded?

See above reply!

Dr Al Azami's Biblical knowledge is very defective but he is a superior hadith scholar and here he is saying he does not know for sure but has an opinion - notice an opinion that the prophet did it and some companions. But I guess you cannot even let yourself think it is anything but certain such is that fragility of your faith it seems.

Judging from the way you MISQUOTED Azami and repeatedly as I have demonstrated in details in multiple pages and in multiple threads, you've lost any credibility to pass judgment as to whether or not he has defective biblical knowledge or superior knowledge. And as stated before, no one really cares for your opinion. You should be utterly ashamed of your dishonesty as I have shown on multiple posts, yet you have the temerity to come back here and post again and share an opinion as if you had any formal or even informal authority to do so!

[Ramadhan]

The facts (for Hugo):
- There is only 1 quran exist in the world, with millions people memorize it and know the full content by heart, down to a single letter, period, and comma. This is impossible if the Qur'an had not been memorized in full by many people the prophet Muhammad SAW received its revelation, or if there were a different version along the way, or if it were changed or if memorization transmission was broken along the way. There are many records of unbroken transmissions from present day all the way the prophet SAW.
- There are currently thousands of bible versions, disagreeing with each other not only in language/wording, but also content. The authors were unknown. There is no method of memorization. There is no record of the transmission of eye witnesses. Even the translators are unknown.

[Hiroshi]

in shaa Allah you won`t mind me asking more Qs, with all my respect....

Was Abraham (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) a disbeliever? and is he going to hell? and again what was his message and calling?

I am very happy to answer your questions Amat Allah.

There is a prophecy in Genesis 3:15 where God says to Satan: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

After the rebellion of Satan in persuading Adam and Eve to disobey God, God purposed to put things right but means of an "offspring" or "seed". Who that seed would be and what he would do gradually came to be revealed through time and the unfolding of God's purpose.

In Genesis 22:18 shows that this "offspring" or "seed" would come through Abraham: "through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

Abraham was, of course, also an example to all of us in faith and devotion and love for God. He showed obedience even to the point of being willing to sacrifice his own son.

[YusufNoor]

Let us be clear here there is no known document in Arabic before the 4CE and in contrast Greek and Hebrew were fully written language many thousands of years earlier.

irrelevant to a point, but as it helps show my point, i'll accept that.

Arabic script itself was most likely devised by Christian cops.

irrelevant

Of course certain books were accepted as God's word for the Bible because all sorts of literature was circulating at the time and when various Christian councils got together they affirmed what was existing as the cannon they did not pick and choose.

that appears to be an erroneous statement. what was held a "canon" changed over many centuries. if it wasn't humans deciding was was "canon," are you saying that the Christian Holy Spirit [who you claim is 1/3 God] has mistakenly chosen some books at some time and had to redress and rethink what he thought was from God-the Father and then humans merely accepted his decisions or corrections?

If we compare this with the Qu'ran where it is impossible to know if its complete or not since there are virtually no manuscripts earlier than the late 9th century.

i'll take whichever Qur'an you genuinely consider to be the oldest in existence [w/o you arguments about it's completeness] and put it against your NT in it's COMPLETE and CURRENTLY recognized "divine inspiration and ONLY that inspiration - no other additions or subtractions JUST what YOUR particular sect of Christianity [which i don't even know is] currently considers "the Word of God" in it's ORIGINAL LANGUAGE and see if you have a complete and unadulterated one that is earlier!

You can believe it is complete if you wish but it cannot be proven whereas Christians and Jews have thousands of manuscripts some pre-dating Islam by 1,500 years.

name ONE SINGLE "Christian manuscript", that predates Islam by 1500 years. you can't include Jewish books with the Christian Books. BUT EVEN IF I LET YOU, there are books in the LXX that are no longer considered as divinely inspired and these were rejected, "in the Greek" AFTER the completion of the Qur'an!

Amongst these manuscripts, about 6,000 there are estimated to be 30,000 differences although that vast majority are of little significance and none of them affect basic Christian doctrine.

no 2 are the same, are they?

Thank you for you prompt reply but I cannot locate this hadith using on-line searches (do you know the exact number) as it may simply be a matter of translation - though there are a few similar ones in Muwatta though to me they more often that not it is difficult to know for sure if someone is relating what the prophet said or heard the words themselves.

i told you to read, or look up An Nawawi 40 Hadeeth

Would you then accept eyewitness accounts as found in the Bible?

i am unaware of ANY contemporaneous eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus in existence. and unaware of ANY eyewitness accounts "found in the bible!"

cheers

[aadil77]

In terms of Jesus then Christians regard him as God and so yes we regard him as infallible in his teaching.

yet he cried as a baby, felt hungry, needed to go the toilet etc, but was 'infallible in his teaching'

seems to me he had all the qualities of a prophet and none of those possessed by God

make sense to you?

[Grace Seeker]

yet he cried as a baby, felt hungry, needed to go the toilet etc, but was 'infallible in his teaching'

seems to me he had all the qualities of a prophet and none of those possessed by God

make sense to you?

He was indeed a man, fully aquainted with grief. But he was also by nature fully God. And even though he counted equality with God not something to be grasped and emptied himself of those characteristics that you appear to use as the standard for determine divine nature, we still affirm that all the fullness of God dwelled in him.

The question that Christians are divided on, is NOT whether or not Jesus was God. To be a Christian is (IMO) to affirm that he was/is God. (Sorry, Hiroshi.) The questions that Christians are divided on are (1) was Jesus always aware of his divinity or was this something that was only realized later, say after the resurrection; and (2) did Jesus know all temporal truths such as the true shape and size of the earth and that the earth moved around the sun or did he only know what was known by others of his own day? This last question address this issue regarding the fallibility or infallibility of his teaching. Was Jesus' knowledge of God born out the nature of his relationship or was it some sort of absolute knowledge?


As for it making sense. What makes sense is that the view one accepts and rejects regarding Jesus is going to be determined by which set of scriptures one accepts and rejects. The Christian scriptures present Jesus as God. Though you may think that based on Islamic teaching he doesn't fit the bill, it matters not as our scriptures tell us that he in fact was.

[GreyKode]

The question that Christians are divided on, is NOT whether or not Jesus was God. To be a Christian is (IMO) to affirm that he was/is God. (Sorry, Hiroshi.) The questions that Christians are divided on are (1) was Jesus always aware of his divinity or was this something that was only realized later, say after the resurrection; and (2) did Jesus know all temporal truths such as the true shape and size of the earth and that the earth moved around the sun or did he only know what was known by others of his own day? This last question address this issue regarding the fallibility or infallibility of his teaching. Was Jesus' knowledge of God born out the nature of his relationship or was it some sort of absolute knowledge?

Maybe you can explain to muslim members this concept a little bit.

[tango92]

Maybe you can explain to muslim members this concept a little bit.

indeed it seems like insanity of the highest order to me. a man who is god, doesnt know he is god............. words cant express what im thinking

[جوري]

indeed it seems like insanity of the highest order to me. a man who is god, doesnt know he is god............. words cant express what im thinking

amnesia experienced in the womb, and the breast feeding years apparently.
Glad the universe didn't collapse upon itself in that period of infancy and confusion..

Sob7an Allah, at the utterances of these fools..

:w:

[Insaanah]

The question that Christians are divided on, is NOT whether or not Jesus was God. To be a Christian is (IMO) to affirm that he was/is God. (Sorry, Hiroshi.) The questions that Christians are divided on are (1) was Jesus always aware of his divinity or was this something that was only realized later, say after the resurrection;

And when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, "Take me and my mother as gods besides Allah"? He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within my inner self, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

I said not to them except what You commanded me - "Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness." (Qur'an 5:116-117)

Peace.

[DavidK565]

And when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, "Take me and my mother as gods besides Allah"? He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within my inner self, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

I said not to them except what You commanded me - "Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness." (Qur'an 5:116-117)

Peace.

You do know that you can't invalidate someone else's religious beliefs by using your own holy book, right? That's not how it works. If the Christian Bible says Jesus is God, then to Christians, Jesus is God. The Qu'ran obviously states that he was merely a prophet, therefore, Muslims believe that he was not God. But you can't use one book to disprove the other's beliefs. Can't work.

[Insaanah]

You do know that you can't invalidate someone else's religious beliefs by using your own holy book, right? That's not how it works. If the Christian Bible says Jesus is God, then to Christians, Jesus is God. The Qu'ran obviously states that he was merely a prophet, therefore, Muslims believe that he was not God. But you can't use one book to disprove the other's beliefs. Can't work.

If someone feels that a quote from the Qur'an has invalidated their belief, that means they are not comfortable with their own beliefs!

Peace.

[DavidK565]

If someone feels that a quote from the Qur'an has invalidated their belief, that means they are not comfortable with their own beliefs!

Peace.

Religious texts naturally contradict each other. If they were all exactly the same, then there would never be any disagreement. You will always find something in the Qur'an that contradicts the Bible. And you're always going to have material in the Bible that contradicts the Qur'an. So, the argument can be flipped around and it can be said that the Bible proves that the Qur'an is wrong about Jesus, right?

But that gets us nowhere.

[جوري]

Religious texts naturally contradict each other. If they were all exactly the same, then there would never be any disagreement. You will always find something in the Qur'an that contradicts the Bible. And you're always going to have material in the Bible that contradicts the Qur'an. So, the argument can be flipped around and it can be said that the Bible proves that the Qur'an is wrong about Jesus, right?

But that gets us nowhere.

You don't need any holy books to invalidate Christianity, it is a mere question of logic, the piece concerned with your salvation is so convoluted, that a group of theologians can't break it down let alone understand it themselves. If God wanted his religion to be accessible to all, paupers and kings, simple and complex, then he wouldn't come up with a mangod hovering spirit fiasco, leaving the universe behind to show up in west Asia to die for something as ludicrous as eating sins and abrogating his previous commandments through a fellow he didn't choose an apostle while he was 'alive' .. is he incapable of forgiving or understanding the human condition without being born to a woman?

[GreyKode]

You do know that you can't invalidate someone else's religious beliefs by using your own holy book, right? That's not how it works. If the Christian Bible says Jesus is God, then to Christians, Jesus is God. The Qu'ran obviously states that he was merely a prophet, therefore, Muslims believe that he was not God. But you can't use one book to disprove the other's beliefs. Can't work.

I whole heartedly agree.

[DavidK565]

You don't need any holy books to invalidate Christianity, it is a mere question of logic, the piece concerned with your salvation is so convoluted, that a group of theologians can't break it down let alone understand it themselves. If God wanted his religion to be accessible to all, paupers and kings, simple and complex, then he wouldn't come up with a mangod hovering spirit fiasco, leaving the universe behind to show up in west Asia to die for something as ludicrous as eating sins and abrogating his previous commandments through a fellow he didn't choose an apostle while he was 'alive' .. is he incapable of forgiving or understanding the human condition without being born to a woman?

Uh huh.... and you're a Muslim, right? So you picked the religion that you felt suited you best. Obviously, you don't agree with Christian teachings, otherwise you would have been a Christian. Regardless of which religion you choose however, you need a certain amount of faith, and a certain amount of "mystery". Otherwise, any religion falls apart.

[جوري]

Uh huh.... and you're a Muslim, right? So you picked the religion that you felt suited you best. Obviously, you don't agree with Christian teachings, otherwise you would have been a Christian. Regardless of which religion you choose however, you need a certain amount of faith, and a certain amount of "mystery". Otherwise, any religion falls apart.

The part that matters (the one having to do with my salvation) doesn't have convolution wrapped in an enigma.. I don't need some verbal and mental calisthenics to attain paradise, anymore than I need to understand Islamic finance or Jurisprudence for that matter.. contrast to Christianity basic tenet...

I did pick the religion that made most sense, that satisfied me both intellectually and spiritually.. one that doesn't ask me to shut the thinking part of my being and follow blindly!

all the best

[S.Belle]

The Christian scriptures present Jesus as God. Though you may think that based on Islamic teaching he doesn't fit the bill, it matters not as our scriptures tell us that he in fact was.

Ok then read this and explain please

19th chapter of Matthew, verses 16-17.
"And behold, one came and said unto him: 'Good master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?'
And he [Jesus] said unto him, 'Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God:..."

Jesus just said "Why are you calling ME good? There is only one who is good, and that's God."

[S.Belle]

also this please mister

John 6:38 "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

hmmm sounds like a Messenger of God to me......

[Ramadhan]

The Christian scriptures present Jesus as God

Except that NOWHERE in YOUR scripture does jesus say or claim he is god and NOWHERE in YOUR scripture does he ask people to worship him at all, let alone as god.

[Ramadhan]

f the Christian Bible says Jesus is God, then to Christians, Jesus is God.

Then produce verses from the christian bible where Jesus himself says he is god.

[Amat Allah]

I am very happy to answer your questions Amat Allah.

There is a prophecy in Genesis 3:15 where God says to Satan: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

After the rebellion of Satan in persuading Adam and Eve to disobey God, God purposed to put things right but means of an "offspring" or "seed". Who that seed would be and what he would do gradually came to be revealed through time and the unfolding of God's purpose.

In Genesis 22:18 shows that this "offspring" or "seed" would come through Abraham: "through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

Abraham was, of course, also an example to all of us in faith and devotion and love for God. He showed obedience even to the point of being willing to sacrifice his own son.

Thank you so much for answering my respected brother but you didn`t say what was his calling and message, was he a disbelievers ? Is he going to hell? (would you please answer my Qs in a clear and direct answers, would you?) please answer my Qs with yes and no too (Quote my Qs and answer them with yes and no then explain whatever you want in shaa Allah)...

May Allah lead your way to the path of real happiness Ameeen

[DavidK565]

Except that NOWHERE in YOUR scripture does jesus say or claim he is god and NOWHERE in YOUR scripture does he ask people to worship him at all, let alone as god.

Two things Naidamar,

1) Its not my scripture.

2) That wasn't the point of my post. The point was you can't disprove Christian teachings by using the Qur'an. Someone else quoted the Qur'an to "prove" that Jesus was not God. It simply doesn't work.

Personally I don't care either way.

[tango92]

Two things Naidamar,

1) Its not my scripture.

2) That wasn't the point of my post. The point was you can't disprove Christian teachings by using the Qur'an. Someone else quoted the Qur'an to "prove" that Jesus was not God. It simply doesn't work.

Personally I don't care either way.

you cant really know the intention of sisters post. it may be that hearing that verse might have knocked some sense into our christian members

[Ramadhan]

Two things Naidamar,

1) Its not my scripture.

In this post, I was replying to Grace Seeker's post.
have a look again at my post (#324)

That wasn't the point of my post. The point was you can't disprove Christian teachings by using the Qur'an. Someone else quoted the Qur'an to "prove" that Jesus was not God. It simply doesn't work.

Exactly.
but then you followed with: "If the Christian Bible says Jesus is God, then to Christians, Jesus is God"
And in my own way, I was telling you that the christian bible never says that jesus is god.
However, if you believe that christian bible indeed says that jesus is god, I'd like to see that.

[DavidK565]

In this post, I was replying to Grace Seeker's post.
have a look again at my post (#324)

You're right, my bad.

Exactly. but then you followed with: "If the Christian Bible says Jesus is God, then to Christians, Jesus is God" And in my own way, I was telling you that the christian bible never says that jesus is god. However, if you believe that christian bible indeed says that jesus is god, I'd like to see that.

I have not extensively read the Bible, but being in America, and speaking to many Christians, the consensus seems to be that they believe Jesus is God, or part of God. (Maybe "infused" with God). Something like that. I have no biblical proof of it, but I trust that those who believe such things have reason to do so.

If you look at any religion (yes, including Islam), you're going to find some mystical stuff that doesn't really make sense. That's what religion is all about. You need faith to believe that these things are true.

[Hiroshi]

Thank you so much for answering my respected brother but you didn`t say what was his calling and message, was he a disbelievers ? Is he going to hell? (would you please answer my Qs in a clear and direct answers, would you?) please answer my Qs with yes and no too (Quote my Qs and answer them with yes and no then explain whatever you want in shaa Allah)...

May Allah lead your way to the path of real happiness Ameeen

Yes Abraham is already in hell. Even Jesus went to hell when he died. Acts 2:27 KJV says (speaking of Jesus): "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell" and Acts 2:31 KJV says: "his soul was not left in hell". Jesus went to hell (as we all will) but he was not left there. The dead come out of hell in the resurrection. Revelation 20:13 KJV says: "death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them". Hell means "the grave" in all of these scriptures. We all go to our grave.

Was Abraham a believer? Yes he was, of course.

What was Abraham's calling? What do you want me to say? He was a prophet. He was called "Jehovah's friend". He had unshakeable faith. And he was the father of great nations thanks to a miracle of God, giving him a son in his old age.

[جوري]

so god put himself in hell? :lol:
man it just gets better and better.

[tango92]

so god put himself in hell? :lol:
man it just gets better and better.

:lol: now i think i dont really know christianity at all;D

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Yes Abraham is already in hell. Even Jesus went to hell when he died. Acts 2:27 KJV says (speaking of Jesus): "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell" and Acts 2:31 KJV says: "his soul was not left in hell". Jesus went to hell (as we all will) but he was not left there. The dead come out of hell in the resurrection. Revelation 20:13 KJV says: "death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them". Hell means "the grave" in all of these scriptures. We all go to our grave.

Was Abraham a believer? Yes he was, of course.

What was Abraham's calling? What do you want me to say? He was a prophet. He was called "Jehovah's friend". He had unshakeable faith. And he was the father of great nations thanks to a miracle of God, giving him a son in his old age.

Now i must say honesly that God can never Die and is ever living, and since he created this earth why does he need to be burried into his own creation?

Yes Abraham(pbuh) was a believer, he believed that God is One, he submitted to the will of God. Abrahams (Pbuh) calling was to believe that God is one!

[Insaanah]

So, the argument can be flipped around and it can be said that the Bible proves that the Qur'an is wrong about Jesus, right?

Actually, there are verses still remaining in the Bible that concur with what Allah has said in the Qur'an. The word trinity isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible, which is rather strange seeing as this is the crux of mainstream Christian belief. This concept only came about after about 300 years of Jesus's (peace be upon him) departure from this earth.

It is not about point scoring, with I'm right, you're wrong. It is about saying come closer to Jesus's original teachings, and the message that God sent him with, not the erroneous beliefs of people who never met him and came years after. The scripture that God gave Jesus (peace be upon him) was God's word. But Christians themselves admit that the Bible we have with us now is not the word of God, but mainly the word of man, and that some parts are written by people that never met Jesus (peace be upon him) and some parts, no one really knows exactly who wrote. The Qur'an confirms the original message of the scripture given to Jesus (peace be upon him).

The point is, all along God has taught mankind from the time of Adam (peace be upon him) that he is One, other than Whom there is none worthy of worship. How is it, all of a sudden, after thousands of years of God telling people one thing, He suddenly changes His mind when it came to Jesus, with a 3-in-1 God, rather than purely One? Did God not know His true nature before? All of a sudden we have a god that cries, goes to the toilet, doesn't actually know if he is god, dies for 3 days, sacrifices himself, and all of that so that he can forgive people and prove his love to the world.

Alarm bells should ring there. What kind of a God changes His mind after thousands of years about who He is, and that too in a derogatory fashion?

Does this make sense, or does One, Eternal, Immortal, Indivisible God, with no sons, daughters, brothers, cousins, grandparents or any other relatives make sense? A God who does not beget, nor is He begotten? The same message, given to all the Prophets from the beginning of time. No inconsistencies in the message.

Sure, you have to have an element of faith in God, but there also needs to be an element of sensibility. God does not ask us to believe insensible or disrespectful things about His nature.

We are saying to Christians, think outside your comfort zone and what you have been taught to believe. Think objectively. Look at God's message to mankind from the beginning of time. All we call to, is a return to the message of God, sent via his Messengers (including Jesus, peace be upon them all), not the "messages/dreams/visions/anything else" of Peter and Paul et al.

Verses from the Qur'an are not to be afraid of. They are there, as Allah says, to confirm what was in the earlier scriptures that He sent.

Peace.

[Hugo]

The facts (for Hugo): - There is only 1 quran exist in the world, with millions people memorize it and know the full content by heart, down to a single letter, period, and comma. This is impossible if the Qur'an had not been memorized in full by many people the prophet Muhammad SAW received its revelation, or if there were a different version along the way, or if it were changed or if memorization transmission was broken along the way. There are many records of unbroken transmissions from present day all the way the prophet SAW. - There are currently thousands of bible versions, disagreeing with each other not only in language/wording, but also content. The authors were unknown. There is no method of memorization. There is no record of the transmission of eye witnesses. Even the translators are unknown.

First of all it is NOT a fact that Mohammed received a revelation from God since it is impossible to check. Secondly, we are told that Uthman BURNED all the shall we say 'unofficial' Qu'rans so there was more than one - why burn them if they were all exact copies of each other and by the way while all the fuss about burning Qu'ran when the first perpetrators of such an act where the companions themselves? One cannot prove an unbroken record or memorisation can you unless it was also written down? So WHERE is the original?

Yes there are 1,000 of Bible translations because it has been translated into 1,000 of languages. It is absolutely absurd to say these translations differ in content as if one ends up with a totally different story. What difference does it make that some authors were unknown as that has no bearing whatever on whether its from God or not does it - if it does then ANY book with a known author is from God. What does it matter if there is no train on memorization as if that somehow make it more true but we have something better than that we have actual copies. Who is the author of the Qu'ran and tell me how I can trace it back to him to check?

[Zafran]

There are no versions of the Quran other then the one we have - if there are you'll have to prove it to us.

On the other hand there are many versions of the bible for example the 66/73 books difference between the catholics and Protestants - thats a good place start. - some believe that the inspired word of God shouldnt have the books in the canon - the catholics differ - Dont forget that this dispute took place in the 16th century effecting the bible itself. How many years is this after christ now.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings

First of all it is NOT a fact that Mohammed received a revelation from God since it is impossible to check. Secondly, we are told that Uthman BURNED all the shall we say 'unofficial' Qu'rans so there was more than one - why burn them if they were all exact copies of each other and by the way while all the fuss about burning Qu'ran when the first perpetrators of such an act where the companions themselves? One cannot prove an unbroken record or memorisation can you unless it was also written down? So WHERE is the original?

Yes there are 1,000 of Bible translations because it has been translated into 1,000 of languages. It is absolutely absurd to say these translations differ in content as if one ends up with a totally different story. What difference does it make that some authors were unknown as that has no bearing whatever on whether its from God or not does it - if it does then ANY book with a known author is from God. What does it matter if there is no train on memorization as if that somehow make it more true but we have something better than that we have actual copies. Who is the author of the Qu'ran and tell me how I can trace it back to him to check?

Uthman (Ra) burned the copies for a reason the reason which i highly doubt you are aware off, ohhh leme guess you discovered that from some anti islamic site init? I suggest you do some serious RESEARCH!

You said you have read the whole Quraan? okay so what does surah 112 speak about? Just a curious Q


It makes a HUGEEE difference, how can you prove these men lived with Jesus(pbuh)? The Quran means the recitation, and the Quraan is the book thats been recited and memorised by millions around this EARTH!, Ok another way to prove the Quraan is the truth are the many miracles in the book and also if you was to throw every Bible and every Quraan in the ocean, the word of the Qurans can never be forgotten as many have memorised, and since Allaah says in the Quraan that he will protect his word, which word seems to be protected more, the bible or the Quran?

"Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)." (Al Quraan)

You must realise that you can believe whatever you may, but the Quraan proves itself, I ask you sincerely, which word is guarded? If God loves you will he not guard his message? When i say loves you i mean guiding you to do whats right and stay away from that which is harmful to you, so do you really think his message will be destructible? Allaah has guided his message, your Lord and my Lord!

Allaah is the author of the Quraan, you seem to claim to have read the Quran but you seem to not know the author of the Quran?

peace

[جوري]

First of all it is NOT a fact that Mohammed received a revelation from God since it is impossible to check.

Not impossible at all, try to spend some of that free time you waste trying to disprove that it is the word of God!

Secondly, we are told that Uthman BURNED all the shall we say 'unofficial' Qu'rans so there was more than one

There were no 'un-official' Quran's-- there were parchments that were destroyed.. Do you read at all? I mean ever before writing?

- why burn them if they were all exact copies of each other and by the way while all the fuss about burning Qu'ran when the first perpetrators of such an act where the companions themselves? One cannot prove an unbroken record or memorisation can you unless it was also written down? So WHERE is the original?

See above response and previous responses!

Yes there are 1,000 of Bible translations because it has been translated into 1,000 of languages. It is absolutely absurd to say these translations differ in content as if one ends up with a totally different story. What difference does it make that some authors were unknown as that has no bearing whatever on whether its from God or not does it - if it does then ANY book with a known author is from God. What does it matter if there is no train on memorization as if that somehow make it more true but we have something better than that we have actual copies. Who is the author of the Qu'ran and tell me how I can trace it back to him to check?

:lol: well I guess if god has been to hell and akin to some animal like a sheep or goat or whatever else you want to have him as, and died, and prayed to himself, and didn't know if the earth bore fruit, and didn't know that something he created was going to crucify him, and didn't know that the apostles he chose were worthless, that he'd have to rescind his previous message through a charlatan, then you are right, the unknown authors have no bearing on the matter, because frankly you have no standards whatsoever. and if you have known and so proven, then don't come and ask for something else especially that has been amply elucidated and left for you to examine critically, from a historical, contextual, transcendental etc. point of view!


I'd urge folks here to simple reference this git to where he'd been previously answered!

[DavidK565]

There are no versions of the Quran other then the one we have - if there are you'll have to prove it to us.

On the other hand there are many versions of the bible for example the 66/73 books difference between the catholics and Protestants - thats a good place start. - some believe that the inspired word of God shouldnt have the books in the canon - the catholics differ - Dont forget that this dispute took place in the 16th century effecting the bible itself. How many years is this after christ now.

I know this isn't directed at me, but I always looked at the branches of Christianity as separate religions. They all follow the teachings of Jesus, but Catholics and Protestants and Evangelicals and Baptists all have different beliefs and practices. Its really only the Catholics who believe in the Trinity...

[Zafran]

I know this isn't directed at me, but I always looked at the branches of Christianity as separate religions. They all follow the teachings of Jesus, but Catholics and Protestants and Evangelicals and Baptists all have different beliefs and practices. Its really only the Catholics who believe in the Trinity...

This doesnt change the fact that a dispute in the 16th century went so far that one group believed that certain books shouldnt be in the bible whilst the others did and still do. Both are the so called protectors of the bible - yet they hold a different book.

Whats shocking is that this happend in the 16th century and not some time when christ walked the earth.

The trinity is believed by most christians - i believe all the groups you have named believe in it not just the catholics.

[Hugo]

There are no versions of the Quran other then the one we have - if there are you'll have to prove it to us.

I cannot prove it or disprove it because Uthman BURNED all the evidence now that would make anyone suspicious don't you think? But again tell me where I can go to look at the ONE original copy, surely there must be just ONE? You no doubt have an Arabic Qu'ran and it is almost certainly based on the 1924 Cairo edition so what did those people in Cairo use to set the type in 1924? Uthman redacted a copy, he edited it together it did not just fall out of the sky into his hands did it? If we can believe the hadith Zaid collected verses on the witness of two people - this story only make sense if there was doubt.

On the other hand there are many versions of the bible for example the 66/73 books difference between the catholics and Protestants - thats a good place start. - some believe that the inspired word of God shouldnt have the books in the canon - the catholics differ - Dont forget that this dispute took place in the 16th century effecting the bible itself. How many years is this after christ now.

The books of the Bible can be chosen by anyone, Muslims for example love the book of Barbabus but the whole Christian church recognised the usual 66 books as part of the cannon. Some add the apocryphal books (I have copies in my Bible) but they are generally treated more like one would a commentary. I presume you are speaking of the reformation when you speak of the 16th? Indeed lots of things we find in the Qu'ran and hadith the Christian Church would regard as totally apocryphal.

[جوري]

I cannot prove it or disprove it because Uthman BURNED all the evidence now that would make anyone suspicious don't you think? But again tell me where I can go to look at the ONE original copy, surely there must be just ONE? You no doubt have an Arabic Qu'ran and it is almost certainly based on the 1924 Cairo edition so what did those people in Cairo use to set the type in 1924? Uthman redacted a copy, he edited it together it did not just fall out of the sky into his hands did it? If we can believe the hadith Zaid collected verses on the witness of two people - this story only make sense if there was doubt.

The four original copies of the Quran dating back to Uthmanic times are in existence today? did you read the book that you have been so apt at misquoting? Why should we be suspicious of a very meticulous system that took the witness of two hafith with every verse and a back up check to written parchment.. if you have different copies, or see a rift in the Quran itself then bring it on!

The books of the Bible can be chosen by anyone, Muslims for example love the book of Barbabus but the whole Christian church recognised the usual 66 books as part of the cannon. Some add the apocryphal books (I have copies in my Bible) but they are generally treated more like one would a commentary. I presume you are speaking of the reformation when you speak of the 16th? Indeed lots of things we find in the Qu'ran and hadith the Christian Church would regard as totally apocryphal.

let me re-quote myself :

well I guess if god has been to hell and akin to some animal like a sheep or goat or whatever else you want to have him as, and died, and prayed to himself, and didn't know if the earth bore fruit, and didn't know that something he created was going to crucify him, and didn't know that the apostles he chose were worthless, that he'd have to rescind his previous message through a charlatan, then you are right, the unknown authors have no bearing on the matter, because frankly you have no standards whatsoever. and if you have known and so proven, then don't come and ask for something else especially that has been amply elucidated and left for you to examine critically, from a historical, contextual, transcendental etc. point of view!

folks with that big a problem on their hand, really don't get to pick what is 'apocryphal' when not only is a question of validity is always at hand but also a question with logic!

all the best

[Zafran]

I cannot prove it or disprove it because Uthman BURNED all the evidence now that would make anyone suspicious don't you think? But again tell me where I can go to look at the ONE original copy, surely there must be just ONE? You no doubt have an Arabic Qu'ran and it is almost certainly based on the 1924 Cairo edition so what did those people in Cairo use to set the type in 1924? Uthman redacted a copy, he edited it together it did not just fall out of the sky into his hands did it? If we can believe the hadith Zaid collected verses on the witness of two people - this story only make sense if there was doubt.

How can you prove that "Uthamn burned all the evidence"? Every copy of the Quran is the same in arabic that I have seen Be it from Cairo, Beirut, UK, USA etc - I havent seen another Quran in arabic.

The books of the Bible can be chosen by anyone, Muslims for example love the book of Barbabus but the whole Christian church recognised the usual 66 books as part of the cannon. Some add the apocryphal books (I have copies in my Bible) but they are generally treated more like one would a commentary. I presume you are speaking of the reformation when you speak of the 16th? Indeed lots of things we find in the Qu'ran and hadith the Christian Church would regard as totally apocryphal.

2 bibles catholics believe the inspired word of God has 73 books - whilst the other group 66 books. 2 very different bibles indeed. the so called canon itself is still debated and what is actually meant to go into it - we're not talking about apocryphal here - we're talking the accpeted books by one group and rejected by the other. The books that make the bible or inspred word of God in christian eyes - disputed in the 16th century. Nice try in changing the subject though - there are two bibles even in christian eyes.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings

I cannot prove it or disprove it because Uthman BURNED all the evidence now that would make anyone suspicious don't you think? But again tell me where I can go to look at the ONE original copy, surely there must be just ONE? You no doubt have an Arabic Qu'ran and it is almost certainly based on the 1924 Cairo edition so what did those people in Cairo use to set the type in 1924? Uthman redacted a copy, he edited it together it did not just fall out of the sky into his hands did it? If we can believe the hadith Zaid collected verses on the witness of two people - this story only make sense if there was doubt..

The same you cannot prove or disprove your bible i suspect

Clearly what you mentioned is a lie and you seem to have no knowledge of the Quraan and Islaam at all, i suggest you quit acting like a "scholar" of Islaam! First you interpret Quranic verses yourself and now this?

Im sure you`ve read how the Quran was revealed right? Instead of talking about how it fell out of the sky and trying to make sarcastic claims as such.

And can you please post this hadeeth of Zaid collecting verses on the witness of the two people, thanks

peace

[*Hana*]

I know this isn't directed at me, but I always looked at the branches of Christianity as separate religions. They all follow the teachings of Jesus, but Catholics and Protestants and Evangelicals and Baptists all have different beliefs and practices. Its really only the Catholics who believe in the Trinity...

Peace David:

Seems you are seriously lacking some knowledge here my friend. While all the above groups may have different beliefs and practices, they all claim the same thing...The Bible...whatever version you opt to follow, is the word of God. (Most tend to use the KJV). And it is NOT only the Catholics that believe in the Trinity. lol The vast majority of Christian sects believe in a Triune God. And, quite frankly, some of these sects don't even believe Catholics are Christians, which is beyond comical to me. A Christian, is very simply, a follower of Christ. THAT is the definition. Now, how they choose to twist, turn, ignore, add, etc., to Biblical text is what makes one sect differ from another.

Peace,
Hana

[DavidK565]

Peace David:

Seems you are seriously lacking some knowledge here my friend. While all the above groups may have different beliefs and practices, they all claim the same thing...The Bible...whatever version you opt to follow, is the word of God. (Most tend to use the KJV). And it is NOT only the Catholics that believe in the Trinity. lol The vast majority of Christian sects believe in a Triune God. And, quite frankly, some of these sects don't even believe Catholics are Christians, which is beyond comical to me. A Christian, is very simply, a follower of Christ. THAT is the definition. Now, how they choose to twist, turn, ignore, add, etc., to Biblical text is what makes one sect differ from another.

Peace,
Hana

Hi Hana,

We're all lacking in some knowledge, I'd imagine. What I explained with the different branches was how I said I saw it. I certainly don't claim to know everything (not close), and I could be wrong about the trinity. Honestly, it doesn't affect my day-to-day life, so I don't care.

But what I do know is that whether you are an evangelical or a Catholic or whatever, they believe that the teachings they have compiled to be the TRUTH, and all other groups have *******ized the teachings of Jesus. Its that type of myopic vision that makes religions so interesting to me.

What I was trying to get across was that to an outsider (a Jew, a muslim, etc), it all looks like variations of the same material which can sometimes be contradictory, but within each branch of the religion, THEY have the truth and the correct canon and the other people don't.

[*Hana*]

[QUOTE=DavidK565;1372509]Hi Hana,

We're all lacking in some knowledge, I'd imagine. What I explained with the different branches was how I said I saw it. I certainly don't claim to know everything (not close), and I could be wrong about the trinity. Honestly, it doesn't affect my day-to-day life, so I don't care.

While I agree we all lack knowledge, one shouldn't state things as factual when they are not. I'm sorry, but if you are going to engage in the conversation at hand, you should have some basic knowledge of the topic. To state only Catholics follow the trinity proves my point, which is the point I was making.

But what I do know is that whether you are an evangelical or a Catholic or whatever, they believe that the teachings they have compiled to be the TRUTH, and all other groups have *******ized the teachings of Jesus. Its that type of myopic vision that makes religions so interesting to me.

Of course everyone believes they have truth. The purpose here is to refute the allegations that the Qur'an was copied from the Bible. It is also to discuss our differences in faith as well as the unity of faiths. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when you speak without knowledge who will take it seriously. At least one should learn the basics of the faiths being discussed so you can share your opinion based on knowledge and not making a statement and presenting it as fact when it clearly is not.

What I was trying to get across was that to an outsider (a Jew, a muslim, etc), it all looks like variations of the same material which can sometimes be contradictory, but within each branch of the religion, THEY have the truth and the correct canon and the other people don't.

Again, obviously, or there would be no need for discussion. But, you can't discuss stripture on any level if you don't understand the very basis of their belief.

With peace,
Hana

[Ramadhan]

The dead come out of hell in the resurrection.

I thought in your previous post you said that after we die, there is nothing, you said even soul dies when we die.
So why there are "dead" in hell before resurrection?
who/what is this "dead"
and if this "dead" does not have conscience (as you said in previous post), why is it in hell? what's the purpose?

[Ramadhan]

Its really only the Catholics who believe in the Trinity...

You are completely wrong here.

Only extremely few minorities (unitarians and jehovah winesses) who numbers only in few millions that do NOT believe in jesus as god.
99% christians believe in jesus as god.

[DavidK565]

You are completely wrong here.

Only extremely few minorities (unitarians and jehovah winesses) who numbers only in few millions that do NOT believe in jesus as god.
99% christians believe in jesus as god.

Seems you're right. Interesting....

[DavidK565]

While I agree we all lack knowledge, one shouldn't state things as factual when they are not. I'm sorry, but if you are going to engage in the conversation at hand, you should have some basic knowledge of the topic. To state only Catholics follow the trinity proves my point, which is the point I was making.

Hana, this is what is called an "error". Those of us not graced with divinity tend to make them frequently. The original post I made was about comparing the texts from the different branches of Christianity. A previous post was asserting the incongruities of the books of the bible. I was saying that the books in the biblical cannons differ because of the slightly different takes on their faith, and as such, I looked at them as separate religions. The trinity statement was a side comment that was clearly erroneous.

[Grace Seeker]

If someone feels that a quote from the Qur'an has invalidated their belief, that means they are not comfortable with their own beliefs!

Peace.

And I don't feel that a quote from the Qur'an (a quote that differs with the Biblical record) invalidates my beliefs. What I feel is that it shows that the Qur'an is not the perfect book that you take it to be.

[Grace Seeker]

Except that NOWHERE in YOUR scripture does jesus say or claim he is god and NOWHERE in YOUR scripture does he ask people to worship him at all, let alone as god.

Asked and answered. This point is meaningless.
First, no true prophet would ever have to testify regarding himself that he was a prophet: Jesus said, "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid" (John531). So, if you think that Jesus sounds like a prophet, understand that the words of Jesus basically mean that Muhammad could not be a prophet for he testified with regard to himself.

Second, there are many who testified with regard to Jesus. Among them John the Baptist, Thomas, Peter, Paul, and even God himself.

Third, when people treated any of the disciples like God, they all refused such treatment. When people treated Jesus this way, he accepted it. If he was just a prophet, he was a poor one for accepting such acts.

Fourth, whether Jesus ever used the words "I am God" or not we will never actually know. He may have, for not all of his words are recorded in the scriptures. But even if he didn't (and I expect that if he had they would have been recorded), his actions and the things he did say were understand by those around him to be equivalent to him to have made divine claims for himself. He claimed to forgive sins. He referred to himself as being one with the Father. He declared, "before Abraham was, I am." These things led others to accuse him of blasphemy for equating himself with God. When asked to recant such accusations, he did not, but accepted them.

Fifth, Jesus pointedly asked people to receive from him what only God has the ability to offer -- life.

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40).

Sixth, Jesus claims to possess a position alongside God in a way that no Muslim would ever be able to either acknowledge of any human, and that no one who was a true prophet and only a prophet would ever claim:

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. (John 17:5)

Seventh, Jesus never says that he is NOT God. And though Jesus may not have said "I am God" in so many words, others did say that of him (see Thomas' confession in John 20:28), and Jesus praised them for it.

Also, the scriptures record God saying that Jesus is God, see Hebrews 1:8.


You can argue all you want from an Islamic perspective that Jesus is not God, that God has no partners. But you have to stay with the Islamic scriptures to maintain that point. The Christian scriptures say otherwise. And if you try to twist them into saying that Jesus was only a prophet of Islam, then he is the most intersting prophet of Islam claiming that God was a Father, that God has a Son, and that somehow not only was he a partner of God, but that he invited his disciples (who are clearly human) to become partners of God as well and to one day not just join him in paradise, but to even share in God's glory.

[Grace Seeker]

Hi Hana,

We're all lacking in some knowledge, I'd imagine. What I explained with the different branches was how I said I saw it. I certainly don't claim to know everything (not close), and I could be wrong about the trinity. Honestly, it doesn't affect my day-to-day life, so I don't care.

But what I do know is that whether you are an evangelical or a Catholic or whatever, they believe that the teachings they have compiled to be the TRUTH, and all other groups have *******ized the teachings of Jesus. Its that type of myopic vision that makes religions so interesting to me.

What I was trying to get across was that to an outsider (a Jew, a muslim, etc), it all looks like variations of the same material which can sometimes be contradictory, but within each branch of the religion, THEY have the truth and the correct canon and the other people don't.

David, there is some truth in what you speak in terms of each of us thinking that we have the best and most correct interpretation of scripture. But Hana is right in suggesting that we do share a great deal in common with one another, much more than we disagree over. And one of those things is belief in the Trinity. All Christians that I know accept the points of the Nicene Creed even if they don't actually use creeds as a part of their denominational practice. I don't think that you can say being a follower of Christ is sufficient to define who is and isn't a Christian. You see, people have different ideas of exactly who Christ is. The "Christ" that some people follow, I don't even recognize. There are many people who would deny Christ's divinity, his atoninng death on the cross and his resurrection, and promote the idea of Jesus just being some great moral teacher and claim that they follow his teachings. I know of number of Buddhists who don't believe in the existence of God at all who would be Christian by your standard.

You'll find that most people who call themselves Christian, regardless of denomination, will affirm the divinity of Jesus even as at the same time we affirm his full humanity as well; they will identify him as the second person of the Trinity; they will acknowledge that his death brings about the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God the Father; they will assert the historical reality of his resurrection, and after having said all of that they will speak about the importance of acknowledge as not just having a moral and ethical teaching, but that he is Lord and calls us to follow that teaching as well and love others as he first loved us. These things are pretty universal in Christendom, and where they are absent historically we have said that any teachings to the contrary are not genuine Christianity, but heresy. Where we disagree with each other most frequently has to do not with the major points of theology with regard to God, but ecclesiology and church governance.

[Grace Seeker]

Hana, this is what is called an "error". Those of us not graced with divinity tend to make them frequently. The original post I made was about comparing the texts from the different branches of Christianity. A previous post was asserting the incongruities of the books of the bible. I was saying that the books in the biblical cannons differ because of the slightly different takes on their faith, and as such, I looked at them as separate religions. The trinity statement was a side comment that was clearly erroneous.

There are different lists of canonical books, but not for the reason you have suggested. And they hardly would cause Christianity to divide into different religions. In fact, this Sunday we celebrate the unity of the Church in a celebration called "World Communion Sunday". Not quite all, but most all churches will be recognizing the existence of our brothers and sisters in other denominations as being one in Christ together.

[Hiroshi]

Now i must say honesly that God can never Die and is ever living, and since he created this earth why does he need to be burried into his own creation?

So, what are you saying? Are you saying that Jesus isn't God? You are right. I agree with you.

[Hiroshi]

I thought in your previous post you said that after we die, there is nothing, you said even soul dies when we die.

So I did. There is nothing until the resurrection. And there is no conscious torment in hell.

So why there are "dead" in hell before resurrection?
who/what is this "dead"
and if this "dead" does not have conscience (as you said in previous post), why is it in hell? what's the purpose?

There are a number of different words in the Bible that are commonly translated "hell". One of these is "sheol" in Hebrew corresponding to "hades" in Greek. This is where we go when we die and we stay there until the resurrection. Basically, it means "the grave" but not just an individual grave. It means the common grave of all mankind.

Another word translated "hell" is "Gehenna" which means: "the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom". This was the location of a burning rubbish dump to the South and South East of Jerusalem. No one was tortured in the rubbish fires of Gehenna, it was just a place of destruction. Those who are finally destroyed by God as condemned sinners are said to go to Gehenna. Gehenna probably corresponds more closely to the Arabic word in the Qur'an "Jahannam".

But the original meaning of "hell" in English came from "hades", not "Gehenna".

[Ramadhan]

Second, there are many who testified with regard to Jesus. Among them John the Baptist, Thomas, Peter, Paul, and even God himself.

Excuse my rudeness, but I don't take seriously any claim from Paul, as he never even met jesus and was even enemy against jesus.

Now, did god say: jesus is god, worship him?
did Peter etc say: jesus is god, let's worship him?

evidence please.

Asked and answered. This point is meaningless.

Nope. I refuted you when you gave me all those verses.

Do you think it's meaningless to ask proof whether Jesus is god in your scripture?

It seems you have very lax attitude towards whom you consider as god.

All we want is direct proof from YOUR scripture where Jesus unambiguous say that he is god and ask people to worship him.

but now you say god never make claim that he is god.
is this a christian view?
so what's the point of having faith in god? and all those religions and hereafter and heaven and hell? and knowing your god?

The mind boggles.

You can argue all you want from an Islamic perspective that Jesus is not God, that God has no partners.

Have I even written a SINGLE QURAN AYAT in this discussion?

Grace seeker, i expect more from a bible scholar and professional christian.

[Ramadhan]

There are a number of different words in the Bible that are commonly translated "hell". One of these is "sheol" in Hebrew corresponding to "hades" in Greek. This is where we go when we die and we stay there until the resurrection. Basically, it means "the grave" but not just an individual grave. It means the common grave of all mankind.

Another word translated "hell" is "Gehenna" which means: "the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom". This was the location of a burning rubbish dump to the South and South East of Jerusalem. No one was tortured in the rubbish fires of Gehenna, it was just a place of destruction. Those who are finally destroyed by God as condemned sinners are said to go to Gehenna. Gehenna probably corresponds more closely to the Arabic word in the Qur'an "Jahannam".

But the original meaning of "hell" in English came from "hades", not "Gehenna".

This contradicts your previous statement.

If we completely cease to exist (both body and soul), then how come we go to hell/hades after we die?

[Ramadhan]

So, what are you saying? Are you saying that Jesus isn't God? You are right. I agree with you.

Hiroshi is a jehovah witness.
He does not believe jesus is god, but he believes jesus as the first and most special creation.

[Ramadhan]

And they hardly would cause Christianity to divide into different religions.

That is your personal view because you are a methodist.

I'm sure most other christians like catholics think you are a heretic.

Even Hiroshi here think you are heretic

[Hiroshi]

This contradicts your previous statement.

If we completely cease to exist (both body and soul), then how come we go to hell/hades after we die?

The "soul" is the person. When the person dies he becomes a dead soul. The Bible often refers to a dead body as a dead soul. The wording of Acts 2:27 "you will not leave my soul in hell" refers to a dead body (soul) in the grave (hell).

[Amat Allah]

Yes Abraham is already in hell. Even Jesus went to hell when he died. Acts 2:27 KJV says (speaking of Jesus): "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell" and Acts 2:31 KJV says: "his soul was not left in hell". Jesus went to hell (as we all will) but he was not left there. The dead come out of hell in the resurrection. Revelation 20:13 KJV says: "death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them". Hell means "the grave" in all of these scriptures. We all go to our grave..

The "soul" is the person. When the person dies he becomes a dead soul. The Bible often refers to a dead body as a dead soul. The wording of Acts 2:27 "you will not leave my soul in hell" refers to a dead body (soul) in the grave (hell).

this is so confusing ...Sub`haan Allah...hell means grave and soul means body...I am sorry but I can`t find logic in this ...just can`t with all my respect...

and would you please explain for me, why to call the grave (hell)? does anything happen in grave makes it as hell or what?

Was Abraham a believer? Yes he was, of course.

What was Abraham's calling? What do you want me to say? He was a prophet. He was called "Jehovah's friend". He had unshakeable faith. And he was the father of great nations thanks to a miracle of God, giving him a son in his old age

yes, but tell me what was his message please...Thank you my brother for your patience and kindness...

[Hugo]

The four original copies of the Quran dating back to Uthmanic times are in existence today? did you read the book that you have been so apt at misquoting? Why should we be suspicious of a very meticulous system that took the witness of two hafith with every verse and a back up check to written parchment.. if you have different copies, or see a rift in the Quran itself then bring it on!

Interesting so where are these four (some authorities say 3) copies kept?

[Hugo]

The same you cannot prove or disprove your bible i suspect. Clearly what you mentioned is a lie and you seem to have no knowledge of the Quraan and Islaam at all, i suggest you quit acting like a "scholar" of Islaam! First you interpret Quranic verses yourself and now this? Im sure you`ve read how the Quran was revealed right? Instead of talking about how it fell out of the sky and trying to make sarcastic claims as such. And can you please post this hadeeth of Zaid collecting verses on the witness of the two people, thanks

Absolutely, one cannot prove that the Bible is the word of God and by the same token you cannot do it for the Qu'ran either so I am not lying simply stating what is obvious that it is a matter of faith not proof. No amount of interpreting verses will make it true as you seem to be suggesting that because the Qu'ran says it is from God it must be true. It cannot be the word of God because of how it was revealed - it might be a true explanation but there is no way to be sure. For you Zaid questions see Ibn Dawud, Al-Masahif, p6 see also Ibn Hajar, Fathul Bari, ix:14

[Hugo]

How can you prove that "Uthamn burned all the evidence"? Every copy of the Quran is the same in arabic that I have seen Be it from Cairo, Beirut, UK, USA etc - I havent seen another Quran in arabic.

Well no one can prove that he burned all the copies though it would not have been all that difficult as there were not one supposes 1,000 of them at that time though with 60 scribes according to Dr Azami copying every word the prophet spoke I might be wrong. But will you accept that a bonfire was made and indeed Dr Azami asserts this on page 161 of his book and since there are virtually no manuscript evidence from that period there is every reason to trust his view.

2 bibles catholics believe the inspired word of God has 73 books - whilst the other group 66 books. 2 very different bibles indeed. the so called canon itself is still debated and what is actually meant to go into it - we're not talking about apocryphal here - we're talking the accpeted books by one group and rejected by the other. The books that make the bible or inspred word of God in christian eyes - disputed in the 16th century. Nice try in changing the subject though - there are two bibles even in christian eyes.

Unlike with Islam no one is forced to accept a particular cannon but the fact remains that the whole of Christendom does accept the usual 66 books and with just one or two exceptions had done so since the 2nd century.

[Hugo]

Uthman (Ra) burned the copies for a reason the reason which i highly doubt you are aware off, ohhh leme guess you discovered that from some anti islamic site init? I suggest you do some serious RESEARCH!

Yes of course he did it for a reason and the reason was that those Qu'rans differed from each other and that he wanted to make sure than ONLY his version was recited. Yes we all agree there is one God but have you read John 10:30

The Quran means the recitation, and the Quraan is the book thats been recited and memorised by millions around this EARTH!, Ok another way to prove the Quraan is the truth are the many miracles in the book and also if you was to throw every Bible and every Quraan in the ocean, the word of the Qurans can never be forgotten as many have memorised, and since Allaah says in the Quraan that he will protect his word, which word seems to be protected more, the bible or the Quran?

What if anything does this demonstrate or prove - because something is memorised does not mean it is from God or true does it?

You must realise that you can believe whatever you may, but the Quraan proves itself, I ask you sincerely, which word is guarded? If God loves you will he not guard his message? When i say loves you i mean guiding you to do whats right and stay away from that which is harmful to you, so do you really think his message will be destructible? Allaah has guided his message, your Lord and my Lord!

How does the Qu'ran prove itself and why if God's word is so precious he did not guard the earlier scriptures as you allege - is God no powerful enough for that?

[Insaanah]

And I don't feel that a quote from the Qur'an (a quote that differs with the Biblical record) invalidates my beliefs.

The point I made there was an answer to DavidK565's post.

What I feel is that it shows that the Qur'an is not the perfect book that you take it to be.

I am guessing (but I could be wrong) that by this you mean that the Qur'an is wrong because the quote I used mentions people taking Mary (peace be upon her) as a god, and she is not part of the trinity. That being the case, please note, nowhere does this verse say it is talking about the trinity. Catholics pray to, and via, Mary (peace be upon her), so what Allah has said in those verses is completely true.

Peace.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Absolutely, one cannot prove that the Bible is the word of God and by the same token you cannot do it for the Qu'ran either so I am not lying simply stating what is obvious that it is a matter of faith not proof. No amount of interpreting verses will make it true as you seem to be suggesting that because the Qu'ran says it is from God it must be true. It cannot be the word of God because of how it was revealed - it might be a true explanation but there is no way to be sure. For you Zaid questions see Ibn Dawud, Al-Masahif, p6 see also Ibn Hajar, Fathul Bari, ix:14

The Quraan proves itself to be true many times, its those who are too ignorant to deny many of the proofs and come up with their own conclusions!

No the proofs in the Quran prove that they are true, actually i am one of those who did my research, i am a muslim because i see the Quran as the truth and i see the teachings of Islaam to make sense and have an answer for everything, i am not of those who believe because her family or ancesters may have been muslim but because i have come up with my own conclusion that the Quran is the truth! This statement you made and i quote you: "It cannot be the word of God because of how it was revealed", well the Quran was revealed through the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and i am sure that you are aware he did not know how to read nor write, yet he managed to reveal the message perfectly, he would recite the words that would be revealed to him via the Angel Gibrael and recite them to his companions where they would write the verse down on whatever they could find e.g.rocks, animal skin etc. This proves that the Quran is not Mans word!

Actually can you post those verses, as i do not own any of the books you mentioned.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Yes of course he did it for a reason and the reason was that those Qu'rans differed from each other and that he wanted to make sure than ONLY his version was recited. Yes we all agree there is one God but have you read John 10:30

At the time of the Prophet Muhammad (May the peace and blessings of God Allmighty be upon him) the Quran, the Quraan was documented and saved within the family and companions of the prophet (pbuh), it was protected and preserved from mans corruption! Uthman (ra) he did NOT decide about what number order the chapters or verses were to be in as i said the Quran was already documented and memorised by the Prophet Pbuh and his companions. Chapters and verses were recited by our Beloved Prophet Muhammad (saw) five times a day in the muslim daily prayers. The memorization of the entire Noble Quran is something sacred in Islam.Memorising the Quran helped the Noble Quran remain error-free from man's false documentation. Also realise that Allaah Allmighty your lord and my lord says in his Noble Book :

"We [Allah] have, without doubt, sent down the Message [The Noble Quran]; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption).
However, when the death of the Prophet (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) took place, Islaam had only still remained in the 2 cities which are known as Makkah and Madinah, and Islaam had increased amongst the people in the region, also keep in mind that not all people in the entire of region had the same dialect but also had different languages. At the time many languages were spoken ofcourse including arabic along with its 7 dialects. Becuase all the languages were different to each other, you would need a translator to translate most of the conversation. And because Islaam had spread through out the enitre region, the Quraan was documented to different parts of the region but also within the different dialects and the different languages that were spoken. Note that the original Quran was in the Quraishi dialect because Uthman (RA) was the caliph Islaam was pretty much in good hands, he wanted the Quraan to be taught in the Quraishi dialect only, with one recitation and one dialect. If you were to recite the Quran in a different dialect rather than the original dialect which was the Quraishi, then you would end up with different words in spellings also in different meaning than the original.

When Uthman (RA) got hold of all the Quraans, he found that they were all in different dialects and in some cases were change to sound like the other dialect rather than the original, so therefore he uthman (ra) ordered for all those copies to be burnt as they did not have the same arabic that was revealed to the Prophet (saw), also because the words were different because of the dialect difference. He then got all the chapters together that were revealed to the Prophet (pbuh) that were already written during the time of the prophet (pbuh) in the city of Madinah and formed the one and true copy of the Noble Quran.

So how i mentioned early that the Quraan was already documented and memorised during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him and that Uthman (ra) did NOT determine the number of the ayaahs or surahs, the verses that were recited in the 5 daily prayers of the Muslim.

So in conclusion the Quraan wasnt Changed nor Burned but only the ones that had been spread due to the different dialect and languages during the time, as those parts had been burned and the original copy that remained was with Uthman (ra) had not, when he realised that people started to interpret the real meanings of the Quran because of their dialect and in some cases to sound like other dialects, those were the ones burned because they were NOT the original.

So since the day the Quraan was revealed and till today, the same Quranic dialect that was used at the time of the Prophet (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) was used and is STILL used today. That same dialect is taught today, if you go to any muslim family, you can gather all the recitations of the Quraan and you will see they are all the same!

What if anything does this demonstrate or prove - because something is memorised does not mean it is from God or true does it?

Actually it does prove one thing, that the Quran hasnt been changed, and never will, and did you completely ignore my example?

Throw your Bibles, and all the Quraans, and then please show me which word is guarded?, Because if you throw the bibles(and i mean every single book existing today), and then tomorrow if someone wants to know about christianity, you will have no proof, but if you throw the Quraan, there are people who have memorised God Allmighties word, and they can teach their faith.

How does the Qu'ran prove itself and why if God's word is so precious he did not guard the earlier scriptures as you allege - is God no powerful enough for that?

Actually if you read the Quraan you will realise that the Quraan speaks of those who write the book with their own hand and say its from God/ a revelation from God. Allaah says he will guard the message and not the books. What i mean by that is if you look back at the teachings of Abraham, Moses etc you will see how their teachings are similar to the teachings of Islaam, but not the one Man wrote with their own hands, the problem is today we dont know where are the real teachings of Abraham, Moses from the REAL scriptures, although you will find them in the Quraan!. That is the Islamic view, and not your view!


Peace

[M.I.A.]

At the time of the Prophet Muhammad (May the peace and blessings of God Allmighty be upon him) the Quran, the Quraan was documented and saved within the family and companions of the prophet (pbuh), it was protected and preserved from mans corruption! Uthman (ra) he did NOT decide about what number order the chapters or verses were to be in as i said the Quran was already documented and memorised by the Prophet Pbuh and his companions. Chapters and verses were recited by our Beloved Prophet Muhammad (saw) five times a day in the muslim daily prayers. The memorization of the entire Noble Quran is something sacred in Islam.Memorising the Quran helped the Noble Quran remain error-free from man's false documentation. Also realise that Allaah Allmighty your lord and my lord says in his Noble Book :

"We [Allah] have, without doubt, sent down the Message [The Noble Quran]; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption).
However, when the death of the Prophet (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) took place, Islaam had only still remained in the 2 cities which are known as Makkah and Madinah, and Islaam had increased amongst the people in the region, also keep in mind that not all people in the entire of region had the same dialect but also had different languages. At the time many languages were spoken ofcourse including arabic along with its 7 dialects. Becuase all the languages were different to each other, you would need a translator to translate most of the conversation. And because Islaam had spread through out the enitre region, the Quraan was documented to different parts of the region but also within the different dialects and the different languages that were spoken. Note that the original Quran was in the Quraishi dialect because Uthman (RA) was the caliph Islaam was pretty much in good hands, he wanted the Quraan to be taught in the Quraishi dialect only, with one recitation and one dialect. If you were to recite the Quran in a different dialect rather than the original dialect which was the Quraishi, then you would end up with different words in spellings also in different meaning than the original.

When Uthman (RA) got hold of all the Quraans, he found that they were all in different dialects and in some cases were change to sound like the other dialect rather than the original, so therefore he uthman (ra) ordered for all those copies to be burnt as they did not have the same arabic that was revealed to the Prophet (saw), also because the words were different because of the dialect difference. He then got all the chapters together that were revealed to the Prophet (pbuh) that were already written during the time of the prophet (pbuh) in the city of Madinah and formed the one and true copy of the Noble Quran.

So how i mentioned early that the Quraan was already documented and memorised during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him and that Uthman (ra) did NOT determine the number of the ayaahs or surahs, the verses that were recited in the 5 daily prayers of the Muslim.

So in conclusion the Quraan wasnt Changed nor Burned but only the ones that had been spread due to the different dialect and languages during the time, as those parts had been burned and the original copy that remained was with Uthman (ra) had not, when he realised that people started to interpret the real meanings of the Quran because of their dialect and in some cases to sound like other dialects, those were the ones burned because they were NOT the original.

So since the day the Quraan was revealed and till today, the same Quranic dialect that was used at the time of the Prophet (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) was used and is STILL used today. That same dialect is taught today, if you go to any muslim family, you can gather all the recitations of the Quraan and you will see they are all the same!




Actually it does prove one thing, that the Quran hasnt been changed, and never will, and did you completely ignore my example?

Throw your Bibles, and all the Quraans, and then please show me which word is guarded?, Because if you throw the bibles(and i mean every single book existing today), and then tomorrow if someone wants to know about christianity, you will have no proof, but if you throw the Quraan, there are people who have memorised God Allmighties word, and they can teach their faith.



Actually if you read the Quraan you will realise that the Quraan speaks of those who write the book with their own hand and say its from God/ a revelation from God. Allaah says he will guard the message and not the books. What i mean by that is if you look back at the teachings of Abraham, Moses etc you will see how their teachings are similar to the teachings of Islaam, but not the one Man wrote with their own hands, the problem is today we dont know where are the real teachings of Abraham, Moses from the REAL scriptures, although you will find them in the Quraan!. That is the Islamic view, and not your view!


Peace

would you draw any comparison to the different english translations we have today?

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Aslaamu`Alaaykum

I would say it would be similar to saying that the real version is the arabic Quran you read and the english is "translation", the english is only the translation along with the french, german etc, that is why when when we pray he we pray in Arabic and not in english, another reason to why we are supposed to learn arabic and you will see how reverts must learn arabic. we are mostly adviced to learn arabic.

As you can say it is similar in the english again

Let me compare

If you look at the translation of Yusuf Ali and Muhsin Khan in Surah al Mulk ayaah number 16 and 17 you will notice that in Yusuf Ali`s version, it is translated Allaah being in the heaven and Muhsin Khan`s translates to Allaah being over the heaven. So we must be careful which version we choose to follow, as i feel Muhsin Khaans version is much more reliable rather than Yusuf Ali`s, so therefore it would be recommended one learns arabic in this matter to gain the real knowledge. There are many more problems you may find with the translation with Yusuf Ali`s translation, i dont remember them at the moment. Also Muhsin Khans version involves more commentary.

Yusuf Ali translation

Do ye feel secure that He Who is in heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes (as in an earthquake)? Ayah 16

Or do ye feel secure that He Who is in Heaven will not send against you a violent tornado (with showers of stones), so that ye shall know how (terrible) was My warning? Ayah 17

Muhsin Khan translation

Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allah), will not cause the earth to sink with you, then behold it shakes (as in an earthquake)? Ayah 16

Or do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allah), will not send against you a violent whirlwind? Then you shall know how (terrible) has been My Warning? Ayah 17

So as i mentioned it is adviced to learn arabic

If i have said anything wrong or out of context, please forgive me and correct me InshaAllaah


And Allaah knows best


Wa alaaykum Salaam

[aadil77]

Yes Abraham is already in hell. Even Jesus went to hell when he died. Acts 2:27 KJV says (speaking of Jesus): "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell" and Acts 2:31 KJV says: "his soul was not left in hell". Jesus went to hell (as we all will) but he was not left there. The dead come out of hell in the resurrection. Revelation 20:13 KJV says: "death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them". Hell means "the grave" in all of these scriptures. We all go to our grave.

Was Abraham a believer? Yes he was, of course.

What was Abraham's calling? What do you want me to say? He was a prophet. He was called "Jehovah's friend". He had unshakeable faith. And he was the father of great nations thanks to a miracle of God, giving him a son in his old age.

God almighty, why deny the existance of hell? Won't do you any good in the next life

Your grave will never be hell no matter how much you want it to be

[M.I.A.]

Aslaamu`Alaaykum

I would say it would be similar to saying that the real version is the arabic Quran you read and the english is "translation", the english is only the translation along with the french, german etc, that is why when when we pray he we pray in Arabic and not in english, another reason to why we are supposed to learn arabic and you will see how reverts must learn arabic. we are mostly adviced to learn arabic.

As you can say it is similar in the english again

Let me compare

If you look at the translation of Yusuf Ali and Muhsin Khan in Surah al Mulk ayaah number 16 and 17 you will notice that in Yusuf Ali`s version, it is translated Allaah being in the heaven and Muhsin Khan`s translates to Allaah being over the heaven. So we must be careful which version we choose to follow, as i feel Muhsin Khaans version is much more reliable rather than Yusuf Ali`s, so therefore it would be recommended one learns arabic in this matter to gain the real knowledge. There are many more problems you may find with the translation with Yusuf Ali`s translation, i dont remember them at the moment. Also Muhsin Khans version involves more commentary.

Yusuf Ali translation

Do ye feel secure that He Who is in heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes (as in an earthquake)? Ayah 16

Or do ye feel secure that He Who is in Heaven will not send against you a violent tornado (with showers of stones), so that ye shall know how (terrible) was My warning? Ayah 17

Muhsin Khan translation

Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allah), will not cause the earth to sink with you, then behold it shakes (as in an earthquake)? Ayah 16

Or do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allah), will not send against you a violent whirlwind? Then you shall know how (terrible) has been My Warning? Ayah 17

So as i mentioned it is adviced to learn arabic

If i have said anything wrong or out of context, please forgive me and correct me InshaAllaah


And Allaah knows best


Wa alaaykum Salaam

as long as the rest of the ayahs are the same between translations the highlighted differences would not make much difference.
also i am only familiar with the yusaf ali translation.

i learned arabic for a few semesters at uni.. it was very hard and my teacher thought me hopeless... and i was lol.

[ChargerCarl]

God almighty, why deny the existance of hell? Won't do you any good in the next life

Your grave will never be hell no matter how much you want it to be

Don't you have to prove that hell exists before it can be denied?

[alcurad]

Yes of course he did it for a reason and the reason was that those Qu'rans differed from each other and that he wanted to make sure than ONLY his version was recited. Yes we all agree there is one God but have you read John 10:30

those copies were badly written, remember that the Arabs had an oral culture and thus were overwhelmingly illiterate, so much so that after the battle of Badr the ransom for some of the Quraish prisoners was paid by them teaching children to read and write instead of paying a relatively large amount of gold or coin etc.

the point again; those copies were mostly badly written, i.e. grammar was not followed, with commentary of the author sometimes mixed directly with the Koranic text itself, or some words would be replaced by others in cases where the dialect of the author was significantly different from that of the text etc, for this reason the copies were destroyed and the correct version/s which was already in place was used checked and verified many times then used as a template for all written Korans therefore. and this happened with the approval of the majority of the companions of the prophet,men-and even women-who had sacrificed life and treasure so that the verses could be recited freely would not be so quick to suppress them come what may.

[جوري]

Don't you have to prove that hell exists before it can be denied?

If you are stuck at the crossroads of whether God exists or not, then this is clearly the wrong thread for you.. once you have traversed that milestone, pls. join this topic, otherwise start a new thread or rummage through the billions that already exist on the topic!

all the best

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Don't you have to prove that hell exists before it can be denied?

You are a christian right? Do you believe in the Judgement day?

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

as long as the rest of the ayahs are the same between translations the highlighted differences would not make much difference.
also i am only familiar with the yusaf ali translation.

i learned arabic for a few semesters at uni.. it was very hard and my teacher thought me hopeless... and i was lol.

There are few other examples, i just cant seem to remember them

The difference it makes is that One version speaks of Allaah being above the heaven and one mentioned Allaah in the heaven.

But i hope someone can give you answer in more detail, i was trying to show how some words can be interpreted to mean something else, so learning Arabic is better and as it has the real meanings in arabic.

Sorry if i have said anything wrong

peace

[Grace Seeker]

All we want is direct proof from YOUR scripture where Jesus unambiguous say that he is god and ask people to worship him.

I don't for a moment believe that this is ALL you want. But as for the verse you seek, I keep telling you, it is right next to the verse where Jesus unambiguously says, "I am not God, do not worship me."

but now you say god never make claim that he is god.

Read what I wrote again. This is NOT what I said.

I refuted you when you gave me all those verses.

No. You did not. Maybe in your own mind, but I don't see anything that you have written that qualifies as a refutation, not in the slightest.

[Ramadhan]

I don't for a moment believe that this is ALL you want

Why can't you produce it then if that is clearly mentioned in your scriptures?

But as for the verse you seek, I keep telling you, it is right next to the verse where Jesus unambiguously says, "I am not God, do not worship me."

your logic is, well, how shall I put it, interesting?

You worship jesus as god because jesus never said he is god and he never said to worship him.
How interesting.

Read what I wrote again. This is NOT what I said.

You consider jesus as god, right?
and jesus never make claim that he is god, right?
Hence, god never make claim that he is god.

No. You did not. Maybe in your own mind, but I don't see anything that you have written that qualifies as a refutation, not in the slightest.

maybe in your confusion trying to find biblical verses that tells at best jesus insinuating people to worship him, you missed this one:

The bible in the greek version (from which the english version translated) did NOT use the word "worship" in the meaning that we understand in english:


With regard to John 9:38 "Lord. I believe, and he worshipped him." and Matthew 28:17 "they saw him, they worshipped him." The word translated as "worshipped" in both verses is the GREEK word "prosekunesan" which is derived from the root word proskuneo {pros-ku-neh'-o}.

The literal meaning of this word is : "to kiss, like a dog licking his masters hand." This word also has the general meaning of "bow, crouch, crawl, kneel or prostrate." Please check the Strong's concordance for the true meaning of this word. Is the act of kissing someone's hand the same as worshipping him? Once again, selective translation.

However, the above two verses of John and Matthew are not the only two verses of the Bible were such selective translation techniques are employed in order to impress upon the reader a chosen doctrine. For example, in the "Gospel of Matthew" the English "translation" records that Jesus was "worshipped" by Magi that came from the East (2:11); by a ruler (9:18) , by boat people (14:33), by a Canaanite woman (15:24), by the mother of the Zebedees (20:20); and by Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:9) to name but a very few.

Since worshipping any one other than God is a fundamental sin, therefore, the reader understands that Jesus was God since he condoned them "worshipping" him. Since Jesus (pbuh) never once in the whole Bible ever told anyone "worship me!" (as God Himself does in many places), therefore, once again, we are told that Jesus was "hinting" that he wants us to worship him. However, as we can plainly see, what the author was in fact saying in these verses is that these people "fell at Jesus' feet," or that these people "knelt before Jesus."

How then shall we interpret their "kneeling down before Jesus."? Should we understand that they were "praying" to him? Far from it!.

When Abigail "fell before" king David was she "worshipping" him? Was she "praying" to him? When she addressed him as "my lord," did she mean that he was her God?

A detailed analysis of selective translating by the church, go to [divinity of Jesus]

Finally, in order to seal the proof of this matter and to dispel any lingering doubt that may remain in the reader's mind, the reader is encouraged to obtain a copy of the "New English Bible." In it they will find the translations of the quoted verses to read:

"bowed to the ground" (2:11);

"fell at his feet" (14:33);

"falling prostrate before him" (28:9), and

"fell prostrate before him" (28:17)...etc.

Please also read the translation of these verses in "The Complete Bible, an American Translation" By Edward Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith where they are once again honestly translated as:

"they threw themselves down and did homage to him" (2:11),

"fell down before him"(14:33),

"and they went up to him and clasped his feed and bowed to the ground before him" (28:9), and

"bowed down before him"(28:17), etc.

Once again, we remember that such sublime manipulation of the translation in order to establish with the reader a chosen doctrine was exposed by God in the noble Qur'an. The Qur'an says:

"There is among them a party who distort the Scripture with their tongues that you might think that it is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture; and they say, 'It is from God,' but it is not from God; and they speak a lie against God, and [well] they know it!"

- Qur'an, 3:78

[Grace Seeker]

Throw your Bibles, and all the Quraans, and then please show me which word is guarded?, Because if you throw the bibles(and i mean every single book existing today), and then tomorrow if someone wants to know about christianity, you will have no proof, but if you throw the Quraan, there are people who have memorised God Allmighties word, and they can teach their faith.
Peace

I don't know why you would say this. It seems to me that the message of the Bible has been guarded. Somehow the Jews and their scriptures survived exile to foreign lands. The Christians and their scriptures survived persecutions. And though the Bible is many times the size of the Qur'an there are Christians who have memorized it in its entirely.

One story as an illustration. I have a friend, and airforce piolot, who was shot down over Vietnam and captured. He was taken to what was euphemistically called the Hanoi Hilton were he was kept as a prisoner of war. He was kept there with a handful of others were there as well. They were kept in isolation from each other, but they devised a code by which they could tap out messages to one another. They had no written sciptures with them at the time of their capture, some of them hadn't even been religious before, but first one and then another on them, would recall and tap out a bit of scripture that they had memorized and remembered. My friend tells me that by the time he was released, 7 years later, they had produced a copy of the entire New Testament and half the Old Testament. And this was the work of just a handful of men, none of whom had made the memorization of the Bible the priority that some Christians have made it today.

I don't say this to diminish the value of memorizing the Qur'an. This is a notable achievement for the Muslim. But it is not something that is unique to Muslims and doesn't prove Islam to be somehow superior to Christianity.

[Grace Seeker]

With regard to the verb proskyneo I submit that you have errored in going back the meaning of the word in classical Greek usage when what we are reading is a book written in Koine Greek.

In the NT the verb occurs 59 times, of which 24 are in Revelation, 11 in the Gospels of John and 9 in Matthew. The OT sense is taken up and further developed, except that now it denotes exclusively worship addressed to God or to Jesus. In Acts 10:25f; Revelation 19:10; 22:8f it is expressly stated that proskyneo is to be offered to God alone, not to an apostle, or even to an angelic being.

(source: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, 1976, p. 877)

As for the specific verses you cite, lets read them with a literal translation of the text leaving only proskyneo untranslated and see if you end up with it reading as you have argued it should read.

Matthew 2:11 And coming into the house they saw the child with Mary the mother of him, and falling [they] proskyneoed him and opening the treasures of them they offered to him gift, gold and frankincense and myrrrh.

Matthew 14:33 And the [ones] in the ship proskyneoed him saying: Truly of God Son thou art.

Matthew 28:9 And suddenly Jesus met them saying: "Greetings!" And they approaching held of him the feet and proskyneoed him.

Matthew 28:17 And seeing him [they] proskyneoed, but some doubted.


As for your suggestion that the word should be understood to be "kiss", you must explain why then that proskeyneo is never actually used by Matthew when speaking of a kiss elsewhere in his gospel (see Matthew 26:48), rather phileo and its cognates are used.

You assert that the proper understanding is that proskeyneo should be interpreted as "fell at Jesus' feet" or "knelt before Jesus." This causes you a double problem. First, that when Matthew actually does speak of one person falling at another's feet, he doesn't use the term proskeyneo, but peson (see Matthew 18:26 & 29).

Secondly, you assert that because it might be possible to render proskeyneo as "kneeling before" Jesus that to translate it as "worship" shows a translator's bias. But the type of kneeling implied by the term prosekyneo implies the type of kneeling which carries with it obeisance shown only to a king or to God. So, are you suggesting that these folks who knelt before Jesus were recognizing him as a king? This fits Matthew who writes to portray Christ as the divine king, because for Matthew the king is a symbolic figure for God. When Matthew wishes to describe kneeling that is just the bending of the knee he uses a different term (gonupeteo), but when the person is expressing obeisance of a special nature, then, and only then, he uses prosekyneo. Now, some would suggest that such obeisance is not to be equated with worship, but that would mean we must translate Revelation 22:8-9 thusly: "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to obeisance prosekyneo at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, 'Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Obeisance prosekyneo God!' " So, no matter what interpretation of prosekyneo you argue for, prosekyneo be it "worship", "obeisance", or "kneeling before" is only to be offered to God and yet it is offered to and accepted by Jesus. Seems like Jesus is accepting being treated as God.

Why can't you produce it then if that is clearly mentioned in your scriptures?

The above should be clear. But you have to have it worded exactly your way. That's about as valid as me asking for a tape recording of Jibreel's giving of the Qur'an to Muhammad.

your logic is, well, how shall I put it, interesting?

Well, let's examine your logice skills for a moment.

Do I have a dog? Do I have a cat? I have never mentioned either on here. Can you by logic prove anything with regard to the existence of either a dog or a cat in my house, or lack thereof, based on what I have not said? That is the extent of your "logic". That you think you have proved that Jesus was not God because he didn't say he was in exactly so many words is where the lack of logic lays.

But I did use other passages to show that Jesus behaves in such a way as to be tantamount to the same as making the very statement you are looking for.

You worship jesus as god because jesus never said he is god and he never said to worship him.
How interesting.

Again, that is not what I said.

You consider jesus as god, right?
and jesus never make claim that he is god, right?
Hence, god never make claim that he is god.

See, this is where your syllogism breaks down. God did in fact say that Jesus was God. I gave you the verse, did you look it up? Hebrew 1:8. God is speaking and "about the Son he [God] says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.' " In other words, God does make the claim that the Son [i.e. Jesus] is God.

Since you don't accept the Bible as true, you don't have to accept it as true. But you do have to accept that the Bible declares it to be true.
Case closed.

[titus]

Throw your Bibles, and all the Quraans, and then please show me which word is guarded?, Because if you throw the bibles(and i mean every single book existing today), and then tomorrow if someone wants to know about christianity, you will have no proof, but if you throw the Quraan, there are people who have memorised God Allmighties word, and they can teach their faith.

Take into consideration that the Quran has roughly 80,000 words while the Bible (King James Version anyway) has over 783,000 words. To memorize the Bible would be akin to memorizing 10 Qurans. I don't see how being able to memorize a holy book makes it any holier, especially when you attempt to show such superiority over a book that is of such a considerably longer length.

And since I don't see God allowing all of his texts to suddenly disappear the hypothetical doesn't really work.

[aadil77]

Don't you have to prove that hell exists before it can be denied?

not a thread for atheists, come back when you're either a jew or a christian

[جوري]

Take into consideration that the Quran has roughly 80,000 words while the Bible (King James Version anyway) has over 783,000 words. To memorize the Bible would be akin to memorizing 10 Qurans. I don't see how being able to memorize a holy book makes it any holier, especially when you attempt to show such superiority over a book that is of such a considerably longer length.

And since I don't see God allowing all of his texts to suddenly disappear the hypothetical doesn't really work.

the NT has 260 chapters, 7958 verses

http://www.deafmissions.com/tally/bkchptrvrs.html

the Quran has 114 chapters and 6236 verses
http://www.islam101.com/dawah/QuranStats.htm

so I have no idea where you are getting your stats from, however, two words in Arabic can translate to up to seven in English if we are looking purely for word count.. have a look at suret an'nazi3at for quick reference..

I don't think any Muslim would compare the Quran with the bible, simply the Quran is the unadulterated word of God, free of errors. Whereas the bible is the compilation of men with many additives and preservatives along the way.. if anything in Islam can be made akin to the bible it would be the compendium of ahadiths, and those are volumes upon volumes and still have a proper chain of Isnad that can be traced back, nothing of the sort exists in the bible..

I'd do a little research before parting with stats..

all the best

[titus]

Are you aware that the New Testament is only part of the Bible? A small part, in fact. So while your facts are indeed correct, they are only partially true.

The New Testament is indeed 260 chapters and 7958 verses. The Old Testament has 929 chapters and 23,145 verses. That means the Bible has a total of 1,189 chapters compared to the Quran's 114, and 31,102 verses in the Bible compared to the 6236 of the Quran.

so I have no idea where you are getting your stats from, however, two words in Arabic can translate to up to seven in English if we are looking purely for word count.. have a look at suret an'nazi3at for quick reference..

I'd do a little research before parting with stats..

I will be nice and assume you were just unaware that the Bible is made up of two testaments.

[جوري]

Are you aware that the New Testament is only part of the Bible? A small part, in fact. So while your facts are indeed correct, they are only partially true.

The New Testament is indeed 260 chapters and 7958 verses. The Old Testament has 929 chapters and 23,145 verses. That means the Bible has a total of 1,189 chapters compared to the Quran's 114, and 31,102 verses in the Bible compared to the 6236 of the Quran.


I will be nice and assume you were just unaware that the Bible is made up of two testaments.

are you aware that the Jews don't consider the NT a part of the bible, are you further aware that since the god of the OT all but his changed his mind with his NT over his ruthless ways came to abrogate his old commandments from the OT through saul? if Christians followed the OT, they'd be called Jews, don't you think? Can't use it for padding if you are not going to live by its words..but then you knew that didn't you?


Also see previous comment on comparing the Quran to the Bible.. if we are going to compare the word of men, then surely the massive compendiums of ahadiths would dwarf the entirety of the OT/NT much as canis major would overtake our sun!
all the best

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Take into consideration that the Quran has roughly 80,000 words while the Bible (King James Version anyway) has over 783,000 words. To memorize the Bible would be akin to memorizing 10 Qurans. I don't see how being able to memorize a holy book makes it any holier, especially when you attempt to show such superiority over a book that is of such a considerably longer length.

And since I don't see God allowing all of his texts to suddenly disappear the hypothetical doesn't really work.

Also take into consideration i was trying to point out what word is actually guarded and not the amount.

How much of the bible was actually the words of Jesus (pbuh? How much of the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) are followed today?
And i said "Memorised" along with the word "Preserved".

Also i wasnt trying to show any superiority over one book over the other, i mentioned how its guarded.

Also i find it but be hard to have memorised all books, as far as i am aware there are atleast upto 66 or more biblical books.
However, if i am wrong please correct me.

Peace

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

I don't know why you would say this. It seems to me that the message of the Bible has been guarded. Somehow the Jews and their scriptures survived exile to foreign lands. The Christians and their scriptures survived persecutions. And though the Bible is many times the size of the Qur'an there are Christians who have memorized it in its entirely.

One story as an illustration. I have a friend, and airforce piolot, who was shot down over Vietnam and captured. He was taken to what was euphemistically called the Hanoi Hilton were he was kept as a prisoner of war. He was kept there with a handful of others were there as well. They were kept in isolation from each other, but they devised a code by which they could tap out messages to one another. They had no written sciptures with them at the time of their capture, some of them hadn't even been religious before, but first one and then another on them, would recall and tap out a bit of scripture that they had memorized and remembered. My friend tells me that by the time he was released, 7 years later, they had produced a copy of the entire New Testament and half the Old Testament. And this was the work of just a handful of men, none of whom had made the memorization of the Bible the priority that some Christians have made it today.

I don't say this to diminish the value of memorizing the Qur'an. This is a notable achievement for the Muslim. But it is not something that is unique to Muslims and doesn't prove Islam to be somehow superior to Christianity.

I wasnt really referring to how "big" the amount of the books are, i was reffering to which book is guarded.


Yes but this friend of yours didnt live in the time of Jesus (pbuh) did he? I dont understand your point, but forgive me

Are you trying to say that your friend and some people whom were captured recreated the old and new testament?
Also you said i quote you "They had no written sciptures with them at the time of their capture", where did the scripture eventually come from?
I sincerely apologise i dont understand what your trying to say or if i have misinterpreted what you said.

Actually as a muslim i find the Quraan to be unique as would many muslims. Also i mention once again, i wasnt trying to prove the superiority over one religion over the other.


Peace

[titus]

are you aware that the Jews don't consider the NT a part of the bible, are you further aware that since the god of the OT all but his changed his mind with his NT over his ruthless ways came to abrogate his old commandments from the OT through saul? if Christians followed the OT, they'd be called Jews, don't you think? Can't use it for padding if you are not going to live by its words..but then you knew that didn't you?

Christians consider the OT to be a part of the Bible. To try and claim otherwise is to be purposely obtuse.

Also take into consideration i was trying to point out what word is actually guarded and not the amount.

True, I read too much into your post and I apologize.

That being said, I refer to my previous post in which I find the argument without merit since I don't believe God would allow all copies of his holy book to be destroyed, even were it possible.

[Grace Seeker]

i was reffering to which book is guarded.

And I'm questioning how you determine that one book is guarded and another is not.

Yes but this friend of yours didnt live in the time of Jesus (pbuh) did he? I dont understand your point, but forgive me

I don't understand how when a person lived is relevant. You claimed that the Qur'an is guarded and cannot be lost because it has been memorized. But the same thing can be said of the Bible.

You also claim that should every copy of our respective scriptures be lossed that the Islamic faith would be preserved because people today have the Qur'an memorized. But then assert that the Christian faith would be lost. I don't see how one follows from the other?

Are you trying to say that your friend and some people whom were captured recreated the old and new testament?
Also you said i quote you "They had no written sciptures with them at the time of their capture", where did the scripture eventually come from?

From memory. The same technique which you lifted up as being relevant in somehow "proving" the integrity of the Qur'an and preserving Islam. As best I understood you, it seemed you were saying that simply the fact that many Muslims have memorized the Qur'an is sufficient proof that it is the word of Allah. I am having a hard time following that line of reasoning and gave examples that seem to be similar with respect to the Bible which you don't accept as being the word of God to show why I have a hard time accepting what you have thus far suggested as being any form of proof of anything.

Perhaps there is more to your point that I don't yet understand?

Also i mention once again, i wasnt trying to prove the superiority over one religion over the other.

And perhaps this is where my misunderstanding lays. I thought you were trying to show the superiority of the Qur'an vis-a-vis the Bible by virtue of Muslims having memorized the Qur'an. If you were just asserting how it is loved by Muslims, I can certainly recognize that. The Bible is similarly loved by many Christians, some of whom have memorized not just portions of it, but the entire thing.

[جوري]

Christians consider the OT to be a part of the Bible. To try and claim otherwise is to be purposely obtuse.

Really? They keep the Sabbath? They don't eat pigs? they keep with circumcision? etc etc.?

True, I read too much into your post and I apologize.

That being said, I refer to my previous post in which I find the argument without merit since I don't believe God would allow all copies of his holy book to be destroyed, even were it possible.

I have no idea what that means or of its relevance?

all the best!

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

True, I read too much into your post and I apologize.

That being said, I refer to my previous post in which I find the argument without merit since I don't believe God would allow all copies of his holy book to be destroyed, even were it possible.

No worries, and that being said also neither do i believe God would let his word be destroyed as a muslim : D

[aadil77]

Christians consider the OT to be a part of the Bible. To try and claim otherwise is to be purposely obtuse.

But many disregard it as a book to take guidence from, they only refer to the NT

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

And I'm questioning how you determine that one book is guarded and another is not..

Well i dont know if you read my previous posts :-\ , the Quraan has come along with many proofs.

I don't understand how when a person lived is relevant. You claimed that the Qur'an is guarded and cannot be lost because it has been memorized. But the same thing can be said of the Bible. .

Maybe you should study more of the teachings of Quran or the miracles. Are you saying the Bible is memorised? are you able to recite every word of the Original language?

You also claim that should every copy of our respective scriptures be lossed that the Islamic faith would be preserved because people today have the Qur'an memorized. But then assert that the Christian faith would be lost. I don't see how one follows from the other?.

lol @ "I claim", sorry :-\

Well ofcourse one faith would not follow the other, we will never follow from each other, as "many" christians believe Jesus (pbuh) to be a God, and muslims do not!

From memory. The same technique which you lifted up as being relevant in somehow "proving" the integrity of the Qur'an and preserving Islam. As best I understood you, it seemed you were saying that simply the fact that many Muslims have memorized the Qur'an is sufficient proof that it is the word of Allah. I am having a hard time following that line of reasoning and gave examples that seem to be similar with respect to the Bible which you don't accept as being the word of God to show why I have a hard time accepting what you have thus far suggested as being any form of proof of anything. .

I dont think i understood you,and neither did you understand me, i was trying to make a point, the point was that God as we know in Islaam is the protecter, he is the GREATEST! And he knows All, if you were to throw all the biblical books (no matter how many there are) and the same with the Quraan in the ocean, which book was guarded? The Quran or the Bible? You didnt answer me, but you brought up your own theory which isnt logical and had nothing to do with the point i was trying to make.

Perhaps there is more to your point that I don't yet understand?.

Yes, maybe, i apologise if i didnt make it clear enough

And perhaps this is where my misunderstanding lays. I thought you were trying to show the superiority of the Qur'an vis-a-vis the Bible by virtue of Muslims having memorized the Qur'an. If you were just asserting how it is loved by Muslims, I can certainly recognize that. The Bible is similarly loved by many Christians, some of whom have memorized not just portions of it, but the entire thing.

Also Memorisation does keep one reading his book and then teaching it to the next generation. It keeps the word "unforgotten" lol sorry for my geeky use of words :-\

Peace

[titus]

But many disregard it as a book to take guidence from, they only refer to the NT

Every church that I have visited used the OT extensively. Whether it be to teach the stories of creation, Noah, Moses, Abraham, David, etc or to get inspiration from Psalms. The OT is very much an important and essential part of Christian belief.

[Grace Seeker]

if you were to throw all the biblical books (no matter how many there are) and the same with the Quraan in the ocean, which book was guarded? The Quran or the Bible? You didnt answer me, but you brought up your own theory which isnt logical and had nothing to do with the point i was trying to make.

Well, I guess that I still don't understand the point you are trying to make then. How does throwing all Bibles and Qur'ans into the ocean help us to evaluate which one is (or, for that matter, isn't) guarded?

[Grace Seeker]

But many disregard it as a book to take guidence from, they only refer to the NT

Any who disregard the OT as a book from which to take guidance aren't listening to the Church's teaching regarding the OT.

[جوري]

Any who disregard the OT as a book from which to take guidance aren't listening to the Church's teaching regarding the OT.

Then why aren't you living like Jews and following Jewish laws?

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Well, I guess that I still don't understand the point you are trying to make then. How does throwing all Bibles and Qur'ans into the ocean help us to evaluate which one is (or, for that matter, isn't) guarded?

Does "not" exist ring a bell?

When they are thrown or burnt they dont "exist" unless you have them memorised!

It helps a lot, the word will still be re written and passed onto the next generation whereas if theres nothing memorise then that message will not be passed on. So if its not memorised, how would you expect the message to go on.

Do you understand now? :-\

If you still do not understand, feel free to ignore :-\

[YusufNoor]

Asked and answered. This point is meaningless.
First, no true prophet would ever have to testify regarding himself that he was a prophet: Jesus said, "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid" (John531). So, if you think that Jesus sounds like a prophet, understand that the words of Jesus basically mean that Muhammad could not be a prophet for he testified with regard to himself.

Second, there are many who testified with regard to Jesus. Among them John the Baptist, Thomas, Peter, Paul, and even God himself.

Third, when people treated any of the disciples like God, they all refused such treatment. When people treated Jesus this way, he accepted it. If he was just a prophet, he was a poor one for accepting such acts.

Fourth, whether Jesus ever used the words "I am God" or not we will never actually know. He may have, for not all of his words are recorded in the scriptures. But even if he didn't (and I expect that if he had they would have been recorded), his actions and the things he did say were understand by those around him to be equivalent to him to have made divine claims for himself. He claimed to forgive sins. He referred to himself as being one with the Father. He declared, "before Abraham was, I am." These things led others to accuse him of blasphemy for equating himself with God. When asked to recant such accusations, he did not, but accepted them.

Fifth, Jesus pointedly asked people to receive from him what only God has the ability to offer -- life.


Sixth, Jesus claims to possess a position alongside God in a way that no Muslim would ever be able to either acknowledge of any human, and that no one who was a true prophet and only a prophet would ever claim:

Seventh, Jesus never says that he is NOT God. And though Jesus may not have said "I am God" in so many words, others did say that of him (see Thomas' confession in John 20:28), and Jesus praised them for it.

Also, the scriptures record God saying that Jesus is God, see Hebrews 1:8.


You can argue all you want from an Islamic perspective that Jesus is not God, that God has no partners. But you have to stay with the Islamic scriptures to maintain that point. The Christian scriptures say otherwise. And if you try to twist them into saying that Jesus was only a prophet of Islam, then he is the most intersting prophet of Islam claiming that God was a Father, that God has a Son, and that somehow not only was he a partner of God, but that he invited his disciples (who are clearly human) to become partners of God as well and to one day not just join him in paradise, but to even share in God's glory.

First, no true prophet would ever have to testify regarding himself that he was a prophet: Jesus said, "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid" (John531). So, if you think that Jesus sounds like a prophet, understand that the words of Jesus basically mean that Muhammad could not be a prophet for he testified with regard to himself.

would EVER...

22Then came the Feast of Dedication[b] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ,[c] tell us plainly."

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one.

so, in your "professional" opinion, when the author of John wrote that Jesus DID, in fact testify about himself, "i did tell you [that i am the Christ]",who is lying, the author of John or Jesus?

furthermore, when Jesus says, according to the author of John, "I and the Father are one" then according to you, his testimony is not valid? who is wrong, the author of John, Jesus, or you?

and in John 8:51, a verse that YOU use to claim divinity for Jesus, he says, according to the author of John, "58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."

here, where, according to Preachers like you, Jesus is testifying that he IS god, we must "in your professional opinion," dismiss either him or the author of John as there is NO WAY according to you and the same author of John that Jesus would EVER testify about himself!

dang, you have a very confusing religion!

chow baby

[جوري]

. so, in your "professional" opinion, when the author of John wrote that Jesus DID, in fact testify about himself, "i did tell you [that i am the Christ]",who is lying, the author of John or Jesus?

It would be so nice if our dear forum falwell/err grace and perhaps his chia pet Hugo would answer directly, I am tired of the nitwitted mazes they take us through when at a loss for something sensible or sensical to write!

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

would EVER...



so, in your "professional" opinion, when the author of John wrote that Jesus DID, in fact testify about himself, "i did tell you [that i am the Christ]",who is lying, the author of John or Jesus?

Good catch. It appears that I was probably too hasty in my interpretation and application of John 5:31. I regret the error.

[titus]

Then why aren't you living like Jews and following Jewish laws?

Even as someone who is not a Christian I know the answer to that question. It is an involved answer so I would recommend researching it for yourself. It is too complicated to answer in a short message board post.

But then I don't believe your reason for asking the question was for the correct answer anyway, and you wouldn't accept it if it was offered to you.

[جوري]

Even as someone who is not a Christian I know the answer to that question. It is an involved answer so I would recommend researching it for yourself. It is too complicated to answer in a short message board post. But then I don't believe your reason for asking the question was for the correct answer anyway, and you wouldn't accept it if it was offered to you.

is there more than one correct answer to the question? or a set of 'intentions' these books supposedly aren't sent down in idle play, if they are the 'word of god' or 'inspired' by god, and we are speaking of the same god, then that same god shouldn't have a complete change of heart, one day I am ruthless and the next I am self-immolating.. if you truly want to consider a 'lump sum' then be prepared to take it in totality and not discard when suits you and add it when suits you!

all the best

[aadil77]

Every church that I have visited used the OT extensively. Whether it be to teach the stories of creation, Noah, Moses, Abraham, David, etc or to get inspiration from Psalms. The OT is very much an important and essential part of Christian belief.

some christians dismiss those stories as 'fairy tales', they dismiss the laws of the OT as 'barbaric'

most will disregard the laws of the OT as only applicable to 'jews'

[Grace Seeker]

is there more than one correct answer to the question? or a set of 'intentions' these books supposedly aren't sent down in idle play, if they are the 'word of god' or 'inspired' by god, and we are speaking of the same god, then that same god shouldn't have a complete change of heart, one day I am ruthless and the next I am self-immolating.. if you truly want to consider a 'lump sum' then be prepared to take it in totality and not discard when suits you and add it when suits you!

all the best

Actually I think that in one sense we do see a change in the way God chose to relate to the world. I'm sure that there are even some Christians who will be appalled by that, but there is more than one case in scriptures of God relenting of his plans and changing them to fit changing circumstances.

Originally God desired to live in fellowship and communion with mankind. But things changed. Adam and Eve sinner and their sin prevented them from having the relationship with God that he desired to have with them. So, given a changed situation regarding humanity, God also changed the manner in which he connected with humanity. He chose and focused on Abraham and his progeny.

The children of Israel (Israel being the grandson of Abraham) were called to be a light to the nations, and he made covenant with them that he would be their God and they would be his people. That covenant never applied to all people, but only to the Jews. In time God would lift up from this nation that was to be a light to all nations, a single light who would be the light for the entire world, not just one small part of it. That light is Jesus.

God would not ask all others to become identified as Jews in order to receive this light. And so he made a covenant, one that is not through the nation Israel or through the regulations written for Jews, but one that is for all who might be reconciled in their relationship with God through Jesus. Those who experience this reconciliation are made fully heirs of God's spiritual promise without having to be biological heirs of Abraham.

So the old covenant is neither made null and void nor abrogated, rather it is found to no longer be exclusive. There is a new covenant, and in that new way of relating to God through Christ knowledge of God's long history of interacting with the people of the old covenant continues to serve to provide guidance, but it is not binding upon those who were never a part of that covenant to begin with and who connect with God through a completely different covenant of their own.

[جوري]

Actually I think that in one sense we do see a change in the way God chose to relate to the world. I'm sure that there are even some Christians who will be appalled by that, but there is more than one case in scriptures of God relenting of his plans and changing them to fit changing circumstances.

Originally God desired to live in fellowship and communion with mankind. But things changed. Adam and Eve sinner and their sin prevented them from having the relationship with God that he desired to have with them. So, given a changed situation regarding humanity, God also changed the manner in which he connected with humanity. He chose and focused on Abraham and his progeny.

The children of Israel (Israel being the grandson of Abraham) were called to be a light to the nations, and he made covenant with them that he would be their God and they would be his people. That covenant never applied to all people, but only to the Jews. In time God would lift up from this nation that was to be a light to all nations, a single light who would be the light for the entire world, not just one small part of it. That light is Jesus.

God would not ask all others to become identified as Jews in order to receive this light. And so he made a covenant, one that is not through the nation Israel or through the regulations written for Jews, but one that is for all who might be reconciled in their relationship with God through Jesus. Those who experience this reconciliation are made fully heirs of God's spiritual promise without having to be biological heirs of Abraham.

So the old covenant is neither made null and void nor abrogated, rather it is found to no longer be exclusive. There is a new covenant, and in that new way of relating to God through Christ knowledge of God's long history of interacting with the people of the old covenant continues to serve to provide guidance, but it is not binding upon those who were never a part of that covenant to begin with and who connect with God through a completely different covenant of their own.

again, considering your god was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel as per your bible Matthew 15:24
http://bible.cc/matthew/15-24.htm
I am at a loss as to why any other addendum would be construed as anything but a contradiction to these alleged words of that same god.. and if that is the case, then there is no new or old covenant, there is only one, now discarded in favor of laws that are pretty similar to those practiced by the pagans.. That is just what is visible to the naked eye.. Again, if you are not practicing the 'old covenant' and it is exclusive to that nation, then you can't really call them one in the same, they are mutually exclusive. And mutually exclusive don't belong in the same set for padding.. I don't for instance use ibn sina's books on anatomy when we have netter's and call them one big book simply because the word anatomy is shared. They are mutually exclusive books that target different audience!

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

again, considering your god was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel as per your bible Matthew 15:24
http://bible.cc/matthew/15-24.htm

You've accepted a fallacious understanding of the application of that passage.

I am at a loss as to why any other addendum would be construed as anything but a contradiction to these alleged words of that same god.. and if that is the case, then there is no new or old covenant, there is only one, now discarded in favor of laws that are pretty similar to those practiced by the pagans.. That is just what is visible to the naked eye.. Again, if you are not practicing the 'old covenant' and it is exclusive to that nation, then you can't really call them one in the same, they are mutually exclusive. And mutually exclusive don't belong in the same set for padding.. I don't for instance use ibn sina's books on anatomy when we have netter's and call them one big book simply because the word anatomy is shared. They are mutually exclusive books that target different audience!

all the best

Irrelevant.

aadil had made the statement that Christians disregard the OT as a book to take guidance from, and asserted that they only refer to the NT. No one is denying that some behave that way. But I (and even titus who does not identify himself as a Christian) noted that such behavior is contrary to the general teaching and practices of the church. That you consider such a practice an internal contradiction vis-a-vis the practices and theology of the church, or even if the OT and the NT can somehow be shown to be completely and totally mutually exclusive, it doesn't change the reality that Christians don't disregard the OT and do take (at least some) guidance from it. Indeed, the character of Christianity (in both the first century and the 21st century) would be radically changed without the many significant influences exercised by the OT upon one's understanding and the practice of our common Christian faith.

[جوري]

You've accepted a fallacious understanding of the application of that passage.

That is what your scriptures offer, and it is unfortunate to cherry pick which parts are fallacious, which are literal, and which are essential, given that at the end of the day, the most fallacious farce of all is the very fulcrum of your beliefs.. a triple headed mangod who died!

Irrelevant.

aadil had made the statement that Christians disregard the OT as a book to take guidance from, and asserted that they only refer to the NT. No one is denying that some behave that way. But I (and even titus who does not identify himself as a Christian) noted that such behavior is contrary to the general teaching and practices of the church. That you consider such a practice an internal contradiction vis-a-vis the practices and theology of the church, or even if the OT and the NT can somehow be shown to be completely and totally mutually exclusive, it doesn't change the reality that Christians don't disregard the OT and do take (at least some) guidance from it. Indeed, the character of Christianity (in both the first century and the 21st century) would be radically changed without the many significant influences exercised by the OT upon one's understanding and the practice of our common Christian faith.

Br. Yusuf I believe offered you quite an extensive piece on OT beliefs and laws, none which you are in keeping with, your understanding of the God of the OT isn't the same as those who in fact follow it, nor is your understanding or religious practices anything at all to do with the OT..Sadly you are only deluding yourself and for all the wrong reasons..

all the best

[FS123]

I recommend Dr Lang's book even angels ask. He goes in detail over comparison of same things mentioned in Bible and Quran. On the surface, they look same but on close inspection there are subtle differences, but those are important -- and as one goes through them it becomes more apparent they are copied or they have same original source "God."

[titus]

That is what your scriptures offer, and it is unfortunate to cherry pick which parts are fallacious, which are literal, and which are essential

It's not any more unfortunate or ridiculous, to someone who is not Christian or Muslim, than cherry picking which Hadith are real and having to become a scholar to understand them (and then having those scholars disagree). Many religions have such ambiguities and differences in interpretation, including Christianity and Islam.

After all, if Islam was so clear then there would be sects, and if Christianity were so clear then there would be no denominations.

[جوري]

It's not any more unfortunate or ridiculous, to someone who is not Christian or Muslim, than cherry picking which Hadith are real and having to become a scholar to understand them (and then having those scholars disagree). Many religions have such ambiguities and differences in interpretation, including Christianity and Islam.

After all, if Islam was so clear then there would be sects, and if Christianity were so clear then there would be no denominations.

85~90% of muslims are sunnis (traditional) Islam is very clear, there are no ambiguities, except for those who desire for whatever reason to be shiites (factions) it is their problem and not a problem with the religion of Islam given that we all have the same Quran and the scholars have had the painstaking task to preserve the tradition!

Now, I am a little confused, do you follow any religion to be so emotionally invested in what is written or just hate to be wrong about the OT/NT fiasco? after all if they were one in the same, the it wouldn't be called OT/NT it would simply be called under one title the Pentateuch or whatever, and uniformly followed. God would be a monotheistic god, and would have no need to descend into the middle east to self-immolate and then figure he had a lapse of judgment so voila he'll fix it by appearing to paul, not a chosen apostle no, but a self-proclaimed one and then abrogate his commandments.. That doesn't sound to the rest of the world as the same god, nor do they follow the same traditions, nor do they keep the same laws.. basically what it is, is a book to tally up the count of pages so that you don't come across as well wrong!

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

That is what your scriptures offer, and it is unfortunate to cherry pick which parts are fallacious, which are literal, and which are essential, given that at the end of the day, the most fallacious farce of all is the very fulcrum of your beliefs.. a triple headed mangod who died!

I didn't say that the text was fallacious. I said your particular interpretation and application of the text was.


You've many times argued that Christians shouldn't try to interpret Islamic texts because we don't understand them well enough to arrive at the proper understanding of what they mean. Perhaps you might consider applying that same logic that you claim Islam is so famous for in reverse.

[GreyKode]

After all, if Islam was so clear then there would be sects, and if Christianity were so clear then there would be no denominations.

This statement truly shows your ignorance, christians differ on whether jesus(pbuh) is god / son of god / eternal/ not eternal / was-is God etc, which seem to be fundamental differences.

Do you even know what sunni and shia muslims differ about?

Anywaaaaay,

Since you claim to be knowledgeable in both the Qur'an and the bible, why don't you directly address the issue of jesus(pbuh)'s prophethood and explain to us the discrepancy?
What does the verse under discussion mean to you? Does it say he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel or not?

And I agree with sister gossamer, why don't you identify your religion to all of us?

[جوري]

I didn't say that the text was fallacious. I said your particular interpretation and application of the text was.


You've many times argued that Christians shouldn't try to interpret Islamic texts because we don't understand them well enough to arrive at the proper understanding of what they mean. Perhaps you might consider applying that same logic that you claim Islam is so famous for in reverse.

There is nothing left to interpret or spin with such definite adverbs like 'Only'

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

This statement truly shows your ignorance, christians differ on whether jesus(pbuh) is god / son of god / eternal/ not eternal / was-is God etc, which seem to be fundamental differences.

No. Christians don't disagree on this. It would be more correct to say that some of those who identify themselves as Christians disagree on this. For instance, the only person on this board to identify him/herself as a Christian but who differs from all the rest of us as to whether or not Jesus is God is Hiroshi. And, in his opinion, none of the rest of us who identify ourselves as Christian are in fact Christian. So, pick a group that you consider to be Christian (either Hiroshi or the rest of us, but not both at the same time) and you will see that Christians do not disagree with one another with regard to whether or not Jesus was God. That belief is part of what identifies a person as a Christian.

Do you even know what sunni and shia muslims differ about?

You do realize that there are others who call themselves Muslims that are neither sunni nor shia. So, what is the non-Muslim to make of them?

[جوري]

So, what is the non-Muslim to make of them?

Take 'em under their wings and hype them for political purposes of course.. I mean isn't it obvious?

[Grace Seeker]

There is nothing left to interpret or spin with such definite adverbs like 'Only'

all the best

No spin. You have to read Jesus' story in its totality not just an isolated verse. But let's take just that one verse and ask a few questions of it: (1) Where was Jesus at the time he spoke these words? (2) To whom did Jesus say this? (3) How did he respond to her?

Answers:
(1) Outside of the land of Israel.
(2) A Canaanite woman.
(3) He met her need and granted her request.

As the Messiah, Jesus may have been sent to just the sheep of Israel, but his ministry extended well beyond just Israel. And later he would send his disciples to carry the message to all the world. Therefore, in view of these actions of Jesus, it is plainly fallacious to conclude that "any other addendum would be construed as anything but a contradiction to these alleged words of that same god."

Such a conclusion may correspond with your own particular prejudice regarding Jesus, as it fits within Islams view of Muhammad being the only prophet with a message for the entire world. But that conclusion just does no jive with the facts of Jesus' own life.

[جوري]

And later he would send his disciples to carry the message to all the world.

correction saul sent his disciples out to spread his brand of Christianity, so much for watching out for false prophets!

[Grace Seeker]

correction saul sent his disciples out to spread his brand of Christianity,

Correcting your correction. Jesus sent his disciples out. He sent them to all nations.

Matthew 28

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Luke 24

45Then he [Jesus] opened their [the disciples'] minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his [the Christ's] name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

Acts 1

4On one occasion, while he [Jesus] was eating with them [his disciples], he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

so much for watching out for false prophets!

What is really false is that you keep pretending you know what is in the Bible. But clearly you don't know it as well as you think you do.

[جوري]

Correcting your correction. Jesus sent his disciples out. He sent them to all nations. You keep pretending you know what is in the Bible, but clearly you don't know it as well as you think you do.

If an invisible Jesus hovered upon a saul and let him do his bidding because his chosen disciples were inept at best (one of them forsaking him thrice before this god took his own life in a selfless act of immolation) then yeah I am with you-- to the rest of the thinking folks though, it is a clear act of a charlatan putting his pagan spin on a religion meant to make upright a select few!


How is the evangelism working these days, I meant to ask, I mean aside from us Muslims pointing out your blunders daily, are christians buying into this? I read there is an annual percentage drop throughout all of Europe at a rate of 1% a year.. Folks are asking questions and getting smarter for you biblical know it all, especially when caught with a foot in your mouth, as we have seen happen courtesy of Br. Yusuf :D


P.S nice pious forgeries btw..
all the best

[Grace Seeker]

You can't stand to be proven wrong can you? So, instead of owning up to making a mistake because of a hasty statement like I did, you try to shift the focus.

Face it. You were wrong. You tried to correct my comment that Jesus sent disciples out to carry his message to all the world and assert that he didn't. Yet the evidence that he did is staring you right in the face and you still won't own your error.

[جوري]

You can't stand to be proven wrong can you? So, instead of owning up to making a mistake because of a hasty statement like I did, you try to shift the focus.

Face it. You were wrong. You tried to correct my comment that Jesus sent disciples out to carry his message to all the world and assert that he didn't. Yet the evidence that he did is staring you right in the face and you still won't own your error.

We have in fact had this conversation before oh graceful one, and I have shown you that the addendum is nothing more than a 16th c pious forgery, as with other pieces before it, one, two, three sources are never sufficient for you, truly you are as described in the Noble Quran,


إِنَّ شَرَّ الدَّوَابِّ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الصُّمُّ الْبُكْمُ الَّذِينَ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ {22}
[Pickthal 8:22] Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the deaf, the dumb, who have no sense.

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

We have in fact had this conversation before oh graceful one, and I have shown you that the addendum is nothing more than a 16th c pious forgery,

By "the addendum" I presume you are speaking of the closing passage in Matthew. I can find no legitimate scholar to make such a claim. The text is included in manuscripts much older than the 16th century. Plus, I didn't give you just one passage, I gave you three different passages in which Jesus is reported to have said the same basic thing.

If I am deaf, is there a verse in the Qur'an that speaks to your blindness?

The ball is back in your court.

[جوري]

By "the addendum" I presume you are speaking of the closing passage in Matthew. I can find no legitimate scholar to make such a claim. The text is included in manuscripts much older than the 16th century. Plus, I didn't give you just one passage, I gave you three different passages in which Jesus is reported to have said the same basic thing.

If I am deaf, is there a verse in the Qur'an that speaks to your blindness?

The ball is back in your court.

No just the blindness of kaffir manworshippers.. go ahead and show me the original manuscript in Jesus' mother tongue and a proper chain of Isnad to your passages.

and try to reconcile that with the lies of your god, in one verse he is only sent to the jews and the next he changes his mind? one verse he doesn't want you to eat pigs, the next he does, one verse he wants you circumcised and next he doesn't.. how do you account for the fickleness of the christian god, that is if he is the same god of the OT?

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

show me the original manuscript in Jesus' mother tongue and a proper chain of Isnad to your passages.

If you doubt these verses as being accurate, then there is no reason for you to accept that Matthew 15:24 is accurate either.

[جوري]

If you doubt these verses as being accurate, then there is no reason for you to accept that Matthew 15:24 is accurate either.

I don't indeed know which parts of your bibles are true and which are fabricated, given of course that you can't produce an original manuscript or provide proper authorship, be that as it may, I would like you to reconcile all those oddities in your bible juxtaposed on contradictory passages from your bible, of course you are unable to do so.. yet adamantly claim you are worshiping the same god as other people of the book.

[aadil77]

We have in fact had this conversation before oh graceful one, and I have shown you that the addendum is nothing more than a 16th c pious forgery, as with other pieces before it, one, two, three sources are never sufficient for you, truly you are as described in the Noble Quran,


إِنَّ شَرَّ الدَّوَابِّ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الصُّمُّ الْبُكْمُ الَّذِينَ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ {22}
[Pickthal 8:22] Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the deaf, the dumb, who have no sense.

all the best

;D that has to be one of my favourite verses

[Grace Seeker]

I don't indeed know which parts of your bibles are true and which are fabricated, given of course that you can't produce an original manuscript or provide proper authorship, be that as it may, I would like you to reconcile all those oddities in your bible juxtaposed on contradictory passages from your bible, of course you are unable to do so.. yet adamantly claim you are worshiping the same god as other people of the book.

The point remains, that if, based on mistrust of the faithfulness of the text, you aren't willing to accept Jesus told his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations, then just as equally there is no basis for accepting that he ever said he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. The sources for accepting the one are equal with the source for accepting the other. They must be accepted or rejected together.

Once you decide which position are going to take with regard to them, vis-a-vis what is accepted, then we can discuss what you consider apparent contradictions. If you accept nothing, then there are no verses to even appear to be in contradiction with one another.

[جوري]

The point remains, that if, based on mistrust of the faithfulness of the text, you aren't willing to accept Jesus told his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations, then just as equally there is no basis for accepting that he ever said he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. The sources for accepting the one are equal with the source for accepting the other. They must be accepted or rejected together.

Once you decide which position are going to take with regard to them, vis-a-vis what is accepted, then we can discuss what you consider apparent contradictions. If you accept nothing, then there are no verses to even appear to be in contradiction with one another.

Again, how can anyone accept any position when the book contradicts itself? Do you want a laundry list of chronological, and textual errors (not to touch logic) so you'd end up with another public apology or do you have a twisted spin for everything?

[Grace Seeker]

Do you believe that Matthew 15:24 accurately reports what Jesus said? If you do, then learn to live with the fact that Matthew 28:19 has every bit as much support as Matthew 15:24 does. If you don't, then quit using it.

As for spin being spun over apparent contradictions, is Islam a religion of peace or war? One can find statements to both effect in the Qur'an. Is it Allah that has contradicted himself or Muhammad that can't keep the story straight? I guess we'll never know, as no one was is able to testify as to what Muhammad did or didn't originally hear, but Muhammad himself.

[جوري]

Do you believe that Matthew 15:24 accurately reports what Jesus said? If you do, then learn to live with the fact that Matthew 28:19 has every bit as much support as Matthew 15:24 does. If you don't, then quit using it.

Why would I quit using it, when it is so delicious to point out and see you struggle with forgeries, or contradictions to make sense of a quote that is so definitive!

As for spin being spun over apparent contradictions, is Islam a religion of peace or war? One can find statements to both effect in the Qur'an. Is it Allah that has contradicted himself or Muhammad that can't keep the story straight? I guess we'll never know, as no one was is able to testify as to what Muhammad did or didn't originally hear, but Muhammad himself.

Where does it say in the Quran 'Islam is a religion of war'?
in fact where 'Jesus' goes so far to say mat 10:35 For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--

Islam teaches us that no one can have a good relationship with god unless they keep their ties to their kin, even if they are kaffirs...

all the best

[marwen]

is Islam a religion of peace or war?

Islam is a religion of justice, not only for peace neither for war. Absolute peace could never bring Justice, as well as for absolute(unjustified) war.

I guess we'll never know, as no one was is able to testify as to what Muhammad did or didn't originally hear, but Muhammad himself.

There were people who lived with the Prophet Muhammed PBUH and reported (in the islamic history) his miracles they saw happening in his presence and they were proofs of his prophet-hood. Other miracles existing in the qur'an are still testifying that Muhammad PBUH cannot invent that knowledge by himself or with the help of any person or any science or book in his time. The only possibility is that Muhammad PBUH is receiving that knowledge from the Creator of this universe.

[Zafran]

Do you believe that Matthew 15:24 accurately reports what Jesus said? If you do, then learn to live with the fact that Matthew 28:19 has every bit as much support as Matthew 15:24 does. If you don't, then quit using it.

As for spin being spun over apparent contradictions, is Islam a religion of peace or war? One can find statements to both effect in the Qur'an. Is it Allah that has contradicted himself or Muhammad that can't keep the story straight? I guess we'll never know, as no one was is able to testify as to what Muhammad did or didn't originally hear, but Muhammad himself.

As I said before in another thread find out what a hadith is and what a Sahabi is - your repeating the same stuff without actually knowing how Islam is passed down and preserved.

Muttawatir and ahad isnads are also good to learn about.

[Ramadhan]

As I said before in another thread find out what a hadith is and what a Sahabi is - your repeating the same stuff without actually knowing how Islam is passed down and preserved.

I am sure he knows.

But pretending not to know, just because he knows that he cannot defend christianity if we are to use standards we expect from true religion from God, and that he wants to drag islam to the levels of saul Christianity which pretty much has no standards.

[titus]

But pretending not to know, just because he knows that he cannot defend christianity if we are to use standards we expect from true religion from God, and that he wants to drag islam to the levels of saul Christianity which pretty much has no standards.

Again, as someone who is neither Christian nor Muslim, I don't see either one having superior standards.

It seems to me that basing a major part of a religion on eyewitness reports handed down orally over a number of generations and then written down over 200 years later is hardly the epitome of accuracy. And then to use as your standard who it was that was rumored to have passed them down? An unbiased person cannot help but scoff at the accuracy of such parts of a religion.

[Grace Seeker]

Again, as someone who is neither Christian nor Muslim, I don't see either one having superior standards.

It seems to me that basing a major part of a religion on eyewitness reports handed down orally over a number of generations and then written down over 200 years later is hardly the epitome of accuracy. And then to use as your standard who it was that was rumored to have passed them down? An unbiased person cannot help but scoff at the accuracy of such parts of a religion.

I'm not aware how your description fits either Christianity or Islam.

[titus]

It is a description of Hadith.

These were stories passed down from generation to generation, then over 200 years later were written down. That is why there is debate between people on whether certain Hadith are genuine or not because the way that it is determined is based on who is believed to have told the story to someone else who told someone else who told someone else, etc.

That is why you will also find "Quran only" Muslims who do not follow them because they do not believe they are accurate, although the vast majority of Muslims do. Shia and Sunni also follow different Hadith because they find different people reliable.

[Insaanah]

It seems to me that basing a major part of a religion on eyewitness reports handed down orally over a number of generations and then written down over 200 years later is hardly the epitome of accuracy. And then to use as your standard who it was that was rumored to have passed them down? An unbiased person cannot help but scoff at the accuracy of such parts of a religion.

If I may say so, I think an unbiased person should get their facts straight first.

It is a description of Hadith.

These were stories

You need to correct your understanding of what a hadeeth is first.

The term "hadeeth", used in the context you are using it, means "whatever is transmitted from the Prophet (peace be upon him) of his actions, sayings, tacit approvals, or physical characteristics."

then over 200 years later were written down.

Ahadeeth (plural of hadeeth) were recorded in writing even during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The process of writing them took on a new importance after his death because he was no longer there to consult when problems arose.

It was about 90 years after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that the caliph Umar ibn Abdul-Azeez ordered the scholars to compile the traditions of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

The scholars had already begun composing books containing biographical data on the various narrators of hadeeth in order to expose any spurious narrators.

Once the name of the narrator was known, it was possible to investigate whether he was trustworthy or not and whether he actually heard the person from whom he was reporting. Criticism of this nature later came to be known as ‘Ilm al-Jarh wat-Ta‘deel (The Science of Validation).

The ahadeeth underwent critical research and came under careful scrutiny.

Every hadeeth consists of two sections. The first section is a list of all those who transmitted the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) beginning with the last transmitter to the one who collected it in his book and ending with the companion who narrated it from the Prophet (peace be upon him). The second section is the narrated saying, action, approval or physical description of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The first portion is known as the isnaad or the sanad (chain of narrators) and the second is called the matn (text).

From these early efforts the science of hadeeth (‘Ilm Mustlah al-Hadeeth or ‘Ilm Usool al-Hadeeth) evolved to distinguish between authentic narrations and spurious ones. The scholars of hadeeth have dealt with each hadeeth as an independent case, subjecting both its isnaad and its matn to close scrutiny according to the fundamental principles of this science.

Some of the factors taken into account are:

The continuity of chain
Integrity of the narrator
The soundness of their memory, and their written accuracy
The conformity to similar ahadeeth
The absence of hidden defects that appear only after close investigation

The process of compiling and systematically collecting into texts continued, as did critical research, scrutiny, and validation into them. Scholars such as Bukhari and Muslim had collected hadeeths into even larger volumes about 200 years after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

There is a whole science to the study and classification of hadeeth, and what I have explained here is grossly simplified and very brief.

Also, to clarify, a sahaabi (plural sahaabah) is a person who had the privilege of meeting the Prophet (peace be upon him) and died believing in him. The companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are the most famous sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them).

Peace.

[Zafran]

Salaam

Thank you Insaanah for explaining some basic points - before people even talk about hadiths they should learn how they are used and what they are.

peace

[Ramadhan]

Thank you Insaanah for explaining some basic points - before people even talk about hadiths they should learn how they are used and what they are.

I agree.

The post by sis Insaanah should be made as compulsory reading for non-muslims who wish to participate in comparative religion discussions.

[Grace Seeker]

I agree.

The post by sis Insaanah should be made as compulsory reading for non-muslims who wish to participate in comparative religion discussions.

I really appreciated Insaanah's post. I find it most helpful with the terms that get thrown around here, some of which I have become familiar with and some I have not as of yet.

Would you be as willing to read an article on the science of textual criticism before discussing the validity (or supposed lack thereof) of various biblical material?

[Ramadhan]

I really appreciated Insaanah's post. I find it most helpful with the terms that get thrown around here, some of which I have become familiar with and some I have not as of yet.

Would you be as willing to read an article on the science of textual criticism before discussing the validity (or supposed lack thereof) of various biblical material?

Are you kidding me?

Mayber it is your arrogance attitude, your blindness or our patience and hospitality to make you feel welcome here that you forgot this forum is ISLAMIC board.

Only when I decide to go to christian sites and make dakwah there, I will learn "bible textual criticism", which seems pretty much useless anyway for you folks who are willing to accept such erroneous and contradictory books as your guidance (which in itself is staggering as no one would use erroneous street map to get to their destination, let alone one who gets you either to hell and paradise).

[Grace Seeker]

Are you kidding me?

Mayber it is your arrogance attitude, your blindness or our patience and hospitality to make you feel welcome here that you forgot this forum is ISLAMIC board.

Only when I decide to go to christian sites and make dakwah there, I will learn "bible textual criticism", which seems pretty much useless anyway for you folks who are willing to accept such erroneous and contradictory books as your guidance (which in itself is staggering as no one would use erroneous street map to get to their destination, let alone one who gets you either to hell and paradise).

And thus you will continue to make comments regarding the Bible that are blantantly false because you are would prefer to live in a self-imposed state of ignorace with regard to that which you do not know, but fool yourself into thinking you do. I give Yusuf and aadil credit for taking the time to actually be informed with regard to that which they criticize.

Regarding arrogance, in thinking that you know what you are talking about when you don't but remain resolved to continue uneducated, you display the greater arrogance. Even Hugo showed more respect for Islam than that.

[GreyKode]

I really appreciated Insaanah's post. I find it most helpful with the terms that get thrown around here, some of which I have become familiar with and some I have not as of yet.

Would you be as willing to read an article on the science of textual criticism before discussing the validity (or supposed lack thereof) of various biblical material?

Why don't you take this opportunity and explain to us some of the sciences used in determining the authenticity of the biblical texts and so on? like textual criticism and say ethnography.

[titus]

Some of the factors taken into account are:

The continuity of chain
Integrity of the narrator
The soundness of their memory, and their written accuracy
The conformity to similar ahadeeth
The absence of hidden defects that appear only after close investigation

It still comes down to, basically, hearsay, that was not compiled until generations after the death of Muhammad.

You may call it a science if you wish, but there is very little science involved as far as I can see. It is determining who you want to believe and following what you believe they said about someone else. While some may have been written down during the lifetime of Muhammad most were transmitted orally, that is why you have a "chain" that is used to help determine their validity. I am sorry, but when you have a sanad of multiple people I find it difficult to believe it can be accurate, especially decades afterwards.

Notice also that one of the criteria is conformity to other Hadith. Why is this a criteria if all the others are found correct? The only reason would be that there are contradictions, and the scholars simply reject the ones that do not "fit" properly. Yes, that is an oversimplification but it is accurate.

Know that my intent here is not to disparage Islam, but simply to point out what I see as a form of hypocrisy when disparaging other religions.

[جوري]

in that case any event in history if not recorded on TV is hearsay .. you are so funny ;D ;D

[titus]

No. But something that you heard from Bob who heard it from Joe who heard it from Bill who heard it from Mary who heard it from George that happened 60 years ago? Yes, that is hearsay and I find it extremely difficult to defend as an unassailable fact, especially as one of the foundations of a religion.

[Ramadhan]

And thus you will continue to make comments regarding the Bible that are blantantly false because you are would prefer to live in a self-imposed state of ignorace with regard to that which you do not know, but fool yourself into thinking you do

Let's see.
Most religious scholars equate the NT with hadiths, at best (albeit with dramatic difference: while the narrators of hadiths are known and the transmissions can be traced back with records all the way to the prophet, the authors of NT are unknowns not to mention the sketchy transmissions and the abominable translations) . As for the OT, even christians regard it as nothing more than a history book, and not even actual one at that.
Now, I know what bible is (at the very least), and I may actually know more about bible than your average christian.
Meanwhile, you don't even understand the meaning of hadith let alone its explanations, its classifications, its narrations, its method of transmissions and its chains of transmission, the sanad, the mat'an.

You coming here to ISLAMIC board, with NO knowledge of BASIC info about hadith (and I am not even talking about the Qur'an), and then saying things like:

the terms that get thrown around here

to refer to hadiths as if hadiths is of nothing important in the discussion about Islam is indeed ignorance and arrogance at staggering proportion.

It would be like me going into christian discussion forums, telling them about their bible, while knowing NOTHING about what bible is let alone its contents.
It would be like me accusing that bible is the actual words of god.
You would be insulted no? (because christians themselves acknowledge that bible is not the words of god).

Regarding arrogance, in thinking that you know what you are talking about when you don't but remain resolved to continue uneducated, you display the greater arrogance.

I am tickled by the fact the adjective "arrogance" is thrown at me by someone who forced god to come down to earth to be born of a woman, suckled the milk from a womans breasts, soiled himself, nailed him to a cross bleeding and dying and dead, basically degraded himself to the level of human just to be able to forgive the sins of his own creation.
How's that for arrogance?

Even Hugo showed more respect for Islam than that.

Are you blind?
the fact that Hugo is banned shows that he has less respect for Islam than minimum required.

[Grace Seeker]

Why don't you take this opportunity and explain to us some of the sciences used in determining the authenticity of the biblical texts and so on? like textual criticism and say ethnography.

Because I can't do it as succintly as Insaanah did. But, GreyKode, if there is interest, I thought I would start a thread to describe it and post some material there.

[*Hana*]

I really appreciated Insaanah's post. I find it most helpful with the terms that get thrown around here, some of which I have become familiar with and some I have not as of yet.

Would you be as willing to read an article on the science of textual criticism before discussing the validity (or supposed lack thereof) of various biblical material?

Peace to you Grace Seeker:

I would be interested in reading that article actually. When you find a free moment, would you mind sending either the article or a link to it.

Thanks!
Hana

[جوري]

No. But something that you heard from Bob who heard it from Joe who heard it from Bill who heard it from Mary who heard it from George that happened 60 years ago? Yes, that is hearsay and I find it extremely difficult to defend as an unassailable fact, especially as one of the foundations of a religion.

Everything that comes to you in books that is non-fictional and has some credibility, usually bears more than one witness. The more witnesses the more credible, It isn't Chinese whispers, it is a corroboration of events.

You comment as someone who has positively no idea what he is talking about. Not only have you ignored everything that Sr. Insaanah wrote, but you have no examples with which to evince the reasons for your all too frequent protests. I think you hate to be caught in a blond moment which seem to happen frequently for you!

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

Let's see.
Most religious scholars equate the NT with hadiths, at best (albeit with dramatic difference: while the narrators of hadiths are known and the transmissions can be traced back with records all the way to the prophet, the authors of NT are unknowns not to mention the sketchy transmissions and the abominable translations) . As for the OT, even christians regard it as nothing more than a history book, and not even actual one at that.
Now, I know what bible is (at the very least), and I may actually know more about bible than your average christian.
Meanwhile, you don't even understand the meaning of hadith let alone its explanations, its classifications, its narrations, its method of transmissions and its chains of transmission, the sanad, the mat'an.

You coming here to ISLAMIC board, with NO knowledge of BASIC info about hadith (and I am not even talking about the Qur'an),

What's sad is that you've convinced yourself that the above is all true, when it simply isn't even close to reality. For instance, I did know what a hadith is. What I didn't know was that "ahadith" was the plural form of the word. That might be basic to you, but it is a different language to me. I knew about the role of companions and I learn from Insaanah the technical terms.

I have never referred to ahadith as if they were not important to Islam. Rather, I understand them to be received my Muslims as virtually on par with the Qur'an as scripture. This, even though they are not the recitation of God's word; they are those things that the prophet said, did, or gave silent approval to. It is this characteristic that causes people to make a rough comparison between the Gospels and the Hadith, but that comparison is rough and one would hardly continue it with regard to the rest of the NT. So, I sincerely doubt that "most religious scholars equate the NT with hadiths."

Elsewhere, I believe you also stated that the hadith where recorded during the Prophet's lifetime. While that's true, you make it sound as if it was throughout his life, and that simply was not true. During the time in Mecca and the early time in Medina, Muhammad forbid that anyone should write down his personal sayings. It was only near the end of his life that he relaxed this prohibition.

to refer to hadiths as if hadiths is of nothing important in the discussion about Islam is indeed ignorance and arrogance at staggering proportion.

Again, I did no such thing. To say that I did is to fabricate truth for your own ends.

I am tickled by the fact the adjective "arrogance" is thrown at me by someone who forced god to come down to earth to be born of a woman, suckled the milk from a womans breasts, soiled himself, nailed him to a cross bleeding and dying and dead, basically degraded himself to the level of human just to be able to forgive the sins of his own creation.
How's that for arrogance?

The problem is again that you post as factual things that no one has done. No one forced God to come down to earth. Muslims say he never did it. And Christians say that he chose to do it of his own volition. But no one other than you says that anyone force God to do anything.

And I certainly don't call telling the story of God doing what he did for humanity an act of arrogance either on our part in telling the story or in Christ's part in actually doing what he did. Rather, I call Jesus' actions one of complete humility, but NOT humiliation.

Are you blind?
the fact that Hugo is banned shows that he has less respect for Islam than minimum required.

You're right. Hugo didn't show the minimum level of respect to Islam. My point is just that. You show others with whom you disagree even less respect than Hugo showed to Islam.

[Grace Seeker]

Hana, GreyKode, I will do my best to find and post a few things for you to read yet this weekend. Should I start a new thread for it, I'll send you a PM or post here where to find it.

[Insaanah]

You may call it a science if you wish, but there is very little science involved as far as I can see.

Not as far as you can see, but as far as you want to see. I made clear that my post was grossly simplified and very brief:

There is a whole science to the study and classification of hadeeth, and what I have explained here is grossly simplified and very brief.

so of course I cannot show you the whole science in that post, nor in a number of posts.

It still comes down to, basically, hearsay, that was not compiled until generations after the death of Muhammad.

Read my first post again, as to when hadeeth were written. Writing, and compiling volumes, are two different things.

I am sorry, but when you have a sanad of multiple people I find it difficult to believe it can be accurate, especially decades afterwards.

Seeing as early history was written in books not written at the time of the events, I take it you discard most of history too, and dismiss it as hearsay, because most of history wasn't written as it was happening, but decades afterwards.

But something that you heard from Bob who heard it from Joe who heard it from Bill who heard it from Mary who heard it from George that happened 60 years ago? Yes, that is hearsay and I find it extremely difficult to defend as an unassailable fact, especially as one of the foundations of a religion.

I am happy to correct your (mis)understanding.

It is not a case of Bob, Joe, Bill and Mary all playing Chinese whispers. "Oooh! Guess what I heard George say!"

Hadeeth circles were widespread. Regular records of attendance were kept. After a book was read, a note was written by the teacher or one of the famous scholars in attendance in which the names of those who heard the whole book, part of the book, the dates and places, were written.

During the era of the Taabi‘oon (students of the Sahaabah),students usually memorized the whole Qur’aan and studied Islamic Law and Arabic grammar before joining the circles of the hadeeth scholars around the age of twenty.

With every generation the numbers of teachers and students grew exponentially. In the time of the Taabi‘oon, scholars like ath-Thawree, Ibn al-Mubaarak and az-Zuhree made reference to hundreds of teachers. Az-Zuhree himself had over fifty students who recorded ahadeeth in writing from him.

Muslims came to consider the isnaad an indispensable part of the ahadeeth and developed it. They gave it a firm foundation by introducing the chronological method, assembling biographies of the transmitters, and establishing a science for determining the value of its contents and the authenticity of its channel of transmission.

The practice of specifying the isnaad, not only of the hadeeths but also the books in which they were collected, was of immense value in preserving the integrity of books in an age in which printing was unknown, and in which the creation of spurious and distorted works was a relatively easy task. Hadeeth literature employed a thorough and systematic method of source identification. Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Syriac manuscripts rarely, if ever, supply us with such a wealth of information about a book’s origin and use.

The isnaad system, while originating in connection with the hadeeth literature, was in due course extended by Arab authors to many other genres, including geography, history, and prose fiction.

Even if a student knew ahadeeth through books, he was not entitled to transmit them or use them in his own collections until they had been consistently read back to the teacher and his transmission of them approved.

Take the following hadeeth, for example:

Nasr ibn ‘Alee al-Jahdamee and Haamid ibn ‘Umar al-Bakraawee informed us saying: Bishr ibn al-Mufaddal informed us from Khaalid, from ‘Abdullaah ibn Shaqeeq from Abu Hurayrah that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “If anyone among you wakes up from sleep, he must not put his hand in a utensil until he has washed it three times, for he doesn’t know where his hand was during sleep.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 1, p. 114, no. 163 and Sahih Muslim, vol. 1, p. 166, no. 541).

At least thirteen students of Abu Hurayrah transmitted this hadeeth from him.
8 out of the 13 were from Madeenah
1 was from Kufah
2 from Basrah
1 from Yemen
1 from Syria

There are sixteen scholars who transmitted this hadeeth from the students of Abu Hurayrah.
6 out of the 16 were from Madeenah
4 from Basrah
2 from Kufah, Iraq
1 from Makkah
1 from Yemen
1 from Khurasan (Iran)
1 from Hims (Syria)

Here is a chart showing all the narrators of this hadeeth (sorry it is not very clear):

At the very right is the Prophet (peace be upon him), then those who heard it directly from him are Abu Hurayrah, Ibn Umar, Jabir, A'isha and Ali (May Allah be pleased with them), and then those who heard/wrote it from them.

There are many, many chains of narration for this hadeeth, as you can see (especially from Abu Hurayrah), and at any point, there is full traceability for this hadeeth.

Notice also that one of the criteria is conformity to other Hadith. Why is this a criteria if all the others are found correct? The only reason would be that there are contradictions, and the scholars simply reject the ones that do not "fit" properly. Yes, that is an oversimplification but it is accurate.

No, it is not accurate in the least. I would strongly advise you to study hadeeth carefully before passing uninformed comment, as you have done in this post and the last.

If a so-called hadeeth came to the attention of the scholars that appeared not to be in conformity with other ahadeeth on the subject, alarm bells would ring. The scholars would examine the "narrator" first and his biography together with who else heard that "hadeeth", what was their status, they would closely examine the text of his so-called hadeeth and look at other ahadeeth on the subject (among many other factors) and, with all the fcators considerd, would be easily able to expose him as a fabricator. I think most people would agree that is the correct course of action. That is the whole point of the rigorous checking system, so that spurious hadeeth can be known.

Know that my intent here is not to disparage Islam

Good. Glad to hear it.

Peace.

[titus]

Seeing as early history was written in books not written at the time of the events, I take it you discard most of history too, and dismiss it as hearsay, because most of history wasn't written as it was happening, but decades afterwards.

Much of History is hearsay, you are corrrect. I have a degree in History and I know that the writings of Herodotus, Livy (Titus Livius, who I get my board name from), Plutarch and others are merely books of rumors and out and out fabrications. I don't rely on them to be truthful because they are stories passed down generations later. Most likely they contain a mix of truth and fiction.

The same goes with Hadith. The same goes with the Bible.

Scholars have had to debate which Hadith are authentic and which aren't, and even this science can easily get it wrong, as a true Hadith can be dismissed because the scholars didn't believe them enough. As I have already mentioned you also have different Muslims that believe different Hadith, which shows that part of this "science" is simply opinion.

Read my first post again, as to when hadeeth were written. Writing, and compiling volumes, are two different things.

So what percentage, roughly, of hadith were written down when they happened? Or when Muhammad was still alive?

[Ummu Sufyaan]

you obviously have no knowledge what a scholar of hadith does. or the conditions required for a hadith to be accepted as authentic or non-authentic, etc. or just anything really associated with this branch of knowledge...you seemed to have made one complete generalization based on zero knowledge and in the process "shot down" any effort any scholar has put towards this branch of science based on your lack of knowledge.

if you doubt (and judging by your post, you do) the integrity of the scholars, then of course anything that comes from him/her, you will also doubt.

you need to state solid evidence to back your claim "which shows that part of this "science" is simply opinion."

you also need to learn the difference between a ordinary Muslim/layman and a scholar. they are worlds apart. you cant possible put the 2 in the same "breath" and then claim that the science of hadith is mere opinion. you haven't even made distinction between these 2 types of people, but readily and hastily make your claim.

and using the bible to support your point?! are you serious?

peace.

[YusufNoor]

Much of History is hearsay, you are corrrect. I have a degree in History and I know that the writings of Herodotus, Livy (Titus Livius, who I get my board name from), Plutarch and others are merely books of rumors and out and out fabrications. I don't rely on them to be truthful because they are stories passed down generations later. Most likely they contain a mix of truth and fiction.

The same goes with Hadith. The same goes with the Bible.

Scholars have had to debate which Hadith are authentic and which aren't, and even this science can easily get it wrong, as a true Hadith can be dismissed because the scholars didn't believe them enough. As I have already mentioned you also have different Muslims that believe different Hadith, which shows that part of this "science" is simply opinion.



So what percentage, roughly, of hadith were written down when they happened? Or when Muhammad was still alive?

i just wanted to address one point. there is NO difference of opinion "among Muslims!" Shiia use different hadeeth because they are misguided. Shiism is NOT, REPEAT NOT ISLAM! PERIOD!

peace

[Insaanah]

I know that the writings of Herodotus, Livy (Titus Livius, who I get my board name from), Plutarch and others are merely books of rumors and out and out fabrications. I don't rely on them to be truthful because they are stories passed down generations later.

Which, as I have demonstrated in my posts, ahadeeth aren't.

Most likely they contain a mix of truth and fiction.

Your stories most likely do.

The same goes with the Bible.

Possibly. Some parts of the Bible are of unknown authorship.

The same goes with Hadith.

No it doesn't. Please show me an accepted hadeeth of unknown narration.

As I have already mentioned you also have different Muslims that believe different Hadith, which shows that part of this "science" is simply opinion.

Different Christians believe in different versions of the bible. The Bible must be simply opinion. However, regardless, that has no bearing on the ahadeeth. Whether you like it or not, which you clearly don't, and whether you accept it or not, which you clearly won't, there is no other literature of that era that has undergone such checking for accuracy, validation, scrutiny and with complete traceability.

I would strongly advise you to study hadeeth carefully before passing uninformed comment, as you have done in this post and the last.

And you are still insisting on doing.

An unbiased person cannot help but scoff at the accuracy of such parts of a religion.

You need to show that you have the capability to actually open your mind, be willing to learn, and actually rid yourself of your current bias, otherwise you will never be able to learn, and that is sad indeed.

Peace.