Can the English translation of the Quran be trusted?

[Burninglight]

Any time something is translated into a different that the original language it loses something or is subject to the whims of an translator. We know this to be true of the Bible. That is one reason we have so many translations of the Bible. Scholars and pastors sometimes agrue which is the best of them. Does this happen with the Quran?

[Ramadhan]

So you have agreed and confirmed that translations are never as good as the original, can never capture 100% what is contained in the original, etc.

Now, can I ask you question: how do you know which version of bible translation is best if you do not have the original?

[Ramadhan]

Burninglight, please answer my question.

With Qur'an, even if one translation is not perfect, we still have the original that anyone can come back to.

[crimsontide06]

Burninglight, please answer my question.

With Qur'an, even if one translation is not perfect, we still have the original that anyone can come back to.

Not every Muslim can speak or read Arabic..so there is not a way they can go to the original...may take years until they can understand the Arabic language and read it.

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

[Ramadhan]

Not every Muslim can speak or read Arabic..so there is not a way they can go to the original...may take years until they can understand the Arabic language and read it.

True, but that is not the question here.

one person who cannot read or speak arabic may not be able to go back to Al Qur'an to check if the translation is accurate, but at ANY given time, there is ALWAYS somebody in the world who can check and compare the translation.

Can you say that with bible?

can you please answer?

[Aprender]

This should help, in shaa Allah.

[Burninglight]

So you have agreed and confirmed that translations are never as good as the original, can never capture 100% what is contained in the original, etc.

Now, can I ask you question: how do you know which version of bible translation is best if you do not have the original?

I must agree with this if I am to be honest. I think I trust the ESV the most. But it seems some have good points and bad. That is tough question. But the Quran was recompiled (Copied) too just not as much as the Bible as been. So my question hasn't really been answered.

[Burninglight]

good night God bless you all

[Ramadhan]

I must agree with this if I am to be honest. I think I trust the ESV the most. But it seems some have good points and bad. That is tough question. But the Quran was recompiled (Copied) too just not as much as the Bible as been. So my question hasn't really been answered.

Please show us evidence that what we have now is not original.

As I said, you keep throwing out false statements about Islam without evidence.

AGAIN,


PLEASE GIVE US THE ORIGINAL BIBLE.

[Ramadhan]

Ho wcan you say ESV is the best translation.

what is ESV translated from?

[Burninglight]

Please show us evidence that what we have now is not original.

As I said, you keep throwing out false statements about Islam without evidence.

AGAIN,


PLEASE GIVE US THE ORIGINAL BIBLE.

i cannot to that. What false statements. You didn't know that Uthamn burned the original Qurans? or you don't agree he did? This is my understanding and many Muslim don't know that. Do I need me to prove that to you or do you know it already. If Uthman didn't burn the Qurans, then mine is afalse statement, but if he did, what are you taking about?

[Burninglight]

With Qur'an, even if one translation is not perfect, we still have the original that anyone can come back to.

yes I understand that you have the originals of what Uthman compiled, but what about the ones he burned before those which was closer to Muhammad's time like only 2 years after his death???

[Burninglight]

Ho wcan you say ESV is the best translation.

what is ESV translated from?

Did I say it was the best? I just favor it more because I believe it has less translational errors. I have not done an extensive study on the different versions of the Bible, but I am influence by reputable pastors and others that love God.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings of peace

i cannot to that. What false statements. You didn't know that Uthamn burned the original Qurans? or you don't agree he did? This is my understanding and many Muslim don't know that. Do I need me to prove that to you or do you know it already. If Uthman didn't burn the Qurans, then mine is afalse statement, but if he did, what are you taking about?

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. Uthman (RA), did not burn the 'original' Qur'aan he burnt those which were differing from the 'original', due to the use of different dialects amongst the people differing from the arabic revealed to the prophet(p), etc. Where did you come with this statement? From Islamic sources or anti islamic sources? Please, if you have a question on a certain issue, ask as it is the first step of learning.

Please watch this, I hope it explains it better than myself..



In Regards to your question..

Yes, the english translation can be trusted, it is another language in which people can understand if they are unable to speak/understand the arabic. But ofcourse to understand the Qur'aan more you have to study it, just like with the bible. If for example someone who isn't knowledgable enough in not understanding what is meant by a certain verse, they would go to those who are learned, and it is also encouraged of an individual to do their own research, study the language etc.

[Burninglight]

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. Uthman (RA), did not burn the 'original' Qur'aan he burnt those which were differing from the 'original', due to the use of different dialects amongst the people differing from the arabic revealed to the prophet(p), etc. Where did you come with this statement? From Islamic sources or anti islamic sources? Please, if you have a question on a certain issue, ask as it is the first step of learning.

It is "Unfortunate" for who? I did watch the video. How did Uthman know what the original was? This was not answered in the video by Deedat. In other words, where did he get the info for the original did he have it in his memory?

[YusufNoor]

i cannot to that. What false statements. You didn't know that Uthamn burned the original Qurans? or you don't agree he did? This is my understanding and many Muslim don't know that. Do I need me to prove that to you or do you know it already. If Uthman didn't burn the Qurans, then mine is afalse statement, but if he did, what are you taking about?

it's the red pill that makes you smaller and the other one makes you bigger, but in you case you should lay off all of the pills!

there are 10 different dialects to pronounce the Qur'an in. in the time of Uthmann ibn Affan, some folks were adding vowels marks[the Qur'an can be and was originally written w/o them] for their own dialect and calling it the only correct way to write the Qur'an with the vowel marks. Uthmann made the decision that if there was going to be "one correct way" to put the vowel marks in, it should be the dialect of the tribe of Quraish as that was the Prophet's, pbuh, own natural dialect.

but you seem to be purposefully neglecting the fact thay Abu Bakr as Sadeeq didn't want the Qur'an to be issued in writing in the first place! WHY? first of all, the Prophet, pbuh, hadn't ordered it done and secondly, it wasn't necessary. there were plenty of Hafz around and the best thing a Muslim can do is to teach others how to recite the Qur'an. that is why you will have records of some sahabah disliking the writing of the Qur'an.

unlike the Gospels of the New Testament, which are the writings of unknown authors allegedly inspired by God, the Qur'an is the direct revealed Word of God. only the pagan of the Quraysh and misguided Shii'a claimed otherwise. there is unanimous opinion amongst Muslims on just what the Qur'an is and to claim otherwise takes you right out of the fold of Islam.

your statement would be true if you said Uthmann destroyed Qur'ans NOT written in the Quraish dialect, you statement is false if you say Uthmann destroyed the Qur'an.

so quit trying to make false points on purpose, whether based upon ignorance or intended evil.

:wa:

[Burninglight]

but you seem to be purposefully neglecting the fact thay Abu Bakr as Sadeeq didn't want the Qur'an to be issued in writing in the first place! WHY? first of all, the Prophet, pbuh, hadn't ordered it done and secondly, it wasn't necessary. there were plenty of Hafz around and the best thing a Muslim can do is to teach others how to recite the Qur'an. that is why you will have records of some sahabah disliking the writing of the Qur'an.

That is interesting.

so quit trying to make false points on purpose, whether based upon ignorance or intended evil.

I didn't know. Intended evil? pfft. You must be joking. How am I supposed to know what even millions of Muslims don't know now, I have spoken to many Muslims that even deny that any Quranic Scriptures were burned in any shape or form by Uthman. I say interesting, because I happen to agree with Abu Bakr. The reason I do is because there was no divine mandate given that the Quran should be written. It means recitation. So just how does one get write out of say? And since Allah and Muhammad didn't say write it, why was the Quran written and put in book form? I thought the recitation was designed to confirm the previous Scriptures, but instead it contradicts them. I cannot help think that if it was kept the way Abu Bakr wanted it would confirm previous Scripture instead of usurp it in the written form! do you understand my point here. The written Bible and the Written Quran cannot bothe be right. I see the webs but I cannot find the spider. Could the spider be that it wasn't in obedience to Allah and Muhammad to put in writing what was only meant to be said????

---

[YusufNoor]

That is interesting.
I didn't know. Intended evil? pfft. You must be joking. How am I supposed to know what even millions of Muslims don't know now, I have spoken to many Muslims that even deny that any Quranic Scriptures were burned in any shape or form by Uthman.

many don't study the history, but many Christians don't know their history either. you don't know the history of the Bible.

I say interesting, because I happen to agree with Abu Bakr. The reason I do is because there was no divine mandate given that the Quran should be written. It means recitation.

you have no clue about what Abu Bakr's decision was about. Iqra means both read and recitation. if you want to comment on the Arabic of the Qur'an, perhaps you should study it first.


So just how does one get write out of say? And since Allah and Muhammad didn't say write it, why was the Quran written and put in book form?

many Hafz were killed in 1 battle while rallying the Muslim lines. it was Umar ibn al Kattaab who finally convinced Abu Bakr.


I thought the recitation was designed to confirm the previous Scriptures, but instead it contradicts them.

the Qur'an confirms the Torah given to Moses, pbuh, NOT the Torah as written by men. it also confirms the Injeel as given to Jesus, pbuh, and NOT the gospels of unknown origin.

I cannot help think that if it was kept the way Abu Bakr wanted it would confirm previous Scripture instead of usurp it in the written form!

it just goes to show that your "thinking" is pretty fruitless.

do you understand my point here. The written Bible and the Written Quran cannot bothe be right.

FINALLY!! something we are in agreement on! but it's the Bible that contains the errors! where it agrees with the Qur'an it is correct. where it is in disagreement, it is wrong.


I see the webs but I cannot find the spider.

perhaps that is why you haven't demonstrated the ability to think straight.

Could the spider be that it wasn't in obedience to Allah and Muhammad to put in writing what was only meant to be said????

---

you seem, once again, to be so full of delusions.

I must agree with this if I am to be honest. I think I trust the ESV the most. But it seems some have good points and bad. That is tough question. But the Quran was recompiled (Copied) too just not as much as the Bible as been. So my question hasn't really been answered.

i doubt you and honesty reside in the same neighborhood, probably not the same continent. you claim your Bible has both good and bad points! you admit that your Bible has problems? even after you admit God can preserve His Word!

and to answer your question, only the Qur'an in Arabic is actually the Qur'an. translations in whatever language are the translator's attempt to explain it. Yusuf Ali's is NOT the Qur'an, it is his attempt to explain the Qur'an in English. to best understand in a language other that Arabic, one should use all available material. but we learn from those who speak Arabic.

Not every Muslim can speak or read Arabic..so there is not a way they can go to the original...may take years until they can understand the Arabic language and read it.

but they can buy a version of the Arabic and listen to it in it's original language. Muslims can spend their time listening to and pondering the Very Words of God, while Christians try to make sense out of the words of men. and not just any men, but men they have no clue as to their identity! THAT makes sense!

and by the way, you seem to get a kick out of implying that the Qur'an is "younger" than the Bible, you you totally overlook the fact that Christians didn't even finish with the writing, editing and revising of it until CENTURIES after the completion of the Qur'an! kind of makes you guys the n00bs, eh?

:sl:

[Ramadhan]

i cannot to that. What false statements.

That you said the qur'an we have now is not original.
Please show evidence.

You didn't know that Uthamn burned the original Qurans? or you don't agree he did? This is my understanding and many Muslim don't know that

Again, please tell us when, how and why uthman burned scripts of Qur'an.
Many muslims know this, but apparently you do not, but you are only parroting anti-Islam sites without checking if they are correct.

Do you even know that by the time Uthman (ra) performed as a khafilah, thousands of people had already fully memorized the Qur'an, and they were located not only in or near makkah and madinah, but they were already in north africa, shams, iraq, persia, and central asia?

Do you even know that currently in the world millions of people memorized the same exact quran?
I challenge you to give me two different qur'ans.
Had there been any change, even slight change in thh qur'an right after the death of prophet (saw) when hundreds of people had fully memorized and tested by prophet Muhammad (saw) himself, there would have been thousands if not millions of different qur'ans by now.


Now, do not try to change subject:

PLEASE GIVE ME THE ORIGINAL BIBLE

[Ramadhan]

Did I say it was the best? I just favor it more because I believe it has less translational errors.

Then how did you know it has less translational errors if you do not have the original to compare it with?

Please show me how/why you think ESV has translational errors.

Again, please do not change the subject.

[Burninglight]

That you said the qur'an we have now is not original.
Please show evidence.

I didn't say what you have now wasn't original. It is the original Quran after Uthman compiled them. It is Uthman's original standarization of the Quran, but no one now for sure what the burned Qurans say. Can those be produced or seen any where? I just said those original were burned. We haven't burned any document as pretains to the Bible in the form of copies. Thousands of copies were made from the original.

Again, please tell us when, how and why uthman burned scripts of Qur'an.

I believe it was around 2 years after Muhammad's death, How? I imagine with fire; Why? I now what some say it was due to the translation not being in Quraish. I am not for sure I understand the reasons given. But one will never be able to prove by comparing and contrasting what was originally burned with what Uthman compiled later. Today Muslims have the original Quran that Uthman compiled. I don't doubt that and I never said that wasn't true.

Had there been any change, even slight change in thh qur'an right after the death of prophet (saw) when hundreds of people had fully memorized and tested by prophet Muhammad (saw) himself, there would have been thousands if not millions of different qur'ans by now.

I thought most of them were killed?

Then how did you know it has less translational errors if you do not have the original to compare it with?

Please show me how/why you think ESV has translational errors.

Again, please do not change the subject.

I don't think this is important. I meant less translational errors when compared to the Greek and Hebrew copies!

[Burninglight]

good night

[Ramadhan]

I didn't say what you have now wasn't original. It is the original Quran after Uthman compiled them. It is Uthman's original standarization of the Quran, but no one now for sure what the burned Qurans say.

Good. You are onto something.
The original after Uthman is exactly the same as the original before uthman.

WARNING: PLEASE STOP INTENTIONALLY MAKING FALSE STATEMENT ABOUT ISLAM.

Another of your false statement:
You said uthman was compiler of qur'an.
This is false.
prophet Muhammad (saw) was.
You shouldn't intentionally create false statement, or if you copy and paste from anti-Islam site, then at least make sure they were correct before you are parroting them.

You call yourself "true biblical christian" and yet you keep making lies against Islam.

We haven't burned any document as pretains to the Bible in the form of copies. .

I am surprised that you call yourself "true biblical christian" and yet you are unaware of historical facts that everyone knows:
That roman emperors and council nicea and constantine burned down hundreds of gospels which didn't agree or support with their view of 3-in-1 god and god incarnate and god-dies-to-pay-for-human-sins idea.

Thousands of copies were made from the original.

Again, WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL BIBLE?

I believe it was around 2 years after Muhammad's death

More lies from you.
Prophet Muhammad (saw) died in 632, and Uthman (ra) started caliphate only in 644. Even in the earlly years of Uthman's caliphate, Islam had spread to as far away as Morocco, Azerbaijan, south east pakistan, and china. And there were not under control of Uthman caliphate. There had been thousands of hafiz (full memorizers of quran) and located in all those areas.

Why? I now what some say it was due to the translation not being in Quraish.

HUH?
do you even understand what you are saying or have really switched off your brain because of "blind faith"?
Please elaborate what you are saying above because it does not even make any sense.

I don't think this is important. I meant less translational errors when compared to the Greek and Hebrew copies!

Good. we are getting somewhere.

Questions:

1. which greek and hebrew copies?
2. Are those greek and hebrew copies the original bible?

[Burninglight]

Good. we are getting somewhere.

Questions:

1. which greek and hebrew copies?
2. Are those greek and hebrew copies the original bible?

No, but that doesn't mean they were incorrectly copied, because the Jews have a copy in Hebrew and the Christians did one in Greek and those copies can be compared; there are thousands of copies to confirm what the original said.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings of peace Burninglight

It is "Unfortunate" for who? I did watch the video. How did Uthman know what the original was? This was not answered in the video by Deedat. In other words, where did he get the info for the original did it have it in his memory?

Unfortunate as in you are incorrect, because you seemed to be confident/so sure in making your claim, if that makes sense, i may be wrong, but it seemed that way from your posts.

How did Uthman know what the original was?

Why do you think he ordered for it to be copied and written in the same dialect as it was revealed in?
i.e. the Quraishi dialect. Also, I believe the video will clarify your question fully.

In other words, where did he get the info for the original did it have it in his memory?

I hope this video clarifies your question..

[Ramadhan]

No, but that doesn't mean they were incorrectly copied

Questions:
1. those hebrew and greek copies, what are they called?
2. do they still exist now?
3. when were those copies written?
4. what were contained in the those greek and hebrew copies?
5. from what source were they copied from? what were the originals?
6. who copied them?

For the purpose of good discussion, please provide your answer with evidence, proof or explanations with sources. "hearsay" (like what you have been doing by making false statements about Islam) is very useless in discussion.

because the Jews have a copy in Hebrew

Please elaborate. What hebrew copy? explain what it is, because as far as I remember, and as far as all New testament scholars understand, hebrew copies were actually translation from greek.

the Christians did one in Greek

what greek copy? explain who wrote them? are they original? what years were they written? are they they the same or different from bibles that you have now?

and those copies can be compared

Hebrew copies can be compared to greek because hebrew copies were translated from the greek. Or did you actually not know this?

there are thousands of copies to confirm what the original said.

What thousands of copies? where's the evidence? There's no such thing as thousands of copies.
Also, even if there had been (there were not) "thousands of copies", how do they confirm the original if such original did not exist in the first place?
simple logic, or are you suggesting us not to use our brain and our honesty in our discussion?

[Ali Mujahidin]

Back on topic.

Can the English translation of the Quran be trusted? If "trusted" means that it is "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". then definitely the English translation of the Quran cannot be trusted. For a start there are many English translations and every one of them differs on various points. The English translation of the Quran, as well as any other translation in any other language, can only be used a guide to understanding the Quran. To argue about the meaning of the Quran based on the English translation is as stupid as say, trying to tell the color of a person's skin by touching his face. In total darkness.

So does that mean that non-Arabic-proficient Muslims will never understand the Quran? No, that's not true. There's nothing to stop a non-Arabic-proficient Muslim from learning Arabic. And while he is still learning, he can refer to other Arabic-proficient Muslims for guidance.

Off-topic.

The Bible is not the Word of Allah as conveyed through Prophet Isa a.s. For a start, Isa had never been proven to speak English. There isn't much support for his capability to speak Greek either. Or Hebrew. The language that is most likely to be his mother tongue and daily language is Aramaic. The next problem is to find a written copy of what he said in Aramaic. Bibles that are written in English after being translated from Greek which had been translated from Hebrew which had been translated from Greek has as much authenticity as, say, Chinese Fried Rice which is cooked by an Englishman who learned it from a French cook who learned it from an Indian man who had once eaten what he was told was Chinese Fried Rice.

Look at it this way. Life is a serious business. Heaven and hell are not cardboard scenes in a school-children's play. To get through life successfully, you will need a good map. Now, would you prefer a map which is an exact copy of the original made by the engineer who built the road, or are you prepared to take your chances with a photostatted copy of a map copied from another one which wasn't even made by anyone who had actually gone where you wanted to go?

WalLahu aklam.

[crimsontide06]

Back on topic.

Can the English translation of the Quran be trusted? If "trusted" means that it is "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". then definitely the English translation of the Quran cannot be trusted. For a start there are many English translations and every one of them differs on various points. The English translation of the Quran, as well as any other translation in any other language, can only be used a guide to understanding the Quran. To argue about the meaning of the Quran based on the English translation is as stupid as say, trying to tell the color of a person's skin by touching his face. In total darkness.

So does that mean that non-Arabic-proficient Muslims will never understand the Quran? No, that's not true. There's nothing to stop a non-Arabic-proficient Muslim from learning Arabic. And while he is still learning, he can refer to other Arabic-proficient Muslims for guidance.

Thank you for this answer...finally someone answered the question instead of going on with the flame war debate on this thread...

[Burninglight]

Please elaborate. What hebrew copy? explain what it is, because as far as I remember, and as far as all New testament scholars understand, hebrew copies were actually translation from greek.

I was refering to the OT being translated to Greek. These are the logical reasoning why I trust the Bible. Besides the Spirit of God bearing witness with my spirit

1. We have manuscripts of the New Testament dated c.127 A.D, c.150 A.D., and c.200 A.D., as well as recently released copies with the Dead Sea Scrolls dated before 100 A.D.

2. We have 10,000 other manuscripts of the New Testament to compare. Scribal errors did occur, but with 10,000 manuscripts, we can track these errors. The evidence would be weaker, not stronger, if there had been a "Christian 'Uthman" to burn them.

3. The early church writers (from 97/98 A.D. to 325 A.D.) referred to every single verse in the New Testament except around 17.

4. We have copies of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls of almost all of the Old Testament dated at the time of Christ, and Christ's use of Old Testament quotes.

5. We have God's promise that He will watch over and preserve His word, and that He will not let His followers be led astray. -Isa 55:10-11; 59:21; 1 Peter 1:24-25, Mt 24:35

6. Christian scholars are very keen to examine all the evidence and be as precise as possible in what the original wording was.

Christians and all seekers of truth should welcome questioning the reliability of today's Bible. But rather than asking, "what is its reliability", one should also ask "what its reliability is being compared to."

[Burninglight]

Please elaborate. What hebrew copy? explain what it is, because as far as I remember, and as far as all New testament scholars understand, hebrew copies were actually translation from greek.

This thread's topic is on the reliability of the English translation of the Quran not on the Bible. Now, There were questions I asked you but they haven’t been answered fully to my satisfaction, but instead of answering them you accuse me of making false statements that you cannot back up. If I made false statements tell me what they are and prove they are, and I will retract them, but you haven’t done so. So plz stop making unsubstantiated claims about me.

Now are these true and can you prove they are or aren’t? These are significant to me, because if there is a problem with the material being trranslated, it doesn't matter how good and dependable the English translation is

Did 'Umar "stabilized" the Qur'an in 644 A.D. al-Tabari vol.39 p.22-23?

Do you believe the Qur'an is an exact copy of a tablet of the Qur'an [in Heaven] in Sura 85:20-22 like we believe God’s word is established in heaven forever?

Is it true that there is a temporary verses in the Qur'an that Muslims agree Mohammed said were abrogated, are stored for all time in Heaven? Are they are still in the Qur'an today?

Is it true that the Sahih Muslim Hadiths record an extra Sura that is not in the Qur'an today? And that Muslim apologists claim this too was abrogated, but it is not in today's Qur'an?

Is it true that 'Ubai's early copies of the Qur'an did not contain two Suras that are in the Qur'an today.

Is it true that 'Abdallah ibn Mas'ud was one of the four people Mohammed said to learn the Qur'an form. Is it true that the Al-Nuri lists verses in Ibn Mas'ud's version that are not in the Qur'an today?

I have more question, but this is enough for now.

[Woodrow]

It is "Unfortunate" for who? I did watch the video. How did Uthman know what the original was? This was not answered in the video by Deedat. In other words, where did he get the info for the original did he have it in his memory?

One factor non-arabic speakers over look is Arabic had only been a written language for about 100 years before the Qur'an was revealed. the most used form of preservation was oral recitation. If even one word in the Uthman qur'an differed from what Muhammad(PBUH) had recited, the Hafiz (those who memorized the Qur'an) would have caught it. Even today somewhere between 10-20% of all Muslims are Hafiz and follow what has been handed down orally from generation to generation for 1400 years. Every Hafiz still repeats the same Qu'ran no matter what nation they live in. A Hafiz in China will repeat the same Qur'an as a Hafiz in the UK. It has proven to be a very reliable means of being certain the written Qur'an remains unchanged.

[Burninglight]

I am surprised that you call yourself "true biblical christian" and yet you are unaware of historical facts that everyone knows:
That roman emperors and council nicea and constantine burned down hundreds of gospels which didn't agree or support with their view of 3-in-1 god and god incarnate and god-dies-to-pay-for-human-sins idea.

I never made such a claim of myself, but I simply told you what true Biblical Christians believe, but now that you mentioned it I accept the title. A true Biblical Christian doesn't need to know or be concerned with Constantine. The concept of God's nature is and was in the Bible way before Constantine was born! But please lets stay on the topic of this thread.

[Hamza Asadullah]

How much of the Bible is truly divine revelation? and how much of it was written by random men of whom Biblical scholars admit that it is not known who they really were and nor is it known when they were written.

Whereas the Qur'an is 100% divine revelation. If you want to check the original then you can find it in almost every Muslim home and in every Masjid.

Where would i find the original Bible? Which has been subject to innumerable translations, doubtful and spurious transmissions, and corruptions at the hands of clerics up till now (with the “gender sensitive” versions coming out these days and even versions which have taken out the "son of God" to appeal to Muslims).

Well where is it? ANSWER: It is not in existence anymore and has not been for a very long time. Leaving the Bible open to further continuous translations, doubtful and spurious transmissions, and corruptions. When will you open your eyes?

[Burninglight]

One factor non-arabic speakers over look is Arabic had only been a written language for about 100 years before the Qur'an was revealed. the most used form of preservation was oral recitation. If even one word in the Uthman qur'an differed from what Muhammad(PBUH) had recited, the Hafiz (those who memorized the Qur'an) would have caught it. Even today somewhere between 10-20% of all Muslims are Hafiz and follow what has been handed down orally from generation to generation for 1400 years. Every Hafiz still repeats the same Qu'ran no matter what nation they live in. A Hafiz in China will repeat the same Qur'an as a Hafiz in the UK. It has proven to be a very reliable means of being certain the written Qur'an remains unchanged.

I thought many who memorized it were killed in a battle? Besides, if they weren't, why didn't they see to it that the first documented Qurans were done right so they didn't need to be burned?? From what I understand Muslims weren't happy to give up their older versions of the Quran. If the Hafiz recite it so prefectly, why was there a need to burn it? The Qurish dialect reason makes no sense to me.

People must have divided over the differences. Imo, different versions of the Qurans can cause a problem severe enough to warrant a burning. If there were no differences there would have been no need to burn and recompile it. People don't divide over a dialect, but it would make sense if they divided over the contents in the Quran. So why didn't the Hafiz get the first (burned) one right? Is it because Arabic was a new language? If so, why did they write what was supposed to only be said?

Quran means recite not write. Maybe the problem was they wrote instead of said especially when there is no evidence of a divine mandate to write like there was for the Bible. If that is the case, Uthman did no different. Where did he get the original information to compile the Quran? The answer according to you is from the memory of the Hafiz. So why didn't their memory work for the Qurans that had to be burned? If their memory failed them there or some other factor happened to cause the Qurans to be burned, how do you know it didn't happen to the recompiled versions of the Quran by Uthman who was no prophet standarizing the word of Allah

[Burninglight]

How much of the Bible is truly divine revelation? and how much of it was written by random men of whom Biblical scholars admit that it is not known who they really were and nor is it known when they were written.

Whereas the Qur'an is 100% divine revelation. If you want to check the original then you can find it in almost every Muslim home and in every Masjid.

Where would i find the original Bible? Which has been subject to innumerable translations, doubtful and spurious transmissions, and corruptions at the hands of clerics up till now (with the “gender sensitive” versions coming out these days and even versions which have taken out the "son of God" to appeal to Muslims).

Well where is it? ANSWER: It is not in existence anymore and has not been for a very long time. Leaving the Bible open to further continuous translations, doubtful and spurious transmissions, and corruptions. When will you open your eyes?

I don't think anything in life is a 100%. You don't have to have the original of something or know who wrote it or when for it to be true.

[Ali Mujahidin]

I don't think anything in life is a 100%. You don't have to have the original of something or know who wrote it or when for it to be true.

Let me see if I can follow you without going in circles. First, you want to know whether the English translation can be trusted. Then you said that you cannot trust the translation of something that is not reliable. Now you say you don't have to have the original of something or know who wrote it or when for it to be true. What's the next change of tack?

Since you have been comparing the Quran to the Bible, I don't think I will be off-topic to carry this discussion into the merits of the Bible itself. I assume that you have read the Bible. So have I. I assume that you must have read it more closely than I did. Since you declare yourself to be a Christian, I assume that the New Testament is of particular interest to your religious conviction. When I read the New Testament, I noticed that it was a compilation of various accounts. Various accounts like "The Gospel according to St. Mark", "The Gospel according to St. Luke", etc.

So where is "The Gospel according to Jesus"?

I assume that you consider what Jesus said to be the Word of God. Would it be too much to assume that the people, ie the disciples of Jesus, who heard the Word of God from Jesus' own lips would remember exactly what he said? Did they have to write it down to remember what they heard? Is it possible that none of the disciples wrote down what Jesus said? And if they did, is it possible that every single bit of writing that they wrote down is totally lost? Burned? Or what?

So where are the original written records of what the disciples heard from the lips of Jesus? And what language were those records written in? Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek? English?

Of course, I do not know the answers. I am assuming that you might know better than me. Do you?

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings of peace

I thought many who memorized it were killed in a battle?

By this, I think your reffering to this narration? Yes, many of the Qur'a died, but where does it say the Qur'aan itself was lost? It mentions that they began to recollect.

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the! Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project. "Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book)." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is:

'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa' (At-Tauba) (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar.

Besides, if they weren't, why didn't they see to it that the first documented Qurans were done right so they didn't need to be burned??

Why do they need to see to it, when nobody suggested the Qur'aan was not done right? The understanding was of the vowels and dialects, this was the only issue that could affect it, i.e the meaning would have changed not the Qur'aan itself. It was burnt so that the wrong meaning and understanding would stay the same as it was revealed.

From what I understand Muslims weren't happy to give up their older versions of the Quran. If the Hafiz recite it so prefectly, why was there a need to burn it? The Qurish dialect reason makes no sense to me.

They weren't happy because many of the memorisers were killed, and thinking it would have been lost, but it didn't because it states that they began to compile them and finally did so, the next narration after this states that due to the differences of dialect there were differences therefore they had to be burnt in case the wrong understanding derives thereof. You see there were arabs with different dialects, the meanings could have changed easily, this would mean that original meaning is not there or would have been lost.

People must have divided over the differences. Imo, different versions of the Qurans can cause a problem severe enough to warrant a burning.

Not necessarily, there was still the original version to compare them to in order to know which is the correct. i.e. Uthman (ra) asked for it from Hafsa (ra).

If there were no differences there would have been no need to burn and recompile it. People don't divide over a dialect, but it would make sense if they divided over the contents in the Quran.

There were arabs and non-arab muslims, but the arabs could understand the arabic better without the vowels the non-arabs could not, so therefore there was only the need to add the vowels. And nope they did not divide over the contents of the Qur'aan. The only issue they would divide over was the dialect while there was still the original in order to have it corrected, which it did. As you can see from the hadeeth's.

So why didn't the Hafiz get the first (burned) one right?

you don't get it do you. I'm sure that if you watch the videos and read over this thread, hopefully it will make sense.

Is it because Arabic was a new language? If so, why did they write what was supposed to only be said?

Nope, because it was what was revealed to the prophet (p) through the archangel Gabrael. Because it was believed to be the word's of God to mankind, because that was what was being revealed. He spoke unto his people what was revealed unto him.

Quran means recite not write. Maybe the problem was they wrote instead of said especially when there is no evidence of a divine mandate to write like there was for the Bible.

They wrote and they 'recited', however, another way if you look at it, the Qur'aan is the message for the whole of mankind to muslim and non-muslim, this is a great advantage for those who cannot hear but can read, so they can recite it. Though there is nothing wrong in it being written.

If that is the case, Uthman did no different. Where did he get the original information to compile the Quran?

From the wife of the prophet Hafsa (ra), you know about the killing and the burning, how did you manage to miss this part?

The answer according to you is from the memory of the Hafiz. So why didn't their memory work for the Qurans that had to be burned?

It was Hafsa (ra) (the wife of the prophet (p) whom Uthman (ra) borrowed the Qur'aan and ordered it be to copied from.

If their memory failed them there or some other factor happened to cause the Qurans to be burned, how do you know it didn't happen to the recompiled versions of the Quran by Uthman who was no prophet standarizing the word of Allah

Do you realise that all the Qur'aans weren't burnt except the ones that were differing from the original.

Also it was written down on whatever they could find, palm stalks, white stones, etc etc, these were written from the time of the prophet (p) and also men who had memorised it, and the companion Abu Bakr (ra) the first caliph had ordered it to be collected due to having many Qura'a being killed in the battle of Yamama. Also notice that he Abu Bakr (ra) had ordered Zaid Ibn Thabith to help compile the Qur'aan as he used to write down the revelation from the prophet (p).

The prophet (p) had done his duty, as it was written down and many had memorised it. Also the memorisers were not going to lose out on a single verse, you will find today that there are youth of today who've memorised the whole book without a single mistake, so imagine those who were the companions, the closest.

[Burninglight]

It was Hafsa (ra) (the wife of the prophet (p) whom Uthman (ra) borrowed the Qur'aan and ordered it be to copied from.

I believe she had the original. I thought he burned that too. If not then you would have the original in tact. I want to try and verify this is true.

[Burninglight]

So,

By this, I think your reffering to this narration? Yes, many of the Qur'a died, but where does it say the Qur'aan itself was lost? It mentions that they began to recollect.

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

Yes, so according to what you have told me. Quran which means recitation was preserved in text form and NOT in oral form as claimed by Muslims to me over the years? So where is Hafsa's original copy now. If you can tell me, I'll shut up about your not having the original Quran? If you cannot produce that, then lets not hear any more about the original Bible not being produced. Agreed? Why were copies given more importance than the original source of the Quran -Hafsa's Quran??? Were copies not exactly the same as the source? If they were the same, then where is Hafsa's original so we can compare?
Uthman ordered to destroy all copies of Quran and thousands of Quran were burned by Muslims. Is it even proper to burn a Quran for a Muslim? Did all Qurans have problems and so destroyed? So who actually is the peserver of the Quran? Is it Muslim leaders or Allah? The ones making these decision weren't prophets so it begs these questions. I need to know what I am comparing the reliability of the Bible to.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings of peace Burninglight

I believe she had the original. I thought he burned that too. If not then you would have the original in tact. I want to try and verify this is true.

As i've already mentioned, that he Uthman (ra) asked for the Qur'aan from Hafsa (ra)..and when he asked for it he also mentioned he would return it and he did this.

Here I'll post it up..

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

This from the hadeeth I previously posted, during the caliphate of Abu Bakr (ra)

Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar.

Yes, so according to what you have told me. Quran which means recitation was preserved in text form and NOT in oral form as claimed by Muslims to me over the years?

The beauty of the Qur'aan - The recitation is that it is memorised unlike any other book. So therefore it is dificult to have it lost. Especially when you've many around the world who've memorised it and that also in similar form from word to word. It is preserved in text form and also in oral form i.e. memorisation, so if all the 'Qur'an' or 'Islam' haters decided to abolish Islaam from the earth, they could not making it impossible, meaning the message has been preserved, but this does not mean that the written form is disliked.

Just because it means 'recitation' does not mean that it is wrong to have it in written book form.

So where is Hafsa's original copy now. If you can tell me, I'll shut up about your not having the original Quran?

You did state you believed Hafsa (ra) had the original

I believe she had the original.

where is it? I've shown you from the hadeeth that Uthman (ra) borrowed from Hafsa (ra) and returned it. Why? i also stated that, which was to copy. Do you know what copy means? Copy does not mean change or delete as far as I'm aware.

'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied
(from the first hadeeth I posted above) Please read the first hadeeth i've posted above.

If you cannot produce that, then lets not hear any more about the original Bible not being produced. Agreed?

As much as you seem to want to know about the originality of the Qur'aan, similar is the case with the others who want to know the originality of the bible. In other words what I am trying to say is that, it won't stop one from wanting to know about something or ask questions.

Why were copies given more importance than the original source of Quran -Hafsa's Quran???

Because, it was the original one, and other were differentiating due to dialects etc. And that is why it was copied from Qur'aan sent by Hafsa (ra) and was eventually returned. And there is no such thing as 'Hafsa's' Qur'aan, it was passed on to her to look after by the will of Allaah. Nor is there such a thing 'as Muhamamd's (p) Qur'aan'..As in they weren't words of theirs but of God. But ofcourse you will disagree with this.

Were copies not exactly the same as the source?

Yes, that is why they were copied.

If they were the same then where is Hafsa's original so we can compare?

I believe i've answered this above. It is with us today.

Uthman ordered to destroy all copies of Quran and thousands of Quran were burned by Muslims. Is it even proper to burn a Quran for a Muslim?

No it is not proper for a muslim to burn the Qur'aan, as muslims they believe it to be the word of God. However, if something isn't the 'original' how can it be referred to as the original? Due to differences of dialect, there was a
slight change of wording, which differed from the original and in order to not mislead anyone i.e. the followers, this reason was vital. If this did not take place, there would have been many 'versions' of the Qur'aan and much confusion in the muslim world. Allaah your lord and my lord has indeed preserved his book and message.

Did all Qurans have problems and so destroyed?

Not including the 'original'...

So who actually is the peserver of the Quran? It Muslim leaders or Allah?

Allaah SWT.

If i've not answered a question properly, feel free to ask inshaa'Allaah..

[Burninglight]

Not including the 'original'...


Originally Posted by Burninglight
So who actually is the peserver of the Quran? Is it Muslim leaders or Allah?
Allaah SWT.

If i've not answered a question properly, feel free to ask inshaa'Allaah..

Well, I am not sure I am understanding what happened to Hafsa's copy of the only original after all others were burned except that Uthman returned it to her as promised, but in order to claim you have the original, you must still have it now. If you don't know were it is to be found, than why complain that Christians don't have the original manuscripts. They have copies just like Muslim do and Muslims have to deal with translation issues just like Christians when it comes to putting or writing the Quran in English.

[Darth Ultor]

Surah 5:51 had a translation error in my Quran. It said, "Take them not as friends" Whereas someone who actually knew Arabic said it meant, "Take them not as Allies"

[Burninglight]

Surah 5:51 had a translation error in my Quran. It said, "Take them not as friends" Whereas someone who actually knew Arabic said it meant, "Take them not as Allies"

case in point

[Aprender]

case in point

;DPicking at straws now? Even words in the English language have more than one meaning. The English word "run" and its derivatives have more than 170 different meanings on its own.

Anyway. That is not a translation error. Rather, there are some translations that capture the meaning of the Quran better than others. A translation error would be something like this; "Hace dos meses, comparara un nuevo carro." Then if I translated it as, "In two months, I will compact a new carrot." when what that sentence actually says is "Two months ago, I will buy a new car." is an error. Now, that sentence doesn't even make sense but it is the actual meaning of what was written. Translating it into "In two months, I will compact a new carrot" is the translation error.

As I said to you in the post that I wrote in Spanish, or maybe the meaning of what I wrote was lost in translation, so let's go over it again. What I am going to do is translate what I said in different ways but still not deviating from what I originally wrote in Spanish.

Sabes Español? MashaAllah.

Originally Posted by Burninglight
All of Christianity hangs on the death and resurrection of Christ! Without that Christianity cannot stand.

Ke triste! Todo lo demas no es importante? Los mandamientos? La vida de Jesus (pbuh)? Las enseñanzas de él? Las profetas? Bible? No hay Christianity sin estos? No me digas.

Translation 1: How sad! So everything else isn't important? The commandments? Jesus' life? His teachings? The Prophets? The Bible? There is no Christianity without those? Really?

Translation 2: That's sad! So all the other things aren't important? The commandments? The life of Jesus? His teachings? The prophets? No Christianity without this? Seriously?

Translation Error: What sad. So those themes are not that important? Commandments? Life? Teachings? Prophets? Christianity can't thrive without these. Tell me no

Originally Posted by Burninglight
If someone burned all the Bibles in the world. It can be reproduced because of it being committed to memory by many and to heart. I have memorized quite a bit of Scripture myself in a differnent language than my mother tongue like Spanish as well. Yo puedo aprender tambien.

Pues, su comparación con el memorización del Coran y el Bible no somos mismo! El Coran es en Arabe. Recítalo en Arabe. Léalo en Arabe. No hay Coran en Ingles, Español, o Griego. Aquellos son traducciones. Coran es solo en Arabe. Un Bible en Espanol, Ingles, o Chino es un traducción. Aunque su puede aprender el Bible en otro idiomas, no lo mismo ke original. Solo un traducciones. Un hafiz en Prague o Croatia o China o EE.UU recite el Coran solo en Arabe. Palabra por palabra.

Translation 1: Well your comparison of the memorization of the Quran with the Bible is not the same. The Quran is in Arabic. It is recited in Arabic. It is read in Arabic. There is no Quran in English, Spanish or Greek. Those are translations. The Quran is in Arabic. A Bible in Spanish, English or Chinese is a translation. Even if you could learn the Bible in other languages, it's not the same as the original. Those are only translations. A hafiz in Prague or Croatia or China or the U.S. recites the Quran only in Arabic. Word for word.

Translation 2: Well, this comparison of the memorizatin of the Quran with the Bible isn't the same. The Quran is in Arabic. It is said out loud in Arabic. It is read in Arabic. There is no Quran in English, Spanish or Greek. Those are only translations. The Quran is in Arabic. A Bible in Spanish, English or Chinese is a translation. Even if you can learn the bible in other languages, it is not the same as the first. Those are only translations. A hafiz in Prague, or Coratia or China or the U.S. recites the Quran only in Arabic. Word by word.

Translation error: The pink monkeys hopping down the willow stumbled upon someone memorizing the Quran. They were reciting it in Arabic. They couldn't speak English, Spanish or Greek and the monkeys didn't know any translations. They knew the Quran was in Arabic. And they also knew that a bible in Chinese or English is a translation and it's not the same as the authentic bible but the person who was reciting Quran was saying it in Arabic word for word.

Y no necesita ver para memorizar el Coran. Solo necesita oír y entender, mi hermano.

Translation 1: There is no need to be able to see to memorize the Quran. The only thing needed is to hear and understand, my brother.

Translation 2: You don't need to see to memorize the Quran. You only need to hear and understand, my brother.

Translation error: I need to memorize the Quran but I only need to hear and understand what my brother said.

Ojala que tiene paz.

Translation 1: I wish you peace.
Translation 2: I hope you have peace.
Translation error: He cut the banner into pieces.

Does this help clarify it a little? There are some translations of the Quran out there that capture the meaning of it better than others but if you really want to appreciate the miracle of the Quran for what it is, then you should learn Arabic so you can read it in its original language.

People don't divide over a dialect

Different dialects can change the meaning that comes across. Here, saying "Bueno" is the normal way to answer the phone. Where as in Spain they would say "Diga" which is like answering the phone and saying "Speak" here. Some people might find that rude. I have much trouble understanding the Spanish of people from Puerto Rico to the point where there is a language barrier and even when listening to people from Spain because there are certain tenses that they use over there that we don't use here.

Do know that there are enemies of Islam and religion as a whole out there who pass around corrupted translations filled with filthy words and misleading semantics. There are even versions of the Bible out there with selective verses that leave out trinitarian references to try and get Muslims to convert. Please watch the videos posted and stop grasping at straws to try and avoid what you don't want to believe. This is what you're doing at this point. I did this exact same thing for years. I tried to find whatever I could to make this way of life not make sense so I could cross it off my list and go on doing what I wanted to do with my life and shake my head at those poor oppressed Muslim women and terrorist Muslim men as I believed. Eventually you're going to run out of lies to throw at Islam. Those anti-Islam websites can only post so much and twist so much around in that tangled web of theirs until the lies and hatred spewing from their biased venom is blatantly evident.

The Quran is preserved. If you're too lazy to learn Arabic and read the original, then that's on you bro but alhamdulillah, that option is there. Until then, find a translation that best captures the meaning of the Quran in Arabic and read that.

[Burninglight]

Picking at straws now? Even words in the English language have more than one meaning. The English word "run" and its derivatives have more than 170 different meanings on its own.

Not really, that wasn't as significant as other things I mentioned and asked about in this thread. But while we are on topic, there is a verse in the Quran that states that "Allah is the best of planners" but the word planners is not the best translation and actually changes the meaning IMO from the Arabic; moreover, planners doesn't really fit the context. I believe the context was people are scheming and decieving, but Allah is the best of planners? The context is saying that Allah does best what the people were doing in the context, it should say Allah does what they were doing best. IOW, would the best translation of the MAKR of Allah be He is the best of schemers or decievers? Look it up in the Abrabic. So translation is not necessarily grasping at straws some translational errors are negligible and some are servere. BTW, from what you wrote in Spanish, I don't know how anyone can confuse that for compacting a carrot. lol

Different dialects can change the meaning that comes across. Here, saying "Bueno" is the normal way to answer the phone. Where as in Spain they would say "Diga" which is like answering the phone and saying "Speak" here. Some people might find that rude.

I take it you can teach me some Spanish. I feel like we are playing ping pong. I say case in point about translation and you say I am grasping at straws; now, you say see the importance of dialect; besides, diga and Bueno have nothing to do with dialect. In this case, it is the same dialect but a different choice of words. ?Me intiendes, hermana?

[Aprender]

BTW, from what you wrote in Spanish, I don't know how anyone can confuse that for compacting a carrot. lol

For someone who doesn't speak Spanish for all they know that could say anything. I could have just as easily said "Two months ago I will compare a new car." Comparara/compare look like they could be cognates but they're not. A non-Spanish speaker wouldn't know.

uran that states that "Allah is the best of planners" but the word planners is not the best translation and actually changes the meaning IMO from the Abrabic

Coming from the guy who isn't fluent in Arabic or any other Semitic language, I presume. :hmm:

I say case in point about translation and you say I am grasping at straws;

You are. :p

you say see the importance of dialect; besides, diga and Bueno have nothing to do with dialect. In this case, it is the same dialect but a different choice of words.

:omg: Has plenty to do with dialect. If I answered the phone saying "speak" to my grandma she'd reach through the phone and slap me if she could for being disrespectful and talking to her like a dog. Do you know what dialect means?

di·a·lect
 
noun
1.Linguistics . a variety of a language that is distinguished from other varieties of the same language by features of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, and by its use by agroup of speakers who are set off from others geographically or socially.

A friend of mine is from Venezuela. To me the word montañas means mountains but to her it's montes which to me means hill, not mountain. Different dialect. Same language. I think you might be getting the word dialect mixed up with regional slang that might not be understood in other parts of the world. We say bro in America. Not bruv. Go to the hood in America and say "What up bruv?" and the homies would probably look at you like ^o) and smack the back of your head. "Bruv?"

[YusufNoor]

Surah 5:51 had a translation error in my Quran. It said, "Take them not as friends" Whereas someone who actually knew Arabic said it meant, "Take them not as Allies"

case in point

where's Purest when you need her?

for those who posses the ability to comprehend, which seems to exclude some of our evangelical "posters", the word in question is Auliya', which can mean friends, protectors, helpers, allies, etc. i suppose some knuckleheads could claim that allies aren't your friends or that your friends aren't your allies if they wanted too, but in this case they are the same. the word friend in this case means more than acquaintance, a TRUE or REAL friend, who would by definition, be your ally.

Well, I am not sure I am understanding what happened to Hafsa's copy of the only original after all others were burned except that Uthman returned it to her as promised, but in order to claim you have the original, you must still have it now.

[quoting George Harrison at the Concert For Bangladesh] "we've forgotten Billy Preston!" you have stated, ad naseum, that the Qur'an means "recitation", and thus we only need the original "recitation" to have the original. this, we have [no matter how long it takes for you to "get it."]

If you don't know were it is to be found, than why complain that Christians don't have the original manuscripts.

we can site the sources [which, YOU also do] for the individual that did the copying, you can't even cite the authors of "your" gospels!

They have copies just like Muslim do and Muslims have to deal with translation issues just like Christians when it comes to putting or writing the Quran in English

to quote Bart Erhman [loosely], "you not only don't have originals, you only have copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies. it's hundreds of years later when you get to complete books, and not only that, when it comes of ALL of your ancient sources, NO 2 ARE ALIKE! [NOT EVEN 2!!!]

it isn't our fault if someone refuses to see the difference!

you can only nitpick translations of the originals. at least we know what our "Original" and where it came from.

can ANY Christian, ANYWHERE in the world, tell us the actual authors of the Gospels [citing eyewitnesses], tell us EXACTLY who copied them down, and tell us what year and in what country each was done? can just one single person tell us that?

btw, Billy Preston had a hit with, "Will it go 'round in circles"

:wa:

[Burninglight]

for those who posses the ability to comprehend, which seems to exclude some of our evangelical "posters", the word in question is Auliya', which can mean friends, protectors, helpers, allies, etc. i suppose some knuckleheads could claim that allies aren't your friends or that your friends aren't your allies if they wanted too, but in this case they are the same. the word friend in this case means more than acquaintance, a TRUE or REAL friend, who would by definition, be your ally.

I accept this explanation of yours. I said case in point without researching it myself and thinking of allies in the sense of war and countries and NOT in the personal one on one friend sense. But that is fine, go ahead and take not Christians for friends as the Quran states. It tells us were we stand with Muslims. Personally, I thought he brought up the point as a way to say see you can have Christian friends. It was a harmless comment on that translation. Much to do about nothing here.

[Aprender]

I said case in point without researching it myself and thinking of allies in the sense of war and countries and NOT in the personal one on one friend sense.

I see not researching is something that you've grown accustomed to doing on this forum. I hope you don't make other life decisions based on assumptions. It's not wise to mindlessly regurgitate drivel. You know better than that.

But that is fine, go ahead and take not Christians for friends as the Quran states. It tells us were we stand with Muslims.

Straw #2. You are so blinded with hate for Islam being the truth that you think that verse is about you? You wish that verse was about you. But guess what, it isn't about you. Watch this.



And before you hit straw #3 and say something about us having to kill non-Muslims. Watch this.




You see. It isn't about you and others like you.

I have Christian, Jewish, atheist, agnostic and happy-go-lucky humanist friends who have nothing against Islam. They're good friends. I love them. But if one of my Muslim sisters was stranded somewhere 10 miles away with no shoes and a bunch of non-Muslims staring at her like they want to kill her and it was escalating to physical assault and I had no car, I'd run, walk and trot that 10 miles just to be with her so she doesn't have to be alone and get her away from those people before they did anything to hurt her. This, I've done. That is the difference. May Allah have mercy on us all. Ameen

[Burninglight]

Has plenty to do with dialect. If I answered the phone saying "speak" to my grandma she'd reach through the phone and slap me if she could for being disrespectful and talking to her like a dog. Do you know what dialect means?


di·a·lect
 
noun
1.Linguistics . a variety of a language that is distinguished from other varieties of the same language by features of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, and by its use by agroup of speakers who are set off from others geographically or socially.

A friend of mine is from Venezuela. To me the word montañas means mountains but to her it's montes which to me means hill, not mountain. Different dialect. Same language. I think you might be getting the word dialect mixed up with regional slang that might not be understood in other parts of the world. We say bro in America. Not bruv. Go to the hood in America and say "What up bruv?" and the homies would probably look at you like and smack the back of your head. "Bruv?"

Okay, Aprender you are a very smart person and you busted me. You are right and you proved me wrong. my apology for my ignorance

[Burninglight]

I see not researching is something that you've grown accustomed to doing on this forum. I hope you don't make other life decisions based on assumptions. It's not wise to mindlessly regurgitate drivel. You know better than that.

You are tearing me up. You are right again. I almost can't handle much more of this, but sock it to me. I should be able to take all you can dish out if I have the right religion.

[Burninglight]

Straw #2. You are so blinded with hate for Islam being the truth that you think that verse is about you? You wish that verse was about you. But guess what, it isn't about you. Watch this.

yea, that is key out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh as written in the Bible. I didn't think the verse was about me. I was trying to look at the verse in a hopeful way but that was destroyed by certain comments. IOW, I wasn't wanting to think the verse was about me. I have hate? Maybe I have for religions, but never for people in those religions. In Christianity we can make those distinctions. Can you do that in Islam? Does Islam allow for loving your enemies as does the Bible? BTW, I don't hate Islam any more that you do Christianity

[Burninglight]

good night

[Abz2000]

burninglight, it seems you are visiting that "--------------" or that fake "wiki" website a lot,
i have been on that site and attempted to correct their false assertions but to no avail,
secondly answering islam claims to be a "christian" website whe many of it's articles indicate that it is actually anti-God.

the words plan and plot actually are used in different contexts depending on whom it is referring to.
you don't normally say "i plot to do such and such" , you say "i plan to do such and such" when referring to yourself,
but when an enemy maliciously plans evil against you, you call it a plot.
it is based on context and even if the same word is used in Arabic, the translation would most likely put it in context if the words are available.
that is the nature of translations that sometimes words cannot be expounded or even rendered accurately, and sometimes additional words can be used to further clarify.
peace

[Ramadhan]

burninglight, it seems you are visiting that "--------------" or that fake "wiki" website a lot,

I am sure of this.

He keeps throwing out stupid lies about Islam that are found in those sites, and can easily be refuted, if only burninglight has tiny bit of sincerity and honesty.

[Al-manar]

Greetings Burninglight

why don't you focus on the thread title issue?

you did well bringing Surah 5:5 , it is related to the topic ,and been answered ...
Are there any similar linguestic instances ,to be questioned?

If you have some then plz provide,otherwise the thread would be offtopic and meaningless ...

regards

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greeting of peace

Well, I am not sure I am understanding what happened to Hafsa's copy of the only original after all others were burned except that Uthman returned it to her as promised, but in order to claim you have the original, you must still have it now. If you don't know were it is to be found, than why complain that Christians don't have the original manuscripts. They have copies just like Muslim do and Muslims have to deal with translation issues just like Christians when it comes to putting or writing the Quran in English.

Okay, I shall attempt to answer your question in the simplist way I can, Inshaa'Allaah..

Uthman (ra) asked Hafsa (ra) to borrow the Mushaf in order to copy it and return it once he had finished.

Also realise that during the process of copying, he also asked the scribes to copy it in the similar dialect as it was dictated to Muhammad (May the peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

"In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue."

Once the writing of the Qur'aan was completed, he sent it to all muslim provinces..Which concludes it to be the similar version we read today in arabic. Also, I believe Uthman (ra) kept a copy for himself.

'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied,

In regards to the Mushaf of 'Hafsa', it doesn't state that it was sent anywhere, she kept it with her untill she died. But this does not mean that the Qur'aan we have today is different to Hafsa (ra) and it only states that the Qur'aan that Uthman (ra) copied from was sent to different places. Why not ask about the copies that were sent to muslim nations? where are they? How did we manage to have the Qur'aan today similar in every country? How is that possible? And how can it be that in so many years it managed to stay in the same form for 1400 years? Why is that in every part of the world, every muslim household, it will be 'recited' to you in the same exact words.

And in regards to the originality of the bible, firstly, i'm sure you believe that the bible is 'preserved', What if someone decided they wanted to ridden the bible and the Qur'aan from the face of this earth.

Let's look at this way, if someone was to throw, burn, completely remove both books from the earth, i.e. every bible and every Qur'aan in the world, which one would you say was really preserved?

Dispite knowing that there are many around the world who've memorised this one book from word to word, is there anyone, any child, adult, women, man etc who've done this with the bible?

Also there is a great difference between a version and a translation.

[Burninglight]

burninglight, it seems you are visiting that "**************" or that fake "wiki" website a lot,
i have been on that site and attempted to correct their false assertions but to no avail,
secondly answering islam claims to be a "christian" website whe many of it's articles indicate that it is actually anti-God.

the words plan and plot actually are used in different contexts depending on whom it is referring to.
you don't normally say "i plot to do such and such" , you say "i plan to do such and such" when referring to yourself,
but when an enemy maliciously plans evil against you, you call it a plot.
it is based on context and even if the same word is used in Arabic, the translation would most likely put it in context if the words are available.
that is the nature of translations that sometimes words cannot be expounded or even rendered accurately, and sometimes additional words can be used to further clarify.
peace

You should be a moderator. Thanks for your response

[MustafaMc]

Any time something is translated into a different that the original language it loses something or is subject to the whims of an translator.

Yes, translations of any text into another language are not exactly the same as the original. However, I would not use the phrase 'subject to the whims of a translator'. We have the Arabic beside the English that is available for critique by those who know both languages and those who would make gross errors would be instantly called to account. There is of course discussion about which translation conveys the closest meaning to the Arabic, but I am confident that those translations by Muslims are accurate within the limitations of the translator. I personally have 7 translations of the Quran into English and the Majestic and the Gracious translations are my favorite. However, translations by Islamophobes such as Usama Dakdok are most definitely not to be trusted. I have personally heard him speak and I would not trust a word he has written as being trustworthy from the Islamic perspective.

[Burninglight]

why don't you focus on the thread title issue?

you did well bringing Surah 5:5 , it is related to the topic ,and been answered ...
Are there any similar linguestic instances ,to be questioned?

If you have some then plz provide,otherwise the thread would be offtopic and meaningless ...

regards

Good point, but I don't think I brought up Surah 5: 5, but I did bring up about the Makr of Allah (SURAH 3: 54) Btw, is it true that Abu Bakr said that he would NOT trust the Makr of Allah if he had one foot in paradise and one on earth?

IMO, I believe the English translation is not giving the true arabic meaning of the Makr of Allah. It states that Allah is the best of planners, but if we look at the beginning of that verse we can see that people (unbelivers) were deceiving, scheming and plotting, but it states that "Allah is the best of planners." Shouldn't it be a translation of the word that shows Allah is the best at doing what those unbelievers were doing in the verse namely deceiving and plotting? This hasn't been answered clearly to me.

[MustafaMc]

Dispite knowing that there are many around the world who've memorised this one book from word to word, is there anyone, any child, adult, women, man etc who've done this with the bible?

This is an excellent point. Every since the time of Prophet Muhammad (saaws) Muslims have memorized and recited the Quran as the fundamental element of our 5 daily prayers. I have personally memorized only 98 ayat of the Quran in Arabic, but there are many who can recite the entire Quran. I have been in congregational prayer where the one leading was corrected during the prayer when he made a mistake by one following him. How much more so would have that been the case during the early days of Islam? If this was the case for the recitation, would the same not also apply to the written text and any mistakes have been quickly pointed out by many people?

[Aprender]

I have hate? Maybe I have for religions, but never for people in those religions. In Christianity we can make those distinctions. Can you do that in Islam? Does Islam allow for loving your enemies as does the Bible? BTW, I don't hate Islam any more that you do Christianity

Allah's Apostle (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) said, "Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to mankind." [Bukhari Vol. 9 : No. 473]

[MustafaMc]

BTW, I don't hate Islam any more that you do Christianity

There is much good in Christianity although its foundation is what we consider to be the most serious sin of shirk. I think it would be wrong to say that Muslims hate Christianity, in toto. I personally believe that we all would be best off in learning tolerance for each other while sharing our respective messages with the other with the best manners. Guidance to the Truth comes but from Allah (swt) and IMO no amount of debate can convince another to change his beliefs.

[Hamza Asadullah]

Burning Light If by loving Christianity you mean the true message of Jesus which was to establish the oneness of God then the message of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was a follow on of such a message just like the message of Jesus (Isa) was a follow on from thesame message of all the previous Prophets until the first Prophet Adam (As) which was to establish the oneness of God.

But if by Christianity you mean the infiltration of paganistic ideas and concepts then we detest this just as you should also detest anyone who tries to go against the true message of Jesus (As). Those who tried to twist, change and corrupt the true message of Jesus have misled so many people, if only you were to open your eyes so that you do not end up being one of those who passed their lives misled by the corrupters of the true message of Jesus.

[Burninglight]

Allah's Apostle (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) said, "Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to mankind." [Bukhari Vol. 9 : No. 473]

The Bible says "Vengence is mine says the Lord." That means Christians cannot take revenge. You are telling me what Allah does, but you are not Allah

[Hamza Asadullah]

The Bible says "Vengence is mine says the Lord." That means Christians cannot take revenge. You are telling me what Allah does, but you are not Allah

Really? What about an eye for an eye?

"You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too." (Matthew 5:38-40)

[Burninglight]

If by Christianity you mean the true message of Jesus which was to establish the oneness of God then the message of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was a follow on of such a message just like the message of Jesus (Isa) was a follow on from thesame message of all the previous Prophets until the first Prophet Adam (As) which was to establish the oneness of God.

But if by Christianity you mean the infiltration of paganistic ideas and concepts then we detest this just as you should also detest anyone who tries to go against the true message of Jesus (As). Those who tried to twist, change and corrupt the true message of Jesus have misled so many people, if only you were to open your eyes so that you do not end up being one of those who were misled by the corruption of the tremessage of Jesus.

I have no problem believing in the oneness of God, I don't believe God calling Jesus His "Beloved Son" is an infiltration of paganistic ideas nor the fact that He died and rose from the dead. I will not call God and Jesus a liar.

[Burninglight]

Really? What about an eye for an eye?

"You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too." (Matthew 5:38-40)

What about it. An eye for an eye will just make the whole world blind. What good is that? Jesus taught love and forgiveness never an eye for an eye. Christians are not bound by the letter of the law. The letter of the law kills! Jesus brings life; without Christ we are judge by the letter of the law. That is what the Bible teaches. Didn't you know that?

[Burninglight]

good night to this thread:hiding:

[Abz2000]

The Bible says "Vengence is mine says the Lord." That means Christians cannot take revenge. You are telling me what Allah does, but you are not Allah

so are you attempting to imply that there are to be no courts of justice in a christian country?

What about it. An eye for an eye will just make the whole world blind. What good is that? Jesus taught love and forgiveness never an eye for an eye.

well that was superseded when we came on the scene:

O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain; the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female; but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then (the demand for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good man*ner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this, he shall have a painful chastisement. And there is life for you in the retali*ation, O men of understanding, that you may guard your-selves (against evil) (Quran 2:178-179).

If any man have an ear, let him hear.
He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity:
he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.
Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Revelation 13

btw, i don't believe Jesus (pbuh) was abrogating the law, he was just advising patience, otherwise it would not have been prophecied about the believers of latter days.
it is also in the Quran:

And if you catch them out, catch them out with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed.
But if you are patient - it is better for those who are patient.
Quran 16:125

And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Revelation 12:11

who are these amazing people who don't fear death but smile in the face of it?
oh no, it's not gonna be the "t" word again is it?
you know who they are fought by? it is the beast that is diverse from the previous ones, it is given power over the whole earth (has never happened until the age of flight and global communication). and it fights them and "accuses them before our God day and night".
yup, the one who implants things in people with numbers through which they are to buy and sell.
Gosh, i really was of the opinion that the us government are at the forefront of that venture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrM6i8OlxrM

[Hamza Asadullah]

What about it. An eye for an eye will just make the whole world blind. What good is that? Jesus taught love and forgiveness never an eye for an eye. Christians are not bound by the letter of the law. The letter of the law kills! Jesus brings life; without Christ we are judge by the letter of the law. That is what the Bible teaches. Didn't you know that?

Oh ok so you are saying that it is acceptable to just ignore the scripture and take from it what you want and disregard from it what you dont want?

[Hamza Asadullah]

I have no problem believing in the oneness of God, I don't believe God calling Jesus His "Beloved Son" is an infiltration of paganistic ideas nor the fact that He died and rose from the dead. I will not call God and Jesus a liar.

You certainly do have a problem believing in the oneness of God as you cb learly believe in the paganistic idea of God manifesting himself in 3 ways similar to what Hindus believe regarding Brahman and many other paganistic religions.

Thus far you have not been able to provide a shred of evidence from the words of God nor Jesus to back up such lies. All you have done thus far is provide emotional fallacies. Please provide evidence from the words of God and Jesus to prove your false assertions otherwise what you sat has no basis nor any credibility.

[Burninglight]

Thus far you have not been able to provide a shred of evidence from the words of God nor Jesus to back up such lies. All you have done thus far is provide emotional fallacies. Please provide evidence from the words of God and Jesus to prove your false assertions otherwise what you sat has no basis nor any credibility.

Christainity goes far deeper that emotional fallacies. Do you realize that this is a direct attack on Christianity? You should treat Christian faith the way you want the Muslim faith to be treated. As the Bible states; "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."

[Aprender]

BTW, I don't hate Islam any more that you do Christianity

Saying that I hate Christianity takes it too far. I don't hate the religion at all but I do believe what it transformed into is a major sin. To associate a partner with Allah swt is something that I simply no longer accept as the truth or as pure monotheism. If it wasn't for Christianity, however, I wouldn't have had any semblance of an idea about God when I was growing up. Christianity in its original form is Islam and when I went on a quest for the truth this is what Allah, Al Qadir (The All powerful), gave to me though you might disagree with us on that. Christianity as the religion that it is today has nothing to offer me.

You believe after we die that the day of judgement will be something set up in a court room where Christians will be pardoned for believing a Middle Eastern man was tortured on a cross and died for our sins, and because of that belief, you will be forgiven regardless of anything that you did in this life, whereas, us Muslims see it more as something like this.



O Allah have mercy on our souls and fill our hearts and minds with Your continuous love and remembrance. May He, As-Salam, forgive us of our sins, increase our faith and multiply the good that we do in this life so we may have the very best in the hereafter. Ameeeen

:cry: The heart that witnesses the King can never worship the servant. La ilaha illa Allah.

I didn't think the verse was about me. I was trying to look at the verse in a hopeful way but that was destroyed by certain comments.

I was merely pointing out something that I observed from your behavior on this forum. If your hope was destroyed by my words then I sincerely encourage you to take a deeper look into your sincerity. You come onto this message board claiming to want to know the truth about Islam but you visit websites that are against religion all together and come to us with false claims about Islam and instead of listening to the Islamic perspective, you block it out and say "Well the Bible says this." This is an Islamic forum. We don't go by the Bible over here.

If you sincerely have questions about Islam, ask them, get your answers, and ask more instead of running to your friend Google and bringing up more false claims about the religion while ignoring the truth that we give to you. All you've been doing is sucking onto lies here and there about Islam while discounting the answers that we give to you. I'm sorry if our answers haven't been good enough for you but we are trying to answer them. I do care. I do want you to know the truth about Islam because you are my brother in humanity and I want the best for you. But then you make sly and patronizing comments and laugh out loud at other members here but when someone does it to you, you run into your shell and claim that some of us is judging you or treating you unfairly. Don't start none, won't be none.

I said this to a dear friend of mine a while ago but if you have ever put all of your expectations in humans then know that they will break your heart and you will be disappointed. If you put your expectations in Allah (swt) alone, He will never let you go.

People keep on trying to tear down this deen but the more they do it the more it grows and grows. You can choose not to accept it but you cannot deny the fact that this way of life is under attack. So in order to get alleviate their fears they want to make Islam about them. "Fear Islam because their Book says to kill all of us so we have to eradicate them." Lie. "Fear Islam because their book says to cover up their women so we can't look at them and subject them to our desires. Look, they're oppressed." Islam does not oppress women. "Fear Islam because their banking system won't allow us to make money off of interest." It's robbery. "Fear Islam because [insert excuse here]".

It's getting old and you're getting swept up in the propaganda. Stop allowing yourself to be tricked. Now if you're coming to this forum with the intention of actually becoming a Muslim then you're going to have to re-evaluate your sincerity here and open up your eyes.

You keep saying you're fighting the devil (audhu billahi min ash shaytan ir rajeem) , but have you ever fought yourself? You keep reading all of these posts on these anti-Islamic websites but have you ever read yourself? Maybe your biggest enemy is you right now? Are you here for the right reasons? Where is your heart?

Allah (swt) is closer to you, His servant, than the veins in your neck. This life is scary. It is going to make us cry. It is going to hurt us. And to get away from it we will flee to falsehood and our desires for temporary protection from the evil within it because for so long it was all many of us knew. It's all that seemed real. But know that Allah is our greatest Protector. He is the Loving One. He is the Reality. He is the Source of Peace.

I pray that Allah becomes the vision in your eyes, the comfort of your struggles, the light in your life, the refresher of your soul and the builder of your eternal home.

What is the life of this world but play and amusement? But best is the home in the hereafter, for those who are righteous. Will ye not then understand? (32) [Al An'am:32]

[Hamza Asadullah]

Christainity goes far deeper that emotional fallacies. Do you realize that this is a direct attack on Christianity? You should treat Christian faith the way you want the Muslim faith to be treated. As the Bible states; "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."

It is a direct attack on the corrupters of the true message of Jesus (as). It is also an attempt to make you see sense so that you maybe saved. It is an even bigger attempt to try and make you realise that what you believe has no basis from thewords and teachings of Jesus and God. You are taking your faith from random men who never met Jesus. You are taking your faith from those who corrupted, twisted and changed the true message of Jesus (as).

So I ask you again to provide evidence from the words and teachings of Jesus and God to back up your claims otherwise what you allege are just false lies and blasphemy against the Lord most high.

[Burninglight]

Saying that I hate Christianity takes it too far. I don't hate the religion at all but I do believe what it transformed into is a major sin. To associate a partner with Allah swt is something that I simply no longer accept as the truth or as pure monotheism. If it wasn't for Christianity, however, I wouldn't have had any semblance of an idea about God when I was growing up. Christianity in its original form is Islam and when I went on a quest for the truth this is what Allah, Al Qadir (The All powerful), gave to me though you might disagree with us on that. Christianity as the religion that it is today has nothing to offer me.

I did not say you hate Christianity and I didn't lol at any Muslim. I laugh because their comment was humous and they it meant to be as far as I could tell. Can you prove differently? It is not nice to paint someone in a negative light because they can't see Islam as God's chosen path for them. What difference does it make where I hear thing about islam. The fact is there are things out there circulating for the public to see. I am asking if they are true and I am accused. Why? Would you rather I don't ask and go around like millions of others believeing something false about Islam?????????

[Burninglight]

My last post for all threads for tonight
PBUY

[Abz2000]

and bear in mind that despite the leaders throughout history going with the "christianity is a peaceful religion, obey thy ruler romans 13" slant in order to keep people disarmed, pacified and under control, none of them have hesitated to use it as a tool for violence where they saw fit.
Islam is however consistent and open in it's teachings.
I also notice how Jesus and the money changers is not mentioned much coz he sure showed them - with no letting on turning the other cheek or turning a blind eye.

but when they use it to justify bombing families in their houses from airplanes (equivalent to locking the doors and setting the house on fire with the whole family inside). one does tend to wonder:



loved the song (other than the "lord" part), but the images really show the US governments hypocritical stance now that it is proving itself to be the actual enemy of God and promoter of every new debauchery.

[Aprender]

The Bible says "Vengence is mine says the Lord." That means Christians cannot take revenge. You are telling me what Allah does, but you are not Allah

Astagfirullah!!! O Allah have mercy on us all and guide us to the straight path. Ameeeeeen.

Woah. That hadith went right over your head. Reading comprehension must not be your strong point. You truly don't understand...SubhanAllah. I hope you are sincere about learning about Islam because the more I read your posts, the more I think you are only here for other reasons. Some of your posts in the beginning seemed like you were so serious about really learning about Islam but then some of them seem like you are just playing and disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.

If Christians cannot take revenge then not one of them should ever be in any branch of the armed forces because the commandments say "Thou shalt not kill." Revenge falls under that in times of combat too and getting revenge on someone doesn't have to be in the form of killing either. There are other ways. But I suppose every Christian in the armed forces aren't real Christians according to you either? Astagfirullah.

And I suppose if your family was being held at gunpoint or you were somewhere and some thugs were trying to do a walk by stabbing and rob you and your friends, you would just allow your loved ones to get killed because the bible says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek, huh? You act like Muslims are bad because the religion allows for us to defend ourselves if it gets to that point. Most humans would defend themselves in situations like this but no, not you. You'd just sit idly by with your cheek turned to the left or right and a golden boy smile on your face while those around you get hurt, right? Or if some crazy person overtaken by their desires violated one of your female friends or relatives in a way that should only be done between a husband and a wife and you saw that one on the street laughing in your face and taunting you after he won the lottery, I suppose you wouldn't feel any sense of revenge at all because your book says not to and you have such great control over your feelings that the thought of choking that man won't even come into your perfect mind, huh?

It is not nice to paint someone in a negative light because they can't see Islam as God's chosen path for them.

I'm not painting you in a negative light. I don't really know what you look like and I was never any good at painting in art class. You are presenting yourself in a negative way. Wake up. You are not being objective and your bias is coming off as extremely disrespectful to the point where I wonder if you come back to this forum and laugh at the posts. waAllahi I really don't know. I keep on asking you questions to understand where your mind is at because it's not easy to get the implied meaning of words through a message board but then you won't answer all of them. I'm trying to help but you won't allow me or anyone else here to help you when we try. No one here is trying to trick you but when we ask the tough questions right back at you, you retreat into this odd bi-polar psyche and claim you are being attacked or mistreated and then you go to bed.

There are other Christians on this forum and members of other faiths who are very respected because they show respect and kindness to everyone here even if they disagree with our beliefs. They're not here to convert us but for a better understanding of the faith and engaging in interfaith dialogue. What are your intentions? Are you considering becoming a Muslim or are you here for interfaith dialogue? If it is the former, then be grateful for the empty inner peace and the wound that pushed you closer to God. It's going to keep hurting until you realize the truth.

[MustafaMc]

Astagfirullah!!! O Allah have mercy on us all and guide us to the straight path. Ameeeeeen.

Assalamu alaikum, amen to that. Sister, I agree with all that you have written on this thread. You made excellent points in a well written form.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings of peace Burninglight

With the attempt of responding to your previously asked questions..and not trying to go off topic, since these are questions you as an OP have brought up..

Do you believe the Qur'an is an exact copy of a tablet of the Qur'an [in Heaven] in Sura 85:20-22 like we believe God’s word is established in heaven forever?

Owner of the throne, the Glorious, (He is the) Doer of whatsoever He intends (or wills). Has the story reached you of the hosts, Of Fir'aun (Pharaoh) and Thamud? Nay! The disbelievers (persisted) in denying (Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and his Message of Islamic Monotheism). And Allah encompasses them from behind! (i.e. all their deeds are within His Knowledge, and He will requite them for their deeds). Nay! This is a Glorious Qur'an, (Inscribed) in Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz (The Preserved Tablet)! [Al Qur’aan 85:15-22]

The Qur’aan is guarded in a tablet, protected and preserved, in accordance to the above posted verse. However, I won’t attempt to answer the rest as I’ve yet to study this topic in full by the grace of the almighty myself, inshaa’Allaah. So in order to know where it is located, only Allaah knows best. I believe someone knowledgeable can get to answering this i.e. a learned, knowledgeable person as in a scholar. So in that case, the Qur’aan is NOT left upon any individual to answer a question, as in giving their opinions on certain subjects or speaking without knowledge in order to just answer a question for the sake of answering a question, as it is an dangerous attempt in case one is mislead into believing incorrectly. You don’t go to a mechanic when your ill, but rather a doctor.

Also, can you post reference to where the bible states the word is established in heaven forever?

Is it true that there is a temporary verses in the Qur'an that Muslims agree Mohammed said were abrogated, are stored for all time in Heaven? Are they are still in the Qur'an today?

I don’t believe that there are ‘temporary’ verses in the Qur’aan, as these verses apply to a certain people and certain time, maybe this video will explain it best, due to my lack of good explanations, God willingly.

Is it true that the Sahih Muslim Hadiths record an extra Sura that is not in the Qur'an today?And that Muslim apologists claim this too was abrogated, but it is not in today's Qur'an?

The Qur'aan is complete, therefore there is no need for addition or deletion.

The hadeeth you are most likely referring to is a hadeeth in Sahih Bukhari, regarding the people of Adam (as) given the valley of gold..but I’m unable to find it as I don’t have the references with me, however, all I am aware of is that this is a saying of the prophet Muhammad (saw) and not a surah, but I’d better leave it to letting those most knowledgeable in answering this.

But in order to know the full understanding of every Ahadeeth within the books, go and study with Islamic scholars and teachers, this is what I suggest.

Is it true that 'Ubai's early copies of the Qur'an did not contain two Suras that are in the Qur'an today.

nope, it is not true. The 2 supposed 'surah's' your referring to are these "al-khal" and the other was named "al-hadf.". Am I correct? if not do feel free to correct me.

Here is the following translation..

1.O Allah, we seek your help and ask your forgiveness, and we praise you and we don't disbelieve in you. We separate from and leave who sins against you.

2.O Allah we worship you and to you we pray and prostrate and to you we run and hasten to serve you. We hope for your mercy and fear your punishment. Your punishment will surely reach the disbelievers.

These are actually part of a du'aa/supplication, known as du'aa e qunoot.

"O Allah! We beg help from You alone; ask forgiveness from You alone, and turn towards You and praise You for all the good things and are grateful to You and are not ungrateful to You and we part and break off with all those who are disobedient to you. O Allah! You alone do we worship and pray exclusively to You and bow before You alone and we hasten eagerly towards You and we fear Your severe punishment and hope for Your Mercy as your severe punishment is surely to be meted out to the unbelievers."

Notice that they are both similar. However, they are not chapters from the noble Qur'aan.

Is it true that 'Abdallah ibn Mas'ud was one of the four people Mohammed said to learn the Qur'an form. Is it true that the Al-Nuri lists verses in Ibn Mas'ud's version that are not in the Qur'an today?

Yes he did, Ibn Mas'ood (ra) was also considered a knowledgeable individual (but I have a feeling you've another question in regards to Ibn Mas'ood once answered)..also Can you tell what were/are the ‘al nuri’ verses , please ..

Before you attempt to ask more questions, please atleast study from Islamic sources, and quit posting questions from Anti-islamic sites such as muslimhope, answering islam etc.

Do feel free to correct me where i've gone wrong

[Burninglight]

Woah. That hadith went right over your head. Reading comprehension must not be your strong point. You truly don't understand...SubhanAllah. I hope you are sincere about learning about Islam because the more I read your posts, the more I think you are only here for other reasons. Some of your posts in the beginning seemed like you were so serious about really learning about Islam but then some of them seem like you are just playing and disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.

If you spent as much time explaining what has gone over my head instead of judging my motives, I might learn something. You don't know my heart only God can judge that.

If Christians cannot take revenge then not one of them should ever be in any branch of the armed forces because the commandments say "Thou shalt not kill." Revenge falls under that in times of combat too and getting revenge on someone doesn't have to be in the form of killing either. There are other ways. But I suppose every Christian in the armed forces aren't real Christians according to you either? Astagfirullah.

The military defense IMO, has nothing to do with this. Revenge is different than combat to me. To defend ones freedom or homeland from those that want to take over is different than you wanting to hurt someone the same or more than they hurt you for the sake of getting even. Besides, you have all faiths in the military and athestic beliefs as well. I am not sure you understood the Scripture I shared.

And I suppose if your family was being held at gunpoint or you were somewhere and some thugs were trying to do a walk by stabbing and rob you and your friends, you would just allow your loved ones to get killed because the bible says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek, huh?

No, you just to understand the Jesus in the Bible. That senario you gave has nothing to do with what I am talking about or the verse turn the other cheek. We believe in different Jesus'

I suppose you wouldn't feel any sense of revenge at all because your book says not to and you have such great control over your feelings that the thought of choking that man won't even come into your perfect mind, huh?

Maybe, put my feelings are not my leaders. The Book doesn't say control your feelings. But we can control what we do.

I'm not painting you in a negative light. I don't really know what you look like and I was never any good at painting in art class. You are presenting yourself in a negative way. Wake up. You are not being objective and your bias is coming off as extremely disrespectful to the point where I wonder if you come back to this forum and laugh at the posts

I am an artist I painted the picture you see of the man in the water being rescued by the hand of God. Wake up? Many people have been telling me that including non Christians UhMM I am not saying that to give you satisfaction, sister Aprender, I don't want to come across as disrespectful. It is painful to hear you say that about me. It makes me feel like a failure. I feel that you are not really looking objectively at what is being said to me when I respond. You ask of my intentions? It is to see Islam through your eyes and for you to see Christianity through mine. I go to bed because I am tired. We must have different time zones I have eastern standard time NY time. What is yours?
Peace
:)

[Aprender]

You ask of my intentions? It is to see Islam through your eyes and for you to see Christianity through mine.

So your intention here was never to see what Islam has to offer you as you stated in another thread but to try and force us to understand Christianity in the way that you see it. Got it.

I don't have my own interpretation of Islam. I pray that Allah (swt) helps me follow the Quran and Sunnah every day and stay on the straight path in His religion and not to ever go astray from that. I do not adjust Islam to fit my own interpretations and desires but I adjust myself to fit the deen. Through my eyes, Islam is a pure monotheistic way of life that makes sense. It's simple. It's pure.

We believe in different Jesus'

I disagree. You just have a different interpretation of him.

I am an artist I painted the picture you see of the man in the water being rescued by the hand of God.

MashaAllah.

I feel that you are not really looking objectively at what is being said to me when I respond

Ditto.

Do you believe that God, the Father is All-Knowing?

[Burninglight]

So your intention here was never to see what Islam has to offer you as you stated in another thread but to try and force us to understand Christianity in the way that you see it. Got it.

I didn't say that. I said, for me to try and see it through your eyes. Then I think I will understand it better. I don't force Christianity on anyone. Trying to turn you into a Christian is not my intention or my job, but I would like for you to see it through my eyes so maybe we can have a deeper understanding of what the other is going through and that it might promote patience and tolerance where there wasn't any before. Why would you think the worse? I want for us to both see objectively

[Hamza Asadullah]

The truth is you do NOT take your own beliefs from the teachings of God or Jesus but you take your beliefs from that of random unknown men who never met Jesus nor had anything to do with him in the Gospels and therefore they have written totally unreliable accounts of his life of which even Christian scholars admit that such accounts cannot be relied upon as they are totally unreliable and riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, additions and deletions. Is that where you take your faith and beliefs from? How will you answer God when heasks you why you disregarfed his teachings over that of unknown men who had nothing to do with God or Jesus. You will not have any excuse to make for you have disregarded the teachings of God for unreliable unknown accounts of Jesus life and sayings (the gospels).

You have your own mind to think logically and see sense yet you blocked it out thinking God cannot be explained anyway so I might aswell belive this or that about him. The fact is he NEVER taught you to believe that he manifests himself into 3 yet you believe the corrupted false teachings of the gospels over his word and teachings. How can such beliefs be true when NO Prophet of God ever taught such paganistic beliefs which clearly came from greek mythology which was quite fashionable at the time.

God is wanting you to see the truth but you refuse to want to see it.

[Aprender]

but I would like for you to see it through my eyes so maybe we can have a deeper understanding of what the other is going through and that it might promote patience and tolerance where there wasn't any before. Why would you think the worse? I want for us to both see objectively

You don't have to shove your interpretations of Scripture to us on the message board for us to understand what you're going through. That's not really the best way to start interfaith dialogue since that is now your new intention here on the forum. With that aside, it doesn't seem that you're trying to see Islam through my or anyone elses eyes here because anytime someone tells you something about the Islamic perspective, you still just quote unverifiable Bible quotes back at us without trying to put yourself in the position of the Muslim and truly understanding where they're coming from or how that can make sense.

Objectivity is not my problem. I used to be a journalist for a major newspaper and even though my stories were edited down to bits and slanted to fit the agenda of the paper, both sides got a fair trial as defined by my editor. I also used to be a devout Christian so I am familiar with both sides of the spectrum.

Objectivity is a journey that you need to make. Most people who come here to learn about Islam, come and ask genuine questions that they have themselves like "Why does the religion oppress women? Why does Islam allow Muslim men to ruthlessly beat their wives? Why does the Quran say to kill all of us infidels?" They don't copy and paste offensive lies asking for explanation about questions that they don't fully even understand themselves. I will no longer entertain foolishness.

Please answer my question.

Do you believe that God, the Father is All-Knowing?

[Burninglight]

The truth is you do NOT take your own beliefs from the teachings of God or Jesus but you take your beliefs from that of random unknown men who never met Jesus nor had anything to do with him in the Gospels and therefore they have written totally unreliable accounts of his life of which even Christian scholars admit that such accounts cannot be relied upon as they are totally unreliable and riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, additions and deletions. Is that where you take your faith and beliefs from? How will you answer God when heasks you why you disregarfed his teachings over that of unknown men who had nothing to do with God or Jesus. You will not have any excuse to make for you have disregarded the teachings of God for unreliable unknown accounts of Jesus life and sayings (the gospels).

You have your own mind to think logically and see sense yet you blocked it out thinking God cannot be explained anyway so I might aswell belive this or that about him. The fact is he NEVER taught you to believe that he manifests himself into 3 yet you believe the corrupted false teachings of the gospels over his word and teachings. How can such beliefs be true when NO Prophet of God ever taught such paganistic beliefs which clearly came from greek mythology which was quite fashionable at the time.

God is wanting you to see the truth but you refuse to want to see it.

That is right I was never taught that he manifests Himself into 3 so can we PLZ I beg you stop talking about it. I wasn't taught that. I am hearing more about it from Muslims in one day then I heard of it in 10 years among Christians. Why this obsession with the trinity. I haven't tried to promote the term once on this forum so why do you keep bringing up something I cannot explain or understand? STOP STOP STOP!!! I am not telling you have to accept the term trinity. I haven't mentioned it. No One taught the trinity in the Bible either, Not even Paul

[Burninglight]

....you still just quote unverifiable Bible quotes back at us without trying to put yourself in the position of the Muslim and truly understanding where they're coming from or how that can make sense.

What do you mean. I don't quote Bible Scripture I cannot back up. I haven't done that once.

Objectivity is not my problem. I used to be a journalist for a major newspaper and even though my stories were edited down to bits and slanted to fit the agenda of the paper, both sides got a fair trial as defined by my editor. I also used to be a devout Christian so I am familiar with both sides of the spectrum.

Okay, I accept that. You are familiar but many are not.

Objectivity is a journey that you need to make. Most people who come here to learn about Islam, come and ask genuine questions that they have themselves like "Why does the religion oppress women? Why does Islam allow Muslim men to ruthlessly beat their wives? Why does the Quran say to kill all of us infidels?"

Why is there a division among the ****e and the sunni. What is the differences? Muslims tell me that the Quran teaches how they may beat their wives to avoid abuse. Why doesn't it teach them not to beat them at all? Wouldn't that be the most logical way to avoid abuse? What is beat lightly to one man might be a power punch to another man. Why does it state a woman's witness is half that of a man?

[Burninglight]

Originally Posted by Aprender
Do you believe that God, the Father is All-Knowing?

Yes, I do

[Aprender]

Why is there a division among the ****e and the sunni. What is the differences?

The first groups of Muslims that I learned about was that group. I had no idea that Sunni even existed. We can go for days and days about what they believe and if you looked into it for yourself you would wouldn't be able to understand how anyone in their right mind could believe such a thing. I find the beliefs of that particular group to be appalling and scary. Basically their beliefs hold some similarities to Catholicism in that they pray to saints and have their own special group of imams that they worship.

Just read this.
http://www.islamicboard.com/educatio...ml#post1492137

[Aprender]

Muslims tell me that the Quran teaches how they may beat their wives to avoid abuse. Why doesn't it teach them not to beat them at all? Wouldn't that be the most logical way to avoid abuse? What is beat lightly to one man might be a power punch to another man.

I've never heard this justification before that men beat their wives to avoid abuse. That is abuse. This explanation for it is a new one for me but understand that spousal abuse is something that occurs across all cultures and religions and it's definitely not something that is out of the realm of possibility here in the West at all.

When I began learning about Islam I thought this was very strange too. Beat me lightly? What is that supposed to mean? It didn't make any sense. Basically if I am being seriously defiant in a way then my husband can tap me with a small stick or a twig. But at the end of the day it's like this. It doesn't matter if I am a Christian, Jewish or Humanist woman, if my husband were to severely beat me for any reason I'd have to divorce him. No amount of love for any human being in this world is worth me being abused and my health and life severely being put in danger. That in and of itself is a form of torture and oppression that has no place in society at all regardless of the religion. Here is a more detailed answer on that ruling by qualified scholars.

Praise be to Allaah. We are very happy that you are reading our site and are keen to learn about Islam. We ask Allaah to guide you to that which will bring you happiness in this world and in the hereafter.

There is nothing in the Qur’aan that suggests that a man is allowed to bite his wife. 1 – The Qur’aan enjoins good treatment of one's wife: she is to be honoured and treated kindly, even when one no longer feels love in one's heart towards her. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “and live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allaah brings through it a great deal of good” [al-Nisa’ 4:19]

2 – The Qur’aan explains that women have rights over their husbands, just as their husbands have rights over them. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allaah is All-Mighty, All-Wise” [al-Baqarah 2:228]

This verse indicates that the man has additional rights, commensurate with his role as protector and maintainer and his responsibility of spending (on his wife) etc. 3 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) enjoined kind treatment and honouring of one’s wife, and he described the best of people as those who are best to their wives. He said: “The best of you are those who are the best to their wives, and I am the best of you to my wives.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 3895; Ibn Maajah, 1977; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

4 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) spoke beautiful word concerning kind treatment of one’s wife, stating that when the husband feeds his wife and puts a morsel of food in her mouth, he earns the reward of doing an act of charity. He said, “You never spend anything but you will be rewarded for it, even the morsel of food that you lift to your wife’s mouth.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6352; Muslim, 1628.

4 – And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Fear Allaah with regard to women, for you have taken them as a trust from Allaah and intimacy with them has become permissible to you by the words of Allaah. Your right over them is that they should not allow anyone to sit on your furniture whom you dislike; if they do that then hit them but not in a harsh manner. And their right over you is that you should provide for them and clothe them on a reasonable basis.” Narrated by Muslim, 1218.

What is meant by “they should not allow anyone to sit on your furniture whom you dislike” is that they should not allow anyone whom you dislike to enter your houses, whether the person disliked is a man or a woman, or any of the woman’s mahrams [close relatives to whom marriage is forbidden]. The prohibition includes all of them. From the words of al-Nawawi.

The hadeeth may be understood as meaning that a man has the right to hit his wife, in a manner that is not harsh and does not cause injury if if there is a reason for that, such as her going against his wishes or disobeying him.

This is like the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “As to those women on whose part you see ill‑conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allaah is Ever Most High, Most Great” [al-Nisa’ 4:34]

If a woman rebels against her husband and disobeys his commands, then he should follow this method of admonishing her, forsaking her in bed and hitting her. Hitting is subject to the condition that it should not be harsh or cause injury. Al-Hasan al-Basri said: this means that it should not cause pain.

‘Ata’ said: I said to Ibn ‘Abbaas, what is the kind of hitting that is not harsh? He said, Hitting with a siwaak and the like. [A siwaak is a small stick or twig used for cleaning the teeth - Translator]

The purpose behind this is not to hurt or humiliate the woman, rather it is intended to make her realize that she has transgressed against her husband’s rights, and that her husband has the right to set her straight and discipline her. And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/41199/

While the scholar says here about "disobeying the husband" I've heard some sheiks say that a husband should do this if his wife is doing something to disobey Allah (swt). (i.e. not praying after the husband reminds her, drinking alcohol after the husband reminds her not to do this, etc.) The reason some of them have made this distinction is because some men have come to the conclusion that a wife is the slave to her husband and that she must obey his every command like a robot no matter how ridiculous and backwards it may be when in actuality the only thing that any human being should be a slave/servant to is the Creator alone.

[Burninglight]

The first groups of Muslims that I learned about was that group. I had no idea that Sunni even existed. We can go for days and days about what they believe and if you looked into it for yourself you would wouldn't be able to understand how anyone in their right mind could believe such a thing. I find the beliefs of that particular group to be appalling and scary. Basically their beliefs hold some similarities to Catholicism in that they pray to saints and have their own special group of imams that they worship.

Just read this.
http://www.islamicboard.com/educatio...ml#post1492137

So the Shia are like what the Catholics are to Biblical Christians. The shia sound like bad news. So the Sunni are good. They have the best doctrine. How did the Shia & the Sunni separate. Did the Sunni come out of the Shia like Biblical Chritsians and Protestants came out of Catholics. How do they call them Catholics? Do the Shia believe that Jesus died on the cross?

[Hamza Asadullah]

So the Shia are like what the Catholics are to Biblical Christians. The shia sound like bad news. So the Sunni are good. They have the best doctrine. How did the Shia & the Sunni separate. Did the Sunni come out of the Shia like Biblical Chritsians and Protestants came out of Catholics. How they call them Catholics? Do the Shia believe that Jesus died on the cross?

No they are not because Catholics make up the majority of Christianity whereas Shia only make up a small percentage of Muslims. They also follow the Qur'an but they do not follow the Sunnah but they claim to follow the way of the 12 imams, 11 of which were related to the Prophet (Pbuh). Shia came out of Sunnis not the other way around. It was more political than religious to do with the caliphate of Ali (Ra). No Muslim believes Jesus died on the cross. That is a complete myth.

[Hamza Asadullah]

That is right I was never taught that he manifests Himself into 3 so can we PLZ I beg you stop talking about it. I wasn't taught that. I am hearing more about it from Muslims in one day then I heard of it in 10 years among Christians. Why this obsession with the trinity. I haven't tried to promote the term once on this forum so why do you keep bringing up something I cannot explain or understand? STOP STOP STOP!!! I am not telling you have to accept the term trinity. I haven't mentioned it. No One taught the trinity in the Bible either, Not even Paul

But you keep saying that Jesus is the word made flesh meaning that God manifested himself into his word (Jesus). You also believe that the holy spirit is another manifestation of God. So you do believe in the trinity. So why do you keep denying it? You believe in that which you yourself claim is NOT in the bible. How can you believe God manifests himself into 3?

[Hamza Asadullah]

Muslims tell me that the Quran teaches how they may beat their wives to avoid abuse. Why doesn't it teach them not to beat them at all? Wouldn't that be the most logical way to avoid abuse? What is beat lightly to one man might be a power punch to another man. Why does it state a woman's witness is half that of a man?

Are you sure it isnt anti-Islamic websites that tell you this? NO Muslim would claim something that is against Islam.

[Burninglight]

Are you sure it isnt anti-Islamic websites that tell you this? NO Muslim would claim something that is against Islam.

No i did not go there, but things come to mind I heard. Do you deny that Islam teaches you the correct way to beat your woman such as leave no marks on their face or am I confusing the Sunni with the Shia?

[Aprender]

No i did not go there, but things come to mind I heard. Do you deny that Islam teaches you the correct way to beat your woman such as leave no marks on their face or am I confusing the Sunni with the Shia?

Will refer you to this from the scholar again:

If a woman rebels against her husband and disobeys his commands, then he should follow this method of admonishing her, forsaking her in bed and hitting her. Hitting is subject to the condition that it should not be harsh or cause injury. Al-Hasan al-Basri said: this means that it should not cause pain.

‘Ata’ said: I said to Ibn ‘Abbaas, what is the kind of hitting that is not harsh? He said, Hitting with a siwaak and the like. [A siwaak is a small stick or twig used for cleaning the teeth - Translator]

Basically a tap. If you beat your wife until she is black and blue in the face or in such a way that her bones or broken and their are bruises all over her body and she is unconscious and can't walk by the time your violent rage ends then you have indeed transgressed and need to repent for this sin right away.

[Hamza Asadullah]

No i did not go there, but things come to mind I heard. Do you deny that Islam teaches you the correct way to beat your woman such as leave no marks on their face or am I confusing the Sunni with the Shia?

Well you should ascertain the facts before making incorrect statements which seem to me to come from anti-Islamic websites. The Islamic stance regarding what you have mentioned is that firstly Islam forbids hitting anyone on the face. This is established by the following hadith of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) Narrated by Abu Hurraira:

" Avoid striking the face, for Allah created Adam in his image." (Muslim and al-Bukhari). So to slap ones wife is forbidden in Islam.

If the wife committs indecency or becomes rebellious against her husband then only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort when all else has failed is it is permissable for the husband to lightly strike her but it is forbidden to cause her any injury, similar to the proper disciplining of a child. It is never lawful for him to strike her face or cause her any bruise or injury. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said regarding this:

"So beware of Allah regarding women for you have taken them as a trust from Allah and you have made their bodies lawful with the word of Allah. You have the right over them that they should not allow anyone on your furnishings who you dislike. If they do that, hit them in a way which causes no injury. And, they have the right over you to provision and clothing according to custom." (Bukhari & Muslim)

So the hitting is subject to the condition that it should not be harsh or cause injury. Al-Hasan al-Basri said: this means that it should not cause pain.

‘Ata’(Ra) said: I said to Ibn ‘Abbaas, what is the kind of hitting that is not harsh? He said, Hitting with a siwaak and the like. [A siwaak is a small stick or twig used for cleaning the teeth - Translator]

The purpose behind this is not to hurt or humiliate the woman, rather it is intended to make her realize that she has transgressed against her husband’s rights, and that her husband has the right to set her straight and discipline her.

Also one must keep in mind that hitting the wife is ONLY if she is doing something very wrong and you have already tried to speak to her about it, and that has failed, AND you have abandoned her bed and that has failed, ONLY then is it permissible to hit her lightly, as a last resort.

In no way does Islam allow men to hit out at their wives in a moment of anger, to take out their frustration on them or simply because he felt like it, as some people wrongly claim. As Muslims we must protect the sanctity of our religion and also it is upon us to protect women from abusive husbands - we therefore must be very assertive in establishing the fact that NO, Islam does not in anyway way allow a man to abuse his wife!

It is a fact that our beloved Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) never hit nor did he even ever shout at any of his wives or servants. He was the best towards his wives and was the perfect example for mankind. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) stated:

"The best among you is the one who is the best towards his wife"

(Hadith - Muslim, #3466)

So a Muslim must be the best towards his wife and must never hurt nor injure her whether mentally nor physically.

And Allah knows best in all matters

[Hamza Asadullah]

Also dont try to change the subject. You said:

That is right I was never taught that he manifests Himself into 3 so can we PLZ I beg you stop talking about it. I wasn't taught that. I am hearing more about it from Muslims in one day then I heard of it in 10 years among Christians. Why this obsession with the trinity. I haven't tried to promote the term once on this forum so why do you keep bringing up something I cannot explain or understand? STOP STOP STOP!!! I am not telling you have to accept the term trinity. I haven't mentioned it. No One taught the trinity in the Bible either, Not even Paul

But you keep saying that Jesus is the word made flesh meaning that God manifested himself into his word (Jesus). You also believe that the holy spirit is another manifestation of God. So you do believe in the trinity. So why do you keep denying it? You believe in that which you yourself claim is NOT in the bible. How can you believe God manifests himself into 3?

[Burninglight]

Well you should ascertain the facts before making incorrect statements which seem to me to come from anti-Islamic websites. The Islamic stance regarding what you have mentioned is that firstly Islam forbids hitting anyone on the face. This is established by the following hadith of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) Narrated by Abu Hurraira:

" Avoid striking the face, for Allah created Adam in his image." (Muslim and al-Bukhari). So to slap ones wife is forbidden in Islam.

My question was not answered ; instead, you appear to get on the defensive by showing concern where I got my information. My question is wouldn't it have been better to tell the husbands not to beat their wives at all to avoid any risk of abuse? Believe me I have seen and heard the abuse some Muslim woman are going through. Plz just answer my question.

Basically a tap. If you beat your wife until she is black and blue in the face or in such a way that her bones or broken and their are bruises all over her body and she is unconscious and can't walk by the time your violent rage ends then you have indeed transgressed and need to repent for this sin right away.

A tap with a toothpick type twig. I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me. How is that worse than witholding the marriage bed especially for the man. The man has more to lose if he has one wife. He is punishing himself more for what the wife did wrong. What if the man is wrong in the marriage relationship? What does the man get beaten with? My question was simple, and it didn't get answered. The Bible teaches not to beat your wife in any fashion or form; in fact, it states that we shouild love our wives like Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. We are taught to lay down our lives for our wives! This really helps prevent abuse.

[YusufNoor]

So the Shia are like what the Catholics are to Biblical Christians.

NO, you have it backwards. Shii'a are like protestants, protesting against the rule of the kin of abu Sufian and the murders of Ali ibn Abee Talib and his sons. rather like the Catholics though, they follow the 12 Imams and give them god-like qualities akin the popes. Shiism ISN'T Islam.

The shia sound like bad news. So the Sunni are good. They have the best doctrine.

Sunni have the correct doctrine, for the most part.

How did the Shia & the Sunni separate. Did the Sunni come out of the Shia like Biblical Chritsians and Protestants came out of Catholics.

the Shii'a are the "sect of Ali" and Sunni really means NOT Shii'a. the Shii'a are an offshoot sect, but they DO NOT follow the "sunnah" of Ali, because Ali followed the sunnah of the Prophet.

How do they call them Catholics?

Catholic meant universal. as Catholicism developed over the course of centuries, opponents were tortured and murdered, leaders declared anathema.

Do the Shia believe that Jesus died on the cross?

Biblical Christians, other than Lutheran and Anglican, decided that the Church had denigrated so much that they threw out Catholic doctrine and attempted to created faiths based upon the Bible only.

Islam goes directly back to ALL of the Prophets. so a major difference is that Muslims KNOW what Islam is, while the majority of Christians get their foundation of faith from the Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III (680-681). this set the final and complete belief system for 90% of Christians today, including most Protestants. this was more than 600 years after Jesus went to heaven and AFTER the life of Rasulullah!

thus, Islam was "completed" BEFORE Christianity!

:wa:

[Burninglight]

Islam goes directly back to ALL of the Prophets. so a major difference is that Muslims KNOW what Islam is, while the majority of Christians get their foundation of faith from the Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III (680-681). this set the final and complete belief system for 90% of Christians today, including most Protestants. this was more than 600 years after Jesus went to heaven and AFTER the life of Rasulullah!

thus, Islam was "completed" BEFORE Christianity!

What are Christians doing different now than they did before Constantinople, and who is Rasulullah?

[YusufNoor]

What are Christians doing different now than they did before Constantinople, and who is Rasulullah? the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh

they were trying to decide whether Jesus, pbuh, was god or human when he was human, whether or not Mary, pbuh, was literally the mother of a god. once Christianity became "official;" Bishops and monks ran things on a local basis. Antioch, Ephesus and Alexandria were as strong, if not stronger than Rome. the power of Ephesus declined with the Bishopric of Constantinople. Emperors and Bishops spent the next 300+ years mapping out Christianity. Christianity was quite diverse before Constantine. NO ONE KNOWS exactly how diverse, much of it was simply Paganism wrapped in a new name.
sources:

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Wars-Pat.../dp/0061768944

http://www.amazon.com/D-381-Heretics...ref=pd_sim_b_2

[Burninglight]

That is a complete myth.

How do you know Jesus death on the cross was a myth? pfft

[Hamza Asadullah]

My question was not answered ; instead, you appear to get on the defensive by showing concern where I got my information. My question is wouldn't it have been better to tell the husbands not to beat their wives at all to avoid any risk of abuse? Believe me I have seen and heard the abuse some Muslim woman are going through. Plz just answer my question.

Your question was perfectly answered. It is just that you do not wish to see sense. I showed concern because it is clear you are not being truthful about where you got such information from. No Muslim would say such a thing. Much of what you state regarding Islam seems to come from anti Islamic websites. You should at least be honest about these things as it would show that you have some sincerety.

The answer to your question is that no it would not have been better at all. If the wife committs indecency or becomes rebellious against her husband then only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort when all else has failed is it is permissable for the husband to lightly strike her but it is forbidden to cause her any injury, similar to the proper disciplining of a child. It is never lawful for him to strike her face or cause her any bruise or injury. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said regarding this:

"So beware of Allah regarding women for you have taken them as a trust from Allah and you have made their bodies lawful with the word of Allah. You have the right over them that they should not allow anyone on your furnishings who you dislike. If they do that, hit them in a way which causes no injury. And, they have the right over you to provision and clothing according to custom." (Bukhari & Muslim)

A tap with a toothpick type twig. I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me. How is that worse than witholding the marriage bed especially for the man. The man has more to lose if he has one wife. He is punishing himself more for what the wife did wrong. What if the man is wrong in the marriage relationship? What does the man get beaten with? My question was simple, and it didn't get answered. The Bible teaches not to beat your wife in any fashion or form; in fact, it states that we shouild love our wives like Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. We are taught to lay down our lives for our wives! This really helps prevent abuse.

"Hitting" is the very last option after everything has been tried. So if a person has gone about the matter in the proper manner then they would never need to resort to the last option. The Ptophet Muhammad (Pbuh) never hit nor shouted at any of his wives. But every situation is different. But even then hitting is subject to the condition that it should not be harsh or cause injury. Al-Hasan al-Basri said: this means that it should not cause pain.

‘Ata’(Ra) said: I said to Ibn ‘Abbaas, what is the kind of hitting that is not harsh? He said, Hitting with a siwaak and the like. [A siwaak is a small stick or twig used for cleaning the teeth - Translator]

The purpose behind this is not to hurt or humiliate the woman, rather it is intended to make her realize that she has transgressed against her husband’s rights, and that her husband has the right to set her straight and discipline her.

Also one must keep in mind that hitting the wife is ONLY if she is doing something very wrong and you have already tried to speak to her about it, and that has failed, AND you have abandoned her bed and that has failed, ONLY then is it permissible to hit her lightly, as a last resort.

In no way does Islam allow men to hit out at their wives in a moment of anger, to take out their frustration on them or simply because he felt like it, as some people wrongly claim. As Muslims we must protect the sanctity of our religion and also it is upon us to protect women from abusive husbands - we therefore must be very assertive in establishing the fact that NO, Islam does not in anyway way allow a man to abuse his wife!

As I have already mentioned the last resort can only be used in the correct manner (not to inflict injury) & in rare and exceptional circumstances when all else has failed as long as he has done everything in the correct manner and taken all necessery steps to correct her.

I do agree that some people do twist the rules to suit themselves but that can be applied to many rules and regulations which are twisted by people who use it to their advantage to someone elses disadvantage. That is obviously unjust and wrong and such people will be punished by God for every soul shall get their recompanse from every atom of injustice they have experienced in their lives in this world.

It is a fact that our beloved Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) never hit nor did he even ever shout at any of his wives or servants. He was the best towards his wives and was the perfect example for mankind. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) stated:

"The best among you is the one who is the best towards his wife" (Hadith - Muslim, #3466)

So a Muslim must be the best towards his wife and must never hurt nor injure her whether mentally nor physically.

[Burninglight]

they were trying to decide whether Jesus, pbuh, was god or human when he was human, whether or not Mary, pbuh, was literally the mother of a god. once Christianity became "official;" Bishops and monks ran things on a local basis. Antioch, Ephesus and Alexandria were as strong, if not stronger than Rome. the power of Ephesus declined with the Bishopric of Constantinople. Emperors and Bishops spent the next 300+ years mapping out Christianity. Christianity was quite diverse before Constantine. NO ONE KNOWS exactly how diverse, much of it was simply Paganism wrapped in a new name.
sources:

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Wars-Pat.../dp/0061768944

http://www.amazon.com/D-381-Heretics...ref=pd_sim_b_2

So you are saying today Christians are trying to decided if Jesus is God and if Mary is the mother of God, but back then before Constantine they knew Mary was not the mother of God and so on. Well my world view tells me that there is a convoulted mixiture here. Biblical Christians today belief what they believed back then. They believe that Mary is NOT the mother of God; they believe that Jesus is NOT God the Father, and they believe the Holy Spirit is God, and they believe that Jesus is definitely the son of God of the living God who died for sin and rose again from the dead who is coming back to judge the living and the dead.

They believe that God judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the son so that the son would be honored the same as the father who sent Him. For if we honor not the son the same as the father, we don't honor the Father. Now this belief is what the early Biblical Christians believed before the time of Constantine and Muhammad; morever, it is exactly what Bibical Christian believe today. Are there any Christians on this forum that disagree. Maybe a Catholic might about Mary, but I will tell the Catholic that Mary was created by God and that she is the mother of Jesus but not God. Christians will tell you back then and exactly the same today that Jesus is the Son of God, and man does that tick off Satan?

[Hamza Asadullah]

How do you know Jesus death on the cross was a myth? pfft

Psalm 91:

1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. [a]

2 I will say [b] of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust."

3 Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence.

4 He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

5 You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day,

6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness, nor the plague that destroys at midday.

7 A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you.

8 You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked.

9 If you make the Most High your dwelling— even the LORD, who is my refuge-

10 then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent.

11 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways;

12 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone. (If Jesus died on the cross and got buried, then his feet would've struck the ground and the stones on it from bringing him down, throwing him on the floor and burying him).

13 You will tread upon the lion and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

14 "Because he loves me," says the LORD, "I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.

15 He will call upon me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him.

16 With long life will I satisfy him and show him my salvation."


Isaiah 52:13

See, my servant will act wisely ; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. - This is clearly in accordance with the Qur'an that he will be lifted and saved from such a punishment.


Therefore there is NO doubt that according to Psalms God Almighty will hear his cries and cover him with his protection. That he will have no fear in him and he will observe the punishment of the crucified ones. That Christs call will be heard and that he will be delivered and honoured. According to the verses from Psalms and Isaiah above GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him. This is perfectly in accordance with the Islamic belief regarding Christ. If Christ was crucified then none of these verses would be valid.

[Burninglight]

The answer to your question is that no it would not have been better at all. If the wife committs indecency or becomes rebellious against her husband then only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort when all else has failed is it is permissable for the husband to lightly strike her but it is forbidden to cause her any injury, similar to the proper disciplining of a child. It is never lawful for him to strike her face or cause her any bruise or injury. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said regarding this:

"So beware of Allah regarding women for you have taken them as a trust from Allah and you have made their bodies lawful with the word of Allah. You have the right over them that they should not allow anyone on your furnishings who you dislike. If they do that, hit them in a way which causes no injury. And, they have the right over you to provision and clothing according to custom." (Bukhari & Muslim)




"Hitting" is the very last option after everything has been tried. So if a person has gone about the matter in the proper manner then they would never need to resort to the last option. The Ptophet Muhammad (Pbuh) never hit nor shouted at any of his wives. But every situation is different. But even then hitting is subject to the condition that it should not be harsh or cause injury. Al-Hasan al-Basri said: this means that it should not cause pain.

‘Ata’(Ra) said: I said to Ibn ‘Abbaas, what is the kind of hitting that is not harsh? He said, Hitting with a siwaak and the like. [A siwaak is a small stick or twig used for cleaning the teeth - Translator]

The purpose behind this is not to hurt or humiliate the woman, rather it is intended to make her realize that she has transgressed against her husband’s rights, and that her husband has the right to set her straight and discipline her.

Also one must keep in mind that hitting the wife is ONLY if she is doing something very wrong and you have already tried to speak to her about it, and that has failed, AND you have abandoned her bed and that has failed, ONLY then is it permissible to hit her lightly, as a last resort.

In no way does Islam allow men to hit out at their wives in a moment of anger, to take out their frustration on them or simply because he felt like it, as some people wrongly claim. As Muslims we must protect the sanctity of our religion and also it is upon us to protect women from abusive husbands - we therefore must be very assertive in establishing the fact that NO, Islam does not in anyway way allow a man to abuse his wife!

As I have already mentioned the last resort can only be used in the correct manner (not to inflict injury) & in rare and exceptional circumstances when all else has failed as long as he has done everything in the correct manner and taken all necessery steps to correct her.

I do agree that some people do twist the rules to suit themselves but that can be applied to many rules and regulations which are twisted by people who use it to their advantage to someone elses disadvantage. That is obviously unjust and wrong and such people will be punished by God for every soul shall get their recompanse from every atom of injustice they have experienced in their lives in this world.

It is a fact that our beloved Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) never hit nor did he even ever shout at any of his wives or servants. He was the best towards his wives and was the perfect example for mankind. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) stated:

"The best among you is the one who is the best towards his wife" (Hadith - Muslim, #3466)

So a Muslim must be the best towards his wife and must never hurt nor injure her whether mentally nor physically.

Now you answered it to a point. You said "No it wouldn't be better." IMO, being hit with a twig the size of a toothpick that causes no pain or harm should be the first option for correction, but being held from the marriage bed, the latter, because that is or can be emotionally painful and can be a form of emotional abuse when prolonged.

The wife can or might feel that maybe her husband doesn't love her anymore. The Bible says that we should never with hold ourselves from our wives unless it is with mutual consent for just a time so that Satan will not come to tempt us. Well, thank you for answering my question.

It makes more sense to me and I agree more with the Bible that says that the man should lay down his life for his wife and not withhold himself from her and definitely not beat her lightly or harshly with any object. Besides, what is the point of correcting with a small twig like toothpick that causes no pain? If children are disciplined like that, they will never learn the lesson of correction. It makes no sense, and seems like an attempt to cover the embarrasment of beaten your wife when you know you shouldn't. My question was not fully answered really. I also asked about what the woman can do to the men who are more likely to misbehave?

Lets be honest like you expect from me and call a spade a spade: If a Muslim must be the best towards his wife and must never hurt nor injure her whether mentally nor physically, will will not beat his wife in any form and not with hold himself from her period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hamza Asadullah]

Biblical Christians today belief what they believed back then. They believe that Mary is NOT the mother of God; they believe that Jesus is NOT God the Father, and they believe the Holy Spirit is God, and they believe that Jesus is definitely the son of God of the living God who died for sin and rose again from the dead who is coming back to judge the living and the dead.

Yes they believed that God was one and had no "literal" son. After Constantine Christians began worship God as the father and God as the son and God as the holy spirit. So they worshipped worship 3 different entities. You also admnitted that in your supplications you call upon God the father and God the son seperately. Therefore no matter how much you try and decieve yourself you are in fact worshipping 3 different entities.

Maybe a Catholic might about Mary, but I will tell the Catholic that Mary was created by God and that she is the mother of Jesus but not God. Christians will tell you back then and exactly the same today that Jesus is the Son of God,

But if Jesus is Gods word made flesh, then Mary is the mother of Gods word made flesh so she has to be the mother of God himself. She cannot be taken out of this equation no matter how hard you try to disregard her. She had God in her stomach for 9 months. She gave birth to God. She suckled God. She stopped God crying. She fed God. She taught God what he did not know when he was a child. She looked after God and raised him. She is the mother of God.

God the father is the father and the son is the son and the mother is the mother and the holy spirit is also God. Thats a lot of Gods.

and man does that tick off Satan?

Nop it makes him very happy indeed. NOTHING makes satan happier than for mankind to worship other than God. That is his biggest achievement.

[Burninglight]

Originally Posted by Burninglight
How do you know Jesus death on the cross was a myth? pfft
Psalm 91:

1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. [a]

2 I will say [b] of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust."

3 Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence.

4 He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

5 You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day,

6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness, nor the plague that destroys at midday.

7 A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you.

8 You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked.

9 If you make the Most High your dwelling— even the LORD, who is my refuge-

10 then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent.

11 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways;

12 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone. (If Jesus died on the cross and got buried, then his feet would've struck the ground and the stones on it from bringing him down, throwing him on the floor and burying him).

13 You will tread upon the lion and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

14 "Because he loves me," says the LORD, "I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.

15 He will call upon me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him.

16 With long life will I satisfy him and show him my salvation."


Isaiah 52:13

See, my servant will act wisely ; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. - This is clearly in accordance with the Qur'an that he will be lifted and saved from such a punishment.


Therefore there is NO doubt that according to Psalms God Almighty will hear his cries and cover him with his protection. That he will have no fear in him and he will observe the punishment of the crucified ones. That Christs call will be heard and that he will be delivered and honoured. According to the verses from Psalms and Isaiah above GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him. This is perfectly in accordance with the Islamic belief regarding Christ. If Christ was crucified then none of these verses would be valid.

How about these fufilled prophecies:
PSALMS
19-22:16For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Isaiah 53:
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
⁵ But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
⁶ All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
⁷ He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.

^{Mat 28:2} And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.³ His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow.⁴ And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.⁵ But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.⁶ He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he^[a] lay.⁷ Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.”⁸ So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

How about when Jesus predicted His death three times in the Bible. How do you know that what calls this a myth isn't one?

Jesus' death and resurrection a myth? pfft, try telling that to 2.5 billion Christians in the world today!

[Hamza Asadullah]

Now you answered it to a point. You said no it wouldn't be better. IMO, being hit with a twig the size of a toothpick that causes no pain or harm should be the first option for correction, but being held from the marriage bed, the latter, because that is emotionally painful and can be a form of emotional abuse when prolonged.

You missed out the first step which is to talk. Communication is the best way to resolve any matter. It may also include getting others to talk to her etc. Most cases will be resolved in the first step. So if in rare cases the matter is still not resolved and the wife is still being disobedient to the husband then he would have no other choice if communication has failed but to abandon the bed until she has corrected her behaviour. Is her disobedience not already painful to her husband and the marital relationship? If she cares so much about her husband and her relationship then this step would definately sort the matter out and make her realise of her wrong doings towards her husband. So the purpose of this step is to make her realise the impact her behaviour is having on her husband and relationship.

The wife can or might feel that maybe her husband doesn't love her anymore. The Bible says that we should never withold ourselves from our wives unless it is with mutually agree for just a tims so that Satan will not come to tempt us. Well, thank you for answering my question. It makes more sense to me and I agree more with the Bible that says that the man should lay down his life for his wife and not withhold himself from her and definitely not beat her lightly or harshly with any object.

You are now twisting things out of context. As i have already mentioned to you this would only happen in the rare cases that the first step did not work. So obviously if the first step dids not work then the only other option must be for the husband to withold the marital bed to make his wife realise of her wrong doings. Who said anything about beatig her harshly with an object?

At least the Qur'an does not consider women as filth that defiles men:

Revelation 14:4 "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb."


The Qur'an honours women like thy should be honoured, but the Bible allows a man to cut the woman's hands if she defends her husband in the wrong way:

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "And in case men struggle together (in a fight) with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the striking one (to save her husband), and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of his private (the other man's groin), she must then get both her hands cut off, and the eyes of the men must feel no sorrow."

Besides, what is the point of correcting with a small twig like toothpick that causes no pain? If children are disciplined like that, they will never learn the lesson of correction. It makes no sense, and seems like an attempt to cover the embarrasment of beaten your wife when you know you shouldn't. My question was not fully answered really. I also asked about what the woman can do to the men who are more likely to misbehave?

There is a clear distinction between disciplining a child and disciplining ones wife. As Muslims we do not view our wives as children for they are our life and soul partners and they must NOT be treated like children like how you are suggesting.

Men and women have different natures. If the husband misbehaves then the wife must be firm in that he treats her in the right manner. So she must do everything to communicate with him how much his behaviour is affecting her. If he still does not behave towards her then she should get a third party involved to resolve the matter. If things are still the same then she can terminate the marriage through a shariah court or Muslim council/scholars etc.

Lets be honest like you expect from me and call a spade a spade: If a Muslim must be the best towards his wife and must never hurt nor injure her whether mentally nor physically, will will not beat his wife in any form and not withold himself from her period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He is only with holding himself from her to make her realise how much he is hurting him and affecting their marital relationship. Beating ones wife is totally forbidden in Islam. Whether it is allowed in the Bible is another matter. The Prophet (Pbuh) says regarding the treatment of women:

"So beware of Allah regarding women for you have taken them as a trust from Allah and you have made their bodies lawful with the word of Allah. You have the right over them that they should not allow anyone on your furnishings who you dislike. If they do that, hit them in a way which causes no injury. And, they have the right over you to provision and clothing according to custom." (Bukhari & Muslim)

But the Bible allows the daughter to be sold by her father to slavery:

Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

So Islam CLEARLY forbids wife beating whereas the Bible promotes it:

Hosea 3
1 The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes."

This verse is clearly referring to the Israelites who were severely punished by God everytime they got out of line. So in the case that ones wife gets out of line like the Israelites did with God then this verse is permitting one to treat her as GOD treated the Israelites - to punish her! And GOD Almighty annhialated the Israelites when He, the Almighty, decided to go against them.

[Hamza Asadullah]

How about these fufilled prophecies:
PSALMS
19-22:16For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Isaiah 53:
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
⁵ But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
⁶ All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
⁷ He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.

^{Mat 28:2} And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.³ His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow.⁴ And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.⁵ But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.⁶ He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he^[a] lay.⁷ Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.”⁸ So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

How about when Jesus predicted His death three times in the Bible. How do you know that what calls this a myth isn't one?

Jesus' death and resurrection a myth? pfft, try telling that to 2.5 billion Christians in the world today!

These verses are NOT talking about a literal death at all. The verses i quoted CLEARLY state that God will save Christ from the hands of the evil doers. Unless you are saying that there are clear contradictions in the verses of the Bible.

2.5 billion? You must be joking. If you really think that most of the UK and the US and most of the west for that matter are actually practising Christians then you were only born yesterday. MOST of the people who are counted as Christians like in the west are CLEARLY ATHIESTS and agnostics. There is NO WAY there are 2.5 billion people who truly believe in Christianity. You and i both know that.

Whereas Islam is the most believed in and most practised religion in the world today and is increasing RAPIDLY!

[Burninglight]

You are now twisting things out of context. As i have already mentioned to you this would only happen in the rare cases that the first step did not work. So obviously if the first step dids not work then the only other option must be for the husband to withold the marital bed to make his wife realise of her wrong doings. Who said anything about beatig her harshly with an object?

Yes, you are right. Sorry, I forgot the communication that is the best choice; then, the second should be the toothpick not he marriage bed. That was my point.

The verses you share in the OT is supposedly a part of Islam. When you cut it down, you are disrespecting Islam, because in the OT are the truth about the prophets starting with Adam - Jesus. Islam respects the prophets in the Bible and Muhammad never said anything about the OT being corrupted, but he contradicts the NT even though he doesn't outright say it is corrupted but he does to me by contradicting it by never the OT. So you beef regarding those verse is not with me; it is with the recorded prophets of God.

[Burninglight]

These verses are NOT talking about a literal death at all. The verses i quoted CLEARLY state that God will save Christ from the hands of the evil doers. Unless you are saying that there are clear contradictions in the verses of the Bible.

2.5 billion? You must be joking. If you really think that most of the UK and the US and most of the west for that matter are actually practising Christians then you were only born yesterday. MOST of the people who are counted as Christians like in the west are CLEARLY ATHIESTS and agnostics. There is NO WAY there are 2.5 billion people who truly believe in Christianity. You and i both know that.

Whereas Islam is the most believed in and most practised religion in the world today and is increasing RAPIDLY!

Okay, about the 2.5 billlon, they are not practicing Christians, but I didn't say they were. I just said try telling them that Jesus wasn't crucified! Islam may be the fastest growing and believed, but that doesn't mean truth; it just means it is the fastest growing and most believed!

[Hamza Asadullah]

Yes, you are right. Sorry, I forgot the communication that is the best choice; then, the second should be the toothpick not he marriage bed. That was my point.

Witholding the marital bed should make the wife realise how much she has hurt her husband through her disobedience and so is a very effective method if all else has failed.

The verses you share in the OT is supposedly a part of Islam. When you cut it down, you are disrespecting Islam, because in the OT are the truth about the prophets starting with Adam - Jesus. Islam respects the prophets in the Bible and Muhammad never said anything about the OT being corrupted, but he contradicts the NT even though he doesn't outright say it is corrupted but he does to me by contradicting it by never the OT. So you beef regarding those verse is not with me; it is with the recorded prophets of God.

As Muslims we would only accept the original OT not the present day one whch is not immune from the corrupters of the word and teachings of God. When you do not have the original then you leave things open for corruption and exploitation. The OT has not escaped being tampered with and changed. But the NT is not divine nor is it revelation but the compilation of random books from random unknown men written at an unknown time in history. For you follow Paulanity not Christianity.

[Hamza Asadullah]

Okay, about the 2.5 billlon, they are not practicing Christians, but I didn't say they were. I just said try telling them that Jesus wasn't crucified! Islam may be the fastest growing and believed, but that doesn't mean truth; it just means it is the fastest growing and most believed!

What i mean is not that they are not practising Christians but they are NOT Christians full stop. Most of them are athiest and agnostic. You cannot deny that if you are here living in the west as most of us here are. The true number of Christians although they may not be practising but i am talking about "believing" Christians would only fall into a few hundred of million worldwide. Certainly no where near a billion.

Most reverts to Islam worldwide were either previously from Christian backgrounds and most are women.

[Ramadhan]

Okay, about the 2.5 billlon, they are not practicing Christians, but I didn't say they were.

So they are true christians, but they are not practicing?

few weeks ago you said they are not true christians.

so which one is right?