Qur'an or the Bible?

[arcangel]

Indeed you are, browse through our old discussions, resurrect them if you've something to add!

best,

I am having enough trouble navigating within the thread. Thisforum has slight but meaningful differences from the others I have used andtakes me a bit to navigate through. I did search this thread and saw no in-depthcomparison between Islam and Christianity. I will post a few meaningfulcomparisons and you may ignore any you feel were already resolved as you wish.

In general my claim is that the Bible is superior to the Quran in allcategories by which these issues are determined within scholarship. In onlyunverifiable doctrinal ways can the Quran even be considered "better",even theoretically?


1. The Bible is far larger and complex than the Quran. It was composed bymultiple independent authors over more than a thousand years. It has an overallconsistent narrative and message between authors and cultures. Even if one ormore of it's authors were wrong most of its doctrine would still be reliable.The Quran is the product of one man. If he was mistaken then all of Islam is.In no field of study is one author preferred to multiple authors.

2. The Bible exhibits no sign of myth or plagurization. The Quran has borrowed(in some cases almost word for word) from gnostic and heretical works known toexist in 7th century Arabia and know to be wrong. examples being:Protevangelion's James the Lesser, Testament of Abraham, Second Targum ofEsther, Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziah and the Targum of Jerusalem, MidrashYalkut, etc...

3. The textual tradition of the Bible is superior to the Quran. We canestablish with 99% certainty the textual accuracy of the Bible. It is known toeven its critics (like Ehrman) to be greater than 95% accurate and the errorsare known and indicated. The Quran is even more textually flawed but since wecan't even go back past Uthman it may be far worse than scholars think as manysuggest. Not to mention that unlike the Bible it's transmission was controlledby politics. The Bible was spread in massive parallel lines of independenttransmission.

4. The Bible is claimed by both sides to be used to test the Quran. The Quranis never claimed to be able to judge the Bible. The Bible condemns claims in theQuran with such regularity that the myth that everything in opposition to theQuran is a Biblical error had to be invented to solve this problem. That claimby the way is a convenient unjustifiable assumption and not proven by scholarship.

I will add far more and be much more detailed once I am sure that myunfamiliarity with the formatting will not erase what I post. This should makefor an interesting reply however.In short I know of no "scholarly" by which to declare the Quran the "right" revelation. It's superiority exists primarily only in areas of preference.

[Insaanah]

Welcome to the forum.

^Please don't take the thread off-topic. The forum is not at all difficult to navigate. Here's the link for the comparative religion section:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/

That's for the first page of threads and you can go back page by page as far as you like, browsing the thread titles.

Alternatively, towards the top right of the screen you'll see an advanced search feature, and you can search for threads that have Qur'an and/or Bible in the title. From the drop down box, choose "Search titles only" rather than "search entire posts". If you click on the "search single content type tab" at the top of the page, you can narrow down your search to those threads in the comparative religion section only from the drop down list.

This forum has been going for years and we've discussed most things many times over.

[glo]

This forum has been going for years and we've discussed most things many times over.

People have deabted the differences between our faiths since Muhammad's (pbuh) time. But we have our fair share archived in the deepest vaults of this forum. :D

Arcangel (welcome to the forum, btw), be aware that new threads in the Comparative Religion section go through a moderation process before they are posted up.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

I've moved the posts into a new thread so we don't take the previous one off-topic.

As mentioned already, these issues have been covered many times, whether on this forum or on other websites. All of the claims you raised have been dealt with in the following links:

1. The Bible is far larger and complex than the Quran. It was composed bymultiple independent authors over more than a thousand years. It has an overallconsistent narrative and message between authors and cultures. Even if one ormore of it's authors were wrong most of its doctrine would still be reliable.The Quran is the product of one man. If he was mistaken then all of Islam is.In no field of study is one author preferred to multiple authors.

3. The textual tradition of the Bible is superior to the Quran. We canestablish with 99% certainty the textual accuracy of the Bible. It is known toeven its critics (like Ehrman) to be greater than 95% accurate and the errorsare known and indicated. The Quran is even more textually flawed but since wecan't even go back past Uthman it may be far worse than scholars think as manysuggest. Not to mention that unlike the Bible it's transmission was controlledby politics. The Bible was spread in massive parallel lines of independenttransmission.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bib...criticism.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bib...ccuracy.html#5

2. The Bible exhibits no sign of myth or plagurization. The Quran has borrowed(in some cases almost word for word) from gnostic and heretical works known toexist in 7th century Arabia and know to be wrong. examples being:Protevangelion's James the Lesser, Testament of Abraham, Second Targum ofEsther, Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziah and the Targum of Jerusalem, MidrashYalkut, etc...

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Sources/

4. The Bible is claimed by both sides to be used to test the Quran. The Quranis never claimed to be able to judge the Bible. The Bible condemns claims in theQuran with such regularity that the myth that everything in opposition to theQuran is a Biblical error had to be invented to solve this problem. That claimby the way is a convenient unjustifiable assumption and not proven by scholarship.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...rs-market.html


As a suggestion, let us first deal with these claims before moving on to others (and even these may need to be narrowed down), otherwise the discussion will become too difficult to follow.

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

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

the Qur'an exists as it was completed by revelation. no single Bible existence, is complete. NONE! they all have changes.

no one knows who wrote the majority of the New Testament. the 4 Gospels can't even agree on what day Jesus, pbuh, was allegedly executed. nor cam Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was from Nazareth or Galilee.

Paul even claims that he taught a different Gospel than the one taught by the disciples of Jesus, pbuh.

i'll stick to the Qur'an, thank you very much. at least we know what it is!

have a nice day!

3. The textual tradition of the Bible is superior to the Quran. We canestablish with 99% certainty the textual accuracy of the Bible. It is known toeven its critics (like Ehrman) to be greater than 95% accurate and the errorsare known and indicated. The Quran is even more textually flawed but since wecan't even go back past Uthman it may be far worse than scholars think as manysuggest. Not to mention that unlike the Bible it's transmission was controlledby politics. The Bible was spread in massive parallel lines of independenttransmission.

rotflmao! i reckon you don't read much Ehrman. i'm currently reading The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. can't even go back to Uthman is funny. Uthman was hafz of Qur'an and companion of the Prophet, pbuh!

no one knows who wrote ANY of the Gospels! Ehrman clearly states that we can't know what the original words of any of the books of the Bible are because copies don't exist for generations after Jesus, pbuh, lived.

and yet, you would like to proclaim your delusion that unknown persons are better witnesses than actual eye witnesses???

let me know how that works for you!

[جوري]

.In no field of study is one author preferred to multiple authors.

If the author is God and that's indeed who authored the noble book then your entire scope, vision, 'field of study' is null & void..

4:82 to top

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.

__________________

Comparative religion usually denotes a comparison is going on not your personal opinion or the opinion of your learned pastors from my understanding Quran burning isn't a form of honest compare/contrast!

best,

[Ahmad H]

In general my claim is that the Bible is superior to the Quran in allcategories by which these issues are determined within scholarship.

I challenge this by asking: Under what scholarship are you referring to that the Bible is known to be superior to the Qur'an?

My other challenge: The Bible is authored by many. But despite these chains of transmission, there needs to be proof that these come from God. Tell me where the Bible says clearly, "This revelation is from God." Otherwise, your claim is very weak with the chains of transmission of the authors.

The Bible is an inaccurate book of history now, and its true spirit has been lost. Uthman (ra) collected the Qur'an 30 years after the demise of the Holy Prophet (saw), and before him Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) also took care to collect the Qur'an. Uthman (ra) simply kept only one of the dialects of the Qur'an to avoid confusion among Muslims later on. The Bible's first four books have varying reports, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The stories are inconsistent to say the least.

So under what claim are you suggesting the Qur'an is inferior then? It says much more clearly that it is a revelation from God than the Bible does. Just what indication is there that the Bible that exists today is from God Himself? For all we know the real Bible is long gone.

By the way, multiple authors, who authored multiple versions of the same stories in a book does not merit that book as being accurate. If all of the books had the same stories with no contradictions, then they would be accurate. But there are clearly many contradictions in the Bible, and so such a book cannot be called a Book of God.

The Qur'an contains no contradictions. This is already a strong argument in favor of the Qur'an. It is the main reason why the Qur'an is far superior to the Bible. While the Bible contains contradictions, despite its multiple authors, despite its no signs of plagiarizing, despite its apparent 99% textual accuracy (I strongly doubt it, and with strong proof which I am ready to give) and despite the independent chains of transmission - this then shows that there is some false premises here. Again, i challenge the authority on which you are giving your facts. Give the source and give the proof. Believe me, you have to do a lot of convincing yourself if you want those claims to be taken seriously. Either you show us the source, or if you are the scholar who came to these conclusions, then demonstrate this proof.

I await your response.

[Ali Mujahidin]

Alright, I am offering a totally unscholaristic view of the matter, because I am not a Muslim scholar nor am I a bible scholar but nevertheless, I have to know why I am using the Quran instead of the bible otherwise I might as well be using the bible as my Manual of Instructions, so to say.

1. From what I have read of the bible, the highest level of authority which I can assign to it is that of the hadith and even then not up to the level of hadith sahih. The bible - here I am talking about the New Testament - is made of up various accounts of what Jesus said or did as related by various disciples. So we have the Gospel according to St. Peter, the Gospel according to St. Mark and so on and so forth. However, the sanad is not clear. There is no authentication that I know of, about the chain of people who related the events noted in the accounts before they were written down.

2. The Bible, from the various versions I have opened and read in a Christian bookshop, comes in all kinds of flavors. Just as an example, in the parable of the sower, one version said 'crow' and another version said 'bird'. Yes, all crows are birds but not all birds are crows. Plus the use of the word 'crow' conjures up a very different mental image from the word 'bird'. To different people, the word 'bird' brings to mind eagles, canaries, pigeons, etc. So with such a great confusion of versions, it's well-nigh impossible to decide on which bible to follow.

3. Jesus, as far as I now, was not an Englishman. Nor did he speak English. I read that he spoke Aramaic. Now where is the bible in Aramaic? Is there even a bible in Aramaic? Before we can talk about the authenticity of a book, any book, we must first have a copy of the original to compare with. So let's have a look at the original bible in Aramaic. Can we?

[bangaliteen]

All of your claims are false !!!!!

In general my claim is that the Bible is superior to the Quran in allcategories by which these issues are determined within scholarship. In onlyunverifiable doctrinal ways can the Quran even be considered "better",even theoretically?


1. The Bible is far larger and complex than the Quran. It was composed bymultiple independent authors over more than a thousand years. It has an overallconsistent narrative and message between authors and cultures. Even if one ormore of it's authors were wrong most of its doctrine would still be reliable.The Quran is the product of one man. If he was mistaken then all of Islam is.In no field of study is one author preferred to multiple authors.

The Bible has 40 authors and 66 books and many versions that have been changed so that is why its larger, the Quran is the word of God. I take God's words over thousands or millions of men's words.

2. The Bible exhibits no sign of myth or plagurization. The Quran has borrowed(in some cases almost word for word) from gnostic and heretical works known toexist in 7th century Arabia and know to be wrong. examples being:Protevangelion's James the Lesser, Testament of Abraham, Second Targum ofEsther, Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziah and the Targum of Jerusalem, MidrashYalkut, etc...

The Bible do have myth stories, let me list some myths for you
1. The Bible says Adam and Eve's only children were two boys
2. Men have fewer ribs than women
3. The Bible teaches that the earth is flat

Some of the things are similar or stories are similar b/c the Quran says the things that the other revelations says and corrects them and who knows better than God
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

3. The textual tradition of the Bible is superior to the Quran. We canestablish with 99% certainty the textual accuracy of the Bible. It is known toeven its critics (like Ehrman) to be greater than 95% accurate and the errorsare known and indicated. The Quran is even more textually flawed but since wecan't even go back past Uthman it may be far worse than scholars think as manysuggest. Not to mention that unlike the Bible it's transmission was controlledby politics. The Bible was spread in massive parallel lines of independenttransmission.

Wrong claim again, the Bible is not even 80% correct, there are so many contradictions in the Bible , even one site listed 500
The Quran is not flawed, it is perfect since it is the word of God

4. The Bible is claimed by both sides to be used to test the Quran. The Quranis never claimed to be able to judge the Bible. The Bible condemns claims in theQuran with such regularity that the myth that everything in opposition to theQuran is a Biblical error had to be invented to solve this problem. That claimby the way is a convenient unjustifiable assumption and not proven by scholarship.

Nope the Bible don't test the Quran but the Quran tests people to even produce 1 verse like that of the Quran, the Bible didn't talk about the Quran

Say, "If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants."Quran 17:88
And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah , if you should be truthful.Quran 2:23

[glo]

From what I have read of the bible, the highest level of authority which I can assign to it is that of the hadith

I agree that the Bible and the Qu'ran are completely incompatible. There is no point whatsoever trying to compare the two.
The Bible is a book written over many centuries bu many different people. It contains prayers, and prose and stories and historical accounts - and sometimes it is not easy to know which is which.
Sometimes you need to understand where and how people lived at the time of its writing to understand how the writing was understood.

The Bible is NOT God's revelation to us. The Bible is a compilation of writings showing us how people walked with God and how their relationship with him developed and matured.

God's revelation to us comes in the life and the teachings and the death and the resurrection of Jesus. :statisfie

Comparing the Qu'ran and the Bible is like comparing apples and pears.

[Ahmad H]

The Bible is NOT God's revelation to us. The Bible is a compilation of writings showing us how people walked with God and how their relationship with him developed and matured.

God's revelation to us comes in the life and the teachings and the death and the resurrection of Jesus.

Comparing the Qu'ran and the Bible is like comparing apples and pears.

You are the first Christian who I have encountered that has finally said the truth about the Bible. Thank you for being honest and accepting the Bible for what it is. It is definitely what some have accepted their belief to be, and that is the only way to accept it.

That being said, I am hoping arcangel will understand this.

[Muhaba]

I am having enough trouble navigating within the thread. Thisforum has slight but meaningful differences from the others I have used andtakes me a bit to navigate through. I did search this thread and saw no in-depthcomparison between Islam and Christianity. I will post a few meaningfulcomparisons and you may ignore any you feel were already resolved as you wish.

In general my claim is that the Bible is superior to the Quran in allcategories by which these issues are determined within scholarship. In onlyunverifiable doctrinal ways can the Quran even be considered "better",even theoretically?


1. The Bible is far larger and complex than the Quran. It was composed bymultiple independent authors over more than a thousand years. It has an overallconsistent narrative and message between authors and cultures. Even if one ormore of it's authors were wrong most of its doctrine would still be reliable.The Quran is the product of one man. If he was mistaken then all of Islam is.In no field of study is one author preferred to multiple authors.

The bible was composed by multiple human authors. The Quran is the Direct Word of God. which is superior? word of man or word of God?

2. The Bible exhibits no sign of myth or plagurization. The Quran has borrowed(in some cases almost word for word) from gnostic and heretical works known toexist in 7th century Arabia and know to be wrong. examples being:Protevangelion's James the Lesser, Testament of Abraham, Second Targum ofEsther, Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziah and the Targum of Jerusalem, MidrashYalkut, etc...

The Quran hasn't taken anything from the Bible. The Quran corrects the wrong information that is in the bible. Compare the Quran's narration of various events and the Bible's and you'll see the difference between the two and which is correct and superior.

3. The textual tradition of the Bible is superior to the Quran. We canestablish with 99% certainty the textual accuracy of the Bible. It is known toeven its critics (like Ehrman) to be greater than 95% accurate and the errorsare known and indicated. The Quran is even more textually flawed but since wecan't even go back past Uthman it may be far worse than scholars think as manysuggest. Not to mention that unlike the Bible it's transmission was controlledby politics. The Bible was spread in massive parallel lines of independenttransmission.

The Quran is in its original form. The bible has been tampered with and is full of contradictions. The Quran is the same that it was centuries ago and in every part of the world the Arabic Quran are identical. On the other hand, there are many versions of bible, some smaller and others bigger; some containing fewer books and others containing more books. The fact that there is only one version of Quran all over the world makes it superior to the bible. The Quran has been preserved (copyrighted) by God and no changes can be made in it. It is ever present for mankind's guidance.

Furthermore, The original bible doesn't even exist. The original Quran is still present.

4. The Bible is claimed by both sides to be used to test the Quran. The Quranis never claimed to be able to judge the Bible. The Bible condemns claims in theQuran with such regularity that the myth that everything in opposition to theQuran is a Biblical error had to be invented to solve this problem. That claimby the way is a convenient unjustifiable assumption and not proven by scholarship.

The Quran is a judge over the previous Books and that is what the Quran claims. It corrects the wrong information contained in previous books including the Bible. Comparing the bible with the Quran (that is, reading both side by side) will show you which book is correct and which isn't and which book is superior. Without reading the Quran, you cannot come to any conclusion. ll your statements are baseless.

I will add far more and be much more detailed once I am sure that myunfamiliarity with the formatting will not erase what I post. This should makefor an interesting reply however.In short I know of no "scholarly" by which to declare the Quran the "right" revelation. It's superiority exists primarily only in areas of preference.

[جوري]

Please take this quizz on christianity (bible trivia) if you will and tell us how well you score:

http://exchristian.net/3/

[Perseveranze]

The Quran is even more textually flawed but since wecan't even go back past Uthman it may be far worse than scholars think as manysuggest. Not to mention that unlike the Bible it's transmission was controlledby politics. The Bible was spread in massive parallel lines of independenttransmission.

I don't know much about the Bible, but in regards to the Qur'an;

1. If there was corruption in the Qur'ans transmission, not only would it have been picked out, there also would've been evidence for it;

"[i]f any great changes by way of addition, suppression or alteration had been made, controversy would almost certainly have arisen; but of that there is little trace." - Bell's introduction to the Qurʼān By Richard Bell, William Montgomery Watt, p. 51

Yes there were accusations - None of them were about the Qur'an changing
Yes, various groups could've highly benefited if they could change the Qur'an to favour them - Yet there is absolutely no evidence of this in the Qur'an itself or in any of the hadith reports

2. You've never studied hadith sciences to know the reliability of the reports in regards to the transmission of the Qur'an up until Uthman's time.

[glo]

You are the first Christian who I have encountered that has finally said the truth about the Bible. Thank you for being honest and accepting the Bible for what it is.

Really?
Where do you live and what kind of Christians do you meet?

I would say that virtually all Christians I know would agree with me on this. Very few would say that the Bible is God's directly dictated word. It is written by people who were inspired and guided by God, but it was not dictated as Muslims believe the Qu'ran to have been.

Quite funny really that you seem to think I had to stop lying and 'be honest' about it. :giggling:
No need to, really. The Bible is what the Bible is, and that's good enough for me.

Perhaps 2 Timothy 3:16-17 describes well how Christians view the Bible:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

[glo]

Jesus, as far as I now, was not an Englishman. Nor did he speak English. I read that he spoke Aramaic.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, but most of the Bible was not written in Aramaic in its original form. Much was written in Hebrew or Greek.

[Scimitar]

As glo said, it is Aramaic that Jesus pbuh spoke, a sister language of Arabic - much like how Urdu and Hindi are sister languages.

Funny thing, when bible scholars want the old Aramaic bibles interpreted, they go to Muslim scholars for the interpretations, because the Arab speaking Muslim scholars are the ones who have the best understanding of the old Aramaic - known today as "Hebrew Aramaic".

Small wonder why Moses AS was able to communicate with the Arabs of Midian, namely Jethro and his daughters - you see, Jethro lived in Midian, which is in north west Arabia, hence Jethro and his flock spoke Arabic - whereas Moses pbuh spoke Aramaic. And yet, they had no problems in communications :)

Scimi

[جوري]

for correction, for training in righteousness;

That explains the degenerative moral compass :)

best,

[Ali Mujahidin]

Jesus spoke Aramaic, but most of the Bible was not written in Aramaic in its original form. Much was written in Hebrew or Greek.

Now, you have lost me there.

So Jesus spoke Aramaic. Alright, we are agreed on that. Most of the bible was not written in Aramaic in its original form? Now if it's not written in Aramaic, how can it be original? If it's written in Hebrew or Greek, how can it be original? Even if Aramaic and Hebrew or Greek are very closely related languages, whatever Jesus said in Aramaic could not be written in Hebrew or Greek and still be considered original.

Or, perhaps, you have a different definition of original?

[glo]

Now if it's not written in Aramaic, how can it be original? If it's written in Hebrew or Greek, how can it be original?

Remember, the Bible is NOT dictated. Not as Muslims believe the Qu'ran to have been dictated.

So people recorded the messages and stories of the Old testament in Hebrew (the language of the Israelites) and the teachings and stories from and about Jesus in whatever was their native language or the language of the people the recordings were written for. Those first recordings are the originals.

Like I said, apples and pears. :)

BTW, Aramaic is a beautiful language. I have the Lord's Prayer recorded in Aramaic and listen to it quite often . :)

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you arcangel; and welcome to the forum;

I believe that both the Bible and the Qur’an, are intended to change and inspire the person who reads them. I think we often prefer to use our scriptures to try and change other people, rather than to change our self. If we are to compete against each other to find the best book, we should compete in doing good deeds, seeking justice for the poor and oppressed and giving the glory to God

In the spirit of searching for ‘One God’

Eric

[Independent]

From a historical point of view....neither can be certified. The Bible is partly a history of a people as well as a theology. Because of this many elements can be cross referenced. When we get to the New Testament, Jesus is a historical figure who is referred to by Tacitus and others. The Bible does not claim to be 'dictated by God', but instead is 'inspired by God and written by humans', so it doesn't need to be perfect in every detail to retain credibility, even if you find other reasons not to believe it. A single error is a serious problem for the Qur'an, but far less so for the Bible, and that's why Muslim scholars defend the 100% integrity of the Qur'an so very strongly.

Compared to the Bible, the Qur'an certainly has more internal consistency. But whether you believe it to be composed by man or God, it was all set down within a single lifetime so consistency is what you would expect either way. Unlike the Bible the Qur'an contains almost nothing that can be cross-checked against other sources - except for the Bible and the Torah, but any contradictions here are of course regarded as 'error' in the older works. For instance, I understand that it mentions only 6 cities by name, and most of those are entirely unknown to history. (Whereas the Bible refers to hundreds.) Surprisingly, the biography of Muhammad is also impossible to cross check or verify in almost any detail, and the first hundred years of Islam is similarly opaque.

The net result is that, surprisingly, the Qur'an exists in an almost complete historical vacuum. The more you look at it, it's remarkable how little reference there is to any aspect of Islam for the early years, outside of hadiths and the Qur'an itself, which of course all depend in the end on oral testimony. This doesn't make it wrong, but it does mean the Qur'an is far less easy to verify one way or the other by external sources than the Bible.

[Scimitar]

Regarding Aramaic - the language has evolved and today it is like old English; it sounds very different. But the way the original Aramaic was spoken is different to today, much like modern Arabic and the Old Arabic – I call the old Aramaic, Ancient Aramaic - espeically since the language is now defunct - whereas the old Arabic is still practiced.

The Ancient Church of the East, that emerged out of Jerusalem at the end of the Apostolic Age, referred to Aramaic as Leeshana Ateeqah or the "old tongue." It is still used in the liturgy, although it is explained in the modern vernacular by the priests and deacons during church services. There are a few priests and bishops that know how to read it. It comes in many dialects of the Middle East and Africa of the Eastern Churches or Eastern rites of the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

BUT - Nobody speaks this language anymore - not the ancient form of it anyway. Those who claim to speak Aramaic, are only speaking modern versions of the language, just as nobody speaks Old English or even Middle English anymore. Nobody speaks Koine Greek, Old Norse, or Old German, and so on. These languages have all evolved. And so today one also finds Hebrew and Aramaic spoken by millions of people in the Middle East, for example, but these are modern versions of the language. They don't sound the same as Ancient Aramaic. But the roots of many words are the same and the old form can be learned.

As I mentioned before, if anyone wants true interpretations of the Ancient Aramaic, then they’d have to go to a Muslim scholar for the interpretations because the Ancient Aramaic and the Old Arabic are very compatible together as languages, as is proven in the episode of history I mentioned above (Moses pbuh and Jethro) in my previous post.

There are surviving Aramaic manuscripts of the Ancient Church of the East, which survived the persecutions by the Roman and Greek pagans of the early centuries of Christianity. It survived the persecution of the Roman Church under Constantine and the early Emperors of Rome in the 4th and 5th centuries. It survived the persecution of the Crusaders who attacked the Holy Lands in subsequent centuries. Finally, this early Church ended up in Persia and was protected by the Persian kings until the upheavals of the Islamic conquests starting in the 7th Century drove the Ancient Church of the East into the mountain strongholds of Asia Minor (Ottoman Empire and later Turkey). The Church of the East survived and maintained the Scriptures in the original language all through the conquests of the Mongolians (Genghis Khan) 12th Century, and the Tartars (Tamerlane) 15th Century. The Church of the East had spread the faith in Jesus all the way to China, from the 5th to the 8th Century. The Church of the East survived the Islamic conquests of the Fertile Crescent and the Holy Lands. And this, namely because the Muslims were forbidden from destroying places of worship. Something other doctrines never allowed for.

I do find it strange that there are those among the Catholics and the Protestants who say, "We believe in God, not Allah." And the recent falsified attacks on America and the West have escalated this notion that God and Allah are two different deities. The fact of the matter is that "Allah" is much closer to the name of the Creator of the Universe than "God." In Aramaic it is "Allaha."

Scimi

[Signor]

The Bible is a compilation of writings showing us how people walked with God and how their relationship with him developed and matured.

It reminds me of an incident happened with a Muslim scholar,once he went to a high official of a Church and asked him: A number of books are included of which OT and NT compromises,how does a person able to get which is the true Bible?The official replied:None of them is The Bible but...(a short pause)The Bible is in them.

[Hulk]

The Bible does not claim to be 'dictated by God', but instead is 'inspired by God and written by humans', so it doesn't need to be perfect in every detail to retain credibility, even if you find other reasons not to believe it. A single error is a serious problem for the Qur'an, but far less so for the Bible, and that's why Muslim scholars defend the 100% integrity of the Qur'an so very strongly.

I find it strange that a person's criteria for a Holy Book doesn't require for it to be free of errors. How can you believe that someone is "inspired" by God in the first place if his writing is so full of errors? Isn't that a red flag to his credibility?

Unlike the Bible the Qur'an contains almost nothing that can be cross-checked against other sources - except for the Bible and the Torah, but any contradictions here are of course regarded as 'error' in the older works.

You yourself stated that the Bible has contradictions within itself so do you think that it makes sense to cross check the verses in the Quran with what is in the Bible? The Quran however can be "cross checked" with one's intellect, reason and understanding. It is a proof for itself for those who seek the truth and it does not need to rely on external sources for verification.

The way I see it. According to your understanding, the Bible relies heavily on historical places for it's credibility. In that sense that if for any reason thousands of years from now all physical evidence of those places are lost then the Bible loses it's credibility, it can't possibly stand on it's own especially with all the contradictions within itself. To me this doesn't make sense for a book that is supposedly meant to be the guidance for humanity.

The Quran doesn't rely on anything. Whether anyone sees the truth in it is dependent on themselves (through God's guidance). It tells the reader to reflect upon all the creation around him, to think. It tells the reader not to follow anything that he has no knowledge of.

If however one is able to cross check verses in the Quran with any places/event in history or scientific study then it is only mere additional information.

[جوري]

The Quran is cross referenced against itself and the passage of time!
This has been discussed with such length and details!

[Independent]

The way I see it. According to your understanding, the Bible relies heavily on historical places for it's credibility.

No, I'm only talking about both books in the context of their historical record. I doubt whether anyone believes in the Bible because they think it's a great history book. But from a historian's point of view, there are far more things you can cross reference in the Bible than in the Qur'an (and there is a thriving industry in doing just that). The Qur'an is striking because, in its content, there are almost no places or events that can be cross referenced with anything. I don't say this is good or bad - it's simply the way it is.

How can you believe that someone is "inspired" by God in the first place if his writing is so full of errors?

Many of the Books in the Bible describe man's interaction with God, but don't claim to be actually written by God. To err is human. Whereas, the Qur'an must be maintained as perfect to the last detail because it is the actual word of God. This has had profound impact on the way the two books influence their followers.

From a historical point of view - and for that matter a scientific point of view - the Bible can 'tolerate' a certain amount of contradiction without being invalidated, whereas the Qur'an has to exist at a more demanding criterion of absolute perfection.

I find it strange that a person's criteria for a Holy Book doesn't require for it to be free of errors.

I'm no longer a Christian myself and one major contributor to that was reading the work of Elaine Pagels, who looked at the development of Christianity and the Bible in the historical political and social context, and especially the effect of the Greek world in which it grew. In comparison, very little similar work of this kind has been done with the Qur'an. This is because Muslim historians feel unable to ask such questions, and non Muslims have been less interested. Also, for the reasons given above, the Qur'an is extraordinarily difficult for the historian to approach because there is so remarkably little in the record - even though it is of course composed at a much later date.

[Hulk]

Greetings and peace be with you arcangel; and welcome to the forum;

I believe that both the Bible and the Qur’an, are intended to change and inspire the person who reads them. I think we often prefer to use our scriptures to try and change other people, rather than to change our self. If we are to compete against each other to find the best book, we should compete in doing good deeds, seeking justice for the poor and oppressed and giving the glory to God

In the spirit of searching for ‘One God’

Eric

I very much appreciate your input brother eric. indeed it is important to keep our own hearts in check before examining others.

[جوري]

I don't think the OP is coming back to participate- He just wanted to drop his bombs and duck which was expected.

let's examine in a scholarly fashion, not the fast food approach:

Examining The Qur'an It is worthwhile knowing something about the Orientalism and its distortion of Islam. The academic study of the Oriental East by the Occidental West was often motivated and often co-operated hand-in-hand with the imperialistic aims of the European colonial powers. Without a doubt, the foundations of Orientalism are in the maxim "Know thy enemy". When the Christian Nations of Europe began their long campaign to colonize and conquer the rest of the world for their own benefit, they brought their academic and missionary resources to bear in order to help them with their task. Orientalists and missionaries whose ranks often overlapped, not just the servants of an imperialist government who were using their services as a way to subdue or weaken an enemy, however subtly.
Quite a few Orientalist scholars were Christian missionaries. Two examples worth mentioning are that of Sir William Muir and Rev. St. Claire Tisdall, who were active missionaries and authors of several books on Islam. Today, these books are viewed as very biased studies, even though they continue to be used as references for those wishing to attack Islam to this very day. That Christians were the source of some of the worst lies and distortions about Islam should come as no surprise, since Islam was its main "competitor" on the stage of World Religions. Far from honouring the commandment not to bear false witness against one's neighbour, Christians distortions and outright lies about Islam were widespread.
The modern day Orientalists may have become de-Christianised, but there still exist some age-old notions about Islam. The Christian missionaries as usual, rely on the material of Orientalists. But unfortunately, the Orientalists do not say what the Christian missionaries would like to point out. Hence misquoting is very rife in Christian missionary writing as most of the articles below would show.
This page exclusively deals with the Christian missionary propaganda, lies and distortion about the Qur'an. The Muslims assert that the Qur'an is same as recited by the Prophet Muhammad^(P). There are no additional materials added to it nor subtracted after the death of the Prophet^(P).
We have divided them into following sections so as to enable the reader to understand the issues involved here.

Textual Integrity

Logical Consistency

Miraculous Features

Supernatural eloquence
Scientific statements far ahead of its time

Sources Of The Qur'an

Issue Of Abrogation

Tafsir of the Qur'an

In this section, the Tafsir of some of the important verses of the Qur'an misquoted by the Christian missionaries would be provided along with the methodology of interpreting the Qur'an.

Qur'anic Studies

The content is be primarily the interesting papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Some material is also the excerpts from books. The aim of bringing such material on the web is to disseminate interesting information which otherwise would end up getting stacked in the libraries, unread.

Integrity of the Bible according to the Qur'an?

May be we should first check what the Church tradition has to say about the integrity or lack of it of the Bible!

The Canons Of The Old Testament & The New Testament Through The Ages

A comprehensive collection of biblical canons throughout the history from the time of Jesus to the modern day critical editions.

On The Textual Sources Of The New International Version (NIV) Bible

What are the textual sources of the NIV Bible? Can these textual sources be considered "inspired" or "original"? Such issues are dealt with in this article. It should be added that the arguments made against the "inspiration" or "originality" of textual sources of the NIV Bible are also valid for RSV, NASV and other Bibles. Please note that the article is not about translations of the Bible; it is about their textual sources.

The Integrity Of The Bible According To The Church Tradition
What about the Bible at the time of Muhammad^(P)?

Is The Bible In Our Hands Same As During The Time Of Muhammad^(P)?

Insha'allah, more information can be obtained by clicking on the above and following the argument through the links.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/

[Scimitar]

No, I'm only talking about both books in the context of their historical record. I doubt whether anyone believes in the Bible because they think it's a great history book. But from a historian's point of view, there are far more things you can cross reference in the Bible than in the Qur'an (and there is a thriving industry in doing just that). The Qur'an is striking because, in its content, there are almost no places or events that can be cross referenced with anything. I don't say this is good or bad - it's simply the way it is.


Many of the Books in the Bible describe man's interaction with God, but don't claim to be actually written by God. To err is human. Whereas, the Qur'an must be maintained as perfect to the last detail because it is the actual word of God. This has had profound impact on the way the two books influence their followers.

From a historical point of view - and for that matter a scientific point of view - the Bible can 'tolerate' a certain amount of contradiction without being invalidated, whereas the Qur'an has to exist at a more demanding criterion of absolute perfection.

Interesting analysis from a non-Muslim.

Firstly, the Quran must not be viewed as a compilation of individual injunctions and exhortations but as one integral whole: that is, as an exposition of an ethical doctrine in which every verse and sentence has an intimate bearing on other verses and sentences, all of them clarifying and amplifying one another. Consequently, its real meaning can be grasped only if we correlate every one of its statements with what has been stated elsewhere in its pages, and try to explain its ideas by means of frequent cross-references, always subordinating the particular to the general and the incidental to the intrinsic. Whenever this rule is faithfully followed, we realize that the Quran is its own best commentary.

Secondly, no part of the Quran should be viewed from a purely historical point of view: that is to say, all its references to historical circumstances and events - both at the time of the Prophet and in earlier times - must be regarded as illustrations of the human condition and not as ends in themselves. Hence, the consideration of the historical occasion on which a particular verse was revealed - a pursuit so dear, and legitimately so, to the hearts of the classical commentators - must never be allowed to obscure the underlying purport of that verse and its inner relevance to the ethical teaching which the Quran, taken as a whole, propounds.

Let's not forget, the Quran is a book of HIS Signs which The Creator and Sustainer - ALLAH has given us through HIS Mercy, after all.

Scimi

[Insaanah]

The Bible is a book written over many centuries bu many different people.

The Bible is NOT God's revelation to us.

Remember, the Bible is NOT dictated. Not as Muslims believe the Qu'ran to have been dictated.

Just to add and perhaps clarify here as well, that just as we believe the Qur'an to be a scripture bestowed on Prophet Muhammad (peace and salutations of Allah be upon him) by God, we also believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was given a scripture from God, called the Injeel. It was God's words, not the words of any human. Unfortunately, as was done with the Torah given to Moses (peace be upon him) by God, scribes and others interfered with/tampered with those two scriptures til they became what they are today.

So while Christians may not believe that Jesus ever received a scripture which was Gods words, and that the Bible was always supposed to be written by people, as Muslims, we don't believe that's the case, and believe that he was given a scripture from God:

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Injeel, in which was guidance and light, confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. (5:46)

And We have already sent Noah and Abraham and placed in their descendants prophethood and scripture; and among them is he who is guided, but many of them are defiantly disobedient. Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Injeel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him... (57:26, 27 part)

We believe totally in the scriptures given by Allah to Jesus and Moses (peace be upon them), without even having seen them, which is part of our articles of faith. To not do so, takes one outside the fold of Islam.

In the first few verses of the second Surah, Allah says:

This is the Book (Qur'an) about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -
who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them,
and who believe in what has been revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you, and of the Hereafter they are certain [in faith].
Those are upon [right] guidance from their Lord, and it is those who are the successful. (2:2-5)

The Bible does not claim to be 'dictated by God', but instead is 'inspired by God and written by humans', so it doesn't need to be perfect in every detail to retain credibility, even if you find other reasons not to believe it.

This is rather convenient by whoever removed the claim that it was from God, as that then gave a license to anyone to write whatever they wanted in it and claim that they were divinely inspired. As was done.

[Independent]

no part of the Quran should be viewed from a purely historical point of view: that is to say, all its references to historical circumstances and events - both at the time of the Prophet and in earlier times - must be regarded as illustrations of the human condition and not as ends in themselves.

I wholly agree with you. My perspective is historical, not theological, although of course Christianity and Islam are very much part of history themselves so they have to be included.

[Independent]

This is rather convenient by whoever removed the claim that it was from God, as that then gave a license to anyone to write whatever they wanted in it and claim that they were divinely inspired. As was done.

This is not a fair criticism because no one claimed that the Bible was dictated by God in the first place. Therefore, a non-existent claim cannot ever be 'removed'. In fact, I'm not aware of any other major religion that makes a similar claim, although someone may correct me....

[arcangel]

the Qur'an exists as it was completed by revelation. no single Bibleexistence, is complete. NONE! they all have changes.

First letme say that I am new to this site so excuse me if it takes me a while to getthe formatting down.

Even if the Quran were a perfect reflection of what was revealed it would beimpossible to know. Uthman burned every Quran he could find specificallybecause people were infighting over different readings and interpretations.Historical records of the Quran's textual tradition end at that point. Neitherthe Bible nor the Quran has originals in existence. However if you haveprolific and independent copying ofthe early texts it is possible to say with reliability what the originalcontained. The Quran's compilation under Uthman was strictly controlled by thestate. That means it does not have independentconvergent confirmation as the Bible does. Nor does it even have original independentauthors as the Bible does.

no one knows who wrote the majority of the New Testament. the 4 Gospelscan't even agree on what day Jesus, pbuh, was allegedly executed. nor camMatthew and Luke agree that Jesus was from Nazareth or Galilee.

Wellwe certainly know that not one Quran in existence was written by anyone that receivedthe revelations recorded. How is that any better? It is very likely that allthe traditional authors are correct with the exception of one that is stillhighly contended (Hebrews). Scholarship has shown the Gospels to be thereliable testimony of contemporary authors to many eye witnessed events. Youhad about 20 points in that one statement. Let me start from the beginning andthen we can look at others. Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst are some ofhistories (if not history’s) greatest experts on testimony and evidence. Bothtestify that the Gospels meet every modern legal requirement for reliable testimonyand evidence. Before we get detailed you would have to be able to contend withtheir determinations. Experts do not get any better. One cofounded histories most distinguished law school andwrote textbook on evidence. The other is the only person to occupy every seatof the highest courts of the largest empire in human history (England).

Paul even claims that he taught a different Gospel than the one taughtby the disciples of Jesus, pbuh.

That is news to me and about every Christian in history. Verse please.
He in fact said the opposite:

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of ourLord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching,
they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest incontroversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicioustalk, evil suspicions.

That would include what Muhammad taught.

i'll stick to the Qur'an, thank you very much. at least we know what itis!

I have no argument about what you will stick to. People stick to allkinds of stuff without justification. My arguments are about what history justifiesnot what people will choose.

rotflmao! i reckon you don't read much Ehrman. i'm currently reading TheOrthodox Corruption of Scripture. can't even go back to Uthman is funny.Uthman was hafz of Qur'an and companion of the Prophet, pbuh!

What does rotflmao stand for? You must be reading something else. Isaid we can't go past Uthman. Yes Ihave read Ehrman (I would bet quite a bit more than you but that is a guess). Itis his numbers that I use for errors in the Bible, approx. 5% and he evenadmits there are none in essential doctrine. He says the Quran is full oferrors by the way.

no one knows who wrote ANY of the Gospels! Ehrman clearly states that wecan't know what the original words of any of the books of the Bible are becausecopies don't exist for generations after Jesus, pbuh, lived.

On this I disagree with Ehrman. Is this just a repeat from above?

and yet, you would like to proclaim your delusion that unknown personsare better witnesses than actual eye witnesses???

Wow, one post and you have me diagnosed already. You must be quite thepsychiatrist. In fact four unknown reliable eyewitness accounts are better thanone of any kind. Much less one as suspicious and questionable as Muhammad.However simply because you do not agree who wrote the Gospels is hardly meritfor claiming there is widespread disagreement about who did. The Gospelsthemselves claim who wrote them. There exist no competitors claims in ehhistorical record. Do you have evidence anyone else did? There exists not onesingle contemporary claim like "Paul did not write that I did" or"I was there and that did not happen". Not one. Yet you apparentlyhave evidence they did not write them. Until you post it I deny your assertion.

let me know how that works for you!

Ok. I used the NT as aspiritual roadmap and found exactly what it promised God. Unlike Islam aChristian does not become a Christian by intellectual agreement with aproposition. We and I became one by direct experience with God. I met God. Thatis how well it worked for me.

When you stop diagnosing my sanity and present evidence I will deal with it. Since I am new I had to go back and delete all my links.

[arcangel]

If the author is God and that's indeed who authored the noble book then your entire scope, vision, 'field of study' is null & void..

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.

__________________

Comparative religion usually denotes a comparison is going on not your personal opinion or the opinion of your learned pastors from my understanding Quran burning isn't a form of honest compare/contrast!

best,

That is an assumption of the conclusion and then making an argument from it. I could say that if 2 + 2 = 5 and then state that all mathematicians are wrong, but I have hardly made the case. The point is that the evidence suggests very strongly the Bible is from God and the Quran is not. All the signs are there for teh Bible (2500 prophecies, miracles, a consistent narrative over almost 2000 years and many authors, explanatory power, universality, 25,000 historical corroborations, etc...).With the Quran we have a refusal to do any miracles, a very limited narrative given to by one man, no prophecies worthy of the name, a narrative composed of borrowing from heretical, pagan sources, and Arabian myth, etc...and historical mistakes with almost every Biblical narrative mentioned in the Quran. Your extrapolation would be true if your premise was but you can't assume your premise is true and then demand a conclusion based on it.

[جوري]

Even if the Quran were a perfect reflection of what was revealed it would beimpossible to know. Uthman burned every Quran he could find specificallybecause people were infighting over different readings and interpretations.Historical records of the Quran's textual tradition end at that point.

Even though the Quran is an oral tradition. We don't need to have hard copies of it, the decision for hard copies was made after a 70 hafiths were killed when they were sent to teach it to obvious traitors. Many of us on this board here are also memorizers of the Quran and it is recited 17 times a day across the globe by 1.8 billion Muslims just as it began. It was always compiled and with direct supervision of the messenger

so in fact the bible is no way on equal footing with the Quran and if anything it can be compared with it would be the hadith and even those have a strong chain of Isnad that is bar none!

The Quran's compilation under Uthman was strictly controlled by thestate. That means it does not have independentconvergent confirmation as the Bible does. Nor does it even have original independentauthors as the Bible does.

That's nonsense:
It is unanimous that the Quran was compiled during the reign of Uthman not written:

Here are some of the earliest parchments before collections and they can be found in various museums around the world:

recommended reading because you seem very under educated on the topic.
http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/hist...ranic_text.pdf

you should argue from knowledge not out of whimsy.
Also did you take the Quiz I provided?
I am wondering how well you scored?
http://exchristian.net/3/

good luck.. also please try to space your words when you write, aside from the nonsensical contents one can't sort through the words. Do you not have a spacebar on your keyboard?

best,

[جوري]

That is an assumption of the conclusion and then making an argument from it. I could say that if 2 + 2 = 5 and then state that all mathematicians are wrong, but I have hardly made the case.

I have no idea what this nonsense means? In fact math is borne out of our imagination but I don't think you've the capabilities to play around with the rules not that the possibilities don't exist!

The point is that the evidence suggests very strongly the Bible is from God and the Quran is not

What evidence is that? your testimony? The evidence suggests strongly otherwise.
one book is a confused mess of a self-immolating man god and the other a guidance to mankind which covers every aspect of man's life and in and of itself has many miraculous features that it is the foundation upon which many other things were borne, from inheritance laws, to economic theories and even modern day grammar.
You can't get two bibles to agree with each other on the very basics otherwise what a very confused god you've there? But then again given that said god prayed to himself not to forsake himself in gethsemane, immolated the next day anyway, choose ineffectual apostles peter himself forsook him thrice before he killed himself so he appeared to a charlatan to throw the masses into confusion and tell them forget that god of the OT Saul said so.

With the Quran we have a refusal to do any miracles

In fact the Quran is full of miracles:
http://www.islamicboard.com/172587-post14.html (Miracles of the Quraan!!)
http://www.islamicboard.com/171261-post12.html (Miracles of the Quraan!!)
http://www.islamicboard.com/170015-post7.html (Miracles of the Quraan!!)

and some that are probably well over your head:
According to the laws behind combinatorics, the probability of a word occuring a specific number of times in the text decreasing as the text grows longer, as the number of possibilites increases rapidly. That means if you took a book that was 20 000 pages, and the word night was mentioned exactly as many times as day, it would be far more astonishing than if you found the same thing in a single page report. Also, if the word repetitions are small, then there is a greater chance that it was intentionally done that way. But if the repetition number is bigger, it is practically impossible.
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ord-god-4.html

a narrative composed of borrowing from heretical, pagan sources, and Arabian myth, etc..

I challenge you to prove that!
I expect complete scholarship which includes knowledge of Arabic, as well names and dates of those borrowed from. Put your money where your mouth is!

and historical mistakes with almost every Biblical narrative mentioned in the Quran

In the facts the mistakes are in your bible imposed against its own self not the Quran!

Your extrapolation would be true if your premise was but you can't assume your premise is true and then demand a conclusion based on it.

After we strip all of the crap it is the only conclusion that is logical & sensical. The rest is just your tantrums and assertions.

best,

[arcangel]

I challenge this by asking: Underwhat scholarship are you referring to that the Bible is known to be superior tothe Qur'an?

Multiple attestation, the historical method, independentan early copying with no Uthman burning every other copy in existence, for in-depthinfo see a critique by one of history’s greatest (if not, the greatest) experton testimony and evidence. See Testimony of the evangelists by Simon Greenleaf.If there is a more qualified person of testimony or evidence I am unaware ofthem. I can't post links because I am new but his work is famous and easilyavailable. He gives in depth analysis on the methods for examining testimonyand wrote textbooks and taught the subject at Harvard (which he co-founded).

My other challenge: The Bible is authored by many. But despite thesechains of transmission, there needs to be proof that these come from God. Tellme where the Bible says clearly, "This revelation is from God."Otherwise, your claim is very weak with the chains of transmission of theauthors.

I have always regarded the almost exclusive Islamic tactic ofdictating what words God must use as absurd. I can't post links yet, howeverthe Bible is full of these claims. See Exodus 4:30, Joshua 3:9, 2 Kings 17,Isaiah 59 or 23, many Psalms, John 16, Thess 2 or a hundred other verses.

The Bible is an inaccurate book of history now, and its true spirit hasbeen lost. Uthman (ra) collected the Qur'an 30 years after the demise of theHoly Prophet (saw), and before him Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) also took careto collect the Qur'an. Uthman (ra) simply kept only one of the dialects of theQur'an to avoid confusion among Muslims later on. The Bible's first four bookshave varying reports, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The stories areinconsistent to say the least.

There are about 6 assumptions and no evidence in that paragraph. Youwill have to assume less or justify more before I could counter. Since Muhammadhimself said the Bible was to be used to judge the Quran and since we knowexactly what the Biblical text of Muhammad's time looked like; he was eithermaking what he said up, simply wrong, or demanding something impossible forpeople to do, because the Bible of his time does anything but confirm theQuran. That is the reason these claims of corruption were manufactured. TheBible never acknowledges the Quran or Muhammad so it does not have thisproblem. Either the Bible was/is correct or Muhammad was wrong in demanding itjudge the Quran.

So under what claim are you suggesting the Qur'an is inferior then? Itsays much more clearly that it is a revelation from God than the Bible does.Just what indication is there that the Bible that exists today is from GodHimself? For all we know the real Bible is long gone.

Is the test for who is right, who screams they are the loudest. I havealways been puzzled by Islam's use of this argument. It is one of the most invalidI am aware of. That would be true even if the Bible did not claim to be theword of God as it does in 2 Tim 3:16 and countless other places. If you claimthe Bible is long gone then you must supply it's original language and the datechanged. Until they are known the argument is void.

By the way, multiple authors, who authored multiple versions of the samestories in a book does not merit that book as being accurate. If all of thebooks had the same stories with no contradictions, then they would be accurate.But there are clearly many contradictions in the Bible, and so such a bookcannot be called a Book of God.

I never said multiple attestation makes anything true. However it isone of the methods or parameters scholars use to assess reliability. In allareas multiple witnesses are more reliable than one. Again until you provideevidence or examples of contradiction there is nothing for me to counter. Vagueand generalized assumptions and assertions require no refutation.

The Qur'an contains no contradictions. This is already a strong argumentin favor of the Qur'an.

That is one convenient assumption. I can postdozens upon dozens if you wish. Until I can post links his is a hassle but willdo so anyway if desired.

It is the main reason why the Qur'an is far superior to theBible.

Even if it was true that the Quran was not internallycontradictory it would not overturn the several other objections I made to it.It however is very contradictory. If you wish to contend this point I willsupply examples.

While the Bible contains contradictions, despite its multiple authors,despite its no signs of plagiarizing, despite its apparent 99% textual accuracy(I strongly doubt it, and with strong proof which I am ready to give) anddespite the independent chains of transmission - this then shows that there issome false premises here. Again, i challenge the authority on which you aregiving your facts. Give the source and give the proof. Believe me, you have todo a lot of convincing yourself if you want those claims to be taken seriously.Either you show us the source, or if you are the scholar who came to theseconclusions, then demonstrate this proof.

How many posts do I have to make before links are able to be posted byme. Until I can do so giving examples of these scholars and their claims isextremely time consuming. I had no idea there was a restriction on postinglinks until I have made a certain number of posts when I initially made theseclaims. In the meantime I will list some examples that indicate the Quran isnot from God. Virtually every form of worship practice in the Quran is wellknown to have existed in Judaism (that is not so bad), or Paganism (thsi isvery bad). Veneration of the Stone (which would be objectionable even if thePagans had not done so), 5 daily prayers toward Mecca, fasting on the 10th ofMuharram, Circumambulation, and even the Kaaba itself, etc.... Until I can postlinks this is about all I can get to easily. BTW, the claimed Abrahamicconnection to the Kaaba is a well-known historical absurdity.

I await your response.

I will appreciate your patience until Ican post links and copy text.

[M.I.A.]

That is an assumption of the conclusion and then making an argument from it. I could say that if 2 + 2 = 5 and then state that all mathematicians are wrong, but I have hardly made the case. The point is that the evidence suggests very strongly the Bible is from God and the Quran is not. All the signs are there for teh Bible (2500 prophecies, miracles, a consistent narrative over almost 2000 years and many authors, explanatory power, universality, 25,000 historical corroborations, etc...).With the Quran we have a refusal to do any miracles, a very limited narrative given to by one man, no prophecies worthy of the name, a narrative composed of borrowing from heretical, pagan sources, and Arabian myth, etc...and historical mistakes with almost every Biblical narrative mentioned in the Quran. Your extrapolation would be true if your premise was but you can't assume your premise is true and then demand a conclusion based on it.

if you have a ten lap race, you actually have to do eleven to finish.

anyway, thats besides the point.

the thing about miracles is there interpretation.

...so the fact that an absolutely normal man... by your standards.. changed the face of the world almost makes it more noteworthy.

or not, depends on who writes the history books i suppose.


imitative narrative is like saying that people dont add to the theories within matamatics or science.

but the above statement is void because its not like a person just saw or heard the world and got people to write it down.
or wrote it down himself.

it was sent through an angel.

i mean its not like you have Noah's AS ark anywhere.


in case of miracles, i would think that a man does not make them... god does.



that takes a long time to get your head around.


it may not always be the case, but thats how i would like to think of it.

[arcangel]

By the way can anyone tell me how to edit my posts? I am on a DOD server and so can't download the spellcheck and when I copy to word it gets scrambled on the return trip. If my posts are left to the mercy of my spelling ability there is no hope. Thanks

[جوري]

Obviously you enjoy writing voluminous nonsocial pieces but don't have the time to read, discern or process the replies afforded you given that you keep writing the same testimonies over and over. Amongst other things it is disrespectful.
Now regardless of your very strong assertions erroneous as they're.. I am still for instance waiting for the results from that christian quiz I provided, say the bible has no errors, what exactly does that prove? So what? Many literature books are accurate it doesn't make them divine, or divinely inspired. In fact I find Buddhism, or Hinduism to be on equal footing with christianity in terms of paganism but sans the suckling dying god. At least they don't proclaim to be monotheistic or at least there's some god in charge while one god dies..
what exactly were you hoping you'd accomplish here because whatever it is you're doing it very poorly!

best,

[جوري]

More on the miraculous features of the Quran which I don't wish to amend in my previous post since the new guy doesn't bother read anyway:

	Reflections on the Medical Miracles of the Holy Quran . by Dr. Sharif Kaf Al Ghazal
		Embryology and Human Creation between Quran & Science . by Dr. Sharif Kaf Al-Ghazal
		The Quran's description of the internal and external features of the fetus
		A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Quran
		The amazing Quran (by Gary Miller ): Embryology, honey,and other scientific aspects in Quran
		The sensory character of the skin (in Quran) :
		Appearance of disease due to spread of lewdness
		The Quran on the cerebrum
		Newly discovered facts reveled by Quran and Hadith.
		Foreword By the Commission on Scientific Signs of Quran and Sunnah
		What is the Quran all about?
		Koran and Biomedical Sciences By:Muhammed Asadi
		The Quran and Modern Science Taken from "The Origin of Man", by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
		Quran and Scientific knowledge
		The Quran on Human Embryology!
		The Quran On The Cerebrum!
		The Quran and the sensory characteristic of the skin.
		The Quran On New Diseases!
			Wonders of Qur'an. By Nasir Hussain Peerzadah
			Qur'an and Modern Science. By Dr. Zakir Naik
			Statistical miracles in the Quran.
			Does the Qur’an Plagiarise Ancient Greek Embryology? A Review.
			MUSCULO-SKELETAL SYSTEM and PHYSICAL EXERCISE in the Quran. by Prof. Dr.Omar Hassan Kasule.
			Relief of Pain - A Medical Discovery.
			The Forelock !
			The final of Personality.
			A boy or a girl ?
			The condition of chest in the Higher layers of space.
			The Skin.
			The psychological influence of Quran on non-Muslims (Arabic text)
			Newly Discovered Scientific Facts Revealed In The Quran And Authentic Sunnah .
			Winter Depression and Prayer.
			Studies Show Fajr Prayer is Healthy.
			The Healing Power of Prayer Beads.
			The Relevance of the Quran to Modern Science
			The Quran and Modern Science
			THE QURAN AND MODERN SCIENCE : Extracted from the Book : The Bible, The Quran and Science . (By: Maurice Bucaille) :
			1. Introduction 2. Authenticity of the Quran 3. Creation of the Heavens and Earth 4. Astronomy in the Quran 5. Nature of Heavenly Bodies 6. Celestial Organization 7. Evolution of the Heavens 8. The Conquest of Space 9. The Earth 10. The Water Cycle and the Seas 11. The Earth's Relief 12. The Earth's Atmosphere 13. The Animal and Vegetable Kingdoms 14. The Vegetable Kingdom 15. The Animal Kingdom 16. Human Reproduction 17. Human Reproduction in the Quran 18. Islam and Sex Education
			Discoveries in Human Beings:
			(i) The part that controls our movements (ii) Fingerprints
			Read and Think .
			Xenotransplantation and Genetic Engineering: A Qur'anic Perspective: Look At the Ears!
			Winter Depression and Prayer
			Studies Show Fajr Prayer is Healthy
			Night Prayer and the Human Body Clock
			The Extraordinary Design of the Eye
			Creation of man ( Stage 1) ( Stage 2) .

[arcangel]

All of your claims are false!!!!!

Is this assertion day? No, all yours are. Did I win?

The Bible has 40 authors and 66 books and many versions that have beenchanged so that is why its larger, the Quran is the word of God. I take God'swords over thousands or millions of men's words.

The Quran has about 80,000 words. The Bible has about 750,000. Are yousuggesting someone somewhere invented and added 600,000 words to the Bible soChristians could claim it is bigger? The Dead sea scrolls and many other linesof evidence easily show the Bible has been changed little over the years. Whereit has been added to or mistakes made are 95% known and are indicated in allmajor modern Bibles. The issue is not an unknown one. Even by Ehrman's criticalnumbers it has approx. 5% scribal error and 95% of them known and indicated.The theologian's average is about 99.5%. I use Ehrman's numbers to limitcontention.

The Bible do have myth stories, let me list some myths for you
1. The Bible says Adam and Eve's only children were two boys

That has nothingto do with how many Children they had. The Bible gives genealogies to trace ancestryor make a specific point. It never intends and no one until now has ever hintedthat if it does not contain a name that person never existed or that it is acensus of everyone ever born. First that is irrational, second it has nothingto do with myth (whether wrong or right). Scholars claim the infancy stories ofChrist speaking is a myth because it's origins are well known to be withinheretical authors and have mythical sources. What extra biblical myth describeshow many children that Adam had and existed before Moses recorded the Pentateuch?I gave sources for Quranic myths where are yours?

2. Men have fewer ribs than women

This is stated no where in theBible. The concept (whether symbolic or literal I do not know, is that Eve'srib grew back). I have read medical claims that the lower rib bones are one ofteh few bones that can regenerate but hat was not your claim. Your claim wasthat it was from myth. What myth was it from? Again I gave examples (very fewof the total known) of the Quran's myths, where are yours?

3. The Bible teaches that the earth is flat

This one is simply wrong. I have debated this one quite a bit. TheBible states teh shape of the Earth in three different ways. None mean flat. Inancient Hebrew it meant circular, as they had no word meaning large sphere. Inlater Hebrew it stated that it is circular independent of location (from everyspot on Earth it was circular). That results in a sphere no matter how youinterpret it. In Greek it stated the horizon as being an arch. There are manyscriptures that indicate the Earth as being circular. The early ones are alittle vague, the latter ones are not. However compared to the 7 heavens and 7earths of the Quran even Moses was a better cosmologist.

Some of the things are similar or stories are similar b/c the Quran saysthe things that the other revelations says and corrects them and who knowsbetter than God

That might explain a few things if very generous. It however would notexplain the fact that Muhammad gets virtually every Biblical story differentthan the authors far closer to events that he was. You could still assume hewas right many times and in spite of what is historically known. However thereare many cases where he can't possibly be right. His claim about whatChristians believe the trinity to be is simply wrong. No significant group ofChristian ever believed Mary was part of the Trinity. Muhammad placescrucifixion in history far prior to the point it was known to have been used.We know where the stories of Jesus breathing life into clay birds comes fromand it was not God. It is not simply that his claims are different from theBible, it is that scholars know the sources of many of them. There were groupsin Israel that created false gospels and were exiled because of it. Manymigrated to Arabia and were known to teach their "other" gospels justprior to Muhammad’s arrival on the scene. When you can follow geographical,historical, and even grammatical mistakes from their roots and sometimes findthem almost word for word in the Quran there is no defense possible for theirbeing true.

Wrong claim again, the Bible is not even 80% correct, there are so manycontradictions in the Bible , even one site listed 500
The Quran is not flawed, it is perfect since it is the word of God

I swear if simply claiming something without any facts made anythingtrue then I my claims might be in trouble. Do you actually think that the fact(if it is) that a site claims 500 contradictions is evidence that they actuallyexist? Is this alone an argument? I personally have on file (and will use themwhen I have enough posts to allow links to be given) at least a hundred entirepapers written (many times by Arab scholars) that claim Muhammad was a falseprophet. Is it therefor true because I stated it was? I have never seen so manyassumptions used as arguments before.

Nope the Bible don't test the Quran but the Quran tests people to evenproduce 1 verse like that of the Quran, the Bible didn't talk about the Quran

[offensive, baseless remarks removed]

Say, "If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the likeof this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to eachother assistants. “Quran 17:88
And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant[Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnessesother than Allah , if you should be truthful.Quran 2:23

I am aware ofthis surah and agree it is in the Quran. [offensive, baseless remarks removed]

[glo]

By the way can anyone tell me how to edit my posts?

You might have to be a full member before you can edit your posts. For that you need 50 posts (if I'm not mistaken)

[arcangel]

I have no idea what this nonsense means? In fact math is borne out of ourimagination but I don't think you've the capabilities to play around with therules not that the possibilities don't exist!

I skipped a few posts to get to this one because it was so bizarre.Mathematics is a language that describes the objective mechanisms of naturallaw. I have a math degree and work in a DOD lab. We did not invent mathematicswe discovered it. Newton (probably the greatest of them all) said he felt likea child that noticed a pebble on the beach and ignored the ocean. (Paraphrasedof course). He did not say he invented a pebble and ignored what theimaginations of others created. If you meant the language math is assigned forcomprehension then I agree but that has nothing to do with what I claimed. Ifyou claim that mathematical concepts are subjective constructs then any mathmajor will tell you are simply incorrect. The point slope relationship of alinear equation would still exist even if humans did not. However math was noteven the subject.

What evidence is that? your testimony? The evidence suggests stronglyotherwise.
one book is a confused mess of a self-immolating man god and the other aguidance to mankind which covers every aspect of man's life and in and ofitself has many miraculous features that it is the foundation upon which manyother things were borne, from inheritance laws, to economic theories and evenmodern day grammar.

I gave a mathematic allegory that was a complaint against assertionswith no evidence. You then gave an incorrect mathematical critique ofmathematics, then a complaint against assertions, and then made several newassertions. I am a little stunned. I will give you credit for at leastsupplying some actual categories where these assertions are claimed to apply.That is at least progress. I gave as many specific examples as my currentinability to post links justified so I will ignore your complaint. I gave actualnames of the works Muhammad borrowed, etc...

1. Millions of Bible's are identical so your statement is untrue, though notsomething I claimed so in no need of defense.
2. The reason that Uthman burned all other copies of the Quran is that Islamwas tearing its self apart because of Quranic division and there currentlyexists vast discrepancies between Quranic revisions so your point ishypocritical.
3. The extraordinary textual tradition of the Bible allows virtually all errorsto be well known and indicated (language and interpretation exists in a books,however the Quran's textual history ends at Uthman and is politicallycontrolled so the extent of its corruption can't ever be known. It is a textualblack hole.
4. As for miracles. Biblical prophets did them. Muhammad refused. There isnothing miraculous about the Quran its self. IMO there is nothing that can evenbe suggested to be. It is not even good literature according to countlessliterary scholars.
5. As far as grammaticism goes. I have no claims about the Bible nor God thatdemand I defend the grammatical accuracy of every translation you wish to challenge.However the Quran claims to be perfect Arabic and is known to even Arabicscholars to contain almost 200 non-Arabic words and many examples of grammaticalmistakes. Muhammad really doomed the Quran by claiming it to always be perfect.It isn't, the proposition isn't even debatable. The Bible only guarantees the"perfection" of revelation not every interpretation ever made. Theobvious fact the Quran has not been perfect is Uthman's need to burn hiscompetitor's, including trying to burn the original he used. Anyone who reviewsmodern Quran's will see that many differ and so all can't be perfect. I am outof time for now, sorry.

In fact the Quran is full of miracles:

I can yell miracle if my toast looks like Mary if I wish. However even when Muhammd was asked to do miracles AS THE PROPHETS OF THE BIBLE had done he refused and admitted he couldn't. To claim a "prophet" that could not do miracles wrote a book that is one seems quite desperate in my opinion. Not to mention no prophies beyond the one about Rome which a preschool Child should have known and was so vague that half of Romes battles could be fit into it.

[arcangel]

You might have to be a full member before you can edit your posts. For that you need 50 posts (if I'm not mistaken)

Well that is depressing. I make too many grammatical mistakes to wait that long. Thanks for the information, however I can't even imagine what the restriction on fixing mistakes would be.

[جوري]

The Quran has about 80,000 words. The Bible has about 750,000. Are yousuggesting someone somewhere invented and added 600,000 words to the Bible soChristians could claim it is bigger? The Dead sea scrolls and many other linesof evidence easily show the Bible has been changed little over the years. Whereit has been added to or mistakes made are 95% known and are indicated in allmajor modern Bibles. The issue is not an unknown one. Even by Ehrman's criticalnumbers it has approx. 5% scribal error and 95% of them known and indicated.The theologian's average is about 99.5%. I use Ehrman's numbers to limitcontention.

the NT has 260 chapters, 7958 verses

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

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

so I have no idea where you are getting your stats from, however, two words in Arabic can translate to up to seven in English if we are looking purely for word count.. have a look at suret an'nazi3at for quick reference.. two words in Arabic are translated to 7 words in English, and that's because Arabic is refined & eloquent where English is clunky and the same idea holds true given what Jesus spoke to what you're speaking or even believing!

I don't think any Muslim would compare the Quran with the bible, simply the Quran is the unadulterated word of God, free of errors. Whereas the bible is the compilation of men with many additives and preservatives along the way.. if anything in Islam can be made akin to the bible it would be the compendium of ahadiths, and those are volumes upon volumes and still have a proper chain of Isnad that can be traced back, nothing of the sort exists in the bible.. So if we're going to compare Ahadith alone:
1- Sahih Bukhari translated by M. Muhsin Khan. 2- Sahih Muslim translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui. 3- Sunan Abu-Dawud translated by Prof. Ahmad Hasan. 4- Malik's Muwatta translated by Aisha Abdarahman at-Tarjumana and Yaqub Johnson.

it would dwarf even if you put the OT for padding and let's face it, the OT believers want nothing to do with your god nor do you actually prescribe to the god of the OT!

try for more facts less fiction and less emotions. As stated if volume or word count alone counts for anything then history is full of literature, which is more meaningful.

best,

[جوري]

Ifyou claim that mathematical concepts are subjective

I have claimed that even math is borne of our imagination. Do you dispute that?
If you're as you proclaim with brilliant math skills then it is a conundrum how it is you subscribe to a manogod who is supposed to be indivisible and yet in the same breath proclaim that the three god of christianity is one & monotheistic?..

Millions of Bible's are identical so your statement is untrue

I take it you still didn't take the christian quiz? No matter I'll post it and then everyone can have a look at your deception first hand. We're aware that with Gothenburg's printing press many volumes of erroneous bibles were printed. So again what's your point? You're about word count that doesn't exist and math that doesn't add up and miracles that never happened? and events with multiple narratives contradictory to one another and yet expect us to buy into its 'divine miraculous nature'? Thanks but no thanks!
Frankly I don't see how anyone can risk their mortal soul on a god that couldn't even save himself!

h. However even when Muhammd was asked to do miracles AS THE PROPHETS OF THE BIBLE had done he refused and admitted he couldn't

lol where did you get that? your preacher? many miracles were performed during the time of the prophet by him directly and witnessed even by non-Muslims, if that an indication it is meant for the people of his time since most miracles die with their prophets and all that remains are funny jokes exchanged by atheists. We're left with one living miracle in the form of the noble Quran. And until we see proper scholarship not perfuse logorrhea can you come discuss the topic at length. I am not interested in your emotions or assertions or even your brand of logic. I'd be worried having a math teacher who can't do basic additions and reconcile them with a universal concept!
If people weren't taken by the Quran at a time when the Arabic language was supreme and the poets competed with their scrolls hung on the kaaba then we wouldn't have 1.8 billion Muslims today & fastest growing especially amongst intellectuals whereas christianity dies day by day that in a pathetic attempt the catholic pope decided Atheists aren't going to hell might he make the religion more attractive to them and then retracted it a few days later. In fact christianity shrinks by about 1% a year in Europe. I think they're finding out that Odin is more western than a middle eastern man god who died in beyt lahm leaving the massive universe he created behind to be beaten by a couple of disgruntled Jews or Romans depending on whose sensibilities you wish to acknowledge!

best,

[جوري]

1. How many men were in Jesus' tomb when the women arrived?
one or two?
2. On the way to Golgotha where Jesus was to be crucified, who carried Jesus' cross?
Jesus or Simon of Cyrene?
3. When Jesus sent his disciples out to spread the gospel message to the cities of Israel, did he command them to take only a staff or to take no staff?

4. When Jesus and his disciples were walking toward Jerusalem after leaving Bethany that night, Jesus saw a fig tree and cursed it for not having figs. Did the tree wither immediately as they stood and watched or did it wither overnight?

(on a personal note it is amusing that 'god' doesn't know what he planted on the earth he created so he ****s it)

How many women went to Jesus' tomb on Sunday morning? one or more than one?

. After Jesus calmed the sea, he and his disciples went to a land called Gadarenes (Gergesenes in Matthew). How many demon-possessed men came out of the tombs?

one or two?
When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, was he riding on one donkey or two?


8. How did Judas Iscariot die?
He hung himself out of remorse for betraying Jesus
or perhaps
He fell on the ground in the field he purchased and his guts spilled out

9-How many days passed after Jesus' resurrection before he ascended into heaven?
1 or 40?

10- When did Satan enter Judas Iscariot?
several days before the last supper or during the last supper?

11- When Jesus was being crucified, were the women standing near (at the foot of) the cross, near enough for Jesus to speak to them from the cross, or were they watching from very far away?

12. Did both of the criminals who were crucified with Jesus revile him or did only one of them revile him?

13. Who was Jesus' grandfather on his father's side?
Jacob or Heli?

14. According to Jesus, is it okay to call someone a fool?

15. How many blind men did Jesus heal on his way out of Jericho? one or two?

16. When Jesus was being crucified, what did the soldiers give Jesus to drink?
Vinegar and gall or Wine and myrrh

17. What did Jesus do immediately after his baptism?

He went immediately into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil for 40 days or He called his disciples and attended the wedding at Cana

18. Did Jesus believe that bearing witness of himself made the witness true or not true?

Jesus believed that if he bore witness of himself, his witness was not true or Jesus believed that if he bore witness of himself, his witness was true

19. Did the women who visited Jesus' tomb run immediately and tell his disciples that he had risen?

They ran immediately to tell Jesus' disciples what they had seen and heard or They fled the tomb in fear and said nothing to anyone


20. Who bought the potter's field with the 30 pieces of silver that was payment for Judas' betrayal of Jesus?

The chief priests bought the potter's field or Judas bought the potter's field


well you get the picture math guy, and do the math yourself it just doesn't add up does it?
Try for some intellectual honesty too. Believe me nothing you do here is going to make anything you peddle more attractive!

best,

[Ahmad H]

I can yell miracle if my toast looks like Mary if I wish. However even when Muhammd was asked to do miracles AS THE PROPHETS OF THE BIBLE had done he refused and admitted he couldn't. To claim a "prophet" that could not do miracles wrote a book that is one seems quite desperate in my opinion. Not to mention no prophies beyond the one about Rome which a preschool Child should have known and was so vague that half of Romes battles could be fit into it.

Prophet Muhammad (saw) did more miracles than Jesus (as). He never claimed to not have done any miracles. He said the Holy Qur'an was his miracle. And even though that is the case, he still performed many miracles. They are recorded in both the Qur'an and the Ahadith.

[Muhammad]

I will appreciate your patience until Ican post links and copy text.

Please note we will not be allowing copy and pasting of anti-Islamic material on this forum, nor do we allow links to such sites. If you have original arguments regarding the Qur'an, you may bring them up one at a time and members might respond. However, offensive remarks against the Prophet :saws: or the Qur'an will not be tolerated.

I note from your first post that you said:

In general my claim is that the Bible is superior to the Quran in allcategories by which these issues are determined within scholarship.

Meaningless statements such as, 'There is nothing at all exceptionalabout the Quran literarily' and ignorant claims like, 'Since Muhammadhimself said the Bible was to be used to judge the Quran' do not constitute 'scholarship'. We are not interested in entertaining your personal opinion, rather scholarship involves evidence and objectivity.

Let me also advise that evangelical remarks such as, 'We and I became one by direct experience with God. I met God.' are not scholarly. For the record, Muslims continue to meet God at least 5 times every day.

If unscrupulous posts continue, this thread will be closed.

[Muhammad]

On the issue of 'paganism', a cursory glance at Islam and other religions easily refutes this point. Let us use the topic of celebrations as an example:

Islamic Celebrations
...Unlike Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism, there are very few festivals in Islam, which provides for only two Eids (Eidul-fitr and Eidul-Adha)during the whole year. The dates of these two Eids do not correspond to the birthday of any of the outstanding persons of Islamic history, nor can their origin be attributed to any particular event of history that had happened in these dates.


Both of these two Eids have been prescribed for paying gratitude to Allah on some happy events that take place every year. The first event is the completion of the fasts of Ramadan and the second event is the completion of Hajj, another form of worship regarded as one of the five pillars of Islam.


The manner prescribed for the celebration of these two Eids(festivals) is also different from non-Islamic festivals. There are no formal processions, illumination or other activities showing formal happiness. On the contrary, there are congregational prayers and informal mutual visits to each other, which can give real happiness instead of its symbols only.


The Origins of Christmas
In fact, commemorating the birth of a distinguished person has never been prescribed by any religion attributing itself to divine revelation. It was originally a custom prevalent in pagan communities only. Even Christmas, the famous Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ finds no mention in the Bible or in the early Christian writings. It was only in the 4th century after the ascension of Jesus Christ that Christmas was recognized as a regular Christian feast. To quote the Collier's Encyclopedia:

"It is impossible to determine the exact date of the birth of Christ, either from the evidence of the gospels, or from any sound tradition. During the first three centuries of the Christian era there was considerable opposition in the Church to the pagan custom of celebrating birthdays, although there is some indication that a purely religious commemoration of the birth of Christ was included in the feast of Epiphany. Clement of Alexandria mentions the existence of the feast in Egypt about the year A.D. 200 and we have some evidence that it was observed on various dates in scattered areas. After the triumph of Constantine, the Church at Rome assigned December 25 as the date for the celebration of the feast, possibly about A.D. 320 or 353. By the end of the fourth century the whole Christian world was celebrating Christmas on that day, with the exception of the Eastern Churches, where it was celebrated on January 6. The choice of December 25 was probably influenced by the fact that on this day the Romans celebrated the Mithraic feast of the Sun-god, and that the Saturnalia also came at this time." ^[1].

A similar description of the origin of Christmas is found in-the Encyclopedia Britannica with some more details. Its following passage will throw more light on the point:

"Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church, and before the 5th century there was no general consensus of opinion as to when it should come in the calendar, whether on Jan. 6, March 25 or Dec. 25. The earliest identification of Dec. 25 with the birthday of Christ is in a passage, otherwise unknown and probably spurious, of the philos of Antioch (c.180), preserved in Latin by the Magdeburyg centuriators (i, 3, 118), to the effect that the Gauls contended that since they celebrated the birth of Lord on Dec. 25, so they ought to celebrate the resurrection on March 25. A passage, almost certainly interpolated, in 'Hippelates' (c. 202) commentary on Daniel iv, 23, says that Jesus was born at Bethlehem on Wednesday, Dec. 25, in the 42nd year of Augustus, but he mentions no feast, and such a feast, indeed, would conflict with the then orthodox ideas. As late as 245, Origin (hem. viii on Leviticus) repudiated the idea of keeping the birthday of Christ "as if he were a king Pharaoh". ^[2]

These two quotes are more than sufficient to prove the following points:

1. The commemoration of birthdays was originally a pagan custom, never recognized by a divine scripture or prophetic teaching.
2. The exact date of the Birth of Sayyidna 'Isa is unknown and impossible to be ascertained.
3. The commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ was not a recognized practice in the early centuries of the Christian history.
4. It was in the 4th or 5th century that it was recognized as a religious feast, and that, too, under the influence of the pagans who worshipped Sun-god.
5. There was a strong opposition against the commemorating of the birthday by the early Christian scholars like Origin, on the ground that it is originally a custom of pagans and idolaters.

Taken from: http://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thou...-rabi-ul-awwal


Further details can be found in another article here:

...For example, as is common during Christmas, many people... erect Christmas trees in their homes adorning them with decorations such as tinsel, fairy lights and baubles. Underneath the tree there are usually a pile of presents which are opened on Christmas day. However, all of these practices originate from paganism. Erecting trees and adorning them for celebrations originated from pre-Christianity, to the extent that Jeremiah states in the Old Testament, 'For the customs of the people are vain: for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold;,they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.'¹⁵ Additionally, the actual Christmas trees used in Britain stem from Norse paganism (and their celebrations during Yule), while decorations such as baubles represent the sun synonymous with the festival of Sol Invinctus. A practice which resembles Saturnalia is kissing under the mistletoe, and although fornication is explicitly forbidden in Christianity, many people have adopted this pagan practice of kissing strangers using mistletoe as an excuse to satisfy sexual desires - it was first practiced in Britain during solstitial rites among the pagan Druids...

...Even though most of the West has immersed itself into the Christmas culture without questioning its origins or pagan connotations, the paganisation of the Christian faith has not gone unnoticed by all, rather we see in the past that Christmas was rejected by many Protestant groups during the 16th century, and in addition, Puritans of 17th century England and America banned the festival of Christmas as pagan. Oliver Cromwell also banned Christmas after the English Civil War due to the belief that it was a pagan belief which encouraged sin and immorality interpolated into the Christian faith. Christians suchas Jehovah Witnesses continue to hold beliefs similar to the Puritans and reject the notion of Christmas altogether...

http://www.islam21c.com/theology/173...f-christianity

[arcangel]

[QUOTE=العنود;1586970]

Even though the Quran is an oral tradition. We don't need to have hard copiesof it, the decision for hard copies was made after a 70 hafiths were killedwhen they were sent to teach it to obvious traitors. Many of us on this boardhere are also memorizers of the Quran and it is recited 17 times a day acrossthe globe by 1.8 billion Muslims just as it began. It was always compiled andwith direct supervision of the messenger

Do Muslim's actually recite the Quran 17 times a day? I am quite certain that not5% of the 1.8 billion Muslims do so regardless. Not that that makes it any morereliable nor accurate but that is amazing. I am a veteran and was taught brainwashing theory. One of the most effective means of making someone think as youwish regardless of what they started out believing is constant repetition. Ifyou can get them when they are young the end result is guaranteed. The entireQuran seems to be composed to repeat not to comprehend. The Bible seems to beconstructed to convince not coerce. You are right that the Quran was writtenand collected from fragments of animal skins, bone shards, rocks, parchment,and memory because many of those that knew it were killed. Many of them were the only ones who knew certain sections (according to Islamic traditions), so those are lost to begin with, even Muhammad’swives said animals ate others and some were simply lost. However it was 700 ofthose that memorized it that were killed and it was in the civil war and chaosthat ensued within Islam when Muhammad died. Hopefully here soon I will be ableto post links and quotes for all of this but I have no idea how many posts ittakes before I am able.

so in fact the bible is no way on equal footing with the Quran and if anythingit can be compared with it would be the hadith and even those have a strongchain of Isnad that is bar none!

There are lists of names in Biblical textual traditions as well. Farmore chains and far more names. It is the fact that a list of names makes notext any more reliable that explains the fact I never have. If you have everheard of the telephone game then you should know that lists of names who passeddown oral traditions are the worst form of textual transmission possible. Thefirst 5 books of the Bible are oral translated and are the books I find theleast reliable and hard to defend. The problem gets worse the longer the listis yet you seem to view a long list as an asset instead of the liability itactually is in scholarship. The Bible claims that the Holy Spirit himselfappeared to the apostles for the very purpose of reminding them accurately of theevents they recorded. That is the best possible scenario there is. It would behard to prove to someone who denies Divine inspiration but you are not one ofthose people. You believe it occurred but for some reason believe that it beingwhispered between 20 people and then written is better than being given fromGod to the author and then recorded. Why?

That's nonsense:
It is unanimous that the Quran was compiled during the reign of Uthman notwritten:

If I said written that is not the best word to use. The Quran alreadyexisted in several different versions. These differing interpretations werecausing so much infighting in the Muslim army that Uthman decided toconsolidate a single version and burn the rest. If the others were notdifferent from his and themselves there is absolutely no need to burn them.

Here are some of the earliest parchments before collections and they canbe found in various museums around the world:

There are no whole Quran'sfrom Uthman's time or before, known to man. Sorry but the way you copied yourpictures made quoting them impossible and I had to delete them to reply until Ihave made a certain number of posts. The commonly claimed "oldest"Quran is the Yemeni manuscript (or Sana's). Since I can’t copy and paste what Iwish to I will just give a few details.

1. It is not an entire Quran. It is a collection of fragments that make up (Ibelieve) less than 50% of the Quran.
2. Some fragments date from the 7th and 8th centuries but are in poor shape.
3. The majority that is in good shape is from 800Ad or later.
4. It contains example where text was erased and different text added later.
5. It also differs in many ways from Uthman's manuscript as admitted by Muslimscholars.
6. Even the NT is several hundred years earlier that the Quran but many ofPaul's fragments exist from within a dozen years of their writing and other fragmentsexist that are not much later. Thousands of them. Not to mention the dead seascrolls which eliminated any significant doubts about the old testament(especially Isaiah which is concerned with the messiah).
7. If you wish to adopt the Yemen manuscript then it is absolute proof that theQuran was changed even very early on. The only debate would be how much?

you should argue from knowledge not out of whimsy.
Also did you take the Quiz I provided?
I am wondering how well you scored?

I did not take the test because of limited time. However I know whattests like this attempt to prove. You may select any one of the"claimed" contradictions that were used to generate the test and wecan see if it survives scrutiny. I am sure some scribes messed up and caused contradictionsin the Bible but so far not one has been given that survives the slightestresearch. Pick your best.

good luck.. also please try to space your words when you write, asidefrom the nonsensical contents one can't sort through the words. Do you not havea spacebar on your keyboard?

I thought I explained this. I am on a DODserver and can’t download the spell check so I must transfer everything to wordto edit it and for some reason it jams words together when I transfer it backto this forum. The other forums I use do not do this. That is not to say my grammaris good. It stinks but the errors you mention are formatting issues. I also hadto delete your links because it will not let me reply with any links at all,even yours until I make so many posts. Sorry. Let me summarize your post.

1. Many people recite the Quran. Fine but irrelevant.
2. Long lists of oral transmission are a liability not an asset.
3. 12,000 early fragments that have been changed (this is simply an giventextual fact not an assertion, and who's earliest are in poor condition do notundue the dozen or so textual advantages I gave for the Bible. I do not knowwhat you thought this manuscript proved.
4. You claim as I do that Uthman compiled a politically motivated Quran andattempted to destroy every other copy, though my wording may have been lessprecise than I intended.
5. It appears to me we are just where we started.

[White Rose]

[QUOTE=arcangel;1587150]

Do Muslim's actually recite the Quran 17 times a day? I am quite certain that not5% of the 1.8 billion Muslims do so regardless. Not that that makes it any morereliable nor accurate but that is amazing. I am a veteran and was taught brainwashing theory. One of the most effective means of making someone think as youwish regardless of what they started out believing is constant repetition. Ifyou can get them when they are young the end result is guaranteed. The entireQuran seems to be composed to repeat not to comprehend. The Bible seems to beconstructed to convince not coerce.

Man, I dont know where you are getting your facts from. Do you know Arabic? Do you use critical thinking when reading? Because even for people who know Arabic and who are critical thinkers, Quran is deep and not some story book that you can recite to go to sleep.

[جوري]

Do Muslim's actually recite the Quran 17 times a day? I am quite certain that not5% of the 1.8 billion Muslims do so regardless.

Indeed we do if we fulfill the second obligation of Islam which is making prayers. During the five times we pray we recite. Where are you getting your stats from? God told you in a dream?

Not that that makes it any morereliable nor accurate but that is amazing

In what way is it not reliable not accurate? because you said so?

I am a veteran and was taught brainwashing theory.

You're many things none of them sensical nor congruent with what you write.

One of the most effective means of making someone think as youwish regardless of what they started out believing is constant repetition.

I don't know that it holds true given your repetition here which appear more absurd with each subsequent post.

The entireQuran seems to be composed to repeat not to comprehend

Care to back that up?

The Bible seems to beconstructed to convince not coerce.

But we've read it and there's nothing convincing about it. And as I have stated christianity is on the decline so there's no better testimony to just how unconvincing it is!

You are right that the Quran was writtenand collected from fragments of animal skins, bone shards, rocks, parchment,and memory because many of those that knew it were killed. Many of them were the only ones who knew certain sections (according to Islamic traditions), so those are lost to begin with, even Muhammad’swives said animals ate others and some were simply lost. However it was 700 ofthose that memorized it that were killed and it was in the civil war and chaosthat ensued within Islam when Muhammad died. Hopefully here soon I will be ableto post links and quotes for all of this but I have no idea how many posts ittakes before I am able.

Nothing of the Quran was lost. I have already given a link that goes through the painstaking process verse by verse!

There are lists of names in Biblical textual traditions as well. Farmore chains and far more names.

Isn't it amazing that even if we subscribe to your faulty notions that, it is a further testimony that there's nothing divine or guiding about the bible, given not just the lewdness of content but lack of agreement on major events?

If you have everheard of the telephone game

Does god author games?

These differing interpretations werecausing

again, care to back that up?

(Ibelieve)

your beliefs have no relevance here.

I am sure some scribes messed up and caused contradictionsin the Bible

Again, shouldn't god preserve his so called message and book?
You didn't have the time is again a contradiction to the volumes of logorrhea & empty rhetoric you've dished out here!
_______________

Your take home message here, should be to spend sometime going for some quality research and scholarship. I don't like wasting my time engaging silly drivel!

best,

[Scimitar]

Arcangel, you're so stupidly worng about a great many things, that I don't think I should humour your posts with my time and effort to be quite frank... I'll let other members take care of your rather warped ideas about Islam and the Quran.

military defence... i bet that includes zion right? pfft.

Scimi

[جوري]

Just as an aside note, here they're teaching math in a major university based on what was revealed in the Quran per laws of inheritance:
http://www.deltacollege.edu/dept/basicmath/Islamic.htm

compare and contrast that to the basic tenet of Christianity where you need a group of theologians to convolute what should otherwise be a 'universal message' for mankind.
That's if we just focus on one of the many erroneous conclusions by our veteran, mathematician pal!
The Quran is complete, politics, economics, social structure, ideology, inheritance, jurisprudence, the book upon which modern day Arabic grammar is taught, a spiritual guide, a comfort to the heart, and lyricism and poetry unparalleled through the ages, that the challenge is still unmet from ancient times and with all our technology.
Imagine a verse revealed 10, 20 years later to fall perfectly in place in context and lyricism without computers and archives to sort it out. Sob7an Allah truly its miraculous features never cease!



Oh God how beautiful and heart rendering!

Al-Baqara (The Cow) [2:109]

[RECITE]

[top] [next match]

Wadda katheerun min ahli alkitabi law yaruddoonakum min baAAdi eemanikum kuffaran hasadan min AAindi anfusihim min baAAdi ma tabayyana lahumu alhaqqu faoAAfoo waisfahoo hatta yatiya Allahu biamrihi inna Allaha AAala kulli shayin qadeerun

2:109 Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could Turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become Manifest unto them: But forgive and overlook, Till Allah accomplish His purpose; for Allah Hath power over all things.

Tell us oh wise one, what Grecian whispered the Quran to the prophet in the superior language and this time got it error free?

[Muhammad]

I am a veteran and was taught brainwashing theory. One of the most effective means of making someone think as youwish regardless of what they started out believing is constant repetition. Ifyou can get them when they are young the end result is guaranteed. The entireQuran seems to be composed to repeat not to comprehend.

Your anti-Islamic rhetoric and complete ignorance regarding the history and compilation of the Qur'an is clear so we will not be wasting our time and effort on this nonsense any longer. If you are interested in factual information, you can read what follows.

Greetings,

I was glancing through this thread and stumbled upon two issues I'd like to comment on. The first pertaining to details regarding the historical compilation and preservation of the Qur'an. And the second being a direct response to comments I made previously in another thread on the forum.

First, let me just point out that we should be referring to scholarly, academic sources that provide the references and research for all conclusions. See my list of recommended books on Islam for the links to two books which cover the preservation of the Qur'an and its qira'at in a very detailed scholarly fashion (one book is by Yasir Qadhi and the other by M.M. Azami).

One fallacy that many people commit in discussing the preservation of the Qur'an is ignoring its oral and educational tradition, focusing merely on the textual. The Qur'an is a living text, in that its recitation forms an integral part of the daily religious practice of each and every muslim in the world. The Imam recites from the Qur'an in the congregational prayers, and during Ramadan every year the entire Qur'an is recited from cover to cover in each mosque by the Imam from memory. Now let's take the example of the Holy Mosque in Makkah where literally millions of worshippers congregate during the prayers in Ramadan. Standing in that congregation there are countless thousands who have memorized the Qur'an and have come from every corner of the world and many more thousands who follow along with a pocket Qur'an. Even the slightest mispronunciation of a vowelization mark is instantly corrected.

Muslims everywhere memorize the Qur'an, many millions memorizing the entire Qur'an from cover to cover, such that Huffaadh (singl. Hafidh - one who has memorized the entire Qur'an by heart) are ubiquitous within the muslim community. It is not uncommon nor surprising to find children even as young as six or seven or younger who have completed their memorization of the entire Qur'an. If all the books in the entire world were to be lost or destroyed, only the Qur'an would be recovered letter for letter as it is preserved in the hearts of so many millions.

As far as the textual history goes, I'd like to mention a few points. The criteria used in the compilation of the Qur'an was that for each verse there had to be at least two witnesses, each of whom having not only memorized the verse (since practically all the companions had memorized the Qur'an) but had with them the parchment on which they recorded the verse in the presence of the Prophet himself. Uthman ordered the writing of several other copies of the text and sent them to the major cities, each accompanied with a knowledgeable recitor from amongst the companions to teach the people. When Uthman ordered that all other copies/parchments be either burned or erased it was because such copies were neither verified nor authorized under the consensus of the companions and consequently they could be written according to a specific dialect which would lead to confusion and bickering or they could even contain the odd scribal error which could also lead to confusion. When Uthman destroyed the unauthorized parchments it was a preventative measure to ensure that alterations of God's revelation would never take place.

One of the most common myths about the Qur’an, is that Usman (r.a.), the third Caliph of Islam authenticated and compiled one Qur’an, from a large set of mutually contradicting copies. The Qur’an, revered as the Word of Allah (swt) by Muslims the world over, is the same Qur’an as the one revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It was authenticated and written under his personal supervision. We will examine the roots of the myth which says that Usman (r.a.) had the Qur’an authenticated.

1. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself supervised and authenticated the written texts of the Qur’an

Whenever the Prophet received a revelation, he would first memorize it himself and later declare the revelation and instruct his Companions (R.A. – Radhi Allahu Taala Anhu) – May Allah be pleased with him who would also memorize it. The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was an Ummi who could not read and write. Therefore, after receiving each revelation, he would repeat it to his Companions. They would write down the revelation, and he would recheck by asking them to read what they had written. If there was any mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and rechecked. Similarly he would even recheck and authenticate the portions of the Qur’an memorized by the Companions. In this way, the complete Qur’an was written down under the personal supervision of the prophet (pbuh).

2. Order and sequence of Qur’an divinely inspired

The complete Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years portion by portion, as and when it was required. The Qur’an was not compiled by the Prophet in the chronological order of revelation. The order and sequence of the Qur’an too was Divinely inspired and was instructed to the Prophet by Allah (swt) through archangel Jibraeel. Whenever a revelation was conveyed to his companions, the Prophet would also mention in which surah (chapter) and after which ayat (verse) this new revelation should fit.

Every Ramadhaan all the portions of the Qur’an that had been revealed, including the order of the verses, were revised and reconfirmed by the Prophet with archangel Jibraeel. During the last Ramadhaan, before the demise of the Prophet, the Qur’an was rechecked and reconfirmed twice.

It is therefore clearly evident that the Qur’an was compiled and authenticated by the Prophet himself during his lifetime, both in the written form as well as in the memory of several of his Companions.

3. Qur’an copied on one common material

The complete Qur’an, along with the correct sequence of the verses, was present during the time of the Prophet (pbuh). The verses however, were written on separate pieces, scrapes of leather, thin flat stones, leaflets, palm branches, shoulder blades, etc. After the demise of the prophet, Abu Bakr (r.a.), the first caliph of Islam ordered that the Qur’an be copied from the various different materials on to a common material and place, which was in the shape of sheets. These were tied with strings so that nothing of the compilation was lost.

4. Usman (r.a.) made copies of the Qur’an from the original manuscript

Many Companions of the Prophet used to write down the revelation of the Qur’an on their own whenever they heard it from the lips of the Prophet. However what they wrote was not personally verified by the Prophet and thus could contain mistakes. All the verses revealed to the Prophet may not have been heard personally by all the Companions. There were high possibilities of different portions of the Qur’an being missed by different Companions. This gave rise to disputes among Muslims regarding the different contents of the Qur’an during the period of the third Caliph Usman (r.a.).

Usman (r.a.) borrowed the original manuscript of the Qur’an, which was authorized by the beloved Prophet (pbuh), from Hafsha (may Allah be pleased with her), the Prophet’s wife. Usman (r.a.) ordered four Companions who were among the scribes who wrote the Qur’an when the Prophet dictated it, led by Zaid bin Thabit (r.a.) to rewrite the script in several perfect copies. These were sent by Usman (r.a.) to the main centres of Muslims.

There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Usman (r.a.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an in order to preserve the original text of the Qur’an. Two such copies of the copied text of the original Qur’an authenticated by the Prophet are present to this day, one at the museum in Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union and the other at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.

5. Diacritical marks were added for non-Arabs

The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq.

Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too.

6. Allah Himself has promised to guard the Qur’an

Allah has promised in the Qur’an :

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption)."
[Al-Qur’an 15:9]

Article Source: http://towardsislam.pynex.com/content.php?article.23

A number of times, you have also made mention of 'witnesses' and 'chains'. Regarding the Qur'an, there are millions of scholars who are part of unbroken chains leading directly back to the Prophet :saws:, with the names of each and every person in that chain. Yet when we even begin to study biblical integrity, it is not known how many authors contributed to it or who they were. Even regarding those who dedicated themselves to collecting, arranging, and preserving the scriptures that existed in their day - it is said that the names of most of those who did this work are unknown. How then can one even begin to make a comparison regarding the two?

It seems fitting to remind you of what your own scripture teaches:

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ² For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

³ “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? ⁴ How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
[Matthew 7:1-5]



Thread closed.