Christianity or Islam?

[ZOREENA]

whoz avatar??

[Phil12123]

This raises an interesting question: why do Christians still have the Old Testament as part of the Bible when it contains rulings that they do not consider applicable to them?

Because the Old Testament is the Word of God as much so as the New Testament. The O.T. looks forward to the New, and the New completes or fulfills the Old. Neither one is complete without the other. But in understanding them, any portion of them, we must consider three important things: context, context, context! WHO was speaking, TO WHOM was it spoken, WHEN was it spoken, WHY was it spoken, WHAT else was spoken on the same subject, etc., etc. The cults like to take things out of context to prove some pet doctrine. Every verse has a context---the chapter it's part of, the book it's in, the Testament it's in, the time, place, and culture it's in, etc., etc.

In other words, even if two passages contradict each other, don't just read them and interpret what they say objectively - instead, assume they're both true and find a way of stretching your interpretation in order to accommodate both.

Well, yes, I assume they are both true, because I believe they are both the Word of God. You may not believe any of it is the Word of God. That is your prerogative. But I do. So then it is not so much "stretching" my interpretation but arriving at the correct interpretation.

If Christians are happy with that reasoning, then fine - but it wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

On the contrary, there are some situations in a court of law where a court is called on to interpret a statute, for example, as applied to a specific set of facts. The statute might be ruled unconstitutional if interpreted one way, or constitutional if interpreted another way. The rule of law is to uphold the statute's constitutionality if at all possible. The meaning of a statute is first found by looking objectively at the words on their face. Is anything ambiguous about the plain words of the statute? If so, the court might then look at the intention of the lawmaker (Congress or other legislative body).

Similarly, in interpreting any portion of Scripture, we first look at the plain words objectively. But if it appears that those plain words contradict other plain words, we have to consider other matters like the context of the two, what the Holy Spirit might have meant when inspiring both, perhaps at different times and places and under different circumstances dealing with different people. For example, God gave Adam and Eve only "every green herb for meat (food)" (Gen. 1:30). But later, after the flood, He gave "every moving thing that liveth" (Gen. 9:3), with no distinction between clean and unclean, for food. Then when the law was given to Moses we see the distinction of clean and unclean animals relative to food to eat. All that is not contradictory if you consider the different times and places and people God was dealing with.

Peace

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Thanks for your interesting reply.

Because the Old Testament is the Word of God as much so as the New Testament. The O.T. looks forward to the New, and the New completes or fulfills the Old.

Or in some cases, updates and adjusts it. By, for example, having a totally different character in the place of god.

Well, yes, I assume they are both true, because I believe they are both the Word of God. You may not believe any of it is the Word of God. That is your prerogative. But I do. So then it is not so much "stretching" my interpretation but arriving at the correct interpretation.

Of course it is. You're stretching your interpretation in order to fit in with your prior assumptions.

On the contrary, there are some situations in a court of law where a court is called on to interpret a statute, for example, as applied to a specific set of facts. The statute might be ruled unconstitutional if interpreted one way, or constitutional if interpreted another way. The rule of law is to uphold the statute's constitutionality if at all possible. The meaning of a statute is first found by looking objectively at the words on their face. Is anything ambiguous about the plain words of the statute? If so, the court might then look at the intention of the lawmaker (Congress or other legislative body).

I stand corrected, although I was really thinking about evidence. If a court had two pieces of evidence, one of which invalidated the other, would the court accept both of them? I think not.

Peace

[Phil12123]

Originally Posted by cool_jannah
Firstly, u need to get that demeaning and offensive avatar of ures down. The basic requirement of every human being is to be atleast a Muslim (or a submitter to the One True Lord). What you are doing is Shirk(associating partners with the Lord)

Are you unable to tolerate the beliefs of others?

I think the sister just said it because it may go against the forum rules:


While interfaith discussions are allowed promoting another religion is not allowed on the discussion board. This discussion board was created to promote Islam, not another religion. There are many other discussion boards on the Web which you can promote your religion other than Islam. 5% warning

Plus, associating anyone else with Allaah is the worst of all sins in islam. And nowhere does it explicitly say in the bible that Jesus is God. Nowhere does it say trinity in the bible either, yet these are the most important aspects of the christian faith.

When I signed on to this forum there were no avatars appropriate for non-Muslims except the one I first picked (Heaven/Hell). When I got my 50 messages in, I wanted to change it to more reflect my faith. I don't consider it "demeaning and offensive" or "promoting another religion" any more than ALL my posts do. But if the Moderators want to send me a private message to change my avatar, I will try to come up with another one. This isn't my forum and I don't make the rules, but I am willing to abide by them. It would be nice if the forum had some generic, non-Muslim avatars for non-Muslims to choose from.

Peace

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

[ZOREENA]

Yeah.....u gota suggestion of whatu would like?

[Fishman]

When I signed on to this forum there were no avatars appropriate for non-Muslims except the one I first picked (Heaven/Hell). When I got my 50 messages in, I wanted to change it to more reflect my faith. I don't consider it "demeaning and offensive" or "promoting another religion" any more than ALL my posts do. But if the Moderators want to send me a private message to change my avatar, I will try to come up with another one. This isn't my forum and I don't make the rules, but I am willing to abide by them. It would be nice if the forum had some generic, non-Muslim avatars for non-Muslims to choose from.

Peace

:sl:
You could get a neutral one like mine. Fishtacular!

My view of the Bible is that it was originally the word of Allah, but it then had distortions added to it. There are several types of distortions which I can make out:
Local myths which were added by thinkers and storytellers to explain verses about science and history which they did not understand.
Things that historians had written in order to explain the stories in the Bible further.
Things which kings, preists and Rabbis added to justify their bad deeds and corrupt governments.
Things which were simply copying mistakes.
Things which were added to prove the Trinity.

To me the Bible seems like a case of commentary gone wrong.
:w:

[Phil12123]

Plus, associating anyone else with Allaah is the worst of all sins in islam. And nowhere does it explicitly say in the bible that Jesus is God. Nowhere does it say trinity in the bible either, yet these are the most important aspects of the christian faith.

Why do you say, "And nowhere does it explicitly say in the bible that Jesus is God"? Isn't the following explicit?

John 1:
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. He was in the beginning with God.
3. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9. That was the true Light which gives light to every man who comes into the world.
10. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name:
13. who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Colossians 2:9 says, "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. (NRSV, NIV)

Even the O.T. testifies that He is God:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Who is that prophecy talking about if not Jesus Christ? Some of it is yet to be fulfilled ("government will be upon His shoulder") but some of it has already been fulfilled, at Bethlehem ("unto us a Child is born") and Calvary ("unto us a Son is given").

You are correct in saying the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible, but the teaching that it stands for is in the Bible. And if you were to say the Bible has been corrupted or changed, I would say, Then how many other places does it also say He is God, that have been changed or removed? Maybe many more, but I will accept the ones we have.:)

Peace

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Honestly calling God man no longer remains a monotheistic religion. Just like the statue of Jesus inside churches.. ppl pray in front of it. How does that stay monotheistic? ur basically doing what Hindus do, which is a polytheistic religion. Idolatry is also not allowed in Christianity, but no one follows that. You cant even hide that the Bible has been changed, cuz if it wasnt then u would have only "one" copy.. not like 2 or 3 or 4 or like 50 diff versions. Saying "One God" means God is unique with no man made attributes or partners. You should have to only refer to one copy of the Bible not choose which one fits a person the best or wat sounds good.God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in."

And if you were to say the Bible has been corrupted or changed, I would say, Then how many other places does it also say He is God, that have been changed or removed? Maybe many more, but I will accept the ones we have.:)
Peace

Thats called "blind faith"

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

. It authorized men to have four wives. It ordered the hand of the thief to be cut off.

Muslims are not "authorized" to have four wives. Its a permission not injunction. You can have upto four "only" if u can treat them equally. God prefers u to keep only one. Its true, the hand is cut off for theft and this is practiced in Saudi Arabia. No wonder the theft rate there is less than here in America, go figure.

[Fishman]

:sl:

. It authorized men to have four wives. .

So what?

It ordered the hand of the thief to be cut off

It's a good deterant to crimeshvfay.
:w:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Muslims are not "authorized" to have four wives. Its a permission not injunction.

To be fair, 'authorisation' means the same thing as 'permission'. Muslims are indeed authorised to have four wives.

Peace

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Woops LOL..i didnt notice..=\ I meant to say they are.. sry

[ZOREENA]

Not many men have...itz seemz to be a gr8 idea to start...but a lot of work which i wouldnt bother with...coz if i had to please one woman...i certaintly woodnt want to please more....I AM A WOMAN BY THE WAY LOL!!

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

LOL i think we know what u mean :)

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


I find it funny when people say that islam allows four wives.. yet the nations of the west are looking forward to let a man marry a man :p not just that.. subhan Allaah, their even going to the extreme where they can adopt a child within their gay marriage, audhubillah (i seek refuge in Allaah.)


:wasalamex

[wilberhum]

the nations of the west are looking forward to let a man marry a man

It is called equality. A concept that is above many.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Indeed it is above many, cuz its disgusting. Unecessary freedom.

[iLL_LeaT]

the nations of the west are looking forward to let a man marry a man :p

I don’t think religion, race, or sexual preference should be grounds for less or segregated rights.

Islamic people should know how it feels to be misunderstood more then anyone else.

[wilberhum]

Indeed it is above many, cuz its disgusting. Unecessary freedom.

If you don't like gay marrages, then don't get one.
There seam to be a lot that concider "Unecessary Freedom".
Freedom of Speach.
Freedom of religion.
Freedom of Press.
To name a few.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
Can we try not to divert the topic, please?

Members responding to Turin Turambar should take note that he hasn't visited the forum for a long time since his posts were answered.

:w:

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

True....i guess were gunna wait then >.<

[ZOREENA]

So who believez in the Trinity and wants to explain it??? Thank you!!

[thahira]

Dear shorouk,

Why don't you explain me why my arguments don't make any sense? Thanks.

Salam to everybody

The debate about chrisitanity and Muslims, I beleive that we should not oppose Turin or say that whatever he say is nonsense or does not make sense. We are all here to learn. I think it is advisable if one could give the the facts and references to debate the questions post by the non muslims, i think it would be more healthier rather than humiliating or embarassing them.

We are not here to make war.


Wassalam

[adi8putra]

hmmm. i'm quite tired actually of all of this islam vs christianity kind of debate. what purpose does it serve? to the muslims, islam is the ultimate choice. the same can be said for the christians, christianity is their ultimate choice..... so what's the point? the matters of faith is up to the individual to decide. most important things are to be sensitive to each other and have tolerances on their differences.......:rollseyes

[ZOREENA]

Learning is the KEY!! Itz how we move on and gather info!! I wanna know different things so I know what Im talkn about or what others are talkn about when they are discussing thingz!! U dont have to follow a thread if u dont want to....Itz for me more about learning about Christianity and more so Islam!! Coz different pointz can be raized!!

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Learning is the KEY!! Itz how we move on and gather info!! I wanna know different things so I know what Im talkn about or what others are talkn about when they are discussing thingz!! U dont have to follow a thread if u dont want to....Itz for me more about learning about Christianity and more so Islam!! Coz different pointz can be raized!!

Roger that :)

[dougmusr]

So who believez in the Trinity and wants to explain it??? Thank you!!

The word Trinity is not in the Bible, but the existance of the Trinity certainly is. Most of the posts on this web site related to the Bible assert that it is not trustworthy in its current form. Obviously as a Christian, I don't support that viewpoint. Here's a quote from the Quran indicating that God felt the Jewish and Christian scriptures were trustworthy when the Quran was given.

004.136
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His messenger and the Scripture which He hath revealed unto His messenger, and the Scripture which He revealed aforetime. Whoso disbelieveth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers and the Last Day, he verily hath wandered far astray.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book which He has revealed to His Messenger and the Book which He revealed before; and whoever disbelieves in Allah and His angels and His messengers and the last day, he indeed strays off into a remote error.

I believe in the Trinity, and the Bible contains references to it. Explaining it is something all together different. However here's a feeble attempt. The God of the universe can't be contained in a temple, and if man sees Him in His full Glory He will die.

1 Kings 8:27 "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!

That means if He appears to man, He must appear in in another form.

Judges 13:6 So the woman came and told her husband, saying, "A Man of God came to me, and His countenance was like the countenance of the Angel of God, very awesome; but I did not ask Him where He was from, and He did not tell me His name. 7 "And He said to me, 'Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. Now drink no wine or similar drink, nor eat anything unclean, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.' " 8 Then Manoah prayed to the LORD, and said, "O my Lord, please let the Man of God whom You sent come to us again and teach us what we shall do for the child who will be born." 9 And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the Angel of God came to the woman again as she was sitting in the field; but Manoah her husband was not with her. 10 Then the woman ran in haste and told her husband, and said to him, "Look, the Man who came to me the other day has just now appeared to me!" 11 So Manoah arose and followed his wife. When he came to the Man, he said to Him, "Are You the Man who spoke to this woman?" And He said, "I am." 12 Manoah said, "Now let Your words come to pass! What will be the boy's rule of life, and his work?" 13 So the Angel of the LORD said to Manoah, "Of all that I said to the woman let her be careful.
14 "She may not eat anything that comes from the vine, nor may she drink wine or similar drink, nor eat anything unclean. All that I commanded her let her observe." 15 Then Manoah said to the Angel of the LORD, "Please let us detain You, and we will prepare a young goat for You." 16 And the Angel of the LORD said to Manoah, "Though you detain Me, I will not eat your food. But if you offer a burnt offering, you must offer it to the LORD. ' (For Manoah did not know He was the Angel of the LORD.) 17 Then Manoah said to the Angel of the LORD, "What is Your name, that when Your words come to pass we may honor You?" 18 And the Angel of the LORD said to him, "Why do you ask My name, seeing it is wonderful?" 19 So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it upon the rock to the LORD. And He did a wondrous thing while Manoah and his wife looked on-- 20 it happened as the flame went up toward heaven from the altar-- the Angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar! When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground. 21 When the Angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and his wife, then Manoah knew that He was the Angel of the LORD. 22 And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God!" 23 But his wife said to him, "If the LORD had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, nor would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have told us such things as these at this time."

Here's some verses from Isaiah which clearly show a trinity.

Isaiah 48:12 "Listen to Me, O Jacob, And Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last. 13 Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand has stretched out the heavens; When I call to them,
They stand up together. 16 "Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me."

In Isaiah 48:12, the speaker is the eternal "First and Last". In verse 13 He is the creator. In verse 16, He was sent by "the Lord God and His Spirit".

I'm sure I could find more.

[gamsta3]

Typical. When christians look at muslims, the first thing thay talk about is female oppression. Take afghanistan for example, never mind the carpet bombing, nevr mind the drug dealing, never mind the infrastructure or should i say its absense, never mind the mortality rates for children, never mind the lack of education and lack of water and all the necessities for a good life. The first thing a christian country imposes on a muslim country once it has forcibly imposed itself upon it is womens rights.
Oh by the way, ive had people trying to force me into christianity by throwing water at me (forced babptism) whilst walking down the road. Whilst in the underground on my way to college ive had people looking straight at me and doing the sign of the cross at me. I have never in my life, imposed my beliefs on anybody who did not want to listen.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

We confirm both scriptures, yes, not tryin to deny it . But wen it was in its original form or rather as we feel still has a bit truth left.

[dougmusr]

Typical. When christians look at muslims, the first thing thay talk about is female oppression. Take afghanistan for example, never mind the carpet bombing, nevr mind the drug dealing, never mind the infrastructure or should i say its absense, never mind the mortality rates for children, never mind the lack of education and lack of water and all the necessities for a good life. The first thing a christian country imposes on a muslim country once it has forcibly imposed itself upon it is womens rights.
Oh by the way, ive had people trying to force me into christianity by throwing water at me (forced babptism) whilst walking down the road. Whilst in the underground on my way to college ive had people looking straight at me and doing the sign of the cross at me. I have never in my life, imposed my beliefs on anybody who did not want to listen.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no more Christian countries. What country are you referring to?

[adi8putra]

Learning is the KEY!! Itz how we move on and gather info!! I wanna know different things so I know what Im talkn about or what others are talkn about when they are discussing thingz!! U dont have to follow a thread if u dont want to....Itz for me more about learning about Christianity and more so Islam!! Coz different pointz can be raized!!

i do not see the point here. what kind of learning? the christians used their bible as their source of divine inspiration (which the muslim rejects) and the muslim used their quran as their source of divine inspiration (which the christians rejects). so, what's the point here?:uhwhat

[dougmusr]

i do not see the point here. what kind of learning? the christians used their bible as their source of divine inspiration (which the muslim rejects) and the muslim used their quran as their source of divine inspiration (which the christians rejects). so, what's the point here?:uhwhat

Actually, since your religious belief is listed as undisclosed, you could be an athiest or an agnostic. Perhaps we'll learn enough to come over to the dark side?

[ZOREENA]

Well wer in a world wer we learn sumthing new every day...Id like to know what things my brothers and sisters believe in....what things that segregate their religion from mine...ignorance isnt exactly bliss!! Itz like not learning about ur best friend and his or her personality and what makes them who they are...so id rather know who and what....life is a leraning curve!!!

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

This is gettn annoying now. Im done repeating myself.

[Angry_Abbas]

I find it hard to believe when muslims are more concerned with fearing God rather then loving him? Because thats what the Judae-Christian book teaches. So i don't think the Quran confirmed anything.

Islam fears god, christians love god. End of story you make the decision who seems right

[Angry_Abbas]

I also find it abhorrent that Muslims and Christians believe in the same God? That is so far from the truth.

Mohamed was nothing like jesus. Jesus loved his enemies, Mohamed killed them.Jesus Loved god, Mohamed feared him.Jesus Trusted in God, Mohamed tried earning trust i mean the list goes on and on and on no similarities in the two men at all

[dougmusr]

This is gettn annoying now. Im done repeating myself.

I'm sorry, where did you repeat yourself? I have ben coming and going.

We confirm both scriptures, yes, not tryin to deny it . But wen it was in its original form or rather as we feel still has a bit truth left.

So are you saying that God told the Prophet to verify the revelation he was receiving against scriptures He knew at the time were in error?

010.094
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
PICKTHAL: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
SHAKIR: But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

The Quran was not sent down to put the previous scriptures in error but to complete it. Where are u gettin this?Whats funny is u jus made my point. Maybe u need to read carefully. At the time, the bible wasnt in complete error.
Its saying if u have doubt of the previous books, then ask those who have been reading it for it has "indeed come from thy Lord" People were deviating away from the Word of God, so He sent down a final revelation to complete both books. Bros and sis's lemme know if i have any errors in wat i am tryin to say. i dont want to be accountable for any misleading info, much appreciated.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:

For the one who claims that the God of Islam is not about love:

Qur'an 19:96 On those who have faith and do good deeds will the Most Gracious One bestow LOVE (Ar. Wudda)

Qur'an 3:31 Say [O Muhammad], "If you love God, follow me. GOD WILL LOVE YOU and forgive you your sins; for God is oft-forgiving, most merciful."

And the Prophet said that God says, "My servant continues to draw nearer to me through superogatory acts of worship, attaining my LOVE." (Sah&#238;h Bukh&#226;r&#238;)

For the one who claims the Prophet Muhammad was about hostility and violence:

Mercy
The Prophet said: 'Show mercy to those on earth so that He who is in heaven will have mercy on you.' (Sunan At-Tirmidh&#238;)

Gentleness
The Prophet said: 'Whoever is deprived of gentleness is deprived of all good.' (Sah&#238;h Muslim)

Forgiveness
The Prophet said: 'Whoever suffers an injury done to him and forgives (the person responsible), Allah will raise his status to a higher degree and remove one of his sins.' (Sunan At-Tirmidh&#238;)

Virtue
The Prophet said: 'Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong if they do evil.' (Sunan At-Tirmidh&#238;)

Justice
The Prophet said: 'The most virtuous jih&#226;d is when one speaks a word of truth before an unjust ruler.' (Sunan Ab&#238; Daw&#251;d, Sunan At-Tirmidh&#238;, Sunan Ibn M&#226;jah)

Civility
The Prophet said: 'The Muslim does not slander, curse, speak obscenely, or speak rudely.' (Sunan At-Tirmidh&#238;)

Honesty
The Prophet said: 'Honesty leads to righteousness and righteousness leads to Paradise. A man remains honest and concerned about honesty until he is recorded as an honest man with Allah. Lying leads to sinfulness and sinfulness leads to the Fire. A man keeps lying and remains partial to lies until he is recorded as a liar with Allah.' (Sah&#238;h Bukhar&#238;, Sah&#238;h Muslim)

Tolerance
Once the Prophet was seated at some place in Madinah, along with his Companions. During this time a funeral procession passed by. On seeing this, the Prophet stood up. One of his companions remarked that the funeral was that of a Jew. The Prophet replied, “Was he not a human being?” (Sah&#238;h Bukh&#226;r&#238;, Sah&#238;h Muslim, Sunan An-Nas&#226;'&#238;)

A disbelieving Bedouin urinated in the mosque, and the people rushed to beat him. Allah's Apostle ordered them to leave him alone, let him finish and pour water over the place where he has passed urine. The Prophet then explained to the Bedouin calmly, "This is a place of worship, in it is the worship of God and the reading of Qur'an." After the Bedouin had left, the Prophet then said to his companions, " You have been sent to make things easy (for the people) and you have not been sent to make things difficult for them." (Sah&#238;h Bukh&#226;r&#238;, Sah&#238;h Muslim)


:w:

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

:sl:

For the one who claims that the God of Islam is not about love:

Qur'an 19:96 On those who have faith and do good deeds will the Most Gracious One bestow LOVE (Ar. Wudda)

Qur'an 3:31 Say [O Muhammad], "If you love God, follow me. GOD WILL LOVE YOU and forgive you your sins; for God is oft-forgiving, most merciful."

And the Prophet said that God says, "My servant continues to draw nearer to me through superogatory acts of worship, attaining my LOVE." (Sah&#238;h Bukh&#226;r&#238;)

For the one who claims the Prophet Muhammad was about hostility and violence:

Mercy
The Prophet said: 'Show mercy to those on earth so that He who is in heaven will have mercy on you.' (Sunan At-Tirmidh&#238;)

Gentleness
The Prophet said: 'Whoever is deprived of gentleness is deprived of all good.' (Sah&#238;h Muslim)

Forgiveness
The Prophet said: 'Whoever suffers an injury done to him and forgives (the person responsible), Allah will raise his status to a higher degree and remove one of his sins.' (Sunan At-Tirmidh&#238;)

Virtue
The Prophet said: 'Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong if they do evil.' (Sunan At-Tirmidh&#238;)

Justice
The Prophet said: 'The most virtuous jih&#226;d is when one speaks a word of truth before an unjust ruler.' (Sunan Ab&#238; Daw&#251;d, Sunan At-Tirmidh&#238;, Sunan Ibn M&#226;jah)

Civility
The Prophet said: 'The Muslim does not slander, curse, speak obscenely, or speak rudely.' (Sunan At-Tirmidh&#238;)

Honesty
The Prophet said: 'Honesty leads to righteousness and righteousness leads to Paradise. A man remains honest and concerned about honesty until he is recorded as an honest man with Allah. Lying leads to sinfulness and sinfulness leads to the Fire. A man keeps lying and remains partial to lies until he is recorded as a liar with Allah.' (Sah&#238;h Bukhar&#238;, Sah&#238;h Muslim)

Tolerance
Once the Prophet was seated at some place in Madinah, along with his Companions. During this time a funeral procession passed by. On seeing this, the Prophet stood up. One of his companions remarked that the funeral was that of a Jew. The Prophet replied, “Was he not a human being?” (Sah&#238;h Bukh&#226;r&#238;, Sah&#238;h Muslim, Sunan An-Nas&#226;'&#238;)

A disbelieving Bedouin urinated in the mosque, and the people rushed to beat him. Allah's Apostle ordered them to leave him alone, let him finish and pour water over the place where he has passed urine. The Prophet then explained to the Bedouin calmly, "This is a place of worship, in it is the worship of God and the reading of Qur'an." After the Bedouin had left, the Prophet then said to his companions, " You have been sent to make things easy (for the people) and you have not been sent to make things difficult for them." (Sah&#238;h Bukh&#226;r&#238;, Sah&#238;h Muslim)


:w:

Thanx Ansar...:)
That helped much.

[dougmusr]

The Quran was not sent down to put the previous scriptures in error but to complete it. Where are u gettin this?Whats funny is u jus made my point. Maybe u need to read carefully. At the time, the bible wasnt in complete error.
Its saying if u have doubt of the previous books, then ask those who have been reading it for it has "indeed come from thy Lord"

I'm trying to understand your assertion. I would interpret the statement "At the time, the bible wasnt in complete error" to mean "At the time, the Bible was not completely correct". Is that what you mean?

When you say the Quran completes the previous scriptures, are you saying it adds new revelation to it, corrects old revelation, or both?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

i could answer that but i will be honest becuz its wrong if i say i know and i cant give misleading info. I know like half and half, so i will find that out for u if u wish, unless some1 else can answer that :) Im willing to admit what i dont know.

[Fishman]

I also find it abhorrent that Muslims and Christians believe in the same God? That is so far from the truth.

Mohamed was nothing like jesus. Jesus loved his enemies, Mohamed killed them.Jesus Loved god, Mohamed feared him.Jesus Trusted in God, Mohamed tried earning trust i mean the list goes on and on and on no similarities in the two men at all

:sl:
Muslims worship a third of the Christian God. The third with created the universe. The authentic third.

And Arabic Bibles refer to God as Allah, so both the Christian 'Father' and the Muslim God are the same Deity.

Jesus (pbuh) did lash out when he needed to, remember the incident in the temple? And when he comes down to Earth again he will fight.

And Muhammad (pbuh) did love God. Read Ansar's post.

Muhammad (pbuh) also trusted in God. He trusted that God would save him from the people who tried to assassinate him. He trusted that God would keep him safe from his enemies when he was fleeing through the cave. the list goes on.
:w:

[*Hana*]

I also find it abhorrent that Muslims and Christians believe in the same God? That is so far from the truth.

Mohamed was nothing like jesus. Jesus loved his enemies, Mohamed killed them.Jesus Loved god, Mohamed feared him.Jesus Trusted in God, Mohamed tried earning trust i mean the list goes on and on and on no similarities in the two men at all

You may find it abhorrent because of your obvious lack of knowledge or understanding. Please explain to me how the Christians, Muslims and Jews ALL believe in the same God of Abraham and you say He is different for Muslims. :rollseyes

Yes, you're right, Muhammed and Jesus, pbut, were not alike. They were both great prophets and we love them dearly and they both taught the word of God. But, they are different. Jesus, pbuh, was born of a mother and no father through God's will, Muhammed, pbuh, was born of both mother and father, also through God's will. Jesus, pbuh, never married or had children, Muhammed, pbuh, did marry and have children, Jesus, pbuh, was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel, Muhammed, pbuh, was sent to all mankind, etc. Many differences.

Jesus, you say, loved His enemies which means you say he only taught peace. Hmmmm, these quotes say differently:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household." (Matthew 10:34-36)

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!" ... "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three."... (Luke 12:49,51-53)

"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war. For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone." (Gospel of Thomas)

There are many examples such as these in the bible, but as a Christian I'm sure you know your own bible much better than I, so you must be aware of them.

Now, for Muhammed, pbuh, please show me where He set out to kill and slaughter innocents. I can show you many examples where He showed nothing but mercy to His enemies. So much so, many of them embraced Islam because of it.

Are you so arrogant you see no need to fear God? As Muslims, yes, we absolutely love God. We love Him so much we submit to Him in worship 5 times a day, we have so much faith and trust in Him that we turn to Him in ALL aspects of our life, in everything we do and in everything that happens to us, we thank God. Do I fear God? Yes, of course. He is the Greatest, He is the creator of ALL things, He alone will judge me based on how I served Him. Do I fear breaking God's law...yes. His laws are clear and not difficult and yet you don't seem to care if you break them or not....why? You don't fear Him? Or maybe you don't have enough respect for Him? Which is it?

Long before the call to Prophethood, Muhammed, pbuh, was accepted and loved by all that knew Him. He was known as the trustworthy and was very well respected. Muhammed, pbuh, was accepted by His people. Can you say the same about Jesus, pbuh?

We love and revere Jesus, pbuh, and we know He didn't die and we know He will come back. We also know God, the most just, the all powerful, didn't need to slaughter an innocent man to forgive sins. He is more than capable of doing that on His own. Even Jesus, pbuh, as one of the greatest prophets, submitted to the will of God in the same manner as Muslims do today.

I sincerely hope you will take the time to learn before you make such comments in the future.

Peace to you,
Hana

[dougmusr]

i could answer that but i will be honest becuz its wrong if i say i know and i cant give misleading info. I know like half and half, so i will find that out for u if u wish, unless some1 else can answer that :) Im willing to admit what i dont know.

I would love to know the answer, and I would think you would too. It would help both of us understand the claims of our respective faiths.

[*Hana*]

I'm trying to understand your assertion. I would interpret the statement "At the time, the bible wasnt in complete error" to mean "At the time, the Bible was not completely correct". Is that what you mean?

When you say the Quran completes the previous scriptures, are you saying it adds new revelation to it, corrects old revelation, or both?

Peace to you:

We believe the Zubur, the Torah and the Injeel as it was originally revealed is the true word of God, however...we also believe these revelations became corrupted by man, both intentionally and unintentionally. Poor translations and missing text also became part of the problem. Then there are unknown authors whose statements can't be varified because we have no idea who they are. None of the original documents survived to be traced back for authenticity either....so for all these reasons and more, we absolutely do believe the bible became corrupt. What the Qur'an tells us is, basically, look to the previous revelations, where they agree it is the word of God, where they differ it is not.

So, yes, the revelation of the Qur'an was to bring back the true word of God, only this time, God Himself would protect it for all time. Previous revelations were for particular groups of people, like Jesus, pbuh, for the lost sheep of Israel. However, the revelation of the Qur'an was for ALL mankind and the Qur'an today, is the same as was revealed over 1400 years ago.

That's it in a nutshell. Hope it makes sense and you understand. :)

Peace,
Hana

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Peace to you:

We believe the Zubur, the Torah and the Injeel as it was originally revealed is the true word of God, however...we also believe these revelations became corrupted by man, both intentionally and unintentionally. Poor translations and missing text also became part of the problem. Then there are unknown authors whose statements can't be varified because we have no idea who they are. None of the original documents survived to be traced back for authenticity either....so for all these reasons and more, we absolutely do believe the bible became corrupt. What the Qur'an tells us is, basically, look to the previous revelations, where they agree it is the word of God, where they differ it is not.

So, yes, the revelation of the Qur'an was to bring back the true word of God, only this time, God Himself would protect it for all time. Previous revelations were for particular groups of people, like Jesus, pbuh, for the lost sheep of Israel. However, the revelation of the Qur'an was for ALL mankind and the Qur'an today, is the same as was revealed over 1400 years ago.

That's it in a nutshell. Hope it makes sense and you understand. :)

Peace,
Hana

omg thank you rofl...:)

[dougmusr]

Peace to you:

We believe the Zubur, the Torah and the Injeel as it was originally revealed is the true word of God, however...we also believe these revelations became corrupted by man, both intentionally and unintentionally. Poor translations and missing text also became part of the problem. Then there are unknown authors whose statements can't be varified because we have no idea who they are. None of the original documents survived to be traced back for authenticity either....so for all these reasons and more, we absolutely do believe the bible became corrupt. What the Qur'an tells us is, basically, look to the previous revelations, where they agree it is the word of God, where they differ it is not.

So, yes, the revelation of the Qur'an was to bring back the true word of God, only this time, God Himself would protect it for all time. Previous revelations were for particular groups of people, like Jesus, pbuh, for the lost sheep of Israel. However, the revelation of the Qur'an was for ALL mankind and the Qur'an today, is the same as was revealed over 1400 years ago.

That's it in a nutshell. Hope it makes sense and you understand. :)

Peace,
Hana

Thanks so much for the response and your patience. Since I don't know arabic, I can only go by english translations of the Quran. I am trying to understand the following verse.

Surah 10:94
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
PICKTHAL: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
SHAKIR: But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.

If the "Book from before thee" was not trustworthy at the time the Quran was revealed, why would God have commanded the Prophet to verify the revelation given him against it?

You refer to the unavailability of the original Bible manuscripts. I was under the impression that the Prophet could not write, and that the Quran was written down by his followers at a later date on bits and pieces of scrap material. Is this true? If so, where does one go to see the original manuscript of the complete Quran in its entirety? I'm talking about the original writings, not copies of them.

[*Hana*]

If the "Book from before thee" was not trustworthy at the time the Quran was revealed, why would God have commanded the Prophet to verify the revelation given him against it?

I'm sorry, I guess I didn't explain it very well in my previous post. We don't question that the bible does contain some of the original words of God. We know it does, and where the two books agree...ie: The virgin birth of Jesus, pbuh, we know is the truth. Where they differ: ie the crucifixion, we believe it is not the word of God. All Muhammed, pbuh, had to do was see where they agreed to know it was the word of God.

You refer to the unavailability of the original Bible manuscripts. I was under the impression that the Prophet could not write, and that the Quran was written down by his followers at a later date on bits and pieces of scrap material. Is this true? If so, where does one go to see the original manuscript of the complete Quran in its entirety? I'm talking about the original writings, not copies of them.

You are right in that the Prophet, pbuh, could not read or write. When He received a revelation, He had scribes write it on whatever was available at the time, (ie, leaves, wood, stone, etc.), and the verses were also committed to memory by hundreds in the life of Muhammed, pbuh. These writings were kept in the care of His daughter and after His death, out of fear of losing them or of the Qur'an suffering the same fate as the revelations before it, they were gathered by Uthman and compiled into one book. The scribes/copyists wrote them and they were checked by many for accuracy, not to mention all those, now numbering in the thousands, that had the Qur'an committed to memory. There are two originals remaining for viewing and both are exactly the same. There are also a few copies of the originals that are also exactly the same. The Arabic Qur'an as read and recited today is EXACTLY the same as it was over 1400 years ago. The number of people that have it committed to memory now is enormous and range in age from 5 to over 100 years. Great care was taken to ensure not one word or dot was changed, and it was through the dedication of many, not just one or two....or even 10, to make sure it was 100% accurate.

I know this is discussed in much better detail elsewhere on the forum and if you search the forum you can read more about it and it offers far more information than I have provided here. :) But, I hope this brief explanation is helpful.

Peace,
Hana

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Thanks so much for the response and your patience. Since I don't know arabic, I can only go by english translations of the Quran. I am trying to understand the following verse.

Surah 10:94
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
PICKTHAL: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
SHAKIR: But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.

If the "Book from before thee" was not trustworthy at the time the Quran was revealed, why would God have commanded the Prophet to verify the revelation given him against it?

Hi Doug,
Evangelical claims that the Qur'an grants authority to the Bible were examined in this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...criptures.html

As for the specific verse you mentioned, you need only look at the context. To quote another muslim site:

The first verse is from Surah Yunus. The basic theme of Surah Yunus is that when the Almighty sends his Messenger (Rasu'l) in a people, the fate of these people depends on their acceptance or rejection of that Messenger. If they - as a nation - reject the messenger, they are punished, not only in the hereafter but also in this world. On the contrary, if they - in their collective capacity - accept the message of God and believe in the messenger, they are blessed with success as individuals in the hereafter, and, as a nation, in this world, as well. The Surah primarily addresses the Quraish and the Arab polytheists and informs them of the fact that with the advent of Mohammad (pbuh) as the messenger of Allah, they too are now subjected to the law of the Almighty concerning His messengers. If they reject His messenger, they shall meet the same fate as was met by those who rejected God's messengers in the past. While, if they accept Mohammad (pbuh) and follow his teachings, they shall then be blessed with God's bounties, as were those who accepted and followed the messengers of God in the past.
From the beginning to verse 70 the basic message of the Qur'an - belief in one God, belief in His messenger and belief in the Day of Judgment - has been presented and the addressees are told that if they do not accept these elements of faith and reform their deeds accordingly, they shall face a painful punishment in this world as well as the hereafter.
From verse 71 to the end, the fact that the rejecters of a messenger of God face severe consequences of their rejection and those who accept his message are blessed with the bounties of the Creator is historically evidenced. In this respect, reference is made to the people of Noah (pbuh) and the addressees of Moses (pbuh). In both the cases, the separate ends of those who rejected and those who accepted God's message is stressed. The Quraish and the Arab polytheists are informed that in both the cases the rejecters were annihilated and those who believed in the messenger of God inherited the rule of the land.
The verse under consideration (Yunus 10: 94) is placed at the end of this reference to the two nations.
If seen in the correct context, it should be quite clear that the verse under consideration is not general but quite specific in its implication. The correct contextual translation of the verse, in my opinion, should be:

If you are in doubt regarding what we have revealed to you [concerning these nations], ask those who read the scriptures before you.

It is as if to say that these references are a part of the established history of the world and are thus, so well known that if anyone has any doubts regarding their authenticity, he may even ask the people of the book (the Jews and the Christians) about them. Even they shall accept them as facts.
Thus, if seen in the correct perspective, it shall be known that this verse has nothing to do with the authenticity or corruption of the old scriptures.

You refer to the unavailability of the original Bible manuscripts. I was under the impression that the Prophet could not write, and that the Quran was written down by his followers at a later date on bits and pieces of scrap material. Is this true?

The Prophet Muhammad pbuh had over 60 scribes who used to record the revelation. In addition, the Qur'an was always accesible to the common folk in fact it was memorized in its entirety and recited in daily prayers, and recited throughout the year. In fact, during Ramadan, the Imam must recite the entire Qur'an cover to cover in front of the congregation. Any faulty memorization would be easily noted. This is what Muslims have been doing for 1400 years, every year reciting the exact same Qur'an.

If so, where does one go to see the original manuscript of the complete Quran in its entirety? I'm talking about the original writings, not copies of them.

You can read up on some of the ancient manuscripts of the Qur'an here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

Regards

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Mashallah, very helpful :D

[dougmusr]

I'm sorry, I guess I didn't explain it very well in my previous post. We don't question that the bible does contain some of the original words of God. We know it does, and where the two books agree...ie: The virgin birth of Jesus, pbuh, we know is the truth. Where they differ: ie the crucifixion, we believe it is not the word of God. All Muhammed, pbuh, had to do was see where they agreed to know it was the word of God.



You are right in that the Prophet, pbuh, could not read or write. When He received a revelation, He had scribes write it on whatever was available at the time, (ie, leaves, wood, stone, etc.), and the verses were also committed to memory by hundreds in the life of Muhammed, pbuh. These writings were kept in the care of His daughter and after His death, out of fear of losing them or of the Qur'an suffering the same fate as the revelations before it, they were gathered by Uthman and compiled into one book. The scribes/copyists wrote them and they were checked by many for accuracy, not to mention all those, now numbering in the thousands, that had the Qur'an committed to memory. There are two originals remaining for viewing and both are exactly the same. There are also a few copies of the originals that are also exactly the same. The Arabic Qur'an as read and recited today is EXACTLY the same as it was over 1400 years ago. The number of people that have it committed to memory now is enormous and range in age from 5 to over 100 years. Great care was taken to ensure not one word or dot was changed, and it was through the dedication of many, not just one or two....or even 10, to make sure it was 100% accurate.

I know this is discussed in much better detail elsewhere on the forum and if you search the forum you can read more about it and it offers far more information than I have provided here. :) But, I hope this brief explanation is helpful.

Peace,
Hana

Thanks for the information. I will do some more study on this as time permits. I presume that Islamic scholars also discount other historical documents which mention Jesus and the crucifixion such as the following from Josephus as fabrications by early Christians?

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

[*Hana*]

Thanks for the information. I will do some more study on this as time permits. I presume that Islamic scholars also discount other historical documents which mention Jesus and the crucifixion such as the following from Josephus as fabrications by early Christians?

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

Peace Doug:

Actually, I agree that Josephus is a respected recorder of History....particularly with events that took place in his lifetime. However, he was born after Jesus, pbuh, was taken up so he was not a witness to anything that happened in the lifetime of Jesus, pbuh. He would have received this information from heresay and oral traditions at the time that cannot be authenticated because we don't know who told him the stories or who told that person, etc. Also, from the little I read, there seems to be a lot of contraversy amongst Biblical and Christian scholars about some of his writings being embellished by later followers of Christianity, but I honestly haven't read enough to be able to provide you with clear proofs of that.

Unfortunately, there are no records whatsoever from the lifetime of Jesus, pbuh. None that have been found yet anyway. Perhaps one day something will surface.

But, I must say, Josephus does provide wonderful historical accounts about things that happened during his own lifetime and, although I haven't read a lot, what I have read was very interesting.

Peace,
Hana

[dougmusr]

Hi Doug,
The correct contextual translation of the verse, in my opinion, should be: [INDENT] If you are in doubt regarding what we have revealed to you [concerning these nations], ask those who read the scriptures before you.

Thanks, I'll check out the references. Your post does bring up a question. In many of the translations, words are included in brackets or parenthesis. In the case of this verse, the english translation of the same verse on the site http://www.qurancomplex.org/Quran/Ta...&nAya=94#10_94
differs as follows.

94. So if you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, [i.e. that your name is written in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)], then ask those who are reading the Book [the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it).

While I understand that the Quran is best read in Arabic, it seems to me that there is a significant danger in adding bracketed clarifications since this imposes the translators interpretation on the original text. Even in the single verse above, there is a considerable difference in meaning between the two when the bracketed text is added. Obviously the original Arabic couldn't have meant both.

[InToTheRain]

I also find it abhorrent that Muslims and Christians believe in the same God? That is so far from the truth.

Mohamed was nothing like jesus. Jesus loved his enemies, Mohamed killed them.Jesus Loved god, Mohamed feared him.Jesus Trusted in God, Mohamed tried earning trust i mean the list goes on and on and on no similarities in the two men at all

Tolerance showed by the BIBLE:

This what the Bible says:

Exodus

God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. 4:24-26

God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts "a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." 11:7

Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. 31:14

God favors Israelites "above all people." 19:5

God drives out the pagan tribes and commands the Israelites to destroy their altars and places of worship. 34:11-14

Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would "profane" it. 21:16-23

No stranger or slave can "eat of the holy thing." 22:10, 13

If a priest's daughter marries "a stranger" she can't eat any holy things. 22:12

A man curses and blasphemes while disputing with another man. Moses asks God what to do about it. God says that the whole community must stone him to death. "And the children of Israel did as the Lord and Moses commanded." 24:10-23

When one of the Israelite men brings home a foreign woman, "Phinehas (Aaron's grandson) sees them and throws a spear "through the man .. and the woman through her belly." This act pleases God so much that "the plague was stayed from the children of Israel." But not before 24,000 had died. 25:6-9

For impaling the interracial couple, God rewards Phinehas and his sons with the everlasting priesthood. 25:10-13

And the list goes on.....

This is what Jesus says in the bible:

In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words of Jesus: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:22-27

Did Mohammad (Peace be upon him) seek power and glory? NO! he only wished to warn the people and convey the truth, how do we know this?

On one occasion, they sent a delegation to the Holy Prophet's uncle that he should restrain the Holy Prophet , from preaching his message. They threatened Abu Talib with their combined opposition. Finding himself in this state, he sent for the Holy Prophet , and explained to him the situation. The Holy Prophet , answered with these memorable words:

My dear uncle, if they should put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left, even then I shall not abandon the proclamation of the Unity of God. I shall set up the true faith upon the earth or perish in the attempt.

Impressed with his nephew's firm determination and high resolve. Abu Talib replied:

Son of my brother, go thy way, none dare touch thee. I shall never forsake thee.

Not being satisfied, they sent one of their chiefs to entice the Holy Prophet , and in the following words addressed the Holy Prophet :

O Muhammad , if you want to sit on the throne of Arabia we shall elect you our monarch; if you want money we shall give you no end to it and if you desire the hand of a beautiful woman, we are ready to present you the most beautiful lady in the land.

The Holy Prophet , was far above any worldly temptations and in reply he recited some verses of the Holy Quran proclaiming the Unity of Allah and his claim of being a true Messenger of Allah.

All muslims and non-muslims should know that Mohammad (Peace be upon him) was the best example of how the Holy Qu'ran is practice, thus:

This is what the Quran says about race:

O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you
may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allâh is that (believer) who has At-Taqwa
[i.e. one of the Muttaqûn (pious - see V.2:2). Verily, Allâh is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (49:13)

This is what Qur'an says about enemies of muslims:

Invite (mankind, O Muhammad SAW) to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islâm) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Inspiration and the Qur'ân) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord
knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided.

Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allâh loves those who deal
with equity.

And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Qur'ân) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Mohayminan (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures)[]. So
judge between them by what Allâh has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allâh willed,
He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The return of you (all) is to Allâh; then He will inform you about that in which you used to
differ. (5:48)

One only needs to read the Sealed nectar (Life story of the prophet Mohammad[peace be upon him]) to know he was a pacifist but whatever he did is for the sake of Allah and he did as Allah commanded as following Allahs commands can only bring peace. Islam is a way of life from life to death, it is practical and therefore it is permissable to kill or go to war under certain circumstances.

The tolerance showed by Companions of the Prohet Mohammad(Peace be upon him):

Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) dictated a long will consisting of instructions for the next Khalifah said:
"I instruct you on behalf of the people who have been given protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet [i.e. the non-Muslim minorities within the Islamic state known as dhimmi's]. Our covenant to them must be fulfilled, we must fight to protect them, and they must not be burdened beyond their capabilities".

Off course, Umar (ra) was simply following what he learnt from the Prophet Muhammad (saw).The result of these teachings was a Muslim rule that set the gold standard for religious tolerance in a world that was not used to the idea.

[InToTheRain]

It is annoying to see there are such narrow minded people who think wealth and power determines right from wrong, and is this mentality which has lead to times such as now where injustice is rampant.Was the pharoah at the tim eof Moses right? was the jews who slayed/Crucified Jesus, according to the bible, correct? clearly they were the superior people in terms of militiary might, wealth and material success therefore according some people in this forum they are more rightious!

Rightiuos people have always suffered, we can see this from when Moses came with the torah, Jesus came with the Bible, Mohammad(SAW) came with the Qur'an and many other prophets (May allah bless them).

We muslims believe life is a test, and any good we get from it we will thank Allah and any bad we will be patient while being faithfull to Allah.

Allah says in the Holy Quran Chapter 29 Surah Ankabut verses 2-7:

2 Do men think that they will be left alone on saying "We believe" and that they will not be tested?

3 We did test those before them, and Allah will certainly know those who are true, from those who are false.

4 Do those who practice evil think that they will get the better of us? Evil indeed is their judgment!

5 For those whose hopes are in the meeting with Allah (in the Hereafter, let them strive). For the Term (appointed) by Allah is surely coming! and He Hears and Knows (all things).

6 And if any strive, they do so for their own souls: for Allah is free of all needs from all creation.

Those who believe and work righteous deeds, from them shall We blot out all evil (that may be) in them, and We shall reward them according to the best of their deeds.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Thanks, I'll check out the references. Your post does bring up a question. In many of the translations, words are included in brackets or parenthesis. In the case of this verse, the english translation of the same verse on the site http://www.qurancomplex.org/Quran/Ta...&nAya=94#10_94
differs as follows.

94. So if you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, [i.e. that your name is written in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)], then ask those who are reading the Book [the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it).

While I understand that the Quran is best read in Arabic, it seems to me that there is a significant danger in adding bracketed clarifications since this imposes the translators interpretation on the original text. Even in the single verse above, there is a considerable difference in meaning between the two when the bracketed text is added. Obviously the original Arabic couldn't have meant both.

Hi Doug,
Yes you've quoted the Khan-Hilali translation and it has recieved criticism for its insertion of what should go in footnotes, directly into the text in brackets. The brackets are the explanatory comments and interpretation of the verse itself.

At any rate, however, the interpretation provided above for the verse is also plausible. The idea being that the Qur'an is telling the Prophet to ask the people of previous scriptures to see for himself that the Qur'an truly has related the history of prophets known in the Bible or (as per the Khan-Hilali translation) that it has correctly mentioned that such prophets prophesized the coming of Muhammad pbuh. Neither interpretation gives credence to any notion of the Qur'an endorsing the scriptures to be an authority or to have been preserved.

Regards

[dougmusr]

So here is how I understand the situation at this point.

1. We agree that the Bible and the Quran can't both be right in the places where they disagree.
2. We agree that in Surah 10:94 Muhammad was told to verify his revelation against the scriptures of his day should he be in doubt, and that there are various interpretations of this verse among Islamic scholars.
3. We agree that there are no known original manuscripts of the Bible but there are later manuscripts available.
4. Islam maintains that the existing Bible contains truth but unless the specific Biblical scripture in question is addressed in the Quran there is no way to know its truthfulness.

I don't claim to be a philosopher, so my logic may be flawed, but here's what I believe to be true.

1. While I am not a scholar of the Quran, the searches I have conducted thus far have not come up with any verses which specifically state that the earlier scriptures were in error.
2. The Quran includes a number of verses which mention the earlier scriptures and condemn people for not following the revelation contained in them. If the scriptures were known by God to be corrupt at the time, it would be difficult to condemn someone for not following them, rather, I would expect God to condemn those responsible for corrupting them.
3. If I can find Bible manuscripts from around 632AD I can compare them to the Quran to see where they are in disagreement. According to Surah 10:94, the parts of the Quran which disagree with the scriptures and teachings of the time can be questioned, and in fact should have been questioned at the time they were revealed.
4. If it is impossible to know which portions of the Bible are true, it is also impossible to know that it is not all true.
5. If the Quran is true, a person who discounts its truthfullness will nontheless be judged against it, even if they doubt its historical accuracy. The same can be said for the Bible.

[gamsta3]

Hey Turin
Is it true in the bibe that Jesus said a paraclete would come after him who would confirm his teachings. And is it true that paraclete comes from the greek word parakletos which means he who praises, and it is true that Ahmed in arabic means the one who praises god the most.

[gamsta3]

Well not christian as in a muslim kalipha but christian nonetheless. Dont forget many e.u contries dont want Turkey to join because they say it is not a CHRISTIAN country. Plus u cannot deny that there is heavy evangelicizing and missionary campaigns goiing on in Iraq and afghanistan.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Doug

2. We agree that in Surah 10:94 Muhammad was told to verify his revelation against the scriptures of his day should he be in doubt

He wasn't told to verify his revelation against these scriptures. He was told that the Prophets mentioned in the Qur'an who were sent to the Children of Israel were known to the Jews and Christians and he could verify this for himself just by asking the Jews and Christians, "Did God not send Noah? Abraham? Moses? Aaron?" and so on. They would reply "Yes, he did."

While I am not a scholar of the Quran, the searches I have conducted thus far have not come up with any verses which specifically state that the earlier scriptures were in error.

There are numerous verses that state such in the Qur'an. Here are a few:

2:75 Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then change it knowingly after they had understood it?

3:78 There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

5:13 So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allah loves those who do good.

Also see 5:14, 5:41 and 4:46.

2. The Quran includes a number of verses which mention the earlier scriptures and condemn people for not following the revelation contained in them. If the scriptures were known by God to be corrupt at the time, it would be difficult to condemn someone for not following them, rather, I would expect God to condemn those responsible for corrupting them.

I believe the verse you are referring to was that which was explained in this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...criptures.html

3. If I can find Bible manuscripts from around 632AD I can compare them to the Quran to see where they are in disagreement. According to Surah 10:94, the parts of the Quran which disagree with the scriptures and teachings of the time can be questioned, and in fact should have been questioned at the time they were revealed.

This is exactly the interpretation that was debunked. Nowhere does the Qur'an grant authority to such scriptures over itself. I clearly explained that the Qur'an was making a point that the general history of the Prophets revealed in the Qur'an was not something foreign to the people of the previous revelations.

The Qur'an actually tells us it is the Furqan (criterion) and the Muhaymin (Guardian authority) over previous revelations, to tell us what from the previosu revelations is true and what is false. Please read this short but very interesting article on the topic:
http://voiceforislam.com/FarmersMarket.html

4. If it is impossible to know which portions of the Bible are true, it is also impossible to know that it is not all true.

This is why the Qur'an has been sent. Whatever agrees with the Qur'an is confirmed to be true and what disagrees with it is rejected as false.

Regards

[dougmusr]

Well not christian as in a muslim kalipha but christian nonetheless. Dont forget many e.u contries dont want Turkey to join because they say it is not a CHRISTIAN country. Plus u cannot deny that there is heavy evangelicizing and missionary campaigns goiing on in Iraq and afghanistan.

I presume this is in reply to one of my earlier posts. There seems to be much animosity on this forum towards Christians, and of course Americans. I am here as a person of faith trying to learn more about Islam. I doubt that we will convert each other, however, failure to communicate will ultimately have even worse consequences.

Concerning Turkey's admission to the EU, can you refer me to a source that shows that their acceptance is being hindered because they are not a Christian country?

If a country is not a muslim kalipha that does not make it Christian. Likewise, if a person lives in the US and is not a Muslim, that does not make the person a Christian. It is of course true that Christians prefer to live in countries that do not persecute them for their faith, and the US happens to be such a country. It is worth pointing out that Muslims in the US are free worship as well. This includes sharing their faith with others. I do fear that the rights of Christians and Muslims are under attack worldwide, and in spite of our diffences in belief, those with no religious faith see us as basically the same, a problem to be dealt with.

As a Christian, I am deeply concerned by the moral state of not only the US, but also of the EU. As a US citizen, I feel that the way to fix the moral state of the US is by sharing the Gospel (evangelism), and allowing the power of God to use His Word to change people's hearts. I feel the same way about evangelism and mission work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously the presence of the US in these countries has made some Christian missionary work possible, but that does not mean our govornment is sponsoring it.

[dougmusr]

Hi Doug
He wasn't told to verify his revelation against these scriptures. He was told that the Prophets mentioned in the Qur'an who were sent to the Children of Israel were known to the Jews and Christians and he could verify this for himself just by asking the Jews and Christians, "Did God not send Noah? Abraham? Moses? Aaron?" and so on. They would reply "Yes, he did."

There are numerous verses that state such in the Qur'an. Here are a few:

2:75 Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then change it knowingly after they had understood it?

3:78 There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

5:13 So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allah loves those who do good.

Also see 5:14, 5:41 and 4:46.
I believe the verse you are referring to was that which was explained in this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...criptures.html
This is exactly the interpretation that was debunked. Nowhere does the Qur'an grant authority to such scriptures over itself. I clearly explained that the Qur'an was making a point that the general history of the Prophets revealed in the Qur'an was not something foreign to the people of the previous revelations.

The Qur'an actually tells us it is the Furqan (criterion) and the Muhaymin (Guardian authority) over previous revelations, to tell us what from the previosu revelations is true and what is false. Please read this short but very interesting article on the topic:
http://voiceforislam.com/FarmersMarket.html
This is why the Qur'an has been sent. Whatever agrees with the Qur'an is confirmed to be true and what disagrees with it is rejected as false.

Regards

Thanks for your patience. At this point I am not convinced that Surah 10:94 is not to be taken literally. The verses you cited concerning changing the Word of God could mean altering the Bible manuscripts, but it does not have to be interpreted that way. 5:13 refers to the tongue, so I would take that to mean misquoting it, not rewriting it.

In any case, if the manuscripts were altered, there are an amazing number from various points of history that are in agreement, and some of these no doubt include the claims about the resurrection, crucifixion, etc. This means there must have been a wide spread conspiracy to search for the originals, collect them all, produce altered copies, and then destroy the originals. What a formidable task that must have been at a time in history where travel was limited pretty much to walking.

At this point, I have to do more research. At best I hope our discussion has given both sides more insight into the issues related to the Bible vs the Quran argument, although I know has been debated for centuries.

One last question if you don't mind. What in your opinion does it take for a person to be go to heaven?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Thanks for your patience. At this point I am not convinced that Surah 10:94 is not to be taken literally.

It IS to be taken literally. But it is to be taken literally IN CONTEXT. You can't just rob a verse of its surrounding context for reinterpretation. If seen in context it is clear what the verse is referring to, and it is further clarified with other passages in the Qur'an. At any rate, the interpretation that you suggested is not consistent with the text whether taken in isolation or in context. The verse ends by saying, "Verily the truth has come to you from your Lord so be not of those who doubt it" whereas your interpretation suggests the complete opposite - doubt it and question its authenticity from God!

The verses you cited concerning changing the Word of God could mean altering the Bible manuscripts, but it does not have to be interpreted that way.

This is the most obvious meaning of the verse and the only interpretation consistent with the rest of the Qur'an, the teachings of the Prophet, and the understanding of the companions, so from my perspective, yes it does have to be interpreted this way.

One last question if you don't mind. What in your opinion does it take for a person to be go to heaven?

There is a miscocneption that Musims believe in salvation by works. In reality, Muslims believe in salvation first and foremost by the mercy of God and to attain His mercy we must have faith and perform righteous deeds.

Regards

[dougmusr]

I'm sorry, I guess I didn't explain it very well in my previous post. We don't question that the bible does contain some of the original words of God. We know it does, and where the two books agree...ie: The virgin birth of Jesus, pbuh, we know is the truth. Where they differ: ie the crucifixion, we believe it is not the word of God. All Muhammed, pbuh, had to do was see where they agreed to know it was the word of God.



You are right in that the Prophet, pbuh, could not read or write. When He received a revelation, He had scribes write it on whatever was available at the time, (ie, leaves, wood, stone, etc.), and the verses were also committed to memory by hundreds in the life of Muhammed, pbuh. These writings were kept in the care of His daughter and after His death, out of fear of losing them or of the Qur'an suffering the same fate as the revelations before it, they were gathered by Uthman and compiled into one book. The scribes/copyists wrote them and they were checked by many for accuracy, not to mention all those, now numbering in the thousands, that had the Qur'an committed to memory. There are two originals remaining for viewing and both are exactly the same. There are also a few copies of the originals that are also exactly the same. The Arabic Qur'an as read and recited today is EXACTLY the same as it was over 1400 years ago. The number of people that have it committed to memory now is enormous and range in age from 5 to over 100 years. Great care was taken to ensure not one word or dot was changed, and it was through the dedication of many, not just one or two....or even 10, to make sure it was 100% accurate.

I know this is discussed in much better detail elsewhere on the forum and if you search the forum you can read more about it and it offers far more information than I have provided here. :) But, I hope this brief explanation is helpful.

Peace,
Hana

I stumbled on this site while doing research on the Quran. Have you read any of the booklets?

No anti-islamic links or articles from anti-islamic sites, please. You're free to articulate your objections yourself. Kindly refer to forum rules.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I stumbled on this site while doing research on the Quran. Have you read any of the booklets?

No anti-islamic links or articles from anti-islamic sites, please. You're free to articulate your objections yourself. Kindly refer to forum rules.

Hi Doug,
The article you quoted is like many of the other unscholarly and poorly researched material on anti-islamic websites. Muslims have exposed the numerous errors found in such works. The most scholarly, detailed, fully referenced work in english on the Qur'anic preservation is certainly the following by Dr. M. M. Al-Azami PhD:
http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b7626.html
The author provides a complete documentation and decisive refutation to claims circulated by anti-islamists and includes a comparative analysis with the OT and NT.

The problem with the article you quoted - as well as many of the orientalists writings on the preservation of the Qur'an, is that they fail to distinguish between fabricated, weak, strong and authentic Ahâdîth (narrations). So if a statement is reported by one person five centuries after the Prophet, they will give it the same weight as a statement that has hundreds of direct chains of transmission to the Prophet. Naturally, this leads to many contradictions in their work. Arthur Jeffery argues on one hand that there were variants in Al-Fâtiha in Ibn Mas'ûd's Mushaf, but elsewhere he contradicts himself when he states that Al-Fâtiha was never present in the Mushaf at all!

Your source repeats the dubious report of Ibn Mas'ûd omitting three surahs, but this report has been refuted by the researchers who have studied the chains of narrations. See the refutation of this report by Imam Al-Bâqillânî in Al-Intisâr, pp. 190-191. The claim is also refuted on the basis of pure logic as well. Al-Fâtiha is the surah read in EVERY single unit of a Muslim's prayer. This means that every single Muslim recites this chapter at the very least 17 times a day. Clearly this was not some minor chapter to simply 'omit'!!

The same argument can be used for the whole Qur'an. Every single year, during the month of Ramadan, Muslims recites the entire Qur'an cover to cover publicly in the tarâwîh prayer congregation. This takes places in congregations of hundreds, thousands, and even millions all around the world. Any ommission or variant would be detectable.

Your source also makes a similar claim regarding Ubay ibn Kab's mushaf saying he had two extra surahs. M. M. Al-Azami's refutation of this claim:

Hammad b. Salama reported that Ubayy's Mushad contained two extra surahs, called al-Hafad and al-Khala'. This report is completely spurious because of a major defect in the chain, as there is an unaccounted-for gap of at least two to three generations between Ubayy's death (d. ca. 30H) and Hammad's (d. 167H) scholarly activity. (Al-Azami, p.203)

And the report about Ali ibn Abi Talib quoted in the article you cited is also a blatant fabrication.

And the author of your source is also mistaken about these alleged 'versions'. Even a cursory investigation into this subject would reveal that what is being discussed here is the different dialects of the arabic language. Clearly the author of your source needs to do his homework before propagated age-old debunked myths and tales that crumble under the scrutiny of objective research.

Regards

[dougmusr]

My apologies. Since I was doing research and am not at the point where I can check out each claim, on your site or any others for that matter, I merely posted the link. I will check out your references as I have time. I will say that just as you would hold that the link had a Christian bias, this forum obviously has an Islamic bias. The bias of the site does not necessarily mean truth can not be found there. However, people are obviously free to search the web elsewhere so there is no reason to include the info on your site.

[dougmusr]

There is a miscocneption that Musims believe in salvation by works. In reality, Muslims believe in salvation first and foremost by the mercy of God and to attain His mercy we must have faith and perform righteous deeds.

Apparently Christians are not alone in holding this misconception as shown by the following quote.

"Yet no Muslim, even the best among them, imagines that he is guaranteed Paradise; on the contrary, the more conscientious and God-fearing one is, the more aware of his own shortcomings and weaknesses. Therefore the Muslim, knowing that God alone controls life and death, and that death may come to him at any time, tries to send on ahead for his future existance such deeds as will merit the pleasure of his Lord, so that he can look forward to it with hope for His mercy and grace."

"What everyone should know about Islam and Muslims", Suzanne Hanneef, Kazi Publications, April 1985, p37.

Your use of the phrase "to attain His mercy" shows that you also believe there is a threshold of righteous deeds which must be met for salvation. The quote above also indicates that some are more God-fearing than others. Must they meet the same criteria to enter Paradise?

So back to the original question. What in your opinion does it take for a person to go to heaven?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Doug,

I will say that just as you would hold that the link had a Christian bias, this forum obviously has an Islamic bias.

I'm not concerned with 'bias', I'm concered with obvious factual errors and distortions in the article, namely those which I have refuted in my previous post.

Apparently Christians are not alone in holding this misconception as shown by the following quote.

"Yet no Muslim, even the best among them, imagines that he is guaranteed Paradise; on the contrary, the more conscientious and God-fearing one is, the more aware of his own shortcomings and weaknesses. Therefore the Muslim, knowing that God alone controls life and death, and that death may come to him at any time, tries to send on ahead for his future existance such deeds as will merit the pleasure of his Lord, so that he can look forward to it with hope for His mercy and grace."

This quote merely states that entrance to paradise is determined first and foremost by the mercy of God and that faith in Him and good deeds are the means to attain (or 'merit') the mercy of God - a point I already mentioned in my post. So this is not the misconception that some Christians have. These Christians think that Muslims believe that you have to perform a certain quantity of good deeds in order to get paradise; if you perform less than this quantity you don't get in. That's completely untrue. They don't realize that in Islam, paradise is not all one level. There are different levels in paradise, the higher the level the greater the reward. The better you are in this life, the greater your reward in the next.

The minimum required limit to get to paradise is to simply believe in God and His Messenger and to abide by His commands, and when one sins - which is something all human beings do - to repent to God and seek His forgiveness. If one just performs their basic obligations and avoids major sins God will grant them paradise by His will. Then after that is the minimum possible limit to enter paradise. If someone believed in God and His Messenger but indulged in major sins or continually abandoned religious obligations, they will be purified of their sins in Hell before they are admitted into paradise. The Prophet told us that God will continue to remove people from Hell until He removes those who had only an atom's weight of faith in their hearts, having never done any other good (Sah&#238;h Bukh&#226;r&#238;).

Your use of the phrase "to attain His mercy" shows that you also believe there is a threshold of righteous deeds which must be met for salvation. The quote above also indicates that some are more God-fearing than others. Must they meet the same criteria to enter Paradise?

So back to the original question. What in your opinion does it take for a person to go to heaven?

As above.

Regards

[Phil12123]

This quote merely states that entrance to paradise is determined first and foremost by the mercy of God and that faith in Him and good deeds are the means to attain (or 'merit') the mercy of God - a point I already mentioned in my post. So this is not the misconception that some Christians have. These Christians think that Muslims believe that you have to perform a certain quantity of good deeds in order to get paradise; if you perform less than this quantity you don't get in. That's completely untrue. They don't realize that in Islam, paradise is not all one level. There are different levels in paradise, the higher the level the greater the reward. The better you are in this life, the greater your reward in the next.

The minimum required limit to get to paradise is to simply believe in God and His Messenger and to abide by His commands, and when one sins - which is something all human beings do - to repent to God and seek His forgiveness. If one just performs their basic obligations and avoids major sins God will grant them paradise by His will. Then after that is the minimum possible limit to enter paradise. If someone believed in God and His Messenger but indulged in major sins or continually abandoned religious obligations, they will be purified of their sins in Hell before they are admitted into paradise. The Prophet told us that God will continue to remove people from Hell until He removes those who had only an atom's weight of faith in their hearts, having never done any other good (Sahîh Bukhârî).

Interesting. Do you have citations for the above in the Quran, particularly that last sentence?

Peace

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Interesting. Do you have citations for the above in the Quran, particularly that last sentence?

The last sentence is from the statement of the Prophet Muhamamd pbuh. He tells us in a lengthy hadith narrated in Sahîh Bukhârî #7440 that Allah will continually remove those believers who commited sin from Hellfire after they have been purified of their sins by the punishment. Allah will say, ‘Go, and whoever you find with a dinar’s-weight of faith in his heart, bring him forth, and Allaah will forbid their bodies to the Fire.’
[...] ‘Go, and whoever you find with half a dinar’s-weight of faith in his heart, bring him forth.’ [...] ‘Go, and whoever you find with an atom’s-weight of faith in his heart, bring him forth.’ [... until God removes the last group from Hell described as follows...]
Then they will enter Paradise, and the people of Paradise will say, ‘These are the people emancipated by the Most Merciful. He has admitted them into Paradise without them having done any good deeds and without them having sent forth any good (for themselves).’ Then it will be said to them, ‘You will have what you have seen and the equivalent thereof.


The companion who narrated the hadith quoted a relevant verse:


Qur'an 4:40 Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom's weight; while if there is a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.

Regards

[dougmusr]

The last sentence is from the statement of the Prophet Muhamamd pbuh. He tells us in a lengthy hadith narrated in Sahîh Bukhârî #7440 that Allah will continually remove those believers who commited sin from Hellfire after they have been purified of their sins by the punishment. Allah will say, ‘Go, and whoever you find with a dinar’s-weight of faith in his heart, bring him forth, and Allaah will forbid their bodies to the Fire.’
[...] ‘Go, and whoever you find with half a dinar’s-weight of faith in his heart, bring him forth.’ [...] ‘Go, and whoever you find with an atom’s-weight of faith in his heart, bring him forth.’ [... until God removes the last group from Hell described as follows...]
Then they will enter Paradise, and the people of Paradise will say, ‘These are the people emancipated by the Most Merciful. He has admitted them into Paradise without them having done any good deeds and without them having sent forth any good (for themselves).’ Then it will be said to them, ‘You will have what you have seen and the equivalent thereof.


The companion who narrated the hadith quoted a relevant verse:


Qur'an 4:40 Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom's weight; while if there is a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.

Regards

Much like orbitals in an atom have quantized energy levels, a Paradise with multiple levels must to each level have a quantized entry criteria. This constitutes a level of righteousness, or good deeds, or works.

Does Islam consider Christ to be sinless?
Does Islam consider Muhammed to be sinless?
What is the source of a hadith?
Is a hadith considered God's word?

[gamsta3]

Is it true that in the bible, it says that the earth is the centre of the universe and that the sun rotates around it? And that the church tried to ban galilees work for this very reason?

Also to ansr al adl
Inn the quran, allah says that the earth is oval shaped, right? U've pretty much probably guessed by now that im no scholar. I only know about7 or 8 suras by heart which i use to pray with.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Much like orbitals in an atom have quantized energy levels, a Paradise with multiple levels must to each level have a quantized entry criteria. This constitutes a level of righteousness, or good deeds, or works.

This is true only if the levels in paradise are discrete.

Does Islam consider Christ to be sinless?
Does Islam consider Muhammed to be sinless?

Prophets were infallible in that they could not commit any sins or fail in their transmission of the message. However, they were susceptible to minor mistakes and temporary lapse in human judgement on lesser issues. For more info see my post here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/75709-post2.html

What is the source of a hadith?

A hadith is a report transmitted from the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. Scholars study the chain of narrators in a hadith to evaluate the authenticity of its ascription to the Prophet. Famous hadith compilations include Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawud, Sunan An-Nasaa'i, Sunan Ibn Maajah, Sunan At-Tirmidhi and many others.

Is a hadith considered God's word?

Hadith is the word of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh inspired by God. So the meaning is divine but the specific wording is not. The Qur'an, on the other hand, is divinbe in both wording and meaning. One can say that the Qur'an is the revealed word of God while the hadith is the inspired word of God.

Regards

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Also to ansr al adl
Inn the quran, allah says that the earth is oval shaped, right?

There are some verses interpreted as such;

Consider the following Qur’aanic verse regarding the alternation of day and night:

“Seest thou not that Allah merges Night into Day And He merges Day into Night?” [Al-Qur’aan 31:29]

Merging here means that the night slowly and gradually changes to day and vice versa. This phenomenon can only take place if the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat, there would have been a sudden change from night to day and from day to night.

The following verse also alludes to the spherical shape of the earth:

“He created the heavens And the earth In true (proportions): He makes the Night Overlap the Day, and the Day Overlap the Night.” [Al-Qur’aan 39:5]

The Arabic word used here is Kawwara meaning ‘to overlap’ or ‘to coil’– the way a turban is wound around the head. The overlapping or coiling of the day and night can only take place if the earth is spherical.

The earth is not exactly round like a ball, but geo-spherical i.e. it is flattened at the poles. The following verse contains a description of the earth’s shape: The Qur’aan and Modern Science: Compatible or Incompatible?

“And the earth, moreover, Hath He made egg shaped.” [Al-Qur’aan 79:30]*

(* The Arabic word dahaha has been translated by A. Yusuf Ali as “vast expanse”, which also is correct. The word dahaha also means an ostrich-egg. Consider the following verses related to the nature of light from the sun and the moon: “It is He who made the sun To be a shining glory And the moon to be a light (Of beauty).” [Al-Qur’aan 10:5])

The Arabic word for egg here is dahaha, which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth. Thus the Qur’aan correctly describes the shape of the earth, though the prevalent notion when the Qur’aan was revealed was that the earth is flat.

[QuranStudy]

Wrong. There are many religions, but only ONE TRUE religion, namely, Christianity.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Dude, get those cucumbers off your eyes!

Of all religions, I respect Islam and Judaism. Chrsitianity is a joke and the Bible is poorly written (and fabricated) fiction.

MODERATOR'S COMMENT: PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL IN EXPRESSING YOUR OPINION. AVOID OFFENDING MEMBERS OF ANY RELIGIOUS GROUP.

[al-fateh]

islam no doubt

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Of all religions, I respect Islam and Judaism. Chrsitianity is a joke and the Bible is poorly written (and fabricated) fiction.

The first five books of the Bible constitute the Jewish Torah, so you've insulted Jewish believers with that comment too, even though you claim to respect their religion.

(P.S.: all fiction is fabricated - you could have saved yourself a bit of typing there.)

Peace

[bint_muhammed]

this is so childish!

[Phil12123]

Does Islam consider Christ to be sinless?
Does Islam consider Muhammed to be sinless?

Prophets were infallible in that they could not commit any sins or fail in their transmission of the message. However, they were susceptible to minor mistakes and temporary lapse in human judgement on lesser issues. For more info see my post here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/75709-post2.html

So, are you saying that both Christ and Muhammed made minor mistakes or had temporary lapses in human judgment on lesser issues? I tried to figure out your answer from the link, but couldn't.

Peace

[north_malaysian]

So, are you saying that both Christ and Muhammed made minor mistakes or had temporary lapses in human judgment on lesser issues? I tried to figure out your answer from the link, but couldn't.

Peace

All prophets - including MOSES, JESUS, DAVID, SOLOMON, ABRAHAM and MUHAMMAD are SINLESS.

[czgibson]

Greetings Ansar,

Prophets were infallible in that they could not commit any sins or fail in their transmission of the message.

On another thread (this one - see post #3) I read that god is supposed to have sent 124,000 prophets to different parts of the world, but that not all of them were accepted by the people. Is this true?

Peace

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

So, are you saying that both Christ and Muhammed made minor mistakes or had temporary lapses in human judgment on lesser issues?

Yes.

On another thread (this one - see post #3) I read that god is supposed to have sent 124,000 prophets to different parts of the world, but that not all of them were accepted by the people. Is this true?

Yes. Every nation recieved a prophet.

Regards

[Hijaabi22]

Christianity or ISLAM.......Errrrrrrrrm lemme think.......ISLAM duh

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Yes. Every nation recieved a prophet.

Interesting, thanks. Where does the figure of 124,000 come from? Surely there weren't that many nations? Or did some nations receive more than one prophet?

I was interested in the part about not all of them being accepted by the people, compared with your statement about them being unable to fail in the transmission of the message. Does this mean that they transmitted the message perfectly, but it wasn't always accepted?

Peace

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Interesting, thanks. Where does the figure of 124,000 come from? Surely there weren't that many nations? Or did some nations receive more than one prophet?

Yes some nations recieved multiple Prophets, like the children of Israel, for example. The figure comes from a hadith narrated in the Musnad of Imâm Ahmad.

I was interested in the part about not all of them being accepted by the people, compared with your statement about them being unable to fail in the transmission of the message. Does this mean that they transmitted the message perfectly, but it wasn't always accepted?

Yes, the Qur'an gives many examples of people who rejected the message of their Prophet. Nuh, Hud, Salih, Shu'aib, Lut all were rejected by their people who were subsequently punished and destroyed. Others, like the nation of Yunus, initially rejected his call but then later repented and accepted it.

Peace.

[Fishman]

Yes, the Qur'an gives many examples of people who rejected the message of their Prophet. Nuh, Hud, Salih, Shu'aib, Lut all were rejected by their people who were subsequently punished and destroyed. Others, like the nation of Yunus, initially rejected his call but then later repented and accepted it.

Peace.

:sl:
And some people, even after being punished by Allah (swt), just grow stronger in their disbelief. Look what happened to the Minoans. They were polytheists who worshipped idols, with a religion similar to that of the Greeks. They were then punished for this by the eruption of Santorini/Thera, which ruined their civilisation. But they did not turn from their old ways, and started revering the sea instead, because of the tsunami from the volcano that destroyed their cites. Finally, the Minoans were conquered by the Greeks, and the civilisation was gone completely. There are more stories like this from all around the world, including the events which took place on Easter Island, which are an indesputable warning to anyone, whether they believe in the stories presented by the Quran or not.
:w:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

There are more stories like this from all around the world, including the events which took place on Easter Island, which are an indesputable warning to anyone, whether they believe in the stories presented by the Quran or not.

Are you seriously suggesting that the decline of Easter Island took place because its inhabitants were not Muslim?

Peace

[dougmusr]

[QUOTE All prophets - including MOSES, JESUS, DAVID, SOLOMON, ABRAHAM and MUHAMMAD are SINLESS.[\QUOTE]

[QUOTE The minimum required limit to get to paradise is to simply believe in God and His Messenger and to abide by His commands, and when one sins - which is something all human beings do - to repent to God and seek His forgiveness.[\QUOTE]

The only way to resolve the inconsistancies between the two claims above is to assume prophets are not human?

1. The Bible says David committed adultry.
2. The Bible says Solomon turned against God and sought after idols and God took the kingdom out of his hand.
3. The Bible says Moses failed to give God glory when bringing water out of a rock, and was therefore prevented from entering the promise land.

Based on your statements:

The possible choices are:
1. The Quran specifically says this is not true making the Bible false,
2. The Quran does not address this at all meaning the Bible could be true,
3. The Quran does not include adultery, idolatry as sins but rather as temporary lapses in human judgement.

[Phil12123]

All prophets - including MOSES, JESUS, DAVID, SOLOMON, ABRAHAM and MUHAMMAD are SINLESS.

The minimum required limit to get to paradise is to simply believe in God and His Messenger and to abide by His commands, and when one sins - which is something all human beings do - to repent to God and seek His forgiveness.

The only way to resolve the inconsistancies between the two claims above is to assume prophets are not human?

1. The Bible says David committed adultry.
2. The Bible says Solomon turned against God and sought after idols and God took the kingdom out of his hand.
3. The Bible says Moses failed to give God glory when bringing water out of a rock, and was therefore prevented from entering the promise land.

Based on your statements:

The possible choices are:
1. The Quran specifically says this is not true making the Bible false,
2. The Quran does not address this at all meaning the Bible could be true,
3. The Quran does not include adultery, idolatry as sins but rather as temporary lapses in human judgement.

Excellent post, Doug. Only GOD has not sinned. That is another proof of Christ's Deity, because ONLY Jesus of all men who walked this earth did NOT SIN.

Jesus said in John 8:46 (Living Bible), "Which of you can truthfully accuse me of one single sin? [No one!] And since I am telling you the truth, why don't you believe me?"

Paul said in 2 Cor. 5:21, "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Peter said of Christ in 1 Peter 2:22, "Who committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth.''

John said of Christ in 1 John 3:5, "And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin."

There are many verses to show all other men are sinners, like this one:

Ecclesiastes 7:20. For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin.

Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

etc., etc.

Peace

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

The only way to resolve the inconsistancies between the two claims above is to assume prophets are not human?

Prophets don't sin but they make mistakes. It should have been understood that Prophets were not being included in the statement since I included acceptance of the Messengers! But if you didn't know that then, you do know.

1. The Bible says David committed adultry.

Rejected as false by Muslims.

2. The Bible says Solomon turned against God and sought after idols and God took the kingdom out of his hand.

Rejected as false by Muslims.

3. The Bible says Moses failed to give God glory when bringing water out of a rock, and was therefore prevented from entering the promise land.

Rejected as false by Muslims.

1. The Quran specifically says this is not true making the Bible false

Not the entirety of the Bible - only those statements.

Regards

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Excellent post, Doug. Only GOD has not sinned. That is another proof of Christ's Deity, because ONLY Jesus of all men who walked this earth did NOT SIN.

If you're explaining your beliefs that is fine, but if you are advancing such statements as a logical argument they don't hold because I don't accept the Bible as an authority, hence the fallacy petitio principii.

Secondly, there are some very clear verses in the NT itself which imply that Jesus erred or at least was not as sinless as he was made out to be by Christian sources.

Jesus says: "and whoever shall say, 'You fool', shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matthew 5:22)
And yet Jesus also says: You fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? (Matthew 23:17)

The first states that if someone says "you fool" to someone else, then they are guilty of hell, and in the second verse Jesus does it himself!

[dougmusr]

If you're explaining your beliefs that is fine, but if you are advancing such statements as a logical argument they don't hold because I don't accept the Bible as an authority, hence the fallacy petitio principii.

Secondly, there are some very clear verses in the NT itself which imply that Jesus erred or at least was not as sinless as he was made out to be by Christian sources.

Jesus says: "and whoever shall say, 'You fool', shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matthew 5:22)
And yet Jesus also says: You fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? (Matthew 23:17)

The first states that if someone says "you fool" to someone else, then they are guilty of hell, and in the second verse Jesus does it himself!

If Jesus were a prophet and God told Him to call someone a fool, that would be divine inspiration. Or maybe Jesus is God incarnate as the Bible claims, and as God, He pretty much knows a fool when He sees one.

In any case, this brings us back to the same insurmountable obstacle, the Bible and the Quran can't both be right as even the athiests and agnostics have pointed out.

Here's a thought. An angel revealed the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith. This angel did so because God felt that the Christians had departed from His teachings and needed a new corrected revelation. Joseph Smith is to the Mormons a prophet, the final prophet. His book disagrees with your book, and he is the final prophet because his revelation came later than your prophet's revelation. Your book is therefore wrong also. Can you see any similarities between the claims of the Mormons and the Muslims concerning Christianity?

Muhammed received his revelation from an angel. This angel claimed to be Gabriel. The revelation given to Muhammed by Gabriel about Christ differs from that given to Joseph and Mary by Gabriel. Either one of the angels wasn't Gabriel, angels are subject to "minor lapses in angelic judgement", or one of the records is wrong.

Islam has minimized the sinfulness of sin by deeming it "minor lapses in human judgement" or "mistakes". Christ came to die for the sins of the World. I can't explain why His death takes away sin any more than you can explain why it doesn't. You can say it doesn't make sense for God to do it that way, but that doesn't make it so. In any case, the things in my life God calls sin are sin, even if I chalk them up to human error, lapse in judgement, etc. What will count on the last day is what God thinks is sin. The Bible says that the final judgement will not be a subjective test of righteous deeds graded against some unrevealed curve, but it will be a true/false one question test. Did you accept on earth the payment made for your forgiveness as described in the scriptures. "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"? Will there be people in Heaven you and I wouldn't have picked to be there? You bet there will.

Mt 21:28 "But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, 'Son, go, work today in my vineyard.'
29 "He answered and said, 'I will not,' but afterward he regretted it and went.
30 "Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, 'I go, sir,' but he did not go.
31 "Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said to Him, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you.
32 "For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

If Jesus were a prophet and God told Him to call someone a fool, that would be divine inspiration. Or maybe Jesus is God incarnate as the Bible claims, and as God, He pretty much knows a fool when He sees one.

I'm afraid you haven't addressed the problem. The problem is not with simply calling someone a fool, but with saying that whoever calls someone a fool is guilty enough for hell and calling someone a fool.

Can you see any similarities between the claims of the Mormons and the Muslims concerning Christianity?

I'm afraid not. Islamic theology has much more in common with Judaism than Mormonism. Jews and Muslims percieve Trinitarians as the ones who have broken awan from the simple and straightforward doctrines of the scriptures concerning monotheism and salvation. Plus, Mormonism does not see itself as a continuation of Islam.

Either one of the angels wasn't Gabriel, angels are subject to "minor lapses in angelic judgement", or one of the records is wrong.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. You should know quite well the Muslim beliefs concerning scriptural alteration.

Islam has minimized the sinfulness of sin by deeming it "minor lapses in human judgement" or "mistakes".

No it hasn't! I said that Prophets were protected from all sins barring the minor lapses in human judgement. I am sure you can appreciate the significant difference between the two statements.

Christ came to die for the sins of the World. I can't explain why His death takes away sin any more than you can explain why it doesn't.

I don't feel the need to. We need only examine the logical coherence of the doctrine, not provide explanations for it.

"If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"?

What does it mean to be 'saved' ? And is it promised to the one who persists in sin though he 'confesses with his mouth' and 'believes in his heart' that an immortal God raised himself from the dead?

Regards

[Phil12123]

Why would it be "rejected as false by Muslims" that David committed adultery with Bath-sheba, or that any of the others mentioned sinned? Does the Quran or other Islamic sources say David never did that, or that the others never sinned?

Solomon himself wrote Ecclesiastes, and he said in 7:20 of his own book:

"For there is not a just man upon the earth that doeth good and sinneth not."

Peace

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Why would it be "rejected as false by Muslims" that David committed adultery with Bath-sheba

Because that is an enormous sin, not some trivial error. The Prophets are the best of human beings as they are the role models, and they are protected against such sins, hence Muslims view this as a great slander. Dawud occupies a very lofty status with God as do all Prophets.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Because that is an enormous sin, not some trivial error. The Prophets are the best of human beings as they are the role models, and they are protected against such sins, hence Muslims view this as a great slander. Dawud occupies a very lofty status with God as do all Prophets.

Is the Muslim claim that the Bible is false on the point about David's adultery based on any historical evidence, or supposed textual corruption, or solely on the belief in the sinlessness of all the prophets?

Peace

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Is the Muslim claim that the Bible is false on the point about David's adultery based on any historical evidence, or supposed textual corruption, or solely on the belief in the sinlessness of all the prophets?

The Muslim claim is based on the Muslim beliefs.

Peace

[dougmusr]

I'm afraid you haven't addressed the problem. The problem is not with simply calling someone a fool, but with saying that whoever calls someone a fool is guilty enough for hell and calling someone a fool.

Actually I did address the problem. I believe the Bible claims Jesus is Lord, and therefore He has the right to judge mankind, and deem any behavior foolish He sees fit.

I'm afraid not. Islamic theology has much more in common with Judaism than Mormonism. Jews and Muslims percieve Trinitarians as the ones who have broken awan from the simple and straightforward doctrines of the scriptures concerning monotheism and salvation. Plus, Mormonism does not see itself as a continuation of Islam.

Mormonism and Islam both see their prophets and books as God's final revelation through a final prophet to correct scriptural tampering and restore true belief. This does not in any way imply their books or beliefs are the same.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. You should know quite well the Muslim beliefs concerning scriptural alteration.

You're right, I know them well. I was merely saying that Gabriel couldn't have given conflicting revelations, so one must have been wrong. We both know which one it was. It just isn't the same one.

No it hasn't! I said that Prophets were protected from all sins barring the minor lapses in human judgement. I am sure you can appreciate the significant difference between the two statements.

Actually I can't. I would interpret it to mean that all prophet's behavior, including Muhammud's, was at times less than God's ideal, but we don't want to say it was sin, so we will reduce it to a lesser offense.

Prophets don't sin but they make mistakes. It should have been understood that Prophets were not being included in the statement since I included acceptance of the Messengers! But if you didn't know that then, you do know.
Quote:
1. The Bible says David committed adultry.
Rejected as false by Muslims.
Quote:
2. The Bible says Solomon turned against God and sought after idols and God took the kingdom out of his hand.
Rejected as false by Muslims.
Quote:
3. The Bible says Moses failed to give God glory when bringing water out of a rock, and was therefore prevented from entering the promise land.
Rejected as false by Muslims.

Do you have specific verses in the Quran that address the instances I cited above concerning the sins the Bible attributed to Moses, Solomon, and David by which Muslims are premitted to discount the Biblical claim?

I don't feel the need to. We need only examine the logical coherence of the doctrine, not provide explanations for it.

I find much Islamic doctrine to be logically incoherant just as you find much Christian doctrine to be logically incoherant. Since all of us are prone to lapses in human judgement, and I would think one undergoing a lapse would be unaware of it at the time it was occuring, then one of us must be lapsing.

What does it mean to be 'saved' ? And is it promised to the one who persists in sin though he 'confesses with his mouth' and 'believes in his heart' that an immortal God raised himself from the dead?

I don't know you personally, but I do know by your own statement that all humans sin, therefore you sin. In fact, I would venture to guess that the sins you commit are repeated sins for which you have asked forgivness. Therefore the answer to the question is yes. In fact, that is the very reason Christ came to earth.

[Phil12123]

Originally Posted by czgibson
Is the Muslim claim that the Bible is false on the point about David's adultery based on any historical evidence, or supposed textual corruption, or solely on the belief in the sinlessness of all the prophets?

The Muslim claim is based on the Muslim beliefs.

I don't think you answered the question. Let me rephrase it --- WHY do Muslims reject as false the point about David's adultery? If you don't know the origin of Muslim beliefs about David, just say so.

Peace

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Actually I did address the problem. I believe the Bible claims Jesus is Lord, and therefore He has the right to judge mankind, and deem any behavior foolish He sees fit.

But he says: "and WHOEVER shall say, 'You fool', shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matthew 5:22)
He did not exempt himself from this unconditional declaration. He said that it is a sin to call others fools but he did so himself. For you to claim he is sinless is meaningless then because you believe that any sin he commits is not a sin for him since he is Jesus and Jesus is God.
And Jesus may be fully God according to Christians but he is also fully man.

Mormonism and Islam both see their prophets and books as God's final revelation through a final prophet to correct scriptural tampering and restore true belief. This does not in any way imply their books or beliefs are the same.

Obviously. For you to assess the validity of Islam by comparing it to a religion that has absolutely nothing in common except finality is manifestly fallacious. You need to investigate the logical coherence of the doctrines themselves.

You're right, I know them well. I was merely saying that Gabriel couldn't have given conflicting revelations, so one must have been wrong. We both know which one it was. It just isn't the same one.

The most important thing of course is the reasoning behind the judgement.

Actually I can't.

You don't see your error in completely omitting mention of 'Prophets' in your statement? Did I minimize sinfulness of sins or did I say that Prophets don't commit sins?
The actual problem here is that you are operating with the Christian definition of sin which includes everything from the impolite snort to the mass murder of children. In order to have a discussion we need to agree on terminology, right? If you want to say that sin includes everything, so be it but I can't expound my beliefs unless you come up with adequate terminology I can use to differentiate between major sins and minor mistakes. It is like asking someone to explain stellar systems but you don't allow them to differentiate between stars and planets and instead insist that they use the term 'planetoid' for both. Then you blame them for saying that humans can detect by radiation some planetoids and not others.

Do you have specific verses in the Quran that address the instances I cited above concerning the sins the Bible attributed to Moses, Solomon, and David by which Muslims are premitted to discount the Biblical claim?

No, the Qur'an does not address these specific allegations against the Prophets. Muslims reject them due to the Islamic doctrine on the infallibility of Prophets.

I find much Islamic doctrine to be logically incoherant just as you find much Christian doctrine to be logically incoherant.

If it is logically incoherent it should not be a subjective issue. Why not demonstrate the logical contradiction?

I don't know you personally, but I do know by your own statement that all humans sin, therefore you sin. In fact, I would venture to guess that the sins you commit are repeated sins for which you have asked forgivness. Therefore the answer to the question is yes. In fact, that is the very reason Christ came to earth.

You have specified asking forgiveness here. Who must ask forgiveness and why? Again, what does it mean to be saved? Has God died for everyone's sins or only for the sins of those who believe he died for their sins? What is the significance of the point in time when God chose to die for the sins f orHis creation? Will one who indulged in crimes against humanity all his life without repenting be admitted into paradise if he believed God died for His sins?

Thanks.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I don't think you answered the question.

He asked me if the Muslim claim was based on historical evidence or Muslim beliefs. I answered the latter.

Let me rephrase it --- WHY do Muslims reject as false the point about David's adultery?

Because it conflicts with our beliefs on the infallibility of Prophets, as I said in the last post. If you want more than that answer you need to specify what you wnat.

If you don't know the origin of Muslim beliefs about David, just say so.

Au contraire, I am reasonably confident in my knowledge of Islamic beliefs on the Prophets. The origin of the beliefs are from God, He revealed them. If that's not what you meant you'll need to elucidate.

Peace.

[Phil12123]

He asked me if the Muslim claim was based on historical evidence or Muslim beliefs. I answered the latter.

Because it conflicts with our beliefs on the infallibility of Prophets, as I said in the last post. If you want more than that answer you need to specify what you wnat.

Au contraire, I am reasonably confident in my knowledge of Islamic beliefs on the Prophets. The origin of the beliefs are from God, He revealed them. If that's not what you meant you'll need to elucidate.

Perhaps, as you suggested elsewhere, we should define terms. How does the Quran (or other Islamic authority) define the following:

1. sin
2. prophet (I thought David was only a King, not a prophet)
3. infallibility

And can you quote the verse or whatever that states the belief on the infallibility of prophets.

Peace

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Christianity Given the fact that there has never been in the history of the Torah (Old Testament) the religion of God to be named after a Prophet (i.e. Adaminity, Abrahamity, Mosanity, etc.), I hope to explain that Jesus did not preach the religion of Christianity, but a religion that gives all Praise and Worship to The One God. One of the questions I asked myself as I took an objective (second) look at Christianity was; where did the word Christianity come from and was the word ever mentioned to Jesus? Well, I did not find the word Christianity in the Bible, not even in a Bible dictionary. Specifically, I did not find in the Bible where Jesus called himself a Christian. The word Christian was first mentioned by a pagan to describe those who followed Jesus. It is mentioned one of three times in the New Testament by a pagan and Jew in Antioch about 43 AD, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:38 and 1 Peter 4:16) long after Jesus left this earth. To accept the words of pagans as having any value or association with divinity, Jesus or God is contrary to the teachings of all Prophets.

Jesus prophesied that people would worship him uselessly and believe in doctrines made by men (Matthew 15:9). "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." This verse, Matthew 15:9, is further supported by these words of the Quran:

"And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men: "Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?" He will say: "Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the All-Knower o fall that is hidden and unseen.


Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allah) did command me to say: ‘Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were a Witness to all things. (This is a great admonition and warning to the Christians of the whole world)." (Al-Ma’idah 5:116-117)


I found that Biblical verses like John 5:30, John 12:49, John 14:28, Isaiah 42:8 and Acts 2:22 support the above mentioned verses of the Quran.


Before leaving the subject of Christianity, I should mention one small point of observation. If Christians are Christ-like, why are they not greeting each other with the words; Peace be with you (Salamu Alaikum), as Jesus did in Luke 24:36. As you may be aware, the greeting from one Muslim to another Muslim is Assalamu Alaikum; a Christ-like saying.
B]
The Gospels [/B]

If you read Luke 1:2-3, you will learn, as I did, that Luke (who was not one of the 12 disciples and never met Jesus) said that he himself was not an eyewitness, and the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitnesses, and not as words inspired by God. Incidentally, why does every "Gospel" begin with the introduction According to. Why "according to?" the reason for this is because not a single one of the gospels carries its original author’s autograph! Even the internal evidence of Matthew 9:9 proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name:


"And as Jesus passed forth thence, He (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He (Jesus) saith unto Him (Matthew), follow me (Jesus). And he (Matthew) arose, and followed Him (Jesus)." Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the He’s and the Him’s of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but a third person writing what he saw or heard - a hearsay account and not words inspired by God.


It is worth noting, and well known throughout the religious world, that the choice of the present four "gospels" of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were imposed in the Council of Nicea 325 CE for political purposes under the auspices of the pagan Emperor Constantine, and not by Jesus. Constantine’s mind had not been enlightened either by study or by inspiration. He was a pagan, a tyrant and criminal who murdered his son, his wife and thousands of innocent individuals because of his lust for political power. Constantine ratified other decisions in the Nicene Creed such as the decision to call Christ "the Son of God, only begotten of the father." Literally, hundreds of gospels and religious writings were hidden from the people. Some of those writings were written by Jesus’ disciples, and many of them were eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ actions. The Nicea Council decided to destroy all gospels written in Hebrew, which resulted in the burning of nearly three hundred accounts. If these writings were not more authentic than the four present gospels, they were of equal authenticity. Some of them are still available such as the Gospel of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas which agree with the Quran. The Gospel of Barnabas, until now, is the only eyewitness account of the life and mission of Jesus. Even today, the whole of the Protestant word, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and other sects and denominations condemn the Roman Catholic version of the Bible because it contains seven "extra" books. The Protestant have bravely expunged seven whole books from their word of God. A few of the outcasts are the Books of Judith, Tobnias, Baruch and Esther.


Concerning Jesus’ teachings of the Gospel (Injeel), the Gospel writers frequently mentioned Jesus preaching the Gospel: Matthew 9:35, Mark 8:35, and Luke 20:1. The word "gospel" is recurrently used in the Bible. However, in the New Testament Greek edition the word Evangeline is used in place of the word gospel, which is translated to mean good news. My question was: what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus, and only of the 27 books are known to be attributed as the Gospel of Jesus. The remaining 23 were supposedly written by Paul. Muslims do believe that Jesus was given God’s "Good News." However, they do not recognized the present four Gospels as the utterances of Jesus.


The earliest Gospel is that of Mark’s which was written about 60-75 AD. Mark was the son of Barnabas’s sister. Matthew was a tax collector, a minor official who did not travel around with Jesus. Luke’s Gospel was written much later, and in fact, drawn from the same sources as Mark’s and


Matthew’s. Luke was Paul’s physician, and like Paul, never met Jesus. By the way, did you know that the names Marks and Luke were not included in the 12 appointed disciples of Jesus as mentioned in Matthew 10:2-4?


Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; the first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.


John’s Gospel is from a different source, and was written in about 100 AD. He (John) should not be confused with John, the disciple, who was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE long before this gospel was written. It should be accepted as a reliable account of the life of Jesus, and whether it should be included in the scriptures. Christians, as I once did, boast about the Gospels according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke and according to John. However, if we think about it, there is not a single Gospel according to Jesus himself. According to the preface of the KJV (King James Version) new open Bible study edition, the word "Gospel" was added (see below) to the original titles, "According to John, according to Matthew, according to Luke and according to Mark."


The permission to call "According to" writings the Gospel was not given by Jesus nor by any other divine guidance. These writings; Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, were never originally to be the Gospel. Therefore, Mark 1:1 can not be a true statement that his writing is the gospel of Jesus.


It should be mentioned that Muslims must believe in all Divine scriptures in their original form, their Prophets and making no distinction between them: The Suhuf (Abraham); Torah (Moses); Psalms (David); Gospel - or the Injeel (Jesus); and the Quran (Muhammad). It is clearly stated in the Quran 3:3 that Allah sent down the Torah and the Gospel. However, none of these scriptures remains in its original form now, except the Quran, which was sent for all mankind everywhere and for all times.


In addition to other reasons why the Quran was sent to mankind, as mentioned in 18:4-5 it was sent to warn the Christians of a terrible punishment from God if they cease not in saying:


"Allah has begotten a son."


Muslims sincerely believe that everything Jesus (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) preached was from God; the Gospel (Injeel): The "good news" and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. There is no place mentioned in the present four Gospels that Jesus wrote a single word of his Gospel, nor is it mentioned that Jesus instructed anyone to do so. What passes off, as the "Gospels" today are the works of third party human hands. The Quran 2:79 says:


"And woe to those who write the book with their own hands and they say: "This is from Allah (God)." To traffic with it for a miserable price! So woe to them for what their hands do write, and woe to them for what they earn thereby!"


Jesus As the Son of God


Is Jesus the Son of God? Matthew 3:17 could be used by some Christians to support the divine Sonship of Jesus. If Matthew 3:17, "And Lo a voice for heaven, saying, this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased," is used to support divine Sonship, then there should be no other verse that contradicts or gives equal divine Sonship to another person or persons in the Old or New Testament. However, many references were found in the Old and New Testaments that mentioned someone other than Jesus as having a divine Sonship to God. See Exodus 4:22: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn." II Samuel 7:14 and I Chronicles 22:10: "...and he shall be my son (Solomon)." Jeremiah 31:9: "...and Ephraim is my firstborn." Also, Psalm 2:7.


The word "Son" must not be accepted literally because God addresses many of his chosen servants as son and sons. The Jews have also claimed Ezra to be the Son of God. The New Testament Greek words used for "son" (pias and paida, which mean servant or son in the sense of servant) are translated as son in reference to Jesus and as servant in reference to others in some translations of the Bible.


Further, the term "Father" as used by Jesus corresponds more closely to the term Rabb, i.e. One who nourishes and sustains, so that in Jesus’ doctrine, God is "Father" * Nourisher and Sustainer * of all men. The New Testament also interprets "son of God" to be mystical: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 8:14). This mystical suggestion is further supported with Jesus being called the only begotten Son of God.


In Psalm 2:7, the Lord said to David: "...Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee."


Does this mean that God had two sons? Jesus also said that God is not only his Father but also your Father (Matthew 5:45, 48). Luke 3:38 says: "...Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God."


Who is mentioned in Hebrews 7:3 as like unto the Son of God? It is


Melchisedec, King of Salem, as mentioned in Hebrews 7:1. He (Melchisedec) is more unique than Jesus or Adam. Why is he not preferred to be the Son of God? Moreover, Adam did not have a mother or father, but was the first human being created by God and in the likeness of God to exist in the Garden of Eden and on earth. Wouldn’t this give more rights to Adam to be called the Son of God in its truest meaning?


I would like to share with you an obvious contradiction between John 3:16, Luke 10:25-28 and Matthew 19:16-17. John 3:16 reads: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten, Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."


Now let’s read Luke 10:25-28: And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, what is written in the law? How readest Thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and Thou shalt live.


These verses tell us that the inheritance of eternal life is for anyone who believes and worships no other God, but the One True God. Luke 10:25-28 agrees with Matthew 19:16-17 which says; "And behold, one came and said to him (Jesus), Good teacher, what good things shall I do that I may have eternal life? So he (Jesus) said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? * No one is good but One that is, God. But if you want to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments."


There is no commandment that says to worship Jesus, but there that tells us to worship God alone.


In Luke 4:41, Jesus refused to be called the Son of God by demons. Do you think that Jesus would rebuke the demons, or anyone else for that matter, for telling the truth? Unquestionably, no! Jesus rebuked the demons because they were saying something false by calling him the Son of God. Also, if the demons knew that Jesus was the Christ, for Jesus to shut them up because they called him the Christ is a contradiction to Jesus’ mission. In Luke 9:20 & 21, Jesus said unto his disciples: "But who say ye that I am? Peter answered saying, "The Christ of God, and Jesus straightly charged them and commanded them to tell no man that thing."


Furthermore, verses like John 3:2, John 6:14, John 7:40, Matthew 21:11, Luke 7:16 and 24:19 confirm that Jesus accepted the title of teacher, Prophet and called himself the son of man in Matthew 8:20, 12:40, 17:9 & 12, 26:24, Luke 9:26, 22:48, 22:69, and 24:7. The most conclusive verse that says Jesus is the son (servant) of man is Mark 14:26 where Jesus is mentioning the Day of Reckoning. Jesus specifically said we would see the son of man, not the Son of God, sitting in the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.


The act of begetting is a physical act and such act is against God’s nature. The Qur’an 19:35 says: "It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is." (Maryam 19:35)

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

The Crucifixion

A very significant event in the Christian doctrine is the Crucifixion of Jesus. Before talking about the many controversies surrounding the


Crucifixion, it should be mentioned that it was a gospel of Paul’s which professed the Crucifixion/Resurrection of Jesus (II Timothy 2:8): "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel."


In addition, the gospel of the resurrection in Mark 16:9-20 was already removed from the text by gospel writers in the 1952 edition of the Revised Standard Version and then, for some reasons, restored in the 1971 edition. In many Bibles, if not removed, it is printed in small print or between two brackets and with commentary (See the Revised Standard Version, New American Bible and New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures).


The traditional biblical account of Jesus’ Crucifixion is that he was arrested and crucified by the orders and plans of the chief priest and Jewish elders. This account was denied in the 1960’s by the highest Catholic Christian authority, the Pope. He issued a statement in which he said the Jews had nothing to do with Jesus’ Crucifixion. Did any one of the disciples or the writers of the Gospel see the Crucifixion or the Resurrection? No! In Mark 14:50, it says the disciples forsook Jesus and fled. Even Peter forsook Jesus after the cock crowed three times as Jesus foretold: (Matthew 26:75) And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.


The most likely persons whom may have witnessed this moment in Jesus’ life were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, the mother of Zebedee’s children and other women (Matthew 27:55-56). However, there is no statement or account in the Gospels from those women as to what they saw or heard.


The disciple(s) found the sepulchre where Jesus was laid down, empty, and made the conclusion that he was resurrected because the disciples and other witnesses saw him alive after the alleged Crucifixion. Nobody saw the moment he was resurrected. Jesus himself stated that he did not die on the cross in Luke 24:36-41, as explained in the following paragraphs.


Early Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre, which was empty. She saw somebody standing who looked like a gardener. She recognized him after a conversation to be Jesus and wanted to touch him. Jesus said (John 20:17): "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father..."


Now read Luke 24:36-41: "And as they (disciples) thus spoke, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are you troubled? And why so thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me end see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of boiled fish and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them."


Does a spiritual or dead body have a need to eat food? Jesus eating of food was to prove to the disciples that he was not a spirit, but rather, he was still alive and not dead.


Jesus being alive and not dead is further supported in his own prophecy (Matthew 12:40): "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."


Did Jesus fulfill this miracle? Christians would say "yes," because Jesus died and rose three days later according to Luke 24:36 and Matthew 20:19, to name a few verses. However, in line with the miracle of Jonah and according to the Bible, Jesus only spent one day and two nights in the sepulchre, and not three days and three nights as he prophesied.


Jesus was put in the sepulchre just before sunset on Friday (Good Friday) and was found missing before sunrise on Sunday (Easter). If we were to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the time frame a bit, one may say that Jesus spent three days in the earth, but there is no way and I repeat, no way, that Jesus spent three nights in the earth. We must not forget that the Gospels are explicit in telling us that it was "before sunrise" on Sunday morning that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus and found it empty.


Consequently, there are some inconsistencies as to whether Jesus fulfilled his own prophecy. Whether he was actually crucified, or if the day (Good Friday) of his alleged Crucifixion is wrong. Another significant point to mention is that Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale. The Christians says, Jesus was dead in the belly of the earth/tomb, and this contradicts Jesus’ own prophecy. Jesus said (Luke 11:30): "As Jonah was...so shall the Son of man be."


If Jonah was alive, so was Jesus.


One critical event that took place before the alleged Crucifixion was the prayer of Jesus to God for help. Luke 22:42: "Saying Father if thou be willing, remove this cup (of death) from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine be done."


Jesus’ prayer not to die on the cross was accepted by God according to Luke 22:43 and Hebrews 5:7. Therefore, if all of Jesus’ prayer were accepted by God, including not to die on the cross, how could he have died on the cross?


In Matthew 27:46, it states that while Jesus was on the cross, he said: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?).


If Jesus said these words, it represents a blatant declaration of disbelief according to all theological authorities. This is a great insult as such words could only come from an unbeliever in God. Further, it is incredible that such words should come from a Prophet of God, because God never breaks His promise and His Prophets never complained against His promise, especially when the Prophet’s mission is understood. It could be said that whoever relates that this statement was said by a Prophet (Jesus), is a disbeliever.


Muslims believe, as the Qur’an states, Jesus was not crucified. It was the intention of his enemies to put him to death on the cross, but Allah saved him from their plot. Qur’an 4:157: "That they (Jews) said boasting, "We killed Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah, but they (Jews) killed him not, nor crucified him..." (An Nisa 4:157)

Sorry if this is too long.

[dougmusr]

I hope to explain that Jesus did not preach the religion of Christianity, but a religion that gives all Praise and Worship to The One God.

Christians also believe this. To claim otherwise is to misunderstand Christian teaching.

One of the questions I asked myself as I took an objective (second) look at Christianity was; where did the word Christianity come from and was the word ever mentioned to Jesus? Well, I did not find the word Christianity in the Bible, not even in a Bible dictionary. Specifically, I did not find in the Bible where Jesus called himself a Christian. The word Christian was first mentioned by a pagan to describe those who followed Jesus. It is mentioned one of three times in the New Testament by a pagan and Jew in Antioch about 43 AD, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:38 and 1 Peter 4:16) long after Jesus left this earth. To accept the words of pagans as having any value or association with divinity, Jesus or God is contrary to the teachings of all Prophets.

I'm not sure I even understand the point you're making. I agree the term Christian was not used by Christ, but was used later more as a derogatory description of those who followed Christ by those who don't. I wouldn't call the 10 years or so between Christs death and 43AD to be long after Jesus left this earth.

Jesus prophesied that people would worship him uselessly and believe in doctrines made by men (Matthew 15:9). "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

In this assertion, you are actually supporting the diety of Christ, since this verse was spoken by God through the prophet Isaiah.

Mt 15:7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "

Is 29:13 Therefore the LORD said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths And honor Me with their lips, But have removed their hearts far from Me, And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,

"And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men: "Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?" He will say: "Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the All-Knower o fall that is hidden and unseen.

The Bible and no Christian teaching that I know of asserts that Christ ever claimed Mary was God. If any early Christian writings can be found which are considered authoritative that make this claim, please provide references.

I found that Biblical verses like John 5:30, John 12:49, John 14:28, Isaiah 42:8 and Acts 2:22 support the above mentioned verses of the Quran.

Jn 5:16 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."
18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. 19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. 20 "For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 "For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

How might it be to go before the judge and deny His existance?

[i_m_tipu]

edit..