PDA

View Full Version : Sami Zaatari's Refutations



Sami Zaatari
12-22-2006, 11:34 PM
salam all, one of the worst arguments against Islam is that its god is a moon god! what a funny claim indeed, this is perhaps the most easiest argument to refute:

http://muslim-responses.com/The_Moon..._Moon_God_lie_
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Sami Zaatari
01-03-2007, 03:47 PM
salam all, this article simply quotes passages from the bible, and it all shows that Jesus is NOT God, not a single Quranic passage or hadith is quoted, only the NT:

http://muslim-responses.com/Jesus_in..._in_the_Bible_

the bible agrees, jesus is not God.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-03-2007, 03:49 PM
salam im sure you all know Ali Sina, this rebuttal refutes his arguments on jihad and apostacy in Islam:

http://muslim-responses.com/Apostacy...and_Terrorism_
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-03-2007, 03:50 PM
salam all, as you all know one new argument missionaries bring up is that the Quran fully confirms the book they have, nothing can be further from the truth. since they have lost all hope of converting us by preaching their own beliefs and book, they now try to use the Quran against us saying the Quran confirms our book so believe it! desperation at its worst:

http://muslim-responses.com/the_Qura..._on_the_Bible_
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
Sami Zaatari
01-09-2007, 05:45 PM
there is a common claim that the Quran got the trinity wrong, but is that true? nop, the Quran got the trinity right, it seems that ppl think theres only one trinity and one form of worship in christianity, that is not the case:

http://muslim-responses.com/Mary_and...d_the_Trinity_
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-10-2007, 02:07 PM
theres one absurd claim that Allah has daughters and the Quran says it also! hmmm from where do they get such claims?

http://muslim-responses.com/Lat_Mana...anat_and_Uzza_
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-11-2007, 11:28 AM
salam, as usual missionaries twist and take out of context, they claim that the blessed prophet Muhammad killed kab al ashraf the jew just because he mocked and spoke against the prophet. as usual the missionary LIES, i say lie because he quotes ibn ishaques sirat yet Ibn Ishaques sirats gives the full details and shows that kab al ashraf didnt merely mock and speak out against the prophet but did worst things! so the missionary blatantly ignores it and takes ibn ishaqus out of context quoting what he likes, and they say they have a holy spirit!

http://muslim-responses.com/Kab_al_A...Kab_al_Ashraf_
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-12-2007, 02:18 PM
salam all. when we read the NT, specifically the parts of paul, we see that paul viewed marriage in a very different light and manner, which is very contrary to how we all view it.

http://muslim-responses.com/Paul_on_...l_on_Marriage_

very strange.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-12-2007, 02:21 PM
salam all, a missionary has claimed the Quran's stance on alcohol is contradictory and confusing, not even close! The Qurans stance on alcohol is perfectly coherent and is not contradictory at all.

the rebuttal: http://muslim-responses.com/Statemen...ments_on_Wine_
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-14-2007, 02:34 PM
salam all, paul made a timing of 'end of times' basically judgement day, however so his timing was completly wrong because we are 1000 years passed his timing:

http://muslim-responses.com/Pauls_Bl...Pauls_Blunder_
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-15-2007, 02:09 PM
christians claim that jesus is god because he is sinless, they say being sinless is an attribute which shows u are god, well if thats true then job must also be god because the bible says that he too is sinless:

http://muslim-responses.com/Is_Job_God/Is_Job_God_ :skeleton:

:?
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-17-2007, 06:58 PM
salam, there is a certain claim being made by arab christians that Allah the God of Islam prays.

let us examine this claim and see if its actually true and what Islamic commentary says on this issue:

http://muslim-responses.com/Does_All...es_Allah_Pray_
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-19-2007, 02:25 PM
salam there is a common claim that the Quran calls christians and jews pigs and monkeys. for one the Quran never calls christians thats, for 2, the Quran called a SEPCIFIC group of jews as such:

http://muslim-responses.com/3_misint...rpreted_ayats_

read the article about what happened, and why it happened, and to who it refered to.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-19-2007, 02:29 PM
certain over-zelous anti-Islamics claim the Quran has NO good teachings, is that true, is it true that the Quran contains not ONE good teaching?

http://muslim-responses.com/No_Good_...ood_Teachings_
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-20-2007, 05:07 PM
a certain arab christian missionary has claimed that the arabic word used in the Quran 'Nikah' means sex or the F word as he puts it, he then claims that the Quran is rude and insulting for using such terms. but are his claims true, does nikah actually mean sex or the f word as he claims? lets see:

http://muslim-responses.com/The_mean...ning_of_Nikah_

and he cant be excused because he is arab.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-21-2007, 02:55 PM
salam all, many often always bring this marriage up to try and attack the blessed prophet. they claim it was an unjust and unfair marriage and an act of cruelty to the jews! obviously they havent read the Islamic sources well enough, had they done so they would have seen that there was nothing wrong with this marriage:

http://muslim-responses.com/Marriage...with_Safiyyah_
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-21-2007, 03:00 PM
salam all, many times christians quote specific verses from the bible about false prophets and then go on to claim that the prophet Muhammad falls under him. well let us see if thats true, i have brought up the main verses that christians always bring up to try to disprove the prophethood of the prophet Muhammad, and when one carefully reads the verses and compares them with the prophet Muhammad one will see that the prophet does not match any of the verses!

http://muslim-responses.com/The_Bibl...alse_prophets_
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-22-2007, 12:48 AM
salam all, a missionary claims that the sources of Islam such as the kaaba, black stone, are all pagan origin, this claim is not new, nor is it true, far from it!

http://muslim-responses.com/The_Sour...rces_of_Islam_
Reply

Sami Zaatari
01-26-2007, 12:34 AM
salam all, there is a claim going around that muslims are allowed to lie its taught in Islam bla bla bla. however so what is really the truth on this issue, are muslims allowed to lie? NO. are muslims allowed to lie during a very specific hard cicrumstance to save their life or the life of another person or to bring peace? then YES. now everyone knows theres a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the 2, and only a fool would try to say its bad to lie on such an occasion and that its something satanic, muslims can lie ONLY under 3 specific cirumstanceS:

http://muslim-responses.com/Islam_on...slam_on_Lying_

no rational person can read that and try to argue this AGAINST Islam unless they are irational or a liar twisting what Islam really says on this issue.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
02-07-2007, 05:48 PM
salam to all, i thought many of you would be interesed to see what a very famous christian saint and church father had to say concerning Christian beliefs, it is a simply a quote from one of his many works, i managed to find it while reading one of his books online on www.newadvent.org

http://muslim-responses.com/Christia...Pagan_beliefs_

the article basically has his large quote on what he said regarding Christian beliefs as in to relation with that of their fellow European Pagans. I would like to see Christian reponses and their views regading his quote after they read it. it is very interesting indeed.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
02-09-2007, 09:42 PM
salam all, there have been many many amazingggg claims against Islam, this is by far the best one lol, this missionary argues that Islam accepts paul, and so does islamic scholarship! lol amazing indeed, they never give up and who knows what else they will come up in the future, but it is an interesting read and a nice refutation:

http://muslim-responses.com/The_Qura...uran_and_Paul_
Reply

Sami Zaatari
02-12-2007, 03:48 PM
salam all, now i know u have all heard this topic over and over again. however so this one is slightly different because the missionary brings up quite a few different arguments that have not really been used before regarding this topic. basically the missionary is getting new tactics in how to deal with this incident, however so the new tactic completly fails as u will shortly see, lol i really think u guys shud read this as u will see what a complete joke the missionary makes of himself, and how the missionary also insults his own god!

http://muslim-responses.com/Aisha_/Aisha_

:)
Reply

Sami Zaatari
02-14-2007, 06:50 PM
salam all, one common missionary claim is that abu afak and bint marwan were killed for mocking! lol what a lie, as i said in my small interview, missionaries only DISTORT the Islamic sources and make things up, let us see what REALLY HAPPENED:

http://muslim-responses.com/Abu_Afak...Afak_and_Asma_
Reply

Goku
02-18-2007, 05:14 PM
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
a certain arab christian missionary has claimed that the arabic word used in the Quran 'Nikah' means sex or the F word as he puts it, he then claims that the Quran is rude and insulting for using such terms. but are his claims true, does nikah actually mean sex or the f word as he claims? lets see:

http://muslim-responses.com/The_mean...ning_of_Nikah_

and he cant be excused because he is arab.
Salaam, actually because he is an Arab he should know what Arabic words mean, therefore not only cannot he not be excused, but he can be accused of deliberately misinforming people and lying, a low tactic.

Non-Arabs could be excused for not knowing Arabic words.

Nikah is a word in Urdu as well, it means to marry, or to engage as in engagement prior to marriage.
Reply

shible
02-18-2007, 05:25 PM
Hi Sami Zaatari,

well it been a while since i have seen your post, but now you have transformed them into a single refutation thread dude.

yet i have only three questions for you

1. All the post you refer seem to be your own posts, why is it so?

2. was it all created by you?

3. give us the source of those post like webpage link other than your webpage?

Since i was curious to know the answers for these questions i hope you would give me some straight answers.........
Reply

Sami Zaatari
02-20-2007, 03:20 AM
salam all, one common argument thrown against muslims and Islam is that Islam allows and advocates slavery etc etc, but what is Islam's position on slavery?:

http://muslim-responses.com/islam_on...am_on_slavery_

:) no other text or law comes even close to what Islam brought concerning slavery and slaves.
Reply

Count DeSheep
02-21-2007, 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
salam all, one common argument thrown against muslims and Islam is that Islam allows and advocates slavery etc etc, but what is Islam's position on slavery?:

http://muslim-responses.com/islam_on...am_on_slavery_

:) no other text or law comes even close to what Islam brought concerning slavery and slaves.
Good to read that. I have a feeling that this one will come in very handy when the next school year rolls around...Not to say that the other ones are useless, it's just that this one is extra special. =D

Thanks for making this thread, Sami. =D
Reply

aamirsaab
02-23-2007, 10:06 PM
:sl:
You know, the best way of getting people to like muslims is to show the positive aspects of Islam, rather than demonising/attacking other religions.

Though I do honestly admit, and take the utmost pride in the fact, that this is just my own opinion.
Reply

Woodrow
02-23-2007, 10:18 PM
Genuine debate is always a healthful thing and if a refutation is handled properly it is seen as an act of love and not an act of demeaning another person.


All refutations on this forum need to be presented in the goal of spreading truth and not to demean any person or any beliefs. Let truth be the only authority and may we keep our personal opinions separated from the love of sharing truth.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-24-2007, 02:19 AM
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
the verses clearly say GOD HATES, so plz dont come make up your own interpretation, your so funny do you think were idiots?
I suppose you that was a typo and you meant to say, "do you think we are idiots?"

Answer: Not everyone.




i even quoted the bible, its not like what they do, claiming Allah is a moon god and prodiving no sources,
Herein lays the problem. The over generalizations. Find any place on this board, or any place else on any board or any of my personal writings where I have even hinted at that opnion. It cannot be done. Yet you used a very inclusive description, "they".

when i make ANY claim i always bring the passages to back it up, naturally they will get upset, but not cause i am insulting or whatever.
Though you have been insulting in your personal remarks in these last few posts. It is insulting because you have not treated me as a person, you have lumped me in with a group and have begun to attack the group rather than limiting debate to what I challenged.

And I do appreciate that you have always given good verse references, even if I do think that you often misunderstand their application. But you know what? You are right with regard to the Esau verse. I will admit that. I need to take a look at that a second time. I'm not convinced that it is enough to paint a picture of God as one who hates. Scripture tells us plainly, "God is love."
1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1 John 4:16
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.
The number of verses that talk about this aspect of God's character drawfs those that speak of God hating. And as I said, in general you will find the context is not about God's character, but about God's reaction to something in particular that needs to be changed. For instance, doing a quick search, the only place in the entire Bible where it has the subject/verb in the form "God hates" is Deuteronomy 16:21-22 "Do not set up any wooden Asherah pole beside the altar you build to the LORD your God, and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the LORD your God hates." Here the problem being addressed is idolatry. And God does hate certain things: idolatry, sin, those who try to usurp God's authority and place in the world, those who do not respect God for who God is. However, once again, I would assert that it is not the individual that God is hating, but the activity that have chosen to partake of. If that activity defines them, then it defines their relationship with God.

Now, as to Esau, and this took only a few minutes not hours. Note that in Romans 9:13 the context, see it is important and you did miss it, is "as it written". So, to understand this passage one has to look back to where Paul took the reference from to understand the verse. That reference is to the prophet Malachi. And spending the 3 seconds it take to flip back to Malachi, one sees the larger context. Malachi is a prophet of God calling the people to repentence. But some of them question their need to repent and others question what difference it makes, questioning God's love for them:

Malachi 1
2 "I have loved you," says the LORD.
"But you ask, 'How have you loved us?'
"Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."
4 Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins."
But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel!'
Here God is declaring his love for Jacob, i.e. Israel (they are one and the same). But the nation question it. "How have you loved us?" And so God calls to their mind the difference in the way that the two brothers faired in life. Jacob did receive his father's blessing and Esau did not. God says that he is the reason behind that. (Now remember he is talking to the nation of Israel, i.e. Jacob, not to Esau.) Of course, there are those who don't really think they need God, that they can, using an American colloquialism, pull themselves up with their own bootstraps. And God simply says that it isn't so.

So, what is the problem. The problem is what God lays out in the following verses -- this too is part of the context and needs to be understood to understand this verse.
6 "A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?" says the LORD Almighty. "It is you, O priests, who show contempt for my name.
"But you ask, 'How have we shown contempt for your name?'
7 "You place defiled food on my altar.
"But you ask, 'How have we defiled you?'
"By saying that the LORD's table is contemptible. 8 When you bring blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice crippled or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?" says the LORD Almighty.

9 "Now implore God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?"-says the LORD Almighty.

10 "Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you," says the LORD Almighty, "and I will accept no offering from your hands. 11 My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty.

12 "But you profane it by saying of the Lord's table, 'It is defiled,' and of its food, 'It is contemptible.' 13 And you say, 'What a burden!' and you sniff at it contemptuously," says the LORD Almighty.
"When you bring injured, crippled or diseased animals and offer them as sacrifices, should I accept them from your hands?" says the LORD. 14 "Cursed is the cheat who has an acceptable male in his flock and vows to give it, but then sacrifices a blemished animal to the Lord. For I am a great king," says the LORD Almighty, "and my name is to be feared among the nations.
In a nutshell, the people are dissing God. They are disrespecting him. They are cheating him. So, what does God do? He says,
"And now this admonition is for you, O priests. If you do not listen, and if you do not set your heart to honor my name," says the LORD Almighty, "I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not set your heart to honor me. Because of you I will rebuke your descendants." (Malachi 2:1-3a)
Note the word - "rebuke". Indeed, as I suggested that is what this is about also.

You see, if you know the story of Jacob and Esau (and you probably do, but maybe others reading this would not) Esau as the firstborn would have expected to inherit the birthright and receive his father's blessing. But Jacob got both of those. Part of it was because Jacob was a conviving trickster. But part of it was because Esau simply did not value it and was willing to sell it cheap. And just as Esau did not respect his father enough to live so as to receive the blessing, so too Jacob's descendants ought not to assume that their favor with God is a guarantee. If they live in such a way as to not respect God, then they have no more guarantee of all the blessings they have received than Esau.

That is what I mean by reading the context.

Oh, and one last thing, while the English word is indeed "hated", the Greek word used in Romans is miseo which literally means to love less. Seems to fit the context nicely and took me another 2 minutes to look up.


And one more last thing. While you may not have been directly calling me anti-Islamic, it sure seemed like you were coming awfully close to doing so. You don't know me. So, I don't know how it is that you can jump to such a fast conclusion. Now, you didn't come right out and say it, so maybe I should just leave it at that. But, before you go painting all non-Muslims with a big broad anti-Islamic brush, I encourage you to get to know us as individuals. It could be that a few of us might just happen to surprise you. However, I don't feel a need to respond. If they desire I would rather let the brothers and sisters I have been in more frequent dialogue with voice their opinions as to exactly just how anti-Islamic I am.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-24-2007, 03:34 AM
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
christians claim that jesus is god because he is sinless, they say being sinless is an attribute which shows u are god, well if thats true then job must also be god because the bible says that he too is sinless:

http://muslim-responses.com/Is_Job_God/Is_Job_God_ :skeleton:

:?
.

Take a look at Job 7:21. Job is here speaking, and he himself recognizes that he has sins in his life: "Why do you not pardon my offenses and forgive my sins?" And Job also repents in 42:6, something that a sinless person cannot do. The word "perfect" (or, as you have correctly noted, the Hebrew term is tam) is translated "blameless" by many other versions.

Now, would a sinless person be blameless? Certainly. But not all blameless people are sinless. Yes, tam does contain within it the idea of being undefiled. But halal food would be undefiled, that doesn't mean that it would be appropriate to term it sinless. It just isn't the right word in that context. So too it is not the right word here for Job

The Contemporary English Version simply says, "He was a truly good person, who respected God and refused to do evil." But none of them use the phrase "sinless". If you find the use of the word "perfect" and "blameless" confusing, and I can understand why one might. Then let me suggest another understanding of tam that does fit here, "pious". The Bible says that Job was a pious and upright man, but not sinless.
Reply

Malaikah
02-24-2007, 08:55 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
God's love is indeed universal -- "For God so loved the world that whoever...." Thats a very inclusive statement.
But evil is a part of this world too- does God also love evil? I'm sure you don't think he does... How 'inclusive' is this statement?:?

The others verses which speak of God hating are spoken in the context of discipline and reproof. Just like a parent disciplines a child.
Is there difference? If there is, I don't see it. It is still hate, and it is still hate directed at those who do wrong, isn't it?

I read your explanation about how God hated Esau, and you seem to be justifying it by showing how evil the guy was. I don't understand what difference it makes? Obviously God only hates the evil doers, but Christians claims that God loves even the evil doers. But apparently not this guy?:?
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-24-2007, 02:34 PM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
But evil is a part of this world too- does God also love evil? I'm sure you don't think he does... How 'inclusive' is this statement?:?



Is there difference? If there is, I don't see it. It is still hate, and it is still hate directed at those who do wrong, isn't it?

I read your explanation about how God hated Esau, and you seem to be justifying it by showing how evil the guy was. I don't understand what difference it makes? Obviously God only hates the evil doers, but Christians claims that God loves even the evil doers. But apparently not this guy?:?

Well, first, I do not think that evil or the devil (nor even rocks and trees) are included in the statement, "for God so loved the world", I think the term "world" is used in reference specifically to people, not things.

Second, regarding evil, I said God does hate evil. God does hate sin. Hate and love are very closely linked to one another as human emotions. But in terms of God, love is not really an emotion, but an action. And when we copy God's love, our love to becomes not just an emotion but an action.

Rather, than: "Gee, I'm so sorry to hear that you haven't had anything to eat in a week. Well, remember that God loves you." It becomes, "What? You haven't had anything to eat in a week. Well, let me get you some bread." But there are some who don't want to have anything to do with God. Thus, they can't really receive God's love. I believe that Esau is still loved by God, even as he does not experience it. Should Esau return to God, Esau will experience that wonderful love which is unconditional, unless you consider as a uncodition that you must be willing to accept it.

Heck, and there is no verse to prove this, I believe that should the devil ever repent of his sin of rebellion and submit himself to God's authority that you would find God accepting even the devil again.

So, it isn't anyone's evilness that causes God to reject them. It is their own evilness that causes them to turn their back on God and not receive his love. That condition of living outside of God's love is the equivalent of hate, but God is not the cause.

Does that help?
Reply

Sami Zaatari
02-24-2007, 08:45 PM
Exposing Robert Spencers inconsistency:

http://muslim-responses.com/Robert_S...Inconsistency_

im sure many of you know this anti-islamic, the self-proclaimed scholar on Islam! robert spencer just like many other anti-islamic 'scholars' just show their lack of objectivity and consistency, what can you expect? his own arguments refute his own bible!
Reply

Sami Zaatari
02-26-2007, 08:07 PM
does surah 2 verses 191 preach terrorism? anti-Islamics always bring this verse up and they quote part of it saying slay them wherever you find them. they quote the verse out of context and then mis-interpret it! as they do with many other verses.

http://muslim-responses.com/Slay_the...you_find_them_

the verse is about self defense,not offensive genocide!
Reply

Philosopher
02-26-2007, 08:10 PM
Mr. Zaatari, do you have any counter-rebuttals to Grace Seeker?
Reply

Sami Zaatari
02-27-2007, 01:54 AM
no thank u, im not going to waste time forever on back forth text, i only take my time on articles or a live debate. and from the first response i got on god hates some ppl proves that seeker is simply not worth the time to spend on. :)
Reply

Sami Zaatari
02-27-2007, 03:56 PM
Is there a contradiction regarding the destrucion of Aad as some anti-Islamics claim? The basic argument is that the Quran says it took a day to destroy Aad then says it took 8 days to destroy Aad so which one is it, day or days. :

http://muslim-responses.com/The_Dest...uction_of_Aad_

no contradiction, just blatant distortion and deception. :)
Reply

czgibson
02-27-2007, 06:43 PM
Greetings,

Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
Is there a contradiction regarding the destrucion of Aad as some anti-Islamics claim? The basic argument is that the Quran says it took a day to destroy Aad then says it took 8 days to destroy Aad so which one is it, day or days. :

http://muslim-responses.com/The_Dest...uction_of_Aad_

no contradiction, just blatant distortion and deception. :)
From the latest refutation:

All surah 54 verse 19 says is that Allah carried out a punishment of the people of Ad on a day of contestant calamity for them
I think you might want to check that... :p

Peace
Reply

Woodrow
02-27-2007, 07:05 PM
Perhaps now you see why we do not believe any translation is the Qur'an.

each translator uses different words and a translation is only as good as the translator. None of them are true meanings of the Qur'an, just approximations.

54:19. For We sent against them a furious wind, on a Day of violent Disaster, S P C

Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

54:19. Surely We sent on them a tornado in a day of bitter ill-luck P Y C


Shakir's Quran Translation

54:19. Lo! We let loose on them a raging wind on a day of constant calamity, Y S C


Pickthal's Quran Translation
Reply

NoName55
02-27-2007, 07:40 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Perhaps now you see why we do not believe any translation is the Qur'an.

each translator uses different words and a translation is only as good as the translator. None of them are true meanings of the Qur'an, just approximations.
:sl:


I came up with another 2

إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا صَرْصَرًا فِي يَوْمِ نَحْسٍ مُسْتَمِرٍّ

mohsin khan:
54.19. Verily, we sent against them a furious wind of harsh voice on a Day of evil omen and continuous calamity.


of course! I sent them furious wind on the day of Continuous calamity

:w:
Reply

czgibson
02-27-2007, 08:31 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Perhaps now you see why we do not believe any translation is the Qur'an.

each translator uses different words and a translation is only as good as the translator. None of them are true meanings of the Qur'an, just approximations.
I basically accept that (under a particular view of how translation works, especially with poetic works), although I don't think this is a translation issue. I think it's a straight copying error between two renditions of the same quote as seen on Sami's site:

Lo! We let loose on them a raging wind on a day of constant calamity, [54:19]
All surah 54 verse 19 says is that Allah carried out a punishment of the people of Ad on a day of contestant calamity for them, it does not say that this constant calamity lasted for a day only!
Peace
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-27-2007, 08:35 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


I basically accept that (under a particular view of how translation works, especially with poetic works), although I don't think this is a translation issue. I think it's a straight copying error between two renditions of the same quote as seen on Sami's site:





Peace
Even then it would not be an error in the Qu'ran, but in the human copying. (Perhaps you are saying nothing more than this.)
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-01-2007, 07:36 PM
woopsy daisy, i put this in science section by mistake, so im reposting it here, if an admin reads this can u just delete the one on the science thread. shukran

hello, i decided to put this thread here and not in the refutation section because this is quite a comparitive topic, because basically jesus in the bible made a criteria which can let you know whethor something is from satan and not, and when we put the Quran to that criteria we find that it passes the test which allows us to know that it is not FROM SATAN.

http://muslim-responses.com/Is_the_Q...an_From_Satan_

enjoy, it is a very nice article by another brother from my site, brilliant piece!

http://muslim-responses.com/Is_The_Q...an_from_Satan_
Reply

Sinner
03-03-2007, 10:50 PM
Jesus never mentions the Quran. On the other hand He did have this to say about Scripture -

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

King David, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit states -

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Again, Jesus said this about the words He spoke -

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Either Jesus was a liar or He was telling the truth. Either His words have NOT been preserved for all generations (lost or corrupted) or they have been preserved as promised.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-04-2007, 01:27 AM
The old testemant law, should muslims follow it too? that is the argument this missionary brought up, the reason being is because we muslims always critisize the christians for not obeying the OT when infact us muslims dont follow most of the OT law, however so does the missionaries argument excuse this problem or is he just using deception?

http://muslim-responses.com/Obeying_...eying_the_Law_

you decide!
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-04-2007, 07:03 PM
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
The old testemant law, should muslims follow it too? that is the argument this missionary brought up, the reason being is because we muslims always critisize the christians for not obeying the OT when infact us muslims dont follow most of the OT law, however so does the missionaries argument excuse this problem or is he just using deception?

http://muslim-responses.com/Obeying_...eying_the_Law_

you decide!

If you read what the missionary wrote, you will see that the missionary's argument was NOT as Mr. Zaatari has stated -- that Muslims should keep the OT Law because they criticize Christians for not doing so. The missionary, Mr. Shamoun's argument was that "Islam makes it mandatory for its converts, specifically Jewish ones, to continue to observe OT laws such as Sabbath, dietary restrictions etc..." and yet "one of Muhammad’s widows, a Jewish captive who converted to Islam, was accused of observing the Sabbath." This is set for by Mr. Shamoun as a type of hypocrisy. Further he argues that "many Muslim apologists and polemicists...accuse Paul and/or the NT writers of setting aside certain OT commands, which presupposes that a true messenger or prophet would never allow such things to take place", but of course "the OT doesn’t merely forbid pig meat but also prohibits the consumption of camel meat and certain sea creatures, all of which the Quran makes permissible for eating."

Personally, I think the missionaries arguments are rather weak. But they are NOT as Mr. Zaatari has stated.

Mr Zaatari also implies that Christians do not truly follow Jesus, because we claim to worship Jesus and give thanks for his sacrifice for our sins. Something which Mr. Zaatari says that Jesus never claimed to be about and asking for proof of it from the Christians scriptures quotes many passages that have no relationship to that question. You see his argument succintly put in this quote from Bassam Zawadi's article which Mr. Zaatari submits as a rebuttal to the missionary:
Where on earth did Jesus teach that he came to die for the sins of the world and that his sacrifice came to replace the Law? Where? They can't show this.
Actually we can.

That neither Zawadi nor Zaatari quote any appropriate passages on point does NOT mean that such passages do NOT exist. One has to Luke no further than the first conversation Jesus had with some of his disciples after his resurrection. They were distraught and confused because of the events of the crucifixion: "The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel" (Luke 24:20-21). Note they had a hope for redemption that they now feel will go unmet. And then Jesus mets that need with hope:
He [Jesus] said to them [two of his disciples], "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27)
Yes, Mr. Zaatari and Mr. Zawadi, Jesus does teach that he had to die in order to bring redemption. And this is not the only place where he does so either. It tool time before the disciples reached an awareness that Jesus as the promised Messiah (or in Greek, Christ), but as soon as they came to that realization, then (and not till then) Jesus began to share how his Messiahship would end in death:
Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. (Matthew 16:21)
And again we have this account:
Mark 10
32They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33"We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise."
And Jesus spoke words of this nature not only to his disciples, but to those Jews who opposed his ministry also:
John 8
21Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away [a reference to his coming death], and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come."

22This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, 'Where I go, you cannot come'?"

23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."
Note how Jesus says that not believing in him means that these people will die in their sins. That is because believe in him saves them from their sins.

So much for the argument that this idea originated with Paul. We see it in the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and we see it on the lips of Jesus himself. But I submit that the idea originated with God, God who led the high priest of Israel to unknowingly prophesy as John records:
John 11
49Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,



So, Mr. Zaatari's protests not withstanding, it is simply not true that Jesus never spoke about his sacrificial death. What that has to do with whether or not Christians should be bound by the OT Law, I don't know, but it was a key argument in the article referenced and it needed to be addressed, lest anyone else should read the article and believe the falsehood presented therein.
Reply

Talha777
03-04-2007, 08:44 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The missionary, Mr. Shamoun's argument was that "Islam makes it mandatory for its converts, specifically Jewish ones, to continue to observe OT laws such as Sabbath, dietary restrictions etc..."
Excuse my ignorance, but where does Islam make it mandatory for Jewish converts to continue to observe the Old Testament laws?

Also, brother Sami Zaatari (Assalamu alaikum), are you the REAL Sami Zaatari or just a huge fan?
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-04-2007, 11:33 PM
Originally Posted by Talha777
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The missionary, Mr. Shamoun's argument was that "Islam makes it mandatory for its converts, specifically Jewish ones, to continue to observe OT laws such as Sabbath, dietary restrictions etc..."


Excuse my ignorance, but where does Islam make it mandatory for Jewish converts to continue to observe the Old Testament laws?
I don't know that it does. As I said, I believe that the missionay's actual argument was week. But, given that the rebuttal provided by Mr. Zaatari was in response to something other than what the missionary had clearly said, I believed it required a response to it as well.

People who write great refutations do so by refuting points people have actually made, not strawmen of their own devising. This was certainly one of his less noble efforts.
Reply

dougmusr
03-05-2007, 12:03 AM
about these verses, it is like they dont exist for them! and you cant really blame them neither, but this proves the bible is not god, since how can anyone be ashamed of gods book right?
I don't think I have every heard a Christian say the Bible is God.

You apparently have not read the Bible if you think these verses are meant to encourage cannabalism. Societies that turn their back on God and His laws no longer enjoy His blessings. Some even come under seige by enemies. In many cases, enemies cut off food and water to the adversary resulting in famine and death.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-05-2007, 04:54 AM
Does archaelogy prove the bible? one of the most common method that christian apologists have begun using is archaelogy, they have set it up as a criteria to establish whethor the bible is authentic and from god. a very strange criteria since if we do manage to find archaelogy that contradicts the bible this makes the bible false because the christian made it as a criteria in the first place! and so it has happened! this criteria which many apologists use primarily joseph smith or jay smith completly backfire against him:

http://muslim-responses.com/Archaeol...and_the_Bible_

poor guy.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-05-2007, 12:27 PM
salam all, i am sure you have all heard this common argument and tactic used by missionaries, THE QURAN CLAIMS THE BIBLE IS UNCORRUPT. they always bring this up when we critique the divinity of jesus and the bible, hence their trying to make us stop attacking the bible because the Quran supposedly tells us that their book is uncorrupt. it is a funny claim, because firstly which bible does the Quran confirm, they dont even have one bible, the catholic and protestent are different bibles! so ask them if the Quran confirms the bible, could you tell us which one please? secondly what is more amusing is the Quran never even says BIBLE, it says injil, which means GOSPEL, singular, not GOSPELS plural. so you see why do missionaries say the Quran confirms the bible? using the word bible is the whole deception, one word can change everything, the christian should actually say the Quran confirms the gospel, but offcouse since missionaries are known for deception they say it confirms the BIBLE when no such word is even mentioned in the Quran! they say bible instead of gospel because they know it crushes their entire argument because they believe in the GOSPELS plural not GOSPEL singular which is what the Quran refers to. see how cheeky they are ;). but anyway here is a rebuttal to a missionary who argued the Quran claims that todays gospel gospels bible is the full word of god:

http://muslim-responses.com/the_Qura..._on_the_Bible_

Quranic passages and tafsir is used to refute this shallow argument.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-05-2007, 03:55 PM
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
Does archaelogy prove the bible? one of the most common method that christian apologists have begun using is archaelogy, they have set it up as a criteria to establish whethor the bible is authentic and from god. a very strange criteria since if we do manage to find archaelogy that contradicts the bible this makes the bible false because the christian made it as a criteria in the first place! and so it has happened! this criteria which many apologists use primarily joseph smith or jay smith completly backfire against him.

It is false that Christianity claims that archaeology proves the Bible. Archaeology can edifiy and increase our understanding of the Bible. Some who doubt the authenticity of the Bible's historical account of events may find in archaeology evidence that supports the Biblical record regarding certain events. And indeed, there is much that archaeology has uncovered to support previously doubted bibilical narratives from the life of David, to the fall of Jericho, all the way back to the person of Abraham. But archaeology as a science will never be able to be used to prove the Bible, and not one respectable archaeologist (or an apologist who understands how archaeology works) would ever claim that it does. If the assertion is even true that certain Christian apologist have done so, then in rebutting them, one is rebutting the weakest of apologists; it is still no rebuttal of any worthy argument from science nor is one rebutting the Christian faith.


btw, the archaeollogy which was cited in the article as disproving the Bible, had to do with issues of the dating of fossil records to hundreds of thousands (even millions) of years ago and some Christians who claim a timeline of only a few thousand years ago for creation. You will find a whole thread dealing with these questions: Two questions for Christians (serious) in which these very questions are discussed. In it you will see that it is only a minority in Christianity that are even of the opinion which Mr. Zaatari prides himself on rebutteding. And even they have counter arguments to his thesis, links to which you can find in the thread if you are interested.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-05-2007, 04:07 PM
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
salam all, i am sure you have all heard this common argument and tactic used by missionaries, THE QURAN CLAIMS THE BIBLE IS UNCORRUPT. they always bring this up when we critique the divinity of jesus and the bible, hence their trying to make us stop attacking the bible because the Quran supposedly tells us that their book is uncorrupt. it is a funny claim, because firstly which bible does the Quran confirm, they dont even have one bible, the catholic and protestent are different bibles! so ask them if the Quran confirms the bible, could you tell us which one please? secondly what is more amusing is the Quran never even says BIBLE, it says injil, which means GOSPEL, singular, not GOSPELS plural. so you see why do missionaries say the Quran confirms the bible? using the word bible is the whole deception, one word can change everything, the christian should actually say the Quran confirms the gospel, but offcouse since missionaries are known for deception they say it confirms the BIBLE when no such word is even mentioned in the Quran! they say bible instead of gospel because they know it crushes their entire argument because they believe in the GOSPELS plural not GOSPEL singular which is what the Quran refers to. see how cheeky they are ;). but anyway here is a rebuttal to a missionary who argued the Quran claims that todays gospel gospels bible is the full word of god

Want to talk about cheeky? After repeatedly saying that missionaries use deception by NOT using the correct words, we find that the following is what the missionary he attacks for being deceptive actually wrote:
The Quran says that the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the gospel were all given by God.
The missionary doesn't say "Bible", it is Mr. Zaatari who has put those words in his mouth. Oh, the deceit of it all.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-05-2007, 05:40 PM
just to show you all as to why i dont waste my time with grace seeker here is the reason, notice he says:

The missionary doesn't say "Bible", it is Mr. Zaatari who has put those words in his mouth. Oh, the deceit of it all.

oh really? let me crush you for all to see as to why your not on my level for me to even waste my fingers typing for you, here is what the missionary titled his article:

The Qu'ran says the Bible is not corrupt (http://www.carm.org/islam/Bibletokoran.htm)

this is what the missionary titled his article! so therefore grace seeker you are a LIAR in claiming i made that up and put words in his mouth, you see why you are a joke? YOU SEE WHY I DONT BOTHER REPLYING TO YOU? thank you for showing everyone as to why i dont waste my time with you, because you prove you are a liar, because no one can possibly miss that! i mean it is the TITLE OF THE MISSIONARIES ARTICLE, THAT THE QURAN SAYS THE BIBLE IS NOT CORRUPT, wowwwww.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-05-2007, 05:43 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
It is false that Christianity claims that archaeology proves the Bible. Archaeology can edifiy and increase our understanding of the Bible. Some who doubt the authenticity of the Bible's historical account of events may find in archaeology evidence that supports the Biblical record regarding certain events. And indeed, there is much that archaeology has uncovered to support previously doubted bibilical narratives from the life of David, to the fall of Jericho, all the way back to the person of Abraham. But archaeology as a science will never be able to be used to prove the Bible, and not one respectable archaeologist (or an apologist who understands how archaeology works) would ever claim that it does. If the assertion is even true that certain Christian apologist have done so, then in rebutting them, one is rebutting the weakest of apologists; it is still no rebuttal of any worthy argument from science nor is one rebutting the Christian faith.


btw, the archaeollogy which was cited in the article as disproving the Bible, had to do with issues of the dating of fossil records to hundreds of thousands (even millions) of years ago and some Christians who claim a timeline of only a few thousand years ago for creation. You will find a whole thread dealing with these questions: Two questions for Christians (serious) in which these very questions are discussed. In it you will see that it is only a minority in Christianity that are even of the opinion which Mr. Zaatari prides himself on rebutteding. And even they have counter arguments to his thesis, links to which you can find in the thread if you are interested.
lol you keep showing why i should not waste my time on you, but i am only doing this because some muslims might decieved into thinking that i actually cant respond to you, rather i choose not to respond to you because i feel you are not worth my time and you prove that again. I NEVER SAID CHRISTIANITY claims that acrhaelogy proves christianity or the bible, i said CHRISTIANS AND EVEN GAVE A NAME TO ONE JAY SMITH, did you miss that part or is all you can do is make things up and puts words in my mouth?
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-05-2007, 05:45 PM
so therefore to the admin (who i will not name) who pmed me telling me that certain christians are saying i am misquoting etc, i suggest you pay attention next time to what the christian is saying and check for yourself if the claims are true instead of taking the christian statement for granted and not even bothering to check up and then sending me a private msg insultng me, as they say FEAR ALLAH and dont be so hasty next time in attacking a fellow muslim.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-05-2007, 05:50 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Want to talk about cheeky? After repeatedly saying that missionaries use deception by NOT using the correct words, we find that the following is what the missionary he attacks for being deceptive actually wrote: The missionary doesn't say "Bible", it is Mr. Zaatari who has put those words in his mouth. Oh, the deceit of it all.
let me just add salt to the wound, i will quote the first paragraph of the missionaries article including his title, then we shall see if i put words in his mouth:

The Qu'ran says the Bible is not corrupt


The Muslims repeatedly claim that the Bible has been corrupted and that the Qu'ran is the only trustworthy scripture in existence. This is why Muslims often attack the Bible. But this cannot be acording to the Quran. The Quran says that the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the gospel were all given by God.

hmmmmmmm did anyone notice this missionary say the Quran says the BIBLE is not corrupt? did anyone notice this missionary say muslims attack the BIBLE. and remember what i said, i said a simple word like the bible can decieve everyone, and this missionary does exactly that! he first says bible, then he starts saying the Quran confirms the psalms, books of moses, and gospel, yet this isnt the bible according to the Quran or the christians! so this missionary is playing games, hide and seek you can say, he says the Quran says THE BIBLE isnt corrupt, yet the Quran never says bible, the missionary then rightly says the Quran confirms books of moses, psalms, and the gospel, but that IS NOT THE BIBLE hence there is the deception, the deceptive word game of instering bible into the title and paragraph. :) simple
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-05-2007, 05:54 PM
and lets move on, because i love that claim when i quote bible verses they say i misquote or quote out of context or misinterpret, i sayyyyy no problemo, i wrote an article where i quote violent bible passages AND I FOLLOW IT UP WITH FAMOUS CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY TO THE PASSAGE, hence not my own interpretation but a christian scholars:

http://muslim-responses.com/Commenta...iolent_verses_

so if i am misquoting, if i am a liar, if i am a deciever, then so is every single christian commentary.
Reply

czgibson
03-05-2007, 09:34 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
let me just add salt to the wound, i will quote the first paragraph of the missionaries article including his title, then we shall see if i put words in his mouth:
Sorry, this is just infantile. Why do you keep arguing with such anger whenever someone points out your mistakes?

Calm down with the violent imagery, eh?

The Qu'ran says the Bible is not corrupt


The Muslims repeatedly claim that the Bible has been corrupted and that the Qu'ran is the only trustworthy scripture in existence. This is why Muslims often attack the Bible. But this cannot be acording to the Quran. The Quran says that the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the gospel were all given by God.

hmmmmmmm did anyone notice this missionary say the Quran says the BIBLE is not corrupt?
Not directly, no. He hinted at it, but only the title uses those exact words.

Look, the article you're condemning is pretty badly-written anyway. It's ambiguous, like a lot of religious writing.

The Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel (in Christian usage the singular form here often implies the plural) are pretty much the most important books of the Bible.

The headline writer obviously thought 'The Qur'an says the Bible is not corrupt' was a snappier title than 'The Qur'an says the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel are not corrupt'. Since the article never explicitly states the claim made in its title, only the minor claim that those three sections are uncorrupt, and because of Christian usage (and church tradition, which often ignores minor books of the Bible in its services anyway), you have simply misunderstood the (admittedly confusing) use of language here.

the deceptive word game of instering bible into the title and paragraph. :) simple
I think its only deceptive in an unconscious way. It's just a bad piece of writing.

Relax, please. :)

Peace
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-05-2007, 09:43 PM
i havent been proven wrong at all, i said the missionary claims the bible is not corrupt according to the Quran, someone said i put those words in his mouth, and i did not said, so no i am not wrong nor angry, and i am very relaxed. no mistake has been commited with me, for me to be wrong that article must NOT say the Quran says THE BIBLE is uncorrupt.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-05-2007, 09:45 PM
secondly, the article is deceptive, why? the psalms in Islam is believed to be a book of david, the psalms we have today has many other prayers and words by men other than david, hence this is not the orignal psalms, the Quran also refers to the GOSPEL OF JESUS, christians today have no such gospel but have gospelS hence the Quran does not confirm the christian books so the missionary is being deceptive and twisting what the Quran says, and twists further when he says the Quran confirms the bible when the word bible doesnt exist in the Quran.
Reply

czgibson
03-05-2007, 09:59 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
secondly, the article is deceptive, why? the psalms in Islam is believed to be a book of david, the psalms we have today has many other prayers and words by men other than david, hence this is not the orignal psalms,
Look, it's a difference in the use of language you're talking about here. You have one definition of a word and somebody else is using another one.

If I think the word 'fish' means 'elephant' and you're convinced it means 'photocopier', then we're never going to agree on a statement that includes the word 'fish', are we? We'd have different definitions of it.

the Quran also refers to the GOSPEL OF JESUS, christians today have no such gospel but have gospelS hence the Quran does not confirm the christian books so the missionary is being deceptive and twisting what the Quran says, and twists further when he says the Quran confirms the bible when the word bible doesnt exist in the Quran.
Again, as I've tried to explain, Christians often use the 'gospel' in a different way than you do. There's no point in arguing about it.

It's like when non-Muslims (like me) get confused when Muslims say 'Islam is the oldest religion'. Because we first of all assume 'Islam' means 'the religion founded by Muhammad (pbuh)', so we automatically think 'that can't be true'. But when we understand that in that sentence the speaker is using 'Islam' in the special sense of 'the religious tradition of submitting to god taught by all the prophets', then it makes a lot more sense.

Can you see the point I'm making here?

Peace
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-05-2007, 10:02 PM
yup i see your point, but i disagree not cause your wrong, but because the missionary isnt interpreting it like you, you see your honest and dont have an agenda etc like the site i refuted. when he says bible, he wasnt refering to the gospel only, but the entire book as a whole, the 66 books in the protestent bible, you see and he mixes that up and twists the Quranic terms for the gospel etc interpreting it to mean the entire bible.
Reply

NoName55
03-05-2007, 10:11 PM
twists further when he says the Quran confirms the bible when the word bible doesnt exist in the Quran.
Word Bible is mentioned in Holy Quraan many times
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-05-2007, 10:12 PM
can you show me?
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-05-2007, 10:13 PM
injil isnt bible, bible= collection of books, Quran mentions no such collection of books, it says gospel, injil. the word bible is not in the Quran
Reply

NoName55
03-05-2007, 10:16 PM
Ignrance must be bliss, I never mentioned injil or claim any such thing, I said Bible is mentioned by name
Reply

Woodrow
03-06-2007, 12:25 AM
Originally Posted by NoName55
Ignrance must be bliss, I never mentioned injil or claim any such thing, I said Bible is mentioned by name
Now you have aroused my curiosity. Would you please post the ayyat from the Qur'an that says Bible?
Reply

Umar001
03-06-2007, 12:31 AM
Originally Posted by NoName55
Word Bible is mentioned in Holy Quraan many times
Originally Posted by NoName55
Ignrance must be bliss, I never mentioned injil or claim any such thing, I said Bible is mentioned by name

Assalamu Aleykum Wa Rhametulah

I will repeat Sami's Question:


Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
can you show me?

I will just say, I guess Brother Yusuf Estes says this.

Some say Bible = Biblos = Books = Kitab = Book = Injeel.

I dont find that very convincing. But Allah knows best.
Reply

NoName55
03-06-2007, 12:51 AM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

Assalamu Aleykum Wa Rhametulah

I will repeat Sami's Question:





I will just say, I guess Brother Yusuf Estes says this.

Some say Bible = Biblos = Books = Kitab = Book = Injeel.

I dont find that very convincing. But Allah knows best.
:wasalamex
you guessed it brother.

also the Arab Bible has title Kitaab al-Muqadas which they translate to English as The Holy Bible
:w:

kitaab = book = βίβλος η is pronounced biblos = Bible


Reply

NoName55
03-06-2007, 01:27 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Now you have aroused my curiosity. Would you please post the ayyat from the Qur'an that says Bible?
:sl:
Quraan 5:5

الْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلٌّ لَهُمْ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ مُحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ وَلا مُتَّخِذِي أَخْدَانٍ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالإيمَانِ فَقَدْ حَبِطَ عَمَلُهُ وَهُوَ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ
:w:

Please note here that Allah ta'ala did not say "The food of the People of the injeel or Torah or Zaboor is lawful unto you, But al-Kitaab.
Please also keep in mind I did not say what passes for The Holy Bible today is al-Kitaab al-Muqadas
I also am not saying that there is no Devine message in it whatsoever (that its 100% changed)
Reply

Woodrow
03-06-2007, 04:20 AM
Originally Posted by NoName55

:sl:
Quraan 5:5

الْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلٌّ لَهُمْ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ مُحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ وَلا مُتَّخِذِي أَخْدَانٍ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالإيمَانِ فَقَدْ حَبِطَ عَمَلُهُ وَهُوَ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ
:w:

Please note here that Allah ta'ala did not say "The food of the People of the injeel or Torah or Zaboor is lawful unto you, But al-Kitaab.
Please also keep in mind I did not say what passes for The Holy Bible today is al-Kitaab al-Muqadas
I also am not saying that there is no Devine message in it whatsoever (that its 100% changed)
:w:

The fun of languages. What makes translations so impossible is some times a translation makes sense but it does not carry the same connotation. Now for a word to have the proper connotation it would not be translated into the English word of the same definition. It is true that الْكِتَابَ when alone can be translated as book. However, when spoken in the entire ayyat it no longer has the simple meaning of book it is now definetly stating specific books so the English translation of book no longer has the same connotation. The connotation now can only be taken as Injeel and/or Tauret, but the connotation of the word book is no longer there. It needs to be a word that can only be understood as meaning a specific book or collection of books.

The word al-kitaab الْكِتَابَ, does not translate to or have the same connontation as the word bible. although the word bible may be an approximation to al'-kitaab.

Then to really nit pic, the Qur'an is written entirly in Arabic and Bible is an English word with Greek roots. Since it is not Arabic, it will not be found in the Qur'an. Show me the word Bible written with neat Roman letters in the Qur'an and I will agree Bible is in the Qur'an.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-06-2007, 04:33 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Then to really nit pic, the Qur'an is written entirly in Arabic and Bible is an English word with Greek roots. Since it is not Arabic, it will not be found in the Qur'an. Show me the word Bible written with neat Roman letters in the Qur'an and I will agree Bible is in the Qur'an.
:D

Very good, Woodrow. I think you've proved your point, the word "B-I-B-L-E" is not mentioned anywhere in the Qu'ran.


Now, pardon me, but I don't read Arabic, so I have to use an English translation. Reading from an English translation of the Qu'ran, I find this verse:
O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah. (5:15)
The word "Book" is used three times in this single verse, and I have a sense that it might have a different intent in each of the three instances.

And again the word "BooK" is used in this verse:
And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tavrat and the Injeel. (3"48)
And again in this verse:
And most surely of the followers of the Book there are those who believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to you and (in) that which has been revealed to them, being lowly before Allah; they do not take a small price for the communications of Allah; these it is that have their reward with their Lord; surely Allah is quick in reckoning.(3:199)
Could you help me to understand what is meant in each of these separate instances?



Also, I found this statement interesting:
The word al-kitaab الْكِتَابَ, does not translate to or have the same connontation as the word bible. although the word bible may be an approximation to al'-kitaab.
What is interesting, is that although I don't speak Arabic, I do know a little Turkish, and if one was to ask for a Bible in Turkish, what one would seek is a "Kutsal Kitap", or in English "Holy Book". Further "Kitap" becomes "kitabi" if used as the definite object in a sentence. And just to my untrained eye, I think it is safe to say that the Arabic "al'-kitaab" and the Turkish "kitabi" are cognates of each other. So, are you saying that "al'-kitaab" could not be a reference to The Bible, or just is not in the verse NoName55 cited?
Reply

Woodrow
03-06-2007, 04:58 AM
I am far from being an Arabic speaker and most of the small amount of Arabic I know is the spoken colloquial and not the Qur'anic. However in my opinion and this is just my opinion is that a translation does absolutly no justice in that phrase. A connotation rather then a translation would be closer.

For example :

O followers of the Book to get a closer connontation we would need an English word that gives the feeling of people that had read what was written.

you concealed of the Book that would require a word that means more along the line of seeing but not following what was written

a clear Book from Allah. That would require an English word that means Qur'an.

Keep in mind those are connotations and not translation. Arabic is primarily a language of connotations and quite often an entire sentence needs to be read as one word to get the proper connotation. That part of the language can not be translated.

In trying to understand Arabic in terms of English is almost like trying to describe the concept of transparent to a blind person.

What is so funny that with all of it's complxity, Arabic is easy to learn. It is not a mysterious language and the whole key is to learn to go with the flow. Sort of like learning how to swim , the harder you try and the more you fight the water the faster you will drown.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-06-2007, 05:10 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
In trying to understand Arabic in terms of English is almost like trying to describe the concept of transparent to a blind person.
As most blind people still have some sensitivity to light, I would describe the concept of transparent as that through which light passes without changing the intensity of the light received.

btw, I may have edited my post above while you were composing your response to it.
Reply

NoName55
03-06-2007, 09:36 AM
:sl:

Ah well, My six children have "wasted" time and money on reading arabic, ancient greek/greek, english and I have "failed" to prove a single word. I may as well get them to throw away our collections, since it is obvious we know nothing

Since I and my family are ignorant and Know nothing, someone should tell me why

Allah = God
Mesih = Christ
Yayah = John the baptist
Musa = Moses
Tahrif = corruption, forgery
Jonah = Younas

What formulae were used?

Peace and out (hopefully not permanently)
Reply

NoName55
03-06-2007, 10:19 AM
none told me, why those Arabs say Kitaab al-Muqadas which they translate to English as The Holy Bible

why they(arabs) translate God to Allah?

why they translate Christos >> Christ to Masih

:(

and I have many words, these so called linguists here, could be asked to translate but I shant be doing that since so many of all faith and no faith are ever-ready to twist and distort to suite their games of rebuttal/counter rebuttal << *read* abuse and counter abuse
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-06-2007, 02:43 PM
Pre-destination discussed, a missionary from answering-Islam has come with issues with pre-destination in Islam, which is abit funny since this certain missionary is a calvanist, a sect in christianity that believes in the concept of pre-destination etc:

http://muslim-responses.com/Divine_D...Divine_Decree_
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-06-2007, 06:12 PM
Jesus never mentioned the Qu'ran at all, one way or the other. Jesus said that Satan cannot cast out Satan. If the Qu'ran is casting out Satan, then you are correct that the Qu'ran cannot be from Satan. I see the Qu'ran speak against Satan. However, I'm not sure that speaking against something and actually casting a demon out are the same thing. But that is neither here nor there. At least in the biblical record Jesus did not actually speak one word about the Qu'ran. All such understandings are inferrences drawn by Muslim readers of the Bible, but these inferrences that are not shared by other readers of those texts.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-06-2007, 06:15 PM
i never said jesus said Quran, i said jesus made a criteria to let us know whethor SOMETHING is from satan or not, and the Quran happens to pass that criteria making it not from satan.

and i like your deception, you claim the verses from the bible only mean satan doesnt cast satan out, as in excorsism, WRONG, the context and meaning of that which christian scholars agree on is that satan basically does not oppose himself, whethor it be in excorsim, or whatever thing it may be. for instance stopping evil and so on cannot be from satan because satan makes evil and does bad things so he wouldnt stop it since it opposes himself and divides him. so plz dont come give twisted answers.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-06-2007, 06:17 PM
and lets play along with your claim, that the verse only means in term of excorsism, that satan doesnt cast himself out etc, well the Quran has been used in excorsisms and the prophet Muhammad also once healed a demon possesed boy. so EVEN UNDER YOUR CRITERIA THE QURAN AND THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD CANNOT BE INSPIRED BY SATAN, SO THE SUPER-NATURAL FOUND IN THE QURAN AND MIRACLES PERFORMED BY MUHAMMAD ARENT FROM SATAN. thank you.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-06-2007, 06:33 PM
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
i never said jesus said Quran,
just reading the title of your thread

Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
SO THE SUPER-NATURAL FOUND IN THE QURAN AND MIRACLES PERFORMED BY MUHAMMAD ARENT FROM SATAN. thank you.
I never said that they were. I am not one of those who desires to attack either Islam or the Qu'ran. I don't even mind honest attacks against Christianity. However, I found your attacks to be something less than noble efforts, and I will dispute with you when you make outrageous statements creating strawmen of your own devising to attack and then claiming that defeating them is a defeat of Christianity. Others may be fooled by such tactics, but I am not, and I'll gladly point it out that is what you nearly always attempt to do.

And though you have termed me an "idiot" (he did not do this publically and show his true colors, but do it he did), I still wish you peace.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-06-2007, 09:19 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
none told me, why those Arabs say Kitaab al-Muqadas which they translate to English as The Holy Bible

why they(arabs) translate God to Allah?

why they translate Christos >> Christ to Masih

:(

and I have many words, these so called linguists here, could be asked to translate but I shant be doing that since so many of all faith and no faith are ever-ready to twist and distort to suite their games of rebuttal/counter rebuttal << *read* abuse and counter abuse
Sorry, if you are refering to me as one of the "so called linguists" of other faiths, I don't have an answer for you. I bleieve you are asking the same question I am trying to ask in a different way.

But I don't think anyone is being abusive. I certainly didn't read that in Woodrow's post, and didn't intend that in my response to his.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-06-2007, 09:30 PM
Mr. Zaatari's response to me in another thread where I called him on his word selection, claiming that somebody said something that never appeared in the text of what was posted was as follows:
this is what the missionary titled his article! so therefore grace seeker you are a LIAR in claiming i made that up and put words in his mouth, you see why you are a joke?
I am not trying to sell you on anything. Indeed I read the first post, I also read the link. What I have done follow Mr. Zaatari's lead, and simply make reference to how Mr. Zaatari has titled his article.

Again, I assert, that Jesus never once said "The Quran CANNOT be from Satan.". Mr. Zaatari infers it from other comments that Jesus did say. Whether such an inference is true or false I have chosen not to comment on. But the title is what I would expect to find in a supermarket tabloid, not from a scholar, for those are not Jesus' words. If he had not falsely ascribed that position to Jesus in the title, I would have simply ignored the entire thread.
Reply

NoName55
03-06-2007, 09:30 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Sorry, if you are refering to me as one of the "so called linguists" of other faiths, I don't have an answer for you. You are asking the same question I am in a different way.
No Brother, It is not you pesonally, I am afraid I can't tell you for I may get into more trouble. I suggest you read my first post in this thread and follow all the replies and all will become apparent (I have already been banned from 2 forums in past 3 days) Here every time I find a falsehood by some kid/psuedo scholar, I seem to get hassle (even lost rep points) in one thread which is deleted now, my opponents rep went up by over 200 points within minutes despite him being on falsehood. :(

Ma'asalaama
Reply

Woodrow
03-07-2007, 12:39 AM
Originally Posted by NoName55
:sl:

Ah well, My six children have "wasted" time and money on reading arabic, ancient greek/greek, english and I have "failed" to prove a single word. I may as well get them to throw away our collections, since it is obvious we know nothing

Since I and my family are ignorant and Know nothing, someone should tell me why

Allah = God
Mesih = Christ
Yayah = John the baptist
Musa = Moses
Tahrif = corruption, forgery
Jonah = Younas

What formulae were used?

Peace and out (hopefully not permanently)
You would have to tell me.

All of those words existed long before the first word of English was ever spoken. I do not know why the English speaking people Anglicized them into English sounding words.
Reply

NoName55
03-07-2007, 12:44 AM
:sl:
@ Br. Woodrow, I am rambling, I'll speeak to yo tomrrow
Reply

Woodrow
03-07-2007, 12:48 AM
Originally Posted by NoName55
none told me, why those Arabs say Kitaab al-Muqadas which they translate to English as The Holy Bible

why they(arabs) translate God to Allah?

why they translate Christos >> Christ to Masih

:(

and I have many words, these so called linguists here, could be asked to translate but I shant be doing that since so many of all faith and no faith are ever-ready to twist and distort to suite their games of rebuttal/counter rebuttal << *read* abuse and counter abuse
none told me, why those Arabs say Kitaab al-Muqadas which they translate to English as The Holy Bible
You would have to ask why did the Chrisian missionaries that introduced the KJV to Arabs why they decided to call the Bible, Kitaab al-Muqadas

why they(arabs) translate God to Allah?
That is backwards the question is why did the English change the Arabic Allah(swt) and it's Hebrew and Aramaic spellings to the German word God(swt)

why they translate Christos >> Christ to Masih
Same as above, why did the English and Greeks change the original Arabic/Hebrew/Aramaic words to Christ?
Reply

Woodrow
03-07-2007, 12:56 AM
Originally Posted by NoName55
:sl:
@ Br. Woodrow, I am rambling, I'll speeak to yo tomrrow
:w: Bro.

No problem. I've been known to ramble also.
Reply

NoName55
03-07-2007, 12:57 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
You would have to ask why did the Chrisian missionaries that introduced the KJV to Arabs why they decided to call the Bible, Kitaab al-Muqadas



That is backwards the question is why did the English change the Arabic Allah(swt) and it's Hebrew and Aramaic spellings to the German word God(swt)



Same as above, why did the English and Greeks change the original Arabic/Hebrew/Aramaic words to Christ?
Agreed, since i was pouting/sulking I jus putt them any/every where. all have retired for the nitgh thus none to help me ATm. too much effort is making me unwell
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-07-2007, 04:24 PM
An anti-Islamic Ali Sina who i am sure many of you know who he is has asserted that the prophet Muhammad performed no miracles! quite funny, since this guy is supposedly an expert in Islam yet made such an error in his argumentation showing how little he does know. Sina isnt a christian, rather he is an atheist or agnostic, he doesnt say which one. either way this article shows several miracles performed by the prophet Muhammad which is helpful for muslims if they ever wanted to tell non muslims about the miracles performed by the last and blessed prophet:

http://muslim-responses.com/Prophet_...mads_Miracles_
Reply

Talha777
03-07-2007, 04:56 PM
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

Mr. Ali Sina is an idiot, how can he deny the miracles of the Holy Prophet (salallahu alaihi wa salam)? He uses the ahadith and the sirah to talk about how evil (God forbid) the teachings and actions of our Holy Prophet (salallahu alaihi wa salam) are, yet those same ahadith contains eye witness accounts of the Holy Prophet's (salallahu alaihi wa salam) miracles. So either Mr. Sina has to accept the miracles of the Prophet (salallahu alaihi wa salam) or stop using ahadith in his pathetic arguments against Islam. Of course since he is a dishonest satan and wicked dajjal he will probably continue to pick and choose, and therefore he has no credibility whatsoever.
Reply

Talha777
03-07-2007, 05:02 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
Quote:
arrogant Ali Sina, in this article here attempts to show that the Holy Prophet (S) never commited miracles.

I agree 100% with text in bold
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

On your profile it says you are a Muslim, yet is it true that you are saying that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (salallahu alaihi wa salam) never committed any miracles? If this is true I would like to know the basis for why you are saying such a thing. Jazak Allah Khair.
Reply

Skillganon
03-07-2007, 05:03 PM
Originally Posted by Talha777

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

On your profile it says you are a Muslim, yet is it true that you are saying that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (salallahu alaihi wa salam) never committed any miracles? If this is true I would like to know the basis for why you are saying such a thing. Jazak Allah Khair.
:sl:

I think it is maybe because someone might not know. I did not know once upon a time. or maybe he meant something else
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-07-2007, 05:05 PM
and the article says performed miracles as well, so from where you get commit or the prophet was the source of the miracles is beyond me since that is not what i said, nor what umar said in his rebuttal. :)
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-07-2007, 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
:sl:

I think it is because someone might not know. I did not know once upon a time.
he does believe the prophet Muhammad performed miracles, but he tried to be too smart with words, saying Allah gave the miracles, the power etc, hence the prophet had no miracles because Allah gave them to him and so on, lol which is what we believe! yet that still doesnt mean the prophet had no miracles or performed non, Allah gives the miracle to the prophet, and the prophet carries it out by the will and permission of Allah hence the prophet Muhammad had and did perform miracles!
Reply

Talha777
03-07-2007, 05:09 PM
Okay, after rereading NoName55's posts on this thread, it seems he is saying that he does not believe Holy Prophet (salallahu alaihi wa salam) performed miracles, but rather Allah Taala bestowed these miracles as a Sign of the truthfulness of the Holy Prophet's (salallahu alaihi wa salam) claim to nabuwat and a Sign of the Power of Allah. NoName55 should know that ALL Muslims believe this. The dispute is only the way we are conveying this in terms of terminology. When I say the miracles of Holy Prophet (salallahu alaihi wa salam) for the sake of practicality I am saying the miracles of Allah Taala through the Holy Prophet (salallahu alaihi wa salam). He was after all a human being like us and had no power to perform ANY miracle of his own accord, and this is true for all Prophets. So I hope we have cleared up the misunderstandings. Jazak Allah Khair.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-07-2007, 05:10 PM
some people just like to make themselves look like a genious and argue, anyways i am going for now, enjoy the article and use it on anyone who asks you for miracles of the prophet Muhammad. :)

http://muslim-responses.com/Prophet_...mads_Miracles_

salam. :)
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-07-2007, 06:38 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
You would have to ask why did the Chrisian missionaries that introduced the KJV to Arabs why they decided to call the Bible, Kitaab al-Muqadas
haven't a clue



That is backwards the question is why did the English change the Arabic Allah(swt) and it's Hebrew and Aramaic spellings to the German word God(swt)
This one is easier. It is because the English are descendants of the Normans and Saxons which were Germanic tribes, hence they already had a word for god in their language when the Romans came and introduced them to Christianity.



Same as above, why did the English and Greeks change the original Arabic/Hebrew/Aramaic words to Christ?
Well the English word Christ is derived via the Latin Christus from the Greek word christos.

Paul, in taking the message of the Messiah (whether you think he perverted it or not is another story) to the Greeks used the term christos to talk about the Messiah. My best guess is he was following the pattern established some 200 years before, when the Jews translated the Tanakh into Greek, that Jews themselves used the Greek word christos as the equivalent of the Aramaic word mesiha, which in turn corresponds to the Hebrew word masiah.

(information regarding the translation of Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek taken from The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theoloy, Colin Brown, ed.)
Reply

Zone Maker
03-07-2007, 06:40 PM
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
he does believe the prophet Muhammad performed miracles, but he tried to be too smart with words, saying Allah gave the miracles, the power etc, hence the prophet had no miracles because Allah gave them to him and so on, lol which is what we believe! yet that still doesnt mean the prophet had no miracles or performed non, Allah gives the miracle to the prophet, and the prophet carries it out by the will and permission of Allah hence the prophet Muhammad had and did perform miracles!
:sl:

Isn’t every action we do is by the will and permission of Allah so why miracles are any different?
Does that mean every action we do is not ours too?

:w:
Reply

Woodrow
03-07-2007, 08:18 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
haven't a clue



This one is easier. It is because the English are descendants of the Normans and Saxons which were Germanic tribes, hence they already had a word for god in their language when the Romans came and introduced them to Christianity.



Well the English word Christ is derived via the Latin Christus from the Greek word christos.

Paul, in taking the message of the Messiah (whether you think he perverted it or not is another story) to the Greeks used the term christos to talk about the Messiah. My best guess is he was following the pattern established some 200 years before, when the Jews translated the Tanakh into Greek, that Jews themselves used the Greek word christos as the equivalent of the Aramaic word mesiha, which in turn corresponds to the Hebrew word masiah.

(information regarding the translation of Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek taken from The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theoloy, Colin Brown, ed.)
I agree with that. So this leaves that what is often considered transling those words into Arabic, is not a translation. It is reference to what the English translation was from.

ie:

the Arabic Kitaab al-Muqadas does not translate into the English word Bible. But the English word Bible was translated to be Kitaab al-Muqadas


I know I'm confusing the issue, but possibly somebody understands what I mean.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-07-2007, 08:36 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
I agree with that. So this leaves that what is often considered transling those words into Arabic, is not a translation. It is reference to what the English translation was from.

ie:

the Arabic Kitaab al-Muqadas does not translate into the English word Bible. But the English word Bible was translated to be Kitaab al-Muqadas


I know I'm confusing the issue, but possibly somebody understands what I mean.


You got me confused. But I think I get your point that once upon a time, some missionaries were looking for a word, an Arabic word, by which they could refer to their English Bible, and the one they chose was Kitaab al-Muqadas. The phrase stuck and is used today, but it doesn't mean they got it right.

(How did I do?)


My response (assuming I understood you in the first place): It doesn't matter which way one is going, it is still translation.

bir şey değil = de nada and de nada = bir şey değil

The one being written in Turkish and the other in Spanish.
In English, "bir şey değil" is literally -- a thing (it is) not
In Englsih, "de nada" is literally -- of nothing
Yet both mean "you're welcome" and would by the proper response if someone said Thank-You, in any language.

Thus bir şey değil does indeed translate into de nada, and vice versa.

The only thing that really needs to be addressed is what does "Kitaab al-Muqadas" mean when used in Arabic. If it is used by Arab speakers in reference to the book known as the Bible, then that is what it means. If it isn't used that way, then it isn't what it means. As to its usage in the Qu'ran, it is the same question. What did God mean for the hearers to understand when he gave that word to Muhammad (pbuh)?
Reply

NoName55
03-07-2007, 09:00 PM
one should ask an original arab, one who knows Al-Kitaab before he was accosted by any misionary for example a Paletinian, Iraqi, a Lebenese or an african from egypt or even a sudanese or Ethiopean, They all Know what I'm talking about.

They were Christians long before the English
coptics have always called it الكتاب المقدس
any how, I give up before start being called names like kafir etc again as was done earlier.
Reply

Woodrow
03-07-2007, 09:42 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
one should ask an original arab, one who knows Al-Kitaab before he was accosted by any misionary for example a Paletinian, Iraqi, a Lebenese or an african from egypt or even a sudanese or Ethiopean, They all Know what I'm talking about.

They were Christians long before the English
coptics have always called it الكتاب المقدس
any how, I give up before start being called names like kafir etc again as was done earlier.
That is most likely correct. however although the Coptics call the Bible الكتاب المقدس , it's proper English translation is not Bible although it has taken upon meaning bible. Even the Word Bible has to translated to unerstand what it means in English. Bible itself simply means "book collecection" al ready we have a problem as kitaab just means a single book.

Grace seeker, You understood what I was trying to say.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-08-2007, 05:22 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Even the Word Bible has to translated to unerstand what it means in English. Bible itself simply means "book collecection" al ready we have a problem as kitaab just means a single book.

Correct. Technically THE Bible is a collection of books, a library. But in the common vernacular of today the collection is referred to as a single book called the Bible. I think this was already true by the time of the 7th century (though of course not in English as the language did not exist yet). Thus, it might be that God in giving this word to Muhammad to recite would have used the term as it would have been understood by it hearers, and in referring to the Book, especially a book belonging to Christians, would simply mean the Bible (in its singular form).
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-10-2007, 03:45 AM
salam all, here is some new rebuttals, it is a 2 part rebuttal refuting a missionary from answering-Islam that the prophet Muhammad made false prophecies in the Quran and some of the hadiths:

http://muslim-responses.com/Propheci...s_of_Muhammad_

&

http://muslim-responses.com/Prophecies_2/Prophecies_2_

what is nice about the missionaries arguments is that he actually proves the Quran made true prophecies which is what is so funny! it is very good, and i must thank the missionary it, anyway it should be helpful for muslims whoever come across these arguments or want to show prophecies in the Quran.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
03-11-2007, 07:30 PM
I don't understand your claims. The first thing I read was an attack on the Bible so let us analyze this verse:

25. But if a man finds the betrothed girl in the field, and the man overpowers her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.
26. Whereas to the girl, you shall do nothing the girl did not commit a sin deserving of death, for just as a man rises up against his fellow and murders him, so is this case.
Okay, so this says that the girl who is raped did no sin.

27. Because he found her in the field. The betrothed girl had cried out, but there was no one to save her.

28. If a man finds a virgin girl who was not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
29. the man who lay with her shall give fifty [shekels of] silver to the girl's father, and she shall become his wife, because he violated her. He shall not send her away all the days of his life.
You misunderstand this verse. You see, Jews at this time would not marry a non-virgin women. Therefore, the only way the women would survive is if the perpetrator had to marry this women and the man had to pay for his crimes to in a lot of money.

In those times, although it seems odd to you, this was the best situation for the women because no one would marry the women and she would when leaving her fathers house be all alone forever.

So should I go on, or do you not wish for me to actually provide sanity to this thread and refute your complete lack of understanding when it comes to the Bible.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-11-2007, 08:09 PM
folks notice what manchester is saying, that IT IS THE BEST OPTION FOR THE RAPE VICTIM TO MARRY HER RAPIST. wow! i mean is it just me or what? so there you have it, the bible says the rapist marry his victim, and oh yeah pay a fine for it, just like a parking ticket, thats how the bible views women.

and to refute your -- response that BACK THEN IT WAS DIFFERENT, wrong, arabian culture was the same, a women who is raped is shuned and avoided even dishonored, which happens to this day, yet when Islam came it didnt say the rapist must marry his victim 'because it would be to tough for her to get married' no, it said KILL THE RAPIST, so therefore dont give -- responses by saying its a good thing for the rapist to marry his victim. i mean you also show how weak your god is, why didnt your god make a law stating that a raped lady is no different than a non-raped lady and that ppl who view her differently in a bad way are sinners, why didnt you god just fix the society? so your response shows your god is weak and in-effective and is useless, instead of changing the society and how ppl view things he doesnt change it, he just carries it on by making the rapist marry the rape victim. --
Reply

ManchesterFolk
03-11-2007, 09:20 PM
folks notice what manchester is saying, that IT IS THE BEST OPTION FOR THE RAPE VICTIM TO MARRY HER RAPIST. wow! i mean is it just me or what? so there you have it, the bible says the rapist marry his victim, and oh yeah pay a fine for it, just like a parking ticket, thats how the bible views women.

and to refute your -- response that BACK THEN IT WAS DIFFERENT, wrong, arabian culture was the same, a women who is raped is shuned and avoided even dishonored, which happens to this day, yet when Islam came it didnt say the rapist must marry his victim 'because it would be to tough for her to get married' no, it said KILL THE RAPIST, so therefore dont give -- responses by saying its a good thing for the rapist to marry his victim. i mean you also show how weak your god is, why didnt your god make a law stating that a raped lady is no different than a non-raped lady and that ppl who view her differently in a bad way are sinners, why didnt you god just fix the society? so your response shows your god is weak and in-effective and is useless, instead of changing the society and how ppl view things he doesnt change it, he just carries it on by making the rapist marry the rape victim. --
Right, okay so you hate the God of the Bible fine with me. So do you believe any part of the Bible at all was written by God or do you think that the whole Bible is fiction and the real Bible that was "corrupted" was in reality a completly different book?

If so, you could be attacking a version written by God. +o(

'because it would be to tough for her to get married' no, it said KILL THE RAPIST
I think your view oof what the Bible says is a bit different. I am not sure about the Christian interp of the verse, but the wife is not forced to marry him. The wife can not consent and say I do not wish to be married to him.


then the rapist must give the girl's father 50 [shekels] of silver. He must then take the girl he violated as his wife, and he may not send her away as long as he lives.


Read: But only if the girl consents (Yad, Naarah Bethulah 1:3).

In that book, it says that if the girl rejects the marriage option although she might never find a husband because she is no longer a virgin, the rapist might end up being put to death.

___________


On the other hand, what happens in Islam if someone rapes a women and there is only 1 witness to the crime? Is the rapist guilty?


By the way, what does the Quran say you can do to female slaves obtained in war?

Would you like to post the verses or can I?
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-11-2007, 11:04 PM
why dont you? because you prove how weak your claims are, the Quran says muslim men can sleep with captive women, but how does that mean we can rape them or force them? see how weak and twisted your claims are? you have to attack straw man and make things up about the verses, but no worries this topic has been covered already:

http://www.answering-christianity.co...lave_girls.htm

i have more links but that should do. but anyway thanks for the laugh, thanks for showin you can argue honestly. :) but it is fun to see your rookie arguments, plz bring something new, not the same old arguments that have been refuted ages ago.
Reply

rebelishaulman
03-12-2007, 02:08 AM
Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
There really were no slaves in Ancient Israel. There were eveds -- which were more like indentured servants.

There are many mitzvot that apply to the human treatment of eved.

There are two types of eved, Jewish ones and non-Jewish ones. From Torah.org:

An *'eved 'ivri* (lit. Hebrew slave) is a fellow Jew who is either sold into indentured servitude because he stole and cannot pay back, or who was so poor that he sold himself into such servitude. This is the slave who goes free after 6 years, whose ear is pierced if he chooses to stay after 6 years and who, in any case, goes free at the Yovel (Jubilee year). An 'eved 'ivri is 100% Jew and is bound by all of the Mitzvot - with the exception of one marriage/procreative law. (You can read up on the 'eved 'ivri at Shemot [Exodus] 21:1-6, Vayyikra [Leviticus] 25:8-24,39-43, Devarim [Deuteronomy] 15:12-18 and in MT, Hilkhot Avadim, Chapters 1-3). The institution of 'eved 'ivri went the way of the Yovel, with the destruction of the first Temple (586 BCE) and has been "out of practice" since then.

On the other hand, a non-Jew who becomes enslaved to a Jew is called an *'eved k'na'ani*. Such an 'eved, when he/she enters the master's house (whether through purchase or through conquest), goes through a phase of conversion which gives him/her the status of a member of B'nai Yisra'el - albeit without *Kedushat Yisra'el* (the sanctity of Yisra'el). After being freed, the 'eved k'na'ani goes through another conversion (just ablution) process (the nature of this second ablution is subject to a debate among the Rishonim - see MT Issurei Bi'ah 13:12 and Magid Mishneh ad loc.).

An 'eved k'na'ani is obligated to refrain from all Halakhic violations and to fulfill some Mitzvot 'Aseh - the same ones which women are obligated to do. This is argued as follows: There is a corollary between some rules affecting the bill of emancipation of an 'eved k'na'ani and a divorce write, based upon the common word "lah" used in both contexts in the Torah (*gamar lah-lah me'ishah* - Kiddushin 23a). The Gemara in Hagigah (4a) extends this comparison to obligations of Mitzvot - that any Mitzvah which is obligatory for women is incumbent on slaves. Rambam (MT Hagigah 2:1) rules this way.

Read Deuteronomy 23:

16. You shall not deliver a slave to his master if he seeks refuge with you from his master. 17. [Rather,] he shall [be allowed to] reside among you, wherever he chooses within any of your cities, where it is good for him. You shall not oppress him.
This applies to Jewish and non-Jewish eved.

There are many mitzvot that apply to eved -- and yes, a non-Jewish eved could convert and become a Jew.

______

Slavery, Rav Kook explained, is like any other natural phenomenon. It can be used properly and responsibly; or it can be abused. As long as some people are wealthy and powerful, while others are poor and weak, the wealthy will hire out the poor to do their labor and will control them. This is the basis of natural servitude, which exists even if slavery as a formal institution is outlawed.


For example, coal miners are de facto slaves to their employer, and in some ways worse off than legal slaves. The mine owner often cares more about his profits than his workers. He allows his miners to work without proper light and ventilation, in poorly built mines. It does not bother the owner that the workers' lives are shortened due to these abysmal working conditions. He is not overly troubled that the mine may collapse, burying alive thousands of miners — he can always hire more.
Yet, if these miners were his legal slaves, for whom he paid good money, then the owner would look out for their lives and welfare, just as he watches over his machines, animals, and the rest of his property. For this reason, the Torah emphasizes that a slave is his master's property. When it is in the master's self-interest to look after his slave's welfare, the servant can expect a better, more secure future.


The legalized slavery of the Torah only comes to correct certain potential pitfalls of natural servitude. As long as slavery exists, the Torah legislated laws to protect slaves from abuse and mistreatment. If an owner knocked out his slave's tooth, the slave went free. An owner who killed his slave was executed, like any other murderer.
Since the destruction of the Temple, however, the Torah's positive influence upon general society has greatly weakened. The darkness of the Middle Ages severely corrupted natural forms of life, turning slavery and serfdom into a monstrous institution. Instead of protecting the weak by giving them the security of property, slavery became such a horror that humanity decided it needed to be permanently outlawed.

_____

Once in a while a question comes along that gets to the core of everything. Then along comes some smart-aleck to provide an answer and wash the whole thing away.

Questions such as these are not just holes in the ground waiting to be plugged up. They are invitations to spelunk deep beneath the surface, traveling all the way to the bedrock of our beliefs, challenging basic assumptions and redefining the landscape.

Your question is one of those bedrock questions: After all, isn't slavery the antithesis of Torah?

Torah begins with the creation of Adam in the Divine Image. The central event of the Torah narrative is the liberation of an entire nation of slaves from a cruel oppressor. Torah is about liberty, human dignity and respect for our fellow citizens of this planet for which the Creator cares so much. More than Torah is Man's discovery of G-d, Torah is G-d's discovery of Man and his world.

How can that same Torah that makes us kind permit oppressive labor of a fellow Divine Image? You'll note, too, that as soon as the Ten Commandments are done with, where does the Torah begin legislating? "If you will have a maidservant..."--with the rights of the most easily oppressed citizen, a young girl working in your home.

Let me point out another powerful weapon of social upheaval that the Torah espouses, especially through the medium of King David's collection of psalms: The Divine CEO open-door policy. A.k.a. "personal prayer": Any individual, indeed, any living creature, can at any moment, for any complaint, cry out to the Master of the Universe and his/her/its petition will be heard and acted upon. Guaranteed. "This poor man cries out and G-d listens." You may not have thought about this, but those may just be the most radical, subversive and revolutionary words in history. Whereas the kings and priests of old would have their subjects believe that life is a grand chain of command with yours truly on top and you scum on the bottom, this idea of personal prayer flattened all hierarchies: Everyone is equally close to the top of the ladder.

Torah is not just about liberty, Torah liberates in a radical way. Yet here you have these laws about buying and selling slaves. What's going on?

Okay, they're not really slaves. Slaves are people owned by other people. In Torah law, you never have complete ownership over anything. These slaves rest on the seventh day and Jewish holidays, cannot be physically or sexually abused and are obligated in many mitzvot. So they are really more like indentured servants.

But that certainly does not answer our question: Why should any human being be deprived of rights and privileges that others have? Such as the right to live wherever they please, work for whoever they wish to work and quit whenever they want? How does this divvy up with the Torah's assertion that every human being bears the Divine Image?

Maimonides

Yes, there's tension here, and as every good dramatist and massage therapist knows, tension is a good point to play with.

The place we're going to start is Maimonides' Laws of Servants. Being the reckless, impatient souls that we are, we'll start from the very last words.

(You may ask, "Why the obsession with Maimonides? Is he the only authority on everything?"

No, he's not. But he's usually a great place to search for answers.

Maimonides wrote the only codification of the entire gamut of Jewish law-the Mishnah only includes those matters that were not common practice and could come to be forgotten. And the Shulchan Aruch includes only those matters that apply in the time of exile. And he wrote in a concise style with great precision.

Sure, he hit up against lots of controversy for a few hundred years. But eventually he was accepted as the foremost authority since the close of the Babylonian Talmud.)

So here goes:

It is permissible to work a non-Jewish servant harshly. Yet, although this is the law, the way of the pious and the wise is to be compassionate and to pursue justice, not to overburden or oppress a servant, and to provide them from every dish and every drink.

The early sages would give their servants from every dish on their table. They would feed their animals and their servants before sitting to their own meals. Does it not say (Psalms 123:2), "As the eyes of the servant to the hand of his master; as the eyes of the maid to her mistress [so our eyes are towards the L-rd our G-d...]"?

So, too, you should not denigrate a servant, neither physically nor verbally. The Torah made him your servant to do work, not to be disgraced. Do not treat him with constant screaming and anger, rather speak with him pleasantly and listen to his complaints. Such were the good ways in which Job took pride when he said, "Did I ever despise the judgment of my servant and my maid when they argued with me? Did not my Maker make him, too, in the belly; did not the same One form us both in the womb?"

For anger and cruelty are only found among other nations. The children of Abraham, our father-and they are Israel, to whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has provided the goodness of Torah and commanded us righteous judgments and statutes--they are compassionate to all. This is one of the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, that we are commanded to emulate (Psalms 145:9): "And He has compassion for all He has made."

Furthermore, all who have compassion will be treated compassionately, as was stated (Deuteronomy 13:18), "He will give you compassion and He will have compassion upon you and multiply you."

(Mishneh Torah, Laws of Indentured Servants, 9:8)

Tightening the Screws

Reading superficially, you might imagine that Maimonides is presenting us with little more than apologetics. He seems to be saying, "The Torah says we can be real mean, but that's not nice, so we don't do that."

But I'm asking you to read his words a little more carefully. Look for the tension in those words. Tension is meaningful, tension indicates something deep going on: Here you have the Torah telling you to be kind and compassionate towards all G-d's creatures. And this is not just a polite suggestion--this is a command:

"And you shall go in His ways!" (Deuteronomy 28:9)

"Is it possible to say such a thing? Rather, it means that since He is compassionate, you too must be compassionate. Since He is kind, you must also be kind. Since He dresses the naked and feeds the hungry, so must you....." (Midrash Sifri; Talmud, Sotah 14a)

--which Maimonides himself counts as one of the 613 mitzvahs of the Torah (Book of Mitzvot, Positive Commandment #8).

And then the same Torah says, "But you're allowed to be nasty to your slaves"!

The tension screws tighter: Why are we kind and compassionate? Because "the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us His Torah." So how can that same Torah that makes us kind permit oppressive labor of a fellow Divine Image?

How about a little consistency over here? Why can't the Torah start outright with the laws of servants, "If you have people working for you, you must treat them as equals. You must talk to them in a pleasant voice, listen to their complaints, feed them the same food you eat, provide employee benefits, regular vacations, perks and incentives, great office parties, stock options in the company, in-house professional massage therapy at lunch break and a sushi bar on every floor. If you don't like it, do the work yourself."

Why not? Because that would undermine the purpose of Torah.

The Purpose

Let me explain: (notice that now we're getting down to that which I first promised--the bedrock.)

As we discussed, Torah is a radical element in our world. Torah is that which says, "This is not the way things are supposed to be. Do like this. Not like that." That's why Torah had to be given--we couldn't just figure it out on our own. Because to effect real change it must come from "outside the system."

On the other hand, Torah is the essence of all things. As the sages called it, "the blueprint of the universe." So the Torah effects change not by imposing an exogenous order, but by revealing the inner, hidden order latent within all things. Torah is very much like a good teacher, one who shows you who you really are--which may be very different, even the opposite, of who you think you are.

The Torah effects change not by imposing an exogenous order, but by revealing the inner, hidden order latent within all things. So the Torah, of necessity, has two faces. Unlike human wisdom which has one face. Human wisdom must either reject or accept the status quo. But Torah is a voice heard from beyond--and so it may have two faces at once.

On the one hand, the Torah speaks from a future that has yet to occur, inspiring us with its vision, pulling us toward that time.

On the other hand, the Torah must deal with the world as it is, not artificially imposing upon it a foreign mold, but bringing it on its own from the place it stands by nature and circumstance to the place it truly belongs.

Let's start simple:

Take an agrarian society surrounded by hostile nations. Go in there and forcefully abolish slavery. The result? War, bloodshed, hatred, prejudice, poverty and eventually, a return to slavery until the underlying conditions change. Which is pretty much what happened in the American South when the semi-industrialized North imposed their laws upon the agrarian South. And in Texas when Mexico attempted to abolish slavery among the Anglophones there.

Not a good idea. Better idea: Place humane restrictions upon the institution of indentured servitude. Yes, it's still ugly, but in the meantime, you'll teach people compassion and kindness. Educate. Make workshops. Go white-water rafting together. (Hey, why didn't Abe Lincoln think of white-water rafting?) Eventually, things change and slavery becomes an anachronism for such a society.

Which is pretty much what happened to Jewish society. Note this: At a time when Romans had literally thousands of slaves per citizen, even the wealthiest Jews held very modest numbers of servants. And those servants, the Talmud tells us, were treated better by their masters than foreign kings would treat their own subjects.

Torah teaches us how to run a libertarian society--through education and participation. Elsewhere in the world, emperors and aristocracy knew only how to govern a mass of people through oppression. Look what happened to Rome: When Roman slaves began demanding a day of rest among other privileges, along with talk of a personal relationship directly to G-d, Emperor Constantine made sure to dismiss the whole concept of mitzvahs and human dignity by adopting a stripped-down, benign version of Judaism for his empire. That'll keep 'em quiet, he thought. (And it did, for about one thousand years.)

So the "conservative-radical" approach of Torah is this: Work with the status quo to get beyond it. Torah is more about process than about content.

Climbing Deeper

Are you satisfied with this answer? I'm not. I'm convinced there's a deeper effect that Torah is looking for. Call it "the participatory effect." A.k.a. nurture.

The Participatory Effect tells us that if you want people to follow rules, you put guns to their heads. But if you want them to learn, grow, internalize those rules and be able to teach them to others, you're going to have to involve them in the process of forming those rules.

School teachers do this when they work with their class on the first day to design rules that everyone will see as reasonable and useful. Parents do this when they allow their child to makes mistakes so that s/he will learn from them. A skilled wife is doing this when she gets her husband to believe that he came up with the idea of re-tiling the kitchen floor.

In general, this strategy comes more naturally to women than to men. Men find it much easier to shove their opinions down other people's throats and, if need be, argue the other into the ground until he surrenders. All variations of the old gun-to-the-head technique. Women are designed to nurture, physically and emotionally, so they take naturally to the participatory technique. To quote Gluckel of Hameln, "She was a true woman of valor. She knew how to control her husband's heart."

In Torah, both the masculine and the feminine approaches exist--they're called "The Written Torah" and "The Oral Torah." The Written Torah (principally, the Five Books of Moses, but also including all the Prophets and Scriptures) lays down the law in a fatherly, authoritarian voice. It says: "These are the rules. They are for you own good, whether you understand that or not. I only made them because I love you so much. If you don't like them, just remember that I'm a lot bigger than all of you put together."

Then along comes the mother of us all, The Oral Torah. Although the Oral Torah includes many fixed traditions--some originating from Moses and even earlier--the bulk of the Oral Torah is our own participation in the process of Torah. The Written Torah itself empowers us to discuss matters, expand on that which we have received, extrapolate and make decisions accordingly. It was concerning The Oral Torah that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania declared, "The Torah is not in heaven." It is here, within us, in our struggle to fathom the depths of our received tradition and in our ability to take Torah to the next step.

Of course, that doesn't mean we can make up whatever sounds nice to us and call it Torah. There are rigorous guidelines and a firm set of criteria for a novel idea to be considered Torah. We're dealing with a delicate ecology here--you have to understand the landscape very well before building a highway here and damming a river over there.

But what it does mean is that when you are working through a Torah idea, doing all that examining and letting the creative juices pour (within the guidelines mentioned above), those ideas within your brain and those words that you are speaking are no different than G-d declaring, "I am the L-rd your G-d, etc." at Mount Sinai.

When you are working through a Torah idea, those ideas within your brain and those words that you are speaking are no different than the words of the written Torah themselves. As those Talmudic sages put it, "Any new idea a qualified Torah student comes up with was already given to Moses at Sinai." The idea is new, but it's still Torah. It's new, because until now it was hidden deep within the folds and creases of the package Moses delivered. It's Torah, because all the qualified student did was unfold the package and smooth out the creases.

So if I come up with one of those bright Torah ideas one day, is it my idea or is it Torah? It's both. In The Oral Torah, we and G-d become one.

Getting Real Change

So you can see where I'm getting to with the slavery thing. If G-d would simply and explicitly declare all the rules, precisely as He wants His world to look and what we need to do about it, the Torah would never become real to us. No matter how much we would do and how good we would be, we would remain aliens to the process.

So, too, with slavery (and there are many other examples): In the beginning, the world starts off as a place where oppressing others is a no-qualms, perfectly acceptable practice. It's not just the practice Torah needs to deal with, it's the attitude. So Torah involves us in arriving at that attitude. To the point that we will say, "Even though the Torah lets us, we don't do things that way."

Which means that we've really learnt something. And now, we can teach it to others. Because those things you're just told, those you cannot teach. You can only teach that which you have discovered on your own.

History bears this out. Historically, it has been the Oral Torah, rather than the Written Torah, that has had the greatest impact on civilization. As much as Rome ruled over Judea, Jewish values deeply transformed Rome. One of the results was the legal privileges eventually granted to slaves and the gradual recognition of the value of human life.

Torah involves us in arriving at the right attitude. And now, we can teach it to others. Because you can only teach that which you have discovered on your own. For over a thousand years, the Church managed to subvert the message of Imagio Deo--that every human being is G-dly--despite the repetition of the concept in the Genesis narrative five times. It wasn't until the Italian Renaissance that a new Humanist spirit dawned and the idea could no longer be repressed. "The Oratory on the Dignity of Man" is often touted as the manifesto of the Renaissance and early Humanism. It was composed by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. It's no secret that Pico studied under the greatest rabbis of his time and was obsessed with the Zohar and Kabbalah. There are many more such examples.

The greatest force in the emancipation of slavery in colonial times were the "Society of Friends," also known as the "Quakers." Historians discuss the phenomena of the Quakers in the context of the "Hebraizing of Christianity." Again, their leaders were deeply influenced by readings of the Kabbalah in translation and by humanists who had learned their ideas from rabbinic sources.

The history of emancipation is complex and long--and viciously controversial. In truth, Jews took roles on both sides of the prickly fence. Aaron Lopez, a convert to Judaism, brought slaves on some of his ships to America. On the other hand, Baron Nathan de Rothschild and Sir Moses Montefiore made possible the great Slave Emancipation Act of 1835 by granting 20,000,000 pounds sterling in loan subsidies. In the struggle, eventually the true Jewish spirit prevailed and it is those values that Maimonides espouses that eventually became dominant in our society.

I'll end off with a juicy biographical vignette of one Jew who struggled for the freedom of slaves:

August (Anshel) Bondi was born in Vienna, Austria July 21, 1833. He was the son of Jews who wanted him to have both a religious and a secular education. Caught up as a participant in the failed liberal revolution of 1848, the Bondi family fled to New Orleans and settled in St. Louis, Missouri. Young Bondi encountered, first hand, the horrors of slavery and was deeply disgusted. In 1855 a New York Tribune editorial urged freedom-loving Americans to "hurry out to Kansas to help save the state from the curse of slavery." Bondi responded immediately. He moved to Kansas and along with two other Jews, Theodore Weiner from Poland and Jacob Benjamin from Bohemia established a trading post in Ossa-watomie. Their abolitionist sentiments very soon brought pro-slavery terrorists upon them. Their cabin was burned, their livestock stolen. Their trading post was destroyed in the presence of Federal troops who did nothing. The three courageous Jews joined a rabid local abolitionist, to defend their rights as citizens and to help rid the horror of slavery from Kansas. The Jews joined the Kansas Regulars under the leadership of John Brown.

In a famous battle between the Regulars and the pro-slavery forces at Black Jack Creek, with the bullets whistling viciously above their heads, 23 year old Bondi turned to his 57 year old friend Weiner and asked in Yiddish--"Nu, was meinen Sie jetzt?" (Well, what do you think of this now?) He answered, "Was soll ich meinen? Sof odem moves" (What should I think? Man's life ends in death). Kansas joined the union as a Free State. Bondi married Henrietta Einstein of Louisville, Kentucky in 1860. Their home became a way station for the underground railroad smuggling slaves to the North and freedom. The Civil War began in 1861, Bondi enlisted in the Union army encouraged by the words of his mother. He later wrote in his autobiography, "as a Jew I am obliged to protect institutions that guarantee freedom for all faiths." August Bondi died in 1907, a respected judge and member of his Kansas community.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=305549
Reply

NoName55
03-12-2007, 02:11 AM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
........so you hate the God of the Bible..........So do you believe any part of the Bible at all was written by God or do you think that the whole Bible is fiction and the real Bible that was "corrupted" was in reality a completly different book?
Bismillah Rahman Raheem. Al Hamdulilah Rabbil Alameen wa salat wa Salam ala rasool al Kareem. Maa ba'ad, greeting and peace

I believe in God of The Holy Bible, I also believe that there still remains, even today, in translations, The word of God Almighty. I beg you to read this article
before deciding that we all hate God of Bible, for I am among the millah of Abraham A.S. and worship the same God as he did.

Ma'asalaama


Reply

rebelishaulman
03-12-2007, 02:12 AM
First, note that "Slavery" in the Torah generally refers to temporary
indentured servitude to one's creditor. Such slavery was permitted
under Jewish law. However, the treatment of Jews towards their slaves
was much more humane than that of the surrounding culture, for a key
element of Judaism is to remember that Jews were once slaves in Egypt
(in fact, this is the central theme of the holiday of Pesach).

In Judaism, the slave was protected. Exodus 21:2-11 defines the rights
of the servant. Quoting from the Hertz Penatateuch and Haftorahs:

Slavery, as permitted by the Torah was quite different from Greek
and Roman Slavery, or even the cruel system in some modern
countries down to our own times. In Hebrew law, the slave was not a
thing, but a human being; he was not the chattel of a master who
had unlimited power over him. In the Hebrew language, there is only
one word for slave and servant. Brutal treatment of any slave,
whether Hebrew or heathen, secures his immediate liberty.

Jewish law required that a slave could go free in the seventh year of
service (Exodus 21:2), although his family would not be freed;
although if he came into servitude with a wife, that wife would also
be freed. The slave could, however, indicate that they perferred
bondage to freedom. Every fiftieth year (the "Jubilee"), the slaves
with their families would be emancipated, and property (except house
property in a walled city) would revert to its original owner. (Lev
XXV:8-55).

In Judaism, there is also the concept of an "Eved Canani", a
non-Jewish slave, who is the property of a Jew, as is discussed in
Vayikrah 25:46. This concept of slavery is nothing like slavery that
occurred in America to the Negroes. The slaves were not kidnapped, but
rather were purchased from themselves; i.e., they were offered a sum
of money, or guaranteed shelter and food, in exchange for becoming
slaves. The obligation to treat your slave humanely applies to both
Jewish and non-Jewish slave, as does the obligation to make sure they
have all necessary comforts, even at the expense of their master's own
comfort (e.g., if there are not enough pillows for all, the master
must provide his slaves with pillows before himself).

Slavery is clearly discussed in the Torah, especially in reference to
Canaan, who was cursed by his grandfather Noach to be destined to be
the slaves to the rest of mankind, as stated and repeated a number of
times in Beraishis 9:25-27.

Is slavery moral? We live in a society where same sex marriages,
partial-birth abortions, and mercy killings are considered moral by
many--and perhaps even the majority--of our society. Additionally, it
is considered "sport" to watch two men get together in a ring, and
attempt to injure each other, and we roar in approval when one has
managed to draw blood from the other and knock him unconscious. We
must realize that what we consider moral or immoral is the sum total
of the society in which we live. In Judaism, we've been blessed with
the Torah, which tells us very clearly what is moral and immoral, and
directs us to elevate ourselves above our society and accept the
Torah's definition of morality. When the Torah says that theft is
forbidden, this is not because society has determined that theft is
forbidden, but because G-d is telling us so. Hence, it is forbidden to
steal even in situations that society would not necessarily consider
it theft, such as pirating software from large corporations.
Additionally, when the Torah tells us that there is a Mitzvah to
eradicate Amalek (evil) from the face of the earth (Shemos 17:14-16,
and Devarim 25:17-19), as difficult as it is for us to swallow this,
we must realize that this is the moral thing to do.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-12-2007, 04:52 AM
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
salam all, here is some new rebuttals, it is a 2 part rebuttal refuting a missionary from answering-Islam that the prophet Muhammad made false prophecies in the Quran and some of the hadiths:

http://muslim-responses.com/Propheci...s_of_Muhammad_

Actually reading the article linked to we find the following:

It is titled "Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's article: Muhammad's False Prophecies"

We then find Mr. Zaatari telling us what Mr. Shamoun wrote in this article:
He Wrote

The Holy Bible gives us a test to determine a true prophet from a false one....

In light of what God says in the preceding passage, we will examine several predictions made by Muhammad in the Quran and Islamic traditions to see if whether he passes God's test.
Now does Mr. Zaatari relate to us what those reported discrepancies might be and respond to them? Well, yes, he does in the second link. But in this link, how does Mr. Zaatari respond? He changes the subject"

My Response

The holy Bible also gives you a lot of orders, here are a few from Deuteronomy:

RAPE IS ALLOWED:
Actually, I think this is something that is certainly worth looking more closely at. And I don't think it is wrong for Mr. Zaatari to bring it up. There are passages in the Tanakh that appear to condone terrible things, among them rape. And so they are worthy of talking about. But they are hardly a response to the question Mr. Zaatari has Mr. Shamoun putting before us.

In the second link, Mr. Zaatari feels that Mr. Shamoun has similarly changed the topic, and what is Mr. Zaatari's response when someone does that to him?
To begin with I would like all the readers to notice how Shamoun has gone off topic, he is now switching the topic from supposed false prophecies to the treat of Hudaiybiya, this topic has nothing to do with Shamoun's intended topic. Shamoun merely did this to attack the prophet and try to make the prophet Muhammad look bad.
Well, I would like all the readers to notice how (in the first article) Mr. Zaatari has gone off topic, he has switched the topic from supposed rebuttal of Mr. Shamoun's depiction of false prophecies to state that in Deuteronomy rape is allowed. This issue has nothing to do with Mr. Zaatari's titled topic of a rebuttal of Mr. Shamoun's positions with regard to Muhammad (pbuh). Mr. Zaatari did this to attack the Bible and try to make the God of the Bible look bad.

Now, if he wants to attack God for allowing rape, certainly these threads are here for that purpose as well, but writing articles in which the content and the title match would be helpful. If he wants to rebutt Mr. Shauman's points, entitle it as he did, but stay on topic. If he wants to attack God, then give it that title and don't claim it is a rebuttal of some missionary's view of Muhammad (pbuh).
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-12-2007, 02:40 PM
actually grace you should stop lying and stop mis-reading. my rebuttal is into 2 parts, and both articles are very long, if you had cared to read on from the first article you would see i refuted his point concerning a supposed false prophecy concerning the romans, hence you lie when you claim i divert the topic and dont adress it, i suggest you stop making things up and actually read the articles in full before commenting.

now did i go off topic? NOT EVEN CLOSE, notice shamoun said:

The Holy Bible gives us a test to determine a true prophet from a false one....

shamoun says this and quotes the OT, so therefore i want to see if he is consistent, because yes the OT gives criteria on a false prophet, but at the same time it has orders of god telling ppl to kill, rape, and murder women and children, and when we quote this to christians they reply back (including shamoun) saying ohhhhh this is the OT is not for us christians, hence i want to see if shamoun is consistent, because if he can quote the OT to determine a false prophet, then i too can quote the OT to expose the bible and show it is evil for the murder and rape it orders and no christian can reply back saying buts that the OT etc, its all about CONSISTENCY, you cant use a book to support your claims and then when i quote something from it you say nooooooo thats the OT which is what christians do, you christians always quote the OT to prove jesus is there, to prove false prophets, yet when the brutality of the OT is shown you all of a sudden say thats the OT not for us christians etc etc hence showing how inconsistent you are, and inconsistency is a sign of a FAILED ARGUMENT, hence what i did in the article was not a diversion, it was actually exposing the FOUNDATION OF SHAMOUNS VERY OWN CLAIM showing how inconsistent he is hence throwing out his ENTIRE ARGUMENT. so follow along next time, and even with that said i still went on to refute his supposed false prophecies.

now shamoun did go off topic, he started talking about a treaty, yet the TREATY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A FALSE PROPHECY, IT HAS NO RELEVENCE WHATSOEVER, how does the stipulations of a treaty come into prophecies? thats what you call a red-herring, changing topic and now trying to attack the prophets character, infact shamoun does 2 red-herrings, in his first part he says the Quran makes a false prophecy on the romans, he then changes subject saying that the verse is also probaly added into the Quran hence opening up a new topic which is the textual integrity of the Quran, then in his second part he changes topic AGAIN and starts discussng the treaty and tries to attack the prophets character which backfires because i used his same criteria on the bible.

so please grace read the entire first link, because your claims saying i didnt respond to the false prophecy arguments in the first link is FALSE AND A BLATANT LIE and here is the link again:

http://muslim-responses.com/Propheci...s_of_Muhammad_

you only chose to read a few top paragraphs and then came here and started handing out false information based on your reading of a few paragraphs rather than the article as a whole!
Reply

Keltoi
03-12-2007, 04:52 PM
One must also keep in mind the problem of translating the Old Testament from Hebrew to English correctly. I believe the words in question are taphas and shakab. Taphas means: To catch, handle, lay hold, seize,etc. Shakab means: To lie, lie down, to lie(sexual relations). The passages below show how these words have been translated into English in various Biblical translations.
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; KJV

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917 OT

"If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

Rape isn't necessarily the view being held here. In the original Hebrew, the word for rape is normally [I]chazaq[I]. I believe a better translation of the passage in question would be as follows.

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-12-2007, 08:41 PM
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
actually grace you should stop lying and stop mis-reading. my rebuttal is into 2 parts, and both articles are very long, if you had cared to read on from the first article you would see i refuted his point concerning a supposed false prophecy concerning the romans, hence you lie when you claim i divert the topic and dont adress it, i suggest you stop making things up and actually read the articles in full before commenting.
I did read the articles, that is exactly how I noticed that you had gone off topic, and why I also said that you did eventually address your topic. That you addressed it does not meant that you never went off topic. Like most of the rest of us human beings you are capable of being both correct in part and wrong in part. I gave you credit for both.

now did i go off topic? NOT EVEN CLOSE, notice shamoun said:

The Holy Bible gives us a test to determine a true prophet from a false one....

shamoun says this and quotes the OT, so therefore i want to see if he is consistent, because yes the OT gives criteria on a false prophet, but at the same time it has orders of god telling ppl to kill, rape, and murder women and children,
And this is exactly where you went off topic, because these issues are not relevant to the criteria used to assess a false prophet.

and when we quote this to christians they reply back (including shamoun) saying ohhhhh this is the OT is not for us christians, hence i want to see if shamoun is consistent, because if he can quote the OT to determine a false prophet, then i too can quote the OT to expose the bible and show it is evil for the murder and rape it orders and no christian can reply back saying buts that the OT etc, its all about CONSISTENCY
Exactly, you changed the discussion from being about false prophets to being about consistency. They are different topics. I think the issue of consistency is a very relevant one. Take it on if you wish. But acknowledge that it is a second topic.


now shamoun did go off topic, he started talking about a treaty, yet the TREATY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A FALSE PROPHECY, IT HAS NO RELEVENCE WHATSOEVER, how does the stipulations of a treaty come into prophecies?
I never argued with you on that point.


so please grace read the entire first link, because your claims saying i didnt respond to the false prophecy arguments in the first link is FALSE AND A BLATANT LIE and here is the link again:
My apologies in that what I said made it look like I was saying it was only in the second part that you address the issue of the false prophecy arguments. No, I meant you did keep the focus to that in the second part. Perhaps I need to go back and clarify that I don't mean that you didnt address it at all in the first part, but I do feel that you were initially off topic in the first part and dealing with issues beyond those raised by Mr. Shamoun, at least not in that which you were rebutting.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-12-2007, 08:44 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I believe a better translation of the passage in question would be as follows.

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV
I don't get how this significantly changes what Mr. Zaatari found distasteful in the passage?
Reply

Keltoi
03-13-2007, 02:03 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I don't get how this significantly changes what Mr. Zaatari found distasteful in the passage?
Because the view being held by Sami is that the passage is referring to a virgin being raped, when the correct reading of the passage is a virgin having sexual relations with a man outside of marriage.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-13-2007, 02:13 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Because the view being held by Sami is that the passage is referring to a virgin being raped, when the correct reading of the passage is a virgin having sexual relations with a man outside of marriage.
Yeah, I thought that might be what you were trying to say, but I still get the sense that it was not consenual from words like "he siezes her".
Reply

Keltoi
03-13-2007, 02:28 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Yeah, I thought that might be what you were trying to say, but I still get the sense that it was not consenual from words like "he siezes her".
Well, if one looks at the actual Hebrew words used in this passage, one will notice that the Hebrew word for rape, which is used in other passages referring to forced sexual intercourse, isn't used in this instance. I realize that doesn't repair the English translation of the passage, but I like to refer to the original Hebrew when matters like this come up.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-13-2007, 02:57 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Well, if one looks at the actual Hebrew words used in this passage, one will notice that the Hebrew word for rape, which is used in other passages referring to forced sexual intercourse, isn't used in this instance. I realize that doesn't repair the English translation of the passage, but I like to refer to the original Hebrew when matters like this come up.

I would too, but I only speak Greek, not Hebrew. When you said:
I believe a better translation of the passage in question would be as follows.
I thought that what was posted there was something that you were then comfortable with and had researched for the best way to translate the verbs involved. Which is why, when I saw the phrase "he siezes her" that I said I really didn't see any significant difference.

Having now examined it as best as I can, given my limited knowledge, I see that the verb you translated as "siezed" and that Mr. Zaatari translates as "lay hold" is the same word used in Deuteronomy 21:19 of relationships between parents and a son -- "take hold of". Obviously there it does not mean rape, but it does contain the idea of using force. And a man taking hold of or siezing a woman in order to have sex with her still does not sound consenual. And checking it in my Hebrew dictionary still leaves me feeling the same about it.

I think it is an issue that needs to be seriously addressed. Whether you call it rape or something else, is non-consenual sex forced on a woman by a man something that God ever condones? While my gut response is NO. I think we need to provide better then either my gut or your translation of "and he siezes her and lies with her" if we are going to honestly deal with the problem presented in the text.
Reply

Keltoi
03-13-2007, 03:41 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I would too, but I only speak Greek, not Hebrew. When you said: I thought that what was posted there was something that you were then comfortable with and had researched for the best way to translate the verbs involved. Which is why, when I saw the phrase "he siezes her" that I said I really didn't see any significant difference.

Having now examined it as best as I can, given my limited knowledge, I see that the verb you translated as "siezed" and that Mr. Zaatari translates as "lay hold" is the same word used in Deuteronomy 21:19 of relationships between parents and a son -- "take hold of". Obviously there it does not mean rape, but it does contain the idea of using force. And a man taking hold of or siezing a woman in order to have sex with her still does not sound consenual. And checking it in my Hebrew dictionary still leaves me feeling the same about it.

I think it is an issue that needs to be seriously addressed. Whether you call it rape or something else, is non-consenual sex forced on a woman by a man something that God ever condones? While my gut response is NO. I think we need to provide better then either my gut or your translation of "and he siezes her and lies with her" if we are going to honestly deal with the problem presented in the text.
My point was that I believe the passage is referring to a consensual sexual encounter. Notice the passage that refers to a married woman screaming to signal her struggle? The laws in that case are very clear. The guilty man would be put to death and no sin should be attached to the woman. Now notice the last segment of the passage, the one in question, where it adds the phrase, "and they are found out." Doesn't that seem to imply a consensual act on both their parts?, and that opposed to the married woman both parties are guilty? I understand the discomfort with the word "seized", and that is how I felt about the passage for many years. However, after studying up on the Hebrew translations and meanings behind the passage, it has answered the concerns that I had. In any event, I think you and I as Christians would dismiss any claim that God condones rape, which is probably more important than arguments over specific passages.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-13-2007, 11:37 AM
the verses are about rape, you should read the passages in context and the context points it out, why? well the verses first say that if a man forces a lady a non virgin one and has sex with her he shall be put to death, but the lady will have no sin, she has no sin why? because she was raped and didnt take part in the sexual act but was forced to hence she is innocent and only the man dies, and notice the verses are making it clear that this is refering to a non virgin, then the next passages move on to a virgin, the entire context is about rape, and anyone will see that, the verses first deal with the raped non virgin, and then it moves to the raped virgin, only this time it stipulates a different ruling, which is that the man must marry the rape victim and pay a fine. why would the verses switch from a non virgin to a virgin just like that? because it wants to make the point clear that rape laws are different regarding virgins and non virgins.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
03-13-2007, 12:37 PM
was the prophet Muhammad a pagan? nope! in this new article here we examine some of the common arguments and misconceptions that are raised against the blessed prophet to try and prove that he is a paga, very inconsistent claims:

http://muslim-responses.com/Was_he_a...as_he_a_Pagan_

:)
Reply

rebelishaulman
03-14-2007, 12:50 AM
and then it moves to the raped virgin, only this time it stipulates a different ruling, which is that the man must marry the rape victim and pay a fine. why would the verses switch from a non virgin to a virgin just like that? because it wants to make the point clear that rape laws are different regarding virgins and non virgins.
Because of the virgin, not the crime, and if she would be able to get married. She overall has the choice to put him to death if enough witnesses are there, but most of the time he would be exiled, or jailed.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
04-03-2007, 10:27 AM
salam all, one common claim anti-Islamics bring is the killing of Kinana the Jew, they claim the prophet tortured and murdered him, but is this true? as usual no:

http://muslim-responses.com/The_Kill...ing_of_Kinana_

:) should be helpful for those who have come across this argument and didnt know what to say.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
04-03-2007, 10:32 AM
does Islamic scholarship approve of incest and sodomy?

http://muslim-responses.com/Incest_a...st_and_Sodomy_

refuting a perverted missionary of Answering-Islam.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
04-04-2007, 03:33 PM
salam all, as you all know many anti-Islamics always bring up the argument that Islam allows wife beating, however so let us see what the blessed prophet Muhammad had to say on this matter and what the Islamic concensus is concerning this matter:

http://muslim-responses.com/Wife_Beating/Wife_Beating_

:)
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-05-2007, 07:28 AM
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
salam all, as you all know many anti-Islamics always bring up the argument that Islam allows wife beating, however so let us see what the blessed prophet Muhammad had to say on this matter and what the Islamic concensus is concerning this matter:

http://muslim-responses.com/Wife_Beating/Wife_Beating_

:)
I appreciate this article on wife beating. If all this is true and well known, I would think there would be very little or no beating of one's wife among pious Muslim men. However, as it does occur, is it the author's opinion that it is because these directives regading wife beating are not well known, or is it more likely because many men are less than truly pious?

(Note: The same problem exists in some circles of Christianity. I think it generally occurs then because men listen more to their own voices than to God's voice.)
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-05-2007, 02:20 PM
A man may discipline his wife as he would discipline a child. Are Muslim women to be seen as children?
A man may only do this if his wife is recalcitrant, like a camel. Are Muslim women to be seen as beasts of burden?
Is this the respect that Islam has for women that I am always hearing about?


Also this line from the link:
The Prophet explained it by "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark". He further said that face must be avoided.
So, one may not do it with an intent to cause harm. If it is so light a touch that it leaves no mark, then perhaps it would be better on the face where if a man was being abusive it could be seen by others. I've known of men who savagely punched their wives in the stomach because there would be no mark left.
Reply

Muhammad
04-05-2007, 03:38 PM
Greetings,

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
A man may discipline his wife as he would discipline a child. Are Muslim women to be seen as children?
A man may only do this if his wife is recalcitrant, like a camel. Are Muslim women to be seen as beasts of burden?
Is this the respect that Islam has for women that I am always hearing about?
The answer to your questions is no, that is untrue. This issue has been discussed in depth in a number of places on this forum and its associated site, see for example:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...erse-34-a.html (Tafsir of Sura An-Nisa, verse 34)
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...e-beating.html (Wife beating?)
http://www.load-islam.com/family_soc...hp?topic_id=14
http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...hts-quran.html (womens rights in the quran)

If it is so light a touch that it leaves no mark, then perhaps it would be better on the face where if a man was being abusive it could be seen by others. I've known of men who savagely punched their wives in the stomach because there would be no mark left.
But the face is such that even a light touch can have a devastating effect - if one poked the eye for example. And a tap on the face would probably feel worse than if someone did the same on the arm. The most important thing is how much a person fears Allaah, both in open and in secret and abiding by His commands even if our logic may not enable us to understand.
Reply

MTAFFI
04-05-2007, 04:11 PM
How many days did it take to create Heavens and Earth ?

Quran 7: 54 Your gurdian-Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran 10: 3 Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran 11:7 He it is Who created the heavens and earth in Six Days
Quran-25:29: He Who created the heavens and earth and all that is between, in Six Days

The above verses clearly state that God created the heaven and Allah created the heaven and the Earth in 6 days. But the verses below stated-

Quran 41: 9 Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ?

Quran 41: 10 He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR DAYS…

Quran 41: 12 So He completed them (heavens) as seven firmaments in Two days and …
Reply

MTAFFI
04-05-2007, 04:12 PM
Allah’s Days Equal to 1000 Years or 50,000 Years?

Quran 22: 47 A day in the sight of the Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning. Quran-32:5: To Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be a thousands years of your rekoning

Quran 70: 4 The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a day the measure whereof is Fifty thousands years.
Reply

MTAFFI
04-05-2007, 04:19 PM
Does Earth Spread Out Like Carpet (flat)?
Quran 15: 19 And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon Mountains firm and immovable;

Quran 78: 6-7 Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs (anchor)?
Reply

MTAFFI
04-05-2007, 04:19 PM
Is Man Created From Clotted Blood?
Quran-23:14: Then fashioned We the drop (semen) a CLOT OF CONGEALED BLOOD then fashioned We the Clot a little lump (foetus), fashioned We the little lump into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators. ( Bengali translated Quran said: “Zamaa’t Raokto theeke Manoosh banieesi” And this Ayat has been repeated again and again throughout the Quran ) Quran-75:38: Then he becomes a CLOT; then (Allah) shaped and fashioned…

Quran 96: 2 Created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood
Reply

MTAFFI
04-05-2007, 04:20 PM
A resting place for Sun!?
Quran 36: 38 And the sun runneth on unto a resting place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise.
Quran 36: 39 And for the moon We have appointed mansions till she return like an old shrivelled palm leaf.
Quran 36: 40 It is not for Sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.

Really I thought that we orbited around the sun?
Reply

MTAFFI
04-05-2007, 04:21 PM
My point in posting the above is to show that there are inaccuracies in every religion
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
04-05-2007, 06:52 PM
It doesnt help taking stuff out of context, especially when half the verses your posting start with and, which means something came before or after it.
Reply

rebelishaulman
04-05-2007, 08:02 PM
Now you know how I feel when I see these ridiculous Muslims attack the Torah by copying and pasting from atheist websites and then pleading ignorance to the true meaning. :-[
Reply

MTAFFI
04-05-2007, 08:09 PM
Originally Posted by Jazzy
It doesnt help taking stuff out of context, especially when half the verses your posting start with and, which means something came before or after it.

look the verses up, that is why I posted the verse with reference, there is nothing out of context about it. Not only that but why is it OK for a Muslim to do it about the bible as Sami Zaatari is doing, he is not only quoting out of context but he is also interpreting out of context. i could do the same with the above. Also please note that you also state only half of my verses started with "and" what about the rest? I could quote at least 100 more, my main point with this is, dont disrespect others religions it just isnt right and it may come back to bite you with your own.
Reply

Philosopher
04-05-2007, 09:00 PM
Originally Posted by MTAFFI
How many days did it take to create Heavens and Earth ?

Quran 7: 54 Your gurdian-Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran 10: 3 Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran 11:7 He it is Who created the heavens and earth in Six Days
Quran-25:29: He Who created the heavens and earth and all that is between, in Six Days

The above verses clearly state that God created the heaven and Allah created the heaven and the Earth in 6 days. But the verses below stated-

Quran 41: 9 Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ?

Quran 41: 10 He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR DAYS…

Quran 41: 12 So He completed them (heavens) as seven firmaments in Two days and …
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...orious%20Quran


Originally Posted by MTAFFI
Allah’s Days Equal to 1000 Years or 50,000 Years?

Quran 22: 47 A day in the sight of the Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning. Quran-32:5: To Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be a thousands years of your rekoning

Quran 70: 4 The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a day the measure whereof is Fifty thousands years.
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...orious%20Quran

Is Man Created From Clotted Blood?
Quran-23:14: Then fashioned We the drop (semen) a CLOT OF CONGEALED BLOOD then fashioned We the Clot a little lump (foetus), fashioned We the little lump into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators. ( Bengali translated Quran said: “Zamaa’t Raokto theeke Manoosh banieesi” And this Ayat has been repeated again and again throughout the Quran ) Quran-75:38: Then he becomes a CLOT; then (Allah) shaped and fashioned…

Quran 96: 2 Created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood
http://www.understanding-islam.com/r...rticle&aid=102

Originally Posted by MTAFFI
Does Earth Spread Out Like Carpet (flat)?
Quran 15: 19 And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon Mountains firm and immovable;

Quran 78: 6-7 Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs (anchor)?
http://www.geocities.com/tick_tick_t...way/earth.html

Originally Posted by MTAFFI
A resting place for Sun!?
Quran 36: 38 And the sun runneth on unto a resting place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise.
Quran 36: 39 And for the moon We have appointed mansions till she return like an old shrivelled palm leaf.
Quran 36: 40 It is not for Sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.

Really I thought that we orbited around the sun?
http://miracles-of-allah.blogspot.co...12/orbits.html

All refuted.

Since you are a Christian, I have some lovely gifts for you for Easter 

1.) Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy
2.) Scientific Boo Boos in the Bible
3.) List of Biblical contradictions
4.) Bible and Women
Reply

lavikor201
04-05-2007, 09:26 PM
Philosipher, just put Islam as your religion already. You attack the Bible and Christianity, and then defend the Quran against attacks.

Why lie about being an agnostic?

Also I love how Muslims will use these Bible contradictions from atheists sites.
Reply

Philosopher
04-05-2007, 09:46 PM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
Philosipher, just put Islam as your religion already. You attack the Bible and Christianity, and then defend the Quran against attacks.

Why lie about being an agnostic?

Also I love how Muslims will use these Bible contradictions from atheists sites.
I'm not Muslim because I doubt Allah's existence.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
04-06-2007, 03:07 AM
So you guys have to go just as low i suppose? Well its your decision. I havent done it to u guys have i? So dont talk to me about it. If it itches that much, say it to them directly. Plain and simple.
Reply

lavikor201
04-06-2007, 04:15 AM
Originally Posted by Jazzy
So you guys have to go just as low i suppose? Well its your decision. I havent done it to u guys have i? So dont talk to me about it. If it itches that much, say it to them directly. Plain and simple.
I never posted such a thing, only one person did, so why say "you guys" first of all. Second, no one accused you of doing anything. I generally respect your honest and lovely opinions.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
04-06-2007, 04:31 AM
What I meant was if I bring up that someone is doing the same thing they accuse another of doing, then I get it thrown at me. Not trying to generalise.

Peace
Reply

Muhammad
04-06-2007, 10:14 AM
:sl: and Greetings,

It is not OK for anyone to quote out of context or disrespect other religions. I don't have time to read all the refutations that are posted and so I cannot know whether such a thing is going on. Therefore I would suggest to Sami that you limit your refutations posted here to only defend Islam against accusations and not go into comparative debate.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
04-06-2007, 08:11 PM
Originally Posted by Muhammad
:sl: and Greetings,

It is not OK for anyone to quote out of context or disrespect other religions. I don't have time to read all the refutations that are posted and so I cannot know whether such a thing is going on. Therefore I would suggest to Sami that you limit your refutations posted here to only defend Islam against accusations and not go into comparative debate.

why should i? let them prove their statements first instead of just saying i am doing it, and the rebuttal was a rebuttal refuting a lie against Islam and we simply turned the tables on them using their own bible, there was no taking out of context so no i wont stop doing anything until proven. tell me Muhammad do you tell the non-muslims here to stop posting threads or articles on comparitive religion? i dont think you really do, so why should i, especially when the person doesnt actually prove the article is taking things out of context.

anyways, here is a new rebuttal, the rebuttal is against ali sina refuting his lie that the prophet and his companions were thieves:

http://muslim-responses.com/Looting/Looting_
Reply

lavikor201
04-06-2007, 08:39 PM
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
why should i? let them prove their statements first instead of just saying i am doing it, and the rebuttal was a rebuttal refuting a lie against Islam and we simply turned the tables on them using their own bible, there was no taking out of context so no i wont stop doing anything until proven. tell me Muhammad do you tell the non-muslims here to stop posting threads or articles on comparitive religion? i dont think you really do, so why should i, especially when the person doesnt actually prove the article is taking things out of context.

anyways, here is a new rebuttal, the rebuttal is against ali sina refuting his lie that the prophet and his companions were thieves:

http://muslim-responses.com/Looting/Looting_
You don't take any verses out of context? Not one? :X
Reply

aamirsaab
04-06-2007, 09:19 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
why should i? let them prove their statements first instead of just saying i am doing it, and the rebuttal was a rebuttal refuting a lie against Islam and we simply turned the tables on them using their own bible, there was no taking out of context so no i wont stop doing anything until proven.

Defending Islam via refutations is, mashallah, fantastic, and certainly more than what I can do. Whilst defending Islam, however, there is no need to raise ones voice nor is there a need to disrespect or act in a manner in which others would deem disrespectable.

walaikum asalam.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-06-2007, 09:55 PM
I have noticed that when Mr. Zaatari speaks about Islam that I find him very respectful of other religions. I notice that when he is defending Islam from attacks from other religions, he is general fair there also. He at least posts a link to whatever point he then proceeds to try to refute, in this manner one can read the context in which the refute is written. I appreciate that, because some just quote the line they want to attack, and Mr. Zaatari goes out of his way to make the whole issue available to those who care to read his links.

What I think Mr. Zaatari fails to realize is what is and isn't context when quoting from the scriptures of other religions. This seems to occur, not when Mr. Zaatari is defending Islam, for then he generally sticks to Islamic texts. It seems to occur instaed when he uses the old saying, "the best defense is a good offense" and attacks other religions referring to their own scriptures and tries to debunk them. Certainly that plan makes some sense. It is just that he is not as skilled at handling other people's scriptures as he is at handling his own.

Simply quoting a whole verse (as opposed to the phrase he is interested) is not the same as taking something in context. The context for many biblical statements, such as Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is the whole of Jewish history up to that point in time. When Leviticus says an eye for an eye, it isn't a statement suggesting people be vengeful and get back at people who hurt them. The context was that people were already that way, taking someone's life for the injury to an eyelash. Understood in that light, the biblical injunction was limiting revenge to be no more than the injury suffered. Thus the idea of a proportional response was introduced. When Jesus referred to this passage in his sermon, he went farther and asked people to give up the idea of revernge all together. Examining and explaining is a lot of work and doesn't allow for snappy one-liner come backs, but that is what context is all about. It is about searching for understanding more than winning a point of argument.
Reply

Muhammad
04-09-2007, 06:54 PM
:sl: and Greetings,

Sami Zaatari has now been banned and so this thread shall now be closed.

:threadclo
Reply

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
HeartHijab.com | Hijab Sale | Pound Shop | UK Wholesale Certified Face Masks, Hand Sanitiser & PPE

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!