Muslim-Christian Dialogue

muslims like yusef estes and dr zakir naik, and also ahmad deedat are known to be extremely knowledgeable about Christianity and the bible, in fact, that's what many of their talks on youtube are about I really recommend you watch some of them because there have given talks on this very subject that you mentioned.

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

not being a Muslim, "quoting sources" isn't going to help you. when it comes to translations, you have no idea what is accurate.

Of the verses I quoted, do you have better translation?

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

when it comes to "other sources", you have no idea what is correct and what is misguidance.

Both other sources are muslim site, and they quoted Quran an hadith, you can argue the hadith is not trustworthy, but Quran? They won't be too different from Quran.com, the translations can't be that far off.

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

my advice to you is to ignore other sites. if you have questions, ask people here. they will give you answers, but those won't be based on your "other sites".

based upon your comments and quotes, you have no idea what the Qur'an or the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, says about "the scriptures". NONE! you are way off base.

Again I am quoting Quran, the other sites Quran is also Quran, unless you can show me they are far off. And I don't blindly trust what people here told me, I trust the scriptures more.

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

it is a given fact that what what you call the Torah and Gospel ARE NOT the Taurat and the Injeel. those terms refer to the Messages of Moses, pbuh, and Jesus, pbuh, as they delivered them and NOT the written form they now have.

as 1 example, consider An Nisa(4) ayah 157:



while that is NOT the best translation, the Qur'an SPECIFICALLY states that Jesus, pbuh, WAS NOT crucified! therefore, NEITHER the Qur'an NOR the Prophet, pbuh, CONFIRM what you call the gospel. the only confirm the Injeel of Jesus, pbuh. the crux of what you call "Chritianity", the cruci"fiction", is NOT part of the Injeel.

Thank you, you are finally quoting the Quran. The translations doesn't affect the meaning much. Now by reading the verse you provided, what do we have? Jesus is not crucified and people have no knowledge of that (till Mohammad's time). In that case the people of Jesus' time still saw he was crucified because God make it seem so, and they wrote it in the Gospel accordingly.

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

as i have said, there is scholarship that shows that neither is the Torah from the time of Moses, pbuh, nor is the NT from the time of Jesus, pbuh.

therefore, "the other poster", me, is not worse! i am just telling you the truth.

Again, that is the "truth" told to you by "the other posters", not Quran, you did not provide that information to me through Quran, but from other sources.

format_quote Originally Posted by sugaray21

muslims like yusef estes and dr zakir naik, and also ahmad deedat are known to be extremely knowledgeable about Christianity and the bible, in fact, that's what many of their talks on youtube are about I really recommend you watch some of them because there have given talks on this very subject that you mentioned.

Thanks sugaray, I watched them before, but I think the best way is instead of trusting on some expert Christians or Muslims, ponder on the scriptures.

Ok, fair enough. But I thought they were quoting scriptures? No? You could of course assume that they were being biased, I suppose it is possible. But then would they get up in public and present the information the way they do, and be biased towards islam, when they know there are Christians in the audience who could easily contradict them, surely? There are rules for that kind of thing at those talks, especially the ones that go out for dvd etc etc. I mean, Yusef Estes was a Christi..an for decades, he knows his stuff.

format_quote Originally Posted by sugaray21

Ok, fair enough. But I thought they were quoting scriptures? No? You could of course assume that they were being biased, I suppose it is possible. But then would they get up in public and present the information the way they do, and be biased towards islam, when they know there are Christians in the audience who could easily contradict them, surely? There are rules for that kind of thing at those talks, especially the ones that go out for dvd etc etc. I mean, Yusef Estes was a Christi..an for decades, he knows his stuff.

They quote remarkable less scripture and argue on a lot of not so useful information (in my mind), and a lot of time their argument seems way too opinionated or too board. A lot of the historic things can't be verified (i.e. the Christians were persecuted in the 1st century and can't possible preserve the Bible, or Umr burned Qurans etc., all pure speculation). We are no longer the unbelievers who needs third party evidence to prove God exists, we are people who believe in the word of God, we should be back to the fundamentals and use the word of God as our bases, because that is what we believe in.

I got a huge surprise by Woodrow after I come on the board. He got a beautiful story and I would strongly encourage him to post the link so you guys can see it. It actual changed my mind about Islam. Our path were actual similar (only that I started as atheist, spend many years argue with Christians try to drag them out, and only became devoted in recent years, still have many questions, but researching the Mishnah and Quran right now).

If he did post the link to his story, I recommend everyone to take a look, I think God must have a purpose to make that story happen.

As much as I respect Woodrow, I do disagree with him that he think the entire Gospel is lost. If it is just from a Knowledge perspective, he knows more than I do (I am doing the research now on his leads, which surprise me about how much I don't know about the stuff I thought I know), however if you add in the Quran, I can't find anything in there that hints the entire Gospel is lost.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

I spent 45 years as a Christian. 25 of those years as a Devout Roman Catholic and a one time seminarian. Then 20 years as a "Born Again" Assembly of God Preacher, Evangelist and Pastor. I too was filled with the Holy spirit and spoke in tongues. I lead many people to Jesus(as) with my preaching and Missionary work in the Mideast and other parts of the world.

I not only believed I led others to believe. Than one day after much prayer I came to realize I was living a lie and an error. I tried for 3 more years and continued to preach, but eventually had to admit that was hypocrisy. I had to admit I was an Atheist, no matter how deeply I wanted to believe. I hated to leave Christianity, but could not believe and could no longer bring myself to preach what I came to believe was a Lie.

I lived the next 20 years as an atheist with occasional Agnostic thoughts. At the age of 65 Allaah(swt) led me to the path of Islam and then I discovered how to truly Love Jesus(as) and live what he actually taught.

My point being do not assume that Muslims are naive and unaware of Christianity. Many of us have strong Christian roots and have Christian friends and relatives.

We are willing to live alongside Christians and even share thoughts with them in the interest of mutual respect and understanding. We are not Muslim because we hate Jesus(as) but because we Love him and do our best to live what he actually taught, which is the same message that is found in the Qur'an.

In the interest of peace among all people, let us understand that each of us alone is responsible for the results of our beliefs. We all have the duty to question all things and only follow that which we our self have verified to be true. Allaah(swt) will lead those who desire to be led. No human has the power or the right to cause another person to believe anything.

With that said I find very few things in the NT to be the Actual teachings of Jesus(as). I can not follow that which I can not verify to be true.

I do not expect you to follow that which you do not believe, grant me the same right to not follow that which I do not believe.

I understand what you mean, because to this day the concept of trinity is still a mystery to me. My understanding is God send his holy spirit to us, and the people full of it are prophets (Moses, etc.), Jesus stands as a special one because he is the word of God and is created directly by God almost like Adam (where Adam has no mother).

The reason I like Bible is because of the simple principals, i.e. Love God with all your heart and soul (I am sure Muslims follow this as well), and the manifest of that is that you love your neighbors.

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري

If the basic tenet of Christianity isn't something that speaks to me heart and mind then it doesn't matter the volumes of literature based on that. I am not convinced at the core then we're building a castle on water!
I don't believe in men gods or self immolating gods or gods that can't choose appropriately their apostles so they appear before charlatans.
End of story truly Christianity is monolithic in its approach to 'monotheism' not sure how much longer it can sustain the charade of monotheism when it's clearly very paganistic very multi goded!

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

Greetings dcalling,

The problem in your approach is that you are interpreting the Qur'an using very limited knowledge and an incorrect methodology, which obviously leads to the wrong conclusions. The interpretation of the Qur'an is a vast science in the field of Islamic studies, and it makes sense that a person who is qualified in this science will be better able to grasp the intended meanings of a verse and derive rulings from it, just as a person giving you medical treatment should be a qualified doctor who has studied medicine.

As an example, the Qur'an was revealed in the Arabic language. Translations of the Qur'an are not considered to be the Qur'an - they are simply interpretations of it. When you base your conclusion on a translation, you are giving us your interpretation of an interpretation. Clearly, this is not an accurate or correct way to study the Qur'an let alone with which to contend with Muslims. You cannot use this approach to confirm or disregard a particular meaning of a verse.

There are many other aspects too, such as gathering all the related evidence on an issue, including from the hadith, which are also considered to be an authoritative source in Islam. That is why quoting one verse on its own and relying on a particular translation is unscholarly and can easily be misleading. There will often be other verses and hadith which shed more light and must be considered simultaneously for a correct understanding. Hence referring to experts (scholars of Qur'anic interpretation) is important, because they will possess the pre-requisites that many of us are lacking. Interestingly, you did quote from Islamic scholars (Ibn Kathir and Ibn Jarir at-Tabari) in your earlier post, so I hope you will not be selective in choosing the quotes that match pre-conceived conclusions.

You are very welcome to quote what I have missed from Quran and Hadith. And if my version of the translation is not good enough, please help with more precsis translations. I can understand that sometimes it "feels" different after translation. However good translations does retain most of the meaning (I use Quran.com's translation, if you have better ones please let me know).

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

Please see the earlier post by sister Insaanah, post #26, explaining how the Qur'an 'supersedes the previous scriptures, while being a continuation, confirmation and culmination of the original message contained within them, in its last and final form'.

In the abridged tafsir of ibn Kathir it mentions:

(and Muhayminan over it) means entrusted over it, according to Sufyan Ath-Thawri who narrated it from Abu Ishaq from At-Tamimi from Ibn `Abbas. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "Muhaymin is, `the Trustworthy'. Allah says that the Qur'an is trustworthy over every Divine Book that preceded it.'' This was reported from `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Mujahid, Muhammad bin Ka`b, `Atiyyah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, `Ata' Al-Khurasani, As-Suddi and Ibn Zayd. Ibn Jarir said, "The Qur'an is trustworthy over the Books that preceded it. Therefore, whatever in these previous Books conforms to the Qur'an is true, and whatever disagrees with the Qur'an is false.'' Al-Walibi said that Ibn `Abbas said that Muhayminan means, `Witness'. Mujahid, Qatadah and As-Suddi said the same. Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas said that Muhayminan means, `dominant over the previous Scriptures'. These meanings are similar, as the word Muhaymin includes them all. Consequently, the Qur'an is trustworthy, a witness, and dominant over every Scripture that preceded it. This Glorious Book, which Allah revealed as the Last and Final Book, is the most encompassing, glorious and perfect Book of all times. The Qur'an includes all the good aspects of previous Scriptures and even more, which no previous Scripture ever contained. This is why Allah made it trustworthy, a witness and dominant over all Scriptures. Allah promised that He will protect the Qur'an...
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...=768&Itemid=60

Let's agree on that Quran is trustworthy, dominant over all scriptures, still, from the Quran verses talking about Torah and Gospel, it might indicate change of words, additions, mis-interpert of meanings, but no where it says Torah is totally corrupt or Gospel is lost.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

In response to what you replied to brother YusufNoor:


From the first link I gave you earlier:


Surah 4:157

And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

The verse is making it clear that the crucifixion of Jesus is conjecture or corruption. The crucifixion of Jesus is clearly taught in the Gospels that we have today, thus the Qur'an is clearly in an indirect way saying that this is corrupted.

It is hilarious how some Christians try to argue back that the author of the Qur'an probably did not know that the crucifixion was mentioned in the Gospel and if he had then he probably would not have denied it.

Are Christians seriously asking us to believe that none of the Muslims during the Prophet's time knew that the gospels taught that Jesus was crucified yet at the same time believed that Islam told them to believe that the gospels in the possession of the Christians were pure and undistorted? Couldn't the Prophet have easily been exposed by Christian converts to Islam such as Salmaan al Faarisi or Maryam the Coptic slave girl sent from Egypt to the Prophet peace be upon him who would have known that the gospels taught the crucifixion while at the same time believed that Islam taught them that the gospels were undistorted? How about being exposed Christians and Jews at the time who knew what the gospels contained and should have known that Islam taught their scriptures are uncorrupted (assuming Islam teaches this) and then go expose the Prophet? Why don't we have any of these accusations from the Prophet's enemies at that time? This is something truly ridiculous to believe and requires evidence by Christian missionaries who would issue such a response.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/ev...ish_scriptures

Maybe others claim the above, I never claim that Muhammad doesn't kown Crucifixion. I will even say that Gospel might be mis-translated, small parts might be missing, small parts might be added, but if you trust the Quran, from all the Quran's saying on Torah or Gospel (from that muslim site I provided, so there might be more, please add if you have them), none says Gospel is lost or Torah is totally corrupt. It does state that they are still able to use it to judge themselves (while might be partially changed).

You are putting my quote out of context. I was replay to manor who said "The Quran did not say that Allah can have a son. Please read the Quran before you make assumptions. Thank you ",
which I replied a verse from Quran that says Allah can pick any from among his creations a son. I did not state he has a son or hides a son (which he can do if he wishes, don't you agree?).

And there is no other in power from preventing him from doing so either before or after the reveal of Quran, he is God he can do whatever he pleases. In fact I could even say that if he wishes he can pick all of us as his sons, and when I pray I pray to our heavenly father, because our relationship with God should be like son and father.

format_quote Originally Posted by Dreamin

ِAllah has no need to hide anything. If He wanted to take a son from His creatures, He would've been open about it from the beginning instead of hiding the news for centuries and than several centuries after Jesus, He suddenly got the courage to inspire Paul and other men to bring the news into the open. But that wasn't what happened. Through every Prophet and every Holy scripture, mankind has been taught that God was One and had no partners. Abraham taught this, Moses taught this, Muhammad (Peace be upon all of them) taught this, then how can you expect that all of a sudden, between Prophet Moses (PBUH) and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) the message changed? A name that was never heard before was inserted into the basic religious belief? All of a sudden people were told a totally different faith, that God had a son and He sacrificed that son for mankind's sins, etc etc??? Had any of this been true, it would've been present clearly and unambiguously in every scripture revealed by God from the beginning of time, from the time of Adam (PBUH)!!! But it wasn't. God's message doesn't change. It remains the same. When there is a change, it is caused by humans. Humans like Paul made up the lies about Jesus being God, Jesus being son of God, etc etc. That is why Prophet Moses never taught it and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the Quran refutes it.

Don't take the verses out of context. The verse doesn't mean that God has a son. In fact it refutes the idea that God has a son.
In another verse, chapter 43, verses 81-82 it is stated:

Say, [O Muhammad], "If the Most Merciful had a son, then I would be the first of [his] worshippers."
Exalted is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Lord of the Throne, above what they describe.

My context is that Insaanah (and later YusufNoor supported with evidences from Christian scholars) said "The injeel is no longer in existence ...."
And I quoted Quran that clearly shows the opposite. So far I have not found anything in Quran that approves that the Gospel is lost and Torah is corrupt beyond use, and I don't see how the verses you quoted or your explanation states otherwise.

The Torah and Gospel might have errors, but they are definitely not lost or corrupt beyond use, and you can go through all the quotes from the Muslim website I provided about the previous scriptures and they confirm that (Unless the site didn't list all and there are other verses not mentioned). In fact I think if you look through the Torah and Gospel, excluding a few conflicts that doesn't affect its message, and a few verses about Jesus is the son of God and cruxfied, not much is in conflict with Quran (there might be more, feel free to add them). I don't care much about you think Muhammad witness, criterion, confirm over Torah/Gospel, but I feel the statement "The injeel is no longer in existence ...." is in conflict with what the Quran teaches.

format_quote Originally Posted by Dreamin

Stop taking the verses out of context and picking and choosing only those verses that you can use to strengthen your argument while leaving out those verses that weaken your argument. The verse following the one you
quoted (verse 48 of chapter 5) states:
And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.

Note the word "criterion." It means the following: a standard of judgment or criticism; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criterion?s=t)
That means that the Quran is the book with which we can evaluate and test what is present in previous scriptures. There would be no reason to present the Quran as the criterion over the previous books had the previous books been in their original unchanged form. Furthermore, since the Quran is the criterion over the previous books, whenever something doesn't agree with the Quran, we know that it is not from God but added by men later on. Since there are many things in the bible which don't agree with the Quran, that is proof that the bible and other scriptures are not in their original form but have been changed.