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:
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.
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!
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.)
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.
Re: The Quran CANNOT be from Satan, Jesus said so!
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 03-04-2007 at 11:45 PM.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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
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:
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.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
. 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:
simple
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks