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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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?
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 03-06-2007 at 05:03 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.
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.
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
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
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:
Re: The Quran CANNOT be from Satan, Jesus said so!
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.
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
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks