the difference between islam and christianity ....

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

So there is some vast conspiracy to suppress the truth? This document is available for anyone to study. Find me an expert who thinks it is genuine.

Can we agree there is precisely no evidence that this unaltered Christianity exists apart from the Quran and aHadith?

Doesnt the fact that christianity actually continously changes scare the christians? How can something divine adapt?

format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid

Doesnt the fact that christianity actually continously changes scare the christians? How can something divine adapt?

You would have to ask a Christian. But can something divine change? Well parts of the Quran abrogate other parts of the Quran. As long as Muhammed was alive, the Quran was in the process of being revealed and new bits came along abolishing older bits all the time. Will a Muslim who drank wine before it was forbidden be punished for it in the next life?

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

You would have to ask a Christian. But can something divine change? Well parts of the Quran abrogate other parts of the Quran. As long as Muhammed was alive, the Quran was in the process of being revealed and new bits came along abolishing older bits all the time. Will a Muslim who drank wine before it was forbidden be punished for it in the next life?

This is interesting, i once read that muhammad saws was offered milk or whine and he chose milk to which it was said that truelly he will guide people. (if this is wrong correct me learned brothers/sisters).

I think this shows its each individuals intention which matters, i think consuming alcohol can be forgiven becoz Allah duz that which is most just

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

You would have to ask a Christian. But can something divine change? Well parts of the Quran abrogate other parts of the Quran. As long as Muhammed was alive, the Quran was in the process of being revealed and new bits came along abolishing older bits all the time. Will a Muslim who drank wine before it was forbidden be punished for it in the next life?

Abrogation is not the same as abolishing. It merely completes eventual plan. Were Muhammad is to reveal the total ban on wine immediately while the number and faith of early Muslims are still small, there would be no hope for later spread of Islam; there would be instant rejection of the Message. Instead, the verses clearly stated that wine and gambling are frowned upon by Allah, and the eventual ban later on.

http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttal..._in_the_Quran/

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Knight

Abrogation is not the same as abolishing. It merely completes eventual plan. Were Muhammad is to reveal the total ban on wine immediately while the number and faith of early Muslims are still small, there would be no hope for later spread of Islam; there would be instant rejection of the Message. Instead, the verses clearly stated that wine and gambling are frowned upon by Allah, and the eventual ban later on.

I don't think that abolishing was a word I used. It certainly is the same as changing. I understand the logic for God revealing the verses He did in the order He did. That is not the point. Your Brother wondered if people got upset at Christianity changing all the time. Well weren't Muhammed's followers the best of Muslims? It did not seem to bother them that God had a plan that they could not make out clearly. They understood. Why would it upset anyone?

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

Well weren't Muhammed's followers the best of Muslims? It did not seem to bother them that God had a plan that they could not make out clearly. They understood. Why would it upset anyone?

It would upset wine-drinking Quraysh who have yet to embrace Islam and those yet to perfect their faith. How would you, as a wine-drinking Quraysh, react the instant I say to you that you must embrace Islam now and then and that you can no longer drink wine which you so much loved to consume? There must be some reaction to you wine-drinking Quraysh.

The process must be gradual, but as to ensure eventual abandoning of the wine.

This is of course, opposed to the changes in Christianity where Jesus conforms to the Law where he does not consume pork, while Paul abolishes the Law and says otherwise; that is pork is fit for consumption.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Knight

This is of course, opposed to the changes in Christianity where Jesus conforms to the Law where he does not consume pork, while Paul abolishes the Law and says otherwise; that is pork is fit for consumption.

Jesus clearly does not conform to the Law on many issues (if you look on a woman, whoever divorces his wife, go and sin no more) and exactly how does it differ from abrogation in Islam?

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

Jesus clearly does not conform to the Law on many issues (if you look on a woman, whoever divorces his wife, go and sin no more) and exactly how does it differ from abrogation in Islam?

Let's take the issue of pork further. While Paul immediately abrogates, nay, abolishes the Law, the same does not happen with Quranic account. Muhammad does not turn around and say once wine was banned now it is ok. It was rather God hates people to drink wine, and now He's banning it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Knight

Let's take the issue of pork further. While Paul immediately abrogates, nay, abolishes the Law, the same does not happen with Quranic account. Muhammad does not turn around and say once wine was banned now it is ok. It was rather God hates people to drink wine, and now He's banning it.

So the Quran, generally, gets tougher and tougher? So Mutah marriages were legal and then they were not? But you are arguing that Paul gets softer and softer? Is that right? You do not think I could find something that the Quran became more liberal on?

I do not agree that Paul abrogates anything. Jesus clearly says,

Matt.15
[1] Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
[2] Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
[3] But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
[4] For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
[5] But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
[6] And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
[7] Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
[8] This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
[9] But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
[10] And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
[11] Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
[12] Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
[13] But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
[14] Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
[15] Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
[16] And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
[17] Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
[18] But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
[19] For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
[20] These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

format_quote Originally Posted by Nicola

Actually I don't know whether you have studied the Gospel of Barnabas but it condradicts the Quran on many issues...
though I expect you will say... those parts have been tampered with also...

Just in passing, and I have never bothered to read the Gospel of B, this is what Wikipedia has to say about it,

The earliest mention of a book which is generally agreed to refer to the one found in the two known manuscripts, is reported to be contained in Morisco manuscript BNM MS 9653 in Madrid, written about 1634 by Ibrahim al-Taybili in Tunisia. While describing how, in his opinion, the Bible predicts Muhammad, he speaks of the "Gospel of Saint Barnabas where one can find the light" ("y asi mesmo en Elanjelio de San Barnabé donde de hallara luz"). It was mentioned again in 1718 by the Irish deist John Toland, and was mentioned in 1734 by George Sale in The Preliminary Discourse to the Koran:

The Mohammedans have also a Gospel in Arabic, attributed to St. Barnabas, wherein the history of Jesus Christ is related in a manner very different from what we find in the true Gospels, and correspondent to those traditions which Mohammed has followed in his Koran. Of this Gospel the Moriscoes in Africa have a translation in Spanish; and there is in the library of Prince Eugene of Savoy, a manuscript of some antiquity, containing an Italian translation of the same Gospel, made, it is to be supposed, for the use of renegades. —The Preliminary Discourse to the Koran, p. 79.

This appears to allude to versions of both the known manuscripts: the Italian and the Spanish.
[edit]

The manuscripts

Italian Ms. Prince Eugene's Italian manuscript had been presented to him in 1709 by John Frederick Cramer; it appears to date to the end of the sixteenth century. It was transferred to the Hofbibliothek in Vienna in 1738 with the rest of his library, and still survives there, in the Austrian National Library. The pages of the Italian manuscript are framed in an Islamic style, and contain chapter rubrics and margin notes in often ungrammatical and incorrect Arabic (with an occasional Turkish word, and many Turkish syntactical features), the margin notes forming a rough Arabic gloss of selected passages. Its binding is Turkish, and appears to be original; but the paper appears Italian, as does the handwriting (albeit with many idiosyncrasies of spelling). There are catchwords at the bottom of each page, a practice common in manuscripts intended to be set up for printing. The manuscript appears to be unfinished - in that the 222 chapters are provided throughout with framed blank spaces for titular headings, but only 27 of these spaces have been filled. In addition, there were originally 38 whole framed blank pages preceding the text - into which, it may be presumed, some other work was intended to be copied. It is the Italian version that the Raggs' 1907 translation, the most commonly circulated in English, is based on. It was followed in 1908 by an Arabic translation by Khalil Saadah, published in Egypt.
....
Analysis

This work bears strong parallels with the Islamic faith, not only mentioning Muhammad by name, but including the shahada (chapter 39). It is strongly anti-Pauline and anti-Trinitarian in tone. In this work, Jesus is described as a prophet and not the son of God, while Paul is called "the deceived". Furthermore, the Gospel of Barnabas states that Jesus escaped crucifixion by being raised alive to heaven; while Judas Iscariot the traitor — miraculously transformed — was crucified in his place. These beliefs; in particular that Jesus is a prophet of God and raised alive without being crucified; conform with Islamic beliefs. Other passages however conflict with the text/teachings of the Qur'an; as for instance in the account of the Nativity, where Mary is said to have given birth to Jesus without pain; or as in Jesus's ministry, where he permits the drinking of wine and enjoins monogamy. Narrative themes, and some highly distinctive phraseology, are shared with the Divine Comedy of Dante (Ragg). If (as most students surmise) the Gospel of Barnabas is seen as an attempted synthesis of elements from both Christianity and Islam, then sixteenth and seventeenth century parallels can be suggested in Morisco and anti-Trinitarian writings; but there are no known earlier precursors.

I suggest people read the longer article at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas