Sharia law - do you really want it?

[أبو سليمان عمر]

reps would do ^ saves space

inshallah ok Jazak Allahu khayr for the heads up

 

[Hugo]

I need nothing for proof, I have already given you enough to read on the matter. Ibn Ishaq isn't a Muslim scholar, nonetheless no one is denying their presence there, I am merely asking you how they got there, and how that reconciles with your own scriptures which seem to deny that Abraham was ever in that area!

I am asking you a simple question. All there was on the matter were Islamic sources, thus I fail to understand where your orientalist pals got their views? care to provide me with the ancient sources of their skewed understanding?

Yeah I thought so, if your bible tells you that Abraham didn't go to Yathrib and Mecca and your bible is so credible, by the same token Jews couldn't have been there as we know, Jews don't simply spontaneously generate ex nihilo-- if you follow that logic the rest of what you allege pretty much falls apart!
all the best

The Bible is the earliest know source for the stories about Abraham and copies of the manuscripts are at least 1,000 years before the Qu'ran existed and obviously there are no other muslin sources that pre-date the Bible (OT). There is no mention of Mecca in the Bible so this proves that that Muslim versions of the story are a copy or if the details differ a fabrication.

There are 100s of orientalists so who are you talking about, they cannot all be liars and racists and cheats can they?

Of course Ibn Ishaq is not a scholar but he is a highly respected biographer and his is the earliest (about 100-200 years after the prophets death) know one so it is of some importance.

 

[أبو سليمان عمر]

^^ makkah is in bible And the story of Abraham in bible is not true for it says he was to sacrifice his son Issac when it was Ishmael

 

[GreyKode]

The Bible is the earliest know source for the stories about Abraham and copies of the manuscripts are at least 1,000 years before the Qu'ran

The arab tribes who were polytheists also knew about prophet Abraham(pbuh). And they all believed in prophet Abraham(pbuh) being in mecca, and they never questioned the muslims.
So basically there were earlier sources than the bible that talked about prophet Abraham(pbuh).

 

[جوري]

The arab tribes who were polytheists also knew about prophet Abraham(pbuh). And they all believed in prophet Abraham(pbuh) being in mecca, and they never questioned the muslims.
So basically there were earlier sources than the bible that talked about prophet Abraham(pbuh).

The point of this as relates to our topic is that he alleges Jews were in what is known modern day as Saudi Arabia, but he only goes to prove it using an Islamic source, yet neglects to use Islamic sources just the same when it comes to what happened so that they can play the victim under Islamic oppression, but by the same token if they concede that Jews were there it would it would totally negate their bible which alleges that Abraham P was never in that part of the world, and if he were in that part of the world then at what stage I remind you of course that that Sarah was Barren when he took Ishmael out to sacrifice and as noted in their credible bible "take your ONLY son' is already questionable given that if ONLY then Ishmael was his only at the time, and if not ONLY then they have lied already given that Issac was his 2nd born, be that as it may, any Jews in the area at all are direct descendants of Abraham (p) how else and why else would they move to an area barren of the desert were it not for the zamzam well a source of water and settlement..

of course the orientalist nonsense would forgo that fact, it would also forgo the wars at the time, all they are interested in, is that aha Jews were there, and they were assassinated, notice of course, given that the only known material on the matter is written by Islamic historians and is Islamic of origin, they'll have to use that part, everything else is their opinion which they sell to incompetent bozos who don't care to do two mins worth of research before coming on a public blog to assert how well read they are before pounding extra hard on their chest!

 

[Thinker]

2. MYTH:

The Prophet(P)ordered this punishment of the Banu Qurayza.

FACT:

Wrong. It was a Companion of the Prophet(P) by the name Saad ibn Muaz(R), an Ansar and the ally of the Banu Quraizah, who did that after the Banu Qurayzah leaders met with him and agreed to submit to whatever his judgement would be for their crimes against the Muslims.

http://www.islamicboard.com/manners...7-dealing-muslims-who-differ-our-ijtihad.html



When the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, returned from the battle of the Parties (al-Ahzaab), and the companions had put down their weapons and armaments because war was over, the angel Jibreel, alayhes salam, came down to the prophet and ordered him to go out to Bani Quraidhah in their homeland and fight them because they had broken the treaty (between them and the Muslims). Therefore, the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, told his companions to hurry to that place by saying, "None of you should make the Asr salah except in Bani Quraidhah." They set out from Madinah and as time for Asr salah came in, some amongst them made the salah saying that the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, told us not to make the salah except in Bani Quraidhah only to urge us to hurry. Others said he, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, ordered us not to make the salah except in Bani Quraidhah and so we won't make it until we reach there even if the sun goes down [and the time for Asr ends]. When this disagreement reached the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, he did not blame or censure any of them nor did any of them find fault in the other


Hi Sky,

The above was posted by Umm ul-Shaheed. I did ask at the time for her sources on the suggestion in bold above but my posts were deleted. Is the account she gives correct or not?

 

[جوري]

The Bible is the earliest know source for the stories about Abraham and copies of the manuscripts are at least 1,000 years before the Qu'ran existed and obviously there are no other muslin sources that pre-date the Bible (OT). There is no mention of Mecca in the Bible so this proves that that Muslim versions of the story are a copy or if the details differ a fabrication.

Great, I am game with that, I am willing to forgo this and many other quotes from the bible:
In the desert, after her water ran out, Hagar left baby Ishmael and ran between two hills looking for water. God sent an angel to her, with a great blessing that He would make Ishmael a great nation, and the angel opened up a spring of water. (Genesis 21:18-20)

If you'd merely explain to me how the Jews got there to yathrib?

There are 100s of orientalists so who are you talking about, they cannot all be liars and racists and cheats can they?

Why can't they all be? When you are the only catholic in a protestant church, surely they'll all look at you as a heretic and viced versa, each group has his own scholars, speaking of the heresy of the other group, hundreds of thousands of heretics, who is to decide who is correct? You? because you have been so credible so far?

Of course Ibn Ishaq is not a scholar but he is a highly respected biographer and his is the earliest (about 100-200 years after the prophets death) know one so it is of some importance.

Indeed, then why use him to assert the population of Jews in the area and by the same token forgo the Muslim historical account of what happened to them...

Do you understand what is written here so we are not constantly repeating ourselves? I think even the eleven year olds on board understood, if it is still difficult then I suggest you enroll in some logic course amongst others before gauging a topic, well beyond your scope of expertise...

all the best

 

[جوري]

http://www.islamicboard.com/manners...7-dealing-muslims-who-differ-our-ijtihad.html



When the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, returned from the battle of the Parties (al-Ahzaab), and the companions had put down their weapons and armaments because war was over, the angel Jibreel, alayhes salam, came down to the prophet and ordered him to go out to Bani Quraidhah in their homeland and fight them because they had broken the treaty (between them and the Muslims). Therefore, the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, told his companions to hurry to that place by saying, "None of you should make the Asr salah except in Bani Quraidhah." They set out from Madinah and as time for Asr salah came in, some amongst them made the salah saying that the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, told us not to make the salah except in Bani Quraidhah only to urge us to hurry. Others said he, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, ordered us not to make the salah except in Bani Quraidhah and so we won't make it until we reach there even if the sun goes down [and the time for Asr ends]. When this disagreement reached the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, he did not blame or censure any of them nor did any of them find fault in the other


Hi Sky,

The above was posted by Umm ul-Shaheed. I did ask at the time for her sources on the suggestion in bold above but my posts were deleted. Is the account she gives correct or not?

I take the bolded area to suggest an unpredictable source?.. It doesn't matter the source, what matters is the historical account of what took place-- folks of whom you are at war breaching a contract and scheming to eradicate Muslims with another group as was the case with the 70 scholars sent to the Jews to teach them the Quran..


all the best!

 

[أبو سليمان عمر]

^^ the reference is more then likely from SHEIKH MUHAMMAD IBN SALEH AL-UTHAYMEEN . Sh. Uthaymeen Fataawa (i.e, rulings/verdicts) are based on the Manhaj of Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah which is evidenced from Qur'an and Sunnah many complaiments from many other well know scholars from Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah

 

[جوري]

addendum to the above in case you have missed it:

Myths & Facts About the Banu Qurayzah

Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi​

Last updated: 14th February 2005​

The Christian missionaries have been making a lot of noise about the circumstances surrounding the Banu Qurayzah. It is a wonder that even after countless of explanations on the matter, they still want to play on this old, tired polemic. Regardless, it is about time that an answer is given to checkmate the nonsense surrounding the issue once and for all. Here, we shall attempt to address the myths about the Banu Qurayzah and establish the real facts, as follows.

1. MYTH:

The Banu Qurayza are innocent victims who perished under the sword of Muhammad(P)

FACT:

Not true at all. On the contrary, the Banu Qurayzah prior to the incident of their so-called "massacre" attempted to betray the Muslims by openly aligning themselves with the Confederate armies (consisting of the pagan Quraysh and their allies) during the beseiging of the city of Madinah, known in history as the "War of the Confederates" (al-Harb al-Adzhaab). This is a significant act of treason, because they had earlier pledged to uphold the Madinan Covenent with the Muslims, which stipulates cooperation and an alliance if the Muslims in Madinah were attacked by a foreign force.

2. MYTH:

The Prophet(P)ordered this punishment of the Banu Qurayza.

FACT:

Wrong. It was a Companion of the Prophet(P) by the name Saad ibn Muaz(R), an Ansar and the ally of the Banu Quraizah, who did that after the Banu Qurayzah leaders met with him and agreed to submit to whatever his judgement would be for their crimes against the Muslims.

3. MYTH:

The "massacre" was ordered on Muhammad's says-so. This is because Muhammad feared the Jews and recognised that they were a threat to his political dominance.

FACT:

The claim is of no substance apart from being a blasphemous lie. It is clear that Saad ibn Muaz(R) have administered the punishment in accordance with Jewish law as found in the Torah. The law is:

"When the Lord thy God hath delivered it unto thy hands, thou shalt smite every male therein with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself." (Deuteronomy 20:12)

It is therefore clear that Muslims are not to be blamed for administering a Law that is found within the Jewish scripture itself upon the Jews who had earlier agreed to submit to Saad ibn Muaz's judgement.

4. MYTH:

The Prophet(P) allowed this Law to be passed because he was inhuman and unmerciful.

FACT:

The reason why the Prophet(P) allowed judgement according to Jewish law was because the Banu Qurayzah were Jews, and in their initial agreement with the Prophet(P), they were allowed their own system of law according to the Torah. The Prophet(P) neither influenced the decision nor was he involved in any stage of the decision-making, as the representatives of Banu Qurayzah did not seek his judgement.

And only God knows best!

 

[Hugo]

I get tired of repeating myself.. you say 'sharia law is this, sharia law is that, you are not listening to what I am saying'. YOU ARE ASSERTING YOUR OPINION, everyone has an opinion, unless you back yours with some facts, pls don't waste my time I really do have better things to do with my day off!

Comment by Hugo - I clearly stated in another post that for the purposes of discussion we could use al-Misri's "Reliance of the Traveller" or more simply Al- Maqasid, Nawami's classic manual. Will you reagrd the contents of these books as 'facts'?

And I believe everyone gave you an affirmative NO-- if you accept it or reject it, it is your own prerogative but don't come and preach to us how we should feel on the matter, least of which given the biblical views on women.. your clerics didn't know whether women had souls or were akin to animals.. I'd start with your core beliefs before I make that leap over..

Comment by Silver - I think it is you who are preaching not me, I asked questions that is all. You have been unable or do not wish to answer them.

Which part of the 'rambling' was hard for you to understand?
I asked you a simple question, you allege Muslims assassinated in cold blood the Jews, I asked you how the Jews got there to begin with, you tell me IBN ishaq said, well why chose an Islamic source for one part of your post and ignore it for the other which explains exactly what happened to them.. Are you a hypocrite? No, it means, you contradict yourself and I despise lip service!

Comment by Hugo - I cannot help it if you are totally ignorant of what is basic history. The Jews conquered what is now Israel 4,000 years ago they were in turn conquered many times by Babylonins, Assyrians, Romans and so Jews were often taken into captivity and got scattered all over the known world - that is how they got there it has NOTHING to do with Abraham or where he was.

Islamic law, like any other law, needs proper schooling -- if you wanted a scholarly reply, you'd either address it on an ask the scholar, or you'd have merely used the search feature as I myself have done a few posts ago to show you that this topic has already been addressed!

I know only what you have shared with us here, and what you have shared not only lacks accuracy but also lacks logic and common sense, as I have shown of your understanding of the Jews in Yathrib, did Spencer teach you how the Jews got there in yathrib? If you are going to use an Islamic source to prove they were there, which is in fact what you and he has done, then follow that through... I am not interested in opinions!

all the best

See my comments above and it is you sadly who have not it seems the least idea about basic history - your logic is very odd as it appears to argue that unless Abrham was there Jews now could not be there now or previously.

 

[جوري]

Comment by Hugo - I clearly stated in another post that for the purposes of discussion we could use al-Misri's "Reliance of the Traveller" or more simply Al- Maqasid, Nawami's classic manual. Will you reagrd the contents of these books as 'facts'?

I haven't read the book, I can't comment No!
Further, don't expect me to rummage through all your posts to look for alleged meaning when you won't even grant the same courtesy of searching this forum for topics already addressed!

Comment by Hugo - I cannot help it if you are totally ignorant of what is basic history. The Jews conquered what is now Israel 4,000 years ago they were in turn conquered many times by Babylonins, Assyrians, Romans and so Jews were often taken into captivity and got scattered all over the known world - that is how they got there it has NOTHING to do with Abraham or where he was.

Let's have a quick crash course on how the Jews Got there, as it does have everything to do with this topic.. We don't get to start from the point you deem credible or allege as history..

If one researches the Ancient Hebrew laws, the right of decent or
inheritance is based on the eldest son, no matter whom the mother is. If
this is the case, then the land was promised to Ishamel (for he was the
eldest of Abraham's sons) and the Father of Palestinian Arabs. In addition,
modern day Jews from Russia, Poland and most parts of Eastern Europe have NO genetic link to the ancient Hebrews - they for the most part are decendents of Khazars, who converted to Judaism in the 7th century (this has been documented by Jewish scholars, not Arabs). The modern day Palestinians can claim a more direct link to the Hebrew tribes than the founders of modern day "Israel." What the Western Press purposely avoids mentioning is the fact that at the start of the 20th century, less than 5% of the land of Palestine
was Jewish. The modern State of Israel was built on lands illegally taken and assimilated from Palestinian Christians and Muslims. Also, the Hebrews only ruled the land of Palestine for a combined 411 years - the Muslims have ruled the land for 1,500 years. In addition, the land of Canaan (Palestine) had a history long before the Jewish tribes immigrated to the area.
By the way and just for the record 'Israel' Is Jacob and not something else.. yisra be'lyel, as he walked toward God so was he called.. So familiarize yourself with such terms as Jew, Hebrew, Israelite, so we are not all passengers on the idiot's roller coaster..

with all that in mind, I am still waiting for your answer on how the Jews got to Yathrib you see, I can't accept their alleged assassination in cold blood if you can't prove to me they were there all together using the same orientalist sources that grieve over their fate!

See my comments above and it is you sadly who have not it seems the least idea about basic history - your logic is very odd as it appears to argue that unless Abrham was there Jews now could not be there now or previously.

Actually see my comment on the matter, and then prove me wrong... tell me who the first settlers in yathrib were and how they got there, and I don't want a bujgujawalavalhal for an answer from which I am to decipher as I may!
We are talking about history, then make it accurate, as stated and hopefully for the last time... I am not interested in opinion!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Great, I am game with that, I am willing to forgo this and many other quotes from the bible: In the desert, after her water ran out, Hagar left baby Ishmael and ran between two hills looking for water. God sent an angel to her, with a great blessing that He would make Ishmael a great nation, and the angel opened up a spring of water. (Genesis 21:18-20)

Comment by Hugo - Genesis 21: 18-20 (Amplified Version) says: 18. Arise, raise up the youth and support him with your hand, for I intend to make him a great nation. 19. Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water; and she went and filled the [empty] bottle with water and caused the youth to drink. 20. And God was with the youth, and he developed; and he dwelt in the wilderness and became an archer.
Can you explain why your version is different?

If you'd merely explain to me how the Jews got there to yathrib?

COLOR="navy"]Comment by Hugo - I said this many times, The Jews conquered what is now Israel 4,000 years ago they were in turn conquered many times by Babylonins, Assyrians, Romans and so Jews were often taken into captivity and got scattered all over the known world - that is how they got there it has NOTHING to do with Abraham or where he was. [/COLOR]

Why can't they all be? When you are the only catholic in a protestant church, surely they'll all look at you as a heretic and viced versa, each group has his own scholars, speaking of the heresy of the other group, hundreds of thousands of heretics, who is to decide who is correct? You? because you have been so credible so far?

Hugo - this is a pointless argument - are the Shia heretics, if so how can we know who is correct (or any other of the dozens of Islamic sects)

Indeed, then why use him to assert the population of Jews in the area and by the same token forgo the Muslim historical account of what happened to them...

Hugo - as I said ANY Muslim account must be at least a 1000 years older that the Biblical one so cannot be correct if it differs can it?

Do you understand what is written here so we are not constantly repeating ourselves? I think even the eleven year olds on board understood, if it is still difficult then I suggest you enroll in some logic course amongst others before gauging a topic, well beyond your scope of expertise...

all the best

As is usual rudeness is you way of working, I think 11 years old can see that you are so ignorant of history that you words are worthless

 

[جوري]

Comment by Hugo - Genesis 21: 18-20 (Amplified Version) says: 18. Arise, raise up the youth and support him with your hand, for I intend to make him a great nation. 19. Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water; and she went and filled the [empty] bottle with water and caused the youth to drink. 20. And God was with the youth, and he developed; and he dwelt in the wilderness and became an archer.
Can you explain why your version is different?

Sure only when you explain to me why there are that many versions of the bible:

ALT - Analytical-Literal Translation Translation Philosophy: Strictly Literal
Manuscripts Consulted: BHS • TR [MT]
Completeness: Old Testament not yet started, New Testament in progress.
Number/Background of Translators: 1, Reformed Baptist
Second Person Plural? Yes, indicated by an asterisk (*) e.g., "you*"
Capital Diety Pronouns? Yes
Tetragrammaton? Yes, Yahweh
Added words offset? Yes, with brackets e.g., "[added word]"
Update of: YLT (New Testament), Dby (Old Testament)
Web Site: http://www.dtl.org/alt.htm Latest edition available
First Published: not yet completed
Last Updated: 1999
Copyright Status: ©1999 Gary F. Zeolla. Published by Darkness to Light Ministry. Permission is granted to use up to 1,000 verses of this translation as long as those verses do not account for an entire book of the Bible, nor amount to more than 50% of the work they are used in. Amp - Amplified Bible Excellent for detailed study of a passage. It seeks to reveal the full richness of the underlying Greek and Hebrew, and often reveals insights that you might miss in reading a more conventional translation. This isn't real good for reading aloud (because of its punctuation and wordiness), but recommended for study to set along side one of the other translations. The Amplified Old Testament is not available in any electronic form, because of copyright and greed issues between the copyright owners. The Amplified New Testament is available from Logos. ASV - American Standard Version The American Standard Version (ASV) of the Holy Bible was first published in 1901. It has earned the reputation of being the Rock of Biblical Honesty. Although the English used in the ASV is somewhat archaic, it isn't nearly as hard to understand as some passages of the King James Version of nearly 3 centuries earlier. This translation of the Holy Bible is in the public domain, since its copyright has expired. American Standard Version
Translation Philosophy: Literal-Idiomatic
Manuscripts Consulted: BHS • CT(WH)
Completeness: Old Testament, New Testament
Number/Background of Translators: 50+, interdenominational/ecumenical
Second Person Plural? Yes, indicated by using "ye," "you," or "your" ("thee," "thou," or "thine" are second person singulars.)
Capital Diety Pronouns? No
Tetragrammaton? Yes, Jehovah
Added words offset? Yes, with italics e.g., "added words"
Update of: ERV, KJV
Web Site: http://www.ebible.org/bible/asv/ Complete version, also downloadable
First Published: 1901
Last Updated: 1901
Copyright Status: Public Domain
The American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901 is a revision of the Revised Bible, a revision of the KJV for language and to take advantage of some new (then) manuscript discoveries to allow greater accuracy. The ASV uses "Jehovah" for God's name, instead of "LORD" (which the KJV and many others use). The language of the ASV is less archaic than the KJV, but still far from modern. The ASV is in the Public Domain.
American equivalent of RV, done shortly thereafter. Contained some additional advances in scholarship. Tended to be more literal than AV.
BBE - Bible in Basic English Translation Philosophy: Easy English/Literal
Manuscripts Consulted: BHS • CT
Completeness: Old Testament, New Testament
Number/Background of Translators: 1, unknown
Second Person Plural? Not indicated
Capital Diety Pronouns? No
Tetragrammaton? Not indicated
Added words offset? No
Update of:
Web Site: http://www.bf.org/bfetexts.htm Downloadable complete version
First Published: 1949
Last Updated: 1962
Copyright Status: Public Domain in the United States of America, due to its being originally published without a copyright notice. Else copyright by C. K. Ogden and Cambridge University Press/E. P. Dutton & Co. Book of Mormon According to LDS (Mormon) belief, the Book of Mormon is a companion Scripture to the Bible, with which it shares equal status. BWE CET - Today's English Version See TEV CEV - Contemporary English Version The American Bible Society's latest English entry. It is aimed at a 3rd grade reading level, but I think it is really more like 2nd grade level. If you don't mind calling Passover "The Feast of Thin Bread," it is OK. Copyrighted. CEV (Contemporary English Version): The CEV is highly readable, for both adults and children, and exegetically faithful. It strives to preserve the meaning of the original in natural English expressions. The CEV is not a paraphrase; it is an accurate translation of the original languages.
The CEV Project was begun in 1984 by the American Bible Society. Both the adult version and illustrated children's version have many reading aids. Said to be 5th grade level.
Darby Translation Another somewhat archaic translation. It is freely available on line. DKJV http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/fbns/defined.htm Douay Easy to Read Version This version was especially prepared to meet the needs of the deaf, those learning English as a foreign language, and those facing special reading difficulties. It served as the basis for the New Century Version and the International Children's Bible. Said to be at 4th grade level. Good News Bible See TEV GW - God's Word God's Word is a fresh, new translation from the God's Word to the Nations Bible Society. It is easy to read and well done. Copyrighted. GW (God's Word): highly lauded by its producers who say: it is the most readable translation available - it represents the best English grammar (syntax) ever put "on the page" of an English Bible - it is, quite possibly, the most accurate English translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts ever produced! These are the same claims made by the producers of the ISV, but the English of the GW is, on the whole, a little more natural, with better stylistic flow than that of the ISV. GW is more
dynamic and readable than the NIV.
This version is outstanding for its accurate and readable translation. The theory of translation is "closest natural equivalence," exceeding "dynamic/function equivalence" translation in accuracy. Said to be 4th -5th grade level.
HNV - Hebrew Names Version (HNV) of the World English Bible An edition of the World English Bible that uses traditional Hebrew names instead of the Greek/English forms common to most English translations of the Holy Bible. For example, "Jesus" is rendered "Yeshua" and "Moses" is rendered "Moshe." Like the WEB, the HNV is in the Public Domain. It is available on line at http://www.ebible.org/bible/hnv You can have daily readings from the HNV sent to you by email by sending email to [email protected] with "subscribe hnv" in the body of the message. ICV - International Children's Version See NCV ISV - International Standard Version Highlights careful attention to Greek verb "tenses" (aspect) and translation of these to English. Some Biblical poetry is translated as English rhyming poetry. Promoted by its producers as "the most readable and accurate English translation of the Bible ever produced" (the same claim made for the GW). The New Testament has been printed and is available for purchase. The entire New Testament and books of the Old Testament completed in preview form are available for download. JB - Jerusalem Bible See NJB Jefferson Bible According to the webpage at ttp://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate these ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative. This presentation of The Jefferson Bible uses the King James Version of the texts, corrected in accordance with the findings of modern scholarship. The selection and arrangement are by Jefferson. JNT - Jewish New Testament An interesting mix of Hebrew and English terminology that brings out the Jewish nature of the Rabbi called Yeshua (Jesus). Copyrighted. JPS - Jewish Publication Society See NJV JST - Joseph Smith Translation Published in 1867, but it is not clear if this is used by some, or all, LDS (Mormons), or if it is official or not. Judaica Press version Edited by Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg. http://www.judaicapress.com/ KJV - King James Version, sometimes called the Authorized Version (AV) Was quite revolutionary when it came out in 1611 (and was revised a few times to correct its large collection of typos). It is still very popular, in spite of its archaic and difficult to understand language. Indeed, there is a cult-like following of this translation that claim that this is the only true Word of God, superior even to the original languages. The King James Version of the Holy Bible is in the Public Domain. You can publish, copy, distribute it for free, or sell it, all without having to ask anyone's permission. The King James Version was an academic tour-de-force in 1611, at which time it was a hotly denounced modern translation. In some quarters today it is the only acceptable translation, even though the translators in 1611 explicitly stated that they looked forward to future scholarship to correct whatever errors they may have made.

The King James Version originated when a group of Puritans ambushed King James while he was on a journey and presented him with a petition requesting a new translation of the Bible. Since the petition had a thousand signatures, it was called the Millenary Petition. The Puritans wanted a new translation of the Bible, because most of the existing English Bibles were biased and polemic. To their surprise, the king readily agreed and assembled the brightest and best Bible scholars in England to undertake the project. They were dismayed at first when the king announced he would personally manage the project, but they were pleasantly surprised when it turned out that he had an excellent background in the subject. The resulting translation was made mandatory for the Church of England, over many protests from the clergy. Because books were extremely expensive in those days, well out of the reach of the common person, the law also required every church to keep a copy on display 24 hours a day, so that ordinary people could come in and read the Bible at any time. The Bibles were generally chained to the reading desks to prevent them from being stolen when no one was around. The cost of replacing a stolen Bible in those days could easily bankrupt a local parish.
Disadvantages
The King James Version is almost incomprehensible to anyone who has not been brought up on it. For example, the word comfort means strengthen, suffer means let, let means prevent, and prevent means precede. Some verses are completely incomprehensible or misleading; for example, Psalm 5:6, 1 Kings 11:1, and Ezekiel 27:25. The textual scholarship underlying the King James Version has been superseded in the last two centuries.
Advantages
For people who were brought up on it, this is an excellent translation. For newcomers to the Bible, it is a puzzle. It is suitable for study as long as you are familiar with the language. It is widely known and available, and very inexpensive. The copyright is still valid in the United Kingdom and possibly some other nations of the British Commonwealth, but in the United States and elsewhere it is in the public domain.
KJ21 - 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible http://www.kj21.com/ KJ2000 - King James 2000 Bible http://life-equals-jesus.org/Couric/ LB - Living Bible See NLT The Living Bible is the work of Kenneth N. Taylor, who in 1954 began paraphrasing scripture for use in family devotions. The first complete Living Bible appeared in 1970. It has been revised many times and appears in many different versions.
Disadvantages
The Living Bible mixes the author’s interpretations with text, making objective study impossible unless you agree with Kenneth N. Taylor’s views. It is strongly tendentious, as the author often inserts wording that has no basis whatsoever in the original text in order to conform it to fundamentalist viewpoints on end-times, sexuality, politics, and social policy. (For example, compare Jude 7 in the Living Bible with Jude 7 in the King James Version and notice how much extra text they inserted.) Depending on your views, you may see the Living Bible as clarifying the meaning that is already present in the text or as imputing meaning into the text that is not there. Essentially, the Living Bible does the interpreting for you. Even some fundamentalists find it controversial.
Advantages
The Living Bible is easy to read and it makes a good story book. Many editions explain the nature and purpose of the paraphrase.
Leeser Bible A Jewish Bible produced by Isaac Leeser in the 1800s LITV - Literal Translation of the Bible http://www.kconline.com/paul/litv/litv.htmhttp://www.cet.com/~voice/mkjv/mkjv.htm MLV - Modern Literal Version (ASV-3) Came about because of a desire to let the public have the ASV on computer disks; the King James Version was then available. The ASV has been for years the translation held by most scholars as being the most accurate version ever made and the standard by which others should be judged. It is also known as being the version with the least amount of doctrinal or denominational bias. After some consideration, it seemed better to make a literal modern English revision of the ASV and then place it in the Public Domain. See http://christianlibrary.org/bibles/MLV/preface.htm Mormon see Book of Mormon NAB - New American Bible A "Catholic" Bible (with the Apocrypha interspersed in the Old Testament). It is very readable and accurate. Copyrighted.
Translated by Catholic Biblical scholars. The OT is uneven. It was done over decades. Gen was so far out of date that it had to be retranslated, so it ended up visibly newer, i.e. less literal and using more modern scholarship. Even the NT tended to be a bit uneven. The same expression would be translated differently in Mat. and Luke. The 2nd edition smooths this out, but makes it more literal. The newer parts of the OT still tend to have a less literal feeling. However this is still a competent translation. For detailed study of the NT, if you want something as close to the original words as possible but still want modern textual scholarship, the 2nd edition might be the best translation for you. In the OT they sometimes rearrange the order of passages. There's some theory that the originals got out of order.
The New American Bible is principally a lay-oriented Roman Catholic Bible translation, although some non-Catholic scholars were involved. It is primarily the outgrowth of an encyclical by Pope Pius XII (Divino afflante Spiritu) which encouraged Bible-reading among Roman Catholics.
Disadvantages
The New American Bible is not as good as the Jerusalem Bible for serious study. The notes have a distinct Roman Catholic flavor, which can be a disadvantage for people who are not Roman Catholics. Advantages
This is a very good Bible for the lay Catholic. The notes have a distinct Roman Catholic flavor, which can be an advantage for Roman Catholics or for people who are not Roman Catholics themselves, but wish to inform themselves about the position of the Roman Catholic church on specific passages.
NASB - New American Standard Bible Said to be almost as good as the NASB95, except that it reverts to archaic English in the Psalms and in the language of prayer, and is a little harder to read. It is not widely available on line, due to copyright restrictions, but you can find it at the Bible Gateway. Favored by some conservatives who prefer a literal translation. The quality of English is not as good as in the NIV. An updated version was published in 1995.
New American Standard Bible - in some sense a conservative reaction to RSV. Tried to return to the supposed accuracy (i.e. literalness) of ASV, backed out of some of the more controversial positions of the RSV. However did still make use of early manuscripts (though not very aggressively).
The New American Standard Bible was the project of the Lockman Foundation, which sought to produce an accurate, readable translation. The translators came from a wide variety of evangelical backgrounds.
Disadvantages
The New American Standard Bible does not lend itself well to reading out loud to an audience. The drive for accuracy led to some peculiarities in the renderings. There is occasional emphasis on relatively minor grammatical points.
Advantages
Excellent for serious study, very accurate. The current edition that you find in bookstores has been updated for improved readability.
NASB95 - New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update An excellent translation, with wording that is more literal than the NIV, and which holds to the style of the original more closely. The NASB is well known for paying close attention to tenses of words, etc. It is based on the UBS4 Greek text. Available from Parsons Technology and Logos, as well as some printed Bibles. NCV - New Century Version A fairly free translation that reads like a newspaper. It is targeted at the 3rd grade reading level. Copyrighted. This version is also quite good. It is very readable. It was originally translated for children under the title International Children's Version. It has undergone some revision so that it can be enjoyed by adults, as well. Several formats are available for children and adults.
Adapted from a translation for the deaf, the NCV began as the International Children's Bible and later as the Everyday Bible (now out of print), both at 3rd grade level. The standard NCV is now written at 5th grade level.
NEB - New English Bible See REB, which is the 2nd edition of the NEB. (Actually there were a few minor changes made to the NEB after initial publication, but it was never called 2nd edition.) NET - New English Translation A new translation being done by the Biblical Studies Foundation (which is run by some people of good reputation). The NET is copyrighted, but available on line. In fact, this study Bible was designed to be read with a web browser. Copyrighted, but online at http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm Team of 20 translators. This version uses a relatively literal translation approach, generally avoiding dynamic phrasings. It is, however, more readable than more literal versions such as NASB. It will probably make a good study version for those already familiar with the Bible. Its website, like several other Bible version websites, lists its translation principles. There are myriads of informative footnotes explaining NET translation decisions and giving other background information. This version is Internet-friendly with footnotes clickable from the main text.
New Chain-Reference Bible, 4th improved edition Published by B.B. Kirkbride Bible, Inc., Indianapolis, 1964. New Life Version The New Life Version is based on a vocabulary of about 850 words. It was translated by missionary Gleason H. Ledyard. Because of the limited number of words allowed, some verses can't be expressed quite as clearly. Said to be at 3rd grade level. NIV - New International Version Evangelical Protestant The best-selling English Bible. Its New Testament is based on the UBS Greek text. Its language is easy to read, and its accuracy is well respected. It is not widely available on line, due to copyright restrictions, but you can find it at the Bible Gateway.
The best-selling English version. Could benefit from another update, but hindered recently by opposition from conservatives to NIV hopes to increase accuracy of its gender inclusive language. Considered the version of first choice by many evangelicals.
It tries to go as far towards readability as one can go while still showing you the form of the original. Note that there's a tendency to make OT prophecies compatible with NT quotations, where a reading of the OT alone would come up with something different. Is 7:14 is an example.
The New International Version is the product of evangelical scholars from a wide variety of church backgrounds under the auspices of the New York Bible Society International.

Disadvantages
The New International Version has a slight premillennial tinge. For example, the Greek word thlipsis is only translated as tribulation in contexts that fit premillennialism. However, that is not much of an obstacle. A Lutheran publishing house even issued a study Bible based on the New International Version, even though for the last 400 years Lutherans have considered any form of millennialism to be a heresy. The New International Version has a number of innovative renderings here and there. For example, a single Hebrew word is rendered valley, gorge, river, ravine, or brook in different passages.
Advantages
The New International Version is an excellent translation into very good contemporary English, very suitable for study and reading out loud. The word international in the name means that the translators took pains to make sure that their work would be usable in any English-speaking country on the globe, although it appears in versions with American and British spelling. The Psalms are rendered poetically.
NIrV - New International Reader's Version A simplified (3rd grade level) Bible that is based on the NIV. It is the best limited vocabulary Bible I have seen. Copyrighted. This version is an excellent simplification of the New International Version, the most widely used English Bible. The NIrV is a very readable version for both adults and children. It contains many special features and helps to aid in understanding. Said to be 2.9 grade level.
NJB - New Jerusalem Bible A "Catholic" Bible that is a bit more free in its translation, concentrating on readability and English style. Copyrighted. Carefully translated with strong Biblical scholarship. There is a literary sophistication to its English. The NJB is a revision of the Jerusalem Bible.
The (New) Jerusalem Bible is the product of the best Bible scholarship in the Roman Catholic Church.

Advantages
The (New) Jerusalem Bible is an excellent scholarly work for serious students of the Bible, especially Roman Catholics. The notes have a distinct Roman Catholic flavor, which can be a disadvantage for people who are not Roman Catholics.
Disadvantages
The (New) Jerusalem Bible’s wording is often clumsy and opaque to non-scholars. This is a matter of English style rather than accuracy in translation. The notes have a distinct Roman Catholic flavor, which can be an advantage for Roman Catholics or for people who are not Roman Catholics themselves, but wish to inform themselves about the position of the Roman Catholic church on specific passages.
NJV (JPS) - New Jewish Verson The modern translation of the Torah was published by JPS in 1985. Rabbis and Jewish leaders consider the JPS translation to be one of the best, if not the best translation available today. Major translations and retranslations of all or parts of the Bible were done in 1917 and 1982. NKJV - New King James Version Good for those who are used to the KJV, but want something in Modern English. The New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus, but has footnotes where the UBS and Majority Text differ. Copyrighted, but used in a public search engine. Seems to be in opposition to the textual scholarship of the previous revisions: it adopts the "majority text". See below. Updates AV by removing "thee" and "thou", and other things that are blatantly inappropriate in the 20th Cent., but otherwise sticks very close to AV. Presumably this means it is not as literal as the AV or NASB. Seems to be a proprietary translation, done by Thomas Nelson.
There is no real connection between the King James Version and the New King James Bible except for the name, the textual basis of the New Testament, and some similarity in the language. It was the brainchild of Sam Moore, who saw a market for a King-James-sounding modern translation.

Disadvantages
The New King James Bible sounds like a modernized King James Version, but it is neither modern nor Jacobean English. The New Testament is based on the so-called Majority Text (also called the Received Text) rather than the current state of textual research. If you live outside the United States, please note that King James Version is the American name for the Authorised Version.
Advantages
Although the New King James Bible, like all other translations, is not perfect, it is a more accurate rendering of the Greek than the King James Version and is less likely to puzzle the reader. This is an especially good translation for people with a Wesleyan or Eastern Orthodox background. The New Testament of this version was chosen to serve as the basis for an Eastern Orthodox study Bible.
NLT - New Living Translation Thought-for-thought translation that seeks to retain the readability of The Living Bible, but with greater accuracy. Copyrighted. Exegetically "tightened" by a team of 90 scholars to be more accurate than its predecessor, the Living Bible. Retains some of the good style of the Living Bible. Reads pretty well, better than most of the relatively literal recent versions. Better attention to good English composition and style than in most recent English versions.
The NLT is largely a replacement for the very popular Living Bible, although the Living Bible will continue to be published. Said to be at 6.4 grade level.
The New Living Translation is a revision of the Living Bible to transform it from a paraphrase to a true translation.

Disadvantages
The New Living Translation still interpolates text in places that address or seem to address modern issues, but is not as excessive as the Living Bible. It is still mildly tendentious in favor of distinctively fundamentalist teachings.
Advantages
The New Living Translation is easy to read and it makes a good story book. It is a huge improvement over the Living Bible and it can even be used for study.
NRSV - New Revised Standard Version Liberal Protestant A decent Modern English Bible with some scholarly respect. It strives to avoid "sexist" terminology by translating, for example, "brother" as "brother or sister," and trying to avoid gender-specific language by compromising on number (i. e. "their" for "his"). Generally, these substitutions are usually justified by context. This is an ecumenical work, with editions available that contain the Apocrypha/Dueterocanonical books for not only the Roman Catholic tradition, but for several other denominations, as well. Copyrighted, hard to find on line.
Highly regarded in scholarly circles. Reads about as well as the NIV.
Still guided by the instruction to stick with AV wording where possible. It's not a bad compromise between literalness and readability. Its most visible feature is an avoidance of masculine gender where the original used masculine to mean everyone. "brothers" will be translated "brothers and sisters", and "he" as "they" (with the whole passage turned plural). This was not true of RSV and RSV 2nd edition. It does not attempt to hide the patriachal nature of the ancient cultures. It is claimed that generic language is used only where that is the genuine meaning of the original.
The (New) Revised Standard Version is the direct descendant of the King James Version.

Disadvantages
The initial editions were controversial and were too liberal for many evangelicals, but questionable renderings have been repaired in recent editions. It has clumsy English syntax in places. The Psalms are not poetically rendered and don’t lend themselves well to responsive or unison reading.
Advantages
The Revised Standard Version is excellent for study. The New Revised Standard Version attempts to remove spurious gender bias without going overboard. It has fewer controversial renderings than before and has excellent scholarship.
NWT - New World Translation Published in 1961 by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of new York, one of the corporate bodies of the Jehovah's Witnesses. OBP - Original Bible Project Will be interesting because of its arrangement of the Biblical books. Extremely literal. Philips (Phi) New Testament in Modern English, Revised A free translation/paraphrase that is easy to read, and has good impact.
Copyrighted. This is one of the best translations ever produced, in terms of English style and impact upon readers. The translator was the British Biblical scholar J.B. Phillips.
J B Phillips, an Anglican clergyman, first began paraphrasing the epistles of the New Testament into modern English for his church’s youth group, which met in bomb shelters during air raids in World War II. He eventually completed the entire New Testament, and later revised it into a true translation.
Disadvantages
Many editions of the J B Phillips New Testament lack verse numbers. The wording is significantly different from other translations. Earlier editions are too British for Americans.
Advantages
The J B Phillips New Testament gives unique and accurate insights into the New Testament.
REB - Revised English Bible A very readable British English (as opposed to American English) Bible, a revision of the New English Bible (NEB). It is available both with and without the Apocrypha. It has a respectable list of churches that endorse it. Some bracketed sections of the UBS4 Greek text are omitted entirely, so don't look too hard for the story of the woman caught in adultery in this Bible. Copyrighted. Updated and improved version of the New English Bible, translated by British scholars. Reads well. The target audience is probably moderately well educated adults. Pleasant literary language.
RSV - Revised Standard Version Liberal Protestant Another hybrid Modern/Archaic English Bible. (Archaic in the Psalms and in prayer, as if God only spoke Elizabethan English.) It is pretty well trusted, though. The RSV is copyrighted, but it is available freely with The Online Bible.
Yet another American revision, done primarily because of yet more manuscripts, including Dead Sea Scrolls. Backed out of literalness of ASV, though still not a very free translation. Included scholarly views that were controversial at the time (like translating Is 7:14 as young woman instead of virgin). So it was considered flamingly liberal at the time. Most of these features are now present in evangelical translations, and in fact it is now considered a bit too conservative.
RV - Revised Version First major attempt to revise the AV, primarily because of the great number of earlier manuscripts. Great Britain. Scofield Bible Published by Oxford University Press, New York, in 1967 Soncino Books Of The Bible - 14 Volume Tanach (Jewish Bible) Conservative Judaism
http://www.uscj.org/mall/bookservice.htm Tanakh, the Holy Scriptures A good Modern English translation of the Jewish Bible (the same as the Christian Old Testament) from the traditional Hebrew text. "Tanakh" is an acronym for "Torah (Law), Nevi'im (Prophets), and Kethuvim (Writings)." This is the work of Jewish scholars and rabbis from the three largest branches of Judaism in America, done with reference to other Jewish and Christian translations. This work is copyrighted by the Jewish Publication Society. See NJV. TEV - Today's English Version, also called the Good News Bible or Good News for Modern Man An older Modern English Bible from the American Bible Society. It has taken some flak for being too loose of a translation. Actually, I believe that they did fairly well with a limited vocabulary. Copyrighted. From the American Bible Society (a conservative Protestant organization that has managed to produce a liberal translation)
The Good News Bible is a project of the American Bible Society to render the Bible in a form that unchurched people can understand.
Disadvantages
For people who attend church regularly and are familiar with the Bible, the fact that the Good News Bible does not use traditional religious vocabulary is a disadvantage. Since clarity is the overriding goal of this translation, it often seems to be inaccurate when compared to other translations, but it is in fact an accurate translation.
Advantages
The Good News Bible is written at a very low grade level and is consequently very easy to understand. It is excellent as story book. In fact, the Old Testament can be read from Genesis to 2 Kings as easily as a novel.
TLB - The Living Bible A paraphrase of the KJV that sacrifices accuracy for readability. Sometimes in makes a point pretty well. The flashlight in Psalms 119:105 seems a bit odd, though. Copyrighted. TM - The Message Excellent style. A real pleasure to read. It grips me, the reader, and challenges and convicts me, as no other translation does. Occasionally gets carried away with strange idioms. TMB - Third Millennium Bible http://www.tmbible.com/http://www.ebible.org/bible/WEB for more information.
See http://worldenglishbible.org/bible/web/
Webster Bible (a revision of the KJV bible) Has updated spelling, but retains the same grammar and almost all of the wording of the KJV. The Webster Bible is in the Public Domain. Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech A decent translation of the New Testament only. It is freely available on line. YLT - Young's Literal Translation A somewhat archaic, but it is fairly well done and is freely available on line.
​

but even with your version amongst the very many, it doesn't differ much in meaning.. There was Abraham and Hagar and the source of water is what is known modern day as zamzam well.. I can forgo the biblical meanings which evolve with the time all together again if you'd merely explain to me how the Jews got there to yathrib?

COLOR="navy"]Comment by Hugo - I said this many times, The Jews conquered what is now Israel 4,000 years ago they were in turn conquered many times by Babylonins, Assyrians, Romans and so Jews were often taken into captivity and got scattered all over the known world - that is how they got there it has NOTHING to do with Abraham or where he was.

Yeah see my previous comment on how long exactly the Jews ruled the land of Cannan not the land of yathrib. I'd like to know of the great battle of the Jews and the pagan Arabs which enabled them to settle in that area, care to share that with me from a credible source that isn't your own assertion of the matter?

Hugo - this is a pointless argument - are the Shia heretics, if so how can we know who is correct (or any other of the dozens of Islamic sects)

90% of Muslims are sunni, all you have to do is even use wikipedia to tell you just that, other factions are heretics indeed and a detailed history of why is listed, all you'd have to do is read.
Very easy for a person to distinguish between modern medicine and quackery, and I have no doubt that if anyone reads of the history of the 10% factions of Islam would likewise come to the same conclusion!
what is pointless is your brand of logic!

Hugo - as I said ANY Muslim account must be at least a 1000 years older that the Biblical one so cannot be correct if it differs can it?

You speak of an event advent to Islam, and the end result happened because of Muslims, thus by the same token when using that source to allege one point (the most important point of all) you should use the same token to complete your conclusion no?

As is usual rudeness is you way of working, I think 11 years old can see that you are so ignorant of history that you words are worthless

I guess we'll leave it then to members with a keen discerning eye to distinguish the fools from the scholars..

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Originally Posted by GreyKode. The arab tribes who were polytheists also knew about prophet Abraham(pbuh). And they all believed in prophet Abraham(pbuh) being in mecca, and they never questioned the muslims.
So basically there were earlier sources than the bible that talked about prophet Abraham(pbuh).

By Hugo - they new about Abraham because Jews, with their scriptures lived there. How can there be earlier 'Muslim' sources since Islam did not come into being until many 1,000 of years later so this is patent nonsense.

The point of this as relates to our topic is that he alleges Jews were in what is known modern day as Saudi Arabia, but he only goes to prove it using an Islamic source.

By Hugo - no we can use the Biblical sources and they are NOT Islamic. In any case is there a prohibition on using Islamic souces

, yet neglects to use Islamic sources just the same when it comes to what happened so that they can play the victim under Islamic oppression,

By Hugo - not true, people like Spencer who have written about Medina have used ONLY Islamic sources and shown using them that there was oppression.

but by the same token if they concede that Jews were there it would it would totally negate their bible which alleges that Abraham P was never in that part of the world, and if he were in that part of the world

By Hugo - this is such a silly argument that it is hardly worthy of comment. It would be like saying my son has never been to London because I was never there.

then at what stage I remind you of course that that Sarah was Barren when he took Ishmael out to sacrifice and as noted in their credible bible "take your ONLY son' is already questionable given that if ONLY then Ishmael was his only at the time, and if not ONLY then they have lied already given that Issac was his 2nd born, be that as it may, any Jews in the area at all are direct descendants of Abraham (p) how else and why else would they move to an area barren of the desert were it not for the zamzam well a source of water and settlement..

By Hugo - the Bible, the earlist KNOWN source proves that what you say is fabricated nonsense. IF you have an earlier source where is it?

of course the orientalist nonsense would forgo that fact, it would also forgo the wars at the time, all they are interested in, is that aha Jews were there, and they were assassinated, notice of course, given that the only known material on the matter is written by Islamic historians and is Islamic of origin, they'll have to use that part, everything else is their opinion which they sell to incompetent bozos who don't care to do two mins worth of research before coming on a public blog to assert how well read they are before pounding extra hard on their chest!

By Hugo - I think you will find if you bother to look that Islamic and other Historians broadly agree on the facts - that is not the issue. This issues are moral ones to do with Muslims massacres, taking booty, etc. Muslim try to explain it as a good thing and others see it as murder and stealing

 

[جوري]

By Hugo - no we can use the Biblical sources and they are NOT Islamic. In any case is there a prohibition on using Islamic souces

What does 'no we can use the biblical sources and they are not Islamic' mean in relation to our topic?

Also, I have no prohibition whatsoever on using Islamic sources, I am asking you and let's put this in a systematic fashion maybe this time it will stick
1- You use an Islamic source to prove that Jews were in Yathrib (check) I am game with that
2- You allege that they were assassinated, maltreated, expunged but you use a non-Islamic source to assert that, You don't use the actual facts of the matter as recorded originally.. and I ask you again why is that?
Treason occurred you fail to mention that, that is the reason behind the war against them..
When treason occurs against the state, the state takes action, no different than modern day United States imposing the death penalty on Ethyl and Julius Rosenberg for treason, do look it up!

By Hugo - not true, people like Spencer who have written about Medina have used ONLY Islamic sources and shown using them that there was oppression.

Well amazingly enough the Islamic sources don't speak of oppression, that is Spencer's opinion. You want to read the actual Islamic source on the matter, it is given you repeatedly on this forum and on this very thread!

By Hugo - this is such a silly argument that it is hardly worthy of comment. It would be like saying my son has never been to London because I was never there.

Actually that is the crux of the argument and your analogy is fallacious. I would like for you to establish for me when exactly Jews migrated to that area using a Jewish source, without it your whole argument crumbles.. as there is no record of Jews at all in that area (were it not for the Islamic sources) You want to make an assertion THEN PROVE IT, stop giving me the run around!

By Hugo - the Bible, the earlist KNOWN source proves that what you say is fabricated nonsense. IF you have an earlier source where is it?

You miss the entire point of the post, I don't know if you are intentionally doing it, but I am not amused, I'll take your side and say your bible is correct, Hagar, and Abraham were never in yathrib, now prove to me from a Non Islamic source how the Jews got there!

By Hugo - I think you will find if you bother to look that Islamic and other Historians broadly agree on the facts - that is not the issue. This issues are moral ones to do with Muslims massacres, taking booty, etc. Muslim try to explain it as a good thing and others see it as murder and stealing

Actually that is the entire issue, I already know what Muslim historians say on the matter and provided you with sources on the matter.. The 'Massacre' portion is your own addendum and other ignoramuses such as your person, not an Islamic assertion..

for the last time
If you are going to use an Islamic source to prove a point then use it all the way through not just the parts that appeal to you..

Do we understand each other?

all the best

 

[burdenofbeing]

IMO this discussion got out of hand

By the way I looked into Spencer's book via google books a bit, and frankly it's at most history fiction, both in content and style. I doubt ANY historian would deem that book useful or relevant.

I suggest Hugo to read materials from decent sources, regardless of their point of view.

 

[Hugo]

Sure only when you explain to me why there are that many versions of the bible:

By Hugo - by versions do you mean translations as that is how it is usually understood? There are many translations of the Qu'ran and indeed there is more than one version of the Qu'ran. Quoting Ibn Warraq: The fact is that few Muslims realise there are several Korans in circulation in the Islamic world, with textual variations whose significance, extent, and meaning has never been properly examined. In a lengthy introduction, Warraq notes that historical and linguistic evidence suggests that there was considerable confusion regarding what should be included in the Koran in the early years of Muslim history. Although the caliph Uthman canonised a specific text some fifteen years after the death of Muhammad, variant readings of certain passages have persisted to the present.

This can be seen in discrepancies between the two main printed versions of the Koran available today (the Warsh transmission found in West and Northwest Africa and the Hafs transmission, stemming from Kufa, and widely available through the standard Egyptian edition of 1924). This, coupled with the fact that Muslim secondary literature (the Hadiths) discusses missing Koranic verses and even Muhammad's sometimes faulty memory, strongly indicate that the Koran cannot be considered an inert revelation.

There was Abraham and Hagar and the source of water is what is known modern day as zamzam well.. I can forgo the biblical meanings which evolve with the time all together again if you'd merely explain to me how the Jews got there to yathrib?

By Hugo - I have explained many times. If Biblical meaning evolve then so do Qu'ranic ones as much of the Qu'ran is copied friom the BIble.

Yeah see my previous comment on how long exactly the Jews ruled the land of Cannan not the land of yathrib. I'd like to know of the great battle of the Jews and the pagan Arabs which enabled them to settle in that area, care to share that with me from a credible source that isn't your own assertion of the matter?

By Hugo - I do not recall and I am not aware Historically any battles with Arabs I only said Jews lived there

90% of Muslims are sunni, all you have to do is even use wikipedia to tell you just that, other factions are heretics indeed and a detailed history of why is listed, all you'd have to do is read.

By Hugo - so other factions are heritics because they are not sunni? I know the history very well but if you were shia you would not think that would you?

Very easy for a person to distinguish between modern medicine and quackery, and I have no doubt that if anyone reads of the history of the 10% factions of Islam would likewise come to the same conclusion! what is pointless is your brand of logic!

By Hugo - you do seem to hate everyone who is not in your brand of quackery

You speak of an event advent to Islam, and the end result happened because of Muslims, thus by the same token when using that source to allege one point (the most important point of all) you should use the same token to complete your conclusion no?

By Hugo - not sure what premise you are offering here - that things start somewhere? Is that a conclusion?

I guess we'll leave it then to members with a keen discerning eye to distinguish the fools from the scholars..

all the best

Sadly history tell us that often Scholars were fools.

 

[Hugo]

IMO this discussion got out of hand

By the way I looked into Spencer's book via google books a bit, and frankly it's at most history fiction, both in content and style. I doubt ANY historian would deem that book useful or relevant.

I suggest Hugo to read materials from decent sources, regardless of their point of view.

Funny that, all Spenser's sources are Islamic one so its nice to see you own up to your own fiction.

If you know of 'decent sources'then tell us what they are so they can be checked out

 

[جوري]

By Hugo - by versions do you mean translations as that is how it is usually understood?

No not translations, I mean missing/added/fabricated text!

There are many translations of the Qu'ran and indeed there is more than one version of the Qu'ran.

There is only one version of the Quran in Arabic.. How many original versions are there in original Aramaic and recorded as Jesus uttered his Godhood?

Quoting Ibn Warraq: The fact is that few Muslims realise there are several Korans in circulation in the Islamic world, with textual variations whose significance, extent, and meaning has never been properly examined. In a lengthy introduction, Warraq notes that historical and linguistic evidence suggests that there was considerable confusion regarding what should be included in the Koran in the early years of Muslim history. Although the caliph Uthman canonised a specific text some fifteen years after the death of Muhammad, variant readings of certain passages have persisted to the present.

Ibn Warraq (born 1946) is the pen name of a secularist author of Pakistani origin and founder of the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society and a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry[1][2] [3] focusing on Qur'anic criticism. [4][5]

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

this fellow is your source on the Quranic compilation? Give me a break fellow, you are as credible as a three dollar bill!

Luckily as was in society at the time and continues to be Quran is an Oral traditions, recited by 1.86 billion Muslims around the world and by heart.. I need not see Suret Ar'Rahaman and compare it to ISlamic text to note if there is an error in it as I know it amongst other suras by heart. You quoting me another idiot's view does nothing to loan credance to your views!

By Hugo - I have explained many times. If Biblical meaning evolve then so do Qu'ranic ones as much of the Qu'ran is copied friom the BIble.

Are you missing the point of being deliberately obtuse?
I already told you I am willing to be game with your chosen meaning for the previous, but I am still asking you, show me when Jewish tribes first immigrated to that area? There is always a set point in history, what triggered world war I, why the hundred year war, when the war of the roses, it should be easy for you given how handy you are with google to show me from a Jewish source, how the Jews happened upon what is modern day Saudi Arabia.. Do you think you understand now? or do I have to repeat this with the next post

By Hugo - I do not recall and I am not aware Historically any battles with Arabs I only said Jews lived there

Did they appear in Yathrib ex-nihilo? I'd like to know how they got there!

By Hugo - so other factions are heritics because they are not sunni? I know the history very well but if you were shia you would not think that would you?

Factions are heretics because it is mentioned in the inimitable Quran in suret 23. Do read the Quran, which you seem to know so much about ergo spencer and a pakastini secularist!


B

y Hugo - you do seem to hate everyone who is not in your brand of quackery

Oh how so? Why would I expend emotion on someone who is ignorant? I write to highlight things to the younger members who are vulnerable to the wiles of Tartuffe like individuals!

You speak of an event advent to Islam, and the end result happened because of Muslims, thus by the same token when using that source to allege one point (the most important point of all) you should use the same token to complete your conclusion no?

By Hugo - not sure what premise you are offering here - that things start somewhere? Is that a conclusion?

The premise is very easy, I don't know how many times I can repeat it to make it any clearer.
You allege 'Muslims assassinated Jews in cold blood', I am asking you to prove that Jews were there at all in yathrib to be assassinated if I am to forgo all the other crap you are doing here!

Sadly history tell us that often Scholars were fools.

I guess it depends on which 'scholars' you choose to follow.. I follow common sense and recorded accurate history!

all the best