Islam has copied (say the Christians and the Jews)

[Hugo]

you on the other hand aren't worthy of being dignified with a response, given that it goes completely over your head and for obvious reasons!

Thank you for the post and I will respond your 3,000 word copied essay though I did wonder if you had actually read it?

1. The essay mostly states things not shows them to be sound doctrine and we see this in the first line where the writer decides that 'infallibility' is a necessary attribute of a prophet. Whether he take that to also mean perfection is never made clear. It is also unclear whether one is born infallible/perfect or that somehow God purges you sins somehow along ones life. It is not made clear in the post but "sinlessness" of the prophets in Islam implies only a protection from errors of judgement in action and character as distinguished from the Biblical doctrine which holds that true sinlessness not only means a freedom from wrong doing but an actual state of heart, soul and mind that reflects all the goodness of God's holiness, love and righteousness.

2. His argument hinges on the word 'isma' and its use or near use in Qu'ranic verses. The argument is weak and in one case Q12.13 the word is used by a pagan (Aziz or Poitipher) about Joseph so here we have a whole dogma based on the word of a pagan? The hadith are hardly referred to and one wonders why this was avoided?

3. The writer then mentions, and it is unavoidable because it is in the Qu'ran, that some prophets committed zalla. Meaning they were just lapses or small errors and God corrected them. It is not possible to defy the written sources of Islam entirely and so the records of the sins of the prophets in the Qur'an and Hadith became watered down into "mistakes (khati'ati)", or "acts of forgetfulness", are constantly used by Muslim writers today to account for these misdemeanours which the Scripture and traditions of Islam record.This is coupled with a list of what what can only I think be described as unavoidable sins. So in Muslim writings we have such things as "There was no intention on the part of Adam to disobey the Divine commandment; it was simply forgetfulness that brought about the disobedience." Similarly, if we take the word istaghfir which, throughout the Qur'an, means to "ask forgiveness" but, in Muhammad's case, it is usually claimed it means to ask "protection (waqihim) from sin. The Hadith openly support the teaching of the Qur'an that Muhammad needed to ask for the forgiveness of his sins and record a prayer of Muhammad, part of which reads as follows:

So please forgive the sins which I have done in the past or I will do in the future, and also those (sins) which I did in secret or in public, and that which You know better than I. None has the right to be worshiped but you. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, p. 403).​

4. He further argues that prophets are like mirrors and so must be perfect but surely we are to pass on Gods message and that does not become more true because of who gives it? We then have Mohammed referred to but of course it is circular, Mohammed is perfect because the Qu'ran says so but we only know that because Mohammed told us? He then refers to the traditions the prove infallibility though he does not as far as I can see mention any.

5. We have what to me is are complete oddities which can hardly be more than fable such as it being said that Jesus in his youth helped his uncles with the restoration of the Ka'ba. Or another case where we are told that God may cause someone legs to be broken to avoid sin but why God would be so vicious and selective (why God protect some from sin and not others) is not explained.

Summary and Critique
Early Muslims soon discovered that the Bible taught that Jesus was the only sinless man and confronted with this evidence, deemed it necessary regard all prophets as sinless. Secondly, Islam holds that the scriptures were dictated directly to the prophets so prophets must be of impeccable character for, if they could not keep themselves from error how could they be trusted to communicate God's revelations without error? But logically this is no more than a presupposition that puts a limit on how God may work.

One supposes that the purpose of at-nubuwwa (the prophets) could be defeated if the people to whom they are sent regarded it as permissible for the prophets to commit sins and tell falsehoods, because then they would also think the same about their teachings and their commands and interdictions. Muslim orthodoxy, therefore, drew the logically correct conclusion that the prophets must be regarded as immune from serious errors (doctrine of isma). In short it puts the onus on the prophet not the message. But it was in my view not one which comes from an objective analysis of the teaching of the Qur'an and Hadith and cannot be traced back to the teachings of Mohammed.

 

[جوري]

Thank you for the post and I will respond your 3,000 word copied essay though I did wonder if you had actually read it?

oh Jimenez crickets .. you'll read and reply?

1. The essay mostly states things not shows them to be sound doctrine and we see this in the first line where the writer decides that 'infallibility' is a necessary attribute of a prophet. Whether he take that to also mean perfection is never made clear. It is also unclear whether one is born infallible/perfect or that somehow God purges you sins somehow along ones life. It is not made clear in the post but "sinlessness" of the prophets in Islam implies only a protection from errors of judgement in action and character as distinguished from the Biblical doctrine which holds that true sinlessness not only means a freedom from wrong doing but an actual state of heart, soul and mind that reflects all the goodness of God's holiness, love and righteousness.

The writer didn't 'decide' on the infallibility of the prophets, he made a conclusive introduction based on evidence he studded the entire page with. Most folks don't present their supporting documents in their opening statements.. it would be rather funny to do otherwise, don't you think? come up with a medical diagnosis without a proper history or convince the jury of guilt by evidence in the opening statement, perhaps you are accustomed to that sophomoric style and it is suitable for your purposes.. but in defense of the writer, he doesn't cater to you personally when writing. Further the subject of Sin vs. error are two separate topics which were in fact discussed before, as I have come to learn reading and comprehension isn't your strong suit.

2. His argument hinges on the word 'isma' and its use or near use in Qu'ranic verses. The argument is weak and in one case Q12.13 the word is used by a pagan (Aziz or Poitipher) about Joseph so here we have a whole dogma based on the word of a pagan? The hadith are hardly referred to and one wonders why this was avoided?

again we notice that you often jump to cut and paste before doing any research to back up your well cuts and pastes.. it doesn't reflect very good on your person, to come with such bravado mentioning things that are not your own intellectual property, and worse yet, not in existence all together.. rather than having this blind faith in your orientalist websites as you do in your man-made bible, why not superimpose it on the Quran, I mean how embarrassing for you?

قَالَ إِنِّي لَيَحْزُنُنِي أَنْ تَذْهَبُوا بِهِ وَأَخَافُ أَنْ يَأْكُلَهُ الذِّئْبُ وَأَنْتُمْ عَنْهُ غَافِلُونَ {13}
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 12:13] He said: Lo! in truth it saddens me that ye should take him with you, and I fear less the wolf devour him while ye are heedless of him.

This is all coming from a guy who accuses us of not reading..;D

3. The writer then mentions, and it is unavoidable because it is in the Qu'ran, that some prophets committed zalla. Meaning they were just lapses or small errors and God corrected them. It is not possible to defy the written sources of Islam entirely and so the records of the sins of the prophets in the Qur'an and Hadith became watered down into "mistakes (khati'ati)", or "acts of forgetfulness", are constantly used by Muslim writers today to account for these misdemeanours which the Scripture and traditions of Islam record.This is coupled with a list of what what can only I think be described as unavoidable sins. So in Muslim writings we have such things as "There was no intention on the part of Adam to disobey the Divine commandment; it was simply forgetfulness that brought about the disobedience." Similarly, if we take the word istaghfir which, throughout the Qur'an, means to "ask forgiveness" but, in Muhammad's case, it is usually claimed it means to ask "protection" from sin. The Hadith openly support the teaching of the Qur'an that Muhammad needed to ask for the forgiveness of his sins and record a prayer of Muhammad, part of which reads as follows:

So please forgive the sins which I have done in the past or I will do in the future, and also those (sins) which I did in secret or in public, and that which You know better than I. None has the right to be worshiped but you. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, p. 403).

What is the point of this paragraph? when we have clearly defined that sin (transgression against god) such as in the case of incestuous sex with your daughters isn't the same and can't be made akin to, telling people not to tamper with agriculture and letting nature take its course to the destruction of the crop? perhaps you can tweak your definitions so you are not always making such a fool of yourself!

4. He further argues that prophets are like mirrors and so must be perfect but surely we are to pass on Gods message and that does not become more true because of who gives it? We then have Mohammed referred to but of course it is circular, Mohammed is perfect because the Qu'ran says so but we only know that because Mohammed told us? He then refers to the traditions the prove infallibility though he does not as far as I can see mention any.

The writer assumes that you do other reading on the side of the Quran and Sunnah and don't merely reach for the first anti-Islamic site which can't see fit to even quote you verses correctly to draw the appropriate conclusion on the life and legacy of the prophet!

5. We have what to me is are complete oddities which can hardly be more than fable such as it being said that Jesus in his youth helped his uncles with the restoration of the Ka'ba. Or another case where we are told that God may cause someone legs to be broken to avoid sin but why God would be so vicious and selective (why God protect some from sin and not others) is not explained.

I don't know what criteria you go about distinguishing fables from truth, and again, I can place no weightiness on the opinion of a fellow who worships a man, and thinks that three is akin to one and that god would die, or dam n the earth for not bearing fruit when he supposedly created it or pray to himself, or choose ineffectual apostles or abrogate his commandments, through a charlatan nonetheless.. I mean why would god change his mind? or why would god ask Jews to uphold the sabbath and then fill the seas with fish on such a day you should answer that question before making the leap of who is chosen for what..
The Islamic position is that, it has to do with the core of the self, and it goes back to the creation of Adam from the good and the bad of the earth!

Summary and Critique
Early Muslims soon discovered that the Bible taught that Jesus was the only sinless man and confronted with this evidence, deemed it necessary regard all prophets as sinless. Secondly, Islam holds that the scriptures were dictated directly to the prophets so prophets must be of impeccable character for, if they could not keep themselves from error how could they be trusted to communicate God's revelations without error? But logically this is no more than a presupposition that puts a limit on how God may work.

One supposes that the purpose of at-nubuwwa (the prophets) could be defeated if the people to whom they are sent regarded it as permissible for the prophets to commit sins and tell falsehoods, because then they would also think the same about their teachings and their commands and interdictions. Muslim orthodoxy, therefore, drew the logically correct conclusion that the prophets must be regarded as immune from serious errors (doctrine of isma). In short it puts the onus on the prophet not the message. But it was in my view not one which comes from an objective analysis of the teaching of the Qur'an and Hadith and cannot be traced back to the teachings of Mohammed.

No one really cares for your view and we have demonstrated why and repeatedly. Why not work on quoting verses correctly first before you jump in head first and then make a theological leap based on falsehood?

all the best[/SIZE]

 

[Hugo]

oh hold on. you thought about it and came to the conclusion that 3=1. for some reason i dont think youve been thinking.

Where in the Bible does it say 3=1?

i see nothing wrong with any of the quran or hadith. humans will always be subject to mistakes. i know THAT is a major excuse for the discrepancies of your bible but that just reiterates the point. it is MAN MADE!

I am unclear what you are saying here, the Qu'ran and hadith contain mistakes? We know there are discrepancies in the Bible but that does not mean they can never be reconciled does it? Your Qu'ran was written down not by God but by human hands so man made was it not so why is it alone immune from error? Can you even admit that it might contain a contradiction for example, well the answer is no because you are 100% sure so its impossible for you to be critical?

 

[Hugo]

i have considered christianity extensively. do you agree that you must simply believe without proof? furthermore just recently you have said you must believe without even understanding key christian concepts to get into heaven. the fact is intellect is the only thing seperating us from animals. in islam we quote "hear and obey". what we hear we verify it is from Allah (in part this also means checking it actually makes logical sense)

I know this was addressed to Grace Seeker but I regard Christianity as a reasonable faith and to a believer it is logical but Christians are constantly reading and re-reading the Bible asking what is God saying but ultimately there is no material evidence to support the notion of God. If there were then it seems to me we have no part in that matter and faith is now unnecessary and God becomes like Gravity and we simply cannot avoid him.

 

[جوري]

Where in the Bible does it say 3=1?

we don't know, hence we find it so odd you worship a man named jesus, his father and the hovering spirit.

I am unclear what you are saying here, the Qu'ran and hadith contain mistakes? We know there are discrepancies in the Bible but that does not mean they can never be reconciled does it? Your Qu'ran was written down not by God but by human hands so man made was it not so why is it alone immune from error? Can you even admit that it might contain a contradiction for example, well the answer is no because you are 100% sure so its impossible for you to be critical?

He wrote he sees nothing in the Quran or hadith that has any discrepancy, the Quran was revealed by the arch angel, and the hadith has a long chain of narrations and criterion by which we accept those that are tawatur and neglect the ohad, or see if they match the Quran or contradict it.. no such luck with the bible..
it is amazing, you didn't get that from two simple plain English statements he has written?
One wonders why you have such difficulty comprehending simple words? Is it an intellectual challenge, a visual impairment, or simply playing it daftly?

all the best

 

[جوري]

I know this was addressed to Grace Seeker but I regard Christianity as a reasonable faith and to a believer it is logical but Christians are constantly reading and re-reading the Bible asking what is God saying but ultimately there is no material evidence to support the notion of God. If there were then it seems to me we have no part in that matter and faith is now unnecessary and God becomes like Gravity and we simply cannot avoid him.

Why choose Christianity then and not Zoroastrianism, it is older and more sensical in parts..if your faith doesn't have any logical component, then any religion will do.. especially when your religion is riddled with fables and contradictions!

all the best

 

[M.I.A.]

I know this was addressed to Grace Seeker but I regard Christianity as a reasonable faith and to a believer it is logical but Christians are constantly reading and re-reading the Bible asking what is God saying but ultimately there is no material evidence to support the notion of God. If there were then it seems to me we have no part in that matter and faith is now unnecessary and God becomes like Gravity and we simply cannot avoid him.

so if god existed it would negate any need for worship of god?
even though thats the only thing he has asked of us, even though he would have no need of us and you would understand that god had no need of us.
interesting.

 

[Hugo]

does that sound to you as someone who thinks the transmission isn't perfect? BTW 'variant/Multiple' readings still exist today of the same exact text (again, discussed before) let's have a look at two readings from the same sura:

Let me quote from Dr Azami's book:

P32 every year the prophets memory had to be refreshed - why if it is was all written down by dozens of scribes (60 according to Azami), the prophet was infallible and the revelations memorised perfectly by the companions? Also on P36 we read of the prophet sparing no effort in encouraging other to learn the words of Allah and on P58 we have double reward for memorization so there is some inconsistency here.

P73 there are no hadiths inn which the prophet delineates the order of the suras so that is entirely the work of man not God

P76 the Qu'ran was in loose page format so verses could be inserted into it easily so why is God so haphazard in his revelation?

P80 verses were brought to Zaid who recorded it as long as there were two witnesses. Why, if they had all these 'loose pages' and everything was memorised perfectly? P84 also speak of verses being added more or less at random if verified or as Azami put it "enough grounds for certainty". P86 tells of a "Sincere effort as possible to preserve the words of Allah"

P84 we have the compiled Qu'ran put in the state archives though how this fits in with P88 with Hafsa's Suhuf is anyone guess or even if the contents were the same.

P91 we read that an independent Mushaf was prepared and checked and after CORRECTIONS all other copies were BURNED so we now have no way of knowing how accurate or otherwise what we have now is

P96 Utham degreed that all personal manuscripts DIFFERING from his own should be burned so we know that different version were in circulation

P99 we are told that Zaid's scheme was to prepare multiple copies side by side and choose the best

P154 the Qu'ran was revealed in seven dialects so making all that is said above even more fraught with difficulty.

P155 we are told that Allah supplied TWO variants of verses in some cases in 7 dialects

Well I can go on but it is clear beyond doubt if Azami is right that the transmission was anything but simple and straightforward and we now have no way to check it one way or the other and its perfection can only be assumes as dogma not fact.

 

[Hugo]

so if god existed it would negate any need for worship of god? even though thats the only thing he has asked of us, even though he would have no need of us and you would understand that god had no need of us. interesting.

No, if his existence is proved we would have no choice in that matter in much the same way that we cannot avoid Gravity no matter what we think or believe.

 

[M.I.A.]

No, if his existence is proved we would have no choice in that matter in much the same way that we cannot avoid Gravity no matter what we think or believe.

i get it, misunderstood you i guess.
by the time god becomes unavoidable there will not be enough time for people to change. those that had belief before will probably be saved, i guess thats what all these warnings are about and also how to live life and accept death for those that will not see that day until they are raised from there graves.

anyway im definately tired of running around in circles and getting nowhere, we seem to know the truth but are still content in arguing for the sake of little gain...doesnt feel like anything constructive ever happens, although im sure we have all learned things in this thread.

 

[جوري]

Let me quote from Dr Azami's book:

I take it you'd rather the previous post be swept under the rug.. I admire your moxie.. always coming in with renewed vigor after each subsequent public humiliation..

P32 every year the prophets memory had to be refreshed - why if it is was all written down by dozens of scribes (60 according to Azami), the prophet was infallible and the revelations memorised perfectly by the companions? Also on P36 we read of the prophet sparing no effort in encouraging other to learn the words of Allah and on P58 we have double reward for memorization so there is some inconsistency here.

What exactly is the inconsistency, do you mind pointing it out?

P73 there are no hadiths inn which the prophet delineates the order of the suras so that is entirely the work of man not God

Rather it says '' As far as I am aware, there are no hadiths in which the prophet delineates the order of ALL the suras, opinions differ and can be summarized as follows:
1- The arrangement of all the suras as it stands, hearken back to the prophet himself (footnote) see as-suyti-al-itiqan i:176-177, see also ibn dawud, sunan, no 786
this is the opinion that I subscribe to. The counter view disagrees with this, citing the mushafs of certain companions such as ibn Masud and Ubbay b. Kaab) supposedly differ in sura order from the mushaf presently in our hands. 37 (see chapter 13 which is dedicated to the mushaf of ibn masud) and I'd prefer you actually read that before citing pages which you clearly have no integrity to quote correctly or in totality
2- some believe that the entire Quran was arranged by the prophet except for sura 9, which was placed by Uthman (footnote 38) as-suyti-al-itiqan i-177, quoting al baihiqi, see also abu dawud
3- etc.
4- etc

Muslim schlarly opinion unanimously holds that the present arrangement of Surahs is identical to that of 'Uthman's Mushaf' etc. etc.

as to how it is the work of man and not god you are yet to enlighten us to that factor, given there were no computers or archives, and that the order of some events that went in particular suras happened decades apart for anyone to decide that a particular verse belongs in chapter 2 verse 281 as opposed to chapter 98 verse 4, for the suras to flow in context, lyricism, syntax, significance etc.

P76 the Qu'ran was in loose page format so verses could be inserted into it easily so why is God so haphazard in his revelation?

How so? a haphazard revelation would be nonsensical, what you are actually doing is cementing the fact that the order of the verses in their current form is nothing short of a miracle!

P80 verses were brought to Zaid who recorded it as long as there were two witnesses. Why, if they had all these 'loose pages' and everything was memorised perfectly?

Again, what is your question here? Anyone who reads the same page would conclude the painstaking process that went into making sure there were absolutely no errors, two witnesses and super-imposed on that which was already recorded, along with it being an oral tradition. How hard must you think to come up with so many non-questions?

P84 also speak of verses being added more or less at random if verified or as Azami put it "enough grounds for certainty". P86 tells of a "Sincere effort as possible to preserve the words of Allah"

Azami tells you in the previous page on tawatur (an Islamic lexicon) that refers to gathering information from multiple channels and comparing them... the gist is to achieve absolute certainty and pre-requisite.. next page which you love to latch on goes to say (with that information in mind) so we return to sura bara'a where the two concluding verses where verified and entered into the suhauf based solely on Abu Khuzaima's parchment and the obligatory witness, backed by and memorized by Zaid and some other huffaz, but in a matter as weighty ad the Quran how can we accept one parchment and a few companion memories as sufficient grounds for tawatur?.......................................... A conspiracy to invent such verses is irrational because no conceivable benefit could have arisen in fabricating them (footnote) and given that Allah swt personally vouches for the companions, honesty in his book, we can infer that there was indeed sufficient tawatur to sanction these verses!

P84 we have the compiled Qu'ran put in the state archives though how this fits in with P88 with Hafsa's Suhuf is anyone guess or even if the contents were the same.

How can the content not be the same given the state of tawatur, your non-questions are so meek and fickle as your entire state of being!

P91 we read that an independent Mushaf was prepared and checked and after CORRECTIONS all other copies were BURNED so we now have no way of knowing how accurate or otherwise what we have now is

Indeed, and such happens with any work after completion, folks don't hold on to written redundancy.

P96 Utham degreed that all personal manuscripts DIFFERING from his own should be burned so we know that different version were in circulation

Indeed a compiled version differs from loose parchment which can go in any order other than the correct order.. after the painstaking task of preserving it as God intended, there is no point to hold on to any loose copies!

P99 we are told that Zaid's scheme was to prepare multiple copies side by side and choose the best

Rather is says, '' the variations are inconsequential (he actually goes on to put the missing initials which is rather painstaking to do and for any native Arabic speaker as are stated by Azami inconsequential to the meaning of each verse and bear no alterations to the semantics whatsoever Zaid ibn Thabit, findings both readings to be authentic and of equal status retained them in different copies, the inclusion of both side by side would have wrought confusion; alternatively placing one of them in the margin would imply a lesser degree of authenticity. By placing them in DIFFERENT COPIES HE ACCOMMODATED THEM ON EQUAL TERMS '' The modern approach to textual criticism requires that, when variations arise between two manuscripts of equal status, the editor cites one of the two in the core text while the deviations are cosigned to footnotes. This method however is unjust as it demotes the value of the second copy. Zaid's scheme is much fairer, by preparing multiple copieshe sidesteps any implications that this or that reading is superior, given each variant its just due (footnote 35)

P154 the Qu'ran was revealed in seven dialects so making all that is said above even more fraught with difficulty.

The Noble Quran was revealed in one language and that is Arabic. It has only one original Arabic copy. Arabic 1400 years ago had 7 dialects. There exists today one original copy of the Noble in Saudi Arabia today. A copy of this original copy also exists in Turkey today as well.
When the Noble Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, it was revealed in Arabic, and in the Quraishi dialect. The Quraishi dialect is the most proper Arabic dialect that properly uses the Arabic words without altering their sound.
The Quraishi dialect was the most popular dialect in the Middle East at that time, and is today the dialect used among Arabs who speak Proper Arabic. The dialect that books teach at schools is also a Quraishi dialect today.
Back in the Middle East 1400 years ago, the Quraishi dialect was not the only one used among Arabs. There existed 6 other dialects along with it, but as I said, it was the most popular.
It is very important in the Islamic faith that when we recite the Noble Quran, we recite it in the Quraishi dialect or what we call today in the proper Arabic. We can't pronounce for instance "th" as "sa" or "za". We can't pronounce "la" as "laman". We can't pronounce "ja" and "ga", etc...
There are no variances or missing parts in the Noble Quran. These are all false and baseless assumptions by some anti-Islamics. The Arabic dialects had problems with each others, and that's why standardizing the Noble Quran with its original Quraishi dialect was essential to keeping it as a perfect Holy Book: For instance, take the letter "j". Did you know that some Arabs don't pronounce the "j"? They always pronounce it as "g" or "ga".
Take "the" as another example. Some Arabs also don't pronounce "the". They pronounce it as "za".
Another example, and this is an important one in my opinion, is that some Arabs used to have a dialect which originated from Yemen, where they would add "an" at the end of a noun. Take for instance the popular word of today "Taliban", as in the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Taliban" is the same as the Arabic word "Talib" which means "Student".
The Afghans today used the old Arabic dialect from Yemen which dates even older than 1400 years ago when the Noble Quran was revealed. Back then in Yemen, as I said, they used to add the word "an" for nouns. So if they for instance wanted to refer to a stone "sakhr (in Arabic)", then they would refer to it as "sakhran", even though it would be written in Arabic as "sakhr".

P155 we are told that Allah supplied TWO variants of verses in some cases in 7 dialects

a well known example of this is in suret al-fatiha where the fourth verse can be recited as maalik (owner) or malik (king) of the day of judgment. BOTH WORDINGS WERE TAUGHT BY THE PROPHET AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTE MULTIPLE, RATHER THAN VARIANT READINGS.

Well I can go on but it is clear beyond doubt if Azami is right that the transmission was anything but simple and straightforward and we now have no way to check it one way or the other and its perfection can only be assumes as dogma not fact.

I tell you what is clear without a doubt to most people here and anyone who spends the time reading any text which you see fit to twist to suit your agenda.

1- you are an under-educated fool
2- you possess no intellectual integrity
3- you are dishonest in what you quote, banking on the effect that most have no time to clean your crap by going through the painstaking task of correcting all that you misquote, but I am here to expose you whenever chance permits although I don't think your filthy agenda is lost to anyone but yourself and the fools who follow in your footsteps
4- you are unable on your own to come up with material that is worth while, or a conclusion that draws from the premise, which is a conundrum to me this self-proclamation of scholarship when you can't even superimpose what you otherwise cut and paste on what has actually been written (an example of that is demonstrated above) and wherever I have had the misfortune to read your crap and respond to it!
5- You are one incredible hypocrite and I don't even want to bother counting the ways, as I have already lost my fast simply sitting here and replying to you!

 

[tango92]

No, if his existence is proved we would have no choice in that matter in much the same way that we cannot avoid Gravity no matter what we think or believe.

Youll never see the sun with closed eyes.

and if you opened your eyes to it you could hide from it, at least for a while...........

 

[Hiroshi]

All Praise and Glory Be to Allah , I never ever heard a Christian say so (the reason that priests in the church do not marry is that they follow the teachings of devils)...

It isn't just me saying it. The Bible says it. Such men have betrayed both God and his word.

no, I am not the one who supposed to show you, I am a Muslim and only seeking the knowledge of Qur`aan and Sunnah the knowledge of Allah`s religion which He perfected for us...

you are the one my respected brother who supposed to show me any translation of the bible that says Judas "fell from but not jumped off"... you are the Christian one who supposed to have the knowledge of the Christian books not me... it is your duty to prove for me that your books are right not me...with all my respect...

Well, I don't believe that any translation says that Judas jumped.

another 2 Qs:

What was the calling of the prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) and was he a Christian or Jewish?

Surah 3:67 says that Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but that he was an upright man and a Muslim. I take this to mean that Abraham submitted himself to God which of course is true.

 

[Hiroshi]

I'll make you a bet that when he looks the word he finds will be some form of the verb "to fall". (Though Wycliff uses "hanged" in Acts 1:18.)

I didn't know that. But you are right.

The Wycliffe New Testament rendering of Acts 1:18 reads: "And this Judas had a field of the hire of wickedness, and he was hanged, and burst apart the middle [And forsooth this wielded a field of the hire of wickedness, and he hanged, burst apart the middle], and all his entrails were shed abroad."

I wonder if this is more of a paraphrase though. It doesn't look authoritative.

 

[Amat Allah]

Thank you , my respected brother Hiroshi for answering my Qs and being so kind ,open-minded and respected...May Allah give you the good of this life and the good of the hereafter..Ameeen

It isn't just me saying it. The Bible says it. Such men have betrayed both God and his word.

Yes, but as I know many of the Christian brothers and sisters do not agree with you in this and considering those priests as their examples and that they are worshipping God by being unmarried (are they rejecting one of the bible true verses by this? .and it was really the first time for me to read that unmarried priests are following the teachings of devils, actually it was a shock for me knowing that...O Allah I seek your refuge from being a follower of devils and their teachings... Ameeen

but I could be wrong, cause I don`t see anyone here from the Christians rejecting what you have said about that matter...anyway ,May Allah guide us all Ameeen

Well, I don't believe that any translation says that Judas jumped.

its ok my respected brother, there is no need to prove this for me anymore...Judas died and gone and there is no use of knowing how he died...May Allah give us the good end of this life and hereafter Ameeen

Surah 3:67 says that Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but that he was an upright man and a Muslim. I take this to mean that Abraham submitted himself to God which of course is true.

[/QUOTE]

You are right, it means that Abraham submitted himself to God...May Allah lead your way to the path of the truth and keep you firm on it and all of us Ameeeeen

in shaa Allah you won`t mind me asking more Qs, with all my respect....

Was Abraham (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) a disbeliever? and is he going to hell? and again what was his message and calling?

 

[Hugo]

By the way there are eye witnesses of revelation coming from the prophet Muhammad pbuh - ever heard of hadiths. You just fail to accept them for whatever reason and instead like to rely on your "sources" eg, wikipedia - the only problem now is that why do you waste your time here? when countless times your bring us the same things and we reply in the same manner. You have asked your question and have recieved an answer. There is zero oppression here. Its you crying as usual because people disagree with you.
peace

Then do something that would be most unlike you and quote a hadith that says that anyone else saw or hear the angel?

 

[YusufNoor]

Then do something that would be most unlike you and quote a hadith that says that anyone else saw or hear the angel?

you mean like this:

Also from 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, there is that he said, "While we were sitting with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless with him and grant him peace, one day a man came up to us whose clothes were extremely white, whose hair was extremely black, upon whom traces of travelling could not be seen, and whom none of us knew, until he sat down close to the Prophet, may Allah bless with him and grant him peace, so that he rested his knees upon his knees and placed his two hands upon his thighs and said, 'Muhammad, tell me about Islam.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless with him and grant him peace, said, 'Islam is that you witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and you establish the prayer, and you give the Zakat, and you fast Ramadan, and you perform the hajj of the House if you are able to take a way to it.' He said, 'You have told the truth,' and we were amazed at him asking him and [then] telling him that he told the truth. He said, 'Tell me about iman.' He said, 'That you affirm Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day, and that you affirm the Decree, the good of it and the bad of it.' He said, 'You have told the truth.' He said, 'Tell me about ihsan.' He said, 'That you worship Allah as if you see Him, for if you don't see Him then truly He sees you.' He said, 'Tell me about the Hour.' He said, 'The one asked about it knows no more than the one asking.' He said, 'Then tell me about its tokens.' He said, 'That the female slave should give birth to her mistress, and you see poor, naked, barefoot shepherds of sheep and goats competing in making tall buildings.' He went away, and I remained some time. Then he asked, 'Umar, do you know who the questioner was?' I said, 'Allah and His Messenger know best.' He said, 'He was Jibril who came to you to teach you your deen'." Muslim (8) narrated it.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=879&CATE=1

you like to read books i see. check Imam An Nawai's 40 Hadeeth.

cheers

 

[Hugo]

i wrote: you missing the point, whether purposefully or not. Christians didn't fully and completely decide exactly "what was inspired by the "Holy Spirit" in their Bible in it's original language" until centuries AFTER Muslims KNEW what was contained in the Qur'an in it's original language! THAT is history! that is the TRUTH!

Let us be clear here there is no known document in Arabic before the 4CE and in contrast Greek and Hebrew were fully written language many thousands of years earlier. Arabic script itself was most likely devised by Christian cops. Of course certain books were accepted as God's word for the Bible because all sorts of literature was circulating at the time and when various Christian councils got together they affirmed what was existing as the cannon they did not pick and choose. If we compare this with the Qu'ran where it is impossible to know if its complete or not since there are virtually no manuscripts earlier than the late 9th century. You can believe it is complete if you wish but it cannot be proven whereas Christians and Jews have thousands of manuscripts some pre-dating Islam by 1,500 years. Amongst these manuscripts, about 6,000 there are estimated to be 30,000 differences although that vast majority are of little significance and none of them affect basic Christian doctrine.

 

[Hugo]

you mean like this:

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=879&CATE=1

Thank you for you prompt reply but I cannot locate this hadith using on-line searches (do you know the exact number) as it may simply be a matter of translation - though there are a few similar ones in Muwatta though to me they more often that not it is difficult to know for sure if someone is relating what the prophet said or heard the words themselves.

Would you then accept eyewitness accounts as found in the Bible?

 

[Hugo]

What exactly is the inconsistency, do you mind pointing it out?

P32 every year the prophets memory had to be refreshed - why if it is was all written down by dozens of scribes (60 according to Azami), the prophet was infallible and the revelations memorised perfectly by the companions? Also on P36 we read of the prophet sparing no effort in encouraging other to learn the words of Allah and on P58 we have double reward for memorization so there is some inconsistency here.

I have asked WHY this was necessary? We continually hear how the Qu'ran is perfect, everyone knew it by heart, it is faultless and so on. So WHY was it necessary for Jibril to refresh the prophet's memory every year? Do you not see that we cannot on the one hand have a supposed infallible prophet and on the other that he has to be constantly reminded?