The old testemant law, should muslims follow it too? that is the argument this missionary brought up, the reason being is because we muslims always critisize the christians for not obeying the OT when infact us muslims dont follow most of the OT law, however so does the missionaries argument excuse this problem or is he just using deception?
http://muslim-responses.com/Obeying_the_Law/Obeying_the_Law_
you decide!
If you read what the missionary wrote, you will see that the missionary's argument was NOT as Mr. Zaatari has stated -- that Muslims should keep the OT Law because they criticize Christians for not doing so. The missionary, Mr. Shamoun's argument was that "Islam makes it mandatory for its converts, specifically Jewish ones, to continue to observe OT laws such as Sabbath, dietary restrictions etc..." and yet "one of Muhammad’s widows, a Jewish captive who converted to Islam, was accused of observing the Sabbath." This is set for by Mr. Shamoun as a type of hypocrisy. Further he argues that "many Muslim apologists and polemicists...accuse Paul and/or the NT writers of setting aside certain OT commands, which presupposes that a true messenger or prophet would never allow such things to take place", but of course "the OT doesn’t merely forbid pig meat but also prohibits the consumption of camel meat and certain sea creatures, all of which the Quran makes permissible for eating."
Personally, I think the missionaries arguments are rather weak. But they are NOT as Mr. Zaatari has stated.
Mr Zaatari also implies that Christians do not truly follow Jesus, because we claim to worship Jesus and give thanks for his sacrifice for our sins. Something which Mr. Zaatari says that Jesus never claimed to be about and asking for proof of it from the Christians scriptures quotes many passages that have no relationship to that question. You see his argument succintly put in this quote from Bassam Zawadi's article which Mr. Zaatari submits as a rebuttal to the missionary:
Where on earth did Jesus teach that he came to die for the sins of the world and that his sacrifice came to replace the Law? Where? They can't show this.
Actually we can.
That neither Zawadi nor Zaatari quote any appropriate passages on point does NOT mean that such passages do NOT exist. One has to Luke no further than the first conversation Jesus had with some of his disciples after his resurrection. They were distraught and confused because of the events of the crucifixion: "The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel" (Luke 24:20-21). Note they had a hope for redemption that they now feel will go unmet. And then Jesus mets that need with hope:
He [Jesus] said to them [two of his disciples], "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27)
Yes, Mr. Zaatari and Mr. Zawadi, Jesus does teach that he had to die in order to bring redemption. And this is not the only place where he does so either. It tool time before the disciples reached an awareness that Jesus as the promised Messiah (or in Greek, Christ), but as soon as they came to that realization, then (and not till then) Jesus began to share how his Messiahship would end in death:
Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. (Matthew 16:21)
And again we have this account:
Mark 10
32They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33"We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise."
And Jesus spoke words of this nature not only to his disciples, but to those Jews who opposed his ministry also:
John 8
21Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away [a reference to his coming death], and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come."
22This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, 'Where I go, you cannot come'?"
23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."
Note how Jesus says that not believing in him means that these people will die in their sins. That is because believe in him saves them from their sins.
So much for the argument that this idea originated with Paul. We see it in the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and we see it on the lips of Jesus himself. But I submit that the idea originated with God, God who led the high priest of Israel to unknowingly prophesy as John records:
John 11
49Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."
51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,
So, Mr. Zaatari's protests not withstanding, it is simply not true that Jesus never spoke about his sacrificial death. What that has to do with whether or not Christians should be bound by the OT Law, I don't know, but it was a key argument in the article referenced and it needed to be addressed, lest anyone else should read the article and believe the falsehood presented therein.
. but anyway here is a rebuttal to a missionary who argued the Quran claims that todays gospel gospels bible is the full word of god:
simple