Why do you reject Islam

[Khattab]

SpaceFalcon, Allah (SWT) has more than 99 names in the Quran, and a further Ten which are hidden from mankind I believe

 

[kadafi]

So A godly document is not allowed to vary in any of those ways? The Quran varies just as easily.

Do you deny that there are 99 names of God in the Quran? Your best argument is that they are all descriptive and not equivilent to Allah, but you do not grant us the same flexability? The same is true. Allah did not reveal his personal name to Muhammed or his followers (at least I have not read any instance where such is declared), instead Allah is equal to the Hebrew El and Elohim. The other names are descriptive, with the exception of YHVH, the true name of God which was revealed to Moses.

I think you misconstrued the point I was making.

With these Divine name Variations, I was referrin' to Elohim being used in source texts that are derived from the early nothern traditions of the Kingdom of Israel while Jehova (Yahweh) is used in texts that are derived from southern traditions, of the kingdom of Judah (and Jerusalem).

For example, the doublets of the Genesis narrations use these variations of Divine names.

The 'Who wrote the Bible' by Friedman explains the argument in a comphrensive way. I recommend it.

The Qur'an doesn't suffer from these allegations and thesis' because we have transmissions dating back to the Prophet's time and we have early manuscripts.

If you speak of what happend at Media, Banu Qainuqa, the Jews, were expelled, and the remainder of the city converted.

You are aware of the specific reason why the children of Qaynuqa were expelled?

http://bismikaallahuma.org/History/Jews/qaynuqa.htm

Furthermore, in spite of the fact that Banu Qainuqa were expelled, the remaining number of other Jews was quite huge.

This is simply a faceless lie, there is only one paradise, and it is open to all.

This is not a lie, as a Muslim, I'll be accounted if I propagate a lie. I've no intention of fabricating lies in order to strengthen my argument.

You are correct that there is only one 'next world' in the Judaistic tenets and that those who obey the 7 Laws (i.e. Noachides) will have a share in the next world BUT, that share doesn't equal the same share that a Jew receives in the next world. There is no chance that a Noachide will receive the same reward as a Jew who obeys the 613 laws and are favoured as God's Chosen people.


[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[SpaceFalcon2001]

With these Divine name Variations, I was referrin' to Elohim being used in source texts that are derived from the early nothern traditions of the Kingdom of Israel while Jehova (Yahweh) is used in texts that are derived from southern traditions, of the kingdom of Judah (and Jerusalem).

The documentary hypothesis is extremely theoretical. They accuse different parts of the torah to be written by different people simply because they do not appreciate the writing style.

Yes there are doublets. Often, they show events from a different point. For example Genisis 1 and 2 are accused doublets, yet they clearly describe creation in 2 different places and times! 1 for the earth in general and 2 in the Garden of Eden.

The Qur'an doesn't suffer from these allegations and thesis' because we have transmissions dating back to the Prophet's time and we have early manuscripts.

Then what's your point?

You are aware of the specific reason why the children of Qaynuqa were expelled?

There was an escalating quarrel between families, and when they felt they had enough reason, they kicked them out.

You are correct that there is only one 'next world' in the Judaistic tenets and that those who obey the 7 Laws (i.e. Noachides) will have a share in the next world BUT, that share doesn't equal the same share that a Jew receives in the next world.

What is your proof for this? Those who do good are rewarded for doing so.

And again, being chosen DOES NOT imply favor.

 

[kadafi]

The documentary hypothesis is extremely theoretical. They accuse different parts of the torah to be written by different people simply because they do not appreciate the writing style.

'Extremely' is exaggerated. The Document hypothesis is the most plausible thesis. The only reason why it hasn't been accepted as a fact is 'cause the theory is suggestin' to identify those 4 authors and which time-period.

For more info, consult the article titled Torah (Pentateuch) in the Anchor Bible dictionary. It analyzes the evidence of the thesis and list the reasons why most scholars accepted it.

The fact remains that if you compare the readings of the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, you will notice inconsistencies which seems to apparant in the present-day Bible[Injeel] and Torah[Taurat].

Yes there are doublets. Often, they show events from a different point. For example Genisis 1 and 2 are accused doublets, yet they clearly describe creation in 2 different places and times! 1 for the earth in general and 2 in the Garden of Eden.

That's accordin' to your (Jewish) interpretation. When one compares these doublets, it reveals that they do not agree in tone, structure, style etc. Hence why the first creation story is attributed the the R writer and the second to the P writer.

It's obvious that the creation story is referrin' to the same event and not two different events as you allegedly claimed.

What is your proof for this? Those who do good are rewarded for doing so.

And again, being chosen DOES NOT imply favor.

I think I covered this in my previous [unanswered] post. Furthermore, it also requires simple logic that a Gentile who obeys the 7 Laws (Noachide) only receives a small share in the next world whilst a Jew who obeys the 613 Laws receives a larger share. By claimin' that they receive the same reward demonstrates that you're not honest.


Early Rabbinic materials revealed that the Jews were those who God favoured (i.e. Chosen people).

The dictionary defines Chosen as: To prefer above others

Dr. Rabbi Sacha Stern writes in his book Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings:
To conclude, rabbinic sources suggest that although the title of "man" is restricted to Israel, in some sense Israel transcend the level of humanity, and have some affinity with angels and even with God. The nations, who have an intrinsic affinity with animals, stand in radical contrast to them... Righteous and angelic, the superiority of Israel over the nations should be by now self-evident. Rabbinic sources do not shy from stating that Israel are the choicest of all nations, the best, the greatest, the highest, the most beloved of the Almighty. One Jew outweighs all the nations put together. Appropriately, every morning is recited the daily blessing "that He has not made me a non-Jew".

This superiority is said, in Talmudic and other sources, to provide substantial benefits to Israel. According to the prevailing opinion, Israel are immune from the astrological influence of constellations. "Israel are sons of kings"; "all Israel are worthy of kingship". Israel are not fit for slavery, for "'They are My slaves (says the Almighty)', and not slaves of any other slaves". A non-Jew who hits a Jew is punishable by death. According to later sources, touching Israel is tantamount to sacrilege, for they are holy. Israel are compared to the beach upon which the waves cannot prevail; so the nations continuously threaten Israel, but never to any avail. "Israel are mighty before the nations"; like God, they are masters over all the inhabitants of earth.


Additionaly, the fact that Gentiles are seen as 'donkeys' or 'not-human' also demonstrates that the Jews are superior to the righteous Gentiles.

Peace

 

[SpaceFalcon2001]

The Document hypothesis is the most plausible thesis.

It's plausability is extremely suspect.

The fact remains that if you compare the readings of the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, you will notice inconsistencies which seems to apparant in the present-day Bible[Injeel] and Torah[Taurat].

The only inconsistancies found were some additional sentances in Job. I would hardly call that an invalidation of Torah.

That's accordin' to your (Jewish) interpretation. When one compares these doublets, it reveals that they do not agree in tone, structure, style etc.

They are quite obvious, when read together, that they refer to different events. Why doesn't the first of these doublets speak of a**** and eve? Why does the second doublet say specifically the Garden of eden and then detail it's creation, including Adam and eve?
Unless you think the garden of Eden is a codeword for earth, then they cannot refer to the same event.
[quote Furthermore, it also requires simple logic that a Gentile who obeys the 7 Laws (Noachide) only receives a small share in the next world whilst a Jew who obeys the 613 Laws receives a larger share. By claimin' that they receive the same reward demonstrates that you're not honest.[/quote] It only demonstrates that you only seek an interpretation that you find the least agreeable.

Early Rabbinic materials revealed that the Jews were those who God favoured (i.e. Chosen people).

Vayikra (Leviticus) 20:26 - "And you (the Jews) shall remain holy unto Me, for I, God, am holy and I have separated you from the nations to be mine."
We exist to carry out the will of God and his Torah. That is what chosen means. It doesn't grant superficial benefits.

The dictionary defines Chosen as: To prefer above others

Yes prefer. To preform a certain task. That is the Jewish people were prefered to follow the laws of God because other nations rejected those laws.

Additionaly, the fact that Gentiles are seen as 'donkeys' or 'not-human' also demonstrates that the Jews are superior to the righteous Gentiles.

Again, you have much trouble proving such quotes even exist, or even seeing them in context. You have no qualms taking them from biased sites who have seen the talmud as many times as you have. You might want to actually find a copy and examine the page it's on before you judge. I don't base my opinion of the Quran from biased sites, I actually look up those passages. Jews do not see non-Jews as donkeys or inhuman, and neither does the talmud.

 

[kadafi]

The only inconsistancies found were some additional sentances in Job. I would hardly call that an invalidation of Torah.

Interestin', a news article published at the 'Jewish Week' in 2001 states the contrary.

Excerpt:
Complete Scrolls show Torah's evolution, scholars say
The scrolls, he said, confirm the evolutionary nature of the Torah, showing there were additions, subtractions and other editing changes during its formation......Those who believe that every letter of the Torah was given by God to Moses unchanged throughout history, Schiffman said, are going to have problems with proof of different but valid biblical texts found at Qumran.

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/17247/edition_id/341/format/html/displaystory.html

They are quite obvious, when read together, that they refer to different events. Why doesn't the first of these doublets speak of a**** and eve? Why does the second doublet say specifically the Garden of eden and then detail it's creation, including Adam and eve?
Unless you think the garden of Eden is a codeword for earth, then they cannot refer to the same event.

They do not refer to different events since they're both creation stories. The first creation story elobrates whilst the second one summarizes it. But let's stick to the point that these events are creation stories. The interestin' point is that the first creation story (Elohim created,,,etc) contradicts the second story in terms of sequence.

Accordin' to the Genesis 1, the sequence is plants, animals and man/woman. In Genesis 2, the sequence is man, plants, animals and woman.

It only demonstrates that you only seek an interpretation that you find the least agreeable.

You haven't answered the point my friend.

Vayikra (Leviticus) 20:26 - "And you (the Jews) shall remain holy unto Me, for I, God, am holy and I have separated you from the nations to be mine."

We exist to carry out the will of God and his Torah. That is what chosen means. It doesn't grant superficial benefits.

You've dodged what I cited, early Rabbinic sources [boasted] how they were God's Chosen people. The favorites of God, while the righteous Gentiles [Noachides] are degraded.

Again, you have much trouble proving such quotes even exist, or even seeing them in context. You have no qualms taking them from biased sites who have seen the talmud as many times as you have. You might want to actually find a copy and examine the page it's on before you judge. I don't base my opinion of the Quran from biased sites, I actually look up those passages. Jews do not see non-Jews as donkeys or inhuman, and neither does the talmud.

I didn't cite any quotes regardin' the racial view towards Gentiles, nor did I quote sources of biased sites. I verify before I even cite a quote.

The article that refuted the propagada from Student's [so-called] refutation that Gentiles are not perceived as animals discusses it. It provides references of early Rabbinic sources to verify it.

 

[SpaceFalcon2001]

They do not refer to different events since they're both creation stories. The first creation story elobrates whilst the second one summarizes it. But let's stick to the point that these events are creation stories. The interestin' point is that the first creation story (Elohim created,,,etc) contradicts the second story in terms of sequence.

In different places. You continually ignore that, willingly.

You've dodged what I cited, early Rabbinic sources [boasted] how they were God's Chosen people. The favorites of God, while the righteous Gentiles [Noachides] are degraded.

The laws of the noachide are in Sanhedrin 9:4 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TalmudSanhedrin 56a/b
"Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a)

Maimonides states "Whoever among the Nations fulfills the Seven Commandments to serve God belongs to the Righteous among the Nations, and has his share in the World to Come.".

"I call heaven and earth to bear witness, that any individual, man or woman, Jew or Gentile, freeman or slave, can have the Holy Spirit bestowed upon him. It all depends on his deeds."
(Shaare Tzedek 60a, 60b)

http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=194&o=160
The Sages tell us that a non-Jew who fulfills these laws has as much reward in the World to Come as a Jew who fulfills the 613 Mitzvot. Therefore, there is no need for a non-Jew to convert to Judaism in order for him or her to enjoy a personal relationship with G-d.

OH NO! THE HATE!!!

 

[kadafi]

In different places. You continually ignore that, willingly.
The laws of the noachide are in Sanhedrin 9:4 and Sanhedrin 56a/b
"Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a)

Maimonides states "Whoever among the Nations fulfills the Seven Commandments to serve God belongs to the Righteous among the Nations, and has his share in the World to Come.".

"I call heaven and earth to bear witness, that any individual, man or woman, Jew or Gentile, freeman or slave, can have the Holy Spirit bestowed upon him. It all depends on his deeds."
(Shaare Tzedek 60a, 60b)

http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=194&o=160
The Sages tell us that a non-Jew who fulfills these laws has as much reward in the World to Come as a Jew who fulfills the 613 Mitzvot. Therefore, there is no need for a non-Jew to convert to Judaism in order for him or her to enjoy a personal relationship with G-d.

OH NO! THE HATE!!!

Greetings SpaceFalcon, it's funny to note that you actually disregarded what I wrote and added your version whilst ignoring my points.

You completely ignored the article that discusses the degradation of the Gentiles. Righteous Gentiles (i.e. Noachides) are promised a share in the world to come but that share DOES NOT equal to the rewards that a Jew receives. Inquire this with your local rabbis. In fact, this can be acknowledged by a layman who is compeletly ignorant about the Judaistic teachings.

A person (i.e. Jew) who has to obey and act upon the 613 commandments will receive greater rewards in comparision with a person (Noachide) who has to obey 7 laws.

And you also ignored the contradictions regardin' the Genesis events.

I do not want to engage in a discussion where I've to answer every point while you neglect some of the points and answer the rest.

 

[SpaceFalcon2001]

And you also ignored the contradictions regardin' the Genesis events.

You ignored the explination, is there something else you want? Should I it write in cursive next time?

 

[searchingsoul]

Re: What do they dislike about islam?

I like the way some muslims are committed to prayer five times a day. I love seeing pictures of them praying during hajj.

I don't like that the prayers are recitations. I like prayer to be more personal and a direct conversation with God. The muslim prayer is fine if it brings peace to the muslim. Personally, it doesn't appeal to me.

 

[SirZubair]

Re: What do they dislike about islam?

When i USED TO BE a non-muslim, the one thing i HATED (not disliked,..disliked is Too Soft)(which made me turn into a Non-muslim) was the extremism that some Muslims display. I thought THAT was islam. That is why i left it.

But then, over the year, i read about Prophet Muhammed, I learned about islam from Traditional Sunni Scholars and learnt about the Beauty of islam.

And that is when i realised that there is no Error is islam. It is the perfect way of life. And that the problem was the Followers of the religon. Kheir, thats my story.

I know, someone out there is proberly wondering "Why are you posting here? you are a muslim!"

Well, as a Once-upon-a-time-non-muslim, i feel that it is my right to post here :brother:

 

[nimrod]

Re: What do they dislike about islam?

Hussein

What I like about Islam is the fervor that many Muslims display in their following of the teachings they believe came from God.

What I dislike is the fervor that many Muslims display in their following of miss-guided teachings of what they believe came from God.

One group condemns suicide bombing, the other side endorses it.

Thanks
Nimrod

 

[hongi]

Re: What do they dislike about islam?

It's hard to dislike Islam without knowing anything about it. I've been trying to find an english copy of the Quran in the library without any success. Where do you guys get yours?

I personally don't have a problem against the religion itself, but some of the followers of your religion seem...a bit extreme.