. . “Indeed, there has come to you from Allah a light and a plain Book. Wherewith Allah guides all those who seek His good pleasure, and He brings them out of darkness by His Will and brings them unto light and guides them to a Straight Way. (Surah 5:15-16)
Holly posted a very thought provoking Introduction to her upcoming ‘Who is Jesus? ‘ post. I am very surprised and impressed with the amount of thought, study and future research she has dedicated to this project. She listed all of the resources she is studying. I did not want to comment on the introduction post – I’m saving my comments for the actual conversation.
However, she quoted something that I found to be very conflicting and contradicting concerning the bible. This is one reason I did not want to leave a comment on her blog, because the focus of her conversation will be on ‘Who Is Jesus’ not the authenticity of the bible. The red highlight is from me.
We believe that God has worked throughout history to preserve His Word. Although there are indeed many translations and manuscripts – they all have incredible unity considering the fact that God divinely inspired 40 writers over 1,500 years of time!
Consider this:
God does not leave us with just claims of His divine handiwork in the Bible, but also supports it with compelling evidence. The design of the Bible itself is a miracle. Written over more than 1,500 years by vastly different writers, yet every book in the Bible is consistent in its message. These 66 books talk about history, prophecy, poetry, and theology. Despite their complexity, differences in writing styles and vast time periods, the books of the Bible agree miraculously well in theme, facts and cross-referencing. No human beings could have planned such an intricate combination of books over a 1,500-year time span. Bible manuscripts (remember, there were no printing presses until 1455) have survived despite weather, persecution and time. Most ancient writings written on weak materials like papyrus have vanished all together. Yet many copies of the Old Testament scriptures survived. For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain all books of the Old Testament, except Esther, and have been dated to before the time of Christ. Consider Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Only ten copies written about 1,000 years after the event are in existence. In comparison, there are over 24,000+ New Testament manuscripts, the earliest one dating to within 24 years after Christ.
The Bible also validates its divine authorship through fulfilled prophecies. An astonishing 668 prophecies have been fulfilled and none have ever been proven false (three are unconfirmed). An honest study of biblical prophecy will compellingly show the divine authorship of the Bible. Further, archeology confirms (or in some cases supports) accounts in the biblical record. No other holy book comes close to the Bible in the amount of evidence supporting its divine authorship. (from Who Wrote the Bible?)
Incredulous! An honest study of the Bible will show that the Bible is riddled with corruption and inaccuracies. It is well known that man has edited the bible everytime it’s revised. No two bibles are identical, it depends who’s doing the editing, and which denomination he belongs to. The many denominations of Christianity do not agree on the canon (the list of books accepted by the church as authoritative or divinely inspired) of the Christian Bible. Some of these books are not universally accepted. There is no such thing as one Bible. Catholics have extra books in their version which non-catholics reject, but the Catholics claim to be carrying the words of God and vice versa. The number of books in the Bible depends upon the Church one is following:
Protestant Church (66 books)
Roman Catholic Church (73 books)
While there are many bibles , there is only ONE Quran. This itself is a miracle. Allah savegaurded the Quran from tamperings, which the bible has suffered from. The Bible is a collection of writings produced at different points in history and authored by different writers. Never did God inspire the authors of books that belittles Him.
My question to all 2 billion Christians is, WHAT DID GOD REALLY SAY? I am not talking about those books which were written by Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke and Mark – who were not around to have Jesus repeat the direct words of God to them so that they could memorise it and teach others. BRING THE WORD OF GOD not WORDS ‘INSPIRED’ BY MEN. This will be impossible because I’m sure we are all in agreement that the words revealed from God to Jesus were never recorded, so even the manuscripts that we have are not manuscripts of the word of God but by your own admissions by men who claim to have been inspired by God. What makes those men even trustworthy? What makes their claims of ‘divinely inspired’ any different from any other person who feels inspired to write about God?
Seriously.
“Do they not consider the Qur’an? Had it been from other then Allah surely they would have found much discrepancies within it” (Surah An-Nisa 4:82)
Say: “O people of the Scripture! Do you criticize us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and in (the revelation) which has been sent down to us and in that which has been sent down before (us), and that most of you are disobedient?” [Ma’idah:59]
Say: “O people of the Scripture! Why do you reject the verses of Allah while Allah is Witness to what you do?” [Aali-Imraan:98]
Say “O people of the Scripture! You have nothing until you act according to the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been sent down to you from your Lord (the Quran).” [Ma’idah:68]
Get Fit Clinique
Dec 28, 2008 @ 18:05:24
Why is this so funny to me? I envision George W Bush saying this.
Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11: 16-18
16. I repeat: no one should think that I am a fool. But if you do, at least accept me as a fool, just so I will have a little to boast of.
17. Of course what I am saying now is not what the Lord would have me say; in this matter of boasting I am really talking like a fool.
18. But since there are so many who boast for merely human reasons, I will do the same.
Dec 28, 2008 @ 18:35:54
Dang gurl, That is a deep Question; WHat did GOD really say. I will be here daily to see what people come up with for that one. I cant see how it will be much in the NT anyway.
Dec 28, 2008 @ 19:42:37
Hi,
The Bible is the best attested book of antiquity. Even skeptical scholars will agree that we know what the Bible said to 99.5% accuracy and 100% on key doctrines. Yes, there were copying errors in spelling and such, but those are easily addressed. The Bible was not controlled and edited by the gov’t before wide distribution as the Koran was. If you research carefully you’ll find that the Koran changed in its early days as well.
The Bible teaches 100 time that Jesus is the only way to salvation. That is very clear.
The Bible records quite clearly that Jesus died on the cross. These records date to very close to the resurrection. Go poll history experts and 99% will agree that a real person named Jesus died on a Roman cross. Contrast that with the Koran which was written 500 years later by one guy who said it wasn’t Jesus on the cross. If you didn’t know anything about either religion, which would you find more likely?
Dec 28, 2008 @ 20:07:03
Neil, I didn’t know anything about any religion. I reseached them all and Islam was the only true religion for the whole mankind. When we study Islam or at least read the Quran and the authentic hadeeth (says of Muhammad) we learn that Islam is easy, complete and the perfect religion as well as way of life for the whole mankind.
For your salvation, accept Islam as your religion and way of life. Verily, it is the only religion for all mankind. Allah the Almighty makes it clear that Islam is the only religion acceptable to Him. Our Creator tells us:
“Truly the Religion before Allâh is Islâm (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any denies the Signs of Allâh, Allâh is swift in calling to account.” (3:19)
“If anyone desires a religion other than Islâm (submission to Allâh), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).” (3:85)
Dec 28, 2008 @ 20:20:41
I’ve never seen one of the errors or inconsistencies claimed that wasn’t either a punctuation error, or a misunderstanding on the readers part. Nothing that affects the message itself. Of course, again, not a scholar, merely a layperson trying to learn her faith.
As for the Protestant canon and the Catholic canon, well. Jesus left us a Church, not a book. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are meant to be adhered to together, not one or the other. The Church compiled the book we call the Bible, and ratified it, but the teachings contained therein were being taught from the beginning. When Luther left the Church, his bible still contained the Deuterocanon. It was only later that is was removed. And many Protestant versions have returned them, in one place or another.
Dec 28, 2008 @ 20:37:06
Umm Adam,
You were supposed to comment over at my site! That’s what I wanted! You don’t have to feel like you have to bring the discussion over to your site – you are welcomed to post these things under my post. Feel free – it is okay! I want you there! 🙂
I do want to correct something from your post, though…
You said:
“My question to all 2 billion Christians is, WHAT DID GOD REALLY SAY? I am not talking about those books which were written by Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke and Mark – who were not around to have Jesus repeat the direct words of God to them so that they could memorise it and teach others.”
Peter, Matthew, Luke DID know Christ. They walked with Him, lived with Him, followed Him while He was on this earth.
Also, you mentioned that different denominations accept varying amounts of books of the Bible. That is not really true, either. All Christian denominations that I am aware of accept 66 books.
You are confusing Catholicism as a differing denomination. Protestants and Catholics DO both regard themselves as Christians – but it is a larger break than just one of denomination. So, really, there are only two MAIN differing views on how many books should be included in the Scriptural Canon – not many different variations.
That is okay – I know it is only a misconception. I do not even pretend to know or understand (yet) the different branches of Islam – but surely there are at least two?
Please, feel free to “begin” the conversation and to have it at my place! (I’m serving tea and cookies!) 🙂
Dec 28, 2008 @ 20:43:39
Hey, just wanted to be clear that I’m not “bashing” my Catholic cousins, either. Not at all!
I just wanted to say that “yes, there is a difference,” and that the discussion at my site is not coming from a Catholic background – rather – it is from a Protestant background. I couldn’t possibly speak for a Catholic – I don’t know enough about their faith to do that.
Dec 28, 2008 @ 22:17:13
Ok Umm Adam, Can I have you talk to my mom and my dad. No you are not a scholar but being a child yourself, you know they listen to everyone but you, smile. Some of these comments would make my parents reflect. I am tired of fighting them. Maybe I will send them a link to your blog. wink. Miss ya much
Dec 28, 2008 @ 22:26:12
Holly,
Well, since I think I’m the only Catholic hanging around here…
I don’t feel bashed. And since I wouldn’t refer to us as a ‘denomination’ anyway, I don’t even take offense to not being numbered among the ‘Christian denominations’. 🙂
The three ‘branches’ of Christianity are Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. The Protestants broke off and eventually decided to remove books that they no longer felt were inspired. From there, you get hundreds, if not thousands, of Protestant denominations, as they keep forming their own churches when the spirit moves them. I’m certain, somewhere, some of them have added or removed books from the standard bible, but it’s impossible to keep up with the multitude, so that’s just a guess.
I’m aware of a few differing sects of Islam: Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Mahdi, and Baha’i, though I believe those last two, at least, are considered heretical groups by the main body of Muslims.
Dec 28, 2008 @ 22:50:42
Thanks, Amber – I don’t really know everyone’s background here.
All I meant was that it’s not as simple as calling it a “denominational difference.” It’s bigger than that.
I find most Catholic mothers that I am acquainted with quite impressive and worthy of emulating. I love their commitment to our Lord and to their families. But…I’m still just from a different branch, so am not wanting to speak from that point of view. I couldn’t do so.
You are correct on the vast amount of denominations within protestantism, though. Whew! There’s a lot! But I still haven’t seen any (none!) that accept or reject anything other than the 66 books.
Dec 29, 2008 @ 00:33:14
Holly,
I understand. I wouldn’t presume to speak from a Protestant perspective for the same reason, and when I mention something about them, I try to always be certain to mention that it’s just from what I’ve heard or read, because that’s all I know. I look forward to the discussion on your blog, which I intend to read quietly. 🙂
Dec 29, 2008 @ 00:33:15
Amber, also there is the Ahmadeya Muslims who believe God sent another holy book after Muhammad’s time. My Sunni Muslim friend told me about them though he said they were not real Muslims. A cult maybe?
Dec 29, 2008 @ 00:36:03
‘Ahmadeya’! I think that’s who I was thinking of when I wrote ‘Mahdi’. I’ve only run across one or two, and they seem to believe that the Mahdi, a prophet after Mohammed has already come. They called themselves ‘ahmadi’. And yes, if they are who I’m thinking of, from the conversations I read, the other Muslims consider them a sort of cult.
Dec 29, 2008 @ 00:48:00
Baha’i don’t consider themselves muslims. Ahmadiyya aren’t Muslims among other things they believe their leader was a prophet which takes on out of the folds of Islam. One can’t claim something about a religion that is against their teachings and still claim that religion.
It is like saying one is claiming to be a christian but doesn’t belive in the sacrafice.
Dec 29, 2008 @ 01:10:40
Nzingha,
Thanks, I’d gotten the impression that the Baha’i still sort of considered themselves Muslim. The internets great, but you can always find some wrong information somewhere.
Ahmadiyya, well, I did say they were a sort of a cult. They still consider themselves Muslim, from the two that I’ve ‘met’ but as you said, a belief contrary to Islam would take you out of Islam.
Dec 29, 2008 @ 03:59:43
Ummm…interesting conversation going on here. I just wanted to stop by and let you know I was thinking of you and wanted to stop by and see what’s going on “in the hood”.
I look forward to more posts about your family and life in general “in the hood”. I enjoyed reading your archived post about how your dealt with breast feeding and the time your Hubby dropped you off at the mall to shop.
Dec 29, 2008 @ 04:54:43
Ummadam said: ….by men who claim to have been inspired by God. What makes those men even trustworthy? What makes their claims of ‘divinely inspired’ any different from any other person who feels inspired to write about God?
I can say the same about Muhammad…
🙂
And if you absolutely want to take Paul letter out of context, Ummadam, you should add those verses:
“For you put up with fools gladly, since you yourselves are wise! 20 For you put up with it if one brings you into bondage, if one devours you, if one takes from you, if one exalts himself, if one strikes you on the face.”
Here, Paul was talking about the Christians from pagans backgroung who were wanting to GO BACK to the Jewish LAWS for their salvation though Christ is enough.
As Mr Bush is as Christian as a Santa Claus …
Dec 29, 2008 @ 05:14:07
Bismillaah
Assalaamu Alaikum Warahamagtuhlahi Wabrakagtuh Umm Adam!
Masha Allaah! You are very smart and thank you for continuing the dawa at bedu to discuss further my point. I am so grateful for that.
My friend and sister in Islam, Grace died early friday morning please make dua for her to get Jannatal firdaus.
To Allah we belong and to Him we will return. She looked beautiful in white hijaab and garments Alhamdulilaah. It was truly an honor to see her one last time and to carefully and lovingly wash her and put her in her shroud that I hand picked. It was very white with silver quietly interlaced to give it a special sparkling appeal. It felt very soft and nice to touch. I placed a very strong musk in her hand and clapsed her right hand on top of her left on her chest and sobbed. I will miss her, my dear Grace.
Dec 29, 2008 @ 09:07:05
emma, You said
“Ummadam said: ….by men who claim to have been inspired by God. What makes those men even trustworthy? What makes their claims of ‘divinely inspired’ any different from any other person who feels inspired to write about God?
I can say the same about Muhammad…”
Sorry you really cant. The HUGE difference is
Muhammad didnt become “inspired to write anything. INFACT he could not write at all.
Nothing in the Quran is HIS thoughts, unlike the Bible where you have Paul telling you HIS ideas.
Every revelation came DIRECTLY from Allah.
Neil, sorry but yeah the Roman government did control the Bible. And NOT the government never did nor does it control the Quran.
The quran was in the peoples heart. Most people memorized the Quran. This is why even today there are so many people that learn from a young age the entire Quran. This is one reason why there are NO mistakes or errors in the quran. Too many people know it in its entirity. You cant just come up with and write any old thing and think you wont be caught by millions.
another reason is we use it daily. We dont just use it as a referance or just to read for enjoyment. It is a partof our worship. we pray with it 5 times a day or more everyday. No way we can just change it.
the arabic words I say in my prayers are the same as the Asians man in china that is the same an the Man is India, that is the same as the man in Japan, that is the same and the man in France that is the saem as the woman in Turkey…….we all speak different languages but our resitation of the quran is the same……
Once it is in your heart and in your memory, no one can take it or change it ..its yours.
oh and no they didnt learn a version or a translation. They learned the one and the only orginal Quran.
Dec 29, 2008 @ 19:20:37
Regarding the Bible:
I doubt whether “even skeptical scholars” would give it such high points for accuracy, unless they were literalists. Most other scholars agree that the Bible refers to some historical events, but also uses symbolism, stories independent of the main narrative (the Book of Job whose story prefigured its treatment in the Bible), and rhetorical devices to transmit its message. It is heavily translated both from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and into contemporary languages. Origingal manuscripts have been lost, and continue to be found.
Regarding the proliferation of(pseudo-)Christian and (pseudo-) Muslim sects especially in the US:
I would say that US tax exemptions for religious groups, and paradoxically, freedom of religion encourage this proliferation. Recently a child neglect case made headlines in Canada as a couple refused hospitalization for their seriously malnourished baby, reportedly on religious grounds of being members of the US based “Nation of Moorish Americans”. While there was much disinformation in the media (some of it of the “crazy Muslims” variety), ultimately it is more likely that the child suffered from a rare breast milk protein allergy, and the parents were well meaning but afraid the child would be taken away by social services. Unfortunately, the “Nation of Moorish Americans” while purporting to be Islamic, has little in common with Islam, and is quite ludicrous in claiming Moroccan citizenship for its members, thereby supporting their refusal to acknowledge North American law. Ultimately the law, including health law prevailed and the baby was successfully treated.
Interesting post!
Dec 29, 2008 @ 21:02:09
I have a feeling that a lot of this discussion will rest on what you believe about your scriptures. What “the truth” is is what you believe the truth to be– especially if both documents claim to make suppositions about the same people.
Regardless, it’s simplistic to say that the Bible is filled with errors because one branch believes that’s it’s okay to add Apocryphal books and the other does not. It also seems interesting to me that Islam would trust only one author to its main work– how would you have any way to verify that the one author was not wrong, or remembered something incorrectly?
There’s a benefit to multiple authorship, and it’s a strength for the Bible to be written over as many years because it can attest to God not changing.
Dec 29, 2008 @ 22:40:39
MinTheGap – if I were an unbiased truth seeker, as I once were before practicing Islam – I would look at the claims of both books. The bible has a Prophet of god claiming divinity. The Quran states that nothing is is worthy of worship except Allah. Muhammad never once elevated His status and that is something people should consider. He was an illiterate man in a pagan society. Before receiving revelation, he had no prior knowledge of religion or any previously sent Message.
He would have had more worldly opportunities available to Him if he worshiped idols like the rest of his people. Lke all the other Prophets, may God’s peace be upon them all, never thought of any wages in return for his mission. He suffered hunger, thirst and every other kind of hardship. He was forced to leave his native town, and was made the target of many assaults and traps. He bore all these simply for the good pleasure of God and the good of mankind. He never expected anything from people. Even though some of his Companions became wealthier in later years, the Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, never changed his lifestyle, nor did his family. They continued to live a very simple life.
In addition to receiving no worldly benefit from his people, God’s Messenger also had to bear many tortures. By calling people to stop worshipping idols he became an outcast. It is reported that the Prophet Muhammad (P) had gathered all people of Mekka before him, then he asked them about his credibility before them; he said: “If I were to inform you that there were horsemen emerging out of the foot of this mountain, would you believe me?” This question is a test of his credibility and reliability in the eyes of his people, he asked them about a very illogical event, if he told them that it is true, would they believe him in such an illogical claim, that “there were horsemen emerging out of the foot of this mountain”?
The answer was: “We have not experienced any lie from you” indicating that his truthfulness and credibility among his people were at the highest levels. No person related that he ever told a lie despite the fact that his opponents had the motive to relate any lie from him. However, they did not.
They rejected his message but never took back the fact that he was trustworthy – ever! The elite of Quraish disbelieved the Prophet (peace be upon him) to keep their leadership and their followers disbelieved him in obedience of their leaders.
After that he did not call people to anything new but reminded them of what all the other Messengers said. He never thought of concealing even a word of the Divine Revelation. We read in the Qur’an that God admonished him mildly for a few actions of his. Were he not the Messenger of God and – God forbid the thought! – were he the author of the Quran, there would have been no such admonition in it.
Also, when the Prophet (P) told his wife Khadijah about the revelation, she knew that he is truthful and believed in him. How many of us would believe our husband’s if they came home claiming to have recieved revalation? We’d probably think they were having a breakdown!
The Quran calls only to deeds that are good. Among many other things, it incites its reader to belief in God, trust and reliance on Him, prayer, God-consciousness at all times, sincerity of intention, charity, kindness to orphans and the needy, graciousness to our parents, justice and fairness among people, truthfulness and good business ethics, chastity, cleanliness, etc.
So what’s not to trust? If he were once an enemy of God who all of a sudden changed his ways and then made up teachings different than any other (Paul) than I would not believe that this is the word of God.
If there are holes in these arguments, please let us know. We respect your question because it is polite yet frank, and more importantly it reflects a logical and sincere quest for the Truth. If you are not Muslim, we expect you to have misgivings about the Quran. We are not insulted by your objectives and we hope that more non-Muslims would voice their doubts for the sake of arriving at Truth.
Neither Jesus, Muhammad or anybody else can guide anyone.If you desire guidance to all truth, the One to ask is the Creator.
If you are sincere, and honest with Him, then there can be no doubt that He will always guide the sincere to the Right Path.
In the end, we — the Muslims — bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God whom Allah sent to us to convey the Message before the Day of Judgement. We bear witness to this because he was a truthful person who had never told a lie neither during the period of Jahillyyah nor during the time of Islam. This leads us to primarily believe in him, especially since he preached the same which all true prophets and messengers of God had preached.
Dec 29, 2008 @ 22:44:30
I have not read the Qur’an through and through but there are some passages that cause me to ask questions as to why Muslims would “bash” the Bible. (I have the M. M. Shakir translation).
1. Surah Yunus 10:94 – mentions that Allah tells Mohammad, if you have doubts, you should question those who read the Scripture that was before you (meaning the Old and New Testaments) because the truth was found in those Scriptures.
2. But Muslims say those Scriptures have been corrupted – Surah Cattle 6:115 tells us that Allah is assuring Mohammed that the Scripture (prior to the Qur’an) was given by Him, and it is perfect and no one can change them. So, we know that Allah is powerful enough to keep His Word from being corrupted.
3. Surah The Women 4:136 – says don’t be a wanderer, believe in the “Before Scriptures.” This is point blank telling Muslims to believe the Bible (at least the Taurat and the Injeel).
4. Finally, Surah The Table 5:65-66 indicates a roadmap to blessings and eternal life is through the Torah and the Gospels.
So, it appears that to be a good Muslim, one must read the books of Moses and the Injeel, which are the Gospels of Jesus (Isa) – according to Surah The Table 5:68.
Dec 29, 2008 @ 22:49:49
Hi HeartQuest, Thanks for stopping by. I’m up waay pass my bedtime and my 3 year old is trying to pull me back in bed so here is my short answer.
As Muslims we must believe that Allah sent revalation to Moses and Jesus in the form of the torah and the injeel. This was a verbal revelation that was never recorded. The books that you admittedly have now were supposedly insipred by multiple authors. In other words the OT and the NT are not what Allah was referring to in the Quran.
Goodnight, be back later insha’Allah 🙂
Dec 29, 2008 @ 23:41:17
Hey Ummadam, Rest well. BTW, I’m Scott.
The Bible is not really inspired by multiple authors, it has one Author, the Holy Spirit of God Himself, but there are many writers, who were inspired to write as directed and revealed by God.
Regarding the message and mission of Jesus, While Muslims teach that He is merely a prophet, it seems to me that the Qur’an reveals that Isa is much more than a prophet – for instance in Surah Al-Imram 3:42-55.
1. Isa is holy – 3:45-47 – Mary is chosen to bear Jesus (Isa). Isa is the Word of God, He is the Messiah, He is near to Allah, Isa is righteous. Does this passage say that Isa came directly from Allah and He did not have a father? Are there any other prophets who did not have a father? I suppose Adam would fit here. Why would Allah have Isa born without a father? Does this mean that Isa holds the same quality of holiness as Allah? While Allah does not share His glory with another, He can if He came incarnate, God in the flesh.
2. Isa has the power over death – 3:49 – Isa heals the leper, heals the blind and raised the dead. Are there any other prophets that have been given this sort of power?
3. Isa knows the way to heaven – 3:55 – Could this be because Isa traveled the straight path from Allah and has gone back to Allah? It just seems that the Qur’an makes Jesus out to be so much greater than Muslims let on.
Please, with respect, if Jesus was just one of many prophets, it seems He is a greater prophet than The Prophet. It is interesting to read what Mohammed wrote about himself – Surah The Sandhills 46:9 – “I am not the first of the apostles, I do not know what will be done with me or with you, I do not follow anything but that which is revealed to me, I am nothing but a plain warner.”
Blessings…
Dec 29, 2008 @ 23:50:42
Umm Adam,
You wrote:
“In the end, we — the Muslims — bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God whom Allah sent to us to convey the Message before the Day of Judgement.”
In Islam, is Jesus’ return first or the Day of Judgment? Is Muhammad the last messenger or Jesus? Because isn’t Jesus supposed to return to earth from heaven where he is now with God and reveal more of Allah’s will? And when Jesus comes back, it will be too late for the nonMuslims, right?
I am trying to get the timeline straight in my mind.
Thank you.
Dec 30, 2008 @ 05:33:42
livinglifeandlovinit said:
“Muhammad didn’t become “inspired to write anything. INFACT he could not write at all.
Nothing in the Quran is HIS thoughts, unlike the Bible where you have Paul telling you HIS ideas.
Every revelation came DIRECTLY from Allah.”
So Muhammad said and so you choose to believe it.
MANY people say that they received a revelation right from God (even Joan of Arc 🙂 ) that doesn’t mean it’s true.
You also said:
“oh and no they didnt learn a version or a translation. They learned the one and the only orginal Quran.”
I fail to see the point of learning a prayer (or a book) written in a language that you do not understand.
Eventualy, to understand it, you rely on translations, anyway.
As a translator myself I’m very (professionaly 🙂 ) aware of what is a translation , as were aware and are still aware Christians in general and Biblical translators in particular. I have different translations of the Bible and I like it this way because one translations will help me to dig more deeply in the text, in the understanding of it. But it is still the same text and the same message.
You give the idea the Bible translations are made carelessly (or worse, dishonestly) like if somebody would “Hey! today I’m going to translate the Bible and rewritte the story!” Far from that, people were always very commited and never alone to do it and it was serious business (still is) to do.
Maybe Muhammad was illiterate but the translators of the Bible surely were not!
I remember hearing a scholar explaining the differences between Christianity and Islam; He said that one of the main diference was that for the Christians the “revelation” was Christ, as that for the Muslims the “revelation” was the Koran.
I would not say that the Bible is not important for us, of course not, but what is really important, essential, is Christ. The all Bible, the all history of the Jewish people is pointed toward Christ, the Messiah.
Dec 30, 2008 @ 12:52:51
Is it just me or does it seem absurd to think that a single Arab nomad, who was known to always tell the truth and never known to tell a lie, would one day just up and decide to reform his people’s long-held pagan idol worshipping and other practices, and out of thin air compile what we know of the Quran?
I don’t expect everyone to believe that Muhammad was a Prophet and Messenger of God and that the Quran was revealed to him. However, I would expect that you use your brains before you make senseless accusations.
Dec 30, 2008 @ 17:51:50
Ummadam: I didn’t mean he was telling knowingly a lie. Maybe he really thought that was was from God…
Anyway I didn’t want to offend you 🙂
If this is absurd to say “that a single Arab nomad, who was known to always tell the truth and never known to tell a liewould one day just up and decide to reform his people’s long-held pagan idol worshipping and other practices, and out of thin air compile what we know of the Quran?”, we can also say that this is absurd to think that first centuries Jews, who were strictly monotheistic in a sea of idol worshippers and who were raised in a somtimes violent hatred of all paganism turned all of a sudden “idolaters”.(think of Paul who was taught by the best pharisee school and was himself a persecutor of the early church)
Again Ummadam, I didn’t say Muhammad was a lier (and I DON’T think it!) but I will not say he was a prophet either. If you accept to leave me free of refusing him as a prophet you have to accept the logical conclusions I (or others) may draw from that point. If you don’t you just technically refusing me the right of saying he is not a prophet.
Dec 30, 2008 @ 18:23:27
Is it true that Muhammad didn’t even know these words were “from God” until his wife convinced him? He thought he was going crazy until Khadija (?) told him he’d heard from Gabriel. Do I understand that correctly?
So it’s not that Muhammad, the truth teller, decided to make up something like the Quran. Perhaps he was deceived himself by the Father of Lies who, btw, appears as an angel of light. The devil doesn’t go around with a pointed tail and pitch fork. He is the master deceiver. So it’s not Muhammad who was a liar, but maybe he was tricked by one (Satan) far more clever than any of us.
As for the Apostle Paul … see the drastic change in his life? THAT is what Jesus does to people. He makes a Jewish terrorist who wanted to kill these Jesus followers who were corrupting Judaism into one of the boldest witnesses for Christ.
In the case of my pastor, Jesus made a cocaine-addicted, law-breaking, people-hating rebel into a man who passionately loves people and serves others. This is what knowing Jesus does — He changes lives.
Dec 30, 2008 @ 20:16:13
UNBELIEVABLE! Muhammad was not crazy nor was he decieved by the father of lies, but rather a Prophet raised by God to deliver humanity from Hellfire.
For the sake of argument [bites tongue]…what lies was Muhammad tricked to tell and how did this benefit the devil who is cursed in this same book that you claim he may have tricked Muhammad to write?
What did he say that was a lie? Did he claim divinity? Did he slander the other Prophets? Did he disrespect thousands of years of revelation, like Paul who preached mysteries of faith, who you say was a reformed terrorist who wanted to kill the true followers of Jesus -and is suddenly a witness for Christ!!!!!!!!!!!????????????
[Where is that icon of the head banging against the keyboard when you needs it!!!!]
I find it amazing that YOU PEOPLE OF THE BOOK would rather trust your salvation to the sheer heresay of Paul who had no use for the teachings of Jesus, and he himself persecuted the followers of Jesus for their unorthodox beliefs. And you think that by ‘knowing Jesus’ this zealous persecutor was turned into an ardent preacher, after claiming that a resurrected Jesus appeared to him in a vision?!
[rolls eyes in disbelief]
Paul’s credibility in any capacity is questionable, yet you totally reject a long chain of esteemed prophets (well maybe not so esteemed in the eyes of Christians since they trust the bible which has reduced the prophets to drunks and other such slanderous claims)calling you to worhip one God and righteous living. No prophet – including Jesus himself – taught such concepts; they were authored entirely by Paul.
Let’s take Muhammad out of the equation. If you had to choose between the two, to whom should you give priority — Jesus or Paul?
“Indeed, We have sent you with the truth, as a bearer of glad tidings and a Warner: for there never was any community but a Warner has [lived and] passed away in its midst.” (Quran 35:24)
“And We sent forth Our messengers, one after another: [and] every time their messenger came to a community, they gave him the lie: and so We caused them to follow one another [into the grave], and let them become [mere] tales: and so – away with the folk who would not believe!” (Quran 23:44)
Can I get an amen?! A’int that the truth. Jews claiming Jesus was the bastard child of Joseph and Mary, Christians saying he is the son of God -even worse- saying he is God. Muhammad brings the truth: Jesus was God’s noble prophet born of a miraculous virgin birth – then all hell breaks loose!
Dec 30, 2008 @ 20:44:46
Ah, Umm Adam, I apologize. I didn’t mean to cause you to bang your head against the keyboard. I was just contributing to the discussion and sharing from my point of view and trying to learn some of yours.
It’s really hard to convey tone of voice by typing…. I am sorry.
You ask good questions though. And I enjoy reading what you have to say. You are so demonstrative. 😀
Dec 30, 2008 @ 20:54:49
See, Umm Adam’s reaction is why I didn’t say that I believe Mohammed’s angel was the devil.
As for what lies, well, from my point of view, the denial of Jesus as God would be the big one. Followed by the entire Islamic crucifixion story. I’m certain there are others, but those are the first two that spring to mind.
And before anyone says, ‘why would the devil tell us to seek refuge in God’, or ‘condemn himself’, well, the best lies are always woven in with the truth. It makes them much harder to discover. And the devil is a great liar.
Dec 30, 2008 @ 21:13:24
Since you asked so nicely while you bit your tongue (Please know that I am smiling at your sense of humor and am not being sarcastic or mean, OK?) …
Jesus or Paul? Jesus, of course! He is perfect, Paul is not. But Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.” Paul didn’t say that. Jesus did. Jesus also said He is the gate, the bread of life and the living water. I don’t have to read anything from Paul.
I trust Jesus for my salvation, not Paul.
As for Muhammad … I’m sorry my statements seemed unbelievable. (Thinking as a Muslim, I can see why…sorry.) But as for what the lie is and please see this from MY point of view to understand what I am saying.
The Bible teaches in the OT that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (Thus the Jewish sacrifice system where atonement was made for sins.) The Quran is wonderful in that it teaches people to praise the Lord, give to the poor, keep themselves pure, honor their parents and so forth. I LOVE that about the Quran. However, the Deceiver left out THE very thing that can save your soul — the importance of the blood, Jesus’ blood! The power of Christianity is in the cross of Jesus Christ.
If the devil gave a book that promoted immorality, violence, drunkenness, anyone would know that was not a holy book. So why not give a book of good deeds AND make it even MORE strict — require prayer 5 times per day, require this and that … even require the people rules for using the bathroom and drinking water! Just so long as the necessity of Jesus’ blood was removed, the devil doesn’t care. He knows he is cursed regardless.
I don’t expect you to agree, but I wanted you to understand where I am coming from so it will be more believable to you and you won’t have to bang your head when you are frustrated at us “people of the book.”
And, yes, those nonreligious types would read my post and put me in the religious nut house. Probably you do as well. It’s fine. 😉
May the Lord guide us both to His truth. I really want to be your spiritual sister one day. I pray for that to happen.
Thanks for the dialogue.
Dec 30, 2008 @ 23:13:14
Paul. The bible warned about false prophets, but little did Christians know that a false prophet would be one of the most celebrated people in their book.
If you examine Paul, you would find that Paul gained his notoriety as “the apostle of the gentiles”, however, Jesus ALWAYS warned his FOLLOWERS to stay away from the gentiles, and that he, and his mission was not sent for them—saying “I’ve been sent but the lost sheep of the house of Israel” and refusing to heal the woman. Paul missed that warning because he NEVER met Jesus before the “crucifixion”.
Jesus followed the Mosaic Law and said he wouldn’t change it one “jot” or “tittle”. Paul systematically changed to suit his agenda. Jesus was circumcised and NEVER ate pork; paul told the Romans you don’t have to be circumcised—in violation of the covenant God made with Abraham—and that it was cool to eat pork etc… Paul NEVER opposed pagan practices he encountered amongst the gentiles, he co-opted them. While in Rome, he saw the Romans worshiping their false gods, and he remained silent, telling them he knew the secrets of their unnamed god.
Dec 31, 2008 @ 01:10:50
Daud, I don’t recall Jesus refusing to heal someone. Can you show me that?
As for going only to the house of Israel, Jesus did commission his disciples to go elsewhere after his crucifixion.
Matthew 28
18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Thanks for sharing your version of Paul. 🙂
Dec 31, 2008 @ 01:17:35
Susanne, whose version of Paul do you think that came from? as far as I know there is no Islamic version of Paul. All of the sources I’ve seen about Paul were either historical or from biblical scholars and experts. I know it’s difficult to admit when one has been deceived for so many years by so many people, some of them very close. It is also difficult to consider the consequences of loosing faith in the doctrine of the Church, out of fear of loosing faith in God altogether.
But there is wonderful hope, Grace, Mercy and Salvation for those who come to the correct belief and obey the commandments.
Dec 31, 2008 @ 05:29:26
It’s so funny,many of the doubts on Islam christians level at muslims, are the same things muslims would see wrong with christianity. Dialogue is good, but I’m wondering if this is going anywhere? Your religion is false, no, yours is. No ones actually said that, that’s just a simplification. I don’t have anything to add to the discussion. Just happy and thankful to have left misguidance behind.
Dec 31, 2008 @ 06:41:12
Asiyasmom, I don’t think there is much anyone can add at this point. Alhamduillah for being guided to Islam and the Sunnah.
Dec 31, 2008 @ 08:48:27
Asiyasmom
What you see is the Ahmad Deedat da’wah, but it is incorrect. What we need to do is call the christians to Tawheed. Tawheed as the foundation exposes the christians as polytheists; and it’s as clear as the night and the day.
Dec 31, 2008 @ 11:45:46
That’s true Daud and that was my goal. Conversations/ Discussions / Dialogues don’t go well with religion. It’s just back and forth. It’s probably best to simply make your presentation and if they have questions let them ask. REAL QUESTIONS.
Dec 31, 2008 @ 16:49:52
Sorry if you felt our discussion was a waste of time. I am thankful for those who participated anyway. I enjoy hearing other people’s beliefs and views about things so I appreciate all who contributed to the conversation. 🙂
May the Lord guide us all to Himself. I pray for that. Happy New Year!
Dec 31, 2008 @ 17:25:11
Susanne, I personally enjoyed the conversation. However, it was not exactly in-line with the correct methodology for calling to Islam. It is no shame in my game, my intent was to invite all to Islam. Technically, I should have stuck with the concept of God and not moved on.
Otherwise, I had no issues 🙂
Dec 31, 2008 @ 18:18:56
Daud said:
“Paul NEVER opposed pagan practices he encountered amongst the gentiles, he co-opted them. While in Rome, he saw the Romans worshiping their false gods, and he remained silent, telling them he knew the secrets of their unnamed god.”
This is not Rome but Athens had similar practices:
Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood[c] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.” 33 So Paul departed from among them. 34 However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
Also I wonder how Paul could in one hand be accused of converting the Pagans to a false doctrine and in the other hand be accused of not confronting their false religion ??????
Dec 31, 2008 @ 19:11:56
Thanks for the correction, I knew it was the Romans or the Greeks.
Because Paul told them they did not have to submit to the COMMAND of circumcision–made between God, Abraham, and his progeny–he changed the religion. The command that all males be circumcised was a TREMENDOUS promise, that can NOT be overlooked or just blown off by ignorant christians trying to prove a point. Who gave paul the authority to change the covenant!?! Certainly not Jesus, because he was circumcized himself; and I remind you he said he wouldn’t change the Mosaic Law “one jot or tittle”. Without doubt, this is one of many examples where Paul changed the Law in order to co-opt the gentiles–who Jesus warned his followers to stay away from!
Dec 31, 2008 @ 19:52:02
Daud, the Israelites were always meant to be a light to the Gentiles. Paul did not change anything that God didn’t want him to. Your accusation would condemn Peter as well, who got a sign from God in Acts 15 about the dietary laws.
Dec 31, 2008 @ 19:52:16
Oops – Acts 10, not 15.
Dec 31, 2008 @ 20:20:10
You don’t have to be insulting to make your point, Daud. I don’t think I am and if I was please excuse me.
If I strictly stick to your idea, you and I are both Gentiles so technically out of the covenant. As far as I know (in my ignorance…) Jewish law was much more than about circumcision and pork and, as far as I know, Mohammad did not encourage the Muslims to follow all of the Jewish laws or even to convert and become Jews (he even fought Jews…) hence he is as “guilty” as Paul on this point.(Btw, there is what we call “Messiani Jews, Jews who consider Jesus as the Messiah and who still follow the Law).
I remind you that Paul was beheaded by the Romans and that MANY early Christians were martyred by them.
Dec 31, 2008 @ 23:09:05
@ Neil & Emma and the rest of the christians
Condemned is anyone who changed anything from the Religion that Jesus practiced and called to. Peter is just like paul in that they both did not receive revelation, nor had no authority to change anything because they weree not Prophets; particularly things that your book says Jesus himself practiced.
Islamically, anyone who changes any of the Religious commandments without authority (i.e. Prophethood); or makes permissible what Allaah said was impermissible; or makes what Allaah made impermissible, permissible; is a false god. And anyone who follows these changed laws, or knowingly follows any of the changed commands, worships a false god.
Dec 31, 2008 @ 23:41:33
Hi Daud — I don’t follow that at all. Peter walked with Jesus for years. Paul encountered the risen Christ. Both had revelations from God.
Allah is not the God of the Bible. We know what the original texts of the Bible said to 99.5% accuracy, and 100% on key doctrines (even skeptical experts in the field of historical texts will concede that). We have Biblical and secular evidence that Jesus died on the cross. It was recorded by many witnesses within decades of the events and at a time when people could refute the claims.
Then we have one person receiving “revelations” 500+ years later that it was not Jesus on the cross. The evidence couldn’t be more clear on which claim is more credible. That is just a starting point.
Jan 01, 2009 @ 00:18:08
“Allah is not the God of the Bible”
Neil and other Christians- that quote above is the #1 problem, IMO, that I have, as a Muslim. It’s not that I want to say my God is your God for the sake of proving likeness or a similarity between our 2 faiths. But we Muslims worship who Abraham and Adam and Jesus and Moses, peace and blessings upon them all, worshipped. Therefore, if you don’t worship the God of these prophets I mentioned, then who do you worship? Jesus? Or the Lord, the creator of Jesus. I find it so arrogant and foot downish when Christians say Muslims don’t worship the same God that Christians do. Who is anybody to tell me who I worship. I know who I worship. The same God that Immaculately sent Jesus into the womb of Maryam. If the hang up is on the word Allah, well you must already know that Jesus spoke Aramaic and referred to God as Allaha and that Arabic Christians call God Allah. The Arabic bible has the name Allah in it over and over. So where does that leave us. No Muslims do not worship Jesus, and Christians do, but we all know that Jesus was created by the creator of the heavens and Earth. So as far as Jesus being God or the son of God we can agree to disagree but to say Muslims have some random make believe God is not acceptable.
Jan 01, 2009 @ 00:19:11
A question to the Christians,
Out of curiosity, and of course I am asking according to your belief and acceptance of the Bible, did Jesus a.s. prophecy the coming of another Prophet, Paul, and if yes, could you provide the reference please?
The reason I ask is this: If Jesus a.s. instructed his disciples to proclaim his (Jesus’s message) to the world, the way I understand it is that this is then the final message and the final teachings. So if Paul proclaimed anything even slightly different or not found in Jesus’ teachings, and it is obvious he did, I cannot understand in that case whose teachings carry greater importance, that of Jesus a.s. (who instructed HIS teachings to be proclaimed while not having changed anything from the existing Law) or Pauls’ teachings, which differ much and even abrogate the Law. I hope you understand my question and the reason why I look at it as contradictions which cannot co-exist.
Jan 01, 2009 @ 00:55:42
You have no original texts–that’s the problem. Allaah is the God of the bible and the only one worthy of worship. Surely they weren’t going around 2008 years ago in places like Jerusalem, Antich, Bethlehem, etc.. calling the Creator “God”, nor did they call the Son of Mary “Jesus”; and that’s because they did not speak german/english, nor latin then. They spoke hebrew, arabic, and aramaic; and without doubt those who spoke arabic and aramaic called the Creator Allaah; while the hebrews called him Elah, which is the singular word for god from which elohim is derived. It’s still close to Allaah.
Jan 01, 2009 @ 01:10:15
If you claim to worship Jesus, please explain where you gathered your information about him and why you find it reliable.
The fact that the Bible has been translated into different languages doesn’t take away from its worth or power.
Paul and Jesus did not disagree. People may get confused because Jesus’ teachings primarily took place before the crucifixion and resurrection.
If you claim Allah is the God of the Bible, then why don’t you believe the Bible and what is says?
Jan 01, 2009 @ 02:13:05
The bible is full of errors and contradictions, deletions and additions. Only the most dogmatic christians deny this.
Jan 01, 2009 @ 04:28:57
Hello Mr or Miss UMMADAM
By chance i arrived at your blog and found some pretty hot discussions.
I am an ex-Christian and i fully agree with your views that the bible is one heck of a book which has doubtful origins. I also totally agree with your general view that it is very difficult for anyone at all to admit that he/she has been decieved for years and years and harder still for him/her to change course. “Change course” is not an option because it is not just “self” it is also involves family and friends and societal image in the local context of the person. The price is too much to pay.
Therefore all discussions here are basically meaningless since in all honesty human sub-conscience will mould truths into untruths and vice versa just so to satisfy his/her deeply hidden selfish needs! THAT ALSO APPLIES TO YOU, dear Ummadam. If i could prove that islam is not the perfect religion, you also would not change course (not that it is my intention though because i respect every religion including Islam) and move to religion X. (not Christiantiy, of course)
Finally please stop by my blog and read my views on religion , it offers an alternate view. You can access it by clicking BLOG from my main website http://www.humbleideas.com
REX
Jan 01, 2009 @ 04:31:48
Daud daid: “The bible is full of errors and contradictions, deletions and additions. Only the most dogmatic christians deny this.”
As do the Muslims with the Koran. Just google “errors in the koran” and you’ll find some very interesting sites…
Also, Daud, I still fail to understand your fascination with differences in languages. Don’t you think almighty God (or Allah if you prefer) is “smart” enougth to understand any languages?
Dalioness:
Right, Jesus came first for the Jews but they rejected Him.
He then established the “Great Commission”: Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
The Law was then abrogated because there were no “chosen people” anymore. There we “disciples from all nations”. Paul, as the apostle of the Gentiles had to explain that over and over, fighting the tendancy to go back to the Jewish Laws.
There is many Christians who believe the Jews are still the chosen people of God but that does not make sense, unless you consider there is two ways to God: the Jewish Law and the Church.
Jan 01, 2009 @ 10:05:54
RE: “There is many Christians who believe the Jews are still the chosen people of God but that does not make sense, unless you consider there is two ways to God: the Jewish Law and the Church.”
When Alllaah sent Muhammad on his Prophetic Mission that culminated into Islaam, it abrogated EVERYTHING that came before it. The only way to Allaah is to freely submit you will to Him, and believe in the Religion Allaah named Himself–Islaam!!!
Jan 01, 2009 @ 10:17:06
The simplistically beautiful, and exclusively Islaamic concept of Tawheed, which means to make something one. Shirk (polytheism) is the opposite of Tawheed and means to associate with or ascribe partners to. Tawheed is the blazing meteor (got that term from Shaykh Rabee’!) that destroys all false gods and all false beliefs. Believing and implementing Tawheed in Rubboobiyyah, Uloohiyyah and Asmaa wa Sifaat is what will gain the Believer, Allaah’s Love, His Mercy, and entrance into His Paradise. Let’s examine its meaning as it relates to belief in Allaah.
TAWHEED IN RUBBOOBIYYAH AND THE CHRISTIANS ERROR IN IT
This means to single out Allaah, alone in His Lordship; that He alone is the creator of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between; that He alone gives life and death, brings the night into the day, and the day into the night; provides sustenance and blessings to His slaves etc, etc, etc. O Christians, we won’t dispute with you regarding this because ALL of mankind accepts Allaah’s Lordship, in varying degrees.
However, Christians do make a TREMENDOUS mistake in the foundation of correct belief in Lordship is their belief that merely affirming Allaah in His Lordship, and believing in it, is sufficient enough to obtain His salvation. This is false, and those who remain stuck here, will find themselves being thrown into the Hell-Fire, forever!!!
Because one affirms Allaah’s Lordship and believes in it, it obligates him/her to worship Him. Allaah answered the “what’s the meaning of life” and “why are we here” questions:
51:56 And I (Allâh) created not the jinns and humans except they should worship me (Alone).
Jan 01, 2009 @ 10:19:02
TAWHEED IN ULOOHIYYAH:HOW CHRISTIANITY VIOLATES IT
Worship means to do all that Allaah is pleased with, and it is far more comprehensive than what a Christian thinks, believes and practices. Tawheed in Uloohiiyah means to single out Allaah alone in worship, and that any act of worship MUST be directed solely to him. To Muslims, nearly everything is worship, or at least has the chance to be worship provided that the act is performed for Allaah’s sake. Allaah is the one worthy of all worship because He alone is the Creator. There is Allaah, and then EVERYTHING other than Him is His creation. It is NOT permissible to worship anything created, and it includes that which is seen and unseen. To devote an act of worship to other than Allaah is to take something that is clearly part of the creation as a god in competition with Allaah.
So he/she who supplicates to or invokes other than Allaah, fears other than Allaah, has hope in and longs for other than Allaah, has trust and reliance on other than Allaah, fervently desires or dreadfully fears other than Allaah, shows humility to other than Allaah, has awe in other than Allaah, turns to repentance to other than Allaah, appeals for aid and assistance from other than Allaah, seeks refuge in other than Allaah, seeks deliverance in other than Allaah, offers sacrifices to or for other than Allaah, makes vows to, and for other than Allaah; as well as seeks the help of a dead or absent person, or seeks aid and protection from the likes of trees, the sun, the moon, the stars, saints, the Angels; and yes, even the Prophets who Allah sent (peace a blessings be upon them all); is a mushrik (polythiest), and if you die without repenting from this (i.e. becoming a Muslim), you will be in the bottom of the Hell-Fire, forever!!!!!!!!!
Christians, this also includes those who you associate with Allaah in your worship, whether it be the catholics who beseech Allaah through their saints, or the protestant branches of christianity who abuse Jesus Christ, the Son of Mary, and the Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu alayhi wa salam); by using him as the conduit through which they call on Allaah, or ask for blessings “in his name”. Allaah said,
39:3 ” Surely, the religion (i.e. the worship and the obedience) is for Allâh only. And those who take Auliyâ’ (protectors and helpers) besides Him (say): “We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allâh.” Verily, Allâh will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Truly, Allâh guides not him who is a liar, and a disbeliever.”
Jan 01, 2009 @ 10:21:13
TAWHEED IN ASMAA WA SIFAAT: CHRISTIANITY VIOLATES IT
Tawheed in Asmaa wa Sifaat means to single out Allaah, alone in His Beautiful Names and Attributes that He named for Himself in the Qur’an, or that which His Messenger named Him with. We understand them with their apparent meaning, and don’t deny them, nor try to explain them away. This is another foundation of the proper belief in Allaah where Christians are astray because they liken Allaah to His creation—which is shirk (polytheism). Throughout His Qur’an, Allaah describes Himself, and from amongst His descriptions are Al Baseer (All Seeing), As Samee (All Hearing), Al Hakim (All Wise), Al Aleem (All Knowing), Ar Rahman (Most Merciful) etc. Although Allaah gave mankind SOME attributes similar to how He described Himself, i.e He gave us sight, hearing, wisdom, knowledge; we CAN NOT compare ourselves to Him, because Allaah said there is nothing comparable to Him. Allaah said in the 112th Chapter in the Qur’an:
Say to them (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)): “He is Allâh, (the) One.
“Allâh-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks).
“He begets not, nor was He begotten;
“And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him.”
When Christians say trinity, as if Allaah mysteriously morphed into His own son (may Allaah protect us from ever making similar statements), and came down to earth to be sacrificed; they liken Allaah to His creation, claiming he took on attributes similar to His creation. The Muslim is repulsed by this because Allaah did not describe Himself in this manner, not even in the bible. This is shirk (polytheism).
Christians ascribe the imperfect attribute of death to Allaah, while simultaneously affirming His Perfection. Of course, the Believer is repulsed because He knows Allaah described Himself as being Al Hayy (Ever Living); likewise the Christian should be equally repulsed because their book describes Allaah as being without beginning and without end!?! Then on top of that, amazingly they turn around and give the same description, to someone name Melchizedek—and all of this is in the same book. Of course, this is shirk (polytheism)!!!
Allaah described Himself as Al Hakam (The Best of Judges); and He the only one worthy of legislating what is lawful and the prohibited. After Allaah revealed the Ayah,
9:31 They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allâh…”
One of the Companions (radiyyallaahu anhum) who was a Christian before he embraced Islaam said, “O Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu alayhi wa salam), we did not worship them. The Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu alayhi wa salam) responded,
“Did they not make that which is prohibited, lawful (like eating pork, usury etc, etc, etc), and make the lawful, prohibited (like circumcision etc). After his companion responded yes, the Prophet (salallaahu alayhi wa salam) said, “This is how you worshiped them”!!!
And of course, this is shirk (polytheism)
Islaam is the Religion of Tawheed, or ABSOLUTE Monotheism that gives Allaah the Rights He deserves over His creation. The Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu alayhi wa salam) came with a clarion call from the deserts of Arabia, bringing the final warning to mankind to worship Allaah alone, and to abandon belief in false gods.
Jan 01, 2009 @ 10:47:21
Here’s a thought: Judaism, Islam and Christianity are the only Monotheistic religions in the world… true or false?
False.
While Judaism and Islam worship one god, the creator of the universe. Most Christians worship a triparite god consisting of (supposedly) god the father, god the son and god the holy spirit, three in one and one in three. Remarkably this is a belief that originates not only from greek and roman paganism but also hinduism, which is also a pagan, idolatry based religion. The trimurti according to wikipaedia is:
“The Trimurti (English: ‘three forms’; Sanskrit: त्रिमूर्ति trimūrti) is a concept in Hinduism “in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahmā the creator, Viṣṇu the maintainer or preserver, and Śiva the destroyer or transformer.”[1][2] These three deities have been called “the Hindu triad” [3] or the “Great Trinity”. They are often looked at as the creator, preserver and destroyer respectively. [4] Freda Matchett characterizes the Trimurti system as one of “several frameworks into which various divine figures can be fitted at different levels.”[5]
One type of depiction for the Trimurti shows three heads on one neck, and often even three faces on one head, each looking in a different direction.[6]
The Trimurti (literally indicating three forms or trinity), is the representation of the three projections of the Supreme Reality, each with a specific cosmic function. These manifestations are that of Brahma (serving the cosmic function of creation), Vishnu (serving the cosmic function of renewal and preservation), and Shiva (serving the cosmic function of dissolution or destruction that precedes re-creation) – the three popular Hindu gods. Our daily existence reflects these three cosmic functions as birth, life and death.
The trinity is interpreted in various forms in Hindu philosophy. A widely accepted belief is that it represents earth, water, and fire. The earth, or Brahma, is seen as the originator of all life and hence is regarded as the Creator. Water is the sustainer of life and hence is the Preserver and is represented as Vishnu. Fire destroys life and hence is the Destroyer and is represented as Shiva.”
Sound familiar?
Jan 01, 2009 @ 11:03:10
Rex I disagree whole-heartedly. Many have submitted to th truth forsaking everything to please God. This is why ISlam seems strange to many. It does not and will never bend to societal laws, familial loyalty or anything else. The entire goal of the nation of muslims (ones who have submitted their will and effort to Allah) is to purify all worship, meaning everything that is loved by god, be it supplication or prostration, praise, refuge, salvation, uncompromising love and exhortation or anything greater or less than that to God alone, inspite of what others may feel or say.
This unwillingness to change is one of the primary reasons that the people of Moses made a calf and worshipped it. It was too, far-reaching for them to completely believe and submit to God alone. The reverted back to what they were used to and they had to worship something that they could see and understand. So the calf was was made even after the miracles they had seen with their own eyes. And what was the end of the people of Moses who did that?
It takes strong conviction to do that. And many have followed in that way. I know I did.
Jan 01, 2009 @ 12:05:58
Hello Ummie
I didnt imply that islam will bend to soceital laws or familial loyalty. If you read my mail carefully, i said INDIVIDUALS do not want to bend against their familiar social background. I wasn’t at all targeting my attention at Islam. I would repeat my ideas here: It takes courage for anyone to change something he is familiar with and trade it for something new against the society he/she grew up with. Of course there are many like your goodself who would do so, and you belong to the enlightened and intellectual types who can conquer their inhibitions (but proportionally it is still small i believe) and follow truth. I salute you and all who are able to think rationally and switch camps. Personally i had been staunch christian for some years in the 1980’s, but with growing maturity and life experiences, realised that christian beliefs wasn’t quite right in many ways such as explained by the pro-muslims here with their posts.
If you want to understand further my take on this topic, you can acess my blog from http://humbleideas.com as i dont wish to be a nuisance here and cause a new thread within the thread of discussion. Happy New Year everyone!
Cheers,
REX
Jan 01, 2009 @ 12:15:40
Ummie thanks for the reminder
Subhanallaah. O christians, it is evil to stand before things you fashion with your own hands, statues and pictures; and and then humble yourselves, and show awe, and reverence to them.
This is in the category of the worst sin, shirk (polytheism) because the sin is against the Creator. It’s worse than murder, or rape and any other heinous crime you can think of, because murder and rape are sins against the creation, for which the Shar’eeah prescribes punishments. Murder, which is punishable by death, is the worst crime you can commit against the creation–it is a tremendous thing to take the life that Allaah gave someone unjustly. Rape is also a horrible act that is punishable by death; but the criminal can repent from these sins, and some actually do repent. None of these crimes comes near to associating partners with Allaah in worship. Allaah will NEVER forgive anyone who associates partners with Him in worship, unless they repent–and repentance begins with submitting to Allaah in Islaam, and believing in Islaamic Monotheism i.e. Tawheed.
Jan 01, 2009 @ 16:26:08
Neil:
I found your comments to be of particular interest. Have you read Evidence That Demands a Verdict, its sequel (forget the exact title), and More Than Just a Carpenter, etc. by Josh McDowell? I am not aware that there is anything else better out there in English on the issue of evidence in support of the Bible being true.
Having said that, there are some interesting obsevations I have made over the years since I first read these books with fascination. There are some verses in one of the gospels which are not present in its earlier manuscripts, yet are still included in the “translations” of today (Open Bible, NKJV, NIV etc.). I forget which ones they are, but you may already be aware of this. If you like, I can look them up on the internet. Also, if I remember correctly, the oldest dated partial manuscript of the New Testament is only about 2 or 3 verses long and has been dated to about the early second century. No complete manuscript of the New Testament predates the third century. The earliest intact Old Testament copy dates back to the tenth century. Nothing of the New Testament is in the Aramaic which well informed scholars probably agree was the language of Jesus and the people of Palestine he preached to back then. It is also evident from their quotes that the authors of the books of the New Testament relied on the Septuagint. This was a Greek Translation of the Old Testament used by Hellenized Jews in Alexandria and elsewhere in the region. The books of the New Testament were also written in Greek.
Why is it that Aramaic versions of some Old Testament books can still be found, but not one from the New Testament is known to exist?
Another Point:
We take for granted that we have some 200 years later the original copy of the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence on view for all to see at the National Archives, and nobody doubts their authenticity. What would we think if the originals were lost shortly after their authors passed away (or perhaps even before they died) and, in addition, copies of a translation of the document as recalled by men other than the founding fathers themselves, into a non-indo European tongue were the only thing left to consult on all affairs pertaining to principles of US government based on these documents? And, all of this while the only literate in the society were a select, secretive elite of government insiders, perhaps 1% at most of the population.
Another thought, and this concerns the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why all the secrecy? These scrolls are supposed to be over 2,000 years old. They are probably of interest to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. Can you think of any reason for secrecy regarding religious scripture? Yet those in possession of these scrolls are Jews and Christians. If they are sure of their religion, then what are they hiding and why are they hiding it?
Concerning divine inspiration: If someone makes a mistake (even if 0.5% of the time), can this mistake be said to be divinely inspired? If a document has one mistake, even if only one in 200, can this document be said to be perfect? divinely inspired? Does our Creator make mistakes? Does He deem worthy of being said to be inspired by Him something called a divine inspriation if part of this inspiration includes mistakes even though He is free of mistakes?
Which makes more sense, to have the prophet, who received the direct revelation himself, transmit this revelation in its exact form to his followers (who often actually witness him as he receives it), who, in turn, copy it word for word without any mistakes into written form ( and in the same language, of course) which does not change or get lost for over 1400 years, during which time the language in which it was revealed has not even come close to becoming a dead language? or to have some people from the very elite who opposed such prophets (and in many cases had them killed) write down their recollections with even those recollections later lost and whose exact authorship and chain of transmission are unavailable for future generations to evaluate?
Concerning prophecy…if a candidate for a high political office admitted to covetting the wife of one of his trusted lieutenants and for that reason plotted successfully to have him killed in action on the battlefield so that he could then have the widow to himself, how many serious, devout Christians would vote for him? If your answer is an honest “no”, then could you accept that your God would commision such a person to receive prophesy as an example of a righteaous person to his people he is preaching to? (By the way and for the record, Islam, while confirming the prophethood of David (PBUH), rejects this notion and anything which suggests it.)
There is an interesting youtube clip of Jewish convert to Islam Yusuf Khattab (formerly, Joseph Cohen) in which he states that when he studied in the Rabbinical schools (called yeshiva) it was common knowledge in Judaism for centuries that, officially, it is accepted that there are 11 grammatical errors in the Old Testament.
Question: how many of Christiandom study the Bible in the language of the manuscripts? I used to ask myself a similar question: How can one consider himself to possess a clear understanding of a religion if it is based on translations of the manuscripts? Should he not dedicate himself to the study of those manuscripts in their original forms ie, tongues? If he plans on being in the religion his whole life and expects to live maybe 70 years or more, then doesn’t it make sense to invest in 5- 10 years of language study. Certainly all of the ministers should do such. But how many do? And if there is a religion which is similar to yours with another prophet or book (for example, LDS or Islam) then doesn’t it make sense to study it in order to confirm one’s faith)
Jan 01, 2009 @ 18:17:51
Uh, speaking of dogma . . .
Hi Seeker,
Your comment had many errors and I don’t have time to address them all, but I’ll do a couple as samples. In that quote you misstate the claims of the Bible. The originals are without error, but copies may have errors. I could make an error in copying the Koran but that wouldn’t be what makes the original invalid. It is invalid for many reasons, such as the internal inconsistencies and the spectacular errors about the death of Jesus, but an error in copying wouldn’t affect the integrity of the original.
You should also study the origins of the Koran. My understanding is that it was changed and there were multiple versions claimed as authentic before a government took it over to claim there was only one version. As you know, Islam is not a monolith where everyone agrees.
Studying multiple translations of a Bible let you know what God said. You can go back to the original Greek or Hebrew very easily on difficult topics. For example, every translation I have seen says, “love your enemies,” even though it may have slightly different wording, just as the Koran teaches to subject your enemies or to kill them.
Your question about what makes more sense in transmitting the words of God begs the question. It assumes it should be proving. The Koran does not demonstrate why Mohammad was a true prophet and why we should trust his writings that, among other things, contradict the Bible and secular history as well. Does it make sense to believe a single guy who came along 500 years later, and whose religion started, spread, and continues to this day based on violence?
I’m surprised you brought up the Dead Sea Scrolls, since they annihilate the Islamic view that the scriptures changed. You contradict your own faith position by claiming that it would be a bad thing even “if” they were controlled by Christians/Jews, because Islam obviously controls the Koran by your definition. And what made you think that Christians and Jews would partner in a lie? We have wildly different worldviews. We think Jesus is the Messiah and they think He is not.
I have not read Josh McDowell’s books but I’ve read many other apologetic works.
Of course that is the case, because the final compilation of the Bible did not happen until the fourth century (which was still a couple hundred years ahead of Mohammad’s claims). But if you read a church historian such as Eusebius (~300 AD) it is obvious that there was no debate on most of the books.
First, I don’t know if that claim is true. Second, it was written in Greek. Third, why would that matter? (That’s rhetorical.)
I assume you are referring to the last few verses of Mark and the first part of John 8 (the woman caught in adultery). Yes, these were not in our earliest manuscripts and may have been added. But they do not change any important doctrines and they also show that the system works: We know if something was added or changed. Please consider that carefully. They show that we can know if something was added or changed, which is why we can be confident that we know what the originals said.
I asked these questions earlier and never saw answers (my apologies if I missed the responses, as there are many long comments here). I would be interested in answers.
If you claim to worship Jesus, please explain where you gathered your information about him and why you find it reliable.
If you claim Allah is the God of the Bible, then why don’t you believe the Bible and what is says?
Peace,
Neil
Jan 01, 2009 @ 18:52:23
@ Neil
You said: I assume you are referring to the last few verses of Mark and the first part of John 8 (the woman caught in adultery). Yes, these were not in our earliest manuscripts and may have been added. But they do not change any important doctrines and they also show that the system works: We know if something was added or changed. Please consider that carefully. They show that we can know if something was added or changed, which is why we can be confident that we know what the originals said.
What are you talking about, it did change important doctrines!!! The footnotes of the RSV published in 1947, a revision of the KJV, says “Ancient more reliable versions of the Book of Mark end in verse 8; yet you still have versions that end in chapter 20 and NEVER mention the disputed ending, not even in the footnotes!!! The KJV and MANY other versions that end with verse 20, has statements attributed to Jesus speaking in the first person, telling people to “go into the world and preach the gospel”, and “handling poisonous snakes and not being harmed” and all that other crap! To conceal the disputed and controversial ending of the book is at least disingenuous of christian scholars!
Neil, doesn’t “Revelations” says that anyone who adds to or detracts from the is cursed!?!
Allaah is not playing around with people who change His Books, and His commands. Allaah curses them…
2:79 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, “This is from Allâh,” to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby.
Jan 01, 2009 @ 18:58:46
Every Bible I’ve got notes that the earliest manuscripts did not contain those passages. This isn’t a big news item. Even so, your issue would be with the translators and not with God and the originals.
Re. Revelation — it is not clear if that applies only to Revelation or not (the writer probably didn’t know it would be the last book in the Bible), but either way it is obviously not good to tamper with God’s word. But your complaints don’t do anything to imply that the original text was wrong.
And remember, the claim of the Muslim appears to be that Allah was the God of the Bible. So if you criticize the Bible aren’t you criticizing him and his word?
Jan 01, 2009 @ 22:51:52
Daud said:
“it abrogated EVERYTHING that came before it”
This is exactly what we think Jesus did, you just accuse us of what you do yourself.
Anyway, I wish you much peace for this coming year. As for myself I believe I violated to much one of the commendment of Jesus, which is nonresistance (even just by writing and debating as seen in Romans 1:29).
So have a very good year all of you and, Ummadam, I’m looking forward to your posts on life in KSA (after all that’s why I stopped the first time 🙂 )
Jan 01, 2009 @ 23:38:15
Hey Emma- I’ll try to catch you here, as while back I was wondering where you live? In another post you had said you believe in [firm] separation of church and state and I was wondering where you see that practiced? I live in the US and though it is said to be “separation of church and state” here it is only lipservice as the public schools are full of Pagan, Christian and Atheist activities–depending on your viewpoint (i.e., are Christmas traditions Pagan or Christian?). The Atheist stuffs come into play in University settings. As well, most Americans view America as a “Christian Country.” I’m just curious if any government has found an effective way to operate as such without also oppressing religious expression within state.
~Brooke
Jan 01, 2009 @ 23:43:43
Emma
You said
“The Law was then abrogated because there were no “chosen people” anymore. There we “disciples from all nations”. Paul, as the apostle of the Gentiles had to explain that over and over, fighting the tendancy to go back to the Jewish Laws.”
That is the problem. You quoted Jesus as saying to his disciples to go and make disciples in the world by teaching them THAT WHICH JESUS COMMANDED THEM. This is what you quoted.
It seems like you skipped a huge part, namely, who and what abrogated the Law. Certainly from what you quoted, it doesn’t look like Jesus abrogated it.
Jan 02, 2009 @ 00:58:12
Neil,
I should make a few points clear. First, Islam claims that there were original books and revelations given to the People of the Book. For example, the Zaboor is mentioned as the revelation given to David (PBUH), the Torah is mentioned as that given to Moses (PBUH) and the Injeel as that given to Jesus (PBUH).
Your reasoning is actually correct in that the originals are the originals. If a copy has a mistake, this does not affect the original on which it is based. The problem, though, is what to make of what is claimed to be a copy of an original revelation. In the case of Christianity, we hear them say that what they have today is as you have described the Bible: essentially an almost 100% accurate faithful copy of the original text with a few minor typographical errors in an otherwise true copy.
In the case of Islam, the standards are not as accomodating to history. Islam says that the originals have been lost and that what the Christians and Jews have today (and even those at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS)) fall significantly short of what you and your brethren in the clergy describe them to be. That is to say, much of what exists in them is outright fabrication. We are not talking here about a slight typo with the ability to reconstruct easily what the original must have said.
This goes a long way in explaining why there are so many discrepencies between similar narratives present in both the Quran and the Bible. Allah has been merciful enough to us to reproduce the original for us, by way of a new revelation to his final prophet and messenger Muhammad (SAAWS). This lets mankind and perhaps more importantly the People of the Book know that the spurious content of what remains of their scripture notwithstanding, much of what they have today has some basis to it.
This can be a boost to the Christian in that he feels he is already half way there when he compares Islam to his religion. (I know of a case of a Belgian convert who told me that because of his fervent love for Jesus as a Christian, he was overcome with joy when he found out what Islam had to say about him.) In the spirit of this mercy, there was no reason for anyone to dispute along the grounds we hear People of the Book disputing on this blog. This is because those who lived in the presence of Muhammad (SAAWS) could acertain clearly that he was a bonafide prophet. On the contrary, they were encouraged to find in the Quran confirmation of what they already knew of from their own books.
There are fascinating accounts which you may not have heard of before of People of the Book settling in Arabia based on prophecies in their scripture they had then of a Prophet who was supposed to be sent to Arabia (search Jamal Badawi for evidence of verses still in the Bible which relate to these prophecies).
As so often happened before with other prophets, when this prophet (Muhammad (SAAWS)) came, there were those who accepted him and those who rejected him. Interestingly, it appears that after Muhammad (SAAWS), the wait was called off by remaining Christians and Jews. It appears that this aspect of their doctrine no longer exists and probably hasn’t for some time.
Concerning the origins of the Quran, you can easily find the essential details of this topic on the net, but I can summarize here:
The Quran is a collection of recitings repeated exactly as they were dictated to Muhammad (SAAWS) by the Angel Gabriel off and on over a period of 23 years- from age 40 to 63. The language is the Quraish dialect of Arabic. By the time he died, there were many who had memorized it among the companions.
Shortly after his death, it was decided to put down on paper the whole text of this revelation. I can’t remember the exact number, but about 7-8 original copies were made. Each was sent to a separate region of the new far flung empire. A number of these original copies still exist. For example, there is one which was sent to Bahran which is still there in a museum. This is why even non-Muslim scholars critical of Islam do not dispute that what the Muslims have today is the full, unadulterated text of the revelation given to Muhammad (SAAWS) as it stood at his death.
You are correct in pointing out that there is more than one version of Islam claimed to be the correct one and each in some way contradicting another. For the purposes of this discussion you can probably get 100% agreement from the other Muslim contributors on this blog that by Islam here we mean the above described text claimed to be the Quran and the commonly accepted “authentic” hadeeths from the top six compilers as the basis of the essential doctrine of the religion commonly known as “orthodox Sunni Islam” with the early accepted founding scholars being those whose schools of thought bear their names:Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki and Hanbali.
Concerning “love thy enemy”, “Kill the enemy”, etc. , this requires a study of both the Bible’s relevant verses (Matthew, Joshua, etc.) and those verses in the Quran and the Hadeeth on the same subject – although I would advise you to, just as you would consult Matthew’s Commentary on the Bible, do the same with Islamic sources, else you can expect to commit embarrasing blunders that even well versed non-Muslim critics of Islam would laugh at.
Concerning your next paragraph, if one rejects something with as strong a basis as what I describe above, then he has put himself in the untenable position of trying to offer instead something which stands on much weaker ground. The Quran has challenges to its doubters to produce just one chapter like it. To this day nobody has been able to do it.
The hadeeths, which are not direct revelation, but rather accounts of an event or simple quotes of Muhammad (PBUH), stand on stronger ground than even the scriptures of other faiths. Chains of transmitters are duly cited, along with references grading the reliablity and truthfulness of a given transmitter, along with a brief biographical sketch in many cases.
Honestly, if we cannot trust such writings, then how can we even know that any history contemporary with his life or even centuries later is true? Please show me an historical source from ancient or medieval history which has the same level of painstaking verification process as the above.
An old Christian friend once visited an ancient monastary in Sinai with a letter proudly on display containing the seal of Muhammad (PBUH) in which he instructs Muslims to respect the sanctity of the premises. Are there any churches anywhere in the world (other than perhaps the Vatican) with documents issued by their own clergy that old?
I would like to know how one can conclude after reading the biography of Muhammad and the Quran (both with commentary, of course) that Islam is based on violence.
I tried not to be too sinister in mentioning the Dead Sea Scrolls, but common sense would suggest that there is something wrong when new scrolls are discovered but kept from the public. The fact is that the Jews and the Christians control these scrolls. I agree with you that they are not necessarily conspiring with each other, but they may share some common interests. How can we expect people not to think along the same lines as what I am saying here? They are to be held to account for this. If I don’t compain to them, then to whom should I complain? Obscurantists should have no part in any religion. Wouldn’t you agree?
What about the Council of Nicea? Trinitarians vs. Unitarians. The year was 325.
To refer to your earlier reasoning on originals vs. copies, how can a copy be faithful if the original was in English and the copy is in Chinese? Now reconsider my comments on Aramaic vs. Greek for the New Testament.
Concerning the adultery story, does it not suggest that no man may apply the divinely decreed law given to and laid down by Moses (PBUH), since all men are sinners? Is this not a major departure in doctrinal matters (religious law)? Wasn’t this law being applied up to the point in history when the story takes place?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the other instance of possible addition of verses concerned the trinity. Is this not a major doctrinal issue in the religion?
How can we be confident of what the originals were after discovering possible additions? Do we assume that the original did not have them? If that is the case, how can we be sure that there are not any other additions we don’t yet know of because we don’t have any older manuscripts to consult?
I do not claim to worship Jesus (PBUH). I do, however accept him and revere him as a great prophet, behind whom Muslims will pray in the end times in Damascus after he descends there from Heaven. He is the only prophet who remains alive. You can find a detailed description of his looks based on what Muhammad (PBUH) saw when he ascended to heaven on his night journey to Jerusalem. Jesus (PBUH) will disavow the falsehoods said about him concerning the worship of him. I base these beliefs on source material from the Quran and the authentic hadeeths.
I believe Allah is the God of the Quran and all other revelations given to various peoples at various times by thousands of prophets, only some of whose names have been passed down to us today. The Quran is the only intact holy book. The Bible appears to have some verses intact, but this cannot be confirmed with absolute certainty as can the verses of the Quran. An example of a verse in the Bible which appears to be true is in Deut. (I forget the verse number.): “Hear, oh Israel! Your Lord is one. Worship none other than him.” I will go as far as saying that I would not be surprised to find out that it is true, as I see no falsehood in it based on my knowledge of religion.
Finally, Neil, I want you to know that Muslims are told in the Quran to preach to the non-Muslim in a nice, effective way. This is what I try to do for you, as it is my obligation. If other Muslims do not succeed at this technique, then at least you know that their Lord did not tell them to preach like that. If I have failed to do this, then know that I tried and will have to renew my efforts not to put off non-Muslims with sloppy inappropriate methods.
Also, I may have been presumtuous to use “Seeker of the Truth” as my call sign here. If so, then I will settle for anything less that I deserve. Still, I strive to be a Seeker of the Truth, even if people do not acknowledge it in me.
I believe I have responded to every point you made in your response to my initial post. If I am mistaken , then please let me know. In the meantime, not all of the points I have made in my original post have been responded to. I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that maybe it takes time to consult with knowledgeable people and other sources.
Peace,
Jan 02, 2009 @ 02:06:53
The burden of proof is on you to support that statement. I can point to hostile skeptics such as Bart Ehrman who will concede that we know what the originals said to 99.5% accuracy. He is one example of many. He is not only not a Christian but teaches against the faith.
If you are going to say that “much of what exists in them is outright fabrication” then you are going against a whole lot of scholars, skeptics included.
I really appreciate your concession on that point, as it demonstrates that you are a fair and charitable debater.
I am stunned that you would make such a statement.
Re. the Dead Sea scrolls, I encourage you to do more research on them. I realize that conspiracy theories are tempting but they are quite misplaced in this case. The scrolls go on tour throughout the world. I have never heard that they were being controlled such that the contents weren’t available for viewing, but I have heard things like that about the Koran.
I really appreciate your approach and wish others followed it more closely. I am fond of saying that we shouldn’t judge an ideology by those who violate its tenets. But I don’t think the the Koran or history is on your side in this argument. I would be the first to say that the Inquisition and parts of the Crusades were un-Biblical, for example, but we have history on our side showing how Christianity spread wildly while persecuted for 300 years after its inception. With Islam history is not on its side: It spread by violence from its beginning and it continues to this day.
I encourage you to investigate alleged changes in the Bible. They just aren’t there. It is the best documented book of antiquity, by far, and we know what the originals said. We also have secular history which supports that Jesus died on the cross and not a body double or Judas.
The OT required two witnesses to stone a woman, so Jesus didn’t change any laws. All the witnesses had left.
There are plenty of verses addressing the Trinity that weren’t added (assuming the one you are referring to really was added).
As I pointed out earlier, the fact that we know these were additions gives me confidence that we know what the originals said. The art and science of textual criticism works! You can re-create nearly the whole NT from early quotes from church leaders, so we can know that these weren’t added later.
Blessings,
Neil
Jan 02, 2009 @ 15:06:06
Neil,
I still don’t understand how one can be so sure of the Bible being so close to the original books when the latter were lost long ago. As for fabrications, I’ll concede that I have preferred the easy route without realizing it. Here I mean comparing the Bible with the Quran and concluding that any discrepencies between the two indicate the Bible is in error. Originals of the Quran exist. The Arabic language is not dead. Commentary can be traced back to the generations of people who witnessed its revelation.
I’ll give an example of how this kind of analysis can dominate my thinking and why I don’t bother anymore consulting the sources where people criticise the Bible in isolation (I’ll drop back and punt for the time being on criticism in isolation until I can find the appropriate sources to refer you to.):
Islam and common sense tell us that Allah (God) is without defect and does not make mistakes, nor is He ever unaware of anything. If we accept this, then how can we accept in Genesis that He regrets something He did? or that He asks Adam where he is? This is what I mean’t when I said I hadn’t realized how much I had been conveniently relying on the Quran to uncover Biblical mistakes.
Another reference to Genesis: The Bible says that God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son. This son is referred to as Issac, the patriarch of the Jews, but in the same book Issac is said to have been born some 13-14 years later than his older brother Ishmael. How can he be the only son if the elder brother is still alive? The Quran confirms what common sense dictates – that it was not Issac, but Ishmael that God (Allah) commanded Abraham to sacrifice.
If you are stunned about my response to your statement on Islam and violence, once again I refer you to the sources. Many if not most of the wars and campaigns were clearly provoked by initial attack from the other side. There were also cases where oppression in certain lands (Spain, for example) and the news about how tolerant and just the followers of this new religion were as rulers led to Christians appealing to the Muslims to liberate them.
In other cases, countries were never invaded because those countries never provoked the Muslims (for example, Ethiopia, which is largely Christian (about 50%) to this day. Yemen, with its sizeable Jewish population was never invaded for similar reasons, even though their ruler had recently attacked Mecca in the Year of the Elephant.) The Levante conquests resulted from victory at Yarmook following a Byzantine attack shortly after Muhammad (PBUH) died. That attack, in turn, came right after the Muslims had re-consolidated the Arabian Peninsula after a widespread revolt took place there right after Muhammad’s (Pbuh) death.
The largest, most populous Muslim area today, Insular Southeast Asia, was never part of any Muslim war. On the contrary, traders developed good ties and set such a good example that people simply converted based on how much they were impressed, combined with the preachng they would have received. Western China, Central Asia, Eastern and Sub-saharan Africa have a similar heritage based mainly on trade ties.
If we look at the core of the Muslim world, the Arab world, we find a thriving, diverse Christian and Jewish population. How much of Europe’s former religions (paganism, druids, etc.) can still be found today, not to mention how many Muslims remain in Spain? It makes more sense to say that in Islam, it is permissible to use a strong military decisively where justified, but this is not neccessarily the first resort in international relations. Truthful knowledgeable Jews will tell you in a heartbeat that they fared better under the Muslims than under any other rulers. For example, they were allowed to practice polygamy under the Muslims, but Israel does not allow them to do this even though it allows the Muslims to.
You say that to this day Islam grows primarily by violence. How does that explain the rapid growth (the fastest growing religion despite longstanding negative media coverage) via preaching in Western countries such as North America, the UK, the Philippines (quasi-Western?) and France? I would be interested in hearing any reports that converts in these countries are merely converts because they have been threatened into converting.
Concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, I hope that I am wrong on this and you are right. My information is very old. Years ago I gave up pursuing them because I could not find out where all of them were made open and available to the public after over 50 years. I would rejoice at any good news you could give me in this regard. Just refer me to the sources, and I thank you in advance. I share your enthusiasm for finding out everything there is to find out about this ancient bibilical bonanza.
Please explain further about the Quran being withheld from the public. This is news to over a billion people, including myself. The Quran museum in Bahrain (with one of the originals) is open to the public. There are some sects of the Shiites who claim spuriously that what we have today is not the real Quran, but nobody outside their sect except perhaps some desperate detractors of Islam from the West take them seriously. (Besides, they have never been able to produce the so-called real Quran they refer to.)
Don’t forget, Neal, that a substantial portion of those first 300 years to which you refer as being a time of rapid growth of Christianity during persecution includes the years leading up to the Council of Nicea (325) when the issue of the trinity was finally resolved officially as dogma. During this time, a good proportion of the Church followers rejected the trinity. This is the urgency that led to the council in the first place.
The result of the council was that the trinitarian doctrine was imposed on all bishops of the Church, with the unitarian legacy in the Church left to continue underground until the next unitarian force to be reckoned with arrived on the scene – the Muslims.
Stangely enough, those very lands where the unitarians were most numerous and enjoyed the widest support among the dissident clergy were in North Africa, where there is no vestige left of Christianity (west of Egypt). Did these unitarians still exist 300 years later when the Muslims arrived? If so, did they convert en masse because of this heritage? Interesting questions to ponder.
You mentioned secular history and the crucifiction. First, I remember reading somewhere the often quoted Josephus account of the crucifiction, but isn’t this in possession of the Church?. Second, what secular history? Unless they have Roman documents from very early that were never in possession of Chruch officials, how can we say that what was recorded was reliably secular? Remember, the clergy held a virtual monopoly on literacy for about a thousand years. Readers will have to weigh the two versions (Islamic and Christian) of Jesus and what really happened to him and decide for themselves which account makes more sense.
Concerning the adultery story, does it really have Jesus saying that nobody should cast a stone because the two witnesses requiered had left the scene?
I’ll have to get a Bible and look for those other verses. I thought they were at the end of John. It has been over ten years. My memory is a bit weak here. They are easy to find in the NIV because the footnote should be there to point them out. I think Deedat once referred to them.
I one trusts early church officials who did not have to undergo scrutiny on the part of their illiterate parish priests and parrishoners, then what you say about reconstructing originals sounds appealing.
I know that in Islam, that has never been the case. Rapid proliferation and disemmination of knowledge was the rule. Literacy was much higher among Muslims. There was no clergy per se. Anyone had access to whatever he wanted to consult about the religion. Obscurantism did not thrive in the Muslim world, whereas it did under the Roman Catholic Church.
You are forced to make an assumption about the missing originals – that they were never tampered with at any time during those first couple of centuries. I would hate to have to base my faith on such a magnanimous assumption, given what we know about how ruthless and cunning Church fathers showed themselves to be about how they promoted their dogma (read about the Council of Nicea).
I sympathize with the Protestants in how they have tried to grope with the issue of dealing with this long chapter in the history of the Church and try their best to reconstruct what they can to confirm their Bible and how they long to go back to the original teachings of Jesus without a clergy to tell them how to do it.
I can’t imagine what it would be like for the Muslims if an elite core of literate leaders held a monopoly like that and the originals were all lost. I suppose there would be no real Islam by now except perhaps in name only.
Finally, you have responded to both of my posts, but there are points from both which have not yet been addressed by you or by anyone else. In the meantime, I have responded to all of yours. I suppose I should be more patient in waiting for your reply to them.
Peace,
Jan 02, 2009 @ 17:58:16
Easy: The process of textual criticism. When you having thousands of manuscripts from around the world it is easy to determine what the originals said. If you wanted to add something in 250 A.D., for example, there is no way you could have found all the copies — especially when Christianity was so persecuted and you could lose your life for having one. They were very well hidden. Same thing for if you wanted to delete something. And we have extensive church history full of commentary on nearly every verse in the NT. So if that is your criteria the Bible meets it.
That doesn’t prove anything to me. Christianity and common sense tell me the same things. Only you are falling prey to a common sin and basically quote Satan from Genesis 3: “Did God really say . . .?” Yes, He did.
Jesus commented on the OT extensively and approved every letter of it. The passages you highlight are just texts that describe God in human terms to convey a message. If the Bible is really about Allah (of Islam) then why couldn’t he have gotten it right and preserved it the way he supposedly did with the Koran?
Sounds like someone has been reading too much DaVinci Code ;-). Seriously, the debate wasn’t about Jesus’ divinity. Even the heretics agreed with that. But some disputed his humanity. The vote was something like 318 to zero with a couple guys abstaining.
Just read the whole story of Abraham. God was going to work through Abraham and Sarah, not Abraham and Hagar. Abraham and Sarah tried to take a short cut due to a momentary lack of faith. God did what He originally planned to do, and He did it through Isaac.
Yes, I would welcome that! One the side of Christianity: The whole NT, which Muslims claim to agree with except when they don’t agree with it :-). It teaches that Jesus died on a cross and was resurrected. It claims 100 times, directly and indirectly, that Jesus is the only way to salvation. It claims many times that He is God. In short, the whole NT makes no sense if Jesus didn’t die and rise from the dead. If you want the Muslim view to be true you can’t just say you sort-of believe the NT but think it has been changed too much. It has been changed very little and we know what changes took place, so we know what the originals said. It is very, very compelling.
We have many witnesses to his physical death and resurrection.
We also have writers outside the Bible (not just Josephus) affirming that Jesus died.
Now on the Islam side we have one guy (one!) 500 years later claiming that it was Judas or a body double. That’s it. So yes, let’s have people study both accounts and decide which is more compelling.
The story is in John 8, so you can re-read it if you like. He knew the laws and applied it fairly. John 8:10-11 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
I have already spent a great deal of time here and have no intention of responding to every point you made throughout this. Sorry if I missed something important to you. We’ll both need to scale down the comment length if this dialogue is to continue, as I have many other things to do (and not just my own blogging!).
Peace,
Neil
Jan 02, 2009 @ 18:20:17
Brooke said:Hey Emma- “I’ll try to catch you here, as while back I was wondering where you live?” In Canada (Quebec).
In another post you had said you believe in [firm] separation of church and state and I was wondering where you see that practiced? In Western Countries, I don’t have to belong to a particular church to be allowed to vete or be a full citizen (you are allowed to vote even as a Muslim as far as know. ) Though it is true the society ight not easily accept you as you are, especially if you dress differently, but that is another question.
I live in the US and though it is said to be “separation of church and state” here it is only lipservice as the public schools are full of Pagan, Christian and Atheist activities–depending on your viewpoint indeed. The States are quite “peculiar”…. But you can live with a pot chamber on your head if you want and most people will accept it, which is nice, I think. Mennonites are a peculiar people and their able to flourish there.
(i.e., are Christmas traditions Pagan or Christian?). 🙂 Christmas is a symbolic celebration (a reminder), the date is of no importance, we could celebrate the birth of Christ anytime.
The Atheist stuffs come into play in University settings. Indeed! I had to laugh when somebody on this site said the fraternities where “Christian” My church would forbid me to be member of any of them!
As well, most Americans view America as a “Christian Country.” Which is ridiculous. There is no Christian countries and never was.
I’m just curious if any government has found an effective way to operate as such without also oppressing religious expression within state. The problem is that when a state stick to a religion in particuliar there is at least a risk a persecution of those who are not from that religion (see European history, or Iran today, whith the persecution of the non Shia minorities…and there is more countries in this situation). I think that what’s happening in the States is more an expression of a so-called “christian” culture than a will of the politic powers to impose christianity on others.
Jan 02, 2009 @ 18:22:29
Oups! I’m afraid my answer to Brooke is unreadible… I did’nt understand how to use the tags I’m afraid! 🙂
Jan 02, 2009 @ 21:48:29
Thanks Emma, totally readable. An “expression of ‘christian’ culture” is probably what a lot of people see it as, which means that it is not a firm seperation of church and state–rather flimsy and hypocritical. There is no secular utopia that I know of and I don’t belive there ever could be–without equal oppression or tolerance of all religious expression.
Jan 04, 2009 @ 01:54:11
Neil- To answer your question. Muslims DO NOT worship Jesus pbuh or anyone else besides God. We love him and revere him as we love and revere all of the messengers sent by God. We pray the way Jesus did, we eat the way he did, we follow his way.
The bible, it was sent from God but it has been changed and altered time and time again by the hand of man. Therefore, we follow the text that was sent by God that hasn’t been changed by the hand of man, the Quran.
Jan 04, 2009 @ 05:28:22
Brooke said:
Aren’t you confusing “society” and “state”?
Jan 04, 2009 @ 05:30:52
Aaaahhh!!!!
I wanted to write :
Brooke said:
“An “expression of ‘christian’ culture” is probably what a lot of people see it as, which means that it is not a firm seperation of church and state–rather flimsy and hypocritical.”
And then I ask: Aren’t you confusing “society” and “state”?
Here it is my post! Phew!
Jan 04, 2009 @ 06:09:36
Emma- No, I’m talking specifically about State schools, where the majority of society’s members are educated (though I prefer indoctrinated). Part of that education includes this lipservice that here in America we have separation of church and state when we really don’t.–“Now let’s handout our Valentines, write our letters to Santa, etc.” Though the lack of separation does apply to other state areas–state buildings are covered in Christmas decorations right now. The majority of Americans seem to want that. Fine. Let’s just not call it “separation of church and state” when it is actually “majority rules.”
I do get what you are saying about the state not imposing religious laws on citizens. And I am thankful to not live in such a state. However, I just want to emphasize that the separation is not a clean cut as so many people claim it to be—those in the religious majority actually.
Jan 04, 2009 @ 17:59:21
Brooke:
“…Now let’s handout our Valentines, write our letters to Santa…. There’s nothing christian in that, Brooke. This is “cultural” not “religious”. As a “minority christian” I can tell you there is not a lot (if nothing) that I would consider christian in Western societies. What your talking about is the top of an iceberg that either disappeared long ago or that existed only in the mind of the people (and I tend to believe more the later). Real Christians were only a very small minority in an ocean of so-called Christians.
Christianity if far more than claiming to be Christian and sing Christmas carol, it is a way of life.
As the “majority rule” isn’t it the reality of every countries? Would it be so easy for me to eat a slice of ham in the street of Riyad?
To be in the minority is NEVER easy but I still prefer to be in a minority in some countries than in others….
Jan 05, 2009 @ 13:52:44
“To be in the minority is NEVER easy but I still prefer to be in a minority in some countries than in others….” yeah, me too, alhumdiallah.
Maybe an “expression of faux Christian culture” is a better description 🙂
I know many Christian families that homeschool because of their dislike for the culture represented in schools. When DID fundamental become a dirty word?
Jan 05, 2009 @ 17:07:28
“expression of faux Christian culture”: I like that!!! 🙂
When DID fundamental become a dirty word? Always. Christians who wished to follow completely and literally the Lord were ALWAYS persecuted, at least till they were granted the right to stay out of the main society (we see it in the States and some others countries).
Jan 05, 2009 @ 23:29:03
So Emma, will you refused to show me where Jesus supposedly abrogated the Law (as you claimed when replying to Daud and myself), while at the same time commanding the disciples to spread his teaching, and I am talking about the teaching he commanded to be spread at the time he spoke the words, not what Paul brought later. This is not a challenged nor a debate for I am not even refuting you with anything, I am asking because I fail to see what you see.
Jan 06, 2009 @ 04:38:34
Dalioness:
“I fail to see what you see”….Mmmmh. because you don’t want to, maybe 🙂 ?
“This is not a challenged nor a debate …” Of course it is, my dear 🙂
OK. This is my LAST answer in this debate. What I believe:
1) Jesus preached first to the Jews as Jews.
2)Then, knowing His stay on earth was going to end He send the apostles to preach to all nations.
3) Jesus died and rise from death.
4) His Sacrifice takes the place, ONCE FOR ALL, of the sacrifices in the temple of Jerusalem (you know there were sacrifices to “cover” the sins of the Chosen People)
5) Hence, the Gentiles (or anyone else) do not need to follow the Law anymore, because to keep it would negate the redeeming value of the sacrifice of Jesus.
The problem here is that we do not agree on who has authority on the matter.
You do not accept the authority of Paul as much as I do not accept Muhammad as a prophet.
End of the “debate” on my part. 😉
(I want to add that my goal was not to convert anybody but to present what I believe in.)
Jan 06, 2009 @ 18:13:30
Emma,
If I state that “I fail to see what you see”, it does not mean I don’t want to, it means I DON’T! No, I am not asking with the intention to convert to your religion of course, but I AM asking in order to UNDERSTAND something which was never clear to me.
Allah says in the Qur’an to beware of suspicions, as some suspicions are sin. That said, if I say “I am not challenging you nor seeking to debate”, it would only be from good manners on your part to believe that unless I prove it otherwise after you’ve responded (i.e. try to argue with you even though you presented clear proof for what you believe). So, I have no problem with discussing and disagreeing, but I DO have a problem with attacks on character, although the attempt was disguised and ambiguous. I am not of deceptive character nor do I feel any need to be, so please refrain from it.
As for your explanation, I thought I asked for proof from JESUS. What you said about the sacrifice on the cross, this is an explanation of understanding (i.e. understanding it to abrogate the Law, although before Jesus, let’s say left, he commanded the disciples to spread his teachings as they were, not as Paul years later said they are). It seems to me that Paul indeed does have greater authority in Christianity then Jesus himself, and I am not even going into the discussion on whether or not Paul was a prophet. The proof that I am looking for is from Jesus, not from Paul, and this is because whether one chooses to think rationally WHILE at the same time having faith, or he simply chooses to act and believe on blind faith, realizing one fact is inevitable, whether one wants to acknowledge it or not, and it is that it is very confusing, since on hand you have Jesus living amongst the people and teaching them, then commanding them to spread this particular teaching (in which he never abrogated the Law), then the disciples live and teach according to his teachings, believing them to be final if I am not mistaken, then many moons later Paul not only abrogates the Law but introduces a completely different concept of God to that tought by Jesus. So it all leads to the question, what worth were Jesus’s TEACHINGS, crucifiction or not, if one is not to act by them?
You mentioned his crucifiction took place of the sacrifices the Jews prevously offered, and these were no longer needed, but what about all the other commandments? When I say the Law I do not mean that the whole Law was simply to offer sacrifices, and I am sure you agree with that.
Anyway, I am voicing my thoughts and understanding, or a lack thereof, if I sought to debate a refutation would not be to hard of a task, but as I said (and you chose to not believe), I am not seeking to debate. I am just failing to understand how you think that the explanation that you’ve offered, which I appreciate by the way, is adressing and answering my question, where did Jesus abrogate the Law, in his words not in words of Paul. I am not disputing abrogation in itself, Allah has full right to abrogate whatever he chooses, however I do not believe that Jesus’s command to keep the commandments which are a way to the Kingdom (from my recollection of the bible verses), and Paul’s abrogating the Law in totality are reconcilable. There is a huge difference between abrogation and contradiction.
Lastly, as for your statement of not seeking to convert but only presenting what you believe in, I could think the same way of you as you thought of me when I said I do not seek to debate, and I could ask “then what is the purpose of presenting what you believe in?” But instead I will say, it is not enough to say you believe in something and then say to a person “maybe you don’t WANT to believe, understand” etc. When presenting your beliefs, you should come with sound proofs, not claims. As for me, that is all I asked, I never asked for a statement of what you believe in nor a defense thereof. A proof may not convince me, but it may make me go “oooooooh, now I see why Emma believes such and such”.
Finally, if you choose to believe that Paul has authority over the matter, then that’s your prerogative. But in that case it should be Paulanity and not Christianity.
Jan 07, 2009 @ 01:51:42
Dalioness,
first, when I was speaking about “debate” I was thinking of me, for I have a strong tendancy to debate (as you might already have seen in my answers) 🙂 .
Also, I still think there is a debate when two persons throw arguments to each others…
Second you said: “When presenting your beliefs, you should come with sound proofs, not claims.” Huhh, excuse me????
My claims are based on the Bible AND what the Church teaches. Even if you do not accept it (and I understand that this is what “bugs” you) , it is the way the christian churches work, like it or not.
The apostles you denigrate so much were appointed by Christ Himself (though I suppose you’ll say THIS part of the Bible was changed—how handy: take what you want and leave what you don’t—) and Paul was appointed by those same apostles (and Christ who appeared to him!) and it was not “MANY moons later” for Paul meet several times the apostles.
So yes, I tend to believe more the teaching of men like them (all of them Jews!!) than somebody else (like Muhammad, who was not even a Jew before his “revelation”). Especially when most of them died because they fearlessly and peacefully preached their faith.
As to know if the teachings of Paul are going against the teaching of Jesus I would say, “No”. But then again my “claims” are based on the Bible (from which you take only what you want because the rest was, at least, “changed”) and from the teachings of the Church (that you refuse). By the way, this is something that I find intelectualy dishonnest: either you reject everything or you accept everything but you Muslims, are playing on both grounds…
As for Paulanity , well why not? (this is a PERSONAL view, others Christians may disagree). Then could I speak of Mahommedism?
Jan 07, 2009 @ 03:59:43
Emma
I am not a person to beat around the bush, and my kindness indeed has its’ limits. If you can not discuss on an intellectual level, but rather resort to giving in to your emotions because of my unacceptance of your claim, then why discuss at all. Either you don’t get it or for whatever reason pretend as you don’t. Claims are not enough if you withhold the evidence upon which those claims are based. As of yet, you’ve provided me with claims, stating they are based on the teachings of the Bible and the Church. Suppose a person was inquiring out of interest to convert to your religion (you know that I am not inquiring for that reason, so I don’t know if this is why you refuse to speak with proofs as opposed with claims). Suppose they are inquiring out of a reason which pleases you, yet you give them your claims and state they are based on the Bible, Church…do you honestly expect someone to base their whole salvation on whatever you say unless they are presented with evidence? This is an insane expectation, this isn’t russian rulet. Please don’t come with “oh but you would only reject the evidence as untrue, you Muslims like to pick and choose”, when you haven’t even tried in the first place!!! This is what is called stereotyping, you could be dealing with a follower of a religion other then Islam, would you not provide evidence because of the assumption that they will reject it? Not everything has to result in me or anyone else all of a sudden sharing your beliefs, this is simply a “Muslim/Christian dialogue”, not a case of “if I can’t make you believe then I won’t discuss with you”. But it seems unacceptable to you that my reason behind this whole thing was to better understand where you’re coming from. For God’s sake, I already know WHAT you believe, but I don’t know WHY you believe it, is that so difficult to grasp???
As for what I do or don’t accept from the Bible, I do not recall quoting the Biblical verses, I do however recall pointing out some of the verses as I understood them and raising questions about them because I see irreconcilable verses/meanings so I am asking a Christian to clear the contradictions!!! Not so that I may convert but so that I may understand what specifics you base your specific beliefs. At least then I hope I could say “I see why you believe that”. I never speak of the Bible as if I believe in any particular part of it or disbelieve in another!!! The whole point is “how can you believe in A (which most often is ambiguous and open to interpretation) when the Bible also says B!! Yet even if I were, it does not mean that I hold the ones I quote as true for one, and two, I’d like to remind you that I believe that Jesus was sent as a Prophet and a Messenger with a Message from Allah which is Injeel, as a Muslim I do not believe that the whole of Injeel was lost rather altered, distorted by hands of men (you deny any evidence on this although to many a non Muslim scholar and historics have researched and studied and came to this conclusion because of the tremendous amount of evidence, yet you deny this as well because of your blind faith), I believe the Qur’an is Al Furqan, the Criterion, that which distinguishes truth from falsehood, confirms the truth in the Scriptures sent before it and refuting the falsehood found in it, so you may say I do not take the Bible as my primary evidence rather my primary evidence is the Qur’an. As for whatever truth may be still preserved from the previous Scriptures IN the previous Scriptures, I do not confirm it nor deny it as the actual words of God, but because of the similarity with the Qur’an that such verses may carry, I believe in their message and content!!! After all, as a Muslim I believe there were Scriptures before the Qur’an!!! If you choose to label me a hypocrite for this, then beware of throwing stones while you yourself live in a glass house, since you only take from the OT that which you believe conforms to the NT, while rejecting other things (like the Law which Jesus not only never abrogated but commanded his followers with and came to fulfill). In fact why have the OT there anyway since you do not refer to it. And anytime a Muslim might refer to it for the sake of pointing out the clear cut FUNDAMENTAL contradictions, the claim is “oh but that was before it was abrogated………”.
I praise Allah Almighty for not creating mankind like cattle, devoid of any critical thinking, I praise Allah Almighty for giving me a mind and ability to reason, I praise Allah Almighty for encouraging me to use this gift, for not demanding of me to believe in Him blindly without pondering over His Word. I could never believe that God distinguished me from animals by blessing me with the ability to reason, only to then demand blind faith, I could never believe that God would leave me to walk in darkness by having to rely on mere claims and personal interpretations of people, for they are many, but the truth is one.
No, you could not speak of “Mahommedism” because Muhammad ibn Abdullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam never contradicted anything the previous Prophets, including Jesus alayhi salam, brought. I find it sad and pitiful that, when your beliefs are not understood and questioned, the only thing you can repeatedly resort to are sly remarks about the Seal of the Prophets, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. A man whom you so obviously know nothing about yet repeatedly resort to disguised insults. If this is how you present your beliefs, my advice is STOP, you are doing more damage for your case then good. If I were discussing Islam with you, I’d present my case and leave it to you, but since we were discussing YOUR belief and presentation thereof, Muhammad ibn Abdullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam has got nothing to do with this. Anyway, discussing anything with you seems rather pointless since you can’t even understand what it is that I am asking you. Enough said. Oh yeah, I am definitely not “bugged”, as you put it, I found it quite hilarious, you saying this! Sorry to disappoint, but it doesn’t work that way, providing personal claims and interpretations of the Church, never seeking to clarify that which people don’t understand, not being able to explain and reconcile the clear cut contradictions but instead saying that there aren’t any and expecting masses to believe, if Jesus alayhi salam didn’t expect blind faith (and indeed he didn’t, not according to the Qur’an and not even according the Bible, from what I gathered), but rather conveyed by way of teaching, than why do you feel all you need to do is tell a story, make a statement that your story is based on evidence and boom, people should believe? So no hon, I am not “bugged” in the least bit, at this point I couldn’t actually care less in trying to understand you. Maybe you “don’t WANT to be understood”, wink.
Jan 08, 2009 @ 18:54:40
Dalioness:
You said: “As of yet, you’ve provided me with claims, stating they are based on the teachings of the Bible and the Church. ”
Your asking me to explain to you 2000 years of history of the Church….
Surely, You can understand I CANNOT possibly do that.
There is PLENTY of SCHOLARLY NEUTRAL books (I’m not even talking about Christian books, here) which can explain you WHY this and WHY that. At least you will have an intellectual understanding of the Christian belief, if this is really what your looking for (which I doubt…for you would not be refuting what I wrote the way you do).
You said: “but since we were discussing YOUR belief and presentation thereof, Muhammad ibn Abdullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam has got nothing to do with this. ”
Of course he has EVERYTHING to do with it, because YOUR OWN understandings (or misunderstandings, or refutations…) of Christian teachings have everything to do with your acceptance of Muhammad teachings…for you accept what he teach as truth. (And don’t speak about proof because FAITH is FAITH, you believe or not in something. As far as I know, you didn’t meet God in person, or Muhammad, you choose to believe the Koran and Muslim teachings as much as I choose to believe the Bible and Christian faith!)
I find it “cute” from you to say that Mohammad never contradict the previous prophets when in the same time you say the Bible was tempered with! This verse of the Bible is Ok but this verse which contradict the Koran is tempered with!
….which is intelectualy quite dishonest.
You said: “Muhammad ibn Abdullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam never contradicted anything the previous Prophets, including Jesus alayhi salam, brought” Oh yes?
But here is what I see comparing the life and works of Jesus and Muhammad:
-Jesus taught to “turn the other cheek”, in other word not to resist evil (as He Himself practiced it), Muhammad taught to fight the enemies of Islam (following the righteous rules… his rules, of course) !
-Jesus never bear arms. Mohammad was a warrior!
-Jesus freed an adulterous woman, Muhammad would have stone her!
-Jesus forbade divorce, Muhammad accepted it!
-Jesus never taught polygamy, speaking only of one man and one woman, Muhammad agreed on polygamy (how many “spouses” did he have, again?)!
-Jesus taught separation of state and community of believers (the Church), Muhammad taugh it was the same and worse that the believers had to rule over!
etc…
Before I became Christian, I read the Koran, also. And it’s also with my REASON that I reject the FAITH of the followers of Muhammad.
So, please, stop playing the disk of “reason versus blind faith” for I’m not completely dumb, even if I’m not Muslim!
Jan 08, 2009 @ 19:51:43
@ Emma
I bet those money changers who Jesus (alayhi salam) drove out of the temple with the bundle of sticks or chord of wood, didn’t view Jesus (alayhi salam) as “turn the other cheek” kind of guy!!!
Jan 10, 2009 @ 01:11:42
Daud:
Indeed! 🙂
Though that doesn’t mean He allowed us to use violence.
Moreover, Jesus never fought against anybody to protect Himself (He even rebuked Peter what he chopped the ear off a soldier when they came to arrest Him and didn’t resist His arrest)
How should we combine violence (any kind) with:
Matthew 5:44 (King James Version)
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
???
Jan 11, 2009 @ 09:44:49
hm, this (amongst many other verses) is what is attributed to God in your Scriptures, so seemingly He wasn’t always the God of love alone…
“Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants”. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered.” O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don’t give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, “All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children.” (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)
“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
“Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children”. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
and many, many more, for various different reasons….comments on such contradictions are quite obvious….but I’m sure there will be yet another baseless “refutation”…..yawn.
Jan 11, 2009 @ 12:26:18
Sounds like the wrath of God to me. I don’t think I’ve ever read such ghaphic and violent references in the Noble Quran.
Dalioness, perhaps the ‘turn the other cheek’ verse abrocated the ones that incited vengence. I’m just saying…
Jan 11, 2009 @ 19:26:55
Dalioness:
Where did I wrote that God is ONLY love??? This is a teaching that is far from being taught in my church… God is the one who is going to jugde and punish us, I’m very aware of that…
And if God wan’t to punish someone (or a nation) He doesn’t need the help of anybody to carry His judgment, I think.
The examples you give are ALL from the Old Testament (the Old “Alliance”). I was speaking of Jesus, who “opened” (and give examples of how to live in) the New Alliance. I remember you agreed that God could abrogate what He stated before and this is what He did here…
Jesus taught us, in Matthew 6:
12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
and
14For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
(meaning God forgives me, the same way I forgive others!)
What Jesus taught us is that believers should not bother with vengeance or retribution, whose are the Lord’s.
But, then I suppose the Bible was altered so the early christians could be chopped to death without defending themselves…
Finaly, I’m sorry to make you yawn, Dalioness… 😦
Jan 12, 2009 @ 01:18:30
the point is that what you see as abominable in the Qur’an and what you call violence in Islam is nothing in comparison to the OT, where God instructed at times PEOPLE to kill others for various different things, and it is not true that God Himself only executed this punishments.
Whether or not the OT is abrogated is in a way irrelevant since you equate Jesus with God, so therefore what God did in the OT is what Jesus did (wa naotho’billah), no?
Furthermore, it is a futile to not believe that God would do such things simply when it comes down to the religion of Islam and to judge that it is impossible that God would want what you view as “violence”, when worse is found in the OT.
Of course, God does not need any help from His creation in anything He does, but what I illustrated is that sometimes God executes His punishments through the hands of men.
Jan 12, 2009 @ 19:27:08
Dalioness:
I was writting of the teachings of Jesus as we understand them in the (non-resistant) Mennonite churches I attend. I’m sorry you took my comment as an attack on Islam. This was not my point, I assure you. (As you know, most of the christian churches do not practice non-resistance anymore… 😦 )
“Whether or not the OT is abrogated is in a way irrelevant since you equate Jesus with God, so therefore what God did in the OT is what Jesus did (wa naotho’billah), no?”
Yes. But does it mean God/Jesus deals with humans always in the same way ? I mean if a father forbids his son to go to town today, does it mean it will forbid it forever? 🙂
“…sometimes God executes His punishments through the hands of men.”
Yes, of course, Dalioness! We can think of the police forces which exist to protect us. And we are taught to pray for our governments, too.
But Christians should stay away from the use of force and vengeance (retaliation) at any cost.
Jan 13, 2009 @ 15:28:37
Ok, I think I get it. But does this mean that, let’s say if someone attacked the Christians, let’s take the worst case scenario, in a war like manner, are they not to defend themselves at all??
Jan 14, 2009 @ 02:07:24
Yes, this is the way non-resistant Christians will understand it. Most will also apply non-resistance in everyday life too (not only war time) and they will not prosecute people even when wronged.
This is a logical conclusion when reading statements from Jesus, like such from the Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew5
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
and
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Many (most) Christian churches consider those teachings to be “spiritual” but the non-resistant churches teach that we have to apply them in all level of everyday life (which is not easy… 🙂 )
Jan 14, 2009 @ 11:51:17
Sadly people are aspiring to something they will never achieve, “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”
Glorified and Exalted is Allah, Who Is The Only One Whom Perfection is attributed to.
Jan 14, 2009 @ 14:46:40
@ Emma
No one has killed more people in the name of God than the christians. That is a historical fact!
Jan 14, 2009 @ 20:51:11
Ummadam: Yes, indeed in this life we will never be able to perfectly reach this goal. 🙂 or 😦 But, on the other hand, if I start a task by saying I surely will fail then surely I will fail. Jesus knew we were not perfect but He set up this goal anyway for we have to strive to reach it! (and there are churches —and people—which strive (and succeed) to reach this goal, with the help of God.)
Daud: Indeed! Very sad.
But then the question is:
-were those “Christians” obeying Jesus???
If yes: -where are the explicit teachings of Jesus allowing “religious wars”
If no: – are they REALLY and ONLY Christians? (by saying only I mean are they following ONLY Jesus or the political agenda of their kingdom/state…)
You see that speaking of non-resistance open a wide door on other problems…that is not an easy question.
Jan 14, 2009 @ 21:10:37
Daud: In fact I should have wrote …Jesus allowing “any” wars (or violence)
Jan 14, 2009 @ 23:27:03
one point for Emma. That does make sense. Even early on the Muslims were not to fight back until gven word.