MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS

[lionger]

al hamza christianity was never a religion per se, to begin with(at least in the sense that Islam is), though some turned it into that later on. To me it is not a religion; as I said b4, it is a relationship. Therefore those who want to be fair and correct judges would do much better to read the New Testament, rather  than go on a wild goose chase with greco-roman mythology. All the New Testament scriptures were written long before the empire accepted Christianity; in fact, they were written while Christianity was seen as an evil sect, and its followers fiercely persecuted and brutally put to death. All the New Testament writers suffered persecution and most lost their lives in brutal fashions for their faith. Moreover, Jesus himself warned them about it, so it was no surprise! Will people embark on a life of sorrow, pain and death, and no earthly rewards, unless they were convinced that it was true?

[Barde]

Mallamt,

Barde don show face again after a long time. I didn't know you raised these questions i would have replied you earlier, anyway, better late than never.

Ofcourse i have to read the preface because it tells me what to expect in a book. For many years Muslims have been saying that the Bible has been changed by means of additions, deletions and substitutions but Christians like you have denied this. The following verses are missing from the version of the Bible am using which corrobate its preface:    Mark 9:44 & 46, Mark 11:26, Matt 12:47, Matt 17:21 etc. Dont castigate me, am only reproducing what Christian scholars wrote about the bible, who could know better than those who have worked to translate the original manuscripts? One has only to note the vocabularies "Unknown", "additions", "deletions", "substitutions" etc in the preface of different versions of the bible to understand that only a small portion of the original Bible remain in the present day Bible.

I dont understand, the error is of the meaning of what?

2 You made mention of 2Samuel 13:5-14 and 16:22 as part of the "endless list of inconsistencies or errors". I am not sure what your problem is with these chapters, but I do surely hope you realise that they are talking about two different sons of David (Absalom and Amnon) please see 2Samuel 3:2-3.

I don't refer them as evidence of inconsistencies but among the reasons why we consider the present day bible as non reliable, this is because the verses are teaching promiscuity, as it is stated that a brother tricked and had sex with his younger sister and also a son slept with his father's cuncubine. You will agree with me that a sacred book should not contain such acts.

Your first line makes even this discussion useless because it appears you are not making any effort to substantiate your claims or positions instead you are just making statements regardless of facts or an indipendent study. You went on further to say that your responsibility is to present the true gospel, if I may ask you what is the true gospel? what evidence or facts do you have with regard to the true gospel? why are you not presenting your facts and evidence here? Why do you qoute the quran as you source of fact or evidence when on its own it is biased against christain doctrine and position, furthermore it is (the quran) further away from the time of the events than the bible (this is historical fact)?

What more facts do you want? I have given you clear examples where Jesus and Paul's statements differ and you are still asking me to proof my points, review the post am sure your memory will be refreshed or are you trying to dogde? In whatever context they are talking, Jesus would'nt have showed his insufficiency to grant them their request, while Paul on the hand, wrote to the Colossians to show sufficiency of christ. Giving us the meaning of sufficient will help in putting this matter at rest, perhaps i may be having a wrong meaning of the word, so please help me define the word sufficient.

The Qur'an is not biased against christian doctrine and position rather than highlighting what the true Gospel should contain. Knowing fully well that Christains make such false accusations and they can hadly be convinced by just quoting the Qur'an alone hence  i always quote from the Bible then use the Qur'an to corroborate it, you can review my posts and see, i was even misunderstood in this forum when i wrote Sharia in the Bible, anyway, Alhamdulillah, am now vindicated.

5 On Deu. 18:19, it was not a mistake, it is the verse I wanted to qoute. Since you decided to go a verse further it is fine. I find again you have made some errors or it is a deliberate misqouting prophet was not plural but singular in the verses refering to a specific prophet. You asked if I believe Jesus was like Moses, and my answer is to an extent yes. Please look up the meaning of prophet first, Jesus did prophesy (did you remember even his own death he prophesied).

Like i said the verse is talking about dealing with whoever that did not listen to the message the prophet proclaims, i dont see it having any relevance with what we are discussing. If Jesus is like Moses, why then you don't refer to Moses as one of the triune God as well? let me leave you at this because my thread on Deutronomy chapter 18 is still on the way inshaAllah.

There are basic facts we can glean

The quran as we know it today was put together after the time of the prophet (pbuh), and is a collect of Uthman not the prophet, so how can it be said to be reliable?

This is as simple as ABC. The Qur'an, like any other sacred book is been scrutinized by both muslims and non muslims, you will agree with me that that citing the findings of muslim scholars about the preservation of the qur'an will make this post more cumbersome. Let us have the testimony of a few discerning non-muslims especially christians, who agreed on the absolute integrity of the Qur'an, these orientalists acknowleged the texual purity of the qur'an.

1) Wherry writes in his commentary on the qur'an "The text of the qur'an is the purest of all works of a like antiquity."

2) Bosworth Smith has reached the conclusion that "In the kuran, we have beyond all reasonable doubt, the exact words of Muhammad (SAW), without substraction and without addition." Remember in one of the Preface i quoted, it is stated that there were additions, substractions in the present day bible.

3) Lane-poole testifies "It is immense merit in the kuran that there is no doubt as to its genuineness....that very word we can now read with full confidence that it has remain unchanged through nearly thirteen hundred years."

4) Prof. Arnold wrote in the islamic Faith; "The text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself."

5) Dr. Laura Backlerie says "That we have still divine nature of the qur'an in the fact that it text remains unaltered through the centuries."

Above are few eulogies from scholars who took their time to make a comprehensive study of the qur'anic texts and how it was compiled. They are not people like you, who only sit down and plagiarised from the internet. Do you need some more eulogies? i can still provide you with more if you want.

Two copies of the original manuscripts of the qur'an is in the Topkapi saray meseum in Turkey and the other is in the Tashkent(Uzbekhistan), Both of these are identical in content with every single copy of the qur'an in existence today, any record of the qur'an can be authentucated against these originals to demonstrate the absolute purity of the qur'an.

Do you want some qur'anic verses to buttress the above facts?

The present day quran has omitted some of the contributions made by people close to the prophet (pbuh) and thus we have variant readings today, so why are the evidence or contributions of these people omitted? can we still say that the quran is truly reliable?

Why not? I am sure you are expecting to see a chapter like the book of Acts, which records the birth and spread of the church, highlighting the deeds of some of its most influencial leaders such as Paul and Peter.

Logically, this will further prove to you that Allah (SWT) is the author of the qur'an, because it neither contains the words of Muhammad(SAW) nor the words of the sahabas that compiled it. At the time the Qur'an was being revealed to Muhammad(SAW) and he felt anxious to commit it all the more readily to his memory in order to reproduce the words exactly, Allah says to him "Move not your tongue concerning (the qur'an) to make haste therewith, it is for us to collect it and to give you the ability to recite it and when we recite it to you then follow its recitation." (Qur'an 75:16-19).  Though one cannot find individual contributions of the sahabas in the qur'an as it is in the bible, their collective contributions can be found, furthermore, that does not make the qur'an non reliable infact it will further prove to you its reliability because  those who compiled it in to a single book did not put their interest or whatever they feel like, rather they relied on what was revealed to Muhammad (SAW). In contrast, the bible as it is today composed of the words of God as stated in Genesis 12:2, where God told Abram "I will cause you to become the father of a great nation. I will bless you and make you famous, and i will make you a blessing to others." Then also the words of Jesus Christ as stated in Mark 12:29-30, when he was asked about the most important commandment and he said "The most important commandment is this:Hear, O israel! The Lord our God is the one and only Lord." And the Bible also contains the words of the Likes of Paul, Peter, Jude, etc. as stated in the book of Galatians Pauls says "Let God's curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed." 1:8.

We have gathered enough evidence to charge you for plagiarism, you quoted Sahih Albukhari vol 6: 510 and the reasons for the variant readings of the qur'an were mentioned in hadiths 513 and 514, yet you went ahead and misunderstood the reasons for the variant readings of the qur'an, this is a clear indication that someone had ignorantly wrote it on the internet and you copied. Anyway, let me quote hadith 514 for you, it will definately inform you on why we have different ways of reciting the Qur'an. Narrated by Umar Bin Al-khattab; "I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting surah Al furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and i listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me, i was about to jump over him during his prayers, but i controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, i put his upper garment around his neck and seize him by it and said who taught you this surah i heard you reciting? He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me in a different way from yours" So i dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said "I heard this person reciting surah Al Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me" On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him, recite O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way i heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said "It was revealed in this way" and added "Recite, O Umar!" I recited it as he taught me. Allah's Apostle then said "It was revealed in this way. This Quran has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever way is easier for you or read as much of it as may be easy for you."  If you or the person that wrote on hadith 510 had gone a little bit further to the above hadith, the reason for having variant readings of the Qur'an would have been understood.

why are the other "non reliable" qurans or writtings burnt? should they not have been kept as evidence of attempts to distort the quran? or should they not have been kept as indication of followers must not do?

Haba! which kind of mallam are you? why are you trying to give the impression that the fragments were burnt because they were non reliable?where did you see non reliable in the Hadith? just review your post and tell us whether non reliable is there or not. I wonder why after quoting a hadith that narrated how muslims were given different chapters of the qur'an before it was bound in a book to read, you are now writing that they are non reliable, the same fragments that were collected by Zaid bin Thabit and other sahabas are the same fragments that were burnt, Uthman (PBUH) felt that since the Qur'an is now bound together in a single book, there is no need to keep the different fragments and other parts. Go over the hadith once more, maybe you will understand but there is nothing like non reliable there. Who told you that the fragments were there as evidence of trying to distort the qur'an? Did you actually quoted these hadiths on your own or you plagiarised?

Do you mean Chapter 33:23 is not included in the Qur'an? if your answer is yes, then i challenged you to look for any copy of the Qur'an, be it on-line or a hard copy and check whether the verse is there or not and make your findings known to this forum. What the Hadith is teaching you is that Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullahi bin Azzubair, etc did not only rely on just the fragments that were with them but went round to collect all the other parts from different people, remember different chapters were given to people who came to Medina to learn and quoted some hadiths that some sahabas had their own parts.

I have to thank you for bringing such issues, because it gave us an opportunity to clarify some misceptions about Islam.


I noticed that am missing alot, will try and be visiting regularly inshaAllah.

[Barde]

al hamza christianity was never a religion per se, to begin with(at least in the sense that Islam is), though some turned it into that later on. To me it is not a religion; as I said b4, it is a relationship. Therefore those who want to be fair and correct judges would do much better to read the New Testament, rather  than go on a wild goose chase with greco-roman mythology. All the New Testament scriptures were written long before the empire accepted Christianity; in fact, they were written while Christianity was seen as an evil sect, and its followers fiercely persecuted and brutally put to death. All the New Testament writers suffered persecution and most lost their lives in brutal fashions for their faith. Moreover, Jesus himself warned them about it, so it was no surprise! Will people embark on a life of sorrow, pain and death, and no earthly rewards, unless they were convinced that it was true?

Who said this thread is a waste of time? Atlast, Lionger is saying the thruth one after the other, in one of her posts, she said "God the son and God the father are two seperate beings" though she didn't explain why she keeps insisting that there is only one God, since both Jesus and his "Father are considered parts of the triune god" and now she wrote the above post.

This is what we are trying to make the christians understand, Jesus did not bring any new religion rather he was in this world to confirm what the earlier Prophets brought before him and to herald the coming of the last and seal of the prophets. He stated more than three times in the book of John that someone is coming after him, one of such places can be found in chapter 16 verse 12-13, where he stated "Oh, there is so much i want to tell you, but you can't bear it now. when the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not be representing his own ideas....." The one prophesied by Jesus was to guide humanity into all thruth including many things which he had left unsaid, as quoted in the above, furthermore, the verses clearly indicate that the message Jesus left was incomplete. The Problem started as soon as the early Christians tried to make it a complete message by substituting the original message brought by Jesus, hence they introduced all sorts of things that are far apart from his true teachings in order to make it a religion. One of such things is their way of worship, Jesus did not sing and dance as a way of worship, neither did he instruct anyone to do that, his way of prayers was to fell on his face and prayed as recorded in Mattew 26:39; "And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed....." It was the mode of prayer of the prophets before him.  In the Old testament, Genesis 17:3, Prophet Abraham is recorded to have fallen on his face in prayer; in Numbers 16:22 & 20:6, both Moses and Aaron are recorded to have fallen on their faces in worship; in Joshua 5:14 & 7:6, Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshipped; in 1 Kings 18:42, Elija fell down on the ground and put his face between his knees. This was the way of the prophets through whom God chose to convey His word to the world; and it is only by this way that those who claim to follow Jesus will gain that salvation which he preached in his Gospel. Jesus message, which urged mankind to worship one God alone, became distorted after his departure, they turned that pure and simple message into a complicated trinitarian philosophy which cannot be justified based on his original message.

Congrats, you are now begining to understand the bases of our arguement, we wont relent inshaAllah, until you realised those things that were added inorder to make it look like a complete religion.