It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Islam: An intolerant, inconsistent fallacy

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Hello;

Well Solarix, let me first give you an advice: Never make a claim without backing up your claim!
You wrote that Islam is intolerant and you gave the 1,2,3... claims, what I would like you to do, is in front of everyone of your numbered claims, to post a reference from wherever sources you must have read or heard, like a verse from the koran, or again whatever sources you are using, and rest assured, I will demonstarte to you how you misunderstood what you have read or heard. Fair enough?

Yobel




posted on May, 24 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
One more thing Solarix;

I will not divert the discussion at any point ! But remember! We are talking about religion, NOT PEOPLE!NOT POLITICS! And certainly NOT PRESIDENTS OF MUSLIM NATIONS OR WHAT THEIR CODE OF LAW IS!

To make myself clear, consider the following:
You buy a brand new Mercedes, then you drink and drive it, then you crash the car! Now, who is at fault, YOU or the car?
Car=Islam
You=Muslims
Once again, we are talking about Islam, its history as a religion, Mohammad.

I hope I'm fair enough!
Yobel



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Yobel. www.prophetofdoom.net You might want to dig through this. It goes into great detail about Muhammads misunderstanding of Jewish scripture and writing he was stealing from. It also goes into great detail about the falsehood of Allah and the subsiquent lies and twists the leaders of Islam were telling.

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by wooten123]



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Wooten123

I have already looked at that site, I was not surprised at all, many have done the same if not more when talking about Islam. The title alone of that website suggests a hatred towards Islam and the muslims.
Now you make a claim as others did, that Mohammad(pbuh) copied from the Jewish scriptures. This claim by you tells me that you have never read the Koran or even the bible, I'll tell you why.
-Amazing how Mohammad(pbuh) an illiterate man copied from the jewish scriptures almost everything but the word father in reference to God "father of Jesus".
-Why Mohammad(pbuh) an arab would copy something that would have surely anger his followers. Example:
1- In the Koran Allah tells the children of Israel that He has favored them above all other nations (not the Arabs). and bestowed all his bounties upon them.
2-In the Koran Allah Testifies that the ONLY TRUE MESSIAH is Jesus(pbuh), NOT MOHAMMAD, NOT HIS UNCLE OR ANY OTHER ARAB.
3-In the Koran Allah testifies that Mary(the mother of Jesus) is the leader of all women in the hereafter, NOT the MOTHER OF MOHHAMMAD OR HIS WIFE but a jewish woman.
4-In the Koran, all the prophets who were from the house of israel are glorified and respected no less than Mohammad. Why didn't Mohammad(pbuh) attacked them in the Koran?


I can go on and on as to why Mohammad(Pbuh) do such a thing if in deed he hated the jews and the christians and wanted to elevate his status among his arab followers.
Take a Bible and count the word Father (in reference to the Father in heaven), then pick up a Koran and see if you can find the word Father refering to God, Bear in mind that in arabic the word father and God are only different by one letter.
Father= Abb (in arabic)
God= Rabb (in arabic).

All the verses given in that link you mentioned are taken out of their context much like if I take Luke 19: verse 27: Jesus is saying:" But for those mine ennemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and SLAY THEM before me." Now I just took that verse out of its original context, what should I make of it? That Jesus(pbuh)ruled by force and slaughter? No! I as a muslim dont believe that.

I welcome anyone willing to discuss thsi subject with an open mind.

Thank you for reading my answer and welcome your response

Yobel



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Why did Muhammad say that the followers of Jesus were lying about the resurrection? According the Jesus, he was the only way to the truth and the life. Muhammad is calling him a liar. I think Muhammad was the one who was telling a fabrication. You have no doubt that Muhammad was telling the truth then why was he taking Jewish scripture in the first place sinse it was twisted? How did he know which parts of the Bible and Talmud were corrupted and which ones were not? If he is telling his followers the Bible is corrupted would that not make the Bible something he should stay away from? Seems like a deception to me. Are you sure you have read the Quran and the Bible? The Quran is full of Biblical characters. The problem is this. The only validity to Muhammads story is a book he authored. No miracles, no raising the dead, just the book and a sword.

One last point. I think the Hadith is a look at sinister but brilliant politican, military general, and statesman. He was not a prophet. If he was, he would claim Jesus Christ as the savior and fufillment of the New Covenant

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by wooten123]

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by wooten123]



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Wooten;

Lets make something clear, before I proceed:

Mohammad(pbuh) did NOT write the Koran, Because as I wrote in my previous reply, he was an illiterate (in arabic: Oumi), he was not able to read or write, thats what I meant by ILLITERATE. He received the revelation from the angel Gabriel(pbuh). His followers did write the Koran not him.

Mohammad NEVER called Jesus a Liair in any writings whatsoever! In my previous reply to you, I made clear that in the Koran, Jesus(pbuh) is called the ONLY and TRUE messiah.

You as a christian believe that Jesus(pbuh) was crucified to pay for Human sins. We muslim dont believe that nor do we believe that the crucifixion of Jesus ever took place. We also dont believe that Jesus is the son of God or God himself. Why? I can prove it to you from the bible. But then again I dont want seem to be diverting the subject.

I have never said that Mohammad(pbuh) took from jewish scriptures, you made that allegation NOT ME. Now does the Koran states that the bible (new and old testaments) were corrupted? Yes! The Koran does state that clearly. Again, I can prove it to you beyond a reasonable doubt, just ask!

Yes I have read the Koran and the Bible and I do speak arabic fluently.
If you suggest that Mohammad(pbuh) plagiarise the jewish scriptures based on many similarities in both the Koran and the Bible, then you should also say that Jesus took from the scriptures of Moses and Abraham, lets be fair! You see my point?
But we muslim dont believe that! We believe that Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad (pbut), each completed the work of the other.

Now, you spoke of Miracles. That tells me that you dont read the bible as often as you should, because Jesus tells you that miracles are not a testimony to prophethood. I can give the reference if you want. Also, check the bible and see if John the Baptist ever performed a miracle. The answer is NONE, having said that, Mohammad did perform many miracles, such as the splitting of the moon or the pouring of water from his fingers to have his followers drink to survive in the middle of the desert, and many other miracles. But you seem to forget that the Koran itself is his miracle, being an encyclopedia of not only excellent arabic, but science such as medecine, geology, biology, astronomy, mathematics, physics.... I can give you refernces, just ask me! Miracles were given to prophets according to their time, I'll explain:

You think that miracles are proof that someone is a prophet, you are wrong, who says so? Jesus says so, read on:"(24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
Matthew 24:22-26 (signs and wonders=miracles)

The Koran testifies that Jesus Christ came in flesh not in spirit, read on:"BELOVED, believe not every spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world into the world.2 Hereby know ye the spirit of God: Every spirit that confessth that Jesus is come in the flesh is of God" 1st John 4:3 (that was Jesus speaking)



At the time of Moses(pbuh), the Pharaos boasted about their magical capabilities, so God sent them Moses, who outperformed them to wonders.

At the time of Jesus(pbuh), the Romans boasted about their capabilities in medecine, so God sent them Jesus who outperformed them.

At the time of Mohammad(pbuh), the Arabs boasted about their language as being a LIVE language as opposed to other dialects that they called (Ajami) meaning a dead language, poor in expressions. So God sent them a prophet who outperformed them in Arabic while he never attended school or knew how to write or read.

Your last point!
According to you Mohammad(pbuh) is not a prophet because he did not say that Jesus is the saviour. Again, we dont believe that Jesus is the saviour, or the "son" of God or "God" himself.
Jesus is not the saviour, who says so? Jesus did. Read what Jesus says about how to go to heaven:" For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, YE SHALL IN NO CASE enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 5:20
I'm asking you this, does IN NO CASE MEANS there is no other way? And how can you be better than the Scribes and the Pharisees if not by keeping the commandements, no mention of the blood.

Yobel



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Why are you quoting from the Bible if it is corrupted?? It seems that Muslims only take scripture that fits their agenga.
This scripture directly contradicts Muhammads "God".

'Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me.' John 14:6.


The problem I have understanding is why Muhammad would call Jesus's witnesses who saw him after the resurrection liars. Would Muhammad's agenda work if Chirst was crucified and resurrected? No. The crucifixtion and resurrection are the main focus of the New Testament and Muhammad calls it a lie. I am sorry but I can't believe that because the Holy Spirit tells me Muhammad was decieved by Lucifer. Lucifer came to Muhammad as an angel of Light just like the Bible tells us he appears. The spirit lead me to Galations 1 6-7.

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.


BTW -- I would like you to PROVE to me the Bible is corrupt and then show me why you take certain scripture and not other scripture.


[Edited on 25-5-2004 by wooten123]



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Scat. If the Hadith is not a book of lies then Muhammad himself did kill many in his "God's" name. Do some research and do not believe the lies that surround Muhammad.

Tabari VII:85 After Muhammad killed many Quraysh polytheists at Badr, the Jews were envious and behaved badly toward him, saying, Muhammad has not met anyone who is good at fighting. Had he met us, he would have had a real battle. They also infringed the treaty in various ways.



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Wooten;

Why I use verses from the Bible if it is corrupted?

1- In the Bible we Find the word of God, like:" I'm Alpha and Omega" You agree with me thats God talking
2-In the Bible we find the word of the prophets like in the book of the prophet Jonah(pbuh) :" I'm an Hebrew; and I fear the Lord, the God of Heaven..." you agree with me that s Jonah speaking.
3a- In the bible there is the word of the unknown or the word of the annonymous (meaning NO ONE knows who wrote it):"Now the Lord said unto Abraham, get thee out of thy country..." (Its not God writing nor is Abraham writing it).
3b- In the four Gospels, you will read: "The Gospel ACCORDING TO Matthew", "The Gospel ACCORDING TO Mark" and so on... I'm asking you, why "According To" and not " The Gospel BY Matthew"? Because ACCORDING TO means Matthew didnt write Matthew, Mark didnt write Mark, who says so, NOT ME! Christian scholars. If you dont believe me, ask any Bible Historian or Bible scholars. These 4 Gospels are annonymous.

Why do I use the Bible if I think it is corrupted?
Besides what I wrote above, consider the following:

You make an allegation, therefore I will call you the plaintif.
I say that your allegation is false, so I call myself the defendant.
The Bible is your witness. So in any court of law, the witness (bible) must becross-examined. So the defendant (me) can use your witness's words to show you contradictions and unconsistencies.

Once again, I sincerely believe that what Jesus spoke and preached is true word of God. Is the bible 100% the word of God? My answer is NO.
I'm sure that you use the King james version. I have a copy of the KJV, I also own, the RSV (revised standard version), but I love to read from the RED LETTER EDITION, meaning that every word written in red was actually spoken by Jesus(pbuh), if you dont have one, get one and see for yourself what the percentage of all words written in red vis-a-vis the entier Bible.

You again make a claim that Mohammad(pbuh) called the disciples of Jesus liars. Well prove to me from the Bible that there were eyewitnesses to the cruscifixion. I'll save you the trouble! There were NO EYEWITNESSES to the crucifixion, PERIOD! And here is the proof:

Matt. 26:36-41; 55, 56; 69-75; John 18:15-18.

From the supper-chamber, in which we have lingered so long, we pass into the outside world, to witness the behavior of the eleven in the great final crisis. The passages cited describe the part they played in the solemn scenes connected with their Master's end. That part was a sadly unheroic one. Faith, love, principle, all gave way before the instincts of fear, shame, and self-preservation. The best of the disciples--the three who, as most reliable, were selected by Jesus to keep Him company in the garden of Gethsemane--utterly failed to render the service expected of them. While their Lord was passing through His agony, they fell asleep, as they had done before on the Mount of Transfiguration. Even the picked men thus proved themselves to be raw recruits, unable to shake off drowsiness while they did duty as sentinels. "What! could ye not watch with me one hour?" Then, when the enemy appeared, both these three and the other eight ran away panic-stricken. "All the disciples forsook Him, and fled." And finally, that one of their number who thought himself bolder than his brethren, not only forsook, but denied his beloved Master, declaring with an oath, "I know not the man."

Here is another one:" THEY ALL FORSOOK HIM AND FLED." Again I'm asking you, does ALL means ALL? So stop saying that there were eyewitnesses to the event.

Now, you asked me to prove to you that the bible was corrupted.
I will not give you my take on it though I can! I will give you what THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, assisted by an advisory committee presenting FIFTY co-operating denominations say about the very same King James that you go by. Please read on:

The following was written by 32 scholars of the HIghest emminence backed by 50 co-operating denominations, on the preface of the Revised Standard Version (RSV):

the King James Version has with good reason been termed "THE NOBLEST MONUMENTS OF ENGLISH PROSE." its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration for "ITS SIMPLICITY, ITS DIGNITY, ITS POWER, ITS HAPPY TURNS OF EXPRESSION...THE MUSIC OF ITS CADENCES, AND THE FELICITIES OF ITS RHYTHM." It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt.yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS. And, the these defects are so MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"

The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "Awake!" Magazine, dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headlines - "50,000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?". The article said that "most errors have been eliminated." If MOST are eliminated, how many remain out of 50,000? 5000? 500? 50? Even if 50 remain, do you attribute those errors to God?

One of the most serious of those "grave defects" which the authors of the RSV had tried to rectify concerned the Ascension of Christ. There have been only two references in the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and of John to the most stupendous event in Christianity - OF JESUS BEING TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN. These two references were obtained in every Bible in every language, prior to 1952, when the RSV first appeared. These were:

"So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN, and sat down at the right hand of God." [Mark 16:19]

"While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN." [Luke 24:51]

If you can lay your hands on a RSV 1952, you will be shocked that Mark 16 ends at verse 8, and after am embarrassing expanse of blank space the missing verses appears in "small print" as a footnote at the bottom of the page. Also the last six words of Luke 24:51, i.e. "AND WAS CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN" replaced by a tiny "a" to tell you to see the footnote if you please, where you will find these missing words. Every honest Christian has to admit that he does not consider any footnote in any Bible as the word of God. Why should the paid servants of Christianity consign the mightiest miracle of their religion to a mere footnote?

Also John Chapter 8 begins with verse 12. Can you imagine any chapter in any religious Book beginning with verse 12 as the first verse? Verses 1 to 11 are expunged as a fabrication by the 32 Christian Scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 co-operating denominations in their "Most up-to-date version of the Bible" - the RSV. The translators claimed that they had access to the "Most Ancient Manuscripts" from which they learnt that the story about the adulteress was a fabrication.


CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE

God or the Devil?

"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." [2 Samuel 24:1]

"And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." [1 Chronicles 21:1]


What did the Lord decree, 3 years famine or 7 years famine?

"So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee?" [2 Samuel 24:13]

"So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee Either THREE YEARS' FAMINE; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee" [1 Chronicles 21:11,12]


How old was Jehoiachin? 8 or 18?

"Jehoiachin was EIGHT YEARS old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD." [2 Chronicles 36:9]

"Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN YEARS old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem." [2 Kings 24:8]


700 or 7 000? Horsemen or footmen?

"And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of SEVEN HUNDRED CHARIOTS of the Syrians, and FORTY THOUSAND HORSEMEN, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there." [2 Samuel 10:18]

"But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians SEVEN THOUSAND MEN which fought in chariots, and FORTY THOUSAND FOOTMEN, and killed Shophach the captain of the host." [1 Chronicles 19:18]


The difference 2 000 and 3 000 is only 50% exaggeration!

"And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained TWO THOUSAND baths." [1 Kings 7:26]

"And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held THREE THOUSAND baths." [2 Chronicles 4:5]


The difference between 4 thousand and 40 thousand is only 36 000! (The Jews did not use the "0" (zero) in the Old Testament)

"And Solomon had FOUR THOUSAND stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem." [2 Chronicles 9:25]

"And Solomon had FORTY THOUSAND stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen." [1 Kings 4:26]


Plagiarism in the Book of God?

[Isaiah 37] and [2 Kings 19] are identical word for word. Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, centuries apart, whom the Christians claim have been inspired by God.
And remember what Jesus says:"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18
So not one word should be changed, so was the bible changed time and again?


NOTE: The RSV version was based from THE MOST ANCIENTS MANUSCRIPTS, 2 to 400 years after Jesus, while the KJV was based from ANCIENTS MANUSCRIPTS 3 to 600 years after jesus, so the more closer to the source, the more authentic the source is.
Some 2500 manuscripts were found written in Greek, out those 2500 manuscripts, i'm asking you, how did they come to know which is the word of God and which is not? All written in Greek NOT ARAMAIC!

Again, I dont want to divert the subject to christianity, we were talking about the Koran and Islam.

Be well!
Yobel



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   
In all fairness, it seems your Quran is not so perfect either. This is a major problem because the Quran is supposed to be perfect. I know the Bible was written by men and I know the Quran was as well.

CONTRADICTIONS WITHIN THE QURAN

"Do they not consider the Quran? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies." (Sura 4:82).
This verse is further amplified by the already quoted texts:

"No change can there be in the Words of Allah (Sura 10:64)
"There is none that can alter the Words of Allah (Sura 6:34)
We Christians believe this too. Let us assume for a moment that there is no discrepancy between the message of the Bible and the Quran, which, as we have seen, is not the case, and consider the Quran on its own.

The problem of abrogation.


"When We substitute one revelation for another, - and Allah knows best what He reveals, - they say 'Thou art a forger: But most of them understand not. Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in truth."
"None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar--Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?....Would you question your Apostle as Moses was questioned of old?" (Suras 16:101 and 2:106,108).

We should like to find out how a divine revelation can be improved. We would have expected it to have been perfect and true right from the start. Yusuf Ali tries to explain:


"....it means that God's message from age to age is always the same, but that its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time. Some commentators apply it also to the Ayat (revelation) of the Quran. There is nothing derogatory in this if we believe in progressive revelation.
In Sura 3:7 we are told distinctly about the Quran, that some of its verses are basic and fundamental, and others are allegorical, and it is mischievous to treat the allegorical verses and follow them (literally)." (comm 107).
This is fully acceptable. God has revealed His Word progressively, the revelation being levelled at the comprehension and culture of the people to whom it was first given. Everybody will agree that an allegory should not be taken literally. But what about the law of 'mansukh' (=abrogated verse; please note Sura 2:106 does not speak of intellect, culture or progressive revelation with reference to scriptures given prior to Mohammed, but to Quranic verses only!) and 'nasikh' (=the verses that take the place of the mansukh verses)? .

We must recognize one important principle: If we want to know what a certain passage really means we have to make a proper exegesis. We have to establish what exactly the text in question was intended to say to the original hearers. How did they understand it? Only having done that can we interpret a text in today's situation without distortion. There are various possible ways of establishing the original meaning, but one should also look at the very old commentaries and see how they understood and interpreted the text.

The "Tafsir-i-Azizi" explains three kinds of abrogations (=cancellations):

i) where a verse has been removed from the Quran and another given in its place;


ii) where the injunction (command) is abrogated and the letters of the verse remain; !


iii) where both the verse and its injunction are removed from the text


Jalalu'd-Din, says that the number of abrogated verses has been variously estimated to range from 5 to 500 ("Dictionary of Islam", page 520)

In his 'Itqan' he furnished a list of 20 verses, which are acknowledged by all commentators to be abrogated ("Dictionary of Islam", page 520).

Just a few be mentioned here:


The Qibla (prayer direction) was changed from Jerusalem to Mecca (Sura 2:142-144);
The division of inheritance left by parents or other relatives according to Sura 4:7 had to be equal (a share and a share which has to be determined). This was abrogated and replaced by verse 11, where it is commanded that males must get double the share of females.

The night prayer performed by reciting the Quran ought to be more or less half the time of the night (Sura 73:2). This was changed to as much as may be easy for you (verse 20).

The treatment of adulteresses is to be life imprisonment (Sura 4:15), which was changed to flogging with 100 strokes (Sura 24:2). This despite the leniency prescribed for homosexuals (Sura 4:16) on repenting.

The retaliation in cases of crime, particularly murder, was to be confined to people of equal rank (slave for slave, free for free etc.) (Sura 2:178) This is in disagreement with Sura 5:48 and Sura 17:33 where retaliation is allowed against the murderer only.

The Jihad or Holy War was forbidden in the sacred months (Sura 9:5) but is allowed, even encouraged in verse 36 which replaces the former.

"Sura 2:106 occurs immediately before a series of sweeping changes, or rather modifications, introduced by Muhammad in both the ritual and the legal spheres.The verse thus precedes a change in the Qibla (vss. 115,177,124-151); in the pilgrimage rites (vs. 158); in the dietary laws (vss. 168-l74); in the law relating to talio (vss. 178-179); in bequests (vss. 180-182); in the fast (vss. 182-187); and again in the pilgrimage (vss. 191-203).

Similarly, Sura 16:101 is followed by allusions to modifications in the dietary laws (vss 114-119), and in the Sabbath laws (vs.124)" ("The Collection of the Quran" by John Burton).

Elaborating on this we note that the fast is compulsory "but if any of you is ill or on a journey, the prescribed number (should be made up) from days later. For those who can do it (with hardship) is a ransom, the feeding of one, that is indigent." (Sura 2:184).

"'Here one can hardly escape the conclusion that the first verse (i.e. 184) allows a rich man to buy himself out of the fast." ("Islam" by A. Guillaume). The next verse is said to replace the former. It allows no compensation of any kind for the fast.

In verse 180 of the same Sura "it is prescribed, when death approaches any of you, if he leaves any goods, that he make a bequest to parents and next of kin....". This is said to be replaced by Sura 4:11, according to which a double portion of inheritance falls to males compared to that of females.

The much discussed "verses of the sword": "....fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (or war)." (Sura 9:5) and "....when you meet the unbelievers (in fight) cut off their necks..." (Sura 47:4) are "said to have cancelled no less than 124 verses which enjoined toleration and patience." (A. Guillaume).

To us it is surprising to find the mansukh and nasikh verses often near to each other. We judge these to be cases of interpolation.

As stated earlier, we do believe in progressive revelation. The Old Covenant of the Law, as given to Moses, was superseded by the New Covenant of grace, which Jesus introduced. But these developments took place over a considerable time (1 500 years) with many prophetic warnings and predictions in between, so that no arbitrary action may be assumed on the side of God. In the light of this we find it unacceptable that within a space of 20 years a need for change or correction can become necessary. This surely suggests that God is either not all-knowing or else the recorder made a correction.

There are other verses which further add to the confusion:


"If we wished, we could make away with what we have revealed to you!" (Sura 17:86). "We shall teach you to recite it (i.e. the Quran) and you will not forget - except that Allah wills (Sura 87:6-7).
Why should anything be forgotten of an eternal revelation? To "substitute for it something better"? We do admit that an inspired man can err at times, but an inspired book (nazil) cannot!

Zarkasi explains the above concept more deeply. He states (vol. I p. 235):


"The 'naskh' (sic) of the wording and recital occured by means of God's causing them to forget it. He withdrew it from their memories, while commanding them to neglect its public recital and its recording in the mushaf. With the passage of time, it would quite disappear like the rest of God's revealed Books which He mentions in the Quran, but nothing of which is known today. This can have happened either during the Prophet's life so that, when he died, the forgotten material was no longer being recited as part of the Quran; or it might have happened after the death of the Prophet. It would still be extant in writing, but God would cause them to forget it. He would then remove it from their memories. But, of course, the naskh of any part of the revelation after the death of the Prophet is not possible." ("The Collection of the Quran" by John Burton p.97).
We suggest that Allah could have spared us a lot of confusion, doubt and explaining, had He given the better text right from the beginning.


"There was a series of Hadiths designed expressly to give the impression that Muhammad had forgotten part of the revelations. The reports were specific and detailed enough to identify the actual wording of the verses in question. Anas is reported in the two Sahih's (i.e. al-Bukhari and Muslim) as declaring: There was revealed concerning those slain at Bi'r Ma'una a Quran verse which we recited until it was withdrawn: "Inform our tribe on our behalf that we have met our Lord. He has been well pleased with us and has satisfied our desires.' ("al-Itqan by Jalal al Din).
'Abdullah b. al Zubair therefore asked 'Uthman what had possessed him to include Sura 2:240 in the 'mushaf' (document or canon), when he knew it to have been abrogated by Sura 2:234. 'Because', he replied 'Uthman, 'I know it to be part of the Quran text.' '(ibid.). ("The Collection of the Quran" by John Burton).

A further problem arises from the fact that there is by no means any certainty which verses are mansukh and which nasikh, since the order in which the Quran was written down is not chronological, but according to the length of the Suras. However, even the Suras were not necessarily given in one piece. It happened that a certain portion of a Sura was given, and the next given text would be directed by Mohammed to be added to another Sura, and later again another addition was made to the first again, etc. The Hadis gives no conclusive information about the chronological order either, so that strictly speaking, there is no means of determining which of two disagreeing texts is mansukh, and which nasikh.

In any case we Christians see in this whole subject just a theological gimmick to "explain" contradictions. The quotation:


"No change can there be in the Words of Allah" and "There is none that can alter the Words of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those Apostles." or "the other Apostles also said so." (Suras 10:64 and 6:34).
is contradicted by all those Muslims who claim that the Bible which is admitted to be a revealed book, has been altered and corrupted.

To underline our point let us just look at two passages of the Quran that have not been reconciled in terms of the law of abrogation.

In Sura 41:9-12 we read that the world was created in eight days, in Sura 7:54 we are told it were six days. It is, we suppose, up to the believer to make up his mind which of the two he will accept.

QUESTION: Must we assume that God is inconsistent? Knowing all things, such contradiction surely does not originate from God?

Problems regarding the consistency of Revelation.

The Quran is inconsistent regarding commitments on the part of Allah on which the believer can reckon or on which he can build his life. Commitments that are given are contradicted elsewhere:


"Allah has inscribed for himself (the rule of) mercy"
or


"Allah has prescribed for himself as law to act merciful" (Sura 6:12).
is contradicted in the same Sura: (verses 35-39):


"If it were Allah's will, he would gather them into true guidance.... Whom Allah willeth he leaves to wander, whom he willeth, he placeth on the way that is straight".
As we shall see (pp 21ff.), the Muslim's hope rests on that despairing word:


"IF it pleases Allah."
This is striking, for even in the Old Testament the believer was aware of the Law of cause and Effect. Once a believer broke any of God's Laws he was cut-off from God, and was lost and perishing. But if he atoned therefor in repentance according to God's prescribed ordinance (the sacrifice) his sin was forgiven. God had committed Himself to it. This is even further elaborated in the New Testament:


"If we confess our sins (while we have fellowship with God: vs. 6), He is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (I John 1:9).
We see a definite regression from this standard in the Quran.

We also find it strange to read:


"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, 'we are Christians'." (Sura 5:85)
This is supported to some extent by an explanatory note in the "Mishkat" (IV page 103, note 2380) where we are told that "nearly two-thirds of paradise" will be filled with "the followers of the Holy Prophet and the followers of other prophets will form one-third." In strange contrast to this are the words of Sura 5:51


"Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends."
What about being together in Paradise? The reason is just as strange:


"They (Jews and Christians) are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
It can hardly be said that Jews and Christians have ever protected each other, except that they agree on the authenticity of the Old Testament.

It is said of Mohammed that he was the first to bow down to Allah (in Islam) (Sura 6:14, 163, 39:12). But it is also said of Abraham, his sons and Jacob that they were Muslims (Sura 2:132), and of all earlier prophets who brought 'books' (i.e. Moses, David and Jesus) (Sura 28:52-53). Again it is reported of the disciples of Jesus that they were Muslims (Sura 3:52).

All these we view as contradictions. Some would not be of a serious nature, were it not for the claim that the Quran is "nazil" or "brought down" from heaven to Mohammed without the touch of human hand - except for the act of writing itself.

QUESTION: Is there any uncontradicted statement in the Quran on which a Mulsim can rely to have eternal life in heaven?

I3: Errors Which Contradict Secular and Scientific Data
There are other stories in the Qur'an which do not stand up to the secular data which is available. These errors are possibly the most damaging for the credibility of the Qur'an as the perfect 'Word of God' because their veracity can be measured against the test of observable data, which is by definition neutral and binding.

I3i: Ishmael
The descendence of Ishmael by all Arabs is in doubt within the secular world, since historically the first father of the Arabs was Qahtan or Joktan (see Genesis 10:25-30). Some of his sons names are still found in geographical locations in Arabia today, such as Sheba, Hazarmaveth, Ophir, and Havilah. Abraham's nephew Lot would be another ancestor to the Arabs via the Moabites and Ammonites (Genesis 24); as would Jacob's twin brother Esau, and the six sons of Abraham's third wife Keturah. Yet they are not even mentioned as ancestors to the Arabs in the Qur'an.

I3ii: Samaritan
The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term 'Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.
It is interesting to notice that while Yusuf Ali attempts to change this word to "Samiri" and Pickthall to "As Samirii," Arberry in the English, and Kasimirski in the French both correctly translate it "Samaritan." Yusuf Ali, in his footnotes, "bends over backwards" to explain his choice by suggesting that the name could mean "Shemer," which denotes a stranger, or "Shomer," which means a watchman, the equivalent of "Samara" in Arabic, which he implies is close enough to the Samari he is looking for. Once again we find an awkward example of Ali attempting to twist the translation in order to get out of a difficult scenario, similar to the examples of "Periklytos," or the word "Machmad" which he uses to signify Muhammad in the Bible. The Arabic simply does not give Ali the leeway to concoct other meanings for this word. To be consistent with the Arabic he should keep his translation consistent with the text, as Arberry and Kasimirski have done.


I3iii: Sunset
In sura 18:86 it states, "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a people: We said: O Dhu al Qarnayn! Either punish them,or treat them with kindness." It is well known that only the superstitious in the age of Muhammad believed that the sun would set in a muddy spring.

I3iv: Issa
The name for Jesus in the Qur'an is given as "Issa." Yet this is incorrect. Issa is the Arabic equivalent of Esau, the name for the twin brother of Jacob. The correct Arabic name for Jesus would be Yesuwa, similar to the Hebrew Yeshuwa, yet the supposedly "all-knowing" Qur'an has no mention of it.

I3v: Mountains
Suras 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6-7; 88:19 tell us that God placed (threw down) mountains on the earth like tent pegs to keep the earth from shaking. For pre-scientific man this would sound logical, since mountains are large and therefore, their weight would have seemingly, a stabilizing effect on the earth. Yet we now know this logic to be quite inaccurate. Mountains do not render the earth's crust stable. In fact, the very existence of mountains is evidence of instability in the earth's crust, as they are found and pushed up by the colliding of tectonic plates (i.e. the migration of Arabia toward Iran has resulted in the Zagros range, France pushing against Italy produced the Alps, and the Indian plate nudging Tibet has given us the Himalayas).

I3vi: Alexander the Great
In sura 18:83-100 we find the story of Dhu al Qarnayn, who is known as the Greek conqueror, Alexander the Great. According to this sura, his power was given to him by Allah (aya 84), which some Muslims contend is an assertion that he had the same prominence as a prophet. But of even more importance to our discussion is the contention, according to this sura, that he was credited with building an enormous wall of iron and brass between two mountains, which was tall enough and wide enough to keep an entire army out (aya 96).
It is simple to test these claims because Alexander lived in the full light of history. Arrian, Quintus Curtius and other historians of repute have written the history of Alexander's exploits. From their writings we know that Aristotle was his tutor. Yet, these historians equivocally make him out as a heathen general whose debauchery and drunkenness contributed to his untimely death at the early age of 33. They show that he was an idolater, and actually claimed to be the son of the Egyptian god Amun. How, therefore, could he be considered to have the same prominence as a prophet, or even, as aya 84 clearly asserts, that Allah was the agent for his power?

Yet, what is even more troubling, there is no historical evidence anywhere that he built a wall of iron and brass between two mountains, a feat which, indeed, would have proven him to be one of the greatest builders or engineers in the history of mankind.

When we find the Qur'an so inaccurate in regard to Alexander, whose history is well known, we hesitate to accept as valuable or even as reliable the statements of the Qur'an about other matters of past history.


I3vii: Creation
Sura 86:5-7 tells us that man is created from a gushing fluid that issues from between the loins and the ribs. Therefore, in this sura we find that the semen which creates a child originates from the back or kidney of the male and not the testicles.

I3viii: Pharaoh's Cross
In sura 7:124 we find Pharoah admonishing his sorcerers because they believe in the superiority of Moses's power over theirs. Pharoah threatens them with cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, and then says they will all die on the cross. But their were no crosses in those days. Crucifixion was first practised by the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians and then borrowed extensively by the Romans close to the time of Christ, 1700 years after Pharaoh!

I3ix: Other Scientific problems
Sura 16:66 mentions that cow's milk comes from between the excrement and the blood of the cow's abdomen. What does this mean?
In sura 16:69 we are told that honey, which gives healing, comes out of the bees abdomen. Again, what does it mean that honey comes out of a bees abdomen?
sura 6:38 says that all animals and flying beings form communities, like humans. I would like to ask whether this includes spiders, where in some species the female eats the male after mating has taken place. Is that a community like ours?
sura 25:45-46 maintains that it is the sun which moves to create shadows. Yet, I have always been taught that it was the rotation of the earth which caused shadows to move, while the sun remained quite still (i.e. thus the importance of sundials in earlier days).
sura 17:1 says Muhammad went to the "farthest Mosque" during his journey by night (the Mi'raj), which Muslims explain was the Dome of the Rock mosque, in Jerusalem. But there was no mosque in Jerusalem during the life of Muhammad, and the Dome of the Rock was not built until 690 C.E., by the Amir 'Abd al Malik, a full 58 years after Muhammad's death! There was not even a temple in existence at that time. The temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed by Titus 570 years before this vision. So what was this mosque Muhammad supposedly saw?

I4: Absurdities
There are other errors which are statements or stories which simply make no sense at all, and put into question the integrity of the writer or writers of the Qur'an.

I4i: Man's Greatness
Sura 4:59 states,"Greater surely than the creation of man is the creation of the heavens and the earth; but most men know it not." This implies that greatness is only measured by size; that the mere vastness of the physical universe make it greater than man, an argument which would make a football of immensely greater value than the largest diamond. Our scripture tells us that Man's greatness lies not in his size, but in his relationship with God, that he is made in God's image, a claim which no other animate or inanimate object can make.

I4ii: Seven Earths
Sura 65:12 reads, "It is God who hath created seven heavens and as many earths." We would love to know where the other six earths are. If these refer to the planets in our solar system, then they are short by two (and now possibly three).

I4iii: Jinns & Shooting stars:
Meteors, and even stars are said to be missiles fired at eavesdropping Satans and jinn who seek to listen to the reading of the Qur'an in heaven, and then pass on what they hear to men in suras 37:6-10; 55:33-35; 67:5; & 72:6-9.
How are we to understand these suras? Can we believe indeed that Allah throws meteors, which are made up of carbon dioxide or iron-nickel, at non- material devils who steal a hearing at the heavenly council? And how do we explain the fact that many of earths meteors come in showers which consequently travel in parallel paths. Are we to thus understand that these parallel paths imply that the devils are all lined up in rows at the same moment?


I4iv: Solomon's power over nature:
Birds and ants
King Solomon was taught the speech of birds (sura 27:16) and the speech of ants (sura 27:18-19). In his battles, he used birds extensively to drop clay bricks on Abrah's army (sura 105:3-4), and marched them in military parades (sura 27:17). He also used them to bring him messages of powerful queens (sura 27:20-27).
Note: According to the historical record, Abrah's army was not defeated by bricks dropped on their head. Rather, they withdrew their attack on Mecca after smallpox broke out among the troops (Guillame, Islam, pgs.21ff).


Jinn
The Jinn were forced to work for Solomon, making him whatever he pleased, such as palaces, statues, large dishes, and brass fountains (sura 34:11-13). A malignant jinn was even commissioned to bring the Queen of Sheba's throne in the twinkling of an eye (sura 27:38-44).

Wind
The wind was subject to Solomon, travelling a month's journey both in the morning and in the evening (though the wisdom of its timing is somehow lost in translation) (sura 3:11; 21:81).

Ants talk
The ants, upon seeing Solomon and his army arriving in their valley (and by implication recognizing who he was), talk among themselves to flee underground so as not to be crushed (sura 27:18).

I4v: Youth and dog sleep 309 years
Sura 18:9-25 tells the story of some youths (the exact number is debated) and a dog who sleep for 309 years with their eyes open and their ears closed (Note Yusuf Ali's attempts to delineate the exact time period of this story in footnote no.2365, and then concludes that it is merely a parable).
The object of this story is to show Allah's power to keep those who trust in him, including the dog, without food or water for as long as he likes.


I4vi: People become apes
In suras 2:65-66 and 7:163-167, Allah turns certain fishing people who break the Jewish sabbath into apes for their disobedience. Had Darwin read the Qur'an, his theory on evolution may have parallelled "Planet of the Apes" rather then the other way around.

I4vii: Sodom & Gomorrah turned upside-down
In suras 11:81-83; 15:74 the two cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are turned upside-down and rained upon with clay-like brimstone, upon whose surface were marked the destiny of the wicked people who lived there.

I4viii: Jacob's Smell & Sight:
In sura 12:93-96 Joseph sends his coat to his father as proof of his existence. But as the caravan leaves Egypt, Jacob, who is in Canaan smells Joseph, who is hundreds of miles away (aya 94). Then the coat, when it arrives, is placed over the face of his father Jacob and suddenly he receives his sight. Now we know why Andrew Lloyd Weber added the word "amazing" to the title of his musical, "Joseph's Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat."

I4ix: Night/Day/Sun/Moon are subject to man:
In sura 16:12-15 the day and night as well as the Sun and Moon are surprisingly all made subject to man. That would imply that we had control over the rotation of our planet, as well as the entire movement of our solar system (Yusuf Ali's explanation of this odd pronouncement in note no.2031 is rather interesting).

I5: Grammatical Errors
Muslims believe that since the Qur'an is the Word of God, it is without error in all areas. We have already dealt with the questions concerning the style and literary qualities of the Qur'an earlier, and found it to be quite defective in those areas. Yet, even more troubling are the grammatical mistakes which exist within its text. Can we expect an omnipotent and omniscient God to allow such deficiencies to creep into his supposedly 'perfect' and eternal revelation? Consider the following:
In sura 2:177, the word Sabireen should be Sabiroon because of its position in the sentence (since it is a human plural, it should remain in the masculine plural form?).
In sura 7:160, the phrase "We divided them into twelve tribes," is written in the feminine plural: Uthnati Ashrat Asbaataan. Due to the fact that it refers to a number of people, it should be written in the masculine plural form: Uthaiy Ashara Sibtaan, as all human plurals are automatically male in Arabic.
In sura 4:162, the phrase "And (especially) those who establish regular prayer..." is written as al Muqiyhina al salaat, which again is in the feminine plural form, instead of the masculine plural: al Muqiyhuna al salaat (?). It is important to note that the two following phrases, "(those who) practice regular charity, and (those who) believe in Allah..." are both correctly written in the masculine human plural form.
In sura 5:69, the title al Sabioon, referring to the Sabians, should be written al Sabieen.
In sura 63:10, the phrase "I shall be" is written akun (which is in the 3rd person?). Yet since this word refers to the future (& is in the 1st person) it should be written akunu.
In sura 3:59, the words Kun feekunu should be written, Kun fakaana.
There are other grammatical errors which exist in the Qur'an as well, such as: suras 2:192; 13:28; 20:66 and the duals which replace the plurals in sura 55.

If we are still in doubt as to whether the Qur'an is subject to error, it might be helpful end this section by quoting a Muslim scholar, who, himself, comments on this very problem concerning grammatical mistakes in the Qur'an:

"The Qur'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects... To sum up, more than one hundred Qur'anic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted." (Dashti, 23 Years, pgs.48-50)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Edited on 26-5-2004 by wooten123]


cma

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Islam is just as "bad" as any other religion. They all have orthodox and other rules. You can't judge a culture you havent experianced the general population of. I have, so I would know.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Wooten;

I'm working on a long answer to your previous reply. But I will be a dishonest man if I don't tell you what I felt about your answer before I answer you.
Out of everything you wrote about the Koran and Mohammad ONLY 40 words are yours which are the opening of your answer, the rest of it is a COPY & PASTE from a website which I'm very familiar with. And by that I mean, you didn't take time to analyze it, understand the material and give your own input. While everyone copies and pastes (including myself) to avoid having to type long quotes and verses, copying and pasting everything from a website, is as if I'm refuting the words of someone else.
I'm in no way trying to dismiss your answer or give myself an excuse, like I said, I'm working on my reply. Bear in my mind that because you even challenged the Arabic language within the Koran and alleged certains grammatical errors in the Koran, and because you are not an Arabic speaking person, you put yourself at the mercy of others to have to explain to you my answer whether it is correct or not and whatever they say, you will have no choice but to believe them blindly since you don't understand Arabic nor even recognise its alphabet (unless you do in which case I take back what i'm saying).
In any case, I will answer you as I promised and will spare no effort to explain to you everything point by point.
I'm in no way bashing what you wrote or trying to excuse myself, your answer remains FAIR to me!

Look for my answer in few days
Be well!



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Yobel, I am not trying to start an arguement and I do not wish to upset you and you are right, I have cut and pasted because I don't like typing.
You cannot answer my question because noone can. The errors are there whether you will admit it or not. The Quran is not perfect and neither is the Bible. You will point out the errors in the Bible and not the Quran and I don't think that is a fair analysis of the conspiracies that are in BOTH books. I am sorry to have made you upset by showing you this information and religon blinds many people even if the truth or non-truth is staring at them in the face. If you look hard enough for the truth and the spirit of truth you will find that religon sucks and divides people.

016.012
YUSUFALI: He has made subject to you the Night and the Day; the sun and the moon; and the stars are in subjection by His Command: verily in this are Signs for men who are wise.
PICKTHAL: And He hath constrained the night and the day and the sun and the moon to be of service unto you, and the stars are made subservient by His command. Lo! herein indeed are portents for people who have sense.
SHAKIR: And He has made subservient for you the night and the day and the sun and the moon, and the stars are made subservient by His commandment; most surely there are signs in this for a people who ponder;

The stars are not under human control this is obvious.



[Edited on 27-5-2004 by wooten123]

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by wooten123]



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
www.submission.org...

One of your Muslim brothers understands the Quran is not perfect and has an open enough mind to point out that there are errors in the Quran.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   
The Noble Qur'an warns Muslims of people like them who come to corrupt the land, the religion, and the book of Islam.


It goes into great detail about Muhammads misunderstanding of Jewish scripture and writing he was stealing from.


The Prophet Muhammad couldn't read nor write so how was he stealing from Jewish Scripture? The Prophet had many Jewish friends, the same Jewish friends who betrayed him and almost had him killed.

You want to talk about stealing talk about how the Old Testament is stolen Egyptian, Sumerian, and Babylonian writings.


Why did Muhammad say that the followers of Jesus were lying about the resurrection? According the Jesus, he was the only way to the truth and the life. Muhammad is calling him a liar. I think Muhammad was the one who was telling a fabrication. You have no doubt that Muhammad was telling the truth then why was he taking Jewish scripture in the first place sinse it was twisted? How did he know which parts of the Bible and Talmud were corrupted and which ones were not? If he is telling his followers the Bible is corrupted would that not make the Bible something he should stay away from? Seems like a deception to me. Are you sure you have read the Quran and the Bible? The Quran is full of Biblical characters. The problem is this. The only validity to Muhammads story is a book he authored. No miracles, no raising the dead, just the book and a sword


All wrong.

Have you even read the Qur'an or you just go from website to website getting your information?

Christians, like Jehovah Witnesses, don't even agree that Jesus died on the cross, they believe he died on the stake.

Christians can't even agree how Jesus died. The Prophet Muhammad didn't call Jesus a liar, he called the writers of the NT liars. Jesus never died on the cross, he never died at all. It's even written in the NT that Jesus was laughing his subsitute on the cross.

No miracles, just a sword?

Now I know you have never read the Qur'an.

The Qur'an itself was a miracle but you want true miracles I guess you don't know how Muhammad pointed at the Moon it disappear or how he made water flow from the tips of his fingers. Have you ever read about his story of birth?

Wooten, get out of here with that crap. None of that stuff you written is yours, you just plagiarized everything written from that false Muslim.

Repeated 100 times
Refuted 100 times.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Brother Wooten;

Allow me to call you brother in humanity!

No! you did not upset me at all and may God be a witness as to whether you upset me or not! I welcome everything you wrote and I'm working on my reply! And I welcome more of what you wrote! I would be a hypocrit of the highest degree if what you wrote upset me! The reason I brought the cut and paste issue is because I wanted to answer you. You see, what you wrote me before, I have already read before you wrote to me from: www.biblestudymanuals.net...
www.islamicdebates.com...

The problem with that is that you believed what you read in those websites blindly without doing any research on your own to find out whether the author was actually telling the truth or was he actually putting his own interpretation that he felt like, i'm gonna give a bit of my lenghty reply that is to follow in few days, because I want to show how you were misled to believe something that is completely false:

For Example you wrote:

The division of inheritance left by parents or other relatives according to Sura 4:7 had to be equal (a share and a share which has to be determined). This was abrogated and replaced by verse 11, where it is commanded that males must get double the share of females.

Sura 4:7 says:" From what is left by parents And those nearest related There is a share for men And a share for women, Wheher the property be small Or large,- a determinate share.

Now Sura 4:11 says:" Allah (thus) directs you As regards your children (Inheritance): to the male, A portion equal to that Of two females: If Only Daughters, two or more, Their share is two-thirds Of the inheritance; If only one, her share is a half.

Now, sura 4:7 speaks NOT of the particular but in general, meaning that both men and women do in deed inherit from their parents. The word SHARE here doesn't constitute ) One (1) share for male and 1 share for female. Look at the words: There is a share for men (plural) and there is a share for women (in plural also). In this sura Allah was not dividing the inheritance YET! While verse 11 goes into details to explain that A MALE gets two shares and the female, and the female gets one share. In verse 11, you see the plural has changed to singular: to the male (as opposed to men in verse 7).
In sura 11 Allah makes it clear by introducing the words: A Portion equal; two or more; two-thirds; only one, then half, and the most conclusive proof is: A DETERMINATE SHARE, so why determinate if Allah already said one for each? You see where you made a mistake in undersatnding the verse!


Another example you wrote:

In sura 2:177, the word Sabireen should be Sabiroon because of its position in the sentence (since it is a human plural, it should remain in the masculine plural form?).

First NO Arabic grammar explanation was given either by the website or yourself to explain why the word " Sabireen should be Sabiroon", the only explanation offered is that it should be so because it is a human plural. Well! both " Sabireen" and "Sabiroon" are in plural. Both words are in plural and both in masculin form. if I give the english translation, you will not be able to see it what I'm talking about, so in stead, i'm translating the verse in english letters so you can see for yourself. The word "Sabireen was a follow up of other adjectives used before, read on:

Allah speaks of those who give from their monies from their own hearts to:
Dawee Korba (For Kin)
Wal Yatama (For Orphans)
Wal Massakeen (For the needy)
Wa Ibna Assabeel (For the wayfarer)
Wa Saeleen (For those who ask)

Wooten: note the words that belong to the same family : Massakeen (its een and not oon). Assabeel (its eel and not ool). Saeleen (its een and not oon).
then the verse continues : to say: And for the ransom of slaves..... Then comes the word Sabereen which falls in the same category, because the letter "WA" (looks like a 9) is what we call Harfo Jar ( a pulling letter ), meaning it pulls with it the words that follow after it. I can go into further details but I will make no sense to you at all!

You see Wooten, if this was an English matter we would have no problem, but because you dont speak Arabic, it is very hard for me to explain to you, especially if I have to type in stead of discussing it in person.

To make myself clear look at the following verse:

102:1
in Arabic: " Alhakomo Atakatoro" Only two words

Look at what it takes in English to translate those two words:
In English: "The mutual rivalry For pilling up (the good things of this world) diverts you (from the more serious things).

I welcome your every criticism and I'm happy we are sharing our thoughts in a constructive way. You have been a gentleman and I hope I'm too.

Be well!



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   
In my search for answers as to the problems regarding islam, I found a website created by Afghani women who had suffered from the rule of a group of fundamentalist islamics known as the Taliban. On the site was a listing of the rules that were imposed, which I think bears some consideration by those islamics who are not fundamentalist, as those who love their female friends and family members, would not be happy if these things became the norm, rather than the exception. So rather than state my own opinion about islamic religion, I provide for you the experiences of islamic women who suffered under fundamental islam. This is a copy and paste from the RAWA.org site. RAWA stands for Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan :

The following list offers only an abbreviated glimpse of the hellish lives Afghan women are forced to lead under the Taliban, and can not begin to reflect the depth of female deprivations and sufferings. Taliban treat women worse than they treat animals. In fact, even as Taliban declare the keeping of caged birds and animals illegal, they imprison Afghan women within the four walls of their own houses. Women have no importance in Taliban eyes unless they are occupied producing children, satisfying male sexual needs or attending to the drudgery of daily housework. Jehadi fundamentalists such as Gulbaddin, Rabbani, Masood, Sayyaf, Khalili, Akbari, Mazari and their co-criminal Dostum have committed the most treacherous and filthy crimes against Afghan women. And as more areas come under Taliban control, even if the number of rapes and murders perpetrated against women falls, Taliban restrictions --comparable to those from the middle ages-- will continue to kill the spirit of our people while depriving them of a humane existence. We consider Taliban more treacherous and ignorant than Jehadis. According to our people, "Jehadis were killing us with guns and swords but Taliban are killing us with cotton."



Taliban restrictions and mistreatment of women include the:

1- Complete ban on women's work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals. Only a few female doctors and nurses are allowed to work in some hospitals in Kabul.

2- Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).

3- Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers.

4- Ban on women being treated by male doctors.

5- Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls' schools into religious seminaries.)

6- Requirement that women wear a long veil (Burqa), which covers them from head to toe.

7- Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram.

8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.

9- Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule).

10- Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off).

11- Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males.

12- Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice).

13- Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman's footsteps.)

14- Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram.

15- Ban on women's presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind.

16- Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club.

17- Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.

18- Ban on women's wearing brightly colored clothes. In Taliban terms, these are "sexually attracting colors."

19- Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose.

20- Ban on women washing clothes next to rivers or in a public place.

21- Modification of all place names including the word "women." For example, "women's garden" has been renamed "spring garden".

22- Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses.

23- Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes.

24- Ban on male tailors taking women's measurements or sewing women's clothes.

25- Ban on female public baths.

26- Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses have now been designated "males only" (or "females only").

27- Ban on flared (wide) pant-legs, even under a burqa.

28- Ban on the photographing or filming of women.

29- Ban on women's pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops.


Apart from the above restrictions on women, the Taliban has:

- Banned listening to music, not only for women but men as well.

- Banned the watching of movies, television and videos, for everyone.

- Banned celebrating the traditional new year (Nowroz) on March 21. The Taliban has proclaimed the holiday un-Islamic.

- Disavowed Labor Day (May 1st), because it is deemed a "communist" holiday.

- Ordered that all people with non-Islamic names change them to Islamic ones.

- Forced haircuts upon Afghan youth.

- Ordered that men wear Islamic clothes and a cap.

- Ordered that men not shave or trim their beards, which should grow long enough to protrude from a fist clasped at the point of the chin.

- Ordered that all people attend prayers in mosques five times daily.

- Banned the keeping of pigeons and playing with the birds, describing it as un-Islamic. The violators will be imprisoned and the birds shall be killed. The kite flying has also been stopped.

- Ordered all onlookers, while encouraging the sportsmen, to chant Allah-o-Akbar (God is great) and refrain from clapping.

- Ban on certain games including kite flying which is "un-Islamic" according to Taliban.

- Anyone who carries objectionable literature will be executed.

- Anyone who converts from Islam to any other religion will be executed.

- All boy students must wear turbans. They say "No turban, no education".

- Non-Muslim minorities must distinct badge or stitch a yellow cloth onto their dress to be differentiated from the majority Muslim population. Just like what did Nazis with Jews.

- Banned the use of the internet by both ordinary Afghans and foreigners.

And so on...

rawa.fancymarketing.net...
----------------------------



Now to be fair, not all fundamentalist islamics believe the same things as the Taliban, but the similarities are close enough to give one pause. Let's take, for example, Sharia Law. What is it? What does it mean and what does it do?

Here's one person's perspective:

Why is sharia law in the news?
An Islamic court in Nigeria yesterday upheld a sentence of death by stoning for a woman accused of adultery. The case is the latest in a series of sentences passed under sharia law - a set of religious laws adopted over the past two years in northern regions of Nigeria, which have predominantly Muslim inhabitants.

Sharia law, which derives from the teachings of the Koran and from Sunna (the practice of the prophet Mohammed), is implemented to varying degrees in different Islamic countries - from the beheadings of Saudi Arabia, to the relatively liberal social mores of Malaysia.

What is sharia?

The word sharia means "the path to a watering hole". It denotes an Islamic way of life that is more than a system of criminal justice. Sharia is a religious code for living, in the same way that the Bible offers a moral system for Christians.

It is adopted by most Muslims to a greater or lesser degree as a matter of personal conscience, but it can also be formally instituted as law by certain states and enforced by the courts. Many Islamic countries have adopted elements of sharia law, governing areas such as inheritance, banking and contract law.

What does sharia decree?

Sharia offers a code for living governing all elements of life, from prayers to fasting to donations to the poor. It decrees that men and women should dress modestly, which in some countries is interpreted as women taking the veil and the sexes being segregated.

"Sharia governs the lives of people in ways which are not governed by the law," says Lynn Welchman, director of the Centre for Islamic and Middle Eastern Law. "Over 50 countries are members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, and you can expect there will be some form of compliance with sharia - either in people's personal lives or enforced through the courts by the state. A lot of states in the Middle East are taking more elements of sharia into their state laws."

What are Hadd offences?

Within sharia law, there is a specific set of offences known as the Hadd offences. These are crimes punished by specific penalties, such as stoning, lashes or the severing of a hand. The penalties for Hadd offences are not universally adopted as law in Islamic countries.

Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, claim to live under pure sharia law and enforce the penalties for Hadd offences. In others, such as Pakistan, the penalties have not been enforced. The majority of Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, have not adopted Hadd offences as part of their state laws.

Hadd offences carry specific penalties, set by the Koran and by the prophet Mohammed. These include unlawful sexual intercourse (outside marriage); false accusation of unlawful intercourse; the drinking of alcohol; theft; and highway robbery. Sexual offences carry a penalty of stoning to death or flogging while theft is punished with cutting off a hand.

"This is a system of criminal law which has become a potent symbol of Islamisicing the law," says Dr Welchman. "But there is the question of whether it's actually applied in the countries which have adopted it. There is supposed to be a very high burden of proof, but that clearly often doesn't happen in practice."

www.buzzle.com...

-----------

So it isn't just a personal practice, but a total package of government, laws, social behaviors, private behaviors and so on. To lay to rest that these events are isolated, all one has to do is look at any predominantly islamic country with Sharia Law in full force (there are variations, some muslim countries have degrees of Sharia, meaning some are more moderate, however, this is becoming less the norm and more the exception these days).

Check out this page, also by RAWA, outlining the events to date since the fundamentalist islamic Taliban originally took over:

rawa.fancymarketing.net...



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Has anyone ever seen this site?

www.prophetofdoom.net...

It's just about the most blatant anti Islam site I've ever heard of!



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   


The Qur'an itself was a miracle but you want true miracles I guess you don't know how Muhammad pointed at the Moon it disappear or how he made water flow from the tips of his fingers. Have you ever read about his story of birth?


Quite the mircale, but where exactly is the proof that his occured?

Deep



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   
There is no proof, that is the point. Muhhamad wrote a book saying he is the prophet of a God that wrote the book. No proof, just scare tactics. Illmatic67 Your threats do not scare me because if God really is like the Islam God I don't want to be anywhere near him. He does not want me to question his writings? He still wants me to believe the Earth is flat (you surely cannot convince me that a carpet is anything other than flat, I'm sorry) when that is an outright lie? Surely Allah is smarter than that, or is he only as smart as Muhammad? If the New Testament is a lie why believe any of it? You should be questioning the existense of Jesus as well since we find him mostly in the New Testament. Your God is intolerant of other religons and I will point the finger at fundamentalist Christians and Jew who procliam they and only they have a finger on the truth as well. Why can't people just admit they don't know? What happens in the afterlife? According to Islam you go to a brothel with 72 virgins, but your only allowed four wives on Earth but the leader was allowed 12 including a 9 year old. Why was Muhammad not following his own rules? I will not "submit" to a God who would throw a fifteen year old Buddist boy into an eternal lake of fire for punishment just because he was taught a religon other than yours and if your crew came through town cutting off peoples heads if they don't convert would you blame him for hating you and your religon if you killed his father? Muhammad would not only blame him for not "submitting" but kill him as well and his baby brother for good measure. That my friend, is intolerance to the nth degree. Can you understand I would rather spend an eternity with a God who accepts me as I am and is full of love and compassion and does not want me to kill but turn the other cheek? I see God relected in Jesus's words of caring for the poor and FORGIVING others instead of killing them. You come across very arrogant and should research other religons and pagan religons that Muhammad gathered info from while creating a religon "that would dominate the Earth". I am sorry you worship a jealous, vengeful, arrogant, intolerant, kindergarden age Allah playing in the sand stating he is all-powerful and makes ants run from armies. Yobel has been professional and courteous, and while he will not be able to tell me why Muhammad messed up and called the Earth flat and Muhammads "God" didn't know something so simplistic I don't ridicule him I am just stating my belief that Islam is Judiasm's jealous brother who wants and will lie to recieve the blessings of God. I think that anyone who kills in God's name will burn in hell and it seems a lot of Muslims are doing that lately by the command of Muhammad. Jesus taught me to forgive you and not cut of your head. Get my drift?

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by wooten123]

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by wooten123]

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by wooten123]

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by wooten123]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join