To anyone Islamic, or of any other religion...

Originally posted by mithras

Thirdly, contradiction there are definite contradictions in the Bible. Anything from whether the apostles implying Christ was son of God yet Christ implying this was not so; to different versions of the resurrection in the Gospels. Obvious contradictions usually arise because of lies, when you make a lie there's something somewhere else that doesn't fit. There are pretty much no definite contradictions that I know of in the Qur'an, please share if you know of one but understand the meaning before jumping to conclusions.

Please expound. People are always saying that there are blatant contridictions in the Bible, but have yet to back it up with good examples.
Like what you just said above....please explain. When Jesus said that God was his father, I guess people assumed that meant he was the son of God. But you're saying that didn't mean that?

Mithras, you don't need to prove to me the bible is corrupt. I already know that.

Mithras wrote, "You need to show me the bible from way back when before it was made before we can talk about non-corruption"-
Mithras, you have just elaborated on a good point...The Qu'ran is false if certain aspects of the bible are proved false. It is you that needs to show that CERTAIN contents of the bible are true, not me. Your beliefs rely on a corrupted document called the bible. There is no way around the fact that the Qu'ran relies on the bible.
i'll give an example:
Is the bible version or the qu'ran version of Noah's flood correct? I don't want to hear, "the Qu'ran says this so it must be right"...Explain to me why in the world would anyone change the bible to say noah's son died in the flood. What would be the point?...I dont believe in the literal flood story myself but I want to know why would the biblical scribes forgot to include that noah's son drowned. What is the point in hiding it? The qu'ran borrowed the story straight from the bible; there is no mention of noah's son in other flood stories. No bible = No Qu'ran
In summary, there are a lot of things the Qu'ran says were corrupted yet it offers no explaination for the corruption. If your going to assert that SPECIFIC data is wrong then you must have a good reason for discarding it. You cannot just say well the qu'ran says this, so its right. Muslims only grounds for discarding anything written in the bible is because the bible is corrupt. However, If your going to use that kind of criteria then the very evidence you accept as truth (such as noah's flood) is from a corrupt source (the bible) and may very well be corrupted. You are practicing selective data aquiring. Very poor from a scientific and logical point of view.

I found this in the Qu'ran the other night:
Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).

The Qu'ran says that noone can change gods words in many places. I'm confused, I thought these messengers (Jesus, moses, etc) were sent by god and that they spoke from god...Now, either they spoke from god and there message was pure or they weren't from god at all. You cannot have it both ways because the Qu'ran clearly states gods word cannot change and be altered. If they spoke from god then there message could not have been corrupted because no one can alter the words of god. Which is it? The bible either is or isn't the word of god. If it is, then its 100% truth according to the Qu'ran because gods word cannot be altered. If its not, then moses may have never existed, the story about Noah could be a lie, and the bible isn't representative of god which means muslims shouldnt be borrowing from its pages.

"The verification of the Qu'ran was done long ago"- When, where, what methods were used. I'm simply wanting to know what represents reality, this isn't bashing. If the Qu'ran is true then I'll convert. I'm 100% serious. Show me the error of my ways if you can
Keep this in mind, It does not matter if the Qu'ran is in the original language with no contradictions. There are many such books, but none of them purport to be THE word of god. The contents of the Qu'ran must be put to the test. Which is exactly what I am doing...so far it hasn't faired well


"The Qu'ran says so, that is enough to a Muslim"
This sums up belief my friend. The qu'ran says so; therefore, I believe. You ask not for proof. Truth must be arrived at by testing; god will stand the test. There is alot of evidence showing jesus wasn't born of a virgin. Study the roots of christianity and you will see this. You cannot be positive of the virgin birth. However, you are already convinced of the truth because you've pledged allegiance to the pages of the qu'ran. I understand your situation completely; I've been there.

Originally posted by mithras
It seems that the newer religions think the ones before are misguided whereas the older religions "hate" the newer religions for following "false prophets."
Islam doesn't feel it borrows any ideas at all, it is the exact same idea that Jesus and others before him taught.

Not at all, the differences between Mohammed and Jesus are way too big for the Islam to be the exact same idea that Jesus and others before him taught.
Your being "too" objective, which leads you to believe that Islam is to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism.
This comparison does not make sense though, because of the differences between the Islam and Christianity/Judaism in general.

The Islam is a very young religion compared to Judaism/Christianity, and the way its holy book came to be, allready reveals how the entire religion is based on parts of other religions, Christianity and Judaism especially.

As for the bible being full of contradictions, this is a fairytale. One can easily misexplain all kinds of texts in the bible and claim it's a contradiction, when reading the text in its context reveals what's really going on.
There will always be people looking for flaws in the bible, fortunately there will also be those that explain why these hard to understand parts are not flaws at all.

Here's a website (that supports islam) that shows that there are various prints of the Qu'ran. Evidently, not all of them are the "real" deal. The Hafs text is supposibly the one that closely resembles muhammeds Qu'ran and has a built in mathematical structure. Check out the rest of the website; its very useful.

www.submission.org...

show me some proof that mary wasn't a virgin... please! I would like to hear it, or read it. Another question, why would i convert to islam if jesus came again? And what i am saying is that if Jesus comes and takes his followers, as stated in the rapture, back to heaven. Suddenly, you see that people are missing, don't believe anything said by anyone, just have faith that jesus came and got his followers, and convert. Islam is and always has been threatened by one man, Jesus Christ.

Hi,

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Please expound. People are always saying that there are blatant contridictions in the Bible, but have yet to back it up with good examples.
Like what you just said above....please explain. When Jesus said that God was his father, I guess people assumed that meant he was the son of God. But you're saying that didn't mean that?

Please understand that when Islam regards the Bible as corrupted, it means each word has to be looked at with suspicion. So when it has a verse where an apostle reports a person is saying Jesus is son of God:- Muslims cannot even assume that's what the apostle said, in fact because the verse has been later translated it could be the translator adding it in. The same goes for what Jesus alledgedly said - it's a report of what Jesus said through a chain involving apostles and translators.

To your question: Suppose the apostle actually said it then bear in mind who gets to be called sons of god, seems to be nearly everyone who followed the prophets. Check out Exodus 4:22, Psalms 2:7 and Psalms 82 seems to call everyone a god. Perhaps this was their way of saying submitters to God or as a word of respect that we still see today as a sign of friendship toward someone who is younger. Perhaps it was a way of saying Creation of God.

As for contradictions, you'll find many, many apparent contradictions with science and with itself; but there's almost always an explanation and I would accept most of the explanations especially when poetic words are used. However, a lot of the explanations are "copying error" or "interpretation" this is corruption isn't it? If you admit that then surely there can be scribal errors in others places which seem to support Christian doctrine. The only reason they support Christian doctrine is because the doctrine was based on them! You cannot make a doctrine based on a corrupt book because then you have to interpret the confusion some way which means making up your own religion. I'll just pick a couple that maybe you could explain:

I'll just give an example contradiction of account: Matthew 28:2 says that when Mary went to visit the sepulchre, she saw (behold) an angel roll back the stone. Yet Mark 16 doesn't mention any angel and said the women found the stone already rolled back. There is also the well-known case of the apostles giving a differing impression of the "last words of Jesus." But the latter is acceptable as not being a contradiction because one listener may have been out of earshot. However the first example is surely a contradiction because the stone is either in place or not when they visit it, someone is not being truthful?

Here is one contradiction of reason that I still want to understand: Assuming you take the Bible's John 10:30 "I and my Father are one" to mean Jesus is God. Why then, on the cross does God-Jesus say Matt 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" This not only implies two different entities, but I can't see why he would say that if his "Christian" goal is to suffer and die for our sins.

When you get uncertainty like this you can either disregard everything, believe one part and not the other, or invent an illogical theory that fits the contradiction. At Nicea they invented the Trinity, which simply says something illogical: that God is really three yet is one.

Here's an example of corruption in the making: 1 John 5:7-8

[RSV]"And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. [8] There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree."

[KJV]"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one"

To me this is just man trying to cover up the Trinity interpretation of the Bible. By the way the same corruption problems are in Islam, not with the Qur'an, but with the Hadith. Many have been found out as lies, so only when several different sources of a Hadith agree and also not disagree with the Qur'an do Muslims accept that Hadith as valid.

Lo again,

Originally posted by KSoze
The Qu'ran is false if certain aspects of the bible are proved false...Your beliefs rely on a corrupted document called the bible. There is no way around the fact that the Qu'ran relies on the bible.

I've already said many times that Islam is not based on the Bible and that Muslims believe that the Qur'an is sourced from God, not the Bible. Muhammad was known to be illiterate, he could only talk and recite. Of course you will say prove it and I could say you prove he copied the Bible (I'll come to "proof" later).

Is the bible version or the qu'ran version of Noah's flood correct? I don't want to hear, "the Qu'ran says this so it must be right"

I don't understand your reasons in saying this. "Is the Moon made from cheese or rock?" and I don't want to hear "NASA said it's rock."

You just agreed that the Bible is corrupt, so if someone is a Muslim you can understand why they choose the Qur'anic version, yes? If you believe in God and that He wrote the Qur'an you simply don't disagree with the Qur'an, but you can try to disprove it with science or whatever else you wish and if you do maybe you will become a disbeliever.

Explain to me why in the world would anyone change the bible to say noah's son died in the flood. What would be the point?...I dont believe in the literal flood story myself but I want to know why would the biblical scribes forgot to include that noah's son drowned

There's no point to consider, because there's no story-change, as the Bible wasn't used. Man innocently forgets or summarises too much, translation causes (innocent) error hence the difference. Just a correction: I thought the Bible didn't forget to note the son's fate, but says all his sons went with him in the Ark.

there are a lot of things the Qu'ran says were corrupted yet it offers no explaination for the corruption.

It doesn't point at the Bible and say this and that is wrong, but gives its own version. It only points to the original Torah and Gospel which have now been lost or corrupted.

However, If your going to use that kind of criteria then the very evidence you accept as truth (such as noah's flood) is from a corrupt source (the bible) and may very well be corrupted.

Once again, Muslims don't believe the source of the Qur'an is the Bible. You have to, at least temporarily, accept this to understand Islam and judge it fairly (my last few paragraphs will hopefully explain why).

The Qu'ran says that noone can change gods words in many places. I'm confused, I thought these messengers (Jesus, moses, etc) were sent by god and that they spoke from god...Now, either they spoke from god and there message was pure or they weren't from god at all....which means muslims shouldnt be borrowing from its pages.

You see this is the problem with translations, some translators call it the "words (and decrees)" and others call it the "decisions" of Allah (see www.usc.edu...). What this means is that Allah has already decided what is the right religion for us and no man, however much they reject the Messenger, can change that opinion of His. This isn't about holy books. Again, it's only your opinion that the Qur'an is borrowed from the Bible.

"The verification of the Qu'ran was done long ago"- When, where, what methods were used. I'm simply wanting to know what represents reality, this isn't bashing.

This is something a historian should answer. What I understand is, right after Muhammad's death all the various written-down and memorised parts of the Qur'an was brought to one place, including for the Hadith. Comparisons were made and a book was compiled, the chapter order is not in revealed order. The large number of sources gave it a good chance of being exactly how Muhammad recited it. I would have to find out more on this to give you a proper answer. I shouldn't have said verification, because that implies proof (which I still am coming to), but what I mean is no-one has come up with anything that has scholars in major rifts about veracity.

If the Qu'ran is true then I'll convert. I'm 100% serious. Show me the error of my ways if you can
Keep this in mind, It does not matter if the Qu'ran is in the original language with no contradictions. There are many such books, but none of them purport to be THE word of god. The contents of the Qu'ran must be put to the test. Which is exactly what I am doing...so far it hasn't faired well

I don't know about that, show me a big book without some error or contradiction, pretty much every book has second revisions, the Qur'an is the only 1400 year old first edition still in print (grammar, spelling) error-free according to Arabs anyway. You say the contents must be put to the test, but you also say you are assuming it is based on the Bible - not a very fair test is it? First assume it is from God, at least. What tests you done? The only tests you can use are self-contradictory statements or definite disagreement with science (which is not always a conclusive test) to disprove it.

"The Qu'ran says so, that is enough to a Muslim"
This sums up belief my friend. The qu'ran says so; therefore, I believe. You ask not for proof. Truth must be arrived at by testing; god will stand the test. There is alot of evidence showing jesus wasn't born of a virgin. Study the roots of christianity and you will see this. You cannot be positive of the virgin birth. However, you are already convinced of the truth because you've pledged allegiance to the pages of the qu'ran. I understand your situation completely; I've been there.

Not true, Muslims do and should ask for "proof." But proof means nothing, so only disproof is worthy; I'll try to explain...

Let me define proof, belief, theory and evidence. Also define Truth as the unknown true nature of everything, the ultimate theory which science is heading to. Around you there is evidence and science makes up belief to explain the evidence. If a certain belief seems to best fit or even exactly does fit evidence, it becomes a theory but is that proof that the theory is true? No. I'll give an example:- Newton's Laws seemed to best fit the evidence seen in motion of mass under force, but this theory falls apart at speeds approaching light. This is bad because all "proven theories" derived from his laws are now technically wrong. Einstein came along with a theory that seems to fit the evidence better. This doesn't mean Einstein is correct though, later on we might find new evidence that needs a new theory. We are just assuming our theories fit in with the Truth because a scientist said so and because it hasn't been disproven. A belief can be disproven quickly with current evidence but a theory is perhaps just waiting for evidence to discredit it. So you cannot prove anything without knowing the Truth, when you "prove" things you only prove them based on unproven theories anyway. Only disproof works.

So scientists pull out beliefs that look to fit evidence and when they do fit they hope no evidence comes along to disprove them, they take mini-steps in belief toward the Truth. On the other hand Islam takes a giant leap of belief and we are given that Truth straight off. Science may one day crawl up near the Truth and disprove Islam along the way, we have to wait and see. Until then atheism is a religion just as much as Islam. The question is which is more likely to you?

Evolution of life is just a belief, there's not even any evidence to make it a theory yet, where's the famous missing link? Remember the Piltdown man, a scientist was caught cheating by burying ape and man bones together! I sense desperation there. There is a huge structural difference between man and ape, even a pig is closer in places! How about difference in intelligence and emotional behaviour, I'd say the gap is looking enormous. By the way, I reckon solid evidence showing that man evolved from ape along with a theory of genetic mechanism to enforce it would be the best way to disprove Islam. There are many other many things assumed in atheism too. How about that organic molecules form by chance, okay I let you off with one molecule, but you would need an incredible amount to stably maintain the first building blocks let alone finding the right combination to form one cell. If scientists claim "we can show it's the tendency of carbon and hydrogen atoms to form organic molecules" this is like saying there's a grand design, still could fit in with a God theory.

On one hand there is a (albeit vague) history of incredible events surrounding Prophets giving their evidence to cause a belief, on the other, Darwin's observation causing belief. We could go into why the powers-that-be encourage you to believe Darwin but that could be a long topic too. Which belief seems to best fit our existence (evidence) to you: That there is a God and He created us or that we just formed by chance, that we have to contemplate infinity (which has driven scientists to suicide because it's more unimaginable than God, just try it) and that we'll revert to nothing but starmatter. I think out of all the God beliefs Islam is the only one with original evidence and fits in best with science while being less incredible than atheism.

I know I've given a bad explanation somewhere but ask if there's something you don't understand; the long paragraphs probably encourage skim-reading but try to think about my idea of "proof" and theory.

Originally posted by Jakko
Not at all, the differences between Mohammed and Jesus are way too big for the Islam to be the exact same idea that Jesus and others before him taught.
Your being "too" objective, which leads you to believe that Islam is to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism.
This comparison does not make sense though, because of the differences between the Islam and Christianity/Judaism in general.

Muhammad and Jesus were obviously different, I trust you mean their teachings. Their teachings were the same according to Islam, those Christians that were fed to the lions were probably Muslim (not by name).

You say they are different? You mean the way they are practiced today is different. Christianity is totally changed, its Bible is just being re-written. You want homosexuality, sure just add that in the next version!

Example: Muslim women (and men too) and their modest dress requirement. Sure, most Christians dress how they want now, but can't you see the remnant of modest dress in a Christian nun? The materialistic world is taking over again, man is wanting to make his own rules up.

The comparisons I made were not of the religions but of how each generally views the other followers. You want to compare religions: Islam is closer to Judaism than to Christianity. Pork ban? Belief in single God?

The Islam is a very young religion compared to Judaism/Christianity, and the way its holy book came to be, allready reveals how the entire religion is based on parts of other religions, Christianity and Judaism especially.

You can't prove or disprove that. If two students give the same answer in an exam, it does not mean one copied the other.

As for the bible being full of contradictions, this is a fairytale. One can easily misexplain all kinds of texts in the bible and claim it's a contradiction, when reading the text in its context reveals what's really going on.
There will always be people looking for flaws in the bible, fortunately there will also be those that explain why these hard to understand parts are not flaws at all.

I won't go into a contradiction quiz but just to say: it's not that hard to understand the Bible from a Muslim perspective actually, everything is clear! The Christian (Nicean) interpretation is the hard part to understand, you explain the Trinity to me then. It simply stomps over the first and most important commandment!

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Another question, why would i convert to islam if jesus came again? And what i am saying is that if Jesus comes and takes his followers, as stated in the rapture, back to heaven. Suddenly, you see that people are missing, don't believe anything said by anyone, just have faith that jesus came and got his followers, and convert. Islam is and always has been threatened by one man, Jesus Christ.

You didn't understand me, and probably I didn't understand you.

I thought you meant that in the future if Jesus comes and says he is God then when you see him you should convert Christianity. So I said back to you: I would do that, but if Jesus comes back and teaches Islam then surely you should convert to Islam. Anyway, we probably misunderstood each other.

I still don't understand your newly retold meaning, are you saying I should just believe in Christ as a God because you say so? Islam gives me a better, more plausible and less contradictory view of Christ. It hasn't been threatened by Christ, because he preached it. You should study the religion fairly (by leaving all you learnt in the Bible behind for now) then decide.

Originally posted by KSoze
Here's a website (that supports islam) that shows that there are various prints of the Qu'ran. Evidently, not all of them are the "real" deal. The Hafs text is supposibly the one that closely resembles muhammeds Qu'ran and has a built in mathematical structure. Check out the rest of the website; its very useful.

www.submission.org...

I saw that site ages ago. I think they are way too confident and fanatical with their over-the-top scientific proofs in the Qur'an and this Number 19 miracle. If this 19 business is not some silly mathematical trick then it might be interesting (they claim it has some tie with the ever-mysterious Qur'anic initials before certain chapters) but I have yet to find a unicode Qur'an and write a program to test what they did.

Anyway about the texts, a lot of the earlier manuscripts lack what are called diacritical marks and some only use certain marks. They are the vowels like "a" "e." In english this is a big deal, but in Arabic and Hebrew it doesn't make a difference. Take the word for God in Hebrew, Yahweh, take the vowels out and YHWH is the famous same meaning. I'm certainly no expert on this Hafs and Warsh, I don't even speak Arabic, but they do say it doesn't make a difference to meaning (not sure exactly what they mean there though). Also I know that how some letters are drawn are purely for oral differences in exclamation or length.

www.islamic-awareness.org...

seems to go into this but no time to read it today.

Mithras. Why are you arguing with yourself?? No one is responding to you and I certainly laugh at someone who takes any book, be it the Bible or the Quran to be the "uncorrupted" word of God. There are in fact different versions of the Quran so the promise given in the Quran that it would never be corrupted is a lie. If that is true then the altered Quran in the hands of the servants should be considered as poison. Allah also states that true Muslims will never be defeated n battle. Last time I checked the Taliban and their Islamic "law" got waxed. Allah has failed in his promise. It also doesn't look like the whole world will be turning into Muslims (another broken promise by your Allah) any time soon as you are far outnumbered by the other combined religons./ Allah is telling another fib as far as I am concerned. I believe in the Great Spirit but I think he gave us reason and common sense for a way out of believing fairy tales and myths. I don't need a book written in a language I don't understand that is intolerant of other beliefs. I think it is poison and causes more seperation than understanding.

4:141, And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers.

Uh. This is the absurd quote in the Quran. If taken at face value it says Muslims will never be defeated. Sorry to burst your bubble but this has happened many times. This God is a liar. The crusades beat back the Arabic armies and I consider that a triumph.

(Not directed at you mithras, just an observation.)

[edit on 28-6-2004 by wooten123]

[edit on 28-6-2004 by wooten123]

Originally posted by KSoze


i'll give an example:

Is the bible version or the qu'ran version of Noah's flood correct? i

-KSoze

I will try to answer ( to the best of my knowledge) your questions regarding corruption of Scriptures soon. However for the time , I will address the issue pertaining to Noah's Flood. There are different methods of evaluating whether what the Scripture is saying is true ....or not.....For example we might want to see if the Biblical version of the flood is feasible from a historical perspective. While I can not say why Noah's son was left out of the Biblical account ( perhaps the Biblical account was relayed by 2nd hand witnesses.....not too sure why his son was omitted). The narration of Noah's flood found in the Qur'an is also somewhat more detailed than what the Bible states. The Bible says that the Ark finally rested on the Arafat mountain ranges. The Qur'an proposes that the Ark finally rested on Mt. Judi, which is a specific mountain found within the Arafat mountain ranges. Here is an article by Dr Maurice Bucaille , the author of " The Bible , The Qur'an and Science". This article is about the historicity of Noah's Flood.-----River

Qur'an Supports Regional Flood :

The Narration of the Flood Contained in the Qur'an.

The Qur'an gives a general version which is different from that contained in the Bible and does not give rise to any criticisms from a historical point of view.

It does not provide a continuous narration of the Flood. Numerous suras talk of the punishment inflicted upon Noah's people. The most complete account of this is in sura 11, verses 25 to 49. Sura 71, which bears Noah's name, describes above all Noah's preachings, as do verses 105 to 115, sura 26. Before going into the actual course taken by events, we must consider the Flood as described in the Qur' an by relating it to the general context of the punishment God inflicted on communities guilty of gravely infringing His Commandments.

Whereas the Bible describes a universal Flood intended to punish ungodly humanity as a whole, the Qur'an, in contrast, mentions several punishments inflicted on certain specifically defined communities.

This may be seen in verses 35 to 39, sura 25:
"We gave Moses the Scripture and appointed his brother Aaron with him as vizier. We said: Go to the people who have denied Our signs. We destroyed them completely. When the people of Noah denied the Messengers, We drowned them and We made of them a sign for mankind. (We destroyed the tribes) of �d and Tamud, the companions of Rass and many generations between them. We warned each of them by examples and We annihilated them completely."

Sura 7, verses 59 to 93 contains a reminder of the punishments brought upon Noah's people, the �d, the Tamud, Lot (Sodom) and Madian respectively.

Thus the Qur'an presents the cataclysm of the Flood as a punishment specifically intended for Noah's people: this is the first basic difference between the two narrations.

The second fundamental difference is that the Qur'an, in contrast to the Bible, does not date the Flood in time and gives no indication as to the duration of the cataclysm itself.

The causes of the flooding are roughly the same in both narrations. The Sacerdotal description in the Bible (Genesis 7, 11) cites two causes which occurred simultaneously. "On that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened." The Qur'an records the following in verses 11 and 12, sura 54:

"We opened the Gates of Heaven with pouring water. And We caused the ground to gush forth springs, so the waters met according to the decree which has been ordained."

The Qur'an is very precise about the contents of the Ark. The order God gave to Noah was faithfully executed and it was to do the following:

--sura 11, verse 40:
"(In the Ark) load a pair of every kind, thy family, save this one against whom the word has already gone forth, and those who believe. But only a few had believed with him."

The person excluded from the family is an outcast son of Noah. We learn (sura 11, verses 45 and 46) how Noah's supplications on this person's behalf to God were unable to make Him alter His decision. Apart from Noah's family (minus the outcast son), the Qur'an refers to the few other passengers on board the Ark who had believed in God [ Maurice Buccaile]

Originally posted by wooten123
Mithras. Why are you arguing with yourself?? No one is responding to you
and I certainly laugh at someone

I was replying to different people in different posts. Odd how you say no-one is responding, yet you yourself are. I certainly laugh at that.

who takes any book, be it the Bible or the Quran to be the "uncorrupted" word of God. There are in fact different versions of the Quran so the promise given in the Quran that it would never be corrupted is a lie. If that is true then the altered Quran in the hands of the servants should be considered as poison.

I laugh at people who think they evolved from monkeys. This is a non-sensical argument you have, everyone has their own belief and atheism nothing but a religion. You can go out a produce your own Qur'an versions in Arabic, God doesn't say he is preventing that, but simply that the Message (via a channel, even if it is orally passed) is uncorrupted (Qur'an means message not book).

Allah also states that true Muslims will never be defeated n battle. Last time I checked the Taliban and their Islamic "law" got waxed. Allah has failed in his promise.

Not sure where you got the idea Allah said that, reference? Perhaps He said Muhammad would never be defeated or that Islam as a religion wouldn't. You're right about the "monstrous" Taliban getting "waxed," I'm sure it impressed you.

It also doesn't look like the whole world will be turning into Muslims (another broken promise by your Allah) any time soon as you are far outnumbered by the other combined religons.

You'll be surprised how many are converting and you don't believe statistics do you? I get the impression there are a lot more atheists around who have left Christianity but still get counted as Christian. Islam doesn't believe the whole world will be Muslim, but that the "Ummah" will be great in number and weak in power (at some point), so no worries there!

Allah is telling another fib as far as I am concerned. I believe in the Great Spirit but I think he gave us reason and common sense for a way out of believing fairy tales and myths. I don't need a book written in a language I don't understand that is intolerant of other beliefs. I think it is poison and causes more seperation than understanding.

So you believe in Allah? Allah is just Arabic for God. You believe in a Great Spirit (a fairytale right?) that gave you common sense for a way out of fairytales - okay Sir!

Your own ignorance of Islam shows. The language is irrelevant, you can still learn via others, learn that it is tolerant to other beliefs.

Allah says He just gave us free-will. Common sense? Hardly, we're still the same greedy and ignorant people we always were, that think our own laws will be better in the long-run.

4:141, And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers.

Uh. This is the absurd quote in the Quran. If taken at face value it says Muslims will never be defeated. Sorry to burst your bubble but this has happened many times. This God is a liar. The crusades beat back the Arabic armies and I consider that a triumph.
(Not directed at you mithras, just an observation.)

Yes, face-value is what people who want to discredit something love to use. It's funny you pick that (part of a) verse and say your comment is not directed to me because the full verse and the one before it, if you read them, is basically talking about you Anyway, not going into that, the idea is not about battles throughout history but more the ultimate condition, and that of Hell (failure) or Heaven (triumph).

Originally posted by KSoze


"The Qu'ran says so, that is enough to a Muslim"
This sums up belief my friend. The qu'ran says so; therefore, I believe. You ask not for proof. Truth must be arrived at by testing; god will stand the test. There is alot of evidence showing jesus wasn't born of a virgin. Study the roots of christianity and you will see this. You cannot be positive of the virgin birth. However, you are already convinced of the truth because you've pledged allegiance to the pages of the qu'ran. I understand your situation completely; I've been there.

-KSoze

Unlike previous religions like Christianity and Hinduism which are almost entirely based on blind faith ......Islam , however is based on reasoning ...while there is always some element of faith involved (i.e the fact that ArchAngel Gabriel was sent to Prophet Muhammad)....

You can see the spirit and methodology of Islam from the following verses and quotes:

[17:36 Holy Qur'an] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.


"Seek knowledge even in China "---Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

The Muslim attitude in respect to gathering knowledge and science is quite different from the Biblical view. The Bible has the "Story of the Two Trees " in which it was stated that seeking too much knowledge is somehow dangerous. This however is not the case in the Qur'an.

I believe that you are asking a valid question. And I believe that you should not accept Islam until it makes sense to you as a world view and a way of life to which you may commit yourself to.....

While I have studied the Qur'an and a half dozen other scriptures. It took me a great deal of research to arrive at the Islamic perspective I have today. It is interesting to note ...that one of my friends converted to Islam as a theology major in undergrad....In only one year time ...he learned as much about Islam ...as it took me to learn ....in say 7 years......Its quite remarkable.....and G-d understands that the Qur'an will appeal to anyone ...whether a King or a peasant ....whether an artist......or a lawyer....However, it is something that will take time , and patience and I am sure that if you are sincerely pursuing knowledge of Islam......G-d will make things easier on you.......There are many things about Islam that I do not know......However, I am still learning.


----River

Originally posted by Jakko

Christianity can be backed up by historical facts, allthough not fully, it does prove that Christianity was not created by humans that were inspired by other religions, as some try to make it sound.

Can you provide some links or sources (other than the bible) where I can view this? I would like to see for myself the solid historical proof that Jesus was the son of God. I'm not being combative here - I'd really like to see it.

"Is the moon made from cheese or rock"
NASA is a scientific institute and its not attempting to speak for god (well not directly). Regardless, you would treat info from NASA in the same manner. Your belief in anything they said will always be somewhat insecure until you could experience it as reality, or verify it in some way.
All I was stating is that you CANNOT use the Qu'ran to verify itself. An example: Suppose a history book states that a certain famous person died on a certain date. You DO NOT say that is true just because the book says so. You trace its sources to make sure it is correct. There could have been a slip of a pen. The final proof that its true would be getting the darn death certificate, and then when you get that you prove (within a proponderance of evidence) whether its represents the real thing or not...Even then there are things to consider. That is good method...Stating the history book is correct just because, is a POOR method. Stating the Qu'ran is correct because it is = Poor Method. I know this an extreme example but I think I've made my point. That is only logical.
You agree the original torah and gospels were lost? When were they lost, before or after muhammed? Do these original versions contain the same info as the Qu'ran? If the Qu'ran only points to these. Then, I must ask why didn't god preserve these originals, if they are his word the qu'ran says no one can change or alter gods word. If THE ORIGINALS were not gods word then why is the Qu'ran pointing to them.

You have stated how the Qu'ran came into being...
Comparisons were made and they arrived at a copy thats exactly what's on the master tablets in heaven.
One problem...Comparisons allow for error to creep in. Why, because it was drawn from more than one source. That in return implies that one of those sources was less than perfect; false in other words. I know this does not necessarily imply that there are extreme errors in the Qu'ran but It does bring into question whether the book is as perfect as muslims think.
Many sources aren't necessarily a good thing. Are these sources still availible to the muslim believer. They should be. If not, why would they get rid of them? It would only further prove there message. I'm investigating the formation of the Qu'ran right now. I look forward to seeing how many sources were actually used in this. It does not sound good for the qu'ran. I'll start a new topic later.
Mithras, I posted a website showing that not all of the prints are the "real" deal. all-h has in fact set by and let various prints of his word circulate.
You believe that the Qu'ran didn't borrow from the bible. You are looking the bible, the babylonian myths, Zoroastrianism, and Arabian myths square in the face and saying the Qu'ran didn't borrow from none of those. To that I have no response, I'm speechless. Believe as you wish. I'll let reality speak for itself.

PS. God IS Love


[edit on 28-6-2004 by KSoze]

Originally posted by KSoze


" I'm investigating the formation of the Qu'ran right now. I look forward to seeing how many sources were actually used in this. It does not sound good for the qu'ran. I'll start a new topic later.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has been accused of copying numerous Scriptures . However, the arguments that are usually set forth about alleged plagiarism in the Holy Qur'an are usually oversimplifications. There is currently no "master theory" amongst skeptics of how the Qur'an was. lets take a look at how it all begins.....

They first say that Muhammad must have copied the miracles of Jesus from "Gospel of Thomas"...then they find other miracles in " Nag Hammadi and the Apocrypha".....then they say Muhammad must have had contact with the Zoroastrians ...as they seem to see certain parallels of Zoroastrian beliefs ( 75 names of Ahura/Allah and the Judgement Day Bridge )....then they notice certian eastern elements in Islam such as the concept of "fanaa" which parallels Nirvana as well as possible references to Buddha.....then they state that perhaps Muhammad had contact with Buddhists....then they say that the concept of Jinn hierarchy is copied of of "Book of Enoch"...then they say hmm...I guess....Muhammad got this information from the Ethiopian Book of Enoch and this...piece of information from the Slavonic Enoch......then , they say why does the Qur'an use the Tibetan and Kashmiri name of Jesus Christ ( Issa or St. Issa)...then they say perhaps Muhammad copied off them to....then they notice the story of Dhul-Qurnain and they then propose that Muhammad copied also the "Alexander Romances"...... they then say hmmm....who is this "Luqman" character....for sure the Prophet had access to the "Book of Luqman"...

you see this type of thinking is highly convuluted and doesn't seem to go anywhere. There is absolutely no way that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) can copy over 75 Scriptures and books ...and produce one fluid Qur'an ( which has one fluid voice throughout)...and produce a singular scripture that is praised as being the finest piece of prose and poetry in the whole of the arabi-speaking world......



----River

P.S: Before you start researching the Islamic formation of the Qur'an take a look at this scholarly site

www.islamic-awareness.org

lol, i guess you would just have to understand christianity to understand what i am talking about with the Apocalypse. The bible says that Jesus will rise again and take his followers into heaven before the start of the Apocalypse. Then the rest will be left behind to either convert to christianity or to keep following the anti-christ(satan) into the lake of sulfur(hell). Basically i was saying, assuming that Jesus takes these people to heaven without any non-believers knowledge, that if a time comes when people are "missing" from the earth, then remember what has been said here, and convert to christianity. I wasn't imposing my religion on to you.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
lol, i guess you would just have to understand christianity to understand what i am talking about with the Apocalypse. The bible says that Jesus will rise again and take his followers into heaven before the start of the Apocalypse. Then the rest will be left behind to either convert to christianity or to keep following the anti-christ(satan) into the lake of sulfur(hell). Basically i was saying, assuming that Jesus takes these people to heaven without any non-believers knowledge, that if a time comes when people are "missing" from the earth, then remember what has been said here, and convert to christianity. I wasn't imposing my religion on to you.

Yes, and I said back to you: If Jesus comes down and submits to God (Islam), then you remember what the Qur'an said. Likewise I'm not imposing anything on you. I do understand the idea of Christian Apocalypse, I just didn't understand if you meant that.

Originally posted by KSoze
"Is the moon made from cheese or rock"
NASA is a scientific institute and its not attempting to speak for god (well not directly). Regardless, you would treat info from NASA in the same manner.
Your belief in anything they said will always be somewhat insecure until you could experience it as reality, or verify it in some way.
All I was stating is that you CANNOT use the Qu'ran to verify itself. An example: Suppose a history book states that a certain famous person died on a certain date. You DO NOT say that is true just because the book says so. You trace its sources to make sure it is correct. There could have been a slip of a pen. The final proof that its true would be getting the darn death
certificate, and then when you get that you prove (within a proponderance of evidence) whether its represents the real thing or not...Even then there are things to consider. That is good method...Stating the history book is correct
just because, is a POOR method. Stating the Qu'ran is correct because it is = Poor Method. I know this an extreme example but I think I've made my point. That is only logical.

This is the same method! You've just said it yourself, you cannot prove anything, only disprove. When you say "proof" it is only a feeling that things fit. If you read my lengthy talk on proof, theory and evidence, you would know what I mean. Our existence is the evidence, you pick a belief to explain us. Islam has the Qur'an, Christianity the Bible, atheism has Darwin - and I put it to you Darwin has the least specific evidence! In fact none, no missing link for Darwin's evolution, at least there is some specific evidence for Islam:- the Qur'an itself, a history of evidence (including wiped out civilisation remains), the Hadith, even the Bible backs it up if you interpret it correct.

Now as you said with the death certificate, you test to disprove them; in fact you can never disprove it until you know everything, even if the man is before you, dead, could be someone that just looked like him. But at some point, one version is more likely.

You might say believe none of them until you get "proof." In that case you won't believe in God even if an Angel stood before you. You have to believe in something (more so when your existence is in question!) and you do, without thinking, you pick out the most likely belief. A lot of the agnostics do this (though they say "only maybe") with their ideas of a "Great Spirit," - prove it, you just made it up!

You say: "you CANNOT use the Qu'ran to verify itself" I agree! Only to disprove itself, but it hasn't. So far, to some, it is Islam that's fitting best with the world as we know it. The only way you can judge is to remove all prejudices and study each idea properly.

You agree the original torah and gospels were lost? When were they lost, before or after muhammed? Do these original versions contain the same info as the Qu'ran? If the Qu'ran only points to these. Then, I must ask why didn't god preserve these originals, if they are his word the qu'ran says no one can change or alter gods word. If THE ORIGINALS were not gods word then why is the Qu'ran pointing to them.

Possibly lost sometime before, not specified AFAIK. Isn't there a Christian theory of Jesus' Lost Gospel (The Book of Q)? I read that the previous messages were the same except for language and one verse that the Qur'an has. Allah didn't preserve them on earth, my only guess is He would like to see our free-will preserve them. After all those failures (now copying methods are better), He has promised the last Message will be preserved.

You misunderstand what the Qur'an says about altering Allah's word, I already made a post explaining this, He wasn't talking about Books but His own words in Heaven. Once again, if the Qur'an points to the Gospel there is no mention of men corrupting it (the Gospel is still the same, in Heaven), but men have corrupted books of it. Allah says that the Message (not a certain book) will be preserved on Earth too, this time. I know what you're trying to get at, but I think you misunderstand, try to think about that a bit harder and you'll find it's a plausible, non-contradictory idea.

You have stated how the Qu'ran came into being...
Comparisons were made and they arrived at a copy thats exactly what's on the master tablets in heaven.
One problem...Comparisons allow for error to creep in. Why, because it was drawn from more than one source. That in return implies that one of those sources was less than perfect; false in other words. I know this does not necessarily imply that there are extreme errors in the Qu'ran but It does bring into question whether the book is as perfect as muslims think.
Many sources aren't necessarily a good thing. Are these sources still availible to the muslim believer. They should be. If not, why would they get rid of them? It would only further prove there message. I'm investigating the formation of the Qu'ran right now. I look forward to seeing how many sources were actually used in this. It does not sound good for the qu'ran. I'll start a new topic later.

I don't know enough about the subject of compilation to answer more than I have done in my previous reply to you. In the link I gave you they seem to say it is the same Qur'an only that (Christian missionaries) others were saying it wasn't.

Mithras, I posted a website showing that not all of the prints are the "real" deal. all-h has in fact set by and let various prints of his word circulate.
You believe that the Qu'ran didn't borrow from the bible. You are looking the bible, the babylonian myths, Zoroastrianism, and Arabian myths square in the face and saying the Qu'ran didn't borrow from none of those. To that I have no response, I'm speechless. Believe as you wish. I'll let reality speak for itself.

Like I said to someone else, you can go out and make your own Qur'an with additions, Allah isn't stopping you. But how are you going to destroy the preserved Qur'ans elsewhere including etched into thousand's of Hafiz's minds.

EDIT: I said that I read that the Injil (original Gospel), Zabur (original Psalms) and Taurat (oringal Torah) were the same except for a verse, but I checked up and I should say the same basic message (makes sense because obviously the Injil would not talk about present happenings in the past tense like the Qur'an). Perhaps I mistook something I read which actually mean a difference in one verse.


[edit on 29-6-2004 by mithras]