Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Every living thing made from water. Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 36 Next >>
Author Message
Abu Loren
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1175
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 14 October 2012 at 9:58am
As'alaamu Alaikkum brother Beebok

We all know why these people are here and to be honest they are proven wrong time after time but they still keep coming back because their eyes are shut and heart hardened. We can only show them the noor of the Holy Qur'an and Insha'Allah they will have a change of heart. May be they were lead here by Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala so that they can learn the truth.

With regard to banning people I really think it should be the last straw, if they are disrespectful and rude etc then that's fine.

Sabr.
IP IP Logged
Beebok
Male Islam
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 72
Quote Beebok Replybullet Posted: 14 October 2012 at 11:51am
Asalam Alaykum, Abu Loren

"... if they are disrespectful and rude etc...."

Okay brother. It was just a "maybe."

-----

Abu Loren said, "... they still keep coming back because their eyes are shut and heart hardened. We can only show them the noor of the Holy Qur'an and Insha'Allah they will have a change of heart."

Yes, that is true.
After all, Umair bin Wahb Al-Jumahi was one of the hardened polytheists who had gone further and further astray.
After the battle of Badr, he went on a secret mission from Mecca to Medina to murder the holy prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

But when Umair was caught, and the prophet revealed to Umair his secret mission, then Umair was taken by surprise. He converted to Islam, and then returned to Mecca to spread the message, and many converted back to Islam. Such was the compassionate miracle of Allah through His prophet that brought Umair back.

Indeed, Khalid bin Walid had also been one of the hardened rebels who had gone further and further from the truth; but he admitted eventually that Muhammad had to be a true prophet, and Khalid became one of the best Muslims.

So, as you say, "Insha'Allah they will have a change of heart. May be they were lead here by Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala so that they can learn the truth."

Edited by Beebok - 14 October 2012 at 11:52am
IP IP Logged
Beebok
Male Islam
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 72
Quote Beebok Replybullet Posted: 14 October 2012 at 12:42pm
Bunter's insincerity is one of the things that shows that the arguments of the disbelievers has no basis.
On page 25 Bunter had said,
For me the question is not did Mohammed see an angel but instead it is did anyone else see the angel."

So, first, I had given an account from hadith of how others had seen the angels, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
Apparently, Bunter had not read very carefully because he said, "...the question is ... did anyone else see the angel?"

That's it.

His criteria was NOT, is the hadith reliable or not. No.
He has stated that for him, THE CRITERIA is, "has anyone else seen the angel."
The question of whether or not Muhammad is truthful, is his message real, and so on is, "did anyone else see the angel?"
It means, this is what it will take for him to believe.
If that criteria can be met, then the question has been settled for him, he claims.

Unfortunately for his argument, he had apparently not read what I wrote very carefully, because it did contain reports of other  people seeing the angels also.

But then when I pointed that out to him, he changed the criteria.

His response was:
I could present here now a list of Biblical events and Miracles which one supposes you would mostly reject then I could say you are not reading properly, your heart is hard and so on so you stick with your false religeon - do you see the point?

In other words, he claims that just as I would not accept something in his Bible, likewise he will not accept something from our hadith. Now, the question for him is whether or not something is in the Bible.

So now, The CRITERIA, is whether or not something in the Bible.
So, first he claims that the question is whether or not the hadith record if others saw the angels or not.
Second, he changes his criteria for truth and instead basis it on if the Bible says it or not.
Nevermind that later on in page 29, I showed that he rejects things in his own Bible by claiming that they are not there even after I have repeatedly shown them to him.
Nevermind that later we see that even the Bible is not a real criteria for him.
The point here is that we can see the insincerity he has.
First the criteria is one thing, and when it turns out that doesn't suit him, his criteria is something else. So, he is just looking for excuses to not believe.

He had also said there, "You belive these things so you cannot even imagine why anyone else would not."

Oh, but on the contrary. We can see very clearly why he doesn't believe: it is because as he has demonstrated, he simply does't want to believe and will look for any excuse to not believe.

It is as the Quran explains,
{ In their hearts there is a disease (of insincerity, doubt, and hypocrisy) and Allah has increased their disease. … } Quran, 2:10

We see that disease here, and how that disease is steadily growing worse. He says we can not imagine why anyone else would not believe, but actually, he has shown us very well why he does not believe.
IP IP Logged
Caringheart
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2012
Online Status: Online
Posts: 2393
Quote Caringheart Replybullet Posted: 14 October 2012 at 6:37pm
I'm just curious about one thing...
You challenge the faith of other people all the time, but people aren't allowed to ask questions about yours?  to challenge your belief? 
Shouldn't we all examine our beliefs?
'discern Truth from error'

Personally all this arguing only makes me question all religion.  It is why each needs to be free to choose his own and be respected in their individual beliefs.  I do not believe the way which shows whether or not one belongs to God depends on the name of the religion one follows.  Those who belong to God are apparent by their actions.  God judges the heart and not the outward appearance. 

If you can belong to God by following Muhammad... then to that God you belong... and I to mine.  Just do not impose your God, interjecting it into the lives of others, as I do not impose mine.  No one should impose their God on another.

If the heart belongs to God it leads in actions honoring of God, and that is what should matter.  Conversation is good, to get to know and understand one another and for building confidence and trust.   Arguing is senseless, it does not serve the purpose of God.

Blessings,
Caringheart


The fruit of righteousness will be peace; the effect of righteousness will be quietness and confidence forever (Isaiah 32:17 NIV).


Edited by Caringheart - 14 October 2012 at 6:44pm
IP IP Logged
Beebok
Male Islam
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 72
Quote Beebok Replybullet Posted: 15 October 2012 at 6:51pm

The disbeliever, Bunter, says that if we Muslims don’t have access to the original Injeel (the revelation originally given to the prophet Jesus, peace be upon him), then we Muslims, he claims, can’t say with any proof that the current Gospels differ from the original.

Well, I will show later (God willing) that actually, we can make that determination accurately.

Before I demonstrate that, however, I will first point out that Bunter’s claim works against him: if he doesn’t have the originals, he can’t say that the current Gospels are the same as the originals.

In other words, if Bunter insists that we Muslims can’t make a claim about the current Gospels being corruptions since we don’t have the originals to compare them to, he also can’t claim that the current Gospels are preserved correctly.

Actually, this dilemma exists for Bunter even if he doesn’t make his claim against the Muslim assertion about the corruption of the Gospels because other former-Christian scholars of the Bible have made the realization that without the originals (or the ability to reconstruct the originals), there is no way to have confidence in the current texts of the Gospels.

Here are the words of Bart D. Ehrman, chair of the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill in his book, “Misquoting Jesus: the story behind who changed the Bible and why.” This is a companion book to another of his books, “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: the effect of early Christological controversies on the text of the New Testament.” Ehrman is considered a “leading authority on the early church and the life of Jesus….”

In “Misquoting Jesus” he writes on page 11:

“In short, my study of the Greek New Testament, and my investigations into the manuscripts that contain it, led to a radical rethinking of my understanding of what the Bible is. This was a seismic change for me. Before this – starting with my born-again experience in high school, through my fundamentalist days at Moody, and on through my evangelical days at Wheaton – my faith had been based completely on a certain view of the Bible as the fully inspired, inerrant word of God. Now I no longer saw the Bible that way.”

 

So what was it about studying the texts in the original Greek manuscripts that caused such a “radical rethinking” and “seismic change” for him?

 

Ehrman’s explanation begins on the previous page where he writes:

“It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we don’t have the originals – so saying they were inspired doesn’t help me much, unless I can reconstruct the originals.

 

I had to stop and emphasize, “…unless I can reconstruct the originals,” because while we Muslims don’t have the originals either, we are able to reconstruct them, as I will show in a future post, God willing.

Ehrman goes on to write:

“Moreover, the vast majority of Christians for the entire history of the church have not had access to the oringals, making their inspiration something of a moot point. Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later – much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don’t even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

    “Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant. A good portion of them simply show us that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most people can today (and they didn’t even have dictionaries, let alone spell check). Even so, what is one to make of all these differences?”

 

Now, what Ehrman writes next is what Bunter opens himself up to when he claims that Muslims must have the originals in order to claim that the current Gospels are corruptions. Ehrman writes:

“If one wants to insist that God inspired the very words of scripture, what would be the point if we don’t have the very words of scripture?”

 

Ehrman’s next line, however, shows that Muslims don’t have anything to worry about. Ehrman continues to write about the New Testament:

“In some places, as we will see, we simply can not be sure that we have reconstructed the original test accurately.”

 

That is the second place, then, that Ehrman implies that the problem can be solved if the original can be reconstructed, which is not a problem for us Muslims.

And Ehrman writes on:

“It’s a bit hard to know what the words of the Bible mean if we don’t even know what the words are!

    “This became a problem for my view of inspiration, for I came to realize that it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place. If he wanted his people to have his words, surely he would have given them to them (and possibly even given them the words in a language they could understand, rather than Greek and Hebrew).”

 

Again, this is not a problem for us Muslims because we have been able to preserve the original wording, and we have it in a live and growing language that anyone can learn from many teachers, Arabic.

The original language of the New Testament, Koine Greek, on the other hand, is a dead language.

What’s worse for the Christians, is that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and could probably read and write Hebrew.

What Ehrman leaves out is that even if the original Koine Greek version of the New Testament could be reconstructed, it still would not be the original Aramaic or Hebrew.

Anyways, on with quoting Ehrman:

“The fact that we don’t have the words surely must show, I reasoned, that he [God] did not preserve them for us. And if he didn’t perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words.”

Amazing!

Do you all see that? Ehrman admits that preserving the originals is a . . . MIRACLE !

And what do we have with the Quran? We have the ability to reconstruct the original because we have preserved the original wording.

There are many ways to know that the current Gospels are corruptions of the original Injeel, but the many discrepancies that Ehrman points out is one of them. The fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic is another way of knowing that the original wording does not exist because the oldest large manuscripts are in a dead version of Greek. Only a few small fragments might be found in Aramaic.

There are many other ways of knowing that the current Gospels are corruptions.

 

I’ll write more on this, God willing, in future posts.

Suffice it for now, however, that when Bunter insists in his usual illogical manner that Muslims must have the original Injeel to claim that the current version is corrupted (which is a false claim on Bunter’s part because we don’t need the original), Bunter then opens himself up to an actual and real problem for him, which is that he needs the original (or the ability to reconstruct it) in order to be able to claim that the current version is authentic.

IP IP Logged
bunter
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 March 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Quote bunter Replybullet Posted: 17 October 2012 at 8:36am
Originally posted by Abu Loren

Christians only claim that Jesus (pbuh) fulfilled the Law but this is was in fact a lie to promote the teachings of Paul. It was he who abolished it not Jesus (pbuh). The cross never happened because God Almighty tells us so. What evidence do yo have that Jesus (pbuh) was crucified? Muslims are in fact clear in what they see because God Almighty Himself lifted the veils off our eyes. Islam has the clearest picture.

As far as the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are concerned we have the four canonical Gospels. Verses from all four Gospels are quoted in extra-Biblical text by the likes of Ignatius and Clement around AD95. All but eleven verses of the NT are preserved in quotations used by the early Church Fathers of the first to fourth centuries. Between them they quote over 20,000 times from the Gospels and Acts, over 14,000 times from the NT letters, and over 600 times from Revelations. That's over 36,000 quotations from the NT as a whole. Hence it's been said that
even if all the copies of the NT manuscripts were destroyed, it would be possible to reconstruct it solely from external reference by others. In short, there is better evidence for the NT than any other ancient writings and indeed the NT we have printed goes back to what the very earliest Christians wrote.

2. A number of ancient secular sources mention various details of Jesus' life, corroborating the picture presented in the Gospels. The writers of these sources include ancient historians such as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Thallus. Jewish sources such as Josephus and the Talmud add to our knowledge. Government officials such as Pliny the younger and even Roman Caesars Trajan and Hadrian describe early Christian beliefs and practices. Greek historian and satirist, Lucian and Syrian Mara Bar-Serapion .... At least 17 non-christian writings record more than 50 details concerning the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus, plus details concerning the early Church. Most frequently reported is Jesus' death, mentioned by twelve sources. Dated approximately 20 to 150 years after Jesus' death, the secular sources are quite early by manuscript standards of ancient historiography. These sources state:

        Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar.
        He was virtuous,
        He worked wonders.
        He had a bother named James.
        He was acclaimed as the Messiah.
        He was crucified under Pontus Pilate.
        He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
        Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.
        His disciples believed he rose from the dead.
        His disciples were willing to die for their beliefs
        Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.
        His disciples denied the Roman Gods and worshipped Jesus as God

Archeology supports the reliability of the NT writers in various matters, and when a reporter proves accurate in matters we can check, our confidence concerning their accuracy in matters we cannot check is increased.

Therefore your contention that Jesus did not die on the cross has no foundation in history and to deny it is wilful disbelief. Your ONLY reason to not believe it appears to be Islamic writings that appeared 600 years after the Gospel events. it is also true that the Islamic writers must have been aware of the historical truths recorded in the Gospels or else they had other sources but what they were or are I have no idea.


Edited by bunter - 17 October 2012 at 9:02am
IP IP Logged
bunter
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 March 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Quote bunter Replybullet Posted: 17 October 2012 at 9:01am
Originally posted by Beebok

Bunter's insincerity is one of the things that shows that the arguments of the disbelievers has no basis.
It is of course fallacious reasoning to charge others with insincerity - your mode of working is almost entirely ad hommuni quotes with selected context.
That's it.His criteria was NOT, is the hadith reliable or not. No. He has stated that for him, THE CRITERIA is, "has anyone else seen the angel."The question of whether or not Muhammad is truthful, is his message real, and so on is, "did anyone else see the angel?"

You miss the point. Do you not see that a hadith may be reliably transmitted without its content being truth? In hadith science almost everything rests on reliable transmission and the supposedly honest transmitters so that one is disposed to not question what is said no matter what it is. So I as a non-muslim might have no particular reason to think it untrue that your prophet said there are more women than men in hell but I do not believe what he said is true.

The difficulty logically is that if this hadith process is correct then ANY saying transmitted by any reliable witness of ANY honest person must also be true. Therefore, for example, when Jesus said "I am the light of the World, no man comes to the Father but by me' it must be accepted as truth because we have reliable transmission and Jesus was known to be perfectly honest. But i guess you don't accept that and ipso facto you are not interested in truth unless it fits your world view

The point about asking did anyone else see or hear the Angel is that then there would be eye witnesses and that adds a layer of authenticity. But again this cannot just apply to Islam. If one insists that the elements I have discuss ONLY applies to Islam then we have special pleading, stacking the deck, ignoring counter evidence, slanting the argument and of course this is a spurious form of argument. Sure I quoted Biblical events and miracles to see if you can apply the same standards to other cases where we have reliable transmission and honest reporters. Do you get it now?




Edited by bunter - 18 October 2012 at 3:20am
IP IP Logged
bunter
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 March 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Quote bunter Replybullet Posted: 17 October 2012 at 9:33am
Originally posted by Beebok

The disbeliever, Bunter, says that if we Muslims don’t have access to the original Injeel, then we Muslims, he claims, can’t say with any proof that the current Gospels differ from the original. Before I demonstrate that, however, I will first point out that Bunter’s claim works against him: if he doesn’t have the originals, he can’t say that the current Gospels are the same as the originals.

It's not WORKING against me, I accept totally we don't have as far as I know the originals but what we do have is a huge manuscript collection by which is is possible to reconstruct the original with great accuracy. This is no different from the Qur'an as you don't have an original because we are told they were all burned by Uthman and the earliest known manuscripts are at least 70 years after your prophet's death. (See Al-Azami's book "the History of the Quranic text" ISBN 978 1872 531656

As is usual you quote Bart Ehrman but seem not to know ANY other Biblical scholar - special pleading again? What you don't seem to understand is that Ehrman does not question the Greek texts that we have as such but he does interprets them differently, he no longer sees them as supernatural. Now he can have any view of scripture he likes but it is idiocy to think his view is automatically correct. I can quote texts from former Muslims who tear the Quran apart - So what was it about studying the texts in the original Arabic that caused such a "radical rethinking” and “seismic change” for them?

Why don't you read what Ehrman has to say about oral traditions - that they varied from recitation to recitation for example? Don't like that bit do you?

Do you understand what orthodox christians regard as inspiration - or is only Ehrmans view the right one. Going back to Azami's book (he is a hadith scholar at Oxford) on page xxi of the preface he says he was given 'the most accurate Quran in the world' - so presumably you have one and lots of others have one that is not accurate.

Finally, this Injeel well where is it, surely a fragment, anything would have survived. That Jesus spoke Aramaic is to me irrelevant. If one is going to have a message for all mankind then at that point in time Greek is by far the best medium. Are you arguing in the same way that God speaks Arabic?





Edited by bunter - 18 October 2012 at 3:38am
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 36 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com