Print Page | Close Window

Questions by Thomas, while studying Qur'a

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islam for non-Muslims
Forum Discription: Non-Muslims can ask questions about Islam, discussion for the purpose of learning.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12831
Printed Date: 22 November 2014 at 11:30pm


Topic: Questions by Thomas, while studying Qur'a
Posted By: seekshidayath
Subject: Questions by Thomas, while studying Qur'a
Date Posted: 19 July 2008 at 7:05pm
Originally posted by seekshidayath

No, i did not. But yes, since last month i started studying christianity. I did not enter into that discussions, at an other thread of yours, since am still new it. I shall ask my tutor of it. and let you know soon,I do know the answer to that explanation of Adam, and Jesus's temptations as well, but unable to properly frame up. As said, am new to that study. I shall try my best to let you Islamic thoughts regarding that subject soon, insha Allah [ Allah Wills]


thank you, I am eager to hear what you have to say. I began reading the annotated Qur'an you linked to, and the first disagreement I had was in the commentary for Surah 2:4. (Correct me if this is not the correct way to reference a quote from the Qur'an).


Originally posted by commentary

It is also closed to those who, even if they believe in the need for such guidance, do not consider it necessary to seek it through the channel of revelation and prophethood, but would rather weave their own set of ideas and concepts and regard them as equivalent to Divine Guidance.

it is absolutely essential to be able to reason out the meanings of scripture beyond what is explicitly stated in the text, by looking at historical context, language, and other channels (such as science, for He created the physical laws which govern this universe as well as the spirtual ones) through which God has revealed parts of the nature of his character.


Originally posted by commentary

who acknowledge that this guidance does not come to people individually but reaches them through Prophets and Divine Books

I think that while scripture is key to a working understanding of God, that God also chooses to reveal himself to people on an individual basis as they grow in their faith.

Originally posted by commentary

but are devotees of Truth alone, and are therefore prepared to submit to Divine Guidance wherever it be found.

this I agree with completely, and find it to be contradictory to the first 2 pieces I quoted from the commentary. Faith and reason are tied hand in hand for we do not serve a God who's decisions are arbitrary, and to say that one must rely on faith alone and then to say "seek truth wherever it can be found" is a blatant contradiction.


-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."



Replies:
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 19 July 2008 at 8:12pm
Originally posted by seekshidayath



thank you, I am eager to hear what you have to say.
 
I had been trying since 3 days to get that person, but he's very busy. Insha Allah, shall try my best to get my answers thru him soon.
 
I began reading the annotated Qur'an you linked to, and the first disagreement I had was in the commentary for Surah 2:4. (Correct me if this is not the correct way to reference a quote from the Qur'an).

Yes, you are correct. We refer so. While verbal, we say, Surah 2 , ayah 4.
 
Surah is chapter  and ayah is verse.
Originally posted by commentary

It is also closed to those who, even if they believe in the need for such guidance, do not consider it necessary to seek it through the channel of revelation and prophethood, but would rather weave their own set of ideas and concepts and regard them as equivalent to Divine Guidance.

it is absolutely essential to be able to reason out the meanings of scripture beyond what is explicitly stated in the text, by looking at historical context, language, and other channels (such as science, for He created the physical laws which govern this universe as well as the spirtual ones) through which God has revealed parts of the nature of his character.
 
Firstly, thomas, let me clear you that am not a scholar to give answers nearing perfection, though i shall try my best to answer you. Secondly, if any of our other members can answer more better than mine, can kindly post there's. And if you still have doubts from them, you shud not feel tired of asking them.
 
Now coming to your first question from the commentary of the verse you were reading :
 
(2:4) who believe in the Book We have sent down to you (i.e. the Qur'an) and in the Books sent down before you,
 
In this verse and the verses above, Allah swt, describes the attributes of believers. One of them is the belief in the Book which Allah swt has sent it thru Prophet Muhammad { Sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam} and other Books sent  by Allah swt. We believe that Allah swt revealed other Books too.
 
This guidance is closed for those, who though believe that there is need of revelation, but refuse to seek guidance thru revelations. They set up there own ideas and beliefs. As you said, that its necessary to reason out the meanings of text of the scripture --. Yes, thats true. You can reason out the text to Qur;an and thus study it that way. The commentaries, all we find are resulted that way as you said. They were / are studied , thru looking at the context of the verse, --- etc. But all this shud be viewed and studied thru the Book revealed thru Prophets. Our own set of ideas cannot be called as revelation of guidance from Allah swt.
 
Originally posted by commentary

who acknowledge that this guidance does not come to people individually but reaches them through Prophets and Divine Books

I think that while scripture is key to a working understanding of God, that God also chooses to reveal himself to people on an individual basis as they grow in their faith.
 
I shall answer you after getting my answer confirmed.
Originally posted by commentary

but are devotees of Truth alone, and are therefore prepared to submit to Divine Guidance wherever it be found.

this I agree with completely, and find it to be contradictory to the first 2 pieces I quoted from the commentary. Faith and reason are tied hand in hand for we do not serve a God who's decisions are arbitrary, and to say that one must rely on faith alone and then to say "seek truth wherever it can be found" is a blatant contradiction.


-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."


Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 19 July 2008 at 9:36pm
who acknowledge that this guidance does not come to people individually but reaches them through Prophets and Divine Books
I think that while scripture is key to a working understanding of God, that God also chooses to reveal himself to people on an individual basis as they grow in their faith.
 
First and foremost point here is common sense..
 
Absolute truth is one and only...
 
10 people believe that they get direct guidance from God and almost all of them are contradicting with each other. Whom shall we trust now?
Another point is, how do we distinguish between our own imagination and revelation of God. If you believe in satan it could be revelation from satan as well. So, how do we distinguish?
But as per Prophets, their lives and their influence on humanity is a proof of what they were.
 
Now you may say that revelation of God in major religion is also contradicting, so we can't trust on revelations on Prophets also. We do not believe that. We beleive that all the Prophets brought same basic message. In fact those non-prophets who claimed to get direct guidance from God changed the actual religion (remember st. paul).


Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 20 July 2008 at 6:10pm
JazakAllahu khayr brother,
 
Hope thomas ponders over it.


-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."


Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 21 July 2008 at 7:24pm
Originally posted by abuzaid


10 people believe that they get direct guidance from God and almost all of them are contradicting with each other. Whom shall we trust now?

Another point is, how do we distinguish between our own imagination and revelation of God. If you believe in satan it could be revelation from satan as well. So, how do we distinguish?

I am referring more to the use of using reason to better understand and clarify the meaning of the guidance he has already given us, this should be a constant process of refining our understanding of him. As imperfect beings we will never have a perfect understanding of the God we serve, but we can always strive to better that understanding.

But as per Prophets, their lives and their influence on humanity is a proof of what they were.

 

Now you may say that revelation of God in major religion is also contradicting, so we can't trust on revelations on Prophets also. We do not believe that. We beleive that all the Prophets brought same basic message. In fact those non-prophets who claimed to get direct guidance from God changed the actual religion (remember st. paul).

in the Old Testament, God actually gave criteria to the Jewish people by which they could evaluate whether or not people were actually prophets or not. if a single prediction made by someone claiming to be a prophet was shown to be false they were executed.

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


Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 22 July 2008 at 8:04am
Originally posted by thomasd

I am referring more to the use of using reason to better understand and clarify the meaning of the guidance he has already given us, this should be a constant process of refining our understanding of him. As imperfect beings we will never have a perfect understanding of the God we serve, but we can always strive to better that understanding.
 
I am not talking about understanding God!! Even after getting direct message from God we can't have complete understanding of God for the same reason you have mentioned (imperfect being!)
 
I was only talking about understanding of what God wants from us!! Your idea of using human intelligent may be good only if nobody have claimed to receieve message from God. If there are humans who claimed to have received message from God and indeed there are! should not we use our intelligent to verify their claims??
 
If God asks us, Why did you rejected messenger I chose? is not it better to keep an answer ready?
 
Originally posted by thomasd

in the Old Testament, God actually gave criteria to the Jewish people by which they could evaluate whether or not people were actually prophets or not. if a single prediction made by someone claiming to be a prophet was shown to be false they were executed.
 
Prophetic era of Israel is gone! for last 1400 years only two personalities in question are Jesus and Mohammed.. PBUH.
It is of no use to strive for general rulings.
 
If you have a reason to reject Prophethood of Jesus PBUH or accept divinity of Jesus PBUH, keep it ready we are all answerable to God.
In the same way if you have solid reason based on concrete criteria to reject Prophethood of Mohammed PBUH, you have to present it to Lord of heaven and earth.
 
We as muslim believe that any reason to reject Prophethood of Mohammed PBUH will be proved false on the day of judgement.
 
In Islam avoidance is a form rejection.
 


Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 23 July 2008 at 8:42am
Originally posted by abuzaid

I am not talking about understanding God!! Even after getting direct message from God we can't have complete understanding of God for the same reason you have mentioned (imperfect being!)

Every messenger sent by God is sent for one reason, to convey knowledge of God's will for us, so that we may be able to better understand him, and through that better understanding, better our ability to serve Him.

 
Originally posted by abuzaid

If there are humans who claimed to have received message from God and indeed there are! should not we use our intelligent to verify their claims??

That is exactly what I'm talking about, whenever someone claims to receive a message from God that claim must be verified. By the same measure however, we must also use reason to more fully understand the messages which God has already sent, and I believe that this too is a form of divine guidance, which is equally important as faith.

Originally posted by abuzaid

Prophetic era of Israel is gone! for last 1400 years only two personalities in question are Jesus and Mohammed.. PBUH.
It is of no use to strive for general rulings

We do not serve an arbitrary God who says one thing one day and another the next. Time is irrelevant to him. The laws he gave then are equally as valid as the laws he gave now. The cultural applications of those laws may be different, but they have not changed. To quote J.R.R. Tolkien, 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men.'
 
Originally posted by abuzaid

If you have a reason to reject Prophethood of Jesus PBUH or accept divinity of Jesus PBUH, keep it ready we are all answerable to God.
In the same way if you have solid reason based on concrete criteria to reject Prophethood of Mohammed PBUH, you have to present it to Lord of heaven and earth.

The claims of Jesus and the claims of Mohammed can not both be true, and thus far in my life I have seen much stronger evidence to support the claims of Jesus.


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


Posted By: peacelovedarfur
Date Posted: 28 July 2008 at 3:37pm
to the best of our understanding we can try to verify Gods messages to his people who had been misguided and ignorant for he has given us much proof of his intelligence and existence but as for distinguishing between messages with minor changes which cause the greatest of drifts and seperation in belief it is extremely hard which is understandable. Islam is a religion of submission, and its prominance is found in so many situations one of which is accepting the truth even while the people might try and be extremely convincing in their personal belief and your eyes and head which in reason, are far less than that of the knowledge of God and his guidance, may sway you but it is the submission that makes you a muslim: the submission to one God and his messengers and their universal message. Another amazing thing i learned is that saying yes, or submitting, destroys the ego and allows you to see what is and be open to the world, to be apart of it rather than seperate and full of worry such guidance is a blessing and God knows all as to what is best for us. Otherwise I agree with you :) and that quote was very nice


Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 10 February 2009 at 8:21pm
ok. so. I have a question for all of you.

Genesis 10 and 11 have the genealogies of Nimrod and Abraham, and according to this, they lived approximately 7 generations apart. Much later Jewish tradition developed tales of conflicts between Nimrod and Abraham, but these are more in the vein of what would be considered folktales juxtaposing two well known historical characters, rather than authentic historical record. Nonetheless, the Qur'an mirrors the later narrative, rather than the former, and I'm curious as to what the accepted explanation for this is, or how many of you have come across this particular information before. Naturally, it seems implausible to me that two men, living 7 generations apart would come in direct conflict with each other.


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


Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 11 February 2009 at 5:45pm
Hello Thomas,
 
Glad to see you active. Smile
 
Yes, Qur'an mirrors only the later narrative you mentioned. We don't have any genealogy of Namrud and Abraham {Peace be on him}.
 
I guess abt living seven generations apart,must be a logical error at Genesis. You said, you don't read old testament, else i would have shown you such errors in it.
 
We will look at one such error from Mathews
 
"So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." [Matt. 1:17]
 
It is obviously not correct, because since the first group from Abraham to David, includes David in it, he must be excluded from the second group as he cannot be counted twice. The second group should start with Solomon and end with Jeconias, thus excluding him from the third group. The third group should start from Salathiel, which leaves only 13 generations in the last group.
 
Now to an other error
 

Paul reported God's word regarding the prominence of Jesus over the angels in his letter to the Hebrews [Heb. 1:5]:

 "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son."

Christian scholars have claimed that this is a reference to the verses in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles . This claim is not acceptable for several reasons.
 
1.         The text of Chronicles is unambiguous saying that the son's name will be Solomon.
 
       2.         Both the texts say that he would build a house in the name of God. This can only be applied to Solomon who built the house of God, as promised. Jesus, on the other hand was born one thousand and three years after the construction of this house and used to talk of its destruction. 
 
       3.         Both predictions foretold that he would be a king, where as Jesus was not a king, on the contrary he was a poor man as he himself said:
"And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the son of man hath not where to lay his head." [Matt. 8:20]
 
       4.         It is clearly stated in the first prediction that:
"If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men."
 
This implies that he will be a man of iniquitous nature. According to the Christians – and they are far from the truthSolomon was a man of that nature and gave up the prophethood and became an apostate in his last days, indulging in idol worship, building temples for the idols, and committing himself to heathenism. Whereas Jesus was absolutely innocent, and could not commit a sin of any kind.
 
       5.         In the text of Chronicles it says clearly:
"Who shall be a man of rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about."
 
However, Jesus, according to the Christians, was never in peace right from his early days up to the time of the crucifixion. He lived in constant fear of the Jews and left one place for another until he was arrested by them and, they say, killed. Solomon, on the other hand, fulfilled the condition of living in rest from his enemies.
 
       6.         In the prediction of Chronicles the Israelites are promised:
"I will give peace and quieteness unto Israel in his days."
Whereas it is historically known to everyone that the Jews were servile to and dominated by the Romans in the time of Jesus.
 
       7.         The Prophet Solomon, himself has claimed that the prediction was made about him. This is clear from 2 Chronicles.
 
Although the Christians agree that these tidings were for Solomon, they say that it was in fact for Jesus too, as he was a descendant of Solomon. We contend that this is a false claim because the attributes of the predicted son must coincide with the description of the prophecy. We have already shown that Jesus does not fulfill the requirements of the prediction.
 
Apart from this, Jesus cannot be the subject of this prediction, even according to the Christian scholars. In order to remove the contradiction between the genealogical descriptions of Jesus in Mathew and Luke, they have said that Matthew described the genealogy of Joseph of Nazareth, while Luke described the genealogy of Mary. However, Jesus was not the son of Joseph, but rather the son of Mary, and according to her genealogy Jesus is the descendant of Nathan, son of David, and not the son of Solomon. Hope you agree with it.

 


-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."


Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 12 February 2009 at 6:47pm
Originally posted by seekshidayath

Hello Thomas,
 
Glad to see you active. Smile
 
Yes, Qur'an mirrors only the later narrative you mentioned. We don't have any genealogy of Namrud and Abraham {Peace be on him}.
 
I guess abt living seven generations apart,must be a logical error at Genesis. You said, you don't read old testament, else i would have shown you such errors in it.


I do read the Old Testament, however our covenant with God is the covenant of the Jesus's sacrifice in the New Testament.

Nimrod:
1 This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons, who themselves had sons after the flood.
The Japhethites
 2 The sons #fen-NIV-237a - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2010&version=31#fen-NIV-237a - a ] of Japheth:
       Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras.

 3 The sons of Gomer:
       Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.

 4 The sons of Javan:
       Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim and the Rodanim. #fen-NIV-239b - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2010&version=31#fen-NIV-239b - b ] 5 (From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.)

The Hamites
 6 The sons of Ham:
       Cush, Mizraim, #fen-NIV-241c - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2010&version=31#fen-NIV-241c - c ] Put and Canaan.

 7 The sons of Cush:
       Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabteca.
      The sons of Raamah:
       Sheba and Dedan.

 8 Cush was the father #fen-NIV-243d - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2010&version=31#fen-NIV-243d - d ] of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; that is why it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD." 10 The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in #fen-NIV-245e - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2010&version=31#fen-NIV-245e - e ] Shinar. #fen-NIV-245f - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2010&version=31#fen-NIV-245f - f ] 11 From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, #fen-NIV-246g - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2010&version=31#fen-NIV-246g - g ] Calah 12 and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.

Abraham (or rather Abram, as this is before God changed his name)

10 This is the account of Shem.
      Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father #fen-NIV-277d - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=11&version=31#fen-NIV-277d - d ] of Arphaxad. 11 And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.

 12 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters. #fen-NIV-280e - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=11&version=31#fen-NIV-280e - e ]

 14 When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber. 15 And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.

 16 When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. 17 And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters.

 18 When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu. 19 And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and had other sons and daughters.

 20 When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. 21 And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and had other sons and daughters.

 22 When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor. 23 And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and had other sons and daughters.

 24 When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah. 25 And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and had other sons and daughters.

 26 After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.

 27 This is the account of Terah.
      Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot. 28 While his father Terah was still alive, Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth. 29 Abram and Nahor both married. The name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milcah and Iscah. 30 Now Sarai was barren; she had no children.

 31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Haran, they settled there.

 32 Terah lived 205 years, and he died in Haran.




 
It is obviously not correct, because since the first group from Abraham to David, includes David in it, he must be excluded from the second group as he cannot be counted twice. The second group should start with Solomon and end with Jeconias, thus excluding him from the third group. The third group should start from Salathiel, which leaves only 13 generations in the last group.
It doesn't matter if David is counted twice,  as it never claims there were 42 generations, it just relates how many generations there were from Abraham - David and David - exile


Before I rebutt the rest of your post, I agree that the particular prophesy you are talking about was referring to Solomon, however the specifics of your argument in favor of that are incorrect.
Both the texts say that he would build a house in the name of God. This can only be applied to Solomon who built the house of God, as promised. Jesus, on the other hand was born one thousand and three years after the construction of this house and used to talk of its destruction.

And that he would be rebuild it in three days, this being a metaphor for his own resurrection, for after he rose from the dead, we no longer needed to offer sacrifices through priests to speak to God, we could do it directly, and so HE took the place of the temple as the way by which we speak with God. Indeed, at the moment of his death the current separating the Holy of Holies (where it was beleived that God dwelt) from the rest of the temple ripped in half.
 
Both predictions foretold that he would be a king, where as Jesus was not a king, on the contrary he was a poor man as he himself said


 1Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, #fen-NIV-25929a - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023&version=31#fen-NIV-25929a - a ] a king."

 3So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
      "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

If he is a direct descendant of David (interestingly enough, both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David) then he was certainly of the royal bloodline of Israel, and if he was truly God-incarnate as I believe, then he is the king above all kings.

However, Jesus, according to the Christians, was never in peace right from his early days up to the time of the crucifixion. He lived in constant fear of the Jews and left one place for another until he was arrested by them and, they say, killed. Solomon, on the other hand, fulfilled the condition of living in rest from his enemies.

How could he possibly have been in fear of "the Jews"? He was one, and for that matter most of the people adored him.
36Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, "Sit here while I go over there and pray." 37He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."

 39Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

 40Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter. 41"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

 42He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."

 43When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

 45Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!"

Jesus Arrested
 47While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him." 49Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him.

 50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for." #fen-NIV-24102d - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026&version=31#fen-NIV-24102d - d ]

   Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

 52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

 55At that time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

That isn't fear....it's submission.



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


Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 17 February 2009 at 6:08pm
Thanks for the genealogy. But thimas, what i as a muslim believe is, Quran contains many historical events. Some are narrated in details and some are not. Like genealogy as well as dialogue between Nimrod and Ibrahim {AS}. Qur'an discusses only the dialogue between them. When the Qur’an leaves out a matter, it means that it is of no importance to us.  On the other hand, any information provided by the Qur’an has a useful purpose.  In other words,we do not persist in the pursuit of information not provided by the Qur’an and concentrate on what it indicates clearly to see how we can benefit from it.


-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."


Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 18 February 2009 at 7:40pm
Originally posted by seekshidayath

Thanks for the genealogy. But thimas, what i as a muslim believe is, Quran contains many historical events. Some are narrated in details and some are not. Like genealogy as well as dialogue between Nimrod and Ibrahim {AS}. Qur'an discusses only the dialogue between them. When the Qur’an leaves out a matter, it means that it is of no importance to us.  On the other hand, any information provided by the Qur’an has a useful purpose.  In other words,we do not persist in the pursuit of information not provided by the Qur’an and concentrate on what it indicates clearly to see how we can benefit from it.


My point is that they can't possibly have had dialogue if they lived that far apart, which leads me to question the accuracy of the Qur'an as a whole.


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


Posted By: _ALI_
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 3:39am
Salam thomasd
You said
ok. so. I have a question for all of you.

Genesis 10 and 11 have the genealogies of Nimrod and Abraham, and according to this, they lived approximately 7 generations apart. Much later Jewish tradition developed tales of conflicts between Nimrod and Abraham, but these are more in the vein of what would be considered folktales juxtaposing two well known historical characters, rather than authentic historical record. Nonetheless, the Qur'an mirrors the later narrative, rather than the former, and I'm curious as to what the accepted explanation for this is, or how many of you have come across this particular information before. Naturally, it seems implausible to me that two men, living 7 generations apart would come in direct conflict with each other.
Now according to the Bible, there is a gap of 7 generations. Hence according to the Bible they couldn't have had the conversation. Quran says that they had that conversation.
Based on this, you cannot deduce that: Hence Quran is not authentic. You can only deduce: Hence, Quran contradicts with the Bible. You see, you are assuming Bible to be completely true. You might as well say: Bible says that Jesus is God (a debatable statement but let's assume it is true). Quran says Jesus is not God. Hence Quran is not authentic.
That wouldn't be right.
I'm not saying that all the historical data in the Bible is wrong. According to Muslims, some part of the Bible is true. Some part isn't. Some prophecies of the Bible were fulfilled. Some were not. Similarly, some historical data may be correct. Some may be incorrect.
Hence either you get an authentic source and prove that there was a gap of 7 generations or you prove that Bible is the truth/word of God.


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 4:22am
Originally posted by abuzaid

Originally posted by thomasd

I am referring more to the use of using reason to better understand and clarify the meaning of the guidance he has already given us, this should be a constant process of refining our understanding of him. As imperfect beings we will never have a perfect understanding of the God we serve, but we can always strive to better that understanding.
 

I am not talking about understanding God!! Even after getting direct message from God we can't have complete understanding of God for the same reason you have mentioned (imperfect being!)

 

I was only talking about understanding of what God wants from us!! Your idea of using human intelligent may be good only if nobody have claimed to receieve message from God. If there are humans who claimed to have received message from God and indeed there are! should not we use our intelligent to verify their claims??

 

If God asks us, Why did you rejected messenger I chose? is not it better to keep an answer ready?

 

Originally posted by thomasd

in the Old Testament, God actually gave criteria to the Jewish people by which they could evaluate whether or not people were actually prophets or not. if a single prediction made by someone claiming to be a prophet was shown to be false they were executed.

 

Prophetic era of Israel is gone! for last 1400 years only two personalities in question are Jesus and Mohammed.. PBUH.

It is of no use to strive for general rulings.

 

If you have a reason to reject Prophethood of Jesus PBUH or accept divinity of Jesus PBUH, keep it ready we are all answerable to God.

In the same way if you have solid reason based on concrete criteria to reject Prophethood of Mohammed PBUH, you have to present it to Lord of heaven and earth.

 

We as muslim believe that any reason to reject Prophethood of Mohammed PBUH will be proved false on the day of judgement.

 

In Islam avoidance is a form rejection.

 
As Salamu Alaikum Abuzaid.Mashallah"


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 4:29am
Originally posted by _ALI_

Salam thomasd
You said

ok. so. I have a question for all of you. Genesis 10 and 11 have the genealogies of Nimrod and Abraham, and according to this, they lived approximately 7 generations apart. Much later Jewish tradition developed tales of conflicts between Nimrod and Abraham, but these are more in the vein of what would be considered folktales juxtaposing two well known historical characters, rather than authentic historical record. Nonetheless, the Qur'an mirrors the later narrative, rather than the former, and I'm curious as to what the accepted explanation for this is, or how many of you have come across this particular information before. Naturally, it seems implausible to me that two men, living 7 generations apart would come in direct conflict with each other.

Now according to the Bible, there is a gap of 7 generations. Hence according to the Bible they couldn't have had the conversation. Quran says that they had that conversation.

Based on this, you cannot deduce that: Hence Quran is not authentic. You can only deduce: Hence, Quran contradicts with the Bible. You see, you are assuming Bible to be completely true. You might as well say: Bible says that Jesus is God (a debatable statement but let's assume it is true). Quran says Jesus is not God. Hence Quran is not authentic.

That wouldn't be right.

I'm not saying that all the historical data in the Bible is wrong. According to Muslims, some part of the Bible is true. Some part isn't. Some prophecies of the Bible were fulfilled. Some were not. Similarly, some historical data may be correct. Some may be incorrect.

Hence either you get an authentic source and prove that there was a gap of 7 generations or you prove that Bible is the truth/word of God.
As Salamu Alaikum Ali.much later Jewish tradition deveolped tales,same as today as in the media/tabloids.


Posted By: _ALI_
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 4:36am

To prove my point, I will give an example of Jesus. Here is the Genealogy of Jesus according to

Luke 3:23–31 David  Nathan Mattatha Menna Melea Eliakim Jonam Joseph Judah Simeon Levi Matthat Jorim Eliezer Joshua Er Elmadam Cosam Addi Melki Neri Shealtiel Zerubbabel Rhesa Joanan Joda Josech Semein Mattathias Maath Naggae Esli Nahum Amos Mattathias Joseph Jannai Melchi Levi Matthat Heli Joseph Jesus

Here is the Genealogy according to Matthew 1:7–16

David (Father)-Bathsheba (Mother) Solomon Rehoboam Abijah Asa Jehoshaphat Jehoram - - - Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amon Josiah - Jeconiah Shealtiel Zerubbabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph Jesus

Tell me, which is the correct Genealogy and which is the wrong one? Which part of the Bible is right and which is wrong?
Also here are a few historical contradictions in the Bible.
1. When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4)
Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4)
2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?
Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)
7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?
Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)
8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?
Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)
9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?
After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)
10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?
Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)
Now a book which has so many historical inconsistancies, if it tells me that there is a 7 generation gap between Abraham and Nimrod why should I believe it?
But even if we agree with the Bible, there is another explanation. The life times of people according to the Bible varied from 40 to 400, or even a thousand years. Hence it was possible for two persons to be alive who have a 7 generation gap. This explanation is implausable though it is possible. But I agree with the first explanation.  


Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 08 March 2009 at 9:08pm
Originally posted by Akhe Abdullah

As Salamu Alaikum Ali.much later Jewish tradition deveolped tales,same as today as in the media/tabloids.

The later Jewish folklore (aka the tabloid stories) are the ones that place Nimrod and Abraham together.


Originally posted by _ALI_

To prove my point, I will give an example of Jesus. Here is the Genealogy of Jesus according to

Luke 3:23–31 David  Nathan Mattatha Menna Melea Eliakim Jonam Joseph Judah Simeon Levi Matthat Jorim Eliezer Joshua Er Elmadam Cosam Addi Melki Neri Shealtiel Zerubbabel Rhesa Joanan Joda Josech Semein Mattathias Maath Naggae Esli Nahum Amos Mattathias Joseph Jannai Melchi Levi Matthat Heli Joseph Jesus

Here is the Genealogy according to Matthew 1:7–16

David (Father)-Bathsheba (Mother) Solomon Rehoboam Abijah Asa Jehoshaphat Jehoram - - - Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amon Josiah - Jeconiah Shealtiel Zerubbabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph Jesus

Tell me, which is the correct Genealogy and which is the wrong one?

one is the genealogy through Mary and one is through Joseph.



Which part of the Bible is right and which is wrong?
Also here are a few historical contradictions in the Bible.
1. When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4)
Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4)
2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?
Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)
7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?
Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)
8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?
Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)
9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?
After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)
10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?
Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)
Now a book which has so many historical inconsistancies, if it tells me that there is a 7 generation gap between Abraham and Nimrod why should I believe it?

Because the Bible isn't a single book. It is the poetry, laws, history and prophecy of the Hebrew people, combined with a 4 biographies of Jesus, and letters of advice to the various early churches. The differences between Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are clearly an issue of poor numerical record keeping by the kingdom of Israel. The only one of those that would cause concern to me is the story of Noah, but 7:2 says "7 pairs of every clean animal" and 7:8-9 say he "took pairs." Taking 7 pairs is still "taking pairs"


as for your original post, I drew no conclusion at all, I merely said that such inconsistencies lead me to question the authenticity of the Qur'an.


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


Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 09 March 2009 at 11:16pm

I thought, Ali's post shall answer you.

By the way Thomas, as said, Qura'an and hadith does n't speak of genealogy of Namrud. Does that mean the dialogue between them must be unauthentic ? Namrud, must be the title of that king as was of Pharaoh as well. Like we has Henry I, Henry- II, or Charles - I or Charles - II.
 
Likewise, even Namrud must be title of  those kings, if the genealogy you presented is true. Okay if you still doubt Qura'n being unauthentic, then present ateast one contradiction in it. You shall never find. Nor, can we find an error in it, like other distorted ones.
 


-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."


Posted By: _ALI_
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 8:55am
Salam
Sorry for the delay in reply. I was a bit busy.
thomasd=bold 
The later Jewish folklore (aka the tabloid stories) are the ones that place Nimrod and Abraham together.
So according to Christians, they were tabloid stories and Jewish folklore. But you also believe that Bible is authentic, which we don't. So why should we agree with your view of what's authentic and what's unauthentic. To clarify further, let me explain the concept of corruption of God's scriptures. When Muslims say that God's scriptures were corrupted, we mean that some of the unauthentic stuff was considered authentic and some of the authentic stuff was considered unauthentic. Let me give you the example of the Bible. You say that Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, John are authenctic as compared to gospel of Barnabas. But according to us, since prophet Muhammad is mentioned more in the gospel of Barnabas than in the former 4 gospels, the gospel of Barnabas is relatively more authentic. An example of unauthentic becoming authentic and authentic becoming unauthentic. Similarly that 7 generation gap for us is unauthentic and what you regard as folklore is relatively more authentic
one is the genealogy through Mary and one is through Joseph.
Now I have seen both of them. Neither mentions Mary. One is Heli Joseph Jesus and the other is Jacob Joseph Jesus. Joseph is mentioned in both of them, Mary in neither. So shouldn't both be through Joseph?
Because the Bible isn't a single book. It is the poetry, laws, history and prophecy of the Hebrew people, combined with a 4 biographies of Jesus, and letters of advice to the various early churches. The differences between Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are clearly an issue of poor numerical record keeping by the kingdom of Israel.
That is my point. The Bible wasn't written by God, it was written by those who had a poor record.
002.079 فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلا فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
002.079 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
Al-Qur'an, 002.079 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])
Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910
And the poor record wasn't just numerical. Here are a few inconsistencies which are not related to numbers
When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?
After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)
What was the name of King Abijahs mother?
Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)
Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20) But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27
Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?
Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)
No (Joshua 15:63)
How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?
By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)
These are just a few of the many inconsistencies in the Bible. Hence if the Bible says that there was a 7 generation gap between Abraham and Nimrod, why should it be true?
The only one of those that would cause concern to me is the story of Noah, but 7:2 says "7 pairs of every clean animal" and 7:8-9 say he "took pairs." Taking 7 pairs is still "taking pairs"
Let's read the Bible
Gen 6:19
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
"Two of every sort, they shall be male and female" means 2 pairs
Gen 7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female:
"take to thee by sevens, male and his female" means 7 pairs.
Isn't that a contradiction?
as for your original post, I drew no conclusion at all, I merely said that such inconsistencies lead me to question the authenticity of the Qur'an.
You said that Quran is not authentic since it contradicts with the Bible right? I just said that if Quran contradicts with the Bible, that does not make it unauthentic, since (as I proved) Bible is not authentic itself. Hence if Quran contradicts with a book which is unauthentic does not make Quran unauthentic. If Quran contradicts with something which is authentic, then yes, you can question the authenticity of the Quran. Otherwise, no.
Let me further demonstrate that with an example. Quran says that Nimrod and Abraham had a conversation. But the Bible says that there was a 7 generation gap between Nimrod and Abraham. Hence that leads me to question the authenticity of the Bible. How will you reply to that?
Peace



Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 7:24am
As Salamu Alaikum ALI,"Mashallah" Ajabanee Haqqan!


Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 9:21pm
Originally posted by _ALI_

Salam
So according to Christians, they were tabloid stories and Jewish folklore. But you also believe that Bible is authentic, which we don't. So why should we agree with your view of what's authentic and what's unauthentic.

Historical record. Genesis in its current form dates to about 450 years B.C. Tales of Nimrod encountering Abraham do not appear anywhere until at least 100 A.D.

Originally posted by _ALI_

You say that Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, John are authenctic as compared to gospel of Barnabas. But according to us, since prophet Muhammad is mentioned more in the gospel of Barnabas than in the former 4 gospels, the gospel of Barnabas is relatively more authentic. An example of unauthentic becoming authentic and authentic becoming unauthentic.

Relativity has nothing to do with it. God's word is absolute. Either it is the truth, or it is not.

Now I have seen both of them. Neither mentions Mary. One is Heli Joseph Jesus and the other is Jacob Joseph Jesus. Joseph is mentioned in both of them, Mary in neither. So shouldn't both be through Joseph?


Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph--even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.


Gen 6:19
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
"Two of every sort, they shall be male and female" means 2 pairs
Gen 7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female:
"take to thee by sevens, male and his female" means 7 pairs.
Isn't that a contradiction?

No, the first means "take pairs" (i.e. mating pairs, so that the species may reproduce) and the second means "take 7 pairs of the clean ones"

You said that Quran is not authentic since it contradicts with the Bible right? I just said that if Quran contradicts with the Bible, that does not make it unauthentic, since (as I proved) Bible is not authentic itself. Hence if Quran contradicts with a book which is unauthentic does not make Quran unauthentic.

It leads to question, not to draw conclusions.


However the Qur'an could also be shown to unauthentic if it contradicts itself, yes?

With much pain his mother bears him, and with much pain she brings him into the world. He is born and weaned in thirty months. When he grows to manhood and attains his fortieth year, let him say: ‘Inspire me, Lord, to give thanks for the favours You have bestowed on me and on my parents, and to do good works that will please You. Grant me good descendants. To You I turn and to You I surrender myself.’
Such are those for whom We will accept their noblest works and whose misdeeds We shall overlook. We shall admit them among the heirs of Paradise: true is the promise that has been given them.

Believers, do not befriend your fathers or your brothers if they choose unbelief in preference to faith. Wrongdoers are those that befriend them.
Say: ‘If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your tribes, the property you have acquired, the merchandise you fear may not be sold, and the homes you love, are dearer to you than God, His apostle and the struggle for His cause, then wait until God shall fulfill His decree. God does not guide the evil-doers.’ S. 9:23-24

So you are commanded to love and show kindness to your parents even if they are unbelievers, for they raised you well and will be forgiven, but you cannot befriend them? You can find a more in depth analysis of this contradiction here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/disbelieving_parents.html

Likewise, claiming the Bible is faulty (though even I as a Christian believe that human error has been introduced into the record keeping of the Jewish histories and that mistranslations may occasionally occur) is a direct internal contradiction in the Qur'an
Surah 3:3
He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel


Sura 6:115

The words of thy Lord are perfect in truth and in justice;
NONE can change His words:
For He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.


Sura 6:34

There is none that can alter the words of Allah.
Already hast thou received some account of those messengers.




Surah 34:50
If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss

And yet Surah 4:89 commands Muslims to kill any who abandon Islam.

Surah 6:102-103 claims that Allah can not be seen, and yet Surah's
53, 69, 78, and 81 directly contradict this. For a more in depth analysis,
please take the time to read this: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_seen.htm


Furthermore, the Qur'an says angels are not to be worshipped (with which I agree) because
they can neither create life nor take it away
yet elsewhere it says Allah sends His angel to it to
breathe into it the spirit
and speaks of Those whom the angels CAUSE TO DIE

These are not matters of mere historical record written by a human, these are some of the fundamental beliefs of Islam that I hear defended
every time I debate and claim to be from the very mouth of God who can not err


Posted By: _ALI_
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 10:39pm
Salam
Historical record. Genesis in its current form dates to about 450 years B.C. Tales of Nimrod encountering Abraham do not appear anywhere until at least 100 A.D
It's not historical record. As I proved, it is unauthentic historical record. Bible contradicts with history in many aspects. It contradicts with itself. Why should I consider its historical record authentic?
Originally posted by _ALI_

You say that Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, John are authenctic as compared to gospel of Barnabas. But according to us, since prophet Muhammad is mentioned more in the gospel of Barnabas than in the former 4 gospels, the gospel of Barnabas is relatively more authentic. An example of unauthentic becoming authentic and authentic becoming unauthentic.

Relativity has nothing to do with it. God's word is absolute. Either it is the truth, or it is not.
We are not talking about one word. We are talking about chapters, loads of sentences. According to Muslims, the things, stories, sentences in the Bible attributed to God, most of them are not authentic. And in the gospel of Barnabas, the number of sentences which are true are relatively more.

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary

Well if it was customary, then prove it. Give a historical account of a person in which his mother's genealogy ends with his father's name. And how do you know that Nathan is Mary's great grand father? How do you tell the difference between father's genealogy and mother's genealogy. And I gave so many other historical inconsistencies, you only addressed 2. I can give many more but first answer to those already given.
Originally posted by _ALI_
Gen 6:19
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
"Two of every sort, they shall be male and female" means 2 pairs
Gen 7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female:
"take to thee by sevens, male and his female" means 7 pairs.
Isn't that a contradiction?

No, the first means "take pairs" (i.e. mating pairs, so that the species may reproduce) and the second means "take 7 pairs of the clean ones"
Read the verse again. The first says: take two, they shall be male and female. Second says:take seven, they shall be male and female. These verses are pretty much identical. If you it means take pairs, then both verses say 2pairs/7pairs. If you say it means take animals, then both verses say 2 animals (male/female) OR 7 animals(male/female). Why do you say that the first verse refers to pairs and the second refers to animals when the verses are clearly identical? And again, you touched only two out of the 15 contradictions I gave. I can give many more but first answer to the remaining 13.
You said that Quran is not authentic since it contradicts with the Bible right? I just said that if Quran contradicts with the Bible, that does not make it unauthentic, since (as I proved) Bible is not authentic itself. Hence if Quran contradicts with a book which is unauthentic does not make Quran unauthentic.
I'll reply to the rest later. I have to go.
Peace


Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 11:22pm
Salaam Alaikum,
Originally posted by _ALI_

It's not historical record. As I proved, it is unauthentic historical record. Bible contradicts with history in many aspects. It contradicts with itself. Why should I consider its historical record authentic?

So what you're saying is.....the newer story that can only be traced back 1900 years is more likely to be authentic then the story that can be traced back 2450 years?


We are not talking about one word. We are talking about chapters, loads of sentences. According to Muslims, the things, stories, sentences in the Bible attributed to God, most of them are not authentic. And in the gospel of Barnabas, the number of sentences which are true are relatively more.

The gospel of Barnabas was written more than a millenium and a half after Jesus's life. The 4 gospels in the Bible were written by people who lived through the events of his life and followed him around on a daily basis for the entire course of his ministry.

Well if it was customary, then prove it.

....really? You don't prove customs, they are recorded. If you'd like though I'll run it by my friend who's spent the last 4 years attending a private Jewish school studying Jewish history and ask her what she was taught on the matter.

Why do you say that the first verse refers to pairs and the second refers to animals when the verses are clearly identical? And again, you touched only two out of the 15 contradictions I gave. I can give many more but first answer to the remaining 13.

Most of the translations I have say "pairs" and "7 pairs"   Clearly  7 pairs of something is still having pairs of something. However I think it equally likely that God was clarifying his instructions to Noah with regards to collecting clean animals. If I say to you please go get several bags of marshmallows and some cans of beans from the grocery store. And then I tell you to get 4 cans of beans, there is no contradiction, I'm merely being more specific about the beans then in the original instructions. Or, if two different people wrote down our conversation, and one person wrote that I told you to get beans and marshmallows, and one wrote that I told you to get 3 bags of marshmallows and 4 of beans, there is no contradiction there (assuming I told you to get 3 bags of marshmallows), one record is simply being more specific then the others.


You said that Quran is not authentic since it contradicts with the Bible right? I just said that if Quran contradicts with the Bible, that does not make it unauthentic, since (as I proved) Bible is not authentic itself. Hence if Quran contradicts with a book which is unauthentic does not make Quran unauthentic.

The fact that the Qur'an contradicts the Bible (specifically the Gospel story as accounted in the 4 canonical gosepls), which I have good reason to consider the truth, certainly leads me to doubt the Qur'an. However even more concerning to me is that the Qur'an claims to be with contradiction, but contradicts itself in the ways listed above. The Bible makes no such claims, and the fundamental teachings of the Bible do not lean on whether or not court scribes properly recorded the number of people involved in an army. Those portions of narrative aren't prophecy, and they don't claim to be from God's mouth, they are simply recounting important portions of Jewish history. If you could find serious contradictions between the accounts in the Gospels, I would have reason to be concerned, and would take a good hard look at those portions of the Gospel. The strength and weakness of the Qur'an however is that it does claim to be by a single author, unchanged throughout its history, and the author is God who can not make a mistake or contradict himself. If the Qur'an holds up to scrutiny all its claims hold up to scrutiny, if however a singel portion of the Qur'an can be shown to be false or self-contradictory, then it is imperative to accept that it can't possibly have been written by God, for He is incapable of making such a grievous mistake. Thus I am asking you to consider the contradictions I have listed above on an individual basis. If there is something that has been lost in the translation from Arabic to English that resolves the contradiction, please do your best to explain it to me.
May God grant us all wisdom and a clear and discerning mind in this matter, for it is of the utmost importance.
~Thomas


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 7:05am
The 4 gospels in the Bible were written by people
who lived through the events of his life and followed him around on a
daily basis for the entire course of his ministry.
[/QUOTE]Wa Alaikum As Salam.Lots of famous people are followed on daily basis for the entire course of there fame, even in todays society,by people who are taking thier pictures and they give that image to a writter who formulates his own version of that incident.(Poporatzy)This is not anything new they had them back then also.


Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 7:36pm
Hello Thomas
 
InshaAllah, by the end of the day, shall answer the last part of so called contradictions, you posted. But one point i would like to tell you honestly. I had admiration for you, as you were seriously studying Islam. I thought, you were even studying Qur'an by your own. But when you pasted that from answering-islam site, i felt i were wrong.
 
Do study by your own and if you feel anything wrong, you can just question them. Answering these contradictions is not at all a problem {which you shared from anti-islamic site}.  I just want you to bring them out by your own., That shall help you to study Islam in real sense.
 


-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."


Posted By: _ALI_
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 11:16pm

Salam

First, your previous post:

You said that Quran is not authentic since it contradicts with the Bible right? I just said that if Quran contradicts with the Bible, that does not make it unauthentic, since (as I proved) Bible is not authentic itself. Hence if Quran contradicts with a book which is unauthentic does not make Quran unauthentic.


It leads to question, not to draw conclusions.

I just proved that Bible is not authentic. So how can you question Quran if it contradicts with something which is unauthentic?
However the Qur'an could also be shown to unauthentic if it contradicts itself, yes?

Completely agree. As the Quran says

004.082 أَفَلا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِنْدِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلافًا كَثِيرًا
004.082 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

Al-Qur'an, 004.082 (An-Nisa [Women])

Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910

But the contradictions you give must be real contradictions, not forced contradictions, consisting of verses out of context/misinterpretations by non-Muslims.

With much pain his mother bears him, and with much pain she brings him into the world. He is born and weaned in thirty months. When he grows to manhood and attains his fortieth year, let him say: ‘Inspire me, Lord, to give thanks for the favours You have bestowed on me and on my parents, and to do good works that will please You. Grant me good descendants. To You I turn and to You I surrender myself.’
Such are those for whom We will accept their noblest works and whose misdeeds We shall overlook. We shall admit them among the heirs of Paradise: true is the promise that has been given them.

 

Believers, do not befriend your fathers or your brothers if they choose unbelief in preference to faith. Wrongdoers are those that befriend them.
Say: ‘If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your tribes, the property you have acquired, the merchandise you fear may not be sold, and the homes you love, are dearer to you than God, His apostle and the struggle for His cause, then wait until God shall fulfill His decree. God does not guide the evil-doers.’ S. 9:23-24


So you are commanded to love and show kindness to your parents even if they are unbelievers, for they raised you well and will be forgiven, but you cannot befriend them? You can find a more in depth analysis of this contradiction here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/disbelieving_parents.html - You know, when I'm in a mood for some humor, I don't go to jokes.com. I go to answering-islam.org :). First verse is pretty clear. Be kind to your parents even if they are unbelievers. If you're a Muslim. Your parents are not. You must be kind to them under normal circumstances. Let's discuss the second verse. The second verse was particular in case of a war. Now if you are fighting in the way of Allah, and if your parents are against you, then you cannot take them as friends. In the explanation of this verse, Ibn Kathir (a very famous scholar of Quran) says

"The father of Abu `Ubaydah bin Al-Jarrah was repeatedly praising the idols to his son on the day of Badr, and Abu `Ubaydah kept avoiding him. When Al-Jarrah persisted, his son Abu `Ubaydah headed towards him and killed him. ( http://www.tafsir.com/ - )

Let me also give a background. Pagans came to finish off Muslims on the battleground of Badr. among them was Al-Jarrah, a pagan and Abu Ubaydah, his son from the Muslim's side. At the battlefield, even though Ubaydah was Al-Jarrah's son, Ubaydah, for the sake of Muslims faught his own father and killed him. So under such extraordinary circumstances, you cannot befriend non-Muslims, even if they are your parents. God is trying to emphasize that a person loves his or her parents the most but if even they go against Allah, we cannot neglect Allah and take the side of our parents.

 

 Likewise, claiming the Bible is faulty (though even I as a Christian believe that human error has been introduced into the record keeping of the Jewish histories and that mistranslations may occasionally occur)-

So you believe that human error has been introduced in the Bible? That's great. You're one step closer to Islam. Since error has been introduced, we cannot consider it as the word of God as a whole. Since error has been introduced in it, it is not authentic, hence if a book which has errors (as you admit) says that there was a 7 generation gap between Nimrod and Abraham, why should I believe it?

-is a direct internal contradiction in the Qur'an

Surah 3:3
He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel

Read the verse carefully. It does not say that Bible is not corrupted. I have no idea how Christians interpret what they do.

He 

i.e God

 sent down this scripture 

i.e Quran

truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures

Previous scriptures does not mean Bible, previous scriptures mean Torah, Injeel translated gospel and loads of others. Those scriptures have been corrupted, but when they were in there pure form, they spoke what Quran speaks i.e oneness of God, concept of prophethood etc. Quran confirms them means that whatever they taught, Quran also teaches. I have no idea how you interpret that this verse denies the corruption of the Bible.

and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel

He did not sent down the Bible, which is an unauthentic version of Torah and the gospel, full of human errors (as you admitted yourself), He sent down Torah and the Gospel.

Sura 6:34 There is none that can alter the words of Allah.

You quote out of context, but no problem, many Christians make that mistake when it comes to Quran.  According to the context.

While the Quran was being revealed, it had many commandments which went against the whims of the pagans living with the prophet. Those pagans used to torture Muslim and they used to taunt the prophet. Hence Allah says
006.033 قَدْ نَعْلَمُ إِنَّهُ لَيَحْزُنُكَ الَّذِي يَقُولُونَ فَإِنَّهُمْ لا يُكَذِّبُونَكَ وَلَكِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ يَجْحَدُونَ
006.033 We know indeed the grief which their words do cause thee: It is not thee they reject: it is the signs of Allah, which the wicked contemn.

006.034 وَلَقَدْ كُذِّبَتْ رُسُلٌ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ فَصَبَرُوا عَلَى مَا كُذِّبُوا وَأُوذُوا حَتَّى أَتَاهُمْ نَصْرُنَا وَلا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَكَ مِنْ نَبَإِ الْمُرْسَلِينَ
006.034 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.

Al-Qur'an, 006.033-034 (Al-Anaam [Cattle, Livestock])

Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910

Meaning even if the Quran is against the whims of the pagans, still God will not change it and it doesn't matter who rejects it and who doesn't. This verse does not mean that the Bible was not corrupted.

Sura 6:115
  The words of thy Lord are perfect in truth and in justice;
  NONE can change His words:
  For He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.

Same context as that of verse 6:34. God does not care about what people think. If a majority people consider adultery to be okay then it doesn't matter, God will not lift the punishment for adultery. He cannot change His words. When it comes to God's words, there is no democracy. Read the word in the context. The next verse says


006.116 وَإِنْ تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَنْ فِي الأرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ إِنْ يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلا الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلا يَخْرُصُونَ
006.116 Wert thou to follow the common run (i.e majority) of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie.
Al-Qur'an, 006.116 (Al-Anaam [Cattle, Livestock])
Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910
Surah 34:50
If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss
And yet Surah 4:89 commands Muslims to kill any who abandon Islam.
Of all the verses you quoted out of context, this one gets the prize. First verse again, context. Allah is telling prophet Muhammad to tell the pagans of Makkah
034.048 قُلْ إِنَّ رَبِّي يَقْذِفُ بِالْحَقِّ عَلامُ الْغُيُوبِ
034.048 Say: "Verily my Lord doth cast the (mantle of) Truth (over His servants),- He that has full knowledge of (all) that is hidden."
Allah tells prophet Muhammad to tell the pagans that God gave prophet Muhammad the Quran (truth) and He has the knowledge of the unseen.
034.049 قُلْ جَاءَ الْحَقُّ وَمَا يُبْدِئُ الْبَاطِلُ وَمَا يُعِيدُ
034.049 Say: "The Truth has arrived, and Falsehood neither creates anything new, nor restores anything."
Again pretty simple.
034.050 قُلْ إِنْ ضَلَلْتُ فَإِنَّمَا أَضِلُّ عَلَى نَفْسِي وَإِنِ اهْتَدَيْتُ فَبِمَا يُوحِي إِلَيَّ رَبِّي إِنَّهُ سَمِيعٌ قَرِيبٌ
034.050 Say: "If I am astray, I only stray to the loss of my own soul: but if I receive guidance, it is because of the inspiration of my Lord to me: it is He Who hears all things, and is (ever) near."
Al-Qur'an, 034.048-050 (Saba [Saba, Sheba])
Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910
Now God is telling prophet Muhammad to tell pagans that: if I'm not guided, then that is my personal loss. But if I am guided, then that is a blessing of God. I have no idea how you connect this verse to a muslim becoming a non-Muslim. Now comes 4:89, which tells us to kill anyone who abandons Islam according to you :). I'll explain the context of this verse. Muslims were tortured by pagans in Makkah for being Muslims. They migrated to another city called Madina which provided them a safe haven. Muslims were allowed to practice their religion freely here but pagans from other cities were taking a few steps against Muslims. Among those pagans were those Muslims who chose to live with their people and not migrate. Even those so called Muslims actively took part against Muslims because in a tribe, you always follow your leader. Now Muslims of Madina were confused about those Muslims. Should they fight them? So Allah says:

004.088 فَمَا لَكُمْ فِي الْمُنَافِقِينَ فِئَتَيْنِ وَاللَّهُ أَرْكَسَهُمْ بِمَا كَسَبُوا أَتُرِيدُونَ أَنْ تَهْدُوا مَنْ أَضَلَّ اللَّهُ وَمَنْ يُضْلِلِ اللَّهُ فَلَنْ تَجِدَ لَهُ سَبِيلا
004.088 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites (i.e the group of Muslims who did not migrate)? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
004.089 وَدُّوا لَوْ تَكْفُرُونَ كَمَا كَفَرُوا فَتَكُونُونَ سَوَاءً فَلا تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ حَتَّى يُهَاجِرُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَلا تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ وَلِيًّا وَلا نَصِيرًا
004.089 They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
Molana Maududi, a famous scholar writes in the explanation of this verse
This is the verdict on those hypocritical confessors of faith who belong to a belligerent, non-Muslim nation and actually participate in acts of hostility against the Islamic state.( http://www.tafheem.net - www.tafheem.net )
004.090 إِلا الَّذِينَ يَصِلُونَ إِلَى قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ أَوْ جَاءُوكُمْ حَصِرَتْ صُدُورُهُمْ أَنْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ أَوْ يُقَاتِلُوا قَوْمَهُمْ وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَسَلَّطَهُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ فَلَقَاتَلُوكُمْ فَإِنِ اعْتَزَلُوكُمْ فَلَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ وَأَلْقَوْا إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلَمَ فَمَا جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ سَبِيلا
004.090 Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
Now there are two exceptions to killing the hypocrites. If a hypocrite joins a group which is friendly with Muslims, Muslims won't harm him. If he says, I won't fight you but I also won't fight my own people, even then Muslims won't harm him.
004.091 سَتَجِدُونَ آخَرِينَ يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَأْمَنُوكُمْ وَيَأْمَنُوا قَوْمَهُمْ كُلَّمَا رُدُّوا إِلَى الْفِتْنَةِ أُرْكِسُوا فِيهَا فَإِنْ لَمْ يَعْتَزِلُوكُمْ وَيُلْقُوا إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلَمَ وَيَكُفُّوا أَيْدِيَهُمْ فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأُولَئِكُمْ جَعَلْنَا لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانًا مُبِينًا
004.091 Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they  withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them.
Al-Qur'an, 004.087-091 (An-Nisa [Women])
Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910
Here God clearly says: If a hypocrite does not withdraw and he does not guarantees peace, Muslims should not hesitate to kill him when he comes with his tribe to attack Muslims.
Surah 6:102-103 claims that Allah can not be seen, and yet Surah's
53, 69, 78, and 81 directly contradict this. For a more in depth analysis,
please take the time to read this: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_seen.htm
I have never, ever in my whole life ever visited an anti Islamic website which quotes in context. I'll just answer briefly
53:1-18, talks about Gabrael, not God, but Shamoun neglected that. That is understood since in Islam, God gave Gabriel the message and then angel Gabriel gave that message to the prophet.
053.001 وَالنَّجْمِ إِذَا هَوَى
053.001 By the Star when it goes down,-
053.002 مَا ضَلَّ صَاحِبُكُمْ وَمَا غَوَى
053.002 Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled.
053.003 وَمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى
053.003 Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.
053.004 إِنْ هُوَ إِلا وَحْيٌ يُوحَى
053.004 It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:
053.005 عَلَّمَهُ شَدِيدُ الْقُوَى
053.005 He was taught by one Mighty in Power,
053.006 ذُو مِرَّةٍ فَاسْتَوَى
053.006 Endued with Wisdom: for he (Gabrael) appeared (in stately form);
053.007 وَهُوَ بِالأفُقِ الأعْلَى
053.007 While he was in the highest part of the horizon:
053.008 ثُمَّ دَنَا فَتَدَلَّى
053.008 Then he approached and came closer,
053.009 فَكَانَ قَابَ قَوْسَيْنِ أَوْ أَدْنَى
053.009 And was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer;
053.010 فَأَوْحَى إِلَى عَبْدِهِ مَا أَوْحَى
053.010 So did (Allah) convey the inspiration to His Servant- (conveyed) what He (meant) to convey.
053.011 مَا كَذَبَ الْفُؤَادُ مَا رَأَى
053.011 The (Prophet's) (mind and) heart in no way falsified that which he saw.
053.012 أَفَتُمَارُونَهُ عَلَى مَا يَرَى
053.012 Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he saw?
053.013 وَلَقَدْ رَآهُ نَزْلَةً أُخْرَى
053.013 For indeed he saw him at a second descent,
053.014 عِنْدَ سِدْرَةِ الْمُنْتَهَى
053.014 Near the Lote-tree beyond which none may pass:
053.015 عِنْدَهَا جَنَّةُ الْمَأْوَى
053.015 Near it is the Garden of Abode.
053.016 إِذْ يَغْشَى السِّدْرَةَ مَا يَغْشَى
053.016 Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!)
053.017 مَا زَاغَ الْبَصَرُ وَمَا طَغَى
053.017 (His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong!
053.018 لَقَدْ رَأَى مِنْ آيَاتِ رَبِّهِ الْكُبْرَى
053.018 For truly did he see, of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest!
Al-Qur'an, 053.001-018 (An-Najm [The Star])
Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910
Also Chapter 81

081.023 وَلَقَدْ رَآهُ بِالأفُقِ الْمُبِينِ
081.023 And without doubt he saw him in the clear horizon.
Al-Qur'an, 081.023 (At-Takwir [The overthrowing])
Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910
Note that the "h" of him is small in this translation and in all translations that I know of, clearly him refers to Gabriel.
Chap 69

069.040 إِنَّهُ لَقَوْلُ رَسُولٍ كَرِيمٍ
069.040 That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger;
069.041 وَمَا هُوَ بِقَوْلِ شَاعِرٍ قَلِيلا مَا تُؤْمِنُونَ
069.041 It is not the word of a poet: little it is ye believe!
069.042 وَلا بِقَوْلِ كَاهِنٍ قَلِيلا مَا تَذَكَّرُونَ
069.042 Nor is it the word of a soothsayer: little admonition it is ye receive.
069.043 تَنْزِيلٌ مِنْ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
069.043 (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.
069.044 وَلَوْ تَقَوَّلَ عَلَيْنَا بَعْضَ الأقَاوِيلِ
069.044 And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name,
069.045 لأخَذْنَا مِنْهُ بِالْيَمِينِ
069.045 We should certainly seize him by his right hand,
069.046 ثُمَّ لَقَطَعْنَا مِنْهُ الْوَتِينَ
069.046 And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart:
069.047 فَمَا مِنْكُمْ مِنْ أَحَدٍ عَنْهُ حَاجِزِينَ
069.047 Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath).
Al-Qur'an, 069.040-047 (Al-Haaqqa [The Reality])
Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910
Seizing someone with his right hand, even if you take this literally, you can sieze someone and not be seen. Hence these verses do not prove that God can be seen.
So now let us come to Chap 6:103. Does it really prove that God is invisible?
006.103 لا تُدْرِكُهُ الأبْصَارُ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الأبْصَارَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ
006.103 No vision can perceive Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things.
Al-Qur'an, 006.103 (Al-Anaam [Cattle, Livestock])
Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910
The word Tudrik means perceive, comprehend, understand. This verse can also be interpreted as our eyes cannot fully understand God. Do you know the mechanism of eyes? Suppose there is a blue object. White light is shone on it. It absorbs all the 6 colours of the rainbow but does not absorb blue. It reflects blue colour which our eyes absorb. Hence that object is blue for us. That object is limited in the sense that it will alway absorb the other 6 colours and always reflect blue. For an eye to completely percieve an object, that object has to be limited in this sense. God is not limited in any way and to any colour so our eyes cannot fully comprehend Him.
And as for whether prophet Muhammad really saw Allah during "Maraaj" there is a difference of opinion. Some scholars, along with Aisha (wife of the prophet) say that he didn't. Some like Ibn Abbas say that he did. Such trivial difference of opinion exist in Islam. It is irrelevant for us whether prophet Muhammad saw Him or not. I will not be asked about that on the day of judgement.
Furthermore, the Qur'an says angels are not to be worshipped (with which I agree) because
they can neither create life nor take it away yet elsewhere it says
Allah sends His angel to it to
breathe into it the spirit
and speaks of
Those whom the angels CAUSE TO DIE
Angels cannot give life and take it away on their own. That is what the Quran says. They can only follow orders. If God has appointed Gabriel to give messages to prophets then that does not mean that Gabriel can come and have a chat with prophets whenever he wants. Similarly if God has appointed an angel to take life, that does not mean he has the authority to take life whenever he wants.
These are not matters of mere historical record written by a human, these are some of the fundamental beliefs of Islam that I hear defended
every time I debate and claim to be from the very mouth of God who can not err
I have replied to each and every one of your allegations. But you only touched 2 of mine and ignored the rest. I'm sure that you will probably want to cut/paste more from  answeringislam but since it is a busy month, I might not be able to reply to each and every one of your allegations. Here are a few links which answer each and every allegation
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ - www.answering-christianity.com/
http://www.muslim-responses.com/ - http://www.muslim-responses.com/
http://muslim-defence.com/default.aspx - http://muslim-defence.com/default.aspx
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/ - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/
There is not a single alleged contradiction of Quran which cannot be answered. I would recommend answering Christianity. It is a bit aggressive but it is only a reaction to answering Islam. Now coming to your new post
Originally posted by _ALI_

It's not historical record. As I proved, it is unauthentic historical record. Bible contradicts with history in many aspects. It contradicts with itself. Why should I consider its historical record authentic?

So what you're saying is.....the newer story that can only be traced back 1900 years is more likely to be authentic then the story that can be traced back 2450 years?
We both agree that Bible is unauthentic as you said that even I as a Christian believe that human error has been introduced into the record keeping of the Jewish histories and that mistranslations may occasionally occur
So now let's come to Quran. Assuming Quran is God's word, if Quran says something then that is extremely authentic. It doesn't matter when the Quran was revealed, since God was present at the time of Nimrod and Adam. So if God says that they had a conversation then they did. Hence if we prove that Quran is God's word, we prove that it presents an authentic record of Nimrod and Adam. And you can prove Quran to be a word of God in so many ways.
One of the most common methods nowadays is to present prescientific knowledge in the Quran
http://www.quranmiracles.com/ - http://www.quranmiracles.com/
The gospel of Barnabas was written more than a millenium and a half after Jesus's life. The 4 gospels in the Bible were written by people who lived through the events of his life and followed him around on a daily basis for the entire course of his ministry.
That is true according to your sources. Your sources are not authentic since your prime source (i.e Bible) is not authentic as I proved before.
....really? You don't prove customs, they are recorded. If you'd like though I'll run it by my friend who's spent the last 4 years attending a private Jewish school studying Jewish history and ask her what she was taught on the matter.
You prove customs by showing us the record. I just want to know, where did you hear/read that it was a custom that mother's genealogy ends with father's name. Or you can prove it by giving a historical account of a person in which his mother's genealogy ends with his father's name. And what about my other questions? How do you know that Nathan is Mary's great grand father? How do you tell the difference between father's genealogy and mother's genealogy.

Originally posted by _ALI_

Why do you say that the first verse refers to pairs and the second refers to animals when the verses are clearly identical? And again, you touched only two out of the 15 contradictions I gave. I can give many more but first answer to the remaining 13.


Most of the translations I have say "pairs" and "7 pairs"   Clearly  7 pairs of something is still having pairs of something.
It doesn't say "pairs" and "7 pairs", it says "a pair" and "7 pair". I agree that 7 pairs of something is still having pairs of something but 7 pairs of something does not mean a pair of something. I quoted KJV before. New Living Translation is very clear
Gen 6:19
Bring a pair of every kind of animal......
Gen 7:2
Take with you seven pairs—male and female....
 However I think it equally likely that God was clarifying his instructions to Noah with regards to collecting clean animals. If I say to you please go get several bags of marshmallows and some cans of beans from the grocery store. And then I tell you to get 4 cans of beans, there is no contradiction, I'm merely being more specific about the beans then in the original instructions.
I agree, there is no contradiction. But if you first tell me to bring a bag of marshmellows and a can of beans, then you tell me to bring 7 bags of marshmellows and 7 cans of beans, then that is a contradiction. That is the case with Genesis, a pair and 7 pairs.
The fact that the Qur'an contradicts the Bible (specifically the Gospel story as accounted in the 4 canonical gosepls), which I have good reason to consider the truth, certainly leads me to doubt the Qur'an.
You admit that records of the Bible have errors, yet if it contradicts with Quran (which has no errors), Quran is not true.
However even more concerning to me is that the Qur'an claims to be with contradiction, but contradicts itself in the ways listed above.
I answered to your each and every 1 of your given concerns and have given you links which will answer to all your other concerns.
The Bible makes no such claims, and the fundamental teachings of the Bible do not lean on whether or not court scribes properly recorded the number of people involved in an army.
I agree, but if Bible gives a figure and then contradicts it, that means it is unauthentic and likewise, the fundamental principles of Jesus as presented by the Bible are unauthentic.
Those portions of narrative aren't prophecy, and they don't claim to be from God's mouth, they are simply recounting important portions of Jewish history. If you could find serious contradictions between the accounts in the Gospels, I would have reason to be concerned, and would take a good hard look at those portions of the Gospel.
So you say that a part of the Bible is not authentic and a part is? Well if I prove that a part of the Bible has mistakes, doesn't that mean that other parts of the Bible can also have mistakes? And the gospels do not say that Nimrod and Abraham had a 7 generation gap. The OT says that, recorded by a historian, giving Jewish history which you yourself say that it can be wrong.
 
So contradictions in the gospels:
How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?
By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)
 How many disciples did Jesus appear to after his resurrection? Twelve (I Corinthians 15:5)
Eleven (Matthew 27:3-5 and Acts 1:9-26, see also Matthew 28:16; Mark 16:14 footnote; Luke 24:9; Luke 24:3 3)
Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
After his baptism, the spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days ... (Mark 1:12-13)
Next day after the baptism, Jesus selected two disciples. Second day: Jesus went to Galilee - two more disciples. Third day: Jesus was at a wedding feast in Cana in Galilee (see John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11)
Was baby Jesus life threatened in Jerusalem?
Yes, so Joseph fled with him to Egypt and stayed there until Herod died (Matthew 2:13 23)
No. The family fled nowhere. They calmly presented the child at the Jerusalem temple according to the Jewish customs and returned to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40) 
 When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond?
They worshipped him, saying, Truly you are the Son of God (Matthew 14:33)
They were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened (Mark 6:51-52)
Does every man sin?
Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810)
No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.. (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)
The strength and weakness of the Qur'an however is that it does claim to be by a single author, unchanged throughout its history, and the author is God who can not make a mistake or contradict himself.
That is just a strength, not a weakness.
If the Qur'an holds up to scrutiny all its claims hold up to scrutiny, if however a singel portion of the Qur'an can be shown to be false or self-contradictory, then it is imperative to accept that it can't possibly have been written by God, for He is incapable of making such a grievous mistake.
I couldn't agree with you more. And each and every alleged contradiction of the Quran given in anti-Islamic sites can be answered easily and all alleged contradiction that I know of has been answered in the 4 links I gave.
Thus I am asking you to consider the contradictions I have listed above on an individual basis. If there is something that has been lost in the translation from Arabic to English that resolves the contradiction, please do your best to explain it to me.
I did that and I also gave you a few links which answer all the allegations against the Quran. I hope that you will clear your doubts you acquired from answering Islam regarding Quran with the help of those links. Learn Islam from Islamic sources, not from those sources which quote out of context.  
May God grant us all wisdom and a clear and discerning mind in this matter, for it is of the utmost importance.
Ameen
Peace
 


Posted By: thomasd
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 3:23pm
Originally posted by Akhe Abdullah

Alaikum As Salam.Lots of famous people are followed on daily basis for the entire course of there fame, even in todays society,by people who are taking thier pictures and they give that image to a writter who formulates his own version of that incident.(Poporatzy)This is not anything new they had them back then also.

I should have been more specific. The 4 gospels were written by his closest friends.

Originally posted by seekshidayath

Hello Thomas
 
InshaAllah, by the end of the day, shall answer the last part of so called contradictions, you posted. But one point i would like to tell you honestly. I had admiration for you, as you were seriously studying Islam. I thought, you were even studying Qur'an by your own. But when you pasted that from answering-islam site, i felt i were wrong.
 
Do study by your own and if you feel anything wrong, you can just question them. Answering these contradictions is not at all a problem {which you shared from anti-islamic site}.  I just want you to bring them out by your own., That shall help you to study Islam in real sense.

An important part of studying any religion is to be able to look at criticisms of it and determine whether or not the criticism is well founded or not. I do the same with my own Christian faith (or I wouldn't be here in the first place). The Qur'an is very dense reading, and so I am bringing these criticisms to you for answers, in the hope that either I will learn something from them that will aid my inquiry into Islam, or that they will be valid criticisms and you will learn something that will bring you to a better understanding of God.

Originally posted by _ALI_

I just proved that Bible is not authentic. So how can you question Quran if it contradicts with something which is unauthentic?

You showed that the kingdom of Israel had poor administrative records.


However the Qur'an could also be shown to unauthentic if it contradicts itself, yes?
Completely agree. As the Quran says

004.082 أَفَلا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِنْدِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلافًا كَثِيرًا
004.082 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

Good, we're on the same page here.

But the contradictions you give must be real contradictions, not forced contradictions, consisting of verses out of context/misinterpretations by non-Muslims.

I'm not sure what you mean by forced contradiction, though a criticism is equally valid from a non-Muslim or a Muslim (and perhaps more likely). It is the question of misinterpretation which is at issue here, and like I said, I am more than open to correction in this matter.


http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/disbelieving_parents.html -

You know, when I'm in a mood for some humor, I don't go to jokes.com. I go to answering-islam.org :).

One testimony in particular stood out to me. I strongly suggest reading http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Qureshi/testimony.htm - Nabeel Qureshi 's story.


Let me also give a background. Pagans came to finish off Muslims on the battleground of Badr. among them was Al-Jarrah, a pagan and Abu Ubaydah, his son from the Muslim's side. At the battlefield, even though Ubaydah was Al-Jarrah's son, Ubaydah, for the sake of Muslims faught his own father and killed him. So under such extraordinary circumstances, you cannot befriend non-Muslims, even if they are your parents. God is trying to emphasize that a person loves his or her parents the most but if even they go against Allah, we cannot neglect Allah and take the side of our parents.

In doing so he condemned his father to hell, rather than teaching him of his error and bringing him into a relationship with God. There are very few sins with more severe consequences then this.

 

So you believe that human error has been introduced in the Bible? That's great. You're one step closer to Islam. Since error has been introduced, we cannot consider it as the word of God as a whole.

It still contains the words of God, and while the errors introduced are worth investigation, I not believe they have corrupted the fundamental truth of the Biblical narrative.


Since error has been introduced in it, it is not authentic, hence if a book which has errors (as you admit) says that there was a 7 generation gap between Nimrod and Abraham, why should I believe it?

Historical analysis. The narrative containing the 7 generation gap and the genealogies predate any tale showing them to be contemporaries by 5 centuries, and predates the account in the Qur'an by more than a millenium.


-is a direct internal contradiction in the Qur'an

Surah 3:3
He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel

Read the verse carefully. It does not say that Bible is not corrupted. I have no idea how Christians interpret what they do.

He 

i.e God

 sent down this scripture 

i.e Quran

truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures

Previous scriptures does not mean Bible, previous scriptures mean Torah, Injeel translated gospel and loads of others. Those scriptures have been corrupted, but when they were in there pure form, they spoke what Quran speaks i.e oneness of God, concept of prophethood etc. Quran confirms them means that whatever they taught, Quran also teaches. I have no idea how you interpret that this verse denies the corruption of the Bible.

and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel

He did not sent down the Bible, which is an unauthentic version of Torah and the gospel, full of human errors (as you admitted yourself), He sent down Torah and the Gospel.

The canonical Gospels and the Torah can both be studied outside of the Bible and show the exact same narrative, and are, in fact, the source of the majority of the Bible. If they are scriptures sent by God (and oddly enough we know the Gospels were not sent down by God, but rather written by men relating the life of Jesus, further contradicting the Qur'an), then they must enjoy the same protected status as the Qur'an, for they too are His holy scripture.



Sura 6:34 There is none that can alter the words of Allah.

You quote out of context, but no problem, many Christians make that mistake when it comes to Quran.  According to the context.

While the Quran was being revealed, it had many commandments which went against the whims of the pagans living with the prophet. Those pagans used to torture Muslim and they used to taunt the prophet. Hence Allah says
006.033 قَدْ نَعْلَمُ إِنَّهُ لَيَحْزُنُكَ الَّذِي يَقُولُونَ فَإِنَّهُمْ لا يُكَذِّبُونَكَ وَلَكِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ يَجْحَدُونَ
006.033 We know indeed the grief which their words do cause thee: It is not thee they reject: it is the signs of Allah, which the wicked contemn.

006.034 وَلَقَدْ كُذِّبَتْ رُسُلٌ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ فَصَبَرُوا عَلَى مَا كُذِّبُوا وَأُوذُوا حَتَّى أَتَاهُمْ نَصْرُنَا وَلا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَكَ مِنْ نَبَإِ الْمُرْسَلِينَ
006.034 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.

Al-Qur'an, 006.033-034 (Al-Anaam [Cattle, Livestock])

Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910

Meaning even if the Quran is against the whims of the pagans, still God will not change it and it doesn't matter who rejects it and who doesn't. This verse does not mean that the Bible was not corrupted.

Sura 6:115
  The words of thy Lord are perfect in truth and in justice;
  NONE can change His words:
  For He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.

Same context as that of verse 6:34. God does not care about what people think. If a majority people consider adultery to be okay then it doesn't matter, God will not lift the punishment for adultery. He cannot change His words. When it comes to God's words, there is no democracy. Read the word in the context. The next verse says


006.116 وَإِنْ تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَنْ فِي الأرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ إِنْ يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلا الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلا يَخْرُصُونَ
006.116 Wert thou to follow the common run (i.e majority) of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie.

Oddly enought that's the verse I hear quoted out of context every time I'm debating a Muslim as evidence that the Qur'an can't have been corrupted. Which is it? Does God's scripture inherently carry protection against corruption or not? If not, the Qur'an is as equally likely to have been changed as the Torah and the Gospels, and if so, the Torah and the Gospels, which are by the Qur'an's own admission also God's scripture, carry the same protection and can not have been corrupted.


Surah 34:50
If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss
And yet Surah 4:89 commands Muslims to kill any who abandon Islam.
Of all the verses you quoted out of context, this one gets the prize. First verse again, context. Allah is telling prophet Muhammad to tell the pagans of Makkah
034.048 قُلْ إِنَّ رَبِّي يَقْذِفُ بِالْحَقِّ عَلامُ الْغُيُوبِ
034.048 Say: "Verily my Lord doth cast the (mantle of) Truth (over His servants),- He that has full knowledge of (all) that is hidden."
Allah tells prophet Muhammad to tell the pagans that God gave prophet Muhammad the Quran (truth) and He has the knowledge of the unseen.
034.049 قُلْ جَاءَ الْحَقُّ وَمَا يُبْدِئُ الْبَاطِلُ وَمَا يُعِيدُ
034.049 Say: "The Truth has arrived, and Falsehood neither creates anything new, nor restores anything."
Again pretty simple.
034.050 قُلْ إِنْ ضَلَلْتُ فَإِنَّمَا أَضِلُّ عَلَى نَفْسِي وَإِنِ اهْتَدَيْتُ فَبِمَا يُوحِي إِلَيَّ رَبِّي إِنَّهُ سَمِيعٌ قَرِيبٌ
034.050 Say: "If I am astray, I only stray to the loss of my own soul: but if I receive guidance, it is because of the inspiration of my Lord to me: it is He Who hears all things, and is (ever) near."
Al-Qur'an, 034.048-050 (Saba [Saba, Sheba])
Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910
Now God is telling prophet Muhammad to tell pagans that: if I'm not guided, then that is my personal loss. But if I am guided, then that is a blessing of God. I have no idea how you connect this verse to a muslim becoming a non-Muslim. Now comes 4:89, which tells us to kill anyone who abandons Islam according to you :). I'll explain the context of this verse. Muslims were tortured by pagans in Makkah for being Muslims. They migrated to another city called Madina which provided them a safe haven. Muslims were allowed to practice their religion freely here but pagans from other cities were taking a few steps against Muslims. Among those pagans were those Muslims who chose to live with their people and not migrate. Even those so called Muslims actively took part against Muslims because in a tribe, you always follow your leader. Now Muslims of Madina were confused about those Muslims. Should they fight them? So Allah says:

004.088 فَمَا لَكُمْ فِي الْمُنَافِقِينَ فِئَتَيْنِ وَاللَّهُ أَرْكَسَهُمْ بِمَا كَسَبُوا أَتُرِيدُونَ أَنْ تَهْدُوا مَنْ أَضَلَّ اللَّهُ وَمَنْ يُضْلِلِ اللَّهُ فَلَنْ تَجِدَ لَهُ سَبِيلا
004.088 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites (i.e the group of Muslims who did not migrate)? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
004.089 وَدُّوا لَوْ تَكْفُرُونَ كَمَا كَفَرُوا فَتَكُونُونَ سَوَاءً فَلا تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ حَتَّى يُهَاجِرُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَلا تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ وَلِيًّا وَلا نَصِيرًا
004.089 They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
Molana Maududi, a famous scholar writes in the explanation of this verse
This is the verdict on those hypocritical confessors of faith who belong to a belligerent, non-Muslim nation and actually participate in acts of hostility against the Islamic state.( http://www.tafheem.net/ - www.tafheem.net )
004.090 إِلا الَّذِينَ يَصِلُونَ إِلَى قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ أَوْ جَاءُوكُمْ حَصِرَتْ صُدُورُهُمْ أَنْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ أَوْ يُقَاتِلُوا قَوْمَهُمْ وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَسَلَّطَهُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ فَلَقَاتَلُوكُمْ فَإِنِ اعْتَزَلُوكُمْ فَلَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ وَأَلْقَوْا إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلَمَ فَمَا جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ سَبِيلا
004.090 Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
Now there are two exceptions to killing the hypocrites. If a hypocrite joins a group which is friendly with Muslims, Muslims won't harm him. If he says, I won't fight you but I also won't fight my own people, even then Muslims won't harm him.
004.091 سَتَجِدُونَ آخَرِينَ يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَأْمَنُوكُمْ وَيَأْمَنُوا قَوْمَهُمْ كُلَّمَا رُدُّوا إِلَى الْفِتْنَةِ أُرْكِسُوا فِيهَا فَإِنْ لَمْ يَعْتَزِلُوكُمْ وَيُلْقُوا إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلَمَ وَيَكُفُّوا أَيْدِيَهُمْ فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأُولَئِكُمْ جَعَلْنَا لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانًا مُبِينًا
004.091 Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they  withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them.
Al-Qur'an, 004.087-091 (An-Nisa [Women])
Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910
Here God clearly says: If a hypocrite does not withdraw and he does not guarantees peace, Muslims should not hesitate to kill him when he comes with his tribe to attack Muslims.

The history lesson was most certainly helpful in understanding the verse, thank you.

53:1-18, talks about Gabrael, not God, but Shamoun neglected that. That is understood since in Islam, God gave Gabriel the message and then angel Gabriel gave that message to the prophet.
053.001 وَالنَّجْمِ إِذَا هَوَى
053.001 By the Star when it goes down,-
053.002 مَا ضَلَّ صَاحِبُكُمْ وَمَا غَوَى
053.002 Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled.
053.003 وَمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى
053.003 Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.
053.004 إِنْ هُوَ إِلا وَحْيٌ يُوحَى
053.004 It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:
053.005 عَلَّمَهُ شَدِيدُ الْقُوَى
053.005 He was taught by one Mighty in Power,
053.006 ذُو مِرَّةٍ فَاسْتَوَى
053.006 Endued with Wisdom: for he (Gabrael) appeared (in stately form);
053.007 وَهُوَ بِالأفُقِ الأعْلَى
053.007 While he was in the highest part of the horizon:
053.008 ثُمَّ دَنَا فَتَدَلَّى
053.008 Then he approached and came closer,
053.009 فَكَانَ قَابَ قَوْسَيْنِ أَوْ أَدْنَى
053.009 And was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer;
053.010 فَأَوْحَى إِلَى عَبْدِهِ مَا أَوْحَى
053.010 So did (Allah) convey the inspiration to His Servant- (conveyed) what He (meant) to convey.
053.011 مَا كَذَبَ الْفُؤَادُ مَا رَأَى
053.011 The (Prophet's) (mind and) heart in no way falsified that which he saw.
053.012 أَفَتُمَارُونَهُ عَلَى مَا يَرَى
053.012 Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he saw?
053.013 وَلَقَدْ رَآهُ نَزْلَةً أُخْرَى
053.013 For indeed he saw him at a second descent,
053.014 عِنْدَ سِدْرَةِ الْمُنْتَهَى
053.014 Near the Lote-tree beyond which none may pass:
053.015 عِنْدَهَا جَنَّةُ الْمَأْوَى
053.015 Near it is the Garden of Abode.
053.016 إِذْ يَغْشَى السِّدْرَةَ مَا يَغْشَى
053.016 Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!)
053.017 مَا زَاغَ الْبَصَرُ وَمَا طَغَى
053.017 (His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong!
053.018 لَقَدْ رَأَى مِنْ آيَاتِ رَبِّهِ الْكُبْرَى
053.018 For truly did he see, of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest!

Where does Gabriel come in to the picture. I'm assuming the parentheses mean that the meaning is implied, but I see no other reference to Gabriel in that verse, so I'm not sure how the meaning of  personal pronoun he can be taken from context to mean Gabriel. Immediately before that however it refers to one "Mighty in Power" which would seem to be a reference to El Shaddai (God Almighty), and immediately afterwards it DOES refer to Allah.

081.023 وَلَقَدْ رَآهُ بِالأفُقِ الْمُبِينِ
081.023 And without doubt he saw him in the clear horizon.
Al-Qur'an, 081.023 (At-Takwir [The overthrowing])
Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910
Note that the "h" of him is small in this translation and in all translations that I know of, clearly him refers to Gabriel.

I don't know Arabic, so you're going to have to (again) explain how Gabriel is being inserted in to this verse.

And as for whether prophet Muhammad really saw Allah during "Maraaj" there is a difference of opinion. Some scholars, along with Aisha (wife of the prophet) say that he didn't. Some like Ibn Abbas say that he did. Such trivial difference of opinion exist in Islam. It is irrelevant for us whether prophet Muhammad saw Him or not. I will not be asked about that on the day of judgement.

It is strange to me then, that if Muhammad saw God, how Christian and Jewish narratives in which God takes shape are attacked by Muslims as being inaccurate.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ - www.answering-christianity.com/
http://www.muslim-responses.com/ - http://www.muslim-responses.com/
http://muslim-defence.com/default.aspx - http://muslim-defence.com/default.aspx
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/ - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/
There is not a single alleged contradiction of Quran which cannot be answered. I would recommend answering Christianity. It is a bit aggressive but it is only a reaction to answering Islam. Now coming to your new post

We both agree that Bible is unauthentic as you said that

You misunderstand. I believe that the Biblical narrative is fundamentally true, but that because of mistranslation, and occasional errors in record keeping we must examine it closely when portions appear to not make sense and study the original source of that portion of the text.

So now let's come to Quran. Assuming Quran is God's word, if Quran says something then that is extremely authentic. It doesn't matter when the Quran was revealed, since God was present at the time of Nimrod and Adam. So if God says that they had a conversation then they did. Hence if we prove that Quran is God's word, we prove that it presents an authentic record of Nimrod and Adam. And you can prove Quran to be a word of God in so many ways.
One of the most common methods nowadays is to present prescientific knowledge in the Quran

The same is true of the Bible ;) Every single law God gave the Israelite people to help them differentiate between clean and unclean only make sense in context of modern medical knowledge. Even the call to monogamy makes significantly more sense in the face of certain features of human biochemistry, and the creation narrative in Genesis 1 when yom is interpreted as a period of time rather than a 24 hour day jives almost perfectly with current scientific understanding of creation.
 
That is true according to your sources. Your sources are not authentic since your prime source (i.e Bible) is not authentic as I proved before.

Find me at least 3 mainstream scholars (e.g. not religiously affiliated, not Rashid Rida
) who believe that the Gospel of Barnabas is historically authentic (actually written by Barnabas). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas#Textual_history
http://www.chri*****es.de/barnarom.htm (erm...this link seems to have been censored.....I don't know why. it's chris lages (dot) de
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Blackhirst_Barnabas.html
It's easy to make claims without a source.

You prove customs by showing us the record. I just want to know, where did you hear/read that it was a custom that mother's genealogy ends with father's name. Or you can prove it by giving a historical account of a person in which his mother's genealogy ends with his father's name. And what about my other questions? How do you know that Nathan is Mary's great grand father? How do you tell the difference between father's genealogy and mother's genealogy.

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/why-are-there-different-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3
Again, if you have trouble accepting that I'll ask my Jewish friend/have her run it by her teachers.

 However I think it equally likely that God was clarifying his instructions to Noah with regards to collecting clean animals. If I say to you please go get several bags of marshmallows and some cans of beans from the grocery store. And then I tell you to get 4 cans of beans, there is no contradiction, I'm merely being more specific about the beans then in the original instructions.
I agree, there is no contradiction. But if you first tell me to bring a bag of marshmellows and a can of beans, then you tell me to bring 7 bags of marshmellows and 7 cans of beans, then that is a contradiction. That is the case with Genesis, a pair and 7 pairs.

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/how-many-kinds-did-noah-bring-ark-two-or-seven


You admit that records of the Bible have errors, yet if it contradicts with Quran (which has no errors), Quran is not true.

What it comes down to is, I question the Qur'an where it contradicts my personal beliefs and am challenging you to answer those questions. As yet, I have been given no convincing reason to accept the Qur'an, and quite a few convincing reasons to accept the Bible, mostly tied to personal experience. For a little background, both of my grandfathers are pastors and former missionaries. My great-grandfather and a great-uncle both were pastors. 2 of my four uncles have spent significant portions of the last 12 years engaged in mission work, my mother's most recent paid job was campus ministry with -
- www.ccci.org/">CCC , and my father is the faculty advisor for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at one of the most secular liberal arts colleges in the country and is one of the backup preachers at our church for when Pastor Steve is on vacation. So yes, I take my faith very seriously, however part of that faith is the belief that I should strive to have the best understanding of God that I can. Islam claims to have that better understanding, but also contradicts some fundamental Christian teachings that mesh very well with my observations of the world we live in, and that requires significant evidence if am to ever accept it. Most discussions of Islam I've been involved in eventually come down to "I believe the Qur'an because the Qur'an says I should." without any real evidence as to why it should be considered a trustworthy source.

I agree, but if Bible gives a figure and then contradicts it, that means it is unauthentic and likewise, the fundamental principles of Jesus as presented by the Bible are unauthentic.

I'm not sure how you're drawing a connection between government scribes relaying information about past military encounters to 4 non-conflicting biographies written by 4 different people about one of their closest friends other than that they are commonly published in the same volume.

So you say that a part of the Bible is not authentic and a part is? Well if I prove that a part of the Bible has mistakes, doesn't that mean that other parts of the Bible can also have mistakes?

Unlike the Qur'an, the (Protestant) Bible is 66 books by a similarly large number of authors published as a single book, all of which should be studied independently, as well as cohesively. I think the Catholic bible has 73, the extras being considered apocrypha (interesting, but significantly less trustworthy sources) by most Protestants.

And the gospels do not say that Nimrod and Abraham had a 7 generation gap. The OT says that, recorded by a historian, giving Jewish history which you yourself say that it can be wrong.

Specifically in Genesis (part of the Torah), which is traditionally believed to have been revealed to Moses by God, and can be shown to have survived unchanged for nearly 2.5 millenia.
 

How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?
By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)


How many disciples did Jesus appear to after his resurrection? Twelve (I Corinthians 15:5)
Eleven (Matthew 27:3-5 and Acts 1:9-26, see also Matthew 28:16; Mark 16:14 footnote; Luke 24:9; Luke 24:3 3)

He appeared to more than 500 people from the time of his resurrection until his ascension. Judas Iscariot was obviously no longer one of the 12, but presumably Paul was referring to the disciples as "the 12" despite their being diminished in number. After his ascension they chose Matthias to replace Judas among their numbers, and they were back up to 12. It's also not unreasonable to believe that Matthias (having been chosen to join the disciples), was one of the 500 or so that so Jesus before the ascension.

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
After his baptism, the spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days ... (Mark 1:12-13)
Next day after the baptism, Jesus selected two disciples. Second day: Jesus went to Galilee - two more disciples. Third day: Jesus was at a wedding feast in Cana in Galilee (see John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11)

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/chronology-jesus-baptism-and-temptation
John narrates different portions of Jesus's life than do the synoptic Gospels and omits certain events. Relatedly: http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/where-did-jesus-first-meet-simon-peter-and-andrew

Was baby Jesus life threatened in Jerusalem?
Yes, so Joseph fled with him to Egypt and stayed there until Herod died (Matthew 2:13 23)
No. The family fled nowhere. They calmly presented the child at the Jerusalem temple according to the Jewish customs and returned to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)

 The wise men didn't arrive for more than a year after his birth (its a long trek from Persia to Israel ;) ), so it would follow that they fled after that happened, especially since Herod ordered the death of children under the age of two
When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond?
They worshipped him, saying, Truly you are the Son of God (Matthew 14:33)
They were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened (Mark 6:51-52)

It would seem to me that being utterly astounded could go hand in hand with the worship

Does every man sin?
Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810)
No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.. (I John 5:1).

Where did that come from?
Originally posted by I John 5:1

1Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.



We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)

This is probably the most interesting "contradiction" you've dug up so far, and certainly warrants careful inspection. To begin with however I'd like to point out that I John is not one of the Gospels, but rather an epistle. I'd like to take the time to write a longer response to this one, so I'll post again later. (I've already spent about 2 hours on and off with this one ;) )




Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 28 March 2009 at 3:50pm
peace to all!
 
hello thomasd.
 
    tell me thomas do christains realy follow jesus' teachings?
 
john 3:16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.{ there is nothing in this verse to implicate the death of jesus as the "gift" in fact it's all INTERPETATION for an INTERPETATION. as you read on from jesus' own words it is meant that his LIFE and WORD was the gift as islam states.} 
 
1] christains claim to be " cleasend by the blood " of jesus' death on the cross. if so where do you get that idea jesus?

John 15:3 ,3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.{ jesus says we are cleansed by the word NOT the blood of the cross!!}

 John 12:47-50 ,47"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."{ here jesus plainly stated the WORD the MESSAGE leads to eternal life not a false sin sacrifice}

also:

Hebrews 10:26 26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, { here is stated no sin sacrifice will save you only knowladge of the truth of the word!}
 
Hebrews 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, { here those who have been  "enlightened by the heavenly gift of the word of god " are hailed and the " heavenly gift from GOD for salvation is the WORD not jesus' sacrifice!}
 
Hebrews6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. {remember this verse on easter!.} if just by repenting over again " TO OUR LOSS " we crucify him once more and disgraces him. Do we do worse to him by "celebrating " him being on the cross " for us ". How many times must he be crucified? how mush he suffer. How much disgrace must we bring to him. it seems the christain view point by actions is "AS MUCH AS IT TAKES".
 
     2] jesus accused the the jews of not follow the ways of abraham
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.
do christains follow the ways of abraham? do they pray as abraham does? did abraham pray to and worship  a trinity?did jesus pray to and worship  a trinity? abraham prayed bowed with his face to ground. in the only dicription of jesus praying jesus is said to have "bowed down" and prayed{ john} . do you bow down?
    
3]it's writen HAVE NO OTHERS GODS BUT ME. AND DO NOT RENDER UNTO ME ANY GRAVEN IMAGE OR LIKENESS
and if jesus was god why did he speak of god as someone "other than himself as  the "one who sent me" ? and why did he pray to himself?{ an act of vanity } also by rendering jesus " as an image of god " you break this command!
  
4]and if jesus was THE SON OF GOD why did jesus when accused for blasphemy in john 10:33 jesus defends himself with paslams 82:6? which would state in the context he was using he was no more a son of god than the rest of us.in fact it states we are all gods!{ the qu'ran clairifies this}
 
   5]and if jesus supported THE JEWS AS THE FAVORED why does he talk to them as if they are corrupted? correcting and condeming them at evey turn.  { israelites gods chosen are not all jews. the jews or judens are but one faction.} it's all people of israel whom god chose{ the qu'ran supports this also} not just the jews. and by the way jesus spoke of them and to them certainly not the jewish ribbonic faith.
 
   7]jesus says to beware of those " bringing other teaching then his" does this mean the DOCTRINE OF THE ORIGINAL SIN which was " INVENTED BY IRENAEUS OF LYONS AROUND 150C.E. "and championded by AUGESTINE OF HIPPO.and around the same time THE TRINITY by TERTULLIIAN. why do christains follow these " other teachings-teachers than jesus'? " the so called " on faith alone belief " in others besides jesus,unspoken by jesus and not taught by jesus. was jesus so incomplete in his teachings? matthew 23:10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
peace
leland
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
love for all conquers all


Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 29 March 2009 at 4:41pm
peace to all
 
thomasd more on barnabas:
How the Gospel of Barnabas Survived http://www.barnabas.net/how-the-gospel-of-barnabas-survived.pdf">PDF http://www.barnabas.net/how-the-gospel-of-barnabas-survived.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=">Print http://www.barnabas.net/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&link=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5iYXJuYWJhcy5uZXQvaG93LXRoZS1nb3NwZWwtb2YtYmFybmFiYXMtc3Vydml2ZWQuaHRtbA%3D%3D">E-mail
  http://www.barnabas.net/home.html - http://www.barnabas.net/home.html
Sunday, 23 March 2008 09:15
The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E. Iranaeus (130-200) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy.  He had quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This shows that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity. 

    In 325 C.E., the Nicene Council was held, where it was ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that any one in possession of these Gospels will be put to death.

     In 383 C.E., the Pope secured a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas and kept it in his private library.

    In the fourth year of Emperor Zeno (478 C.E. ), the remains of Barnabas were discovered and there was found on his breast a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas written by his own hand. (Acia Sanctorum Boland Junii Tom II, Pages 422 and 450. Antwerp 1698) . The famous Vulgate Bible appears to be based on this Gospel.

Pope Sixtus (1585-90) had a friend, Fra Marino. He found the Gospel of Barnabas in the private library of the Pope. Fra  Marino was interested because he had read the writings of Iranaeus where Barnabas had been profusely quoted. The Italian manuscript passed through different hands till it reached "a person of great name and authority" in Amsterdam, "who during his life time was often heard to put a high value to this piece". After his death it came in the possession of J. E. Cramer, a Councillor of the King of Prussia. In 1713 Cramer presented this manuscript to the famous connoisseur of books, Prince Eugene of Savoy. In 1738 along with the library of the Prince it found its way into Hofbibliothek in Vienna. There it now rests.

     Toland, in his "Miscellaneous Works" (published posthumously in 1747), in Vol. I, page 380, mentions that the Gospel of Barnabas was still extant. In Chapter XV he refers to the Glasian Decree of 496 C.E. where "Evangelium Barnabe" is included in the list of forbidden books. Prior to that it had been forbidden by Pope Innocent in 465 C.E. and by the Decree of the Western Churches in 382 C.E.

    Barnabas is also mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus Serial No. 3, Epistle of Barnabas . . . Lines 1, 300.
Then again in the list of Sixty Books
Serial No. 17. Travels and teaching of the Apostles.
Serial No. 18. Epistle of Barnabas.
Serial No. 24. Gospel According to Barnabas.
A Greek version of the Gospel of Barnabas is also found in a solitary fragment. The rest is burnt.

The Latin text was translated into English by Mr. and Mrs. Ragg and was printed at the Clarendon Press in Oxford. It was published by the Oxford University Press in 1907. This English translation mysteriously disappeared from the market. Two copies of this translation are known to exist, one in the British Museum and the other in the Library of the Congress, Washington, DC. The first edition was from a micro-film copy of the book in the Library of the Congress, Washington, DC.

 leland


-------------
love for all conquers all


Posted By: _ALI_
Date Posted: 12 April 2009 at 9:03am

Salam Thomasd

Sorry for such a long delay. These couple of weeks were busy. I thought I should still reply since the topic is still on the top of the forum page.

You showed that the kingdom of Israel had poor administrative records.

The entire old testament came from  the records of Kingdom of Israel. So I showed that the old testament has poor records. Hence if the records of Israel which you say are faulty say that there was a difference of 7 generations between Nimrod and Abraham, why should I believe it?

I'm not sure what you mean by forced contradiction, though a criticism is equally valid from a non-Muslim or a Muslim (and perhaps more likely). It is the question of misinterpretation which is at issue here, and like I said, I am more than open to correction in this matter

The examples of forced contradictions have been given by you yourself. All of them were not actual contradictions. By forced contradictions, I meant misinterpretation, out of context, misquotation etc.  

One testimony in particular stood out to me. I strongly suggest reading http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Qureshi/testimony.htm - Nabeel Qureshi 's story

I did read the story. This "Muslim" was a good Muslim but then he became a Christian because he was in a crowd and he wanted to spot his friends so he asked God to help him. Then God sent a few bright golden and silver streaks so he found his way. Then he had a few dreams and he became a Christian. Now I'm feeling a bit left out here along with millions of Muslims :). Why can't I dream about snakes and crickets or why can't I also dream going away from the mosque?

I would just also to point out that all the stories of "ex-Muslims" are only given in anti Islamic websites. I cannot find a single story of a Muslim becoming a Christian in a neutral site such as christianity.com or any other major Christian forum sites. And stories of Christians becoming Muslims are so common, even this along with many other Islamic forums has ex Christians who have now become Muslims. I personally know a few ex Christians who became Muslim even though I live in a Muslim majority country. But I won't tell you about them since you might not believe me. I will give you an even more authentic story. We have so many Muslim speakers who were Christians. I'll just tell you about them since they are well known. Here is a story of Yousaf Estes, a Christian preacher who was a Christian for 50 years. He made this website

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/Yusuf_story.asp - http://www.islamtomorrow.com/Yusuf_story.asp http://www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp -

Here are a few convert stories from his website

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/converts/ - http://www.islamtomorrow.com/converts/

I read the story you gave, now I urge you to read the story of Yousaf Estes.

In doing so he condemned his father to hell, rather than teaching him of his error and bringing him into a relationship with God. There are very few sins with more severe consequences then this.
It was a battlefield. 1000 pagans came to finish off 313 Muslims. What was he suppose to do? Allow his father to kill Muslims? What would a group of 313 Christians do when 1000 pagans come to kill them? Would those Christians start preaching?

It still contains the words of God, and while the errors introduced are worth investigation, I not believe they have corrupted the fundamental truth of the Biblical narrative

You admit that errors have been introduced in the book of God. Then how can you say that those fundamental truths were not affected by those errors?

 

Historical analysis. The narrative containing the 7 generation gap and the genealogies predate any tale showing them to be contemporaries by 5 centuries, and predates the account in the Qur'an by more than a millenium.
Bible says there are 7 generation gaps. You say Bible has errors. So that historical analysis you derived from the Bible, why should it be true?

The canonical Gospels and the Torah can both be studied outside of the Bible and show the exact same narrative, and are, in fact, the source of the majority of the Bible. If they are scriptures sent by God (and oddly enough we know the Gospels were not sent down by God, but rather written by men relating the life of Jesus, further contradicting the Qur'an)-

If Bible contradicts Quran, I have no problem with that. But I agree, the gospel you are familiar with are only narratives of the life of Jesus. They are not a book given to Jesus by God. That's the whole point, you guys don't have that book. You have gospel of Mark, Mathew, Luke, John but you don’t have the gospel of Jesus.

 

Mathew 4:23

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

Mark 1:14

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

Luke 4:18

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Which gospel is Jesus preaching? Is it the gospel of Mark, Luke etc? No, since these gospels say that Jesus was preaching the gospel. We believe that Jesus was preaching the gospel translated Injeel revealed to him by God, and you no longer have that gospel he was preaching

-then they must enjoy the same protected status as the Qur'an, for they too are His holy scripture.
Where did you get that idea? Does the Bible says that no scripture of God can be interpolated by man? And it is a fact that Quran certainly does not say that. Quran says that other scriptures were corrupted but God subsequently sent more scriptures for example, after Torah, Injeel/gospel was revealed. But after Quran, no scripture will be revealed hence Quran has that special protection. Thus as the QUran says

015.009 إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
015.009 We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).

Al-Qur'an, 015.009 (Al-Hijr [Al-Hijr, Stoneland, Rocky City])

Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910

Oddly enought that's the verse I hear quoted out of context every time I'm debating a Muslim as evidence that the Qur'an can't have been corrupted.
The verse most commonly used by Muslims is 15:9 which I quoted above.
Which is it? Does God's scripture inherently carry protection against corruption or not? If not, the Qur'an is as equally likely to have been changed as the Torah and the Gospels, and if so, the Torah and the Gospels, which are by the Qur'an's own admission also God's scripture, carry the same protection and can not have been corrupted.
As I said, Quran does not say that all scriptures have been protected. Only Quran itself has been protected since no other scripture will come after it. So according to Quran/Islam, Gospel and the Torah we have is not authentic and Quran itself is authentic.
Where does Gabriel come in to the picture. I'm assuming the parentheses mean that the meaning is implied, but I see no other reference to Gabriel in that verse, so I'm not sure how the meaning of  personal pronoun he can be taken from context to mean Gabriel. Immediately before th
at however it refers to one "Mighty in Power" which would seem to be a reference to El Shaddai (God Almighty), and immediately afterwards it DOES refer to Allah.
Let's read the verse again
053.005 عَلَّمَهُ شَدِيدُ الْقُوَى
053.005 He was taught by one mighty in Power,
I looked into the explanation of this verse and the term ShadidulQuwa (really powerful) is used for Gabrael, not God. Gabrael is also strong according to Quran. According to Islam, God did not come down to Earth to teach prophet Muhammad. Gabrael did. Hence it is pretty clear that prophet Muhammad was taught by Gabrael (directly) not God. Hence ShadidulQuwa is Gabrael, not God. God never came down to teach the prophet so I have no idea that you are taking the term ShadidulQuwa to be God.
I don't know Arabic, so you're going to have to (again) explain how Gabriel is being inserted in to this verse
The verse is
081.023 وَلَقَدْ رَآهُ بِالأفُقِ الْمُبِينِ
081.023 And without doubt he saw him in the clear horizon.
In Islam, the prophet never saw God in the clear horizon, he only saw Gabrael. Hence this verse only refers to Gabrael.
It is strange to me then, that if Muhammad saw God, how Christian and Jewish narratives in which God takes shape are attacked by Muslims as being inaccurate.
A  few Muslim believe that prophet Muhammad saw God. Those who disagree with that concept must have attacked Jewish and Christian narratives of God taking shape. And it also depends on the kind of shape God takes. All Muslims agree that God does not take a shape of human beings.
You misunderstand. I believe that the Biblical narrative is fundamentally true, but that because of mistranslation, and occasional errors in record keeping we must examine it closely when portions appear to not make sense and study the original source of that portion of the text.
How can you say that the errors and mistranslations haven't corrupted the original message of the Bible?
The same is true of the Bible ;) Every single law God gave the Israelite people to help them differentiate between clean and unclean only make sense in context of modern medical knowledge.
In the field of medicine, the Bible says in the book of Leviticus, Ch. No.14, Verse No.49 to 53 - it gives a novel way for disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy…  disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy. It says that… ‘Take two birds, kill one bird, take wood, scale it - and the other living bird, dip it in water… and under running water - later on sprinkle the house 7 times with it. 

Sprinkle the house with blood to disinfect against plague of leprosy? We know that blood is a good media of germs, bacteria, as well as toxin. But this is biology according to the Bible. As for modern medical knowledge in the Quran, ever heard of Keith L. Moore He has co-written (with professor Arthur F. Dalley II) Clinically Oriented Anatomy, which is the most popular English-language anatomy textbook in the world, used by scientists, doctors, physiotherapists and students worldwide.(wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore).

At a conference in Cairo he presented a research paper and stated:

"It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'ân about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, or Allah, because most of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God, or Allah." [1]( http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/Keith%20L.htm - http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/Keith%20L.htm )

Even the call to monogamy makes significantly more sense in the face of certain features of human biochemistry

Let us look at some of the verses from the Old Testament that allow polygamy:

In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."

There are a lot more verses from the Old Testament that allow polygamy, but I think that the above are sufficient enough to prove my point

and the creation narrative in Genesis 1 when yom is interpreted as a period of time rather than a 24 hour day jives almost perfectly with current scientific understanding of creation
I've copied the following from a debate between Dr. William Campbell and Dr. Zakir Naik on Quran, Bible in the light of Science
In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days. Qur’an too speaks about six ‘ayyams’. The Arabic word singular is ‘yaum’ plural is ‘ayyam’. It can either mean a day of 24 hours, or it is a very long period, an ‘yaum’, an epoch. Scientists say we have no objection in agreeing that the universe - it could have been created in 6 very long periods. Point No.2 - Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ enesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’.  How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day? - It is unscientific. Further, the, Bible says Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses 9 to 13… ‘Earth was created on the 3rd day. How can you have a night and day without the earth ?  The day depends upon the rotation of the Earth Without the earth created, how can you have a night and day?  Point No..4, Genesis, Ch. No. 1 Verses 9 to 13 says… ‘Earth was created on the third day.’  Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses 14 to 19 says…‘The Sun and the Moon were created on the fourth day.’ Today science tells us… ‘Earth is part of the parent body… the sun.’ It cannot come into existence before the sun – It is unscientific. Point No. 5, the Bible says in Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse No. 11 to 13…‘The vegetation, the herbs the shrubs, the trees - they were created on the 3rd day And the Sun, Genesis, Ch. No. 1, Verses. 14 to 19, was created on the 4th day.How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight ?
Find me at least 3 mainstream scholars (e.g. not religiously affiliated, not Rashid Rida) who believe that the Gospel of Barnabas is historically authentic (actually written by Barnabas). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas#Textual_history
http://www.chri*****es.de/barnarom.htm (erm...this link seems to have been censored.....I don't know why. it's chris lages (dot) de
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Blackhirst_Barnabas.html
It's easy to make claims without a source
.
My source is Quran. Since the gospel of Barnabas is relatively more compatible with Quran, hence according to us Muslims it is relatively more authentic. But Nazarine have given you a detailed account regarding gospel of Barnabas.
What it comes down to is, I question the Qur'an where it contradicts my personal beliefs and am challenging you to answer those questions.
I took that challenge and have replied to your  questions.
As yet, I have been given no convincing reason to accept the Qur'an, and quite a few convincing reasons to accept the Bible, mostly tied to personal experience. For a little background, both of my grandfathers are pastors and former missionaries. My great-grandfather and a great-uncle both were pastors. 2 of my four uncles have spent significant portions of the last 12 years engaged in mission work, my mother's most recent paid job was campus ministry with - - www.ccci.org/">CCC , and my father is the faculty advisor for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at one of the most secular liberal arts colleges in the country and is one of the backup preachers at our church for when Pastor Steve is on vacation. So yes, I take my faith very seriously, however part of that faith is the belief that I should strive to have the best understanding of God that I can.
So you are a Christian because you are related to devout Christians. Well if I am a Muslim because I am related to devout Muslims, is that enough reason to be a Muslim? No. My relations don't matter, truth matters. So I have to take each and every scripture claiming to be the word of God and then try to filter them and determine which is the correct word of God. That is what I urge you to do.
Islam claims to have that better understanding, but also contradicts some fundamental Christian teachings that mesh very well with my observations of the world we live in, and that requires significant evidence if am to ever accept it.
Again, if Islam contradicts Christianity, it is not a problem because Muslims believe, along with many Christian historians, that the scriptures of Christianity have not retained their original form.
Most discussions of Islam I've been involved in eventually come down to "I believe the Qur'an because the Qur'an says I should." without any real evidence as to why it should be considered a trustworthy source.
I don't know about your other discussions but in this discussion, I haven't told you to believe in Quran because Quran says you should. I used a method frequently used by many Muslims, I quoted the prescientific knowledge given in the Quran which is a present day miracle.
I'll reply to the rest later if I have time
Peace



Print Page | Close Window