Print Page | Close Window

Answers from the Christians

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4570
Printed Date: 22 December 2014 at 6:23pm


Topic: Answers from the Christians
Posted By: zulqarnain
Subject: Answers from the Christians
Date Posted: 24 April 2006 at 9:05am
Assalamualaikum. I have come to know about this forum. And I would like to hear logical answers from the christians of what I have to say. I refer to the dialogue between Dr Zakir Naik and William Campbell, there are more than 20 scientific errors in the bible, and still you take it as the Authentic book from God.
Secondly how can christians deny, that the newly found Gospel Of Judas's text is fake, but the book is original? The National Geographic itself is saying that the Church did not copy the bible word to word from the beginning, it selected some of it and later put in some of their own ideas? Still you stick to such a contradictory belief, that the Bible is the true book from God? I don't understand why?



Replies:
Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 24 April 2006 at 9:23am

Okay, I have only one arguement on the Gospel of Judas, both Chrisitan and Islamic tradition places the death of Judas on Easter weekend.  Whether on the Cross in the guise of Christ or hanging himself in agony over his betrayal of Christ.

So, in three days, when did he have time to pen a Gospel clearing himself?????



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


Posted By: George
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 7:43am

Hello zulqarnain,

 

From you: Assalamualaikum. I have come to know about this forum. And I would like to hear logical answers from the christians of what I have to say. I refer to the dialogue between Dr Zakir Naik and William Campbell, there are more than 20 scientific errors in the bible, and still you take it as the Authentic book from God.

 

My comments:

I haven't heard the debate but I know of it.  The conclusion is that Naik "won" the debate, mostly because he is a better debater and not because he refuted Dr. Campbell's points.  There is one thing that you need to keep in mind when reading the Bible.  It includes the thoughts of men along with God's.  For instance, there is a verse in the Book of Job where someone says that the earth is supported by pillars.  This is scientifically inaccurate, but it was the opinion of the man who said it.  How could the earth stay up if not on pillars?

Without knowing what Naik considered a scientific error I have no way of responding.  You might want to consider doing the following:

The reasons I believe in the authenticity of the Bible and what convinced me that it came from God comes from the following, among others:

1.  The Bible

2.  Prophecies

3. Archaeological evidence

4. Studying other religions

One thing that really impressed me was the continuity of the Bible.  It has so many authors, but yet has a unity that is comforting.  Jesus confirmed the Old Testament by quoting from it many times and by pointing to the prophecies about Him.  And, I believe Jesus and His disciples.  Jesus' disciples were persecuted and most died because of their faith in Him—that He was the Messiah, that He was the Son of God, that He was crucified, died and rose again.  I believe them.

I read a lot of books that convinced me that I was on the right track.  But, you can read the type of evidence I found in my books that helped me find my truth on some websites. 

Authority of the Bible can be found at:

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D154247%2526M%253D200168,00.html - http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D15 4247%2526M%253D200168,00.html

The Inspiration of the Bible can be found at:

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D154248%2526M%253D200168,00.html - http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D15 4248%2526M%253D200168,00.html

Historical and Archaeological Evidence for Christianity can be found at:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/historical_evid.html - http://www.rationalchristianity.net/historical_evid.html

and the site above has many good links.

Bible prophecies can be found at the following:

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/prophecy.htm - http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/prophecy.htm

http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/evidence/prophecy.htm - http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/evidence/prophecy.htm

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch19/default.htm - http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch19/default .htm

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default.htm - http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default .htm

Science in the Bible:

http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/evidence/science.htm - http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/evidence/science.htm

http://www.av1611.org/amazing.html - http://www.av1611.org/amazing.html

From you: Secondly how can christians deny, that the newly found Gospel Of Judas's text is fake, but the book is original? The National Geographic itself is saying that the Church did not copy the bible word to word from the beginning, it selected some of it and later put in some of their own ideas? Still you stick to such a contradictory belief, that the Bible is the true book from God? I don't understand why?

 

Comments:

Nobody said it is a fake in the sense that I think you mean.  It is a genuine example of 2nd century Gnosticism.  It was not written by Judas, who was one of Jesus' disciples.

You can read an English translation of the "Gospel" of Judas here: http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf - http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJ udas.pdf

It's not even mentioned in Philip Jenkins' book Hidden Gospels, which is one of the best on the subject on non-canonical Gospels today. I suspect it's just one more very late, poorly attested document.

Originally posted by Christianity Today:

"Until the release of the Gospel of Judas and other Gnostic texts discovered decades ago near Nag Hammadi in Egypt, we learned about Gnosticism mostly through the polemics of Christian apologists. Now thanks to the Gospel of Judas, we can further verify two major Gnostic teachings. According to many Gnostic teachers, Jesus either did not actually appear in the flesh, or he at least wanted to shed his skin as soon as possible. Jesus longed to return to the spirit world. Judas helped make that happen. ("You will sacrifice the man that clothes me," the "spiritual" Jesus tells Judas in th is document.) Also, Gnostics believed only a select few would truly apprehend the knowledge of heaven. The Gospel of Judas teaches that only Judas, Jesus' favorite disciple, fully understood."

The Gospel of Judas was referenced ca. 180 by Irenaeus in Adversus Hairesis (Against Heresy), where the gospel was quoted, not just mentioned, and condemned for being gnostic.  The gnostic deviated from orthodox Christianity in a variety of ways, such as the concept of gnosis = insight, personal revelation, which is clear in the Gospel of Judas.

The gosple is hardly authentic in t he sense that it is written by Judas or based on an actual tradition originating from him. The Gnostics in the 2nd century were particularly fond of writing this kind of pseudepigrapha, so it fits into a certain environment.

It tells us something about the Gnostics and is valuable for that reason, but it tells us nothing about Jesus and his apostles.



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


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 10:20am
I suggest you, brother and sisters, to watch all Dr. Zakir Naiks episodes and debates from the earliest to the latest videos available at www.irf.net, in the video gallery, this will answer all your questions, if still not convinced, why not e-mail him at zakir@irf.net ?


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 10:22am
Why not refer to all his videos at www.irf.net. it will answer all your questions. it also contains the movie of the campbell debate. Even then not satisfied, then e-mail him, zakir@irf.net


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 10:27am
And this is to george:
We muslims believe that Bible was there from the beggining and it was the book from God. But when the Chucrch later changed it that's why we know don't rely on it 100%. Some facts maybe the original text, unchanged but the major part is modified.
But i am stressing you, that almost all of your questions will be answered by seeing his videos. You can even call the phone number for question from the IRF foundation having Dr. Zakir Naik.


Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 10:53am
zakir naik?  is this the guy that thinks islam is scientific?

-------------
for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 10:54am
Denis Giron, the man who mentions various mistakes for the Quraan, does not have the courage of publicly challenging Dr. Zakir Naik. Because he knows he will lose. He gave such absurd opinions of his own that i was about to pass out. Dr. Zakir naiks debate with Dr. Campbell gave answers to some of his questions. But if he (maybe, ATHIEST) is right and confident, he should publicly challenge Dr.Zakir Naik. He can gain his fame


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 10:57am
Yes, Dr Zakir naik is a person who can explain Islam scientifically. Why don't you see his videos fo yuor satisfaction, fredifreeloader.


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 11:03am
But can the christians tell me, what do you think about the fact the the church altrerd the original text of the Bible. Why then do you still believe in it? Why don't you want to see God's own original messages and teachings in writing?


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 11:06am
If there was a religion truer than Islam, I would accept that! I know that Islam is the truest of all religion, because in Islamic terminology, it means "Submitting your will to Allah (God)" Not "submitting you will to Jesus"


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 11:09am
Let me make one thing clear to the Christians about Jesus. We do accept him and give equal respect to him, but we do not worship him as he is not God or the son of God. Adam also didn't have parents, shouldn't he be a greater god/the son of god, than Jesus?


Posted By: George
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 11:32am

Originally posted by zulqarnain

I suggest you, brother and sisters, to watch all Dr. Zakir Naiks episodes and debates from the earliest to the latest videos available at www.irf.net, in the video gallery, this will answer all your questions, if still not convinced, why not e-mail him at zakir@irf.net ?

zulgarnain,

Several years ago I studied what is claimed as science in the Koran.  I found that there is nothing that was not already known before or was wrong.

Do some googles and read the rebuttals.

 



Posted By: George
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 11:35am

Originally posted by zulqarnain

Let me make one thing clear to the Christians about Jesus. We do accept him and give equal respect to him, but we do not worship him as he is not God or the son of God. Adam also didn't have parents, shouldn't he be a greater god/the son of god, than Jesus?

You are entitled to your opinion as Christians are entitled to their opinion.

About Adam:  Adam is called a son of God in the New Testament in the figurative sense.  He is not God; he is not God made flesh as you see noted in the Gospel of John, Chapter 1.

Adam had to be made the way he was--no parents to help out, but Jesus did not.  Adam is now dust; Jesus is alive in heaven.



Posted By: George
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 11:36am

Originally posted by zulqarnain

If there was a religion truer than Islam, I would accept that! I know that Islam is the truest of all religion, because in Islamic terminology, it means "Submitting your will to Allah (God)" Not "submitting you will to Jesus"

Christians submit to one God and one God only.



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 9:13pm

George,

From you:"Christians submit to one God and one God only."

Name him George, just name that One God and one God only, please.

Just write down only one name, please.



Posted By: ak_m_f
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 10:11pm
Originally posted by George

Originally posted by zulqarnain

If there was a religion truer than Islam, I would accept that! I know that Islam is the truest of all religion, because in Islamic terminology, it means "Submitting your will to Allah (God)" Not "submitting you will to Jesus"


Christians submit to one God and one God only.



Then how do you explain this:



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


Posted By: ak_m_f
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 10:17pm
Originally posted by fredifreeloader

quran 22: 65, which says that it is allah who is stopping the sky falling on the earth?  is this supposed to be scientific?  how could the sky fall on the earth?



22:65


See you not that Allâh has subjected to you (mankind) all that is on the earth, and the ships that sail
through the sea by His Command? He withholds the heaven from falling on the earth except by His
Leave. Verily, Allâh is, for mankind, full of Kindness, Most Merciful.


Main Entry: heav·en
Pronunciation: 'he-v&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English heven, from Old English heofon; akin to Old High German himil heaven
1 : the expanse of space that seems to be over the earth like a dome

Maybe God is talking about Ozone layer?

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


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 10:57pm
Originally posted by George

Originally posted by zulqarnain

I suggest you, brother and sisters, to watch all Dr. Zakir Naiks episodes and debates from the earliest to the latest videos available at www.irf.net, in the video gallery, this will answer all your questions, if still not convinced, why not e-mail him at zakir@irf.net ?


zulgarnain,


Several years ago I studied what is claimed as science in the Koran.  I found that there is nothing that was not already known before or was wrong.


Do some googles and read the rebuttals.


 



When did you come to know that the Sun also revolved, it was not stationary? When did you come to know that even plants have male and female pairs. Was it known before 1400 years aftre the Quraan was revealed? And now you tell me when you came to know about these two facts recently. Through science it has been proven recently. Recently means 5,10,50,100 years back, but not more than 1400 years back.


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 11:02pm
Originally posted by George

Originally posted by zulqarnain

Let me make one thing clear to the Christians about Jesus. We do accept him and give equal respect to him, but we do not worship him as he is not God or the son of God. Adam also didn't have parents, shouldn't he be a greater god/the son of god, than Jesus?


You are entitled to your opinion as Christians are entitled to their opinion.


About Adam:  Adam is called a son of God in the New Testament in the figurative sense.  He is not God; he is not God made flesh as you see noted in the Gospel of John, Chapter 1.


Adam had to be made the way he was--no parents to help out, but Jesus did not.  Adam is now dust; Jesus is alive in heaven.



You tell me which is hard to believe, Adam made out of clay/dust, without parents, or Jesus born without male intervention? If you look from the scientific view, i think the first one is utterly impossible.


Posted By: ak_m_f
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 11:05pm
Actually second one is imposbbile too.

but now they have theory that if you combine 2 female eggs together and clone it then you can get a new human, it will be female.



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


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 11:10pm
Originally posted by fredifreeloader

zulqarnain - zakir naik has already been exposed as a complete fraud, who tells lies about the holy faith of Christ.  he also refuses to debate with christians who have repeatedly challenged him as he does not want to lose face with his muslim pals.  i will not bother looking at his videos, as i do not trust videos.  videos which involved ahmed deedat used to be edited to miss out the parts where he could not answer questions


how does naik explain quran 22: 65, which says that it is allah who is stopping the sky falling on the earth?  is this supposed to be scientific?  how could the sky fall on the earth?



Now really! That man is managing the world's largest Islamic preaching organization. If he doesn't get time to reply to an e-mail or a challenge, that does not mean that he hasn't got answers. Just try him with any of your questions, if you don't want to watch his videos, and THEN tell me wether he is a fraud or not.


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 11:13pm
Originally posted by ak_m_f

Actually second one is imposbbile too.

but now they have theory that if you combine 2 female eggs together and clone it then you can get a new human, it will be female.



That's right. So we have a new moral. Religion is the basic way to seek the Truth, science sprang up from religion and accompanies it. Now according to Dr. Naik, Quran is proven 80 % correct scientifically. Certain thing you can't prove with science, e.g. Angels, Jinns, Black magic etc.


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 25 April 2006 at 11:18pm
ak_m_f, I don't like the penguin you got there.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 12:20am

Neither do I but it's always there in ak_m_f's posts. He knows too much.



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 12:24am

By the way, Bible also has Science and Geometry.

It talks about the four corners of earth. That is how ancient Hebrews learnt how to draw squares, rectangles, rhombuses and trapezoids.

 



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 12:43am

George,

From you:"About Adam:  Adam is called a son of God in the New Testament in the figurative sense.  He is not God; he is not God made flesh as you see noted in the Gospel of John, Chapter 1."

Adam was not God, not even a son of God but he was a word of God made into flesh. God wanted to create Adam. It means that Adam was in the mind of God. Anything in the mind of God is a word and a thought. The word comes true when it is created. You see, George, even you, all others and me were all words with God and God gave us life. We are thus the words of God come true.

For example, I intend to make a table. The word 'Table" is in my mind but the Table does not really exist. When the Table is finally fabricated and complete, I can say that my word came into being. Of course, the Table is not my son.

Now Adam's creation can be considered as a thing extremely major compared to the creation of Jesus without a father. If God created Adam witout any parents, the creation of Jesus was far simpler and easy for God.

Question: Was Adam called a son of God in the Jewish Tanakh or the OT?

From you: "Adam had to be made the way he was--no parents to help out, but Jesus did not.  Adam is now dust; Jesus is alive in heaven."

Whether Jesus is alive in heaven or turned to dust like Adam and others, no one really knows. Those who have left the world, have never returned back to report to us. That is all a conjecture. Even Jesus has never returned to show that he is alive and well in heaven. After his "reported resurrection", he still had a body. This is a fact which no one can deny! Mary clasped his feet and felt his body. The ever-doubting Thomas was made to touch and see for himself.

Jesus, thus cannot be an exception and he must have died again and turned into dust like the Patriarch and other prophets and men of God.

Now, please don't tell me he was lifted bodily into heavens. No man can leave the earth and go into Space without exploding into tiny pieces.

 


 



Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 2:35am
Jesus's body is of course dust, but his soul was lifted up into the heavens befor he could endure the pain of crucifiction-he wasn't crucified. He was one of God's dearest prophets, he never wanted him to suffer that sort of pain. He will kill the Antichrist. For this, he is going to come back on Earth, and then die a normal death.


Posted By: ak_m_f
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 3:21am
Originally posted by zulqarnain

ak_m_f, I don't like the penguin you got there.
\

This is the third time someone has said something about my penguin

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


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 4:16am
Does your penguin show everbody's IP address individually to the poster or is it showing only my IP address to all?   


Posted By: George
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 7:34am
Originally posted by zulqarnain

Originally posted by George

Originally posted by zulqarnain

Let me make one thing clear to the Christians about Jesus. We do accept him and give equal respect to him, but we do not worship him as he is not God or the son of God. Adam also didn't have parents, shouldn't he be a greater god/the son of god, than Jesus?


You are entitled to your opinion as Christians are entitled to their opinion.


About Adam:  Adam is called a son of God in the New Testament in the figurative sense.  He is not God; he is not God made flesh as you see noted in the Gospel of John, Chapter 1.


Adam had to be made the way he was--no parents to help out, but Jesus did not.  Adam is now dust; Jesus is alive in heaven.



You tell me which is hard to believe, Adam made out of clay/dust, without parents, or Jesus born without male intervention? If you look from the scientific view, i think the first one is utterly impossible.

It doesn't matter.  You have to ask yourself why Allah went outside of the already established way he provided people to have children when he caused Jesus' conception in the body of a woman without the help of a man.  There must have been something pretty special about that particular baby.



Posted By: George
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 7:36am
Originally posted by bmzsp

By the way, Bible also has Science and Geometry.

It talks about the four corners of earth. That is how ancient Hebrews learnt how to draw squares, rectangles, rhombuses and trapezoids.

It is a figure of expression.  The Bible clearly says that the earth is round or oval--can't remember which.

 



Posted By: George
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 7:37am
Originally posted by bmzsp

George,

From you:"Christians submit to one God and one God only."

Name him George, just name that One God and one God only, please.

Just write down only one name, please.

Yahweh



Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 7:40am
Tell you what george. First read the chapter "Mary" in the Quraan, THEN tell me the things which you object to or you think is inappropriate. The chapter number is 19.


Posted By: George
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 7:41am
Originally posted by ak_m_f

Originally posted by George

Originally posted by zulqarnain

If there was a religion truer than Islam, I would accept that! I know that Islam is the truest of all religion, because in Islamic terminology, it means "Submitting your will to Allah (God)" Not "submitting you will to Jesus"


Christians submit to one God and one God only.



Then how do you explain this:

It is one God.  Look in the middle of the triangle.  Jesus is the Word of God made flesh--not a different god;  the Holy Spirit is also God, but not a different god.  You must draw a circle slightly off to one side on the word "son" not off of it.  That would represent the divine and human nature of the son.

That's a great picture.  Where did you get it? 



Posted By: George
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 7:50am

Originally posted by zulqarnain

But can the christians tell me, what do you think about the fact the the church altrerd the original text of the Bible. Why then do you still believe in it? Why don't you want to see God's own original messages and teachings in writing?

I did quite a study on textual critisim of the New Testament.  There was some editing.  One edit that I can remember is about the virgin birth of Jesus.  The writer gave the impression in one of the verses that Jesus' father may have been Joseph.  It was changed to make the text clearer.  This was done because the church was fighting adoptionism--people who said that Jesus became the Son of God by adoption.  They did not believe in the virgin birth.

No editing affected any Christian doctrine.  We know all of this because we have so many copies of the New Testament, about 5400 Greek, the rest in many languages--about 24,000 copies in all.  The process involves comparing them and dating them.  This way all misspellings, left out verses, and glossess can be identified.

One particular scholar who is recognized as one of the best who worked on this project--Bruce Metger--was asked if his faith was affected by his analysis.  He said not in the least.  He went on to say that his faith in the integrity of the New Testament had been strengthened.



Posted By: George
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 7:53am

Originally posted by zulqarnain

Jesus's body is of course dust, but his soul was lifted up into the heavens befor he could endure the pain of crucifiction-he wasn't crucified. He was one of God's dearest prophets, he never wanted him to suffer that sort of pain. He will kill the Antichrist. For this, he is going to come back on Earth, and then die a normal death.

This is an interesting comment.  Are you saying that Jesus died on the cross?  I have been told by many Muslims that Jesus was lifted up to heaven, body and soul, and didn't die.

Interesting that God didn't say all the other prophets who were killed.  Why did he just save Jesus?  Any thoughts?



Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 8:23am
Originally posted by ak_m_f

Originally posted by fredifreeloader

quran 22: 65, which says that it is allah who is stopping the sky falling on the earth?  is this supposed to be scientific?  how could the sky fall on the earth?



22:65


See you not that Allâh has subjected to you (mankind) all that is on the earth, and the ships that sail
through the sea by His Command? He withholds the heaven from falling on the earth except by His
Leave. Verily, Allâh is, for mankind, full of Kindness, Most Merciful.


Main Entry: heav·en
Pronunciation: 'he-v&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English heven, from Old English heofon; akin to Old High German himil heaven
1 : the expanse of space that seems to be over the earth like a dome

Maybe God is talking about Ozone layer?

well akmf, if its the ozone layer hes talking about, hes going to be out of a job soon the way things are going, as its disappearing fast, and therell soon be nothing to stop falling!



-------------
for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 8:25am

That is a very interesting comment. I think what zulqarnain is saying is that God made Jesus unconscious by taking his soul away for a while and gave it back to him after hearing the plea:

"Eli, Eli. lama sabachtani."

How could God let him, the miraculously-born child, die, whom God created without a father. Quite possible. During the said six hours period, many things might have happened fast.

I think for the sake of discussions, there is no harm in assuming that.



Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 8:40am
Some muslims say he was lifted towards the heaven with the body, some say only the soul. But let us not discuss this little detail. You asked why did he just save Jesus?
The two main reasons that I know are that he is destined to kill the Antichrist. To kill him he would be sent down to this Earth. Secondly, according to our traditions, Jesus will also come towards the Christians to tell them that he never claimed to be God or the son of God.


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 8:54am
Originally posted by fredifreeloader

Originally posted by ak_m_f

Originally posted by fredifreeloader

quran 22: 65, which says that it is allah who is stopping the sky falling on the earth?  is this supposed to be scientific?  how could the sky fall on the earth?


22:65 See you not that Allâh has subjected to you (mankind) all that is on the earth, and the ships that sail through the sea by His Command? He withholds the heaven from falling on the earth except by His Leave. Verily, Allâh is, for mankind, full of Kindness, Most Merciful. Main Entry: heav·en Pronunciation: 'he-v&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English heven, from Old English heofon; akin to Old High German himil heaven 1 : the expanse of space that seems to be over the earth like a dome Maybe God is talking about Ozone layer?


[IMG]height=17 src="smileys/smiley36.gif" width=17>


well akmf, if its the ozone layer hes talking about, hes going to be out of a job soon the way things are going, as its disappearing fast, and therell soon be nothing to stop falling!



Let me tell you someting. Quranic Arabic is the purest from of Arabic. As it was passed to many Arab tribes in it times, the translators may have not translated some words right. For example in English language Americans spell foto, but british spell photo. Same with synonyms, same word having different meanings like shade.
Shade can means shade from the sun, or the colour shade etc. The word "heaven" in this verse is translated from the Arabic word "Samaa". According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali, the famous commentator, "Samaa" can have four meanings: 1.Something high, 2. A roof, a ceiling, 3.the canopy of heavens, 4. rain or cloud. In this context he says the "Rain" is a more appropriate translation.


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 8:57am
Now what do you say fredi?


Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 8:58am
akmf - ive been looking at that diagram you posted, to see if i can find anything wrong with it.  but i cant see anything wrong with it, it seems very scriptural

-------------
for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16


Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 9:22am

zul said - "In this context he says the "Rain" is a more appropriate translation." yes, of course he does.  i wonder why?   did anyone think it was rain before the nonsense of it was demonstrated?



-------------
for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 9:28am
Sheer narrow-mindedness You didn't read my answer carefully.


Posted By: Dayem
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 9:50am
salam,

Zulqarnain,what is the phone no. of Zakir naik?I didnt find it(in the site)......


thanx,
Day


-------------
"the mooslims! they're heeere!"
LOONWATCH.COM


Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 26 April 2006 at 10:47pm

Greetings George.

I will make some comments below. I apologize if my tone seems abrupt and unfeeling or unfriendly. I must write quickly due to finals, work, and the rest of life. I have no malice or attitude of insult in my intention or in my words.

Peace

 

Originally posted by George

Originally posted by zulqarnain

But can the christians tell me, what do you think about the fact the the church altrerd the original text of the Bible. Why then do you still believe in it? Why don't you want to see God's own original messages and teachings in writing?

I did quite a study on textual critisim of the New Testament.  There was some editing.  One edit that I can remember is about the virgin birth of Jesus.  The writer gave the impression in one of the verses that Jesus' father may have been Joseph.  It was changed to make the text clearer.  This was done because the church was fighting adoptionism--people who said that Jesus became the Son of God by adoption.  They did not believe in the virgin birth.

Christianity was never a single "homogenous" belief system, but was made up of differing groups with ideas about the very nature of Jesus that were in conflict. The "proto-orthodox" won, not because they were right, but because of circumstance. The fact that so many differing views existed into the third and fourth century tells me that none one actually had a legitimate claim to the historical Jesus or even to his message.

The group you inherited your beliefs from also commited piouse fraud with the MSS. It was not just the groups whom you consider to be heritics.

Originally posted by George

No editing affected any Christian doctrine.  We know all of this because we have so many copies of the New Testament, about 5400 Greek, the rest in many languages--about 24,000 copies in all.  The process involves comparing them and dating them.  This way all misspellings, left out verses, and glossess can be identified.

You are repeating the common line.

The common reply to the piouse fraud commited by "Holy Ghost" filled Christians to their own MSS about "it does not effect Christian doctrine" is a bit of a "strawman".

Here is an analogy.

You are being put on trial for "such and such thing". You and your counselor find out that the prosecutor is using evidence that has been tampered with. Your counselor takes this information to the judge showing that the prosecutor's evidence has been tampered with. The prosecutor looks suprised that you and your counselor are complaining and is mystified that you have a problem with his evidence. The prosecutor tells you and the judge, "Sure, it was tampered with, but it was our witnesses that did the tampering so what's the problem!?".

I am sure you would not agree. This is what you are asking us all to accept.

1) The proto orthodox chose the gospel account narratives amongst hundreds in existence with "presumptions" in their mind that they superimposed onto their quest for "official gospels". These presumptions were never proven, nor did they ever have any actual document or offical "tradition" that provided them with any bases to make a real claim about Jesus.

2) They (proto-orthodox) and the myriad of groups who all had claims of authenticity about Jesus, yet remained in conflict with one another, each fudged the accounts (MS) in order to dress them up so that they might reflect their own theolgical "supposition". The fact that they had to resort to piouse fraud by "dressing up" their "word of Gd" proves they had nothing substantial or concrete to go on to prove their own claims.

 3) Your "24,000" copy number does not reflect the entire picture. Copies of copies of copies, much of which come from after 5 CE in no way validates any claim that the NT you have in your hands is true account of Jesus. The fact that pious fraud took place in both the choosing of the narrative accounts and the "creative editing" that took place afterwords by various sects is proof. The fact that 3 centuries after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, various groups were at a stand still in theolgical debate and had to resort to MS "editing" to help bolster their theological beliefs against their rivals, tells me that a lot of people had a lot of different beliefs but did not really know anything particular or historical. Just my observation.

Originally posted by George

 

One particular scholar who is recognized as one of the best who worked on this project--Bruce Metger--was asked if his faith was affected by his analysis.  He said not in the least.  He went on to say that his faith in the integrity of the New Testament had been strengthened.

Yes, and his student, now a major scholar Bart Ehrman has put forth even more evidence that is antithetical to the evangelcial claims. And he is also a Christian. And that Christians still are having to debate and research the idea of a true "NT", after 2000 years, tells me that your doctors still do not actually know. This is why I praise Allah for His final message, and His Servant, the best of man, His Prophet and Messenger, Muhammad, may Allah grant him peace and blessings, and his family. I pray that Allah guides the millions of wonderful Christians, many of whom devote themselves to Gd and to doing good.

Peace 



-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 27 April 2006 at 3:26am
Dayem, There's no direct number of Dr.Zakir Naik. He will be contacted indirectly through the number provided in the website: www.irf.net. Why don't you go to "Contact Us" link on that webpage?


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 27 April 2006 at 8:24am
Originally posted by fredifreeloader

zul said - "In this context he says the "Rain" is a more appropriate translation." yes, of course he does.  i wonder why?   did anyone think it was rain before the nonsense of it was demonstrated?<!-- Message ''"" --><!-- Message ''"" -->



What do you mean by the "nonsense of it was demonstrated"


Posted By: fredifreeloader
Date Posted: 27 April 2006 at 8:44am
i meant "before they realised that the sky could not fall on the earth"

-------------
for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 27 April 2006 at 9:25am

(George)  “That's a great picture.  Where did you get it?” 

It is otherwise known as the historical “shield of the Trinity” and was posted, or linked, in this thread as well:

 

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4518&PN=1&TPN=4 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4518& ;PN=1&TPN=4

 

 

Servetus



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 27 April 2006 at 9:27am

I was surfing the web on the Gospel of Judas and came upon the National Geographical Societies website.  There is a ton of information on this site including the ability to view the text in English and Coptic.  Now, the Gospel of Judas was written 150 years after Judas Iscariot lived.  Therefore, falling under the same theory most Muslims hold about the questionability of the Gospels.....I would say this is definitely on that track.

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/index.html - http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/index.html

The timeline is very interesting, showing when Gospels were written and chosen.



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


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 28 April 2006 at 6:17am
I want to challenge anyone, who can take out any scientific contradictions in the Quraan. This challenge is especially for the "Freeloader" for his arrogance.

There aren't ANY contradictions in the Quraan, except from mistranslation, misqoutation-quoting out of context, misunderstanding and not analyzing the Quraan as a whole, as it completes it's topics not in one go, but in several different chapters,e.g. some mentioned in chapter 10, the continuaTION MIGHT BE IN CHAPTER 39.


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 28 April 2006 at 6:30am
And this challenge is not to rebel against the christians or to incite hatred, but to clear the misconceptions.


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 28 April 2006 at 7:24am
There are more than 20 scientific mistakes in the bible which I will discuss. The purpose for this is not to hurt the christians' feeling or to incite hatred. But to tell the christians that these scientific errors cannot be attributed to God. God knows the character of every human being. Only He is to judge who is a good Christian or a Jew or a Muslim in respect with their degree of understanding.

Errors in the Bible:
Error #1: Astronomy-the creation of the Universe
In Genises, chapter 1, it says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and talks about the evening and the morning, referring to a 24-hour day. Today science tell us that a universe cannot be created in six days, each days having 24 hours. The Quran too speaks about six "Ayaam", which can mean a very long period or a 24 hour day. Scientists can agree that a universe tcan be created in very long periods, six very long periods.
In Genises Chapter 1 Verse 3-5, it says life was created on the first day. In the smame chapter, verse 14-19 the source of light, the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day. How can the 'cause of light' come in existence before the light born on the first day?
Genises verse 9-13, it says Earth was created in the third day. How can you have the "night and day" before the creation of the Earth. The night and day depends on the rotation of the Earth.
Genises Chapter 1, verse 14-19 says that the Sun and the moon was created on the fourth day. Today science tells us that Earth is part of the parent body...the sun. Earth cannot become in existence before the Sun.(the earth created in the 3rd day, and the sun and the moon on the 4th.)
Genesis chapter 1, verse 11-13, it says that the vegetation was created on the third day. How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight.

There are more errors regarding the creation of the Earth but if you watch Dr Zakir Naik's videos debating with Dr. William Campbell, it will save my precious time from typing. I'll give you the links:

http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3111&t=
http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3112&t=
http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3777&t=
http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3778&t=

these links contain the total debate "Quran and Bible in the light of science" It has 4 clips, so watch them.


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 28 April 2006 at 7:26am
Sorry somethings wrong with adding the links-- just go to the website www.irf.net. And then to it's video gallery. "Quran and Bible in the light of science"


Posted By: George
Date Posted: 28 April 2006 at 7:27am

zulqarnain,

This is in response to your latest post to me.

The single homogenous belief system that you mentioned was in existence from the very first days after the resurrection of Jesus from the cross.  The gospel was preached orally for years.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as other books in the New Testament represent it.

 

In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation.

Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html - http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

We can determine some of the very Christian beliefs by the Creeds.

Most of my information about the early Christian creeds comes from the book, "The Historical Jesus" by Gary R. Habermas. There is also a mention of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 in Lee Strobel's book, "The Case For Christ." Strobel's book is all interviews with noted historians and scholars and Craig L. Blomberg remarks on this creed. Habermas mentioned the works of Oscar Cullman, "The Earliest Christian Confessions" as "one of the classic works on this subject." I don't have that book but plan to try and get it. It was published in 1949.

The early creeds are important because they describe the nature of Christian thought before the writing of the New Testament. These creeds were communicated verbally years before they were written and preserve some of the earliest reports concerning Jesus from about 30-50AD. They are our earliest sources for the life of Jesus.

One of the earliest creeds in this one:

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

This creed is considered pre-Pauline and is recognized as such by virtually all critical scholars across a very wide theological spectrum. How do they know that it is old and pre-Pauline?

1. Paul's words "delivered" and "received" are technical terms for passing on tradition. So, Paul is saying that this material was not his own, but received from another source.

2. A number of the words are non-Pauline which indicates another source. They are: "for our sins," "according to the scriptures," "he has been raised," the "third day," "he was seen," and "the twelve."

3. The creed is organized in a stylized, parallel form, thereby indicating an oral and confessional nature.

4. There are indications that there may be a Semitic source, such as the use of the Aramaic "Cephas" for Peter, which would point to an earlier source before Paul's Greek translation.

5. Other indications of ancient Hebrew narration include the triple usage of "and that" along with the two references to the Scripture being fulfilled.

Some date this creed from 3 to 8 years after Jesus' crucifixion. This is Blomberg's logic for dating the creed:

Now think, if the crucifixion was as early as 30 AD, Paul's conversation was bout 32 AD. Immediately Paul was ushered into Damascus, where he met with a Christian named Ananias and some other disciples. His first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem would have been about 35 AD. At some point along there, Paul was given this creed, which had already been formulated and was being used in the early church.

Now, here with this creed we have the key facts about Jesus' death for our sins, plus a detailed list of those to whom he appeared in resurrected form—all dating back to within two or five years of the events themselves!! That's not later mythology from 40 or more years down the road. A good case can be made for saying that Christian belief in the Resurrection, though not yet written down, can be dated to within two years of th at very event!

It is also important to realize that this creed represents eyewitness testimony and to keep in mind that it is pre-Pauline.

By mid-second century Gnosticism was in full swing.  Also prevalent were the fanciful books—I call them folklore—Jesus speaking as an infant.  His first words were:  "Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God, that word which thou didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel Gabriel to thee, and my father hath sent me for the salvation of the world."  Others have Jesus killing his playmates, making clay birds that could fly, blinding his teacher (or killing him, can't remember which), bringing a classmate back to life who fell off a roof; another has Mary doing miracles with Jesus' bath water after she gave him a bath; another has Jesus coming out of the tomb with his head touching the heavens and a talking cross following him.  All folklore.

Bart Ehrman is a sad case.  Essentially he thought that the Bible somehow came down on a string from heaven.  When he found out that it hadn't, he became close to an agnostic.  His conclusions are being misused. 

Ehrman gave his permission to use this quote:

"I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world." 

I've talked to Bart 4 or 5 times.  He told me that the corrections in the NT need not affect anyone's faith and he agreed that Bruce Metzger was a perfect example.

You can read an review of his latest book here:  http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452 - http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452

And another here:

http://www.tektonics.org/books/ehrqurvw.html - http://www.tektonics.org/books/ehrqurvw.html

It seems to me that you would be much better off if you accepted that the text of the Bible and the Koran have both had human hands involved in its history and based your arguments on that fact instead of trying to discredit the Bible.

We are fortunate that we have so many copies of the NT in order to do textual criticism, unlike Islam who during the time of Ultman, all variant copies of the Koran were burned.

Even if a Christian decided not to be a Christian based on their interpretation of it the NT that does not mean that they should embrace Islam and the Koran.  The Koran has to be able to stand on its own.

I would venture a guess that if Bart did a textual analysis of the Koran he would come to the same conclusion that he did of the New Testament.  In other words, he would not become a Muslim.



Posted By: George
Date Posted: 28 April 2006 at 7:30am

Originally posted by zulqarnain

There are more than 20 scientific mistakes in the bible which I will discuss. The purpose for this is not to hurt the christians' feeling or to incite hatred. But to tell the christians that these scientific errors cannot be attributed to God. God knows the character of every human being. Only He is to judge who is a good Christian or a Jew or a Muslim in respect with their degree of understanding.

Errors in the Bible:
Error #1: Astronomy-the creation of the Universe
In Genises, chapter 1, it says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and talks about the evening and the morning, referring to a 24-hour day. Today science tell us that a universe cannot be created in six days, each days having 24 hours. The Quran too speaks about six "Ayaam", which can mean a very long period or a 24 hour day. Scientists can agree that a universe tcan be created in very long periods, six very long periods.
In Genises Chapter 1 Verse 3-5, it says life was created on the first day. In the smame chapter, verse 14-19 the source of light, the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day. How can the 'cause of light' come in existence before the light born on the first day?
Genises verse 9-13, it says Earth was created in the third day. How can you have the "night and day" before the creation of the Earth. The night and day depends on the rotation of the Earth.
Genises Chapter 1, verse 14-19 says that the Sun and the moon was created on the fourth day. Today science tells us that Earth is part of the parent body...the sun. Earth cannot become in existence before the Sun.(the earth created in the 3rd day, and the sun and the moon on the 4th.)
Genesis chapter 1, verse 11-13, it says that the vegetation was created on the third day. How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight.

There are more errors regarding the creation of the Earth but if you watch Dr Zakir Naik's videos debating with Dr. William Campbell, it will save my precious time from typing. I'll give you the links:

http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3111&t=
http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3112&t=
http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3777&t=
http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3778&t=

these links contain the total debate "Quran and Bible in the light of science" It has 4 clips, so watch them.

zulqarnain,

All of these so-called errors have been addressed on a website that apparently this site does not allow Christians to link.  I suggest that either withdraw your post or talk the Moderators into letting me give you rebuttals from the site that addresses them.



Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 28 April 2006 at 7:53am
Originally posted by George

Originally posted by zulqarnain

There are more than 20 scientific mistakes in the bible which I will discuss. The purpose for this is not to hurt the christians' feeling or to incite hatred. But to tell the christians that these scientific errors cannot be attributed to God. God knows the character of every human being. Only He is to judge who is a good Christian or a Jew or a Muslim in respect with their degree of understanding. Errors in the Bible: Error #1: Astronomy-the creation of the Universe In Genises, chapter 1, it says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and talks about the evening and the morning, referring to a 24-hour day. Today science tell us that a universe cannot be created in six days, each days having 24 hours. The Quran too speaks about six "Ayaam", which can mean a very long period or a 24 hour day. Scientists can agree that a universe tcan be created in very long periods, six very long periods. In Genises Chapter 1 Verse 3-5, it says life was created on the first day. In the smame chapter, verse 14-19 the source of light, the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day. How can the 'cause of light' come in existence before the light born on the first day? Genises verse 9-13, it says Earth was created in the third day. How can you have the "night and day" before the creation of the Earth. The night and day depends on the rotation of the Earth. Genises Chapter 1, verse 14-19 says that the Sun and the moon was created on the fourth day. Today science tells us that Earth is part of the parent body...the sun. Earth cannot become in existence before the Sun.(the earth created in the 3rd day, and the sun and the moon on the 4th.) Genesis chapter 1, verse 11-13, it says that the vegetation was created on the third day. How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight. There are more errors regarding the creation of the Earth but if you watch Dr Zakir Naik's videos debating with Dr. William Campbell, it will save my precious time from typing. I'll give you the links: http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3111&t= http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3112&t= http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3777&t= http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3778&t= these links contain the total debate "Quran and Bible in the light of science" It has 4 clips, so watch them.


zulqarnain,


All of these so-called errors have been addressed on a website that apparently this site does not allow Christians to link.  I suggest that either withdraw your post or talk the Moderators into letting me give you rebuttals from the site that addresses them.


I am sorry George if yu misunderstood me. read my next message after this


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 28 April 2006 at 7:59am
George what you have mentioned about the history, lets not discuss that. If it's right or wrong, I'm not bothered. You said there are human hands invloved in the Quran too. Yes of course-BUT not in editing the original text, but copying the Arabic from word to word.
If the Bible had the original Hebrew text existing, i would not have a problem accepting it, as in Islam, you cannot be a Muslim unless you believe in the Book revealed to Jesus.


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 28 April 2006 at 8:01am
forums.understanding-islam.org/ community/archive/index.php?t-2437.html
This is the link to the argument in text.


Posted By: George
Date Posted: 28 April 2006 at 8:14am
Originally posted by zulqarnain

Originally posted by George

Originally posted by zulqarnain

There are more than 20 scientific mistakes in the bible which I will discuss. The purpose for this is not to hurt the christians' feeling or to incite hatred. But to tell the christians that these scientific errors cannot be attributed to God. God knows the character of every human being. Only He is to judge who is a good Christian or a Jew or a Muslim in respect with their degree of understanding. Errors in the Bible: Error #1: Astronomy-the creation of the Universe In Genises, chapter 1, it says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and talks about the evening and the morning, referring to a 24-hour day. Today science tell us that a universe cannot be created in six days, each days having 24 hours. The Quran too speaks about six "Ayaam", which can mean a very long period or a 24 hour day. Scientists can agree that a universe tcan be created in very long periods, six very long periods. In Genises Chapter 1 Verse 3-5, it says life was created on the first day. In the smame chapter, verse 14-19 the source of light, the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day. How can the 'cause of light' come in existence before the light born on the first day? Genises verse 9-13, it says Earth was created in the third day. How can you have the "night and day" before the creation of the Earth. The night and day depends on the rotation of the Earth. Genises Chapter 1, verse 14-19 says that the Sun and the moon was created on the fourth day. Today science tells us that Earth is part of the parent body...the sun. Earth cannot become in existence before the Sun.(the earth created in the 3rd day, and the sun and the moon on the 4th.) Genesis chapter 1, verse 11-13, it says that the vegetation was created on the third day. How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight. There are more errors regarding the creation of the Earth but if you watch Dr Zakir Naik's videos debating with Dr. William Campbell, it will save my precious time from typing. I'll give you the links: http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3111&t= http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3112&t= http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3777&t= http://www.islamicity.com/m/mediadisplay.asp?ref=3778&t= these links contain the total debate "Quran and Bible in the light of science" It has 4 clips, so watch them.


zulqarnain,


All of these so-called errors have been addressed on a website that apparently this site does not allow Christians to link.  I suggest that either withdraw your post or talk the Moderators into letting me give you rebuttals from the site that addresses them.


I am sorry George if yu misunderstood me. read my next message after this

I read it and do understand what you are saying.



Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 12:24am
Tell you what George. Now this is not going to WASTE your time. There are a number of questions asked by Christian Missionaries listed on the irf.net website. On the webpage, if you go all the way down. there's a "Q&A on Islam" click on that. Scroll down, then "qustions asked by christian missionaries".

I'm not saying or forcing you to accept Islam. I'm only trying to erase the misconceptions and misunderstanding. The reason that why I refer to famous scholars/websites is that you should have the best answer available. It's upto you you wether yoo want to accept the Quraan. I did not ask you to do it.


Posted By: George
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 6:22am

Originally posted by zulqarnain

Tell you what George. Now this is not going to WASTE your time. There are a number of questions asked by Christian Missionaries listed on the irf.net website. On the webpage, if you go all the way down. there's a "Q&A on Islam" click on that. Scroll down, then "qustions asked by christian missionaries".

I'm not saying or forcing you to accept Islam. I'm only trying to erase the misconceptions and misunderstanding. The reason that why I refer to famous scholars/websites is that you should have the best answer available. It's upto you you wether yoo want to accept the Quraan. I did not ask you to do it.

One of my posts has been deleted in this thread.  You claim scientific "errors" in the Bible.  My post along with links, said that the same claims have been made against the Koran.

In the final analysis we all have answers to any allegations against our Holy Books.  You can find "Muslims scholars" who refute some of what is presented in the Koran (interpretations); you can find "Christian Scholars" doing the same against the Bible.

You would do well to compare what people like Naik and Deedat say against Christianity with the rebuttals from the Christians and you can readily find them on the Internet.

The difference between the Bible and the Koran is that the Bible was written by human beings who were 'inspired by God' (Theopneustos), thus they would use human speech and human ways of explaining how they figured out how the universe worked.  If a humansays the universe was created in 6 days, that's no big proble, since the Bible's truth does not depend upon it's divine authorship.

The Koran however is supposed to be written by a perfect God.  The problem does not exist for the Bible, since it is and always has been the work of human beings.



Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 8:20am
Please post me the "scientific errors in the Quran" again, PLEASE.


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 8:22am
Send me the "link" soon as possible


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 9:15am

“The difference between the Bible and the Koran is that the Bible was written by human beings who were 'inspired by God' (Theopneustos), thus they would use human speech and human ways of explaining how they figured out how the universe worked.  If a human says the universe was created in 6 days, that's no big problem, since the Bible's truth does not depend upon it's divine authorship. [bold emphasis mine]”

George, please elaborate or explain.  In my experience, I would think that many Christians, especially those of the “Biblical inerrancy” school, would say otherwise: that the Bible’s truth is truth precisely because of its divine authorship, inspiration, or theopneustos (consider, e.g., 2 Tim 3:16-17).

Servetus  



Posted By: George
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 9:29am

Originally posted by zulqarnain

Please post me the "scientific errors in the Quran" again, PLEASE.

Hi zulgarnain,

Since the moderators deleted my links, they have left me with the impression that they do not want me to use them.  So I won't.

I googled, "Scientific errors in the Quran" and got a lot of sites that cited what they considered errors.  I used the first 4 or 5 cites that came up.

This is the best I can do.



Posted By: peacemaker
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 4:11pm

Assalamu Alaikum!

George:

"Since the moderators deleted my links, they have left me with the impression that they do not want me to use them.  So I won't.

I googled, "Scientific errors in the Quran" and got a lot of sites that cited what they considered errors.  I used the first 4 or 5 cites that came up."

13. We request you not to post URLs of sites the sole existence of which is to slander a religion or spread lies about it.

Above is a rule in the guidelines.

Moreover, when you say, scientific errors in Qur'an, could you discuss them what they are with evidence. As you know, it is "interfaith dialogue section". Just "cut and paste" from anti-Islam web sites without any dialogue whatsoever for information exchange doesn't serve the purpose.

Peace

 



-------------
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13


Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 7:58pm

Greetings George.

This response was for me, not to Zul Qarnain.

I also noticed that you have pasted a great deal of your reply. I am not here to debate the "party line" of your faith. I was hoping for direct responses to my reply. I will make my points below.

Originally posted by George

zulqarnain,

This is in response to your latest post to me.

The single homogenous belief system that you mentioned was in existence from the very first days after the resurrection of Jesus from the cross.  The gospel was preached orally for years.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as other books in the New Testament represent it.

No, it was not. You should quote B Erhman's sources for this topic as well. There was no single "homogenous" belief system, and anyone who still makes this claim is delving into the absurd with a serious case of denial. History does not agree with this bald face assertion, and you have not offered anything beyond, "Yes there was".

Originally posted by George

In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented.

A repeat and you ignored my reply. The Christian claim for billions and trillions of MS is actually meaningless given that these MS are mostly dated after the fifth century and are copies of copies of copies. WHat we need is something within the first three centuries. Your early Christian communities were unable to agree on the basics like, "who was Jesus and what was he".

 

Originally posted by George

These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor).

Irrelevant. It does not matter where they have been found, what matters is when they were written and by who. These are two points that are not resolved.

 

A MS dated to 125 AD?

http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htm - http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htm

Well, we have part of verses 31-33, and verses 37-38 of chapter "xviii". This is not tens of thousands of MS from the second century. This is a fragment that has nearly nothing on it that can help this thread or your claim. Could you point out the rest of the book? 

 

Originally posted by George

 

 Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation.

 

 

Many? Portions? 150 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus?

 

This is a list of your tens of thousands of MSS.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/paplist.html - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/paplist.html

I would conclude that this hardely matches the claims that we are all told about in church.


Originally posted by George


Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html - http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

 

 

What you are doing is called dumping. I am unable to varify phrases such as, "thousands of early Christian writings". This is like saying, "we have tens of thousands of MSS". The conclusion you have tried to reach with your above "assertion" is that someone, who lived 200 CE quoted gospels they like amongst hundreds of other gospels? So 170 years later someone mentions a Gospel that you read, but this only shows that something was being read with an attributed name you are familiar with, and it may even be the same gospel, but this does not prove any claim to validity or authorship or historical factuality of the gospel accounts. These writings survived amongst other writings that were not preserved given the group that won out created their view on history and did everything they could to wipe out the claims of their rival sects and their beliefs. So your point is simply a non sequitur.

 

Originally posted by George

 

We can determine some of the very Christian beliefs by the Creeds.

 

Again, this is no big "whoop". We already know that the early church inherited its tradition from the men you quoted, but we also know there were other groups with other thoughts, and the beliefs you derive are only founded on thinking at 200 CE, 170 years after the fact. In other words, we already know what the proto-orthodox believe. We do not know what Jesus believed. One thing simply does not imply the other. A non sequitur.

 

Originally posted by George

Most of my information about the early Christian creeds comes from the book, "The Historical Jesus" by Gary R. Habermas. There is also a mention of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 in Lee Strobel's book, "The Case For Christ." Strobel's book is all interviews with noted historians and scholars and Craig L. Blomberg remarks on this creed. Habermas mentioned the works of Oscar Cullman, "The Earliest Christian Confessions" as "one of the classic works on this subject." I don't have that book but plan to try and get it. It was published in 1949.

 You are “asserting” and explaining your beliefs. This is not the same as replying to my points and arguing your case.

I would be happy to debate both works. Lee Strobel's work is extremely juvenile and he stays clear of any serious scholars. It is a soft work for those who already believe.

 

Originally posted by George


The early creeds are important because they describe the nature of Christian thought before the writing of the New Testament. These creeds were communicated verbally years before they were written and preserve some of the earliest reports concerning Jesus from about 30-50AD. They are our earliest sources for the life of Jesus.

 

The creed is based upon those who founded your belief system.

This would be from the time period of 200 CE.

To try and conclude that this means this is what Jesus believed is "stretching" the evidence.

This man thought "such and such thing" 200 CE, therefore 30 CE this is what some man thought.

?

 This again is a non sequitur.

Originally posted by George

One of the earliest creeds in this one:

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

This creed is considered pre-Pauline and is recognized as such by virtually all critical scholars across a very wide theological spectrum. How do they know that it is old and pre-Pauline?

1. Paul's words "delivered" and "received" are technical terms for passing on tradition. So, Paul is saying that this material was not his own, but received from another source.

Circular reasoning. You are trying to show it is pre-Pauline. You are now trying to say that because Paul used a certain word, that it must be prepauline is simply irrational. You cannot prove something is pre-Pauline by evoking something Paul said, as what Paul said is not an established truth.

Furthermore, you have a major assumption that is not readily accepted: Paul was a spokesman for Jesus.

We know he was not universally accepted even in his own day.

Originally posted by George



2. A number of the words are non-Pauline which indicates another source. They are: "for our sins," "according to the scriptures," "he has been raised," the "third day," "he was seen," and "the twelve."

 

This begs the question: So what?

Mark uses verses from the Hebrew Scriptures. This does not make what Mark says, a Christian belief that is pre-Mark or pre Christian. One does not provide proof for the other. This is a non sequitur.

If you feel I am wrong, then please elaborate.


Originally posted by George


3. The creed is organized in a stylized, parallel form, thereby indicating an oral and confessional nature.

Once more, this begs the question: So what?

Copying a style or using past material does not make what Paul says to be what Gd wants us to believe. This is like saying, "What the Gospels say must be true because it uses verses from the OT, so therefore it is pre-Gospel period and must be true". This is yet another non sequitur.

 

Originally posted by George


4. There are indications that there may be a Semitic source, such as the use of the Aramaic "Cephas" for Peter, which would point to an earlier source before Paul's Greek translation.

 And yet we have another non sequitur.

 

Originally posted by George

5. Other indications of ancient Hebrew narration include the triple usage of "and that" along with the two references to the Scripture being fulfilled.

 

Your points are also using a great deal of “there are indications”, which tells me that the source you are taking this from is trying to tell us that their argument is “tenuous” at the very best. Not to mention this is another example of a “non sequitur”.

Originally posted by George


Some date this creed from 3 to 8 years after Jesus' crucifixion. This is Blomberg's logic for dating the creed:


Now think, if the crucifixion was as early as 30 AD, Paul's conversation was bout 32 AD. Immediately Paul was ushered into Damascus, where he met with a Christian named Ananias and some other disciples. His first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem would have been about 35 AD. At some point along there, Paul was given this creed, which had already been formulated and was being used in the early church.

Fallacious.

 

 

 

1)     Paul never met Jesus. We only have controversial and conflicting reports that Paul talked to dead people after he had an “incident”.

2)     Whatever Paul thought or felt does not imply what was thought in Jerusalem.

3)     Any ideas that Paul has does not tell us anything about ancient Christians. Given the various groups that existed where each had their own ideas, one cannot discern between having an idea being started by myth or by fact.

4)     Paul is completely silent about anything “historical” about the life of Jesus.

5)     There were numerous “mystery faith” religions contemporary to Paul, such that there could be other sources for his personal beliefs, and not necessarily those of the ancient Christians.

6)     The early church fathers derived their beliefs from Paul, and chose anything attributed to him as the barrier between the ancient Christians and their own beliefs. This does not mean that Paul was the only “school of thought”.

7)     One must accept Paul as a valid representation of Jesus, and there is nothing that has been put forth in the last 2000 years that permits him to necessarily be such.

8)     Paul was sent to the gentiles because his message was considered flawed and not worthy the Jews who were the intended target of Jesus.   

 


Originally posted by George


Now, here with this creed we have the key facts about Jesus' death for our sins, plus a detailed list of those to whom he appeared in resurrected form—all dating back to within two or five years of the events themselves!! That's not later mythology from 40 or more years down the road. A good case can be made for saying that Christian belief in the Resurrection, though not yet written down, can be dated to within two years of th at very event!

Conjecture, supposition, assertions, none of which answer the questions as to why Gd must die for our sins, affirm Paul as anything but another mediocre religious man in an environment with countless others, or establish what the first Christians thought.

Originally posted by George

It is also important to realize that this creed represents eyewitness testimony and to keep in mind that it is pre-Pauline.

I am sorry George, your appealing to a derived creed from the Pauline letters by men who live 170 years after the fact and favored Paul’s thoughts does not conclude there are eye witness testimony who believed as you do. You are reaching, as is the author of the work you are taking this angle from. You are asking me to accept a great many assumptions. Perhaps at this point one should bring to mind Occam’s Razor,“entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”. The continued violation of this sound principle in order to show how Jesus really thought speaks volumes.

 

Originally posted by George

By mid-second century Gnosticism was in full swing.  Also prevalent were the fanciful books—I call them folklore—Jesus speaking as an infant.  His first words were:  "

 

This has no relevance on the hundreds of gospel accounts that existed with the four you call “word of Gd”, nor does this validate any claim of authenticity of the four that were chosen by the same men who chose the Pauline letters to represent their ideas, nor does it invalidate the sources of mid second century books. Their sources are as known as the ones you call Gd’s word. 

Originally posted by George

Bart Ehrman is a sad case.  Essentially he thought that the Bible somehow came down on a string from heaven.  When he found out that it hadn't, he became close to an agnostic.  His conclusions are being misused. 

This is the common belief of most evangelicals. That their NT is based upon a common source from known authorship direct to Jesus, hence, Gd. His conclusions are solid which is why many Christians are angry with him. His conclusions bolster the position that Christians do not actually have any way to know that their NT is directly from Jesus.

Originally posted by George

Ehrman gave his permission to use this quote:

"I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world." 

1)     “scribes (did not) changed everything in the text, or even most things”, so then it is “ok” to tamper with the word of Gd as long as it was not everything? It is ok as long as it is with “some things”? So you are now asserting that it is ok that the MS were tampered with on some points, because it was the Chrch fathers that did it!?

You are being put on trial for "such and such thing". You and your counselor find out that the prosecutor is using evidence that has been tampered with. Your counselor takes this information to the judge showing that the prosecutor's evidence has been tampered with. The prosecutor looks suprised that you and your counselor are complaining and is mystified that you have a problem with his evidence. The prosecutor tells you and the judge, "Sure, it was tampered with, but it was our witnesses that did the tampering so what's the problem!?".

So the tampered evidence would be ok as long as only “some of the evidence” was tampered with by the prosecutors witnesses? :lol: Come on George.

2)     The corruption of scripture means that different men were looking at similar narratives and walking away with conflicting beliefs about Jesus. This allows one to deduce that they did not really know anything about Jesus, and followed conjecture. They were so desperate to win the theological battle, that they resorted to “fudging” their “word of Gd” in order to show that it really agreed with their own personal view. What kind of holy man fudges their word of Gd? This is called “lying”, or rather, pious fraud.

3)     The texts spoke about the resurrection because this is what the third doctors focused on and this was the focus of their personal views. So this begs the question: Why would they tamper with resurrection accounts if this is what they believed in. The texts they tampered with were ones which did not readily support their views, not those that did.

4)     He said himself that the “nuances” were important. That means key to your faith.

5)     So after 2000 years your scholars feel they can now reconstruct your NT concerning the four narratives that were chosen and transmitted. Keep in mind, “2000 years later”, and about the “four narratives you have”, which has nothing to do with their historical validity, or what Jesus actually thought or what his followers actually thought. You are trying to take these vague generalizations and make sweeping conclusions that simply do not follow.     

 

Originally posted by George

I've talked to Bart 4 or 5 times.  He told me that the corrections in the NT need not affect anyone's faith and he agreed that Bruce Metzger was a perfect example.

You can read an review of his latest book here:  http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452 - http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452

And another here:

http://www.tektonics.org/books/ehrqurvw.html - http://www.tektonics.org/books/ehrqurvw.html

Opinion. And about the links. George, I do not do links. If you have something to debate or discuss, I would be happy to engage the topic. I am not here to refute someone’s websites. I also have many links and material of the two authors above that support my views, but the thread will look silly if all we do is exchange links.

Originally posted by George

It seems to me that you would be much better off if you accepted that the text of the Bible and the Koran have both had human hands involved in its history and based your arguments on that fact instead of trying to discredit the Bible.

You are welcome to your opinion. But what we need is substance. Please show me where the Quran has been “fudged” by scrupulous men such as that case of your church doctors?

Originally posted by George

We are fortunate that we have so many copies of the NT in order to do textual criticism, unlike Islam who during the time of Ultman, all variant copies of the Koran were burned.

That is a very interesting statement. You are saying that you are lucky that you have no authoritative source from Jesus or his disciples, and instead have copies of copies of copies of narratives that were four out of hundreds whom you do not actually know the authorship and were fudged by your own doctors in dishonest attempts to prove their theology to each other and on top of that, the copies of copies of copies do not agree with each other on numerous verses. And you feel I am unlucky because the Prophet (saw) actually transmitted the Quran to his followers and afterward compiled an authoritative reading based on committee of first hand followers, and chains were established in the following transmission? So you would be unlucky if Jesus had actually authorized his teachings and words to his first hand followers who authorized this teaching afterward and they guarded and established a chain of transmission, discarding fallacious and invented sources, including mistakes? You cannot be serious. I will take my “unlucky” situation over your “lucky scenario” any day.  

Originally posted by George

Even if a Christian decided not to be a Christian based on their interpretation of it the NT that does not mean that they should embrace Islam and the Koran.  The Koran has to be able to stand on its own.

I never made such an argument.

Also, could you please show that it does not stand on its own?

Originally posted by George

I would venture a guess that if Bart did a textual analysis of the Koran he would come to the same conclusion that he did of the New Testament.  In other words, he would not become a Muslim.

 

That's actually pretty juvenile George. The bible and the Quran are two very different texts given there modes of transmission. So only an uneducated fool would try and apply the same criteria to the Quran as the bible. The criteria was developed based upon the text and its history. Therefore, one could apply the same criteria. Dr. B. Ehrman is not a scholar of classic Arabic or texts in classic Arabic. What he may find or not is conjecture and would be silly to further entertain. Also, I have not argued that the unreliable NT is proof of Islam. One comes to Islam based upon Gd. The unreliable NT is simply one unreliable holy book amongst others in the world. The important thing is that the Quran acknowledges Jesus and that he had some revelation. That’s all we need to know.   

 



-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 11:45pm
A very interesting answer Andulus.
I am not that good in the HISTORICAL knowledge of the Bible. But I do not need that proof, to beleive that the current Bible is not the word from Allah. I mean, if the source book of Christianity is contradicting itself, why would I accept it. And contradicting is the sense that, it has been proven by ESTABLISHED researches, not on the basis of private agreements.


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 11:48pm
This is one of Dr Zakir Naik's answer to a Christian Missionary.

Question:

Is it not true that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has copied the Qur’an from the Bible?

Answer:

Many critics allege that Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) himself was not the author of the Qur’an but he learnt it and/or plagiarised (copied or adapted) it from other human sources or from previous scriptures or revelations.

1.    MUHUMMAD LEARNT THE QUR’AN FROM A ROMAN BLACKSMITH WHO WAS A CHRISTIAN


Some Pagans accused the Prophet of learning the Qur’an from a Roman Blacksmith, who was a Christian staying at the outskirts of Makkah. The Prophet very often used to go and watch him do his work. A revelation of the Qur’an was sufficient to dismiss this charge - the Qur’an says in Surah An-Nahl chapter 16 verse 103:

"We know indeed that they say, ‘It is a man that teaches him,’ The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear."
                             [Al-Qur’an 16:103]

How could a person whose mother tongue was foreign and could hardly speak little but of poor broken Arabic be the source of the Qur’an which is pure, eloquent, fine Arabic? To believe that the blacksmith taught the Prophet the Qur’an is some what similar to believing that a Chinese immigrant to England, who did not know proper English, taught Shakespeare.

2.    MUHUMMAD (PBUH) LEARNT FROM WARAQA - THE RELATIVE OF KHADIJAH (RA)


Muhummad’s (pbuh) contacts with the Jewish and Christian Scholars were very limited. The most prominent Christian known to him was an old blind man called Waraqa ibn-Naufal who was a relative of the Prophet’s first wife Khadijah (r.a.). Although of Arab descent, he was a convert to Christianity and was very well versed with the New Testament. The Prophet only met him twice, first when Waraqa was worshipping at the Kaaba (before the Prophetic Mission) and he kissed the Prophet’s forehead affectionately; the second occasion was when the Prophet went to meet Waraqa after receiving the first revelation. Waraqa died three years later and the revelation continued for about 23 years. It is ridiculous to assume that Waraqa was the source of the contents of the Qur’an.
3.    PROPHET’S RELIGIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS


It is true that the Prophet did have religious discussions with the Jews and Christians but they took place in Madinah more than 13 years after the revelation of the Qur’an had started. The allegation that these Jews and Christians were the source is perverse, since in these discussions Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was performing the roles of a teacher and of a preacher while inviting them to embrace Islam and pointing out that they had deviated from their true teachings of Monotheism. Several of these Jews and Christians later embraced Islam.
4.    THE PROPHET LEARNT THE QUR’AN FROM THOSE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS THAT HE MET OUTSIDE ARABIA


All historical records available show that Muhummad (pbuh) had made only three trips outside Makkah before his Prophethood:
At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Madinah.

Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria.

At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria.

It is highly imaginary to assume that the Qur’an resulted from the occasional chats and meetings with the Christians or Jews from any of the above three trips.

5.    LOGICAL GROUNDS TO PROVE THAT THE PROPHET DID NOT LEARN THE QUR’AN FROM JEWS OR CHRISTIANS


The day-to-day life of the Prophet was an open book for all to see. In fact a revelation came asking people to give the Prophet (pbuh) privacy in his own home. If the Prophet had been meeting people who told him what to say as a revelation from God, this would not have been hidden for very long.

The extremely prominent Quraish nobles who followed the Prophet and accepted Islam were wise and intelligent men who would have easily noticed anything suspicious about the way in which the Prophet brought the revelations to them - more so since the Prophetic mission lasted 23 years.

The enemies of the Prophet kept a close watch on him in order to find proof for their claim that he was a liar - they could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret rendezvous with particular Jews and Christians.

It is inconceivable that any human author of the Qur’an would have accepted a situation in which he received no credit whatsoever for originating the Qur’an.
Thus, historically and logically it cannot be established that there was a human source for the Qur’an.

6.    MUHUMMAD (PBUH) WAS AN ILLITERATE


The theory that Muhummad (pbuh) authored the Qur’an or copied from other sources can be disproved by the single historical fact that he was illiterate.

Allah testifies Himself in the Qur’an
In Surah Al-Ankabut chapter no.29 verse 48

"And thou was not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: in that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted."
[Al-Qur’an 29:48]

Allah (swt) knew that many would doubt the authenticity of the Qur’an and would ascribe it to Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). Therefore Allah in His Divine Wisdom chose the last and final Messenger to be an ‘Ummi’, i.e. unlettered, so that the talkers of vanity would not then have the slightest justification to doubt the Prophet. The accusation of his enemies that he had copied the Qur’an from other sources and rehashed it all in a beautiful language might have carried some weight, but even this flimsy pretence has been deprived to the unbeliever and the cynic.

Allah reconfirms in the Qur’an in Surah Al A’raf chapter 7 verse 157:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) in the Law and the Gospel"

The prophecy of coming of the unlettered Prophet (pbuh) is also mentioned in the Bible in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12.

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned."
[Isaiah 29:12]

The Qur’an testifies in no less than four different places that the Prophet (pbuh) was illiterate. It is also mentioned in Surah A’raf chapter 7 verse 158 and in Surah Al-Jumu’a chapter 62 verse 2.

7.    ARABIC VERSION OF THE BIBLE WAS NOT PRESENT


The Arabic version of the Bible was not present at the time of Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). The earliest Arabic version of the Old Testament is that of R. Saadias Gaon of 900 C.E. - more than 250 years after the death of our beloved Prophet. The oldest Arabic version of the new Testament was published by Erpenius in 1616 C.E. - about a thousand years after the demise of our Prophet.

8.    SIMILARITIES IN THE QUR’AN AND THE BIBLE DUE TO COMMON SOURCE


Similarities between the Qur’an and the Bible does not necessarily mean that the former has been copied from the latter. In fact it gives evidence that both of them are based on a common third source; all divine revelations came from the same source - the one universal God. No matter what human changes were introduced into some of these Judeo-Christian and other older religious scriptures that had distorted their originality, there are some areas that have remained free from distortion and thus are common to many religions.

It is true that there are some similar parallels between the Qur’an and the Bible but this is not sufficient to accuse Muhummad (pbuh) of compiling or copying from the Bible. The same logic would then also be applicable to teachings of Christianity and Judaism and thus one could wrongly claim that Jesus (pbuh) was not a genuine Prophet (God forbid) and that he simply copied from the Old Testament.

The similarities between the two signify a common source that is one true God and the continuation of the basic message of monotheism and not that the later prophets have plagiarised from the previous prophets.

If someone copies during an examination he will surely not write in the answer sheet that he has copied from his neighbour or Mr. XYZ. Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) gave due respect and credit to all the previous prophets (pbut). The Qur’an also mentions the various revelations given by Almighty God to different prophets.

9.    MUSLIMS BELIEVE IN THE TAURAH, ZABOOR, INJEEL AND QUR’AN


Four revelations of Allah (swt) are mentioned by name in the Qur’an: the Taurah, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Qur’an.

Taurah, the revelation i.e. the Wahi given to Moosa (a. s.) i.e. Moses (pbuh).
Zaboor, the revelation i.e. the Wahi given to Dawood (a.s.) i.e. David (pbuh).
Injeel, the revelation i.e. the Wahi given to Isa (A.S.) ie. Jesus (pbuh).
‘Al-Qur’an’, the last and final Wahi i.e. revelation given to the last and final Messenger Muhammad (pbuh).

It is an article of faith for every Muslim to believe in all the Prophets of God and all revelations of God. However, the present day Bible has the first five books of the Old Testament attributed to Moses and the Psalms attributed to David. Moreover the New Testament or the four Gospels of the New Testament are not the Taurah, the Zaboor or the Injeel, which the Qur’an refers to. These books of the present day Bible may partly contain the word of God but these books are certainly not the exact, accurate and complete revelations given to the prophets.

The Qur’an presents all the different prophets of Allah as belonging to one single brotherhood; all had a similar prophetic mission and the same basic message. Because of this, the fundamental teachings of the major faiths cannot be contradictory, even if there has been a considerable passage of time between the different prophetic missions, because the source of these missions was one: Almighty God, Allah. This is why the Qur’an says that the differences which exist between various religions are not the responsibility of the prophets, but of the followers of these prophets who forgot part of what they had been taught, and furthermore, misinterpreted and changed the scriptures. The Qur’an cannot therefore be seen as a scripture which competes with the teachings of Moses, Jesus and the other prophets. On the contrary, it confirms, completes and perfects the messages that they brought to their people.

Another name for the Qur’an is the ‘The Furqan’ which means the criteria to judge the right from the wrong, and it is on the basis of the Qur’an that we can decipher which part of the previous scriptures can be considered to be the word of God.

10.    SCIENTIFIC COMPARISON BETWEEN QUR’AN AND BIBLE


If you glance through the Bible and the Qur’an you may find several points which appear to be exactly the same in both of them, but when you analyse them closely, you realise that there is a difference of ‘chalk and cheese’ between them. Only based on historical details it is difficult for someone who is neither conversant with Christianity or Islam to come to a firm decision as to which of the scriptures is true; however if you verify the relevant passages of both the scriptures against scientific knowledge, you will yourself realize the truth.

Creation of the Universe in Six Days
As per the Bible, in the first book of Genesis in Chapter One, the universe was created in six days and each day is defined as a twenty-four hours period. Even though the Qur’an mentions that the universe was created in six ‘Ayyaams’, ‘Ayyaam’ is the plural of years; this word has two meanings: firstly, it means a standard twenty-four hours period i.e. a day, and secondly, it also means stage, period or epoch which is a very long period of time.

When the Qur’an mentions that the universe was created in six ‘Ayyaams’, it refers to the creation of the heavens and the earth in six long periods or epochs; scientists have no objection to this statement. The creation of the universe has taken billions of years, which proves false or contradicts the concept of the Bible which states that the creation of the Universe took six days of twenty-four hour durations each.

Sun Created After the Day
The Bible says in chapter 1, verses 3-5, of Genesis that the phenomenon of day and night was created on the first day of creation of the Universe by God. The light circulating in the universe is the result of a complex reaction in the stars; these stars were created according to the Bible (Genesis chapter 1 verse 14 to 19) on the fourth day. It is illogical to mention the result that is the light (the phenomenon of day and night) was created on the first day of Creation when the cause or source of the light was created three days later. Moreover the existence of evening and morning as elements of a single day is only conceivable after the creation of the earth and its rotation around the sun. In contrast with the contents of the Bible on this issue, the Qur’an does not give any unscientific sequence of Creation. Hence it is absolutely absurd to say that Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) copied the passages pertaining to the creation of the universe from the Bible but missed out this illogical and fantastic sequence of the Bible.

Creation of the Sun, The Earth and the Moon
According to the Bible, Book of Genesis, chapter 1, verses 9 to 13, the earth was created on the third day, and as per verses 14 to 19, the sun and the moon were created on the fourth day. The earth and the moon emanated, as we know, from their original star, the Sun. Hence to place the creation of the sun and the moon after the creation of the earth is contrary to the established idea about the formation of the solar system.

Vegetation Created on the third day and Sun on the fourth day
According to the Bible, Book of Genesis, chapter 1, verses 11-13, vegetation was created on the third day along with seed-bearing grasses, plants and trees; and further on as per verses 14-19, the sun was created on the fourth day. How is it scientifically possible for the vegetation to have appeared without the presence of the sun, as has been stated in the Bible?

If Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) was indeed the author of the Qur’an and had copied its contents from the Bible, how did he manage to avoid the factual errors that the Bible contains? The Qur’an does not contain any statements which are incompatible with scientific facts.

The Sun and the Moon both Emit light
According to the Bible both the sun and the moon emit their own light. In the Book of Genesis, chapter 1, verse 16 says, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night".

Science tells us today that the moon does not have its own light. This confirms the Qur’anic concept that the light of the moon is a reflected light. To think that 1400 years ago, Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) corrected these scientific errors in the Bible and then copied such corrected passages in the Qur’an is to think of something impossible.

11.    ADAM (PBUH), THE FIRST MAN ON EARTH, LIVED 5,800 YEARS AGO

As per the genealogy of Jesus Christ given in the Bible, from Jesus through Abraham (pbuh) to the first man on earth i.e. Adam (pbuh), Adam appeared on the earth approximately 5800 years ago:


1948 years between Adam (pbuh) and Abraham (pbuh)
Approximately 1800 years between Abraham (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh)
2000 years from Jesus (pbuh) till today
These figures are further confused by the fact that the Jewish calendar is currently on or about 5800 years old.

There is sufficient evidence from archaeological and anthropological sources to suggest that the first human being on earth was present tens of thousands of years ago and not merely 5,800 years ago as is suggested by the Bible.
The Qur’an too speaks about Adam (pbuh) as the first man on earth but it does not suggest any date or period of his life on earth, unlike the Bible - what the Bible says in this regard is totally incompatible with science.

12.    NOAH (PBUH) AND THE FLOOD


The Biblical description of the flood in Genesis chapter 6, 7 and 8 indicates that the deluge was universal and it destroyed every living thing on earth, except those present with Noah (pbuh) in the ark. The description suggests that the event took place 1656 years after the creation of Adam (pbuh) or 292 years before the birth of Abraham, at a time when Noah (pbuh) was 600 years old. Thus the flood may have occurred in the 21st or 22nd Century B.C.

This story of the flood, as given in the Bible, contradicts scientific evidence from archaelogical sources which indicate that the eleventh dynasty in Egypt and the third dynasty in Babylonia were in existence without any break in civilisation and in a manner totally unaffected by any major calamity which may have occurred in the 21st century B.C. This contradicts the Biblical story that the whole world had been immersed in the flood water. In contrast to this, the Qur’anic presentation of the story of Noah and the flood does not conflict with scientific evidence or archaeological data; firstly, the Qur’an does not indicate any specific date or year of the occurance of that event, and secondly, according to the Qur’an the flood was not a universal phenomenon which destroyed complete life on earth. In fact the Qur’an specifically mentions that the flood was a localised event only involving the people of Noah.

It is illogical to assume that Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) had borrowed the story of the flood from the Bible and corrected the mistakes before mentioning it in the Qur’an.

13.    MOSES (PBUH) AND PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS


The story of Moses (pbuh) and the Pharaoh of the Exodus are very much identical in the Qur’an and the Bible. Both scriptures agree that the Pharaoh drowned when he tried to pursue Moses (pbuh) and led the Israelites across a stretch of water that they crossed. The Qur’an gives an additional piece of information in Surah Yunus chapter 10 verse 92:

"This day shall We save thee in thy body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! But verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!"
[Al-Qur’an 10:92]

Dr. Maurice Bucaille, after a thorough research proved that although Rameses II was known to have persecuted the Israelites as per the Bible, he actually died while Moses (pbuh) was taking refuge in Median. Rameses II’s son Merneptah who succeeded him as Pharaoh drowned during the exodus. In 1898, the mummified body of Merneptah was found in the valley of Kings in Egypt. In 1975, Dr. Maurice Bucaille with other doctors received permission to examine the Mummy of Merneptah, the findings of which proved that Merneptah probably died from drowning or a violent shock which immediately preceeded the moment of drowning. Thus the Qur’anic verse that we shall save his body as a sign, has been fulfilled by the Pharaohs’ body being kept at the Royal Mummies room in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.

This verse of the Qur’an compelled Dr. Maurice Bucaille, who was a Christian then, to study the Qur’an. He later wrote a book ‘The Bible, the Qur’an and Science’, and confessed that the author of the Qur’an can be no one else besides God Himself. Thus he embraced Islam.

14.    QUR’AN IS A BOOK FROM ALLAH


These evidences are sufficient to conclude that the Qur’an was not copied from the Bible, but that the Qur’an is the Furqaan - ‘the Criteria’ to judge right from wrong and it should be used to decipher which portion of the Bible may be considered as the Word of God.

The Qur’an itself testifies in Surah Sajda chapter 32 verse 1 to 3

Alif Laam Meem.

(This is) the revelation of the Book in which there is no doubt – from the Lord of the Worlds.

Or do they say, ‘He has forged it’? Nay, it is the Truth from thy Lord, that thou mayest admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee: in order that they may receive guidance."
[Al-Qur’an 32:1-3]



Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 11:51pm
Here another interesting Question.

Is it not true that your Qur’an mentions in Surah Maryam, Chapter 19 verse 33 that Jesus (pbuh) died and was resurrected?

Answer

JESUS (PBUH) SAID, "THE DAY THAT I DIE", NOT "THE DAY THAT I DIED"

It is mentioned in Surah Maryam, Chapter 19 verse 33

"So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die and the Day that I shall be raised up to life (again)".
[Al-Qur’an 19:33]

The Qur’an mentions that Jesus (pbuh) said "Peace is on me the Day I was born, the day that I die". It is not stated "the day that I died". It is in the future tense and not in the past tense.

1.    JESUS (PBUH) WAS RAISED UP ALIVE


The Qur’an further says in Surah Nisa, Chapter 4 verse 157-158:

"That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Jesus Christ the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’ – But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not –

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is exalted in Power, Wise."
[Al-Qur’an 4:157-158]

9.       JESUS IS "A WORD" OF ALLAH AND A "SPIRIT" FROM ALLAH


Question

Does not your Qur’an mention that Jesus is Kalimatullah –"The Word of Allah (swt)", as well as Ruhullah – "The Spirit of Allah", indicating his Divinity?

Answer
1.    JESUS (PBUH) "IS A WORD FROM ALLAH" NOT "THE WORD OF ALLAH"


The Qur’an mentions in Surah Ali ‘Imran Chapter 3 verse 45

"Behold! The angels said: O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus. The son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those Nearest to Allah.
[Al-Qur’an 3:45]

Jesus (pbuh) is referred in the Qur’an as a word from Allah and not as ‘the word of Allah’.

"A word" of Allah means a message of Allah. If a person is referred to as "a word" from Allah, it means that he is a Messenger or a Prophet of Allah.

2.    THE TITLE OF A PROPHET (PBUH) DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT EXCLUSIVELY BELONGS TO THAT PROPHET (PBUH)


Different titles are given to different prophets (pbut). Whenever a title is given to a prophet (pbuh), it does not necessarily mean that the other prophets do not have the same characteristic or quality. For e.g. Prophet Abraham (pbuh) is referred to in the Qur’an as Khaleelullah, a friend of Allah. This does not indicate that all the other Prophets (pbuh) were not the friends of Allah. Prophet Moses (pbuh) is referred to in the Qur’an as Kaleemullah, indicating that God spoke to him. This does not mean that God did not speak to others. Similarly when Jesus (pbuh) is referred to in the Qur’an as Kalimatullah, "a word from Allah", it does not mean that the other Prophets were not "the word," of Allah.

3.    JOHN THE BAPTIST (PBUH) IS ALSO CALLED "A WORD" OF ALLAH


Yahya (pbuh) i.e. John the Baptist (pbuh) is also referred to in the Qur’an as Kalimatullah i.e. a word of Allah in Surah Ali ‘Imran, Chapter 3, verses 38-39

"There did Zakariya Pray to his Lord, saying: "O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!

While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called unto him: "Allah doth give thee glad tidings of Yahya, witnessing the truth of a Word from Allah, and (be besides) noble, chaste, and a Prophet – of the (goodly) company of the righteous."
[Al-Qur’an 3:39]

4.    JESUS (PBUH) REFERRED AS RUHULLAH – A SPIRIT OF ALLAH


Jesus (pbuh) also never referred to as Ruhullah "a spirit of Allah" but as a spirit from Allah in Surah Nisa Chapter 4 verse 171

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Jesus Christ the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, And His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not ‘Trinity’: desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God: glory be to Him: (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs."
[Al-Qur’an 4:171]

5.    SPIRIT OF ALLAH IS BREATHED IN EVERY HUMAN BEING


A spirit from Allah does not indicate that Jesus (pbuh) is God. The Qur’an mentions in several places that Allah breathed into the human beings "His Spirit" in Surah Al-Hijr, chapter 15 verse 29 in Surah Sajdah, chapter 32 verse 9

Surah Al Hijr Chapter 15 verse 29

"When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him."
[Al-Qur’an 15:29]

Surah Sajdah Chapter 32 verse 9

"But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!"
[Al-Qur’an 32:9]



Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 29 April 2006 at 11:57pm
Here is another Answer to George about the copies of the Quraan being burned etc.

Question:


There were many versions of the Qur’an all of which were burnt by Usman (r.a.) except for one. Therefore is it not true that the present Qur’an is the one compiled by Usman (r.a.) and not the original revelation of God?

Answer:

One of the most common myths about the Qur’an, is that Usman (r.a.), the third Caliph of Islam authenticated and compiled one Qur’an, from a large set of mutually contradicting copies. The Qur’an, revered as the Word of Allah (swt) by Muslims the world over, is the same Qur’an as the one revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It was authenticated and written under his personal supervision. We will examine the roots of the myth which says that Usman (r.a.) had the Qur’an authenticated.

1.   Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself supervised and authenticated the written texts of the Qur’an


Whenever the Prophet received a revelation, he would first memorize it himself and later declare the revelation and instruct his Companions (R.A. – Radhi Allahu Taala Anhu) – May Allah be pleased with him who would also memorize it. The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was an Ummi who could not read and write. Therefore, after receiving each revelation, he would repeat it to his Companions. They would write down the revelation, and he would recheck by asking them to read what they had written. If there was any mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and rechecked. Similarly he would even recheck and authenticate the portions of the Qur’an memorized by the Companions. In this way, the complete Qur’an was written down under the personal supervision of the prophet (pbuh).

2.   Order and sequence of Qur’an divinely inspired


The complete Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years portion by portion, as and when it was required. The Qur’an was not compiled by the Prophet in the chronological order of revelation. The order and sequence of the Qur’an too was Divinely inspired and was instructed to the Prophet by Allah (swt) through archangel Jibraeel. Whenever a revelation was conveyed to his companions, the Prophet would also mention in which surah (chapter) and after which ayat (verse) this new revelation should fit.

Every Ramadhaan all the portions of the Qur’an that had been revealed, including the order of the verses, were revised and reconfirmed by the Prophet with archangel Jibraeel. During the last Ramadhaan, before the demise of the Prophet, the Qur’an was rechecked and reconfirmed twice.

It is therefore clearly evident that the Qur’an was compiled and authenticated by the Prophet himself during his lifetime, both in the written form as well as in the memory of several of his Companions.
3.   Qur’an copied on one common material


The complete Qur’an, along with the correct sequence of the verses, was present during the time of the Prophet (pbuh). The verses however, were written on separate pieces, scrapes of leather, thin flat stones, leaflets, palm branches, shoulder blades, etc. After the demise of the prophet, Abu Bakr (r.a.), the first caliph of Islam ordered that the Qur’an be copied from the various different materials on to a common material and place, which was in the shape of sheets. These were tied with strings so that nothing of the compilation was lost.
4.   Usman (r.a.) made copies of the Qur’an from the original manuscript

Many Companions of the Prophet used to write down the revelation of the Qur’an on their own whenever they heard it from the lips of the Prophet. However what they wrote was not personally verified by the Prophet and thus could contain mistakes. All the verses revealed to the Prophet may not have been heard personally by all the Companions. There were high possibilities of different portions of the Qur’an being missed by different Companions. This gave rise to disputes among Muslims regarding the different contents of the Qur’an during the period of the third Caliph Usman (r.a.).

Usman (r.a.) borrowed the original manuscript of the Qur’an, which was authorized by the beloved Prophet (pbuh), from Hafsha (may Allah be pleased with her), the Prophet’s wife. Usman (r.a.) ordered four Companions who were among the scribes who wrote the Qur’an when the Prophet dictated it, led by Zaid bin Thabit (r.a.) to rewrite the script in several perfect copies. These were sent by Usman (r.a.) to the main centres of Muslims.

There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Usman (r.a.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an in order to preserve the original text of the Qur’an. Two such copies of the copied text of the original Qur’an authenticated by the Prophet are present to this day, one at the museum in Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union and the other at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.

5.   Diacritical marks were added for non-Arabs


The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq.

Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too.
6.    Allah Himself has promised to guard the Qur’an


Allah has promised in the Qur’an :

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption)."
[Al-Qur’an 15:9]





Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 12:00am
Question:

Muslims believe in the theory of abrogation, i.e. they believe that certain earlier verses of the Qur’an were abrogated by verses revealed later. Does this imply that God made a mistake and later on corrected it?

Answer:

1.    Two different interpretations
The Glorious Qur’an says in the following verse:

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?"
[Al-Qur’an 2:106]

A reference to this is also made in chapter 16 verse 101 of Surah Nahl. The Arabic word mentioned is ayat which means ‘signs’ or ‘verses’ and which can also mean ‘revelations’. This verse of the Qur’an can be interpreted in two different ways:

a.    The revelations that are abrogated are those revelations that were revealed before the Qur’an, for example the Torah, the Zaboor and the Injeel.

Here Allah (swt) says that He does not cause the previous revelations to be forgotten but He substitutes them with something better or similar, indicating that the Torah, the Zaboor and the Injeel were substituted by the Qur’an.
b. If we consider that the Arabic word ayat in the above verse refers to the verses of the Qur’an, and not previous revelations, then it indicates that none of the verses of the Qur’an are abrogated by Allah but substituted with something better or similar. This means that certain verses of the Qur’an, that were revealed earlier were substituted by verses that were revealed later. I agree with both the interpretations.

Many Muslims and non-Muslims misunderstand the second interpretation to mean that some of the earlier verses of the Qur’an were abrogated and no longer hold true for us today, as they have been replaced by the later verses of the Qur’an or the abrogating verses. This group of people even wrongly believe that these verses contradict each other.

Let us analyze a few such examples.

2.    Produce a recital like the Qur’an / 10 Surahs / 1 Surah:

Some pagan Arabs alleged that the Qur’an was forged by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Allah (swt) challenges these Arabs in the following verse of Surah Al-Isra:

"Say: If the whole of Mankind and Jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur’an they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support."
[Al-Qur’an 17:88]

Later the challenge was made easy in the following verse of Surah Al-Hud:

"Or they may say, "He forged it." Say, "Bring ye then ten Surahs forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsover ye can, other than Allah, if ye speak the truth!’."
[Al-Qur’an 11:13]

It was made easier in the following verse of Surah Yunus:

"Or do they say, "He forged it"? Say: "Bring then a Surah like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can, besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!’."
[Al-Qur’an 10:38]

Finally in Surah Al-Baqarah, Allah (swt) further simplified the challenge:

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah if your (doubts) are true.

But if ye cannot – and of a surety ye cannot – then fear the Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones – which is prepared for those who reject faith".
[Al-Qur’an 2:23-24]

Thus Allah (swt) made the challenges progressively easier. The progressively revealed verses of the Qur’an first challenged the pagans to produce a book like the Qur’an, then challenged them to produce ten Surahs (chapters) like those in the Qur’an, then one Surah and finally it challenges them to produce one Surah somewhat similar (mim mislihi) to the Qur’anic Surahs. This does not mean that the later verses that were revealed i.e. of Surah Baqarah chapter 2 verses 23 and 24 contradict the earlier three verses. Contradiction implies mentioning two things that cannot be possible simultaneously, or cannot take place simultaneously.

The earlier verses of the Qur’an i.e. the abrogated verses are still the word of God and the information contained in it is true to this day. For instance the challenge to produce a recital like the Qur’an stands to this day. Similarly the challenge to produce ten Surahs and one Surah exactly like the Qur’an also holds true and the last challenge of producing one surah somewhat similar to the Qur’an also holds true. It does not contradict the earlier challenges, but this is the easiest of all the challenges posed by the Qur’an. If the last challenge cannot be fulfilled, the question of anyone fulfilling the other three more difficult challenges does not arise.

Suppose I speak about a person that he is so dumb, that he would not be able to pass the 10th standard in school. Later I say that he would not be able to pass the 5th standard, and further say that he would not be able to pass even the 1st standard. Finally I say that he is so dull that he would not even be able to pass K.G. i.e. kindergarten. One has to pass kindergarten before one can be admitted to school. What I am stating is that the person is so dull as to be unable to pass even kindergarten. My four statements do not contradict each other, but my last statement i.e. the person would not be able to pass the kindergarten is sufficient to indicate the intelligence of that person. If a person cannot even pass kindergarten, the question of him passing the first standard or 5th or 10th, does not arise.

3.    Gradual prohibition of intoxicants
Another example of such verses is that related to gradual prohibition of intoxicants. The first revelation of the Qur’an to deal with intoxicants was the following verse from Surah Baqarah:

"They ask thee concerning wine and gambling say: ‘In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit’."
[Al-Qur’an 2:219]

The next verse to be revealed regarding intoxicants is the following verse from Surah Nisa:

"O ye who believe! approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say" [Al-Qur’an 4:43]

The last verse to be revealed regarding intoxicants was the following verse from Surah Al-Maidah:

"O ye who believe! intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork; eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper."
[Al-Qur’an 5:90]

The Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years. Many reforms that were brought about in the society were gradual. This was to facilitate the adoption of new laws by the people. An abrupt change in society always leads to rebellion and anarchy.

The prohibition of intoxicants was revealed in three stages. The first revelation only mentioned that in the intoxicants there is great sin and some profit but the sin is greater than the profit. The next revelation prohibited praying in an intoxicated state, indicating that one should not consume intoxicants during the day, since a Muslim has to pray five times a day. This verse does state that when one is not praying at night one is allowed to consume intoxicants. It means one may have or one may not have. The Qur’an does not comment on it. If this verse had mentioned that one is allowed to have intoxicants while not praying then there would have been a contradiction. Allah (swt) chose words appropriately. Finally the total prohibition of intoxicants at all times was revealed in Surah Maidah chapter 5 verse 90.

This clearly indicates that the three verses do not contradict each other. Had they been contradicting, it would not have been possible to follow all the three verses simultaneously. Since a Muslim is expected to follow each and every verse of the Qur’an, only by following the last verse i.e. of Surah Maidah (5:90), he simultaneously agrees and follows the previous two verses.

Suppose I say that I do not live in Los Angeles. Later I say that I do not live in California. Finally I say, I do not live in the United States of America. This does not imply that these three statements contradict each other. Each statement gives more information than the previous statement. The third statement includes the information contained in the first two statements. Thus, only by saying that I do not live in the United States of America, it is obvious, that I also do not live in California nor New York. Similarly since consuming alcohol is totally prohibited, it is obvious that praying in an intoxicated state is also prohibited and the information that in intoxicants is "great sin and some profit for men; but the sin is greater than profit" also holds true.

4.     Qur’an does not contain any contradictions
The theory of abrogation does not imply that there is a contradiction in the Qur’an, since it is possible to follow all the verses of the Qur’an at the same time.

If there is a contradiction in the Qur’an, then it cannot be the word of Allah (swt).

"Do they not consider the Qur’an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy (contradictions)."

[Al-Qur’an 4:82]


I have pasted all these Q&A from Dr. Naik's website.


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 11:21pm
No more people to reply to these posts???

-------------
And We have not sent you(O Muhammad!) but as a mercy to the worlds. (Al-Quran 21: 107)


Posted By: zulqarnain
Date Posted: 30 April 2006 at 11:30pm
If no more reply what a waste of my time of pasting!

-------------
And We have not sent you(O Muhammad!) but as a mercy to the worlds. (Al-Quran 21: 107)



Print Page | Close Window