these muslims sef na wa. They seem to be more interested in reading the bible than their own quran.
So many bible quotes NOTHING from the quran. One would think he was arguing with fellow christians.

these muslims sef na wa. They seem to be more interested in reading the bible than their own quran.
So many bible quotes NOTHING from the quran. One would think he was arguing with fellow christians.

tnx t u too


just two for now

Allah says

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus 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 Allah: ,

Only 2?? 
You had no problems listing more than 10 bible verses in your last post and all you can find from the quran is 2 recycled and rehashed verses? I must have seen those a hundred times.

Please could you list any verses in the quran that deal specifically with the God in the bible being the same as Allah? Surely allah himself must have had something to say about this.

Hi again @drbelloim,

I'm sorry for having missed your rejoinder in this thread earlier until one of my buddies pointed it out to me. Here's my reply.

drbelloim:

there are no inconsistencies in what i said , u simply took me retorics for real, your error!, now i believe u know wa i meant.

It's usually the case that when the inconsistencies of Muslim apologists have been pointed out, then they quickly use fancy words to retract

drbelloim:

there is no such term as islamic guessses,

Just as there are no such terms as the many being used to gratify the same Islamic propaganda against Christianity and Judaism.

drbelloim:

this is no inference but facts, I did not invent the apocrypha or the millions of errors exitnig by comparative analysis of the gospels ( this not for this thread though) , do consider the following just in brief,

Another forced propagandist assumption - the Christian Bible does not have the Apocrypha as part of the canonical Scriptures in just the same way that not all Muslims believe in the Hadith. As for the so-called "millions of errors", we've been there before and found that the Qur'an is defenceless against its own equally multiplied errors.

drbelloim:

Consider the OT inconsistencies such as Moses describing his own death and a list of Edomite kings that lived long after his death, may be it was inspired while ha was writing the books huh? There are many contradictory texts found in the first five books. Duet 34:5 tells of Moses death, Some stories are told twice with conflicting details such as: Genesis 6:19 vs Genesis 7:2 (a different count of animals entering Noah’s ark); or Genesis 1: 25-27 vs Genesis 2: 18-19 (a different account as to order of the creation of humans and animals); or Genesis 1:27 vs. Genesis 2:18-22 (whether men and women were simultaneously created or created at different times). perhaps as you put it even Moses was not sure.

Those are not inconsistencies or errors. The passages narrating events twice have to be read in their contexts - on the one hand, an event is briefly stated; on the other hand, the same event is spelt out in detail. This is the case as with the account of the creation of man: Gen. 1:27 briefly stated the event ('God created man in his own image'); while Gen. 2:7 gives the detail of the same event ('the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground', etc.). Same is the case of the animals that went into Noah's Ark - it is briefly stated in summary in Gen. 6:19 where they went in 'two of every sort', which is the same thing as was fulfilled in Gen. 7:9 - 'There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.' What Gen. 7:2 provides is the detail of how the clean and unclean animals were to be taken into the Ark, which is not to be misconstrued by stretching that text in arrogant disregard of the other two verses.

That Moses described his own death and spoke of events, places and people long after his demise all the more confirmed his prophetic calling. However, in Islam, Muhammad neither knew what would happen beyond his death to Muslims, what their fate was, nor what he himself would face before Allah on that Day:

Quran 46 vs.9
(SHAKIR's tr.) 'Say: I am not the first of the messengers, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you: I do not follow anything but that which is revealed to me, and I am nothing but a plain warner.' [Khalil's tr. says: 'I have no idea what will happen to me or to you' which is a sob confession of one who claims to be speaking for God.

When Muhammad addressed the bereaved on the death of Uthman bin Mazun, this is what we read: "Allah's Apostle said, ‘As regards Uthman, by Allah he has died and I really wish him every good, yet, by Allah, although I am Allah's Apostle, I do not know what will be done to him.’ Um Al-Ala added, ‘By Allah I shall never attest the piety of anybody after him. And what Allah's Apostles said made me sad.’" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 48, Num. 852).

If Muhammad wasn't sure and had no prophetic insight into the certainties of his faith, what is the grounds for your argument against Moses prophetic calling which was well established?

drbelloim:

you must have heard of the doublets, Tradition says that Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew, the tax collector, and the Book of John by John the Beloved. Mark was written by an associate of Peter while Luke by a traveling companion to Paul. It is felt that Mark was the first to be written in about 65 AD, followed by Luke and Matthew in 80 - 85 AD. John was written around 90 - 95 AD. The authors, however, never identify themselves and their names were later added by scribes. further, Mark was the first gospel to be written and that Matthew and Luke borrowed extensively from it. now as for some of the texts in these books, no one really knows their sources so they are referred to by the Latin Quelle ( which means unknown), or simply Q. Now by the 2nd Century, the Four Gospels were circulating independently of one another: Rome had Mark, Antioch had Matthew, Athens had Luke, and Ephesus had John. The Roman patriarch Marcion was a catalyst in drawing up a list of accepted scripture. He was very anti-Jewish, however, and anything relating to Jews was edited out of his list, including the entire Old Testament. He felt that the Jewish God was different from the Christian God. The Apocrypha was written by Alexandrian Greeks (the Septuagint Manuscripts) and many Jews kept it out of their 70 AD Hebrew Bible because they were written too late and were in Greek. A consensus became imperative when Constantine commissioned to have 50 copies of Christian scripture published as a result of the Nicaene Conference in 325 AD.

It is interesting to find you've dribbled round to confirm my position earlier, that the Apocrypha are not regarded as part of the Bible - and thank goodness you have the honesty to admit that even the Jews disavowed them.

However, Marcion's work is hard to defend against the NT. The claim by anyone that the Bible is a political redaction of Marcion is false and flies in the face of internal evidence in the NT itself. (Incidentally, the case has been well established that the Qur'an today is no less the political redaction of the third Caliph Uthman, who ordered all other extant copies of the Qur'an to be burnt after he produced his own edited version.) Let me share a few pointers to your Marcion complaint:

Complaint #1.
The Roman patriarch Marcion edited anything relating to the Jews out of "accepted Scripture".

That may well be. However, there are undeniable Jewish elements in both the OT and NT of the Bible. The Sinaitic Law (or Law of Moses) are still acknowledged even by the Jews, and constitute a heavy part of the Jewish Scriptures known as the Tanakh (including the Pentateuch or first five books of the OT). They are usually called the Torah (Bereshit - Genesis; Shemot -  Exodus; Va Yikra - Leviticus; BaMidbar - Numbers; and Devarim - Deuteronomy).

In the NT, besides the very Jewish flavour of the Gospels (especially Matthew and John), the book of Hebrews is uncontestably Jewish in tone. The discourses on the Old Testament (or old covenant) worship and priesthood (ch. 5 & 7), the covenants (ch. , the temple/sanctuary, the Law and the sacrifices (ch. 9 & 10) are unmistakably Jewish.

Complaint #2.
The Roman patriarch Marcion edited out "the entire Old Testament".

It's quite easy to deflate this blind and crass argument by picking up a copy of the Bible and see if the "entire Old Testament" have been edited out. Anyone who believes this sort of propaganda probably has a squeezed brain.

drbelloim:

I beileve here u arelaying emphasis on the plural, if so then understand that PLURALITY in that context has nothing to do with trinity, Alot of languages still use plural instead of singular as a sign of respect or power. its a pity this is not so in English your mother tongue

I'm not laying emphasis on just plurality or pronouns used in Gen. 1:26. The point is, that verse establishes the doctrine of the Trinity in the very first chapter of the Bible, whether or not an equivalent construct could be found in English, much less so in the Arabic of the Qur'an.

There are other chapters where the Trinity has been alluded to in the OT, even though many Jews interpret a strict [n]monism[/n] (which is not the same as monotheism]). Genesis 18 & 19 presents the rare case of the Trinity in the event of the three who appeared to Abraham. He lifted up his eyes and saw 'three men' (vs. 2) whom he addressed as 'My Lord' (vs. 3 - notice the singular 'Lord'). Then again in chapter 19, the angel of the LORD 'accepted' Lot's petition - which characteristically is language that intimates God Himself answering the prayer of Lot (vs. 21; compare this with Gen. 16:7-13 where God revealed Himself to Hagar as 'the angel of the LORD').

God is not a monism - which Muslims today mistake for [b]mono[/b]theism. He has ever revealed Himself as One God (Deut. 6:4) in the Father (Isa. 64:, the Son (Psa. 110:1; cf. Matt. 22:42-46), and the Holy Spirit (John 4:24).

drbelloim:

So the Jewish concept of monotheism is - for there are 3 that are witnessed in heaven rite? because thy wrote it as such!?

I think you have derailed on a wild tangent there. The apostle John who wrote 1 John 5:7 knew already that the doctrine of the Trinity was not a hidden truth; and the Jewish OT clearly alluded to it (the doctrine). In that one verse, John sums up in clear language what the OT taught, although it was quite a mystery for the Jews (and anyone else) to grasp - as in the challenge offered by the Lord Jesus in Matt. 22:42-46. The same John was the writer of the Gospel of John where in chapter 1 vs. 1 he stated categorically that "the Word was God." He is the same one through whom the Revelation was given, where in ch. 19:13 he wrote of the Lord Jesus that "His name is called the Word of God".

drbelloim:

As for that I think u need to explain to the audience what is the christain concept of monotheism, as for the Jewish , leave them alone as they do not believe your ways.

The Trinity is One God revealed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As for the Jews, the NT was given through them; for it is written in John 4:22 that "salvation is of the Jews." This is confirmed in Rom. 3:1-2 where we are told that the oracles of God were committed unto the Jews, and not to the Arabs (compare Deut. 4:.

Even though the Jewish Scriptures allude to the Trinity, Rom. 3:3 tells us that some would not believe (compare Isa. 53:1 and Heb. 4:2)

drbelloim:

So what do the Muslims understand by that , according to you?

As given above, Islam offers monism instead of monotheism - and even so, not many Muslims can defend their idea of a monotheistic belief in the Qur'an.

@abdkabir,

Once again, thank you for yours, which somehow escaped my notice earlier until my buddies pointed it out. Most of the concerns you raised have been covered in my rejoinder to drbelloim, especially that of the canonical Scriptures and the several Councils which were convened to debate their veracity.

abdkabir:

@stimulus

U will marvel @ how Faith, the Destiny of Man and the world around us fascinates me. I can tell u i've been mostly reading or finding info on religion since i wrote that post till n now.and its late already.

As regards the Nicene issue,

After reading so many things from, the council of nicea, Athanasius, Arius,Origenes, intermingling political and religious issues, et al (Many Thanks to Wikipedia). I guess it can be safe to say the councils, (Nicea et al) played a role in defining what we call the new testament today (A[i]s such, prior to cononization, there could have been ambiguity as regards the authenticity of some gospels[/i]). As you would agree with me, there were discrepancies as to which Gospel was apocryphal or not among pundits of early chistianity. A case wherein there was diverse opinion is d following:

^{Irenaeus was the first Christian writer to list all four of the now canonical Gospels as divinely-inspired, possibly in reaction to Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which he (Marcion) asserted was the one and only true gospel}.

more details under the Irenaeaeus asserts divine inspiration of canon section. @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus.

When debating issues like this, please remember that the line you're looking for in all the weblinks you offered is simply not there. That line is something along the ideas that those who convened the various Councils were supposed to have been the writers of the New Testament documents! It is simply not the case at all.

The same thing could be advanced for the Council conevened for the compilation of the Qur'anic texts by the third Caliph, Uthman. He did not personally write the Qur'an; but it is no longer secret that he directly influenced what should be included and what should not appear in the present texts.

At the end of the day, the concerns both you and drbelloim have expressed can be funnelled down to just one question: Who is Jesus Christ - deity or mere human? The Qur'an denies the deity of Jesus (among many other Christian tenets); and most Muslim apologists have tried to stretch this denial by resorting to all sorts of 'textual evidences' on the internet and elsewhere. The only question I offer is: WHEN were the following verses penned - and by WHO >>

#1. John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

#2. Isaiah 9:6 - 'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.' (This is in reference to the Messiah/Christ, who both is the child that is born and at the same time called "The mighty God"

Did anyone in any of the Councils you named (nicea, Athanasius, Arius,Origenes) personally pen down those verses - and if so, WHO was the person that must have done so? And if you suppose that is the case, then WHEN were those verses penned - in the 4th century () or LONG BEFORE then??

These are serious questions the Muslim apologists who accuses the Qur'an denials against the Bible should seek honestly to answer. If the answers are not forth-coming, then everything else is mere noise of a marvellous sort.

abdkabir:

As regards the authorship of "John", heres an info i read:


<sup>Authorship

The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative Johannine view.

The text itself is unclear about the issue. John 21:20-25 contains possibly autobiographical information. Conservative scholars generally assume I (v. 25), the disciple (v. 24) and the disciple whom Jesus loved (also known as the Beloved Disciple, v. 20) are the same person;[5][6] they further identify all three descriptors with the Apostle John through a combination of external and internal evidence.[7] Critics point out that the abrupt shift from third person to first person in vss. 24-25 indicates that while the author of the epilogue, who is supposed a third-party editor, claims the preceding narrative is based on the Beloved Disciple's testimony, while he himself is not the Beloved Disciple.[8][9]

Ancient testimony is similarly conflicted. Attestation of Johannine authorship can be found as early as Irenaeus.[10] Eusebius wrote that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who is said to have received it from the Apostles directly.[11] Epiphanius, however, takes note of an early Christian sect, sometimes called the Alogi, which believed the Gospel was actually written by one Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic (Panarion 51.3.1-6). In corroboration with this evidence is a quotation by Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church 7.25.2) in which Dionysius of Alexandria (mid-third century) claims the Apocalypse of John (known commonly as the Book of Revelation) was believed by some before him (7.25.1) to also have been written by Cerinthus.

Critical scholarship starting in the 19th century further questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The critical scholarship argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest redaction.[12]

Raymond E. Brown, a biblical scholar who specialized in studying the Johannine community, summarizes a prevalent theory regarding the development of this gospel.[13] He identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels): 1) an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus; 2) a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources; and 3) the edited version that readers know today (Brown 1979).</sup>


More details @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john#Authorship


Please the info i have provided is in no way to smear christianty but to discuss the issue using a source(wikipedia) i assume is relatively partial to religious issues considering its critical and scientific stance.

First, let me say that an excellent rebuttal by shahan has been given to the above in another thread: Invitation. . .Let's Face The Facts

However, since you reposted these clips from Wikipedia for discussion, let me again offer you a few pointers to think through:

#1. In the wake of all these "scholars" propounding theories for the authorship of the Gospel of John, which of them actually correlates in their divergent views? The Wikipedia version you offered says it is 'one Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic'. Some others in the referred thread above, others like Professor Stadlin believes that, 'The entire Gospel of John was written by one of the students of the Alexandrian school'; while another so-called (and perhaps, Muslim) scholar by the name of Yoosuf al-Khoori believes that 'John wrote his Gospel at the end of his life, at the request of the bishops of Asia and elsewhere'.

Now, abdkabir, let me ask you directly: with all the scholarship you've perused and offered from those websites, which of them helps your case - Cerinthus; the nameless student of the Alexandrian school; or Yoosuf al-Khoori's version? Who really are these so-called 'scholars' who can't even agree among themselves; and who must be applauded as long as their theories help the Islamic propaganda against the Bible?

#2. As for Raymond E. Brown, what "initial version" did he use to arrive at his inference? If he could be taken serously, then by the same rule, we could question Muhammad himself to produce the "initial version" of the Injil that the Qur'an alluded to as being sent down by Allah to Jesus. Failing to do so will all the more make for serious comedy. Rather than make empty claims in the Qur'an, we want to see those original versions of the Torah, the Talmud, and the Injil that Muhammad once applauded in the Qur'an before later accusing the Bible of having been tampered with and corrupted.

When Muslims are asked to provide these texts, very often they resort to excuses and scoot off to irrelevant debates to this same question. It is even more pathetic that Muslims who believe that the Bible has been corrupted, would yet want to "prove" that Muhammad was prophesied in the same Bible! So, they quote texts after texts from the Bible as confirmation of their claims; and yet cannot sustain such claims when exposed to the gist of the texts they quote.

In as much as people will feel GOD & Allah are the same, they will never be : God has the feminnie gender goddess but Allah can never be feminine. The word ALLAH is more encapsulating of a supreme being deserving to be worshiped.

<sub>Now, abdkabir, let me ask you directly: with all the scholarship you've perused and offered from those websites, which of them helps your case - Cerinthus; the nameless student of the Alexandrian school; or Yoosuf al-Khoori's version? Who really are these so-called 'scholars' who can't even agree among themselves; and who must be applauded as long as their theories help the Islamic propaganda against the Bible?

#2. As for Raymond E. Brown, what "initial version" did he use to arrive at his inference? If he could be taken serously, then by the same rule, we could question Muhammad himself to produce the "initial version" of the Injil that the Qur'an alluded to as being sent down by Allah to Jesus. Failing to do so will all the more make for serious comedy. Rather than make empty claims in the Qur'an, we want to see those original versions of the Torah, the Talmud, and the Injil that Muhammad once applauded in the Qur'an before later accusing the Bible of having been tampered with and corrupted.

When Muslims are asked to provide these texts, very often they resort to excuses and scoot off to irrelevant debates to this same question. It is even more pathetic that Muslims who believe that the Bible has been corrupted, would yet want to "prove" that Muhammad was prophesied in the same Bible! So, they quote texts after texts from the Bible as confirmation of their claims; and yet cannot sustain such claims when exposed to the gist of the texts they quote.</sub>

It seems U arent getting me. My position was that of a critical analysis of the Veracity of the Total Divinity of the New Testament. I thought i made it clear my analysis was in no way to malign Christianity as i am a fan of it though i'm a Muslim.

As regard the divinity if the Quran, i wouldnt deny that the gathering process could be said to be of questionable character considering some statements credited to Umar. Notheless, if we are to make a comparative judgmnent on whioch would be nearer to originalty ,the Quran oficially compiled (653 AD, 30 years after Muhammads death) and the NT:

<sup>According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament: "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council [Council of Trent]."

In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, Early Christianity, there seems to have been no New Testament canon that was universally recognized.</sup>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament#Date_of_composition

That suggest at least 300 years after Jesus.

@least that would suggest a nearer originality of the Quran than that of the Bible. At the end of the Day. Who cares, if its chritianity of Islam. What matters is that we are believers in a World of peace.

@abdkabir,

Appreciate your response. Here are my observations:

abdkabir:

It seems U arent getting me. My position was that of a critical analysis of the Veracity of the Total Divinity of the New Testament. I thought i made it clear my analysis was in no way to malign Christianity as i am a fan of it though i'm a Muslim.

I didn't take you up on maligning Christianity. Rather, my riposte was to offer you some pointers to think through such that the divine inspiration of the Bible becomes obvious to you. Most Muslim apologists often take the position that the documents of the NT have been altered; so that it provides them with grounds for doubting just about any verse that doesn't square with the tenets of Islam.

The issue is not on when and where the canon of the NT was compiled. Rather, the question is: Were such texts as John 1:1 and Isaiah 9:6 scribbled into the Bible 300 years AFTER Jesus' death and resurrection? The obvious answer is No. That they were collated years after His ascension in no way affected what the documents themselves already said.

abdkabir:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament#Date_of_composition

That suggest at least 300 years after Jesus.

@least that would suggest a nearer originality of the Quran than that of the Bible.

The issue of 'originality' still leaves so many questions unanswered as to the claims of the Qur'an. It is rather of no consequence that the years inbetween were 30 or 300. What is more to the point is: what claims do they really make?

On the one hand, the Bible attests to the deity of Jesus Christ - showing that He is both the Son of God and God incarnate for our redemption. On the other hand, the Qur'an denies everything with regards to the deity of Jesus, and even considers it an unforgiveable blasphemy! Yet, there are verses in the Qur'an itself that lauded the Bible; and no Muslim to my knowledge has been able to provide proof for Muhammad's personal accusation against the same Bible the Qur'an once praised.

abdkabir:

At the end of the Day. Who cares, if its chritianity of Islam. What matters is that we are believers in a World of peace.

At the end of the day, the peace we all seek doesn't seem to be found in Muhammad's 'original' Islam. This is why such banalities of Islam being a peaceful religion is best considered otiose.

Cheers.

hum,what a topic,well for me they are the same but it depends on your faith because the two faiths that are concern here have different beliefs so it depends on your understanding.

Doris B:

hum,what a topic,well for me they are the same but it depends on your faith because the two faiths that are concern here have different beliefs so it depends on your understanding.

How could two faiths that have different beliefs at the same time become the same?

It's a pity that most people think allah the muslim god and the christian God are the same. Most of you have touched the subject on the surface, you think it's just in a name and our mode of worship are different. But like stimulus said How could two faiths that have different beliefs at the same time become the same?.

A simple example to show that the muslim god is different from the christian God. Look at the where both religion faithfuls will spend eternity. In Islam - it's a wild sex orgy (what about the women)?

In the christian heaven, it's about worship and unity with God. So, if the two gods were the same - how come they propose different heavens?

stimulus:

How could two faiths that have different beliefs at the same time become the same?

Christianity and Islam has got a lot in common.I should note that Muhammed's position about Jesus is no different from that of the Quran. Islam recognises the messengersship of Jesus but refuses to declare the divinity. I should note that this position wasn't necesarily novel with Muhammad. It appears to me that for many years , many members of the early christians, much earlier to the canonization of sacred texts, had positions similar to islams. Also there are among the Christian denominations of today who do not believe in the Divinty of Jesus.

@ the end of the day, the question of which bible the quran refers to  is worth asking. From the information i have consulted i guess it would be approriate to say the Injil the Quran talked about is the "Revealed Knowledge" passed from prophets to disciples and followers. It would then mean tha the Memories of men, served as the repository for the sacred information. This wouldn't be strange as the sunnah of the Prophet was preserved similarly.

It's noteworthy  that , as time passes, such information if not well preserved are subject to intentional and non-intentional corruption. It might as well be that such discrepancies was the basis for the various councils organised to establish a common ground duing the catholic reign. That still would not be out of the world as Uthman had embarked upon a similar activity. How far away this activities are from the (original knowledge revealed ) in both Islam and Christianity,God alone Knows best.

I  based by judgment on what i consider a rational comparism of the time it took for the Standard, State accepted version of the scriptures (Bible, Quran) to be made. In that Case, the Quran would appear to be nearer to it's date of initial revelation (thus better preserved) than the (New Testament) Bible. And Still, God Knows Best.

Peace

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:

Christianity and Islam has got a lot in common.I should note that Muhammed's position about Jesus is no different from that of the Quran. Islam recognises the messengersship of Jesus but refuses to declare the divinity.

That statement in and of itself should make you wonder about the claim in the Qur'an about the Messiahship of Jesus - they're just superficial. To what purpose does the Qur'an recognize that Jesus is the Messiah without the consequence of seeing the deep meaning attached to thereto?

abdkabir:

I should note that this position wasn't necesarily novel with Muhammad. It appears to me that for many years , many members of the early christians, much earlier to the canonization of sacred texts, had positions similar to islams.

In so far as Christianity predates Islam, Muslims copyrighted such positions from Christians, and not the other way round. Not to even mention that many borrowed elements from Christianity are held by Muslims today without the slightest idea what they mean.

abdkabir:

Also there are among the Christian denominations of today who do not believe in the Divinty of Jesus.

Which is sadly to their lose, and does not therefore establish your argument against the deity of Jesus Christ. Such denominations rejecting Jesus' deity can as well reject the OT prophecies attesting to the deity of the Messiah, such as Isaiah 9:6 and Zech. 12:10.

This appeal to denominations denying the deity of Jesus is a well known but weak device employed by Muslims in desperate bid to give credence to the larger denials in the Qur'an. In just about the same way, I could employ the such a device and argue by fringe denominations in Islam holding that Allah is a man called Elijah Muhammad. Would that indeed pass off as a core tenet of othodox Islam? You could just see how such an argument you devised is untenable.

abdkabir:

@ the end of the day, the question of which bible the quran refers to is worth asking. From the information i have consulted i guess it would be approriate to say the Injil the Quran talked about is the "Revealed Knowledge" passed from prophets to disciples and followers. It would then mean tha the Memories of men, served as the repository for the sacred information. This wouldn't be strange as the sunnah of the Prophet was preserved similarly.

That ideology is not even defended in the Qur'an, in as much as it is only your opinion. At the end of the day, the Qur'an cannot stand in defence of the denials and accusations it makes against the Bible. If the Injil referenced in the Qur'an were as you claimed, what was the reason for Allah's allowing the same 'Revealed Knowledge' to suffer corruption and not have applied the same rule to the Qur'an itself? Were they both not said to have been sourced from the same Allah? Secondly, I haven't read any learned Muslim make the claim that the Sunnah was inspired or holds the same authority as does the Qur'an. So, to have relegated the Bible to the same pedestal of preservation as the Sunnah is simply political dishonesty.

abdkabir:

It's noteworthy that , as time passes, such information if not well preserved are subject to intentional and non-intentional corruption. It might as well be that such discrepancies was the basis for the various councils organised to establish a common ground duing the catholic reign. That still would not be out of the world as Uthman had embarked upon a similar activity. How far away this activities are from the (original knowledge revealed ) in both Islam and Christianity,God alone Knows best.

The one problem your summation hatches is that Muslims do not defend the preservation and collation of the Qur'an as you intoned here. Indeed, not many Muslims are willing to accept that fact that there are huge questions that cast doubts on the present Qur'an being used by Muslims after having passed through the political redaction of Uthman.

abdkabir:

I based by judgment on what i consider a rational comparism of the time it took for the Standard, State accepted version of the scriptures (Bible, Quran) to be made. In that Case, the Quran would appear to be nearer to it's date of initial revelation (thus better preserved) than the (New Testament) Bible. And Still, God Knows Best.

Peace

My argument is that time is only a passive element in the question of preservation and originality of the holy writs. What is more to the point is that: (a) Islam and Christianity are two very different religions; and (b) the present Qur'an is not closer to the 'original' being argued in its favour by many Muslims today who wish it so.

Cheers.

abdkabir:

@ the end of the day, the question of which bible the quran refers to is worth asking. From the information i have consulted i guess it would be approriate to say the Injil the Quran talked about is the "Revealed Knowledge" passed from prophets to disciples and followers. It would then mean tha the Memories of men, served as the repository for the sacred information. This wouldn't be strange as the sunnah of the Prophet was preserved similarly.

That muslims themselves are confused about the injil one certain allah claimed to have sent down is more proof that allah's words are not to be taken with more than a pinch of salt.

@ topic,

Absolutely NOT!!

though i agree that due to the effect of long muslim presence in the north allah is now used to refer to the Judeo-Christian God, it wasnt originally so.

they (the Judeo-christian God and Allah) have so many attributes that differ, its not hard to see that the terms (as used in their proper religious contexts), do not refer to the same deity.

That Christianity predates Islam does not necesarily mean it's a copy of christianity.
That the Quran recognises the messengership and messiahship of Jesus does not necesarily infer he is one of a Trinity. That you are messiah doesnt necesarily mean you are the Son of God or God. If that were true then it would be that the messiah the Jew were and are expecting  is part of a divinity and that  would be far from the truth. The Jews are Simply monotheist as the muslim who believe in a Saviour who would come save from from the clutches of oppresion of the world .

As always, issues  of this type end in a deadlock.  We are both adamant to our positions.

I would conclude that God, History , Science, whatever people  believe in will shed more light and judge in this affair.

In truth, there have be submitters to one God much before Christianity. As usual i guess it's time a definately rest my case on this issue.

Many thanks for the conversation.

Peace.

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:

That Christianity predates Islam does not necesarily mean it's a copy of christianity.

I didn't say so. Here again -

abdkabir:

It appears to me that for many years , many members of the early christians, much earlier to the canonization of sacred texts, had positions similar to islams.

stimulus link=topic=682.msg1034337#msg1034337 date=1176422872:

In so far as Christianity predates Islam, Muslims copyrighted such positions from Christians, and not the other way round

abdkabir:

That the Quran recognises the messengership and messiahship of Jesus does not necesarily infer he is one of a Trinity.

The Qur'an recognizes nothing that it cannot accept - and that includes both the Deity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That being so, it does not strengthen the claims of Muhammad that the Qur'an was from God.

abdkabir:

That you are messiah doesnt necesarily mean you are the Son of God or God.

That would only make your argument conveniently selective in favour of whatever Islam teaches; and not because Muslims are willing enough to investigate the allegations of the Qur'an against the Bible. In so far as the Qur'an ascribes the authorship of the Jewish Scriptures (including the Torah and the Psalms) to the Allah of Islam, then there are no grounds for currying an argument of convenience denying what the Jewish Scriptures state in reference to the Deity of the Messiah.

abdkabir:

If that were true then it would be that the messiah the Jew were and are expecting is part of a divinity and that would be far from the truth.

Incidentally, not too long ago a very interesting discourse was held in another thread where the case was made for the Jewish understanding of the Messiah being God Himself. You can access it here: Jesus: The Son of God, Or God?, and follow on to see the weblink offered on that page. If you are not satisfied, then I could oblige you further reference to the point that the Jewish Scriptures declare the Deity of the Messiah.

abdkabir:

The Jews are Simply monotheist as the muslim who believe in a Saviour who would come save from from the clutches of oppresion of the world.

There is something fatally wrong in your inference. First, who is the "Saviour" that Muslims are expecting to come save from the clutches of the oppression of the world? Whoever that figure is, it is obvious that Jewish and Muslim understanding of the Messiah are worlds apart.

Second, Muslims are not monotheists as the Jews; otherwise, one would wonder why Muhammad so hated the same Jews and accused them of a corrupt religion. Although Muslims love to think of Islam as a monotheistic religion per excellence, a closer look reveals that it is actually nothing short of disguised polytheism (no offences meant; but perhaps by following the outline by another Nairalander in the "Israel Malik Esthers" thread, it may become obvious why I'm persuaded so - please see post message # 32,  post # 36 and post # 37).

abdkabir:

As always, issues of this type end in a deadlock. We are both adamant to our positions.

My position is informed by the indefensible allegations the Qura'n made against the Bible, but which no honest Muslim has been willing to investigate.

abdkabir:

I would conclude that God, History , Science, whatever people believe in will shed more light and judge in this affair.

I'm persuaded the light is there already waiting for whoever is willing to receive it.

abdkabir:

In truth, there have be submitters to one God much before Christianity. As usual i guess it's time a definately rest my case on this issue.

If by "submitters" you mean "Muslims" (or anything about Islam), then please rest your heart: there were absolutely NONE before Christianity.

abdkabir:

Many thanks for the conversation.

Peace

Much enjoyed, my regards.

<sup>Quote from: abdkabir on Yesterday at 03:14:46 PM
The Jews are Simply monotheist as the muslim who believe in a Saviour who would come save from from the clutches of oppresion of the world.

There is something fatally wrong in your inference. First, who is the "Saviour" that Muslims are expecting to come save from the clutches of the oppression of the world? Whoever that figure is, it is obvious that Jewish and Muslim understanding of the Messiah are worlds apart.</sup>

Here , i meant the awaiting of a Saviour (Messiah) by the Jew and not the Muslim.

<sup>Quote from: abdkabir on Yesterday at 03:14:46 PM
The Jews are Simply monotheist as the muslim who believe in a Saviour who would come save from from the clutches of oppresion of the world.

There is something fatally wrong in your inference. First, who is the "Saviour" that Muslims are expecting to come save from the clutches of the oppression of the world? Whoever that figure is, it is obvious that Jewish and Muslim understanding of the Messiah are worlds apart.

Second, Muslims are not monotheists as the Jews; otherwise, one would wonder why Muhammad so hated the same Jews and accused them of a corrupt religion. Although Muslims love to think of Islam as a monotheistic religion per excellence, a closer look reveals that it is actually nothing short of disguised polytheism (no offences meant; but perhaps by following the outline by another Nairalander in the "Israel Malik Esthers" thread, it may become obvious why I'm persuaded so - please see post message # 32,  post # 36 and post # 37).</sup>


Your position suggests some kind of bias against Islam, Muhammed didn't hate the Jews , He did indeed accuse them of killing of the prophets and messenger after the word of God had reached them but he didnt hate nor promote the hate of Jews. He praised the followers of Truth among them just as he accused the hipocrites.History has proven that of the Three recent powers which reigned over the affairs of the Jews, the Muslims were the most tolerant. The issue of Xenophobia towards Jews in recent years has it origin in the Forceful establishment of the state of Isreal by colonilist in the 20th century and the wars that occurred subsequently, Much before then, Muslims and Christians co-existed in Palestine.


You canot make judgment of what the Jews believe of God using the christian interpretation of the the Old testament. It would be fairer u consult a Jewish resource(website etc) to understand how the verses the christians assume affirm the divinity of Jesus are seen.

<sup>That you are messiah doesnt necesarily mean you are the Son of God or God.

That would only make your argument conveniently selective in favour of whatever Islam teaches; and not because Muslims are willing enough to investigate the allegations of the Qur'an against the Bible. In so far as the Qur'an ascribes the authorship of the Jewish Scriptures (including the Torah and the Psalms) to the Allah of Islam, then there are no grounds for currying an argument of convenience denying what the Jewish Scriptures state in reference to the Deity of the Messiah.</sup>

I have touched in various occasionS the issue of Revelations with particular emphasis on the fact that many a times, the memories of men were the repositories of such revelation. This also applies to the Torah(What islam understand as revelation to moses) and Psalms (of David) mentioned. IN this case, we are not necesarily talking about the documentation we have today but the information as it was revealed. The truth of which many knew during the time of the Prophet.

It is important to note that the Old testament as we have it today is also a compilation of account of happenings by Jewish elders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

Kind Regards.

We are closer than it appears.

God Bless.

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:

Here , i meant the awaiting of a Saviour (Messiah) by the Jew and not the Muslim.

Nonetheless, Muslims today speak of expecting a 'Saviour' or 'Messiah' figure, yes or no?

abdkabir:

Your position suggests some kind of bias against Islam, Muhammed didn't hate the Jews He did indeed accuse them of killing of the prophets and messenger after the word of God had reached them but he didnt hate nor promote the hate of Jews. He praised the followers of Truth among them just as he accused the hipocrites.

Another fatally wrong inference. Muhammad indeed hated the Jews. Quranic texts as well the Hadiths show no discretion between one Jew or another; and as far as Muhammad was concerned, every Jew came under his seething hatred. That sad legacy is no longer secret today; and a true Muslim who follows the spirit and faith of Muhammad will gladly kill a Jew for no other reason than the beliefs of Islam's prophet.

abdkabir:

History has proven that of the Three recent powers which reigned over the affairs of the Jews, the Muslims were the most tolerant. The issue of Xenophobia towards Jews in recent years has it origin in the Forceful establishment of the state of Isreal by colonilist in the 20th century and the wars that occurred subsequently, Much before then, Muslims and Christians co-existed in Palestine.

If you're referring to the revisionist history that is now being popularized to fog the reality of Muslim intolerance of the Jews, then it shouldn't be surprise us. In reality, Muslim xenophobia towards the Jews traces its origin far back to Muhammad. The establishment of the State of Israel was a huge embarrassment to Muslims who would rather see them annihilated as Muhammad intoned.

Even the issue of Muslim-Christian co-existence is yet another dressed up or revisionist history. The Quran places Jews and Christians in the same cubicle of Muhammad's hatred.

abdkabir:

You canot make judgment of what the Jews believe of God using the christian interpretation of the the Old testament. It would be fairer u consult a Jewish resource(website etc) to understand how the verses the christians assume affirm the divinity of Jesus are seen.

It was for that same reason as you requested that I referred you to the other thread - read it and follow the the weblink offered by KAG to see that Jewish understanding of the Messiah being God is not a 'Christian interpretation'. If you're unclear afterwards, then I could take you up and expound on the issue.

abdkabir:

I have touched in various occasionS the issue of Revelations with particular emphasis on the fact that many a times, the memories of men were the repositories of such revelation. This also applies to the Torah(What islam understand as revelation to moses) and Psalms (of David) mentioned. IN this case, we are not necesarily talking about the documentation we have today but the information as it was revealed. The truth of which many knew during the time of the Prophet.

If revelations of any sort were not document, on what basis would you be inclined to argue for the idea otherwise about "the information as it was revealed"? Or, in other words, in what respects does the "documentation" differ from the "revelation" itself, which many knew during the time of the Prophet?

abdkabir:

It is important to note that the Old testament as we have it today is also a compilation of account of happenings by Jewish elders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

It does not appear that the arguments have centered on 'compilation' of the holy writs. It is rather on their content and claims, especially with regards to the allegations made in the qur'an against the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Whatever mode of compilation the Qur'an is purported to have assumed, does it make its claims and allegations against the Bible any more established?

abdkabir:

Kind Regards.

We are closer than it appears.

God Bless

In what respects do you suppose the closeness?

Anyway, do have a blessed weekend.

@stimulus

Muslims will surely hate jews. Have you forgotten that it was a jewess that killed him, by poisoning meat she prepared for him??

ishmael:

@stimulus

Muslims will surely hate jews. Have you forgotten that it was a jewess that killed him, by poisoning meat she prepared for him??

No, I haven't forgotten that - which is precisely one of the points I'd like abdkabir to note when he reads my rejoinder.

@Stimulus

Now clearer, you are blindly biased against Muslims or Islam. You have made conclusions even before discussing. The Muslims awaitbno Messiah to Save them from any thing. The Muslim awit the fulfilment of the promise of their lord,the Last day and the signs that shall herald the last day. The rising of the Sun from the west, the return of  Jesus , Son of Mary an dapparently a companion of Jesus in the name of Mahdi etc

Your way to you and my way to Me.

stimulus:

No, I haven't forgotten that - which is precisely one of the points I'd like abdkabir to note when he reads my rejoinder.

It is nothing but foolishness to hate a people because of the errors of some of them. For those who advocate hatred towards the Jews , they are indeed in great Error. I'm a Muslim and i know of what i say. The hatred the palestins and those apologetic to their cause harbour for the Jews might be understandable in context but is definately not a religious. That a Jew (allegedly killed Muhammed SAW) is no excuse for the hatred of an entire people and i'm sure this is the position of islam.

God be with you.
abdkabir

abdkabir:

@Stimulus

Now clearer, you are blindly biased against Muslims or Islam. You have made conclusions even before discussing. The Muslims awaitbno Messiah to Save them from any thing. The Muslim awit the fulfilment of the promise of their lord,the Last day and the signs that shall herald the last day. The rising of the Sun from the [b]west, the return of Jesus , Son of Mary an dapparently a companion of Jesus in the name of Mahdi [/b] etc

What a grandiose fantasy.
Now even muslims have joined christians in waiting for the return of Jesus! Wonders shall indeed never end. Pray what happens to the muslims alive to witness to see the last day? Do they now get raptured straight to heaven?
What did Mohammed say about all muslims except martyrs (aka suicide bombers) having to pass through hell first?
What are the signs of the last day?
Who is the mahdi and why is he accompanying Jesus?

abdkabir:

Your way to you and my way to Me.

Tell that to the girls in Gombe and the Taleban in Kano!

abdkabir:

It is nothing but foolishness to hate a people because of the errors of some of them. For those who advocate hatred towards the Jews , they are indeed in great Error. I'm a Muslim and i know of what i say. The hatred the palestins and those apologetic to their cause harbour for the Jews might be understandable in context but is definately not a religious. That a Jew (allegedly killed Muhammed SAW) is no excuse for the hatred of an entire people and i'm sure this is the position of islam.

This is nothing but taqiyya! Why do the muslims in Yemen, Kano, Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Indonesia e.t.c. all hate the Jews and refuse to acknowledge them as a full fledged nation if it is all merely because they are being "appologetic to the cause of the palestinians"?

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:

Now clearer, you are blindly biased against Muslims or Islam. You have made conclusions even before discussing.

Perhaps, it is true I'm being biased against Islam (rather than against Muslims) - but not blindly; for my inferences are only borne out of the same bias Muslims have viciously expressed towards Christians and Jews. And please don't come pretending you've been practising a version of Islam in a vacuum, in as much as you failed to see that I've followed this discussion all the way through before drawing my inferences as pointers to lead you back to the basics of the religion you thought you knew so well.

abdkabir:

The Muslims awaitbno Messiah to Save them from any thing. The Muslim awit the fulfilment of the promise of their lord,the Last day and the signs that shall herald the last day. The rising of the Sun from the west, the return of Jesus , Son of Mary an dapparently a companion of Jesus in the name of Mahdi etc.

Interesting. So what are the promises of your 'Lord' that Muhammed failed to leave you in the Qur'an??

This is another issue that really makes one wonder if you guys have your acts together. Some Muslims on the other side of the bridge on this issue deeply believe that there's a "Messiah" figure or avatar who's yet to come, popularly known as the Madhi - and which you even indicated in your response. So, what's this hapless yapping all of a sudden to confuse yourself with a contradiction of the same thing you acknowledge in one breath?

It is even more interesting that babs787, one of your celebrated Muslim apologists, discusses the Madhi as a Messiah avatar in the thread: Judgement Day (signs, Stages & Proceedings). Naming him as Muhammed ibn Abdullah (aka Jaabir, from the progeny of Fatimah, daughter of the prophet through Hasan), the Madhi will be a guide and reformer. Notice babs787 also states that the Madhi "will fill the earth with justice as opposed to its injustice and oppression. He will restore peace and reform peoples' lway (sic) of life."

That babs787 is not alone in this belief is confirmed by many Muslims; and you can access this highlighted weblink to see another article on the Madhi commonly understood as a "Saviour figure in Islam".

abdkabir:

Your way to you and my way to Me.

I understand that verse from the Quran (Sura 109 v. 6) is the refrain usually pronounced when a Muslim runs into a brick wall in his arguments. Enjoy.

abdkabir:

It is nothing but foolishness to hate a people because of the errors of some of them. For those who advocate hatred towards the Jews , they are indeed in great Error. I'm a Muslim and i know of what i say.

Okay. Since you are a Muslim who knows what he says, which of the categories of emboldened words would you classify Muhammad's prophetic hatred for the Jews?? Does that surprise you? By way of reminder, Muhammad left Muslims a pivotal statement that is widely regarded as a 'prophecy' that must be fulfilled at all costs. Could you please explain what this so-called prophecy is all about? Here:

Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6985:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews
and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind
a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah,
there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say,
for it is the tree of the Jews.

Dare you call Muhammad's prophetic hatred against the Jews "nothing but foolishness" or "great Error"??

abdkabir:

The hatred the palestins and those apologetic to their cause harbour for the Jews might be understandable in context but is definately not a religious. That a Jew (allegedly killed Muhammed SAW) is no excuse for the hatred of an entire people and i'm sure this is the position of islam.

God be with you.
abdkabir

I'm sure you and I can be forgiven for not being Palestinians. However, if we let them speak for themselves, we can't miss the fact that their hatred for the Jews is concretely established on Muhammad's 'prophecy'. They preach this hatred openly in their mosques as an Islamic tenet. Video clips and online articles available on request (for example, Ibrahim Mudayris' sermon of May 13, 2005 - just clicl on the link if you have a windows media player on your PC).

God's mercy to you.

nah! God and allah aint the same, dont get it twisted

God is trinity , it allah trinity ? they dont belive that Jesus is the son of God so God aint the same as Allah

No.the muslim god does not have a son called jesus,they dont pray to him through jesus, he likes human blood especially of infidels,he ask them to keep his followers locked and not to let anyone leave the religion alive.Definately he is not the God i worship even the ogun worshiper will tell you that we all worship one god.

Muslims know deep in their religion that the Allah of the Qur'an is NOT the same God in the Biblical faiths (Judaism and Christianity).

The Qur'an many times claims that Allah was the "God" who sent down and revealed the Torah (the Law of Moses), the Injil (the Gospel of Jesus Christ), the Psalms of David, and several other "scriptures" to other prophets. However, anyone who reads these books or scriptures finds that Muhammad's claims were false.

In the first place, Muhammad's Quran or Allah did not know who the Holy Spirit was. He mistakes him for angel Gabriel (Jibril); when in fact in Moses' Torah, the very first chapter of Genesis speaks about the Spirit of God (vs. 2).

Secondly, Muhammad's Allah and Quran do NOT have the Psalms of David, which again means that the Quran is NOT a complete book, as they usually use the same argument against the Bible for not including the book of Jehu, etc.

Third, when one reads the Pslams of David chapter 2, the divine Son is spoken about in verse 12 - and He is the One in whom people are to put their trust, in just the same way that people trust in God! Ask any Muslim who makes a claim for the Psalms in the Qur'an, and what you'll get in reply is no more than open denials.

Which brings me to another crucial point: if indeed the Allah of the Quran actually is the same God in the Bible (as pretended by Muhammad), how come the crucifixion is denied by the Allah who claimed he revealed the Psalms? In chapter 22:16 says, "they pierced my hands and my feet", which is testifying to the crucifixion of Jesus. But ask Muslims today what that Psalsm means, and mre denials will follow.

So many disparities can be given to show that Allah in Islam is not the God of the Biblical faiths. Claiming that Muhammad was following the religion of Abraham is dishonesty that no sound Muslim scholar can defend.

@stimulus & davidylan

How far will we go dogmatically arguing against one another on an issue that has perhaps done more harm to our people than Good. Millions and million of people killed in the name of religion. I see religion as a means to achieving happiness for me, my people and world. If Islam and christianity doenst help that , then there's no use.

I think it wasn't right of you to choose a part of the reported sayings of Muhammad to suggest Muhammed's hatred towards the Jews.I made me do a random search on jew related issues and on the two main source of Hadithes (Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari) ,Heres the page: link: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html , please type the word jew on this . From the result i saw and trying to put things in context, Muhammed could be said to have been tolerant. History even as reported by non believing scientist have confirmed that the rule of Muslims was more tolerant to the Jews than other recent powers that ruled on Jews in pre modern times.

On this issue , i will not take side because i'm muslim or christian, if religion will divide or cause hatred among our peoples , then of what use is it.I will not hate a people because of the wrong doings of a group of them and i look straight to the belief in one God and one alone.

Yes, its true, Islam advises, if both sides do not agree then you go your way. Thats why i maintain your way to you and mine to me.

Ma'Salam

abdkabir:

History even as reported by non believing scientist have confirmed that the rule of Muslims was more tolerant to the Jews than other recent powers that ruled on Jews in pre modern times.

This is nothing but dishonesty as epitomised by taqqiya. What of all the muslim neighbours who till tomorrow do not maintain diplomatic ties with Isreal and are amassing weapons with the sole aim of driving the Jews to the sea?
And please do not use the Palestinian excuse, Egypt, Kano, Gombe, Sokoto, Indonesia, Libya, Iran, Algeria, Somalia e.t.c. cannot pretend to love the Palestinians more than we do.
But for the US and Europe, Isreal would long have ceased to exist.
When did the muslims "rule" Isreal?

abdkabir:

Yes, its true, Islam advises, if both sides do not agree then you go your way. Thats why i maintain your way to you and mine to me.
Ma'Salam

Either the above is one more sign of islam's hypocrisy or muslims have chosen not to heed the words of islam. Islamic tenets demand forcing others to convert to islam, please ask the parents in Sokoto who have had their children kidnapped and forced to take up islam on the pain of death. Have we forgotten the fate that befalls those who renounce islam?

If indeed islam advises you to go your way why then are muslims the world over still a pain in our necks? Why the burning of churches, persecution of christians and the irresponsible outrage that follows the publishing of mohammed's cartoons? Why did a nun lose her life in somalia for cartoons printed in denmark if indeed islam advises that you go ur way and mine to me? How many christians came to kill you after the chocolate image of Jesus was produced in New York?

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:

@stimulus & davidylan

How far will we go dogmatically arguing against one another on an issue that has perhaps done more harm to our people than Good. Millions and million of people killed in the name of religion. I see religion as a means to achieving happiness for me, my people and world. If Islam and christianity doenst help that , then there's no use.

I think davidylan has well answered your reposte.

However, you amaze me with the prejudice of claiming that religion helps, and yet Islam and Christianity might not help, achieve your ends. This sounds like you are quickly dissociating yourself from Islam as a Muslim, and assuming a chair in a no-man's-land of "religion!" If Islam has failed you, I can empathise with that; and that is why people continue to challenge its claims, and will continue to do so until more Muslims come round admitting the seriousness of its untenable claims.

abdkabir:

I think it wasn't right of you to choose a part of the reported sayings of Muhammad to suggest Muhammed's hatred towards the Jews.I made me do a random search on jew related issues and on the two main source of Hadithes (Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari) ,Heres the page: link: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html , please type the word jew on this . From the result i saw and trying to put things in context, Muhammed could be said to have been tolerant. History even as reported by non believing scientist have confirmed that the rule of Muslims was more tolerant to the Jews than other recent powers that ruled on Jews in pre modern times.

Thanks for the offer, and I assure you that I followed your advice as given. What you fail to understand is that Muhammad's "prophecy" in Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6985 is the same "tolerance" that is being used today by Muslims who want to see every Jew annihilated so that Muhammad's "LAST HOUR" may be fulfilled according to his "prophecy". Did I miss it there again??

abdkabir:

On this issue , i will not take side because i'm muslim or christian, if religion will divide or cause hatred among our peoples , then of what use is it.I will not hate a people because of the wrong doings of a group of them and i look straight to the belief in one God and one alone.

Like you, I'm sure many people are willing to vouch for peace and tolerance regardless of cherished religious convictions. However, it is hard to convince anyone that you or any other person is a Muslim if he or she does not adhere to the beliefs of Muhammad; in just the same way that my being called a Christian would be without substance if I don't adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The hatred in Islam is not something that is peripheral or tangential to the religion; it is not some virus that was injected along the line by some backyard boys centuries after Muhammad had perfected his religion. Hatred, intolerance and violence against the Jews were the very foundation of Muhammad's teachings; and those who are popping up those references and acting on them today are actually quoting him verbatim.

abdkabir:

Yes, its true, Islam advises, if both sides do not agree then you go your way. Thats why i maintain your way to you and mine to me.

I know, that's why I quoted the Sura for you earlier. If only Muhammad had kept within the confines of sura 109:6, we would all have been happier without the sword and bombs today.

Shalom.

I have resolved to make no further comments.

Islam has been a blessing to me and i'm happy to be a believer. Islam has taught me not to discriminate by tribe or ethnic background and thats why i follow it. If Islam had taught racial discrimination, i wouldn't have followed it.

Your religion to you and Mine to me.

Ma'Salam.