₦airaland Forum

Abdulgaffar22:
Mr enilove, pls are you also saying Jesus is Almighty God? If yes, can God Almighty have another God when Jesus said "my God and your God" in John 20:17? If no, then we have two seperate Gods. This is polytheism.

Abdulgaffar,
Take the Sun.
Does the Sun have light? Yes.
Does the Sun have heat? Yes.
Does the Sun have rays that cannot been seen? Yes.

Which is the sun then; light or heat or rays? Or all together at the same time? Is the Sun light, heat and rays at the same time?

When the Sun is giving light does the heat disappear? When the Sun is giving out rays does the light go off or the heat become cold?

If a physical object can be 3 in one why is difficult for you to understand that concept?

Was Mohamed a Prophet to The Christians?

Was Mohamed a prophet to the Christians? Initially, according to Islamic tradition, the Christians carried favour with Mohamed. We can see this attitude in Koran 5:82-86.

In this passage Mohamed remarks that the Jews and pagans were the furthest from the believers(Moslems), while the Christians were “the nearest among them in love…” This, according to Chapter 5, was because they were men of learning who had renounced the world and were not arrogant (possibly referring to the Monks whom Mohamed had contact with earlier in his life). He added that when the Christians heard his message they accepted it with tears, and immediately counted themselves amongst the Moslems.

These individuals may be those who have either conceded to him out of fear for their lives, or have converted out of Christianity and become Moslems.

The supposed affinity with Christians was, nonetheless, fleeting. This is because according to the Koran they were soon regarded as rebellious transgressors. There was now a hatred towards those who followed Jesus the son of Mary.

A number of other chapters which pertained to Jews and Christians came to regard both the Jews and Christians as little more than enemies of the unbelievers. They were only acceptable to Mohamed once they had acknowledged him as a prophet (Chapter 5:86). In fact, there are then specific chapters which warn the Moslems not to acquaint themselves with the Christians and Jews, warning that the Christians are only interested in converting the Moslems to their own beliefs. Consider these:

Q 2:120: “Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: ‘The Guidance of Allah, that is the (only) Guidance.’ Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor Helper against Allah.”
Q 3:28: “Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.”
Q 5:54: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.”

It seems that Mohamed, and those who follow him can only accept Jews and Christians if they first renounce their beliefs and follow Mohamed as the final prophet. This is not a case of living together in harmony at all but rather a threat, and finally a disapproving of all that the Jews and Christians cherish dearly.

With verses like the above, is it possible for us to claim that Mohamed was a prophet to the Christians? It is highly doubtful.

Abdulgaffar22:
Please respond to the analysis I made under John 17:3 quoted above

"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the ONLY true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent (John 17:3)"

Eternal life = God the father + Jesus Christ

Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true [supreme and sovereign] God, and [in the same manner know] Jesus [as the] Christ whom You have sent.
JOHN 17:3 AMP.

Was Mohamed Sure of the Source of his “Revelations”
Mohamed evidently felt that his first encounter with “Gabriel” was demonic and the question that need to be addressed whether the koran is from God, Mohammed or Satan? Islamic literature about Mohamed’s life helps us answer this question.

"Ibn Ishaq says that, before the Revelation first began to descend upon him, Mohamed’s friends feared that he was suffering from the evil eye: and that, when it came upon him, almost the same illness attacked him again. In tradition it is stated that he (Mohamed) said: 'I fear lest I should become a magician, lest one should proclaim me a follower of the Jinn (spirit)', and again: 'I fear lest there should be madness' (or demonic possession) 'in me.' After an accession of shivering and shutting his eyes, there used to come over him what resembled a swoon, his face would foam and he would roar like a young camel." (mizanul MizanuŸl Haqq, page 345).

"The Apostle of Allah said (to Aisha Ayshah) 'Sometimes it comes to me like the ringing of a bell and that is the most troublesome to me.... sometimes the angel assumes the form of a man for me and talks with me and I retain in memory what he says! Aisha Ayshah reported 'And indeed I saw him while the revelation descended upon him on an intensely cold day; then it left him while his brow steamed with sweat.' "(Mishkat IV, page 360).

Abdulgaffar22:
Any false representation of God is nothing but IDOLATRY. Therefore, it is of great importance that there should be no any iota of confusion or doubt regarding the identity of God . In other words, being the foundational doctrine, the answer to the question "Who is God?" should always remain the same in any faith that is truly endorsed and approved by God.

There are some Christians who want to argue that Allah is not God. I will only advice these Christians to get a Bible translated in Arabic language. They will discover that there is no any other name that the translators used for God except Allah ( the same spelling with that of Qur'an). Since God is the originator and creator of all languages, there is nothing wrong if God use Allah for himself in Quran given that Qur'an was revealed in Arabic language and there is no any other name that Arabs used for God other than Allah.
...
Reading those verses of Qur'an quoted below are enough to convince you that description and identity of the speaker (Allah) tally perfectly with that of God Almighty, the God of Israel.

1. Is your creed - Shahada - "...there is no ALLAH but Allah..." or is it "...there is no GOD but Allah?
2. Is NAME of Islam's god JEHOVAH?
3. Can you believe in Allah alone without ASSOCIATING Mohamed with him and still enter Paradise?

STRUCTURE OF THE KORAN
Most Moslems say that the Koran is the eternal, uncreated, infallible and unaltered Word of Allah, a copy of which is preserved on a Tablet in heaven and given by inspiration through the angel Gabriel to Mohamed, though the angel Gabriel is never identified in the koran as the messenger.

The koran is not in a historical sequence. It is not arranged in a particular literary order. Some subjects are repeated at different times and in different places having no continuous story. Apart from the first chapter, the chapters are arranged from the longest in the beginning to the shortest at the end. There are 114 chapters. The longest chapter contains 286 verses. The shortest is 5 verses.
Unlike the Bible, the koran is not designed to reveal God per se but rather to set forth His instructions for His creatures. Mohamed is in fact the highlight of the koran! Allah only backs him up.

Understanding the book
The koran was not designed for the average person to understand but has to be interpreted by a group of “scholars” even though the book itself claims to the “clear”. Moslems teach that the koran can only be understood in its original Arabic language and a translation into any other language is inadequate to portray the true meaning. This is either to further confuse matters about the book or foster an Arabian agenda: making adherents in other cultures to become culturally linked to the Arabs through the language.

Verses are changed when deemed fit
There is a justifying verse in Surah 1:106. “If we abrogate any verse or cause it to be forgotten, We replace it by a better or a similar one. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” There are quite a number of contradictory verses in the koran but apparently Mohamed felt no misgivings about Allah changing his mind from time to time, even though it is claimed the koran always existed in heaven before God sent it down to Mohamed! Apparently Allah did not edit his writing! Because of this verse, Moslems can use whatever verse from the koran they want to in order to try to prove their point.

Implication: For a book that already existed in heaven and was only “revealed” to Mohamed how the cancelling of one thing and substituting it with another can be regarded as right can only be accepted by a mind that has thrown reason into the wind. Surely, if it has already existed in a copy in heaven the Angel should have no problem dictating the exact words to Mohamed; should he?
If the book cannot be communicated clearly in any other language, is that to suggest that the Arabic is SUPERIOR to other languages or perhaps a more “heavenly” language than other languages?
These are questions our Moslem friends need to resolve.

It's All About Mohamed
“O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you [Muslims] the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise.” Sura 66:1-2

This is one of those places where Allah, rather than give his last prophet divine guidance, acts only after his prophet has taken a wrong step. Allah then steps in to satisfy his prophet even when it means that the prophet's satisfaction goes against morality or legality.

In this chapter Mohamed violates a deal that he made with his wives, makes and breaks an oath, and receives a "revelation" from Allah just in time to get him out of trouble and justify him.

The story
Mohamed had allocated days to be with each of his wives. Mohamed was caught in the bed of his wife Hafsa with Mary a Coptic Christian slave given to Mohammed 7 A.H. (628 A.D.) by the Governor of Egypt. When Hafsa queried him he, Mohamed, in order to possibly pacify her and prevent her from telling his other wives, made an oath not have relations with Mary again. When the other wives still eventually got to know about it Mohamed went back on his word and in addition boycotted the other wives and met only with Mary.

Shortly after, this "revelation" came from Allah justifying Mohamed. Allah not only justifies Mohamed for going back on his pledge and the oath he took after being found out, he (Allah) then threatened the wives with he'll fire!

First, Allah rushes in to help Mohamed with his family affairs. In doing so Mohamed is not blamed for going back on his word and failing to keep his promise. Instead it's his wives, who were clearly wronged, that are now intimidated with divine punishment.

If the example of Mohamed is to be followed, what exactly is the example to be followed here? Is it to see having sex with slave girls as normal? Is it for Moslem men not to promise their wives anything? Is it to see the breaking one's promise as a normal thing and not out of the ordinary?

It's interesting that when Mohamed had only one wife - Khadija - no "revelation" on family life came to him. In fact, in the early days of his Islam things appeared relatively normal. The koranic verses of those days were peaceful. He exhibited the restraint that would be expected of a prophet. He appeared to be more accommodating. Then, almost suddenly, a change took place that took things in the opposite direction.

From there on, the FOCUS became Mohamed. Morality was thrown overboard. Legality was given a back seat. Allah's attention turned to pleasing Mohamed and him alone. Every other person became secondary in the reckoning of Allah.

true2god:
Bro so much of inconsistencies in allahh's Quran. My favorite quranic verse is Quran 33:53:

O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! that would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of Allah, nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! that in Allah's sight would be an enormity.

How can a God reveal such a childish instruction? If Mohammed was not comfortable with his sahabas hanging around his wives and concubines, why didn't he just tell them straightforward without dragging his imaginary allahh into it.

1) Even if we assume that naratives about Mohamed's life are for moslems to follow, what in this instance is the example Allah wants them to see that he had to write such a thing and feel the need to put it in his most holy book ?
2) If the koran is eternal, like moslems claim, what sense does it make that this existed before the universe was created, and why would it need to be there for eternity?

This and other ridiculous "revelations" make it seem obvious that the koran was written by Mohamed for his own interests, as Aisha commented.

Narrated 'Aishah:

It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "I used to feel jealous of those (women) who offered themselves (in marriage) to the Prophet and I said: 'Would a free woman offer herself?' Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: 'You can postpone whom you will of them, and you may receive whom you will.' I said: 'By Allah, I see that your Lord is quick to respond to your wishes.'"

Indeed over 90% of the Koran is not revealing the nature of Allah so that mankind will know him better: that majority of the Koran is about Mohamed and the satisfaction of his desires. That alone should raise a RED FLAG about the book.

true2god:
Allah changed his mind when a blind man complained about a specific 'revelation' that did not put his concern and inadequacies into consideration:

sahih bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 84 :

Narrated by Al-Bara
When the Divine Inspiration: "Those of the believers who sit (at home), was revealed the Prophet sent for Zaid (bin Thabit) who came with a shoulder-blade and wrote on it. Ibn Um-Maktum complained about his blindness and on that the following revelation came: "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury, or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive hard and fight in the Way of Allah with their wealth and lives)." (4.95)

sahih bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 85 :

Narrated by Sahl bin Sad As-Sa'idi
I saw Marwan bin Al-Hakam sitting in the Mosque. So I came forward and sat by his side. He told us that Zaid bin Thabit had told him that Allah's Apostle had dictated to him the Divine Verse: "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and lives.' (4.95) Zaid said, "Ibn-Maktum came to the Prophet while he was dictating to me that very Verse. On that Ibn Um Maktum said, "O Allah's Apostle! If I had power, I would surely take part in Jihad." He was a blind man. So Allah sent down revelation to His Apostle while his thigh was on mine and it became so heavy for me that I feared that my thigh would be broken. Then that state of the Prophet was over after Allah revealed "...except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.) (4.95)

The following questions can be asked, given the way and manner the above scenario played out:

1) Was allahh not aware that a blind man was in the meeting room (where Jihad was being planned) before giving Mohammed his initial revelation.

2) What would have the Qur'anic ayah read (Quran 4:95) if the blind man had not complained about the ayah?

3) Is man capable of determining how an ayah should read as the above ayah portrayed?

4) Is quran 4:95 the word of allahh or the opinion of Mohammed?

All these inconsistencies and contradictions in the koran really makes it a questionable book.

Is the Koran Really the Words of Allah or Mohamed's?
Moslems claim that the Koran is the words of Allah. Koran is to be seen as if Allah himself had spoken these words stated in it. It is significant to highlight this point because if koran is the word of Allah then we should find no errors whatsoever in it. Unfortunately, such is not the case.

We find that when we read some of the verses in koran, we clearly see that they were Mohamed's own words and not Allah's.

Let’s see some of the verses in the koran which clearly show that these words were obviously spoken by Mohamed and not Allah.
In the opening chapter of the koran – Sura Fatihah – we have:

(Quran 1:1-7)
In the name of the Merciful and Compassionate God.
Praise belongs to God,
The Lord of the worlds, the merciful, the
compassionate, the ruler of the day of
the day of judgment! Thee we serve and Thee
we ask for aid. Guide us in the right path,
the path of those Thou art gracious to;
not to those Thou art wroth with, nor of
those who err.

These words are clearly addressed to Allah, in the form of a prayer.

They are either Mohamed's or later compilers of the koran’s words of praise to Allah God ("Guide us in the right path...", asking for Allah's help and guidance.

Some Moslem compilers conveniently add the imperative "say" in the English translation of the koran at the beginning of the chapter apparently to remove this glaring discrepancy. This imperative form of the word "say" occurs at least 350 times in the koran, and it’s obvious that this word has, in fact, been inserted by later compilers of the koran to remove countless similarly embarrassing difficulties. Thus, we have direct proof that the Koran starts out with the words of Mohamed or later compilers of the Koran.

Some other examples in Koran:
(Quran 113:1)
I take refuge with the Lord of the Dawn.

One can clearly see, its Mohamed and NOT ALLAH HIMSELF who is seeking refuge in Allah. It would make no sense for Allah to seek to take refuge in another person. So, that statement can only be by a subordinate seeking refuge in a superior.

(Quran 27:91)
For me, I have been commanded to serve the
Lord of this city, Him Who has sanctified it
and to whom (Belong) all things; and I am
commanded to be of those who bow in Islam to
Allah's Will

Again, the speaker here is clearly Mohamed or later compilers. Only a subordinate will talk about serving a Lord or bow to another. Again, the word "say" put at the beginning of the sentence in many English translations is absent in the original Arabic version of this portion of the koran.

(Quran 84:16-19)
I swear by the afterglow of sunset, and by the night, and by the moon when she is at the full.

Once again this must be Mohamed or later compilers and NOT Allah. Certainly Omnipotent Allah should not swear, should he? Some translator again cleverly remove the word "swear" while making the translation of this portion of the koran.

(Quran 6:114)
Should I seek other judge than God, when
it is He who has sent down to you, the
distinguishing book (Quran)?

This again clearly shows man speaking.
There are several others portions of the koran stated in the same manner.
It is obvious then that the Koran contains words of men and perhaps Angel Gabriel?

Implication: If as Islam claims the Koran is only the words of Allah but we can clearly see that many portions contain words that are not those of Allah, the again the legitimacy of the book is called into question. The fact that words have to be inserted or deleted to make passages in the koran read in a particular way further diminishes the claim of the book by Moslems.

WHERE MOHAMED'S STORIES CAME FROM
Reputable Moslem scholars know for sure that Mohamed had knowledgeable people in Jewish and Persian religion and Christianity around him who influenced him and his composition of the koran. A number of Islamic books confirm this. Mohamed’s contemporaries knew this and must have challenged him on this. This is why he tried to argue against them in Sura 9: 127; 16:103; 25;4-6.


Mohamed did not just get these people to help him write down his ‘revelations’, he was actually helped by them in getting some of the stories he then had written down. This was a common knowledge in Arabia and particularly Mecca.

Mohamed's messages were transmitted orally for a very long time before being reduced to writing. Chances are that even those who eventually put his messages down in writing had to refer to other sources to fill in gaps that they needed to make their writings more credible.

Cook and Patricia Crone in their extremely interesting and intellectually stimulating work Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (1977) point out how both the literature of Islam - the koran - and it's traditions and rituals were not only borrowed from other books but also other religions and their practices.

In Slaves on Horses: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity (1980), Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (1987), and later works Patricia Crone showed how Muslim traditions drew on a common pool of material fabricated by the storytellers.

At the end of the day the books of Islam came out of an attempt to reconcile distortions arising from various allegiances within Islam such as those to a particular area, tribe, sect or school of thought, etc.

The Hadith
The hadiths are collections of statements and traditions - actions, decrees and sayings – of Mohamed. How and why the practice of reducing the traditions of Mohamed's life to writing began. What is clear that their presence means that majority of Moslems believe not just one book, the koran, for their lifestyle and ultimate place in Paradise but also in the hadiths.

The hadiths stories and narratives attributed to Mohamed are traced back to him through a series of allegedly trustworthy witnesses. There are said to be six correct or authentic hadiths. These authentic collections, accepted by those who are not “QURAN ONLY” Moslems, include compilations of Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi and al-Nisai.

It should be noted that ALL these sources were written HUNDREDS of years after the death of Mohamed. So, we see that these information were written far away from Mohamed’s time.

Today, Moslems classify hadiths as either “authentic” or spurious. An Islamic sect would accept a group of hadiths while another will claim a different set. Historically, even early in Islamic development the struggle between the “Alids”, Ali’s followers [Ali was Mohamed’s cousin and son-in-law] and the “Umayyads” [Uthman’s relations of the Meccan clan of Umayya] led to the creation of different hadiths to suit the leaning of either of the sides.

Some scholars have even shown that the Koran and Hadith grew out of factional disagreements over a long period, perhaps as long as two centuries. One can posit then that Mohamed may never have thought the koran would evolve to what it is today and the hadiths may be a result of sectarian claims to legitimacy.

The hadiths regulate the life of Moslems. The koran contains very little details of many of the duties of the Moslem, and the hadiths fill in the gap by providing the details. For example, the ‘salat’ is described in detail in the hadith but not in the koran.

What were the sources of MOST if not all of these hadith writings? Not on written material! It’s simply based on “This person told me this which he heard from that person who heard it from such and such one and that one heard it from so and so," And list can go on and on.

And not to be faulted some of the hadith writers take this position:
“I am writing this book as I hear from the narrators. If anything sounds absurd, I should not be blamed or held accountable. The responsibility of all blunders rests squarely on the shoulders of those who have narrated these stories to me.” In other words, if there is found to be some mistake or untruth in what they have narrated others should be blamed and not them - the writers. Whao!

Implication: Since Islam depends on other sources apart from the ‘revealed’ book – the koran – and the writings are so unreliable, how can even the koran itself be trusted? How can Moslems claim on the one hand that Allah has given them in the koran a book that has a permanent copy in heaven YET still run to the hadiths to either understand the koran or know how to live?

Again, were the chains of Narrators and eventual writers of the koran inspired by Allah? If so, then Allah had other messengers after Mohamed: Therefore, he cannot be said to be the ‘final’ messenger of Allah. If not, then Moslems are following writings they shouldn’t be following and so are committing blasphemy. Either way, a big question mark still hangs over Islam.

How Did the Koran Come About?
The traditional account is that the Koran (Quran) was revealed to Mohamed, usually by an angel, bit by bit over a period of years until his death in 632 A.D. It is not clear how much of the koran had been written down by the time of Mohamed’s death, but there was no single manuscript in which Mohamed himself had collected all the revelations.

There are different accounts as to how exactly the koran was eventually put together into one volume.

According to one tradition, during Abu Bakr’s brief caliphate (632-634), ‘Umar, who himself was to succeed to the caliphate in 634, became worried at the fact that so many Moslems who had known the koran by heart were killed during the Battle of Yamama, in Central Arabia. There was a real danger that parts of the Koran would be permanently lost unless a collection of the koran was made before more of those who knew this or that part of the koran by heart were killed. Abu Bakr eventually gave approval to such a project, and asked Zayd ibn Thabit, the former secretary of the Prophet, to undertake this daunting task. So Zayd proceeded to collect the koran "from pieces of papyrus, flat stones, palm leaves, shoulder blades and ribs of animals, pieces of leather and wooden boards, as well as from the hearts of men." Zayd then copied out what he had collected on sheets or leaves.

There are different versions of this tradition with some claiming that Abu Bakr was not even involved at all. Incidentally, unlike modern Moslems who tenaciously hold on to the impossible position that not a single letter of the present day koran has been altered, Moslem scholars of the early years of Islam were far more flexible, realizing that parts of the Koran were lost, perverted, and that there were many thousand variants which made it impossible to talk of a “perfect” koran.

Nevertheless, for focus sake let’s take the story as follows:

Compilation Initiated
Abu Bakr, after a war, several years after Mohamed, in which many of those who memorised the quran died, decided to put everything into writing so that the REMAINING portions of the memorised RECITATIONS (koran) will not be lost.
“Many (of the passages) of the Quran that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama … but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Quran, nor were they found with even one (person) after them.”
- Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif

Note that:
- Many who died in the battle died with the koranic passages they had memorised.
- The passages were not written down.
- No collection was made up till the time of the people mentioned.
- No single person had every portion of the RECITATIONS (koran).

So, Abu Bakr wanted to collect all that was left into a single volume. Incidentally other Moslems in other parts of the Islamic Empire at that time also compiled the koran (the recitations) and had their own variant compilations.

The Collection Under Uthman
Years later, Uthman, who became the Kalif (Caliph), after complaints about these variant compilations then decided to make a fresh compilation.

This is what Uthman did after making his compilation:
“Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt”
- Sahih Bukhari 4987

So, Uthman:
- Compiled his own koran.
- Sent a copy of his version to every Moslem province of his time.
- Ordered all other recitations to be burnt.

Interestingly the top koranic reciters of Mohamed did not agree with parts of Uthman’s compilations!

The top man of these reciters – Abdula ibn Masud for instance did not believe Sura 1 (Chapter 1) – the Al-Fatiha – and some other chapters should be in the koran. He said it was the prayers they (Moslems) used to say and was not a revelation that Mohamed RECITED to them as koran.

Another quotation throws up this argument:
“Umar said, “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the quran), yet we leave some of what he recites.” Ubayy says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave it for anything whatever”
- Sahih al-Bukhari 5005

Here we see:
- That what one of the best reciters of the koran had was left out in the compilation.
- There were already problems among early Moslem communities about the content and composition of the koran.
Lost Portions

Moslem sources actually show us that entire chapters, passages, verses and phrases were lost.

“Abu Musa al-Ashari sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Quran and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you”
- Sahih Muslim 2286
He then continued:
“… we used to recite a Surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Baraat. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: “If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.” And we used to recite a Surah which resembled one of the Surahs of Musabbihat [i.e. chapter 9], and I have forgotten it … “

Note this:
- This portion quoted above by the companion of Mohamed is NOT in today’s koran.
- The companions of Mohamed did not see anything wrong in forgetting a portion of the koran.
- That forgotten portion (equivalent to over 120 verses which he compared with chapter 9 of the koran) is lost today!
- This means an entire chapter that they used to recite is no longer in existence today.

Another instance of lost portion:
Aisha … said, “Surat al-Ahzab (xxxiii) used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today [i.e. 73 verses].”
- Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Quran
Again, we see:
- A chapter that used to have 200 verses now has 73 because the rest could not be got.
- This is about 60% of the chapter missing.

Individual Verses Missing
Still Moslem sources:
“It was narrated that Aisha said: “The verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it”
- Sunan Ibn Maja 1944

So here:
- A sheep ate a verse on stoning.
- There is also a verse on breastfeeding an adult!
- Both are not in the koran any longer.

And this next one from the koran:
“The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers”
- Q. 33:6 [Yusuf Ali translation]
Yusuf Ali comments in his footnotes: “In some Qiraahs, like that of Ubayy ibn Kaab, occurs also the words ‘and he is a father of them’ which implies his spiritual relationship and connection with the words ‘and his wives are their mothers’.”

So, we see here:
- Yusuf Ali telling us that a variant koran has a portion that is not in the one he used in translating his own.

A Testimony to Lost Portions by a Companion of Mohamed:
[Ibn Umar said]: “Let none of you say, ‘I have learned the whole of the Koran’, for how does he know what the whole of it is, when much of it has disappeared? Let him rather say, ‘I have learned what remains thereof’ ”
- Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Quran
Note:
- Ibn Umar claimed when he lived that there was no complete koran.
- Portions have disappeared.

In Closing
These are all sources from early Moslem believers.
The evidence come from Mohamed’s companions themselves.
They all state that portions of the koran were already missing as at when they lived.

Implication: If the claim that the koran is un-altered is used to argue that the koran is from God, the evidence we have looked at prove that the OPPOSITE is the case: the ONLY reasonable conclusion anyone can come to after all these is that the koran has NOT BEEN PERFECTLY PRESERVED therefore that claim cannot be used to say that it is a book from God.

WHAT CHRISTIANS MUST KNOW ABOUT ISLAM
It is the understanding of a person or thing that should make for appreciation or otherwise of that thing. Majority of Christians know little or nothing about Islam. This series is to elicit this better knowledge and understanding of Islam.

In most instances the source materials to be used will be the ones generated and expressed by the most important Moslem scholars. Incidentally Islamic literature give us very detailed information about Islam and Mohamed.

To truly understand Islam, the objective evaluator needs to rely on what Islamic books and ‘prophet’ prescribed rather than the propaganda spread by Moslems and their allies. Therefore, the true position of Islam on any issue is based not on what any supporter of Islam says but on what the driving documents of Islam’s philosophy state. At the end of the day this is what pitches Islam against every other faith and equally pitches Moslem against Moslem when one side perceives the other as not “fully” following the precepts set down by Islam’s sacred literature and figures.

Introductory Words
Islam originated in the 7th century AD in Arabia; geographically today’s Middle East. The founder of the religion was Mohamed (lived about 570-632 AD). The basic guiding documents for Islam are (1) the Quran/Koran and (2) the Hadiths. The quran is viewed by Moslems to be the verbatim word of Allah, the god of Islam. The hadiths are recordings of the teachings and lifestyle of Mohamed.

There are also the biographies written of Mohamed. These came long after the death of Mohamed. The first one appeared 150 years after he died – imagine if the life history of a man who died in 1868 is written, from oral traditions, for the first time today. Muhammad Ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar (704-773) wrote it. The original has more or less vanished, and today we have a version EDITED by a man who died 60 years after Ibn Ishaq and who eliminated “things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people”. So, some “matters” were edited out of what we have today. Were these “matters” things that would clearly NOT portray Mohamed as a “model for all mankind”?

I shall be using these two basic documents and the biography of Mohamed to present what Islam and its prophet say about the religion.

Did Mohamed Write the Quran/Koran?
Mohamed NEVER wrote down the quran directly or personally. Even though Mohamed had a SECRETARY he never dictated the quran to his Secretary to write down.

Here’s how the quran came:
- Mohamed would receive revelation.
- He would RECITE it to his followers.
- His followers would memorise or write them down – not Mohamed himself.
- The followers wrote them down in: pieces of bones, parchments, leaf-stalks of date palms and in the memories of men who knew it by heart.
The quran at the time of Mohamed was not in a book form.
Only bits and pieces were written here and there by Mohamed’s followers.
It was actually meant to be memorised.
This was how the quran was for several years.
Again, for emphasis sake: Mohamed NEVER wrote down the quran directly or personally.

Implication: With many different hands involved in getting the quran compilation, the question of authenticity becomes very critical. We have no idea which of the Prophet’s scattered revelations the compilers found or missed out. There is strong evidence that things got omitted.

The Companions of Mohamed, at least a significant number of them, are said to have memorized many of his recitations. Could their memories never have failed? Oral stories have a tendency to change over time, and they cannot be relied upon to construct a reliable, systematic history. In addition, we would have to assume that the Companions of Mohamed heard and understood him perfectly.

With so many different hands involved in the initial recording and eventual compilation of the quran the questions Moslems have not been able to answer are: Were all of these people INSPIRED by Allah to do this work? Or was it only Mohamed who received the inspiration for the quran? If ALL the hands involved were inspired then Islam CANNOT claim that Mohamed was the last messenger of Allah – Allah had to COMMISSION other messengers to complete what Mohamed started. If only Mohamed was inspired and he did not put together any single compilation of the quran then we cannot trust that the work of men who were NOT SENT by Allah to do what they did is genuine. Either way a big shadow is cast on the quran and Islam.

Abdulgaffar22:
Jesus said; I WAS SENT ONLY TO LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL (Matthew 15:24)


However, many of the Christians believe that this command of "NOT PREACHING TO THE GENTILES" was later cancelled and replaced by the new command of preaching to all the nations JUST BEFORE Jesus ascended to heaven:
1. Matthew 28:19; "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
2. Mark 16.15; “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.”
3. Acts 1.8 ; "and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
4. Luke 24.47; “that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”


Therefore, it seems from these four verses that the apostles of Jesus were NOW FREE TO VISIT THE GENTILES AND PREACH THE GOSPEL TO ALL THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD.

Peter's statement "BUT GOD HAS SHOWN ME THAT I SHOULD NOT CALL ANYONE IMPURE OR UNCLEAN" is only referring to the "VISION" he experienced just before the arrival of the men sent by Cornelius (See Acts 10:1-28) .

THE MESSAGE OF JESUS IS FOR ALL MANKIND
Presumably your intention in continuing to cite this passage is to pacify your conscience that you’re in the right religion.
I have shown you that Jesus, while He was on earth, limited His ministry to the Children of Israel. Nevertheless, His message was universal. I have shown you passages in the Bible which speak about His ultimate universal ministry.
Jesus spoke to them, saying: "I am the light of the world." (John 8:12)

Now, do you believe the above, since you seem to accept the portion you are holding up, which is also from the Bible as your “evidence”?

Do you believe the following from the quran?
... He revealed the Torah and the Gospel aforetime, for a guidance to mankind. (Qur’an 3:3-4)
And (it will be) that we may make of him (Jesus) a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. (Qur’an 19:21) Notice, it does not say, "a revelation or sign only to the Israelites".

If you choose to be selective you are only portraying yourself as dishonest and deceptive.

Why not select a passage from the quran which indicates that the quran is in Arabic for Arabs (43:3) Or why not select a quranic passage which says that Mohamed is ONLY a warner (38:65)?

The New Testament speaks about the universality of Jesus' mission. As long as Jesus was on earth, He limited His ministry and that of His disciples to the Children of Israel. Even then He still reached out to the Gentiles. At the time of His ascension into heaven He ordered His disciples to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19, 20). The earliest disciples began to carry out this command.

Paul, following these disciples, summarizes the matter:
For I am not ashamed of the Gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes [in Christ as Savior], to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Gentile, non-Jew). (Romans 1:16)

Hamzi423:
Answer.
The Quran is clear yes.... But as every other book, it is open to different interpretations from different people.. Just like if u give a book to 2 people to read & report what they have learned from it, they'll both come with different ways of explaining that same book.. Because we humans are different we have different ways of understanding things....


Response..

First of all.. The Quran is the ultimate book of authority for the Muslims & the authentic hadiths are their to further help explain the Quran
....
Muhammad is Saadiqul waad Al'amin.. He's the most trustworthy man in Mecca even the pagan Arabs couldn't dispute that fact...
There's absolutely no way Muhammad will preach something & do the opposite because He said that not even him is allowed to create or invent anything in this religion except what GOD has asked of him... So there's absolutely no way Muhammad will go against the words of GOD..
Concerning ibn hisham... He is Egyptian & he didn't live with the prophet, am not disregarding his works but a man that never lived with the prophet can never actually give an accurate account of how the prophet lived his life... So he's entitled to his words...

When you say: " The Quran is clear yes.... But as every other book, it is open to different interpretations" the use of the word "BUT" alters everything the first part of your sentence stood for.
So, clear to who? Clear how? Why the "but"?
With your "but" you're actually admitting that the quran is NOT as clear as it claims to be. If a book from Allah CLAIMS TO BE CLEAR but we see that the book is NOT CLEAR, to what conclusion can we come?

Unlike what you claimed, the quran IS NOT the ultimate book of authority for the Moslems. IN PRACTISE, the truth be told, Islam relies more on the hadiths than the quran. For example, how many times is daily prayer recommended in the quran? And how many times do majority of Moslems pray daily: And based on what?
Where in the quran is all the covering up Islam force women to do?
You need to just look at your practices and try and match them with the quran and only then come up with your answers.

Again, your claim that " There's absolutely no way Muhammad will preach something & do the opposite" is also NOT CORRECT. For example, what is the maximum number of wives a Moslem can have? What was the number of wives Mohamed had at one point in time?

How the quran was compiled ought to be of grave concern to the Moslem.
Why?
Because since Mohamed NEITHER compiled it nor supervised the compilation the accuracy of the final material is questionable.
Human memory fail. The early followers of Islam understood and admitted this. No matter how subtle it may be, even language change, unless a standardized system was in place right from start. And so the additions of markings, for example, even when initially made to aid pronunciation can end up changing the meaning of words.

A critical question is: How did Allah want the quran to be? Was it for it to remain as RECITATIONS or was it to be written down in book form. If recitations why did the followers of Mohamed change it into a book? If it was to be in book form why didn't Allah enable Mohamed the ability to miraculously write the book himself?

So, again who was INSPIRED? Was it the person who gave the message or those who DECIDED on their own to write it down and eventually collate the writings into a book?

***********
I have shown you that:
We can't be sure that those who compiled the quran, unless they were INSPIRED by Allah, accurately recorded what Mohamed recited.

I have shown you that:
The quran has many factual ERRORS such as that of the setting of the sun.

I've shown you that:
There are different variants of the quran with MAJOR differences.

I've shown you that:
The quran prescribed fighting others as a legitimate thing for Moslems.

I've shown you that:
Mohamed himself led an UNPROVOKED ATTACK on Khaybar to prove to you that Islam's war were hardly in self-defence.

If you've been fed with something different then you've been fed with a lie.

“Those who can make you believe
absurdities can make you commit atrocities”. - Voltaire

Hamzi423:
I dunno what's difficult to understand here.... Languages grow, they evolve... The only thing the writers did was make it easier for the modern day readers...
The diacritical marks & vowel marks didn't change the meanings.... They only make it easier for the modern day readers... And if u believe otherwise, then bring fort the two & let's differentiate...

...

There's no single way that out 33,000 people would agree on a single book if they all have different views in it... This undoubtedly proves that for 33,000 people to unanimously agree with every chapter recorded, it proves that it's not their words at all...... It proves that it was accurate.

Not some portions of the Quran sir... The whole Quran in its entirety was memorized by sahabas...... It was when they agreed on compiling it to a book they referred to the written verses on animal skins & bones etc for confirmation...

Yes all of them were involved in the memorisation, writing down, collation & compilation of the book we now use today..

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!" – Walter Scott

Does the quran that claim to be CLEAR now need so much reinterpreting and explanations? That should be left to you Moslems to chew on.
Are the hadiths wrong in what they have given about the life of Mohamed? Again, you may wish to ponder on this.
Were the early Islamic historians like Ibn Hisham that I quoted mistaken in what they put down about Mohamed and Islam’s earliest years? You may wish to tell us your clear response to this.

The truth of the matter is as follows:
1. The quran was not written as a bound book during Mohamed’s lifetime. If it were so it would not take 33,000 “companions [to agree] that every letter of the Quran was in the right place” years later, like you claim. If others after Mohamed were the ones who collated the quran into one bound volume, can we not say then that they were EQUALLY messengers of Allah as much as Mohamed was? Otherwise if Allah did not commission them to do what they did can we trust the quran they came up with?

2. On the setting of the sun: The quran and the hadith are clear on what they mean yet you 21st century Moslems think you can better explain things. If the hadiths are to make things clearer in a book – the quran – that claims to be CLEAR then when a further clarification becomes necessary don’t you think something is wrong somewhere?

Your claim:

“If a person among ourselves stands at the shore (sea-side) at sun set, he will see the sun as if it is falling into the sea, or setting into the sea.
But the reality is otherwise, when the sun sets in one place, it is still rising on another place
Therefore, what is meant by the verse “he found the sun setting in a muddy water” means when someone looks at it, that is what he/she would think and see.
Perhaps, Dhul-Qarnain arrived to a place where a river in deluge meets with the sea. The water of the river may contain mud, and when the sun sets, it would appear to a person looking at it as if it sets in a muddy water.”

These are the two sources we’re looking at:
Qur’an 18:83-86—And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: “I shall recite to you something of his story.” Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people.

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

Is there anything in these two places that gives room for your “If”, “It is as if”, “he/she would think and see”, “Perhaps”? Absolutely none!
In the hadith who asked a question and later answered it?
Is there ANY mention of sea or river meeting the sea in those narratives? None!
So, where are your interpretations coming from?
Tell us; did the quran say it was meant to be a difficult book to be understood by you guys or a was it meant to be a clear book?

3. There are different variants of the quran. You mentioned somewhere in your posts the Topkapi version. An Islamic scholar, Dr. Tayyar Altikulac, noted that there are “2,270 instances where there is a difference between this version of the quran and the popular 1924 Cairo quran (Fahd Mushaf). Here are some differences:
Sura 14:38
Topkapi: Sura 14:38 – “You know what we conceal and what he revealed”
Cairene Text: Sura 14:38 – “You know what we conceal and what we reveal”
Sura 3:158
Topkapi: Sura 3:158 – “If you should die or be slain, you shall not be gathered”
Cairene Text: Sura3:158 – “If you should die or be slain, before Him you shall undoubtedly be gathered”

These are major contradiction! So, which is which.

4. You said:

“ No verse in the Quran infers violence... None.. It only gives u right to defend urself... And Muhammad further affirms that in how he handles all his affairs during his lifetime... Muhammad never took anybody's wife.... All these fabrications from story tellers are lies........”

but you are shifting your position to

“Islam has designated war as the last resort and only in cases of sheer necessity, in order for us to defend the rights of ourselves and others.”

How on earth can you reconcile these two positions. How do you people live with all these contradictory reasoning and logic? “No verse infers violence” then “Islam has designated war as …….” Come on!
Do I show you where Mohamed even FOUGHT during the ‘Holy Month’?
The Quran (2:216) says - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
But you (Hamzi) are now telling us that it should read “Self-defence is good for you … …” Please, how come the book that is supposed to be CLEAR now requires all these reinterpretations? Why didn’t it simply say “Fighting in self-defence ONLY is good for you” or similar wordings?

5. I gave you one very clear instance of UNPROVOKED ATTACK on a community by none other than Mohamed himself – Khaybar. Please show us how this was in self-defence. I do hope you know what ‘self-defence’ means unless Islam has its own definition of that word. I am eager to see you prove me wrong on this! Please provide your answer.

Hamzi423:
Answer...
It is u Christians that are comparing the 2 mighty men of GOD. Muslims will never.
I've said this a million times here.. Jesus Christ pbuh was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel as he clearly said... We Muslims respect & revere him because we acknowledge the fact & adore him as a messenger of GOD.
But Muhammad pbuh was sent to the whole world & he is the last & final messenger, that's the reason why we honor him & send peace, blessings & salutations upon him... Plus we also honour other messengers of GOD by sending peace, blessings and salutations upon mentioning their names.. So i don't see anything wrong there.

You want to “explain” the quran and refer to “historical context”. When I do the same for the Bible you query it: What do you call that?
Picking one single verse without reference to others in the SAME gospel is not just a show of lack of scholarship but deceit when taken in disregard of all other portions of the same text.

At his dedication as a baby this was said of Jesus: “… a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel” Luke 2:32
John 1: 4 states – “In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind”
John 1:9 – “The true light that gives light to EVERYONE was coming into the world”
John 1:29 – “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”
John3:16 – “For God so loved the WORLD that he gave his uniquely born Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”
In John 8:12 Jesus said – “I am the light of the WORLD … …”

I have shown you:
1. Jesus preached to the Samaritan woman and her people during his time here on earth. Strictly speaking they were not Israel. But Jesus still preached to them. If, like you keep insisting, Jesus was only for the Jews how come he preached to these ones?

2. Jesus said in John 10: 16 – “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” The English here should be clear to you that Jesus was here telling his immediate audience that he had other sheep he was going to bring into his fold and not just only Israel. He said “I must bring them also”. Not ‘another messenger will come after me’. He emphasised that there would then be ONLY ONE SHEPHERD.
Why are you ignoring all these?

I can go on and on but the issue is simply this: If you insist on using a verse you’ve not properly understood in the context of all these other portions and equally ignore historical setting and antecedents, the only conclusion we can come to is that you just want to FIT that verse into your Islamic worldview no matter what it takes.

Jesus, during his first coming, ministered in Israel. When he finished his work he commissioned those he had trained to “Therefore go and make disciples of ALL NATIONS, ……….” Matthew 28:19. He also said: “and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached IN HIS NAME TO ALL NATIONS, BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM. Luke 24:47.

So, to what conclusion can anybody come in the light of all these? Just one: that Jesus’ ministry and message started in Israel but was meant for the entire world.

Hamzi423:
The companions of Prophet Muhammad, who were great people, played an important role in the compilation of the Quran, leaving an interesting story behind.

THEY PLAYED NOT JUST AN IMPORTANT ROLE BUT PLAYED THE MAJOR ROLE IN COMPILING THE QURAN; MOHAMED NEVER COMPILED THE QURAN HIMSELF.

A total of 33,000 companions agreed that every letter of the Quran was in the right place. Then this mushaf was sent to Umar ibn al-Khattab. After his death, this book passed on to Hazrat Hafsah, the daughter of Umar and a wife of Prophet Muhammad.

Whao! 33,000 people all examined EVERY LETTER of the quran and confirmed they were all in the right place? Really?

The first Muslims who were literate could easily read the writing of their own language, but somewhat differently, since at the time the Arabic script did not have diacritical marks to differentiate letters or vowel symbols.

The first Moslems could read but Mohamed could not? And he used to be in charge of his first wife’s business? They had no business records?

The delegation brought the original mushaf from Hafsah. In this mushaf, the surahs were not separated from each other. The surahs were sorted according to the order of their descent in Ali's manuscript and according to their lengths in the manuscript of Abdullah ibn Masood.

Now the verses were written in the Quraysh dialect. The surahs were arranged in rows, separated from each other regarding their length and alignment with each other. The order of the surahs was not based on the order the archangel Gabriel gave them to Prophet Muhammad, but on the consensus of the companions.

Again, this confirmed that it was the followers of Mohamed that DECIDED how the quran was going to be – right?

The old copies were destroyed to prevent future conflicts. Because of this, there are some Shia sects that accusing Uthman of changing the Quran.

Is it not obvious that if the destroyed copies were no different from the final compilation there was no reason to destroy them in the first place?

The copy that stayed with the caliph was called al-Mushaf al-Imam (the head mushaf). There is no difference between the mushafs recited around the world today since they were all copied from original copies.

‘No difference’ is what Moslems want the world to believe but the reality is far from that.

Thus, the Quran was written during Muhammad's lifetime, while its compilation was done during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and it was copied during the caliphate of Uthman.

After telling us that some portions of the quran was only in the MEMORY of some followers during Mohamed’s time and you now turn round to state that ‘the QURAN WAS WRITTEN DURING Muhammad’s lifetime is not only CONTRADICTORY but also DECEITFUL. IF (and that is a big ‘IF’) the quran was written during the lifetime of Mohamed why did it take the companions so much trouble to produce a single acceptable volume?

Uthman also established special schools for the correct recitation and writing of the Quran. During the caliphate of Ali, saw the introduction of diacritical marks. During the time of Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik, vowel marks were also added.

You are again confirming that CHANGES – diacritical marks, vowel marks were made to the quran – recall that this is supposed to be a book which has a copy in heaven; isn’t it? So then, it is not exactly a carbon-copy of the one in heaven such that the one on earth has to be changed or was not revealed with all the content of the one in heaven?

Some of these first seven mushafs have disappeared over time. Today, in Topkapı Palace and the Museum of Turkish-Islamic Arts in Istanbul, there are mushafs from Uthman and Ali's period. One of them was handwritten by Uthman, and the other two by Ali.

The lack of dates in this your source and write-up may create a picture in the minds of the casual reader that the quranic compilation dated very close to Mohamed’s time but let it be known that this was not so. The disagreements on the exact texts of the quran which continues till today has been carefully ignored too in your write-up.

Again, I ask: Were all these people involved in the memorisation, writing down, collation and compilation into bound volumes INSPIRED by Allah?

Hamzi423:
No verse in the Quran infers violence... None.. It only gives u right to defend urself... And Muhammad further affirms that in how he handles all his affairs during his lifetime... Muhammad never took anybody's wife.... All these fabrications from story tellers are lies........
....

I repeatedly asked for PROOF from you but unfortunately you provided none.

You talk of fabrication of lies without showing how they so and evidence to the contrary.

Simply making a statement dismissing what I stated does not amount to proof or a refutation of my proven conclusion.

Let's look at the issues again:
On Jesus -
1. Jesus preached in Israel, yes. But his message, like I've shown you, was not for Israel alone.
You have been picking on only one verse to insist on it but I've shown you a number of places in the Bible to the contrary.
Let me explain it this way: "I am sent only to Israel" refers ONLY to his MINISTRY. It is not the same as if he had said "My MESSAGE is ONLY for Israel alone" You ought to understand that there is a vast degree of difference between the two.

On Jesus & Mohamed -
You Moslems claim you revere all the prophets equally but when scenarios are placed before you your real position is revealed.
Can you sincerely answer these:
1. If you do not mention Mohamed in your prayer on any given day do you feel you have satisfied Islam?
2. On the other hand if you never mention Jesus in your prayers do you feel you've missed out on anything?
If not, where is the so called equal reverence?
3. Can a person believe in only ONE GOD without adding Mohamed and still be a true believer in your understanding?

On the quran -
You keep making outlandish statements like " No verse in the Quran infers violence... None.. It only gives u right to defend urself.."
Are the following about friendship or self-defence? :
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna
Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Moslems are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (did you see 'journey' there?).
Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Is ' when we wish to destroy a town' self-defence?
Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.

On your “Mohamed never initiated any war” -
I pointed out Mohamed's UNPROVOKED ATTACK on Khabar.
Please show us how that was in self-defence.
Just limit your response to this particular case

HajimeSaito:
Actually that is not what the tafseer says. I have read both Ibn Kathir and Tabari and there is nowhere in any of those tafseer where time of the setting of the sun is mentioned. Rather, the koranic verse in Qur’an 18:83-86 deals with the place where the sun sets, and not the time when it sets.

Consider this Sunnah of your "intelligent" "prophet":

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets?

I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

Your "wise" 'prophet" asks his gullible follower: "Do you know "where" it (the sun) sets?" and not "Do you know "when" it (the sun)sets?"

And the ever "wise" MOOhaMAD has a "clever" answer for his companion:

"It sets in a pool of water"

I'm surprised that you disagree with your prophet when even your sheiks, imams and maulanas agree with him.

He is trying to come up with the "Marvel of Islamic reinterpretation"!

The Statements are clear but because they just must fit anything into their Islamic worldview they engage in all kinds of rigmarole to explain simple issues. And all these for the quran that claims to be a CLEAR book!

Hamzi423:
The comparison of Muhammad & Jesus here is baseless... No Muslim is denying the prophethood of Jesus so ur comparison is baseless..

But ur claims are mere hearsay... There are numerous weak & non reliable hadiths in circulation.... In its 1400 years of existence why is it that only one Arabic Quran is been used by every Muslim in the world?

And the idea of compilations yes the Quran wasn't compiled as book during the time of the Prophet Muhammad.. But He taught the Quran word for word to his people & as at then there were reciters & writers... The prophet had to make the reciters go over recitations continuously until they get it right by then all the Islamic nations have their own reciters they learned.. They then recorded them on bones & animal skins.. When the reciters were been killed in battle that was when the caliph ordered that they must put them in writing...

On Jesus’ ministry:
You seem to be closing your eyes and mind to EVIDENCE. See some more:
1. Jesus preached to the Samaritan woman and her people during his time here on earth. Strictly speaking they were not Israel. But Jesus still preached to them. If, like you keep insisting, Jesus was only for the Jews how come he preached to these ones?

2. Jesus said in John 10: 16 – “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” The English here should be clear to you that Jesus was here telling his immediate audience that he had other sheep he was going to bring into his fold and not just only Israel. He said “I must bring them also”. Not ‘another messenger will come after me’. He emphasised that there would then be ONLY ONE SHEPHERD.

On Jesus:
Do you agree that Jesus is all those things the quran said about him? If the quran says he is the CHRIST or MESSIAH and NEVER said so of any other prophet, and you still think that TITLE was is irrelevant and does not make him UNIQUE then it again shows you just want to accept what you wish in spite of the EVIDENCE. If Mohamed was never any of those things Jesus was and Mohamed never did any of those things Jesus did nor lived the SINLESS LIFE Jesus lived but you still prefer to think Mohamed is greater by calling on him daily in your prayer then it simply shows where your values and morality lies.

On the Holy Spirit:
What Moslems like you do is try to force your meaning into words of the Bible. The portion you’re holding to IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THE Holy Spirit was mentioned either by Jesus Christ or in the Bible. If you truly want to use the Bible to UNDERSTAND who the Holy Spirit is why are you STUCK WITH one verse which you are trying to use your Islamic reinterpretation to convince us about. Hundreds of years before Islam came how did the people of the BOOK understand this? And now you 21st century Moslems think you know better?
On the quran: I have stated it over and over again – You people are quick to ask for “PROOF” and when a hadith is quoted you put DISCLAIMERS. I quoted hadiths for you and the next you say is “ur claims are mere hearsay … There are numerous weak & non reliable hadiths in circulation”
Please tell me one that is “reliable” and I promise you I will work with that. Can you take me up on this?

Thank you for being truthful enough to admit that the quran wasn’t compiled as a book during the time of Mohamed. Some other Moslems will vehemently say the opposite.

So, it is clear that it was third parties that documented the recitations.

Now, a question for you: were these men who put down the recitations and those who compiled them INSPIRED?

If so, can we safely say that Allah commissioned them as his messengers after Mohamed?

If not, how can we accept that what these people who were not INSPIRED to write down the quran by Allah should be accepted as divine?

Lastly, for now, show me PROOF that Mohamed “had to make the reciters go over recitations continuously until they get it right” and PROOF that they never forgot some of the things they memorised and that what they eventually put down in writing contained ALL that Mohamed received. PROOFS PLEASE!

On your “Mohamed never initiated any war” : Sometimes I wonder why you guys have been fed with so much lies.

Mohamed initiated offensive UNPROVOKED wars against peaceful communities in order to impose Islam by force as well as to seize the abundant wealth. If you say that Mohamed only fought defensive or those who fought him, it’s either that you do not understand Islam and have not read sufficient history.

In his book, "The Biography of the Apostle", part 4, Ibn Hisham says (page 134):
"Muhammad sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him: ‘Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them. If they respond, accept that from them, but if they refuse, fight them.’ Khalid told them: ‘Accept Islam and spare your life.’ They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad. Muhammad said to them: ‘Had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under your feet"’.
Look at these too: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s book was published in Saudi Arabia (second edition) in 1981. In part 5, p. 90, this famous scholar tells us the following:
"When the prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina, God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the chapter of Repentance was revealed, God commanded His prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim from among the Arabs, whether (that person) fought him or not. He did not command him to take the poll-tax from infidels."
This means that Arabs did not have a choice. They either had to embrace Islam or die by the sword. It is obvious then that God (according to the above interpretation) had ordered His prophet to fight anyone from among the Arabs who refused to become a Muslim whether he fought against Muhammad or not. This is overt aggression and unjustified attack against peaceful people.

Ibn Hisham: - Al Sohaily
In his book, "al-Rawd al-Anaf" which is the most famous book about Muhammad’s life (part 4, p. 194), we read the following text:
"When Muhammad conquered Mecca and the Arabs realized that they were not able to wage war against Muhammad, they accepted the Islamic faith. But some of the infidels continued to be as they were. (They used to make pilgrimages also because this practice was in vogue among the people hundreds of years before Muhammad). Then suddenly Muhammad sent someone to announce to the Tribe of Quraysh that no pilgrimage would be allowed for the infidels after that year (9H); none would enter paradise unless he were a Muslim. Muhammad was going to give the infidels a respite for four months, and after that there would not be a covenant except the covenant of the sword and war (lit: piercing and the strike of the sword). After this period, people entered Islam by hook or by crook, and anyone who did not become a Muslim fled the Arabian Peninsula."
Ibn Hisham already quoted Muhammad’s famous words:
"No two religions are to exist in the Arab Peninsula" (pp. 50, 51).

If you hold anything to the contrary, please show PROOFS!

Surely you must know about the battle of Khaybar. It’s one battle every Moslem ought to know because that was were Mohamed eventually encountered what later killed him. Here is an account of it:
“One of the best documented examples of Muslim aggression during the lifetime of Muhammad is the attack on the peaceful community of Khaybar. This followed the treaty of Hudaibiya between the Muslims and Meccans, which called for a period of peace between the two groups. The treaty was controversial with Muslims, not only because it contradicted Allah’s prior mandate to “drive out” the Meccans with violent force (2:191), but also because Muhammad agreed not to be recognized as a prophet in the document (Muslim 4401).

Muhammad decided that it was prudent to attack the Jews at Khaybar in order to regain the respect of his people and placate their grumbling with military victory and (especially) the stolen wealth that followed. This is embarrassing to modern-day Muslim apologists, who try to justify the siege by imagining that the sleepy farming community, located about 100 miles outside of Medina, posed some sort of necessary threat.

Unfortunately for contemporary apologists, not only is there no supporting evidence that the Muslims were under attack by the Khaybar, there are at least three historical references that flatly contradict any notion of self-defense on the part of Muhammad. The first is a description of the initial attack by Ibn Ishaq/Hisham:

We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by piece… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
The people of Khaybar were not attacking Muhammad. They were farming their land with shovels and buckets, not even knowing that they were supposed to be at war:

When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
Muhammad attacked only after waiting to see if the people of Khaybar issued a morning call to prayer. This would have no possible relevance had they already been at war with him. (According to the hadith, he also yelled "Allahu Akbar" amid the violence - a tradition passed down to modern-day Islamic terrorists - Sahih Bukhari 52:195).

Perhaps the best proof that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense is the fact that his own people did not understand why they were marching to war. His son-in-law, who was in charge of the military expedition, had to ask for justification:

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)
The question Ali posed would have been unnecessary had the Muslims been under attack by the Khaybar or if the answer to the question were obvious. As it is, Muhammad’s reply underscores the ostensible purpose of the campaign, which was to force the Jews into acknowledging the superiority of Islam.

Muhammad’s men easily captured Khaybar and divided up the loot. The prophet of Islam tortured the community’s treasurer to extract information, then had him killed (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764). Muhammad then took the man’s widow, Saffiya, as his wife after trading two other captured women to one of his lieutenants (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 758). The surviving Jews were allowed to stay on their land provided that they gave their Muslim masters half of their crops. They were eventually altogether for their faith:

"Allah's Messenger said, 'Two deens [religion] shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar." (Malik 45:18)
The rule of aggression in Islam is thus proportionate to the power held by Muslims, and not the persecution that they are under. The rare verses of peace in the Qur'an were "revealed" in Mecca, when true oppression existed (in some cases). The verses of violence that are revealed later correspond to Muslim military might even as any persecution of Muslims had largely dried up.” (Thereligionofpeace.com)

Hamzi423:
There's only one Quran, there has always been only one Quran 1400 years ago till date... If u believe otherwise, then bring fort another Quran different from the One we have.. Today if u go to China, Europe, America wherever the same Quran is been used...

The quran did not start as one complete finished book. Instead the contents of the quran grew gradually as Mohamed recited different verses and suras over a 23 year period.

Was there one version of the recitations (quran) during the time of Mohamed? NO!
Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Surat which I heard you reciting ?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me". I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle taught it to me in a different way from yours". So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said, "I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!" On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him (Umar) recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way", and added, "Recite, O Umar", I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever is easier for you." (Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 514)

Umar bin Al-Khattab and Hisham bin Hakim were from the same tribe, therefore, this difference was not a matter of dialect.

Narrated Ibn Mas'ud: I heard a person reciting a (Quranic) verse in a certain way, and I had heard the Prophet reciting the same verse in a different way. So I took him to the Prophet and informed him of that but I noticed the sign of disapproval on his face, and then he said, "Both of you are correct, so don't differ, for the nations before you differed, so they were destroyed." (Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 4, bk. 56, no. 682)

Was the quran collected into one book under Muhammad’s supervision? NO!
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: ... "Therefore I (Umar) suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" ... Abu Bakr kept on urging me (Zaid) to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. ... (Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 509)

Are all Arabic quran used in the world today identical? NO!
When Uthman made his quran the Arabic script did not include the vowel markings or the dots used to distinguish between certain letters. This ambiguity allowed words to be formed (vocalised or read) in different ways, and today there are different versions of the Uthmanic quran which have the words formed differently.

The 1924 Egyptian Standard Edition of the quran
The most commonly used quran in the world today is called the 1924 Egyptian standard edition. This is based on the Hafs version, and even this edition has had several revisions.

Therefore your claim that "There's only one Quran, there has always been only one Quran 1400 years ago till date" is a false and exaggerated claims your Islamic leaders have fed you with. Even today there are different Arabic versions of the quran used around the world with many variants between them. You will have to be out of this world to think or believe otherwise.

You may wish to see this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/3678762/why-alis-compilation-quran-rejected#54527605

Hamzi423:
U are comparing Jesus Christ to Muhammad? Why?
We Muslims respect & revere them both... We believe in Jesus as we do Muhammad... It's not a competition.. They both came into this world differently & left it differently...
About salvation in Jesus.. If salvation is found only with Jesus, then why would he tell his disciples to expect another comforter? A spirit of truth... Why?

The comparison is to show you that even the quran shows Jesus to be UNIQUE and in a higher CLASS than Mohamed; and that is the TRUTH if any Moslem will take time to honestly examine the FACTS rather than close his mind to the reality.

The Comforter was not to bring salvation. He was to help the disciples fulfill the task of reaching the world with the gospel. Jesus Christ gave the gospel to Israel - his People - and they were now to take that same gospel of man's salvation in Jesus Christ to the rest of the world.

Jesus decided to restrict his PERSONAL MINISTRY to his people - Israel - but his MESSAGE was for the whole world; for all people!

The Comforter is a SPIRIT, NOT A MAN.

Mohamed NEVER claimed to be a spirit. So, in case you have been fed the lie that it is Mohamed, prove that Mohamed was a spirit.

Hamzi423

This is why translations are flawed, this is why the Quran was maintained in one language.....

Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people. Allah said, "O Dhul-Qarnayn, either you punish [them] or else adopt among them [a way of] goodness."
It was a description not a fact... It is as if the sub was setting in a spring of dark mud...

The interpretation of “the sun setting in a spring of black muddy water”, in the books of Tafseer is the following: Dhul-Qarnain went towards the direction of the West until he reached the farthest place in the West. There he found as if the sun was setting in a black muddy water. If a person among ourselves stands at the shore (sea-side) at sun set, he will see the sun as if it is falling into the sea, or setting into the sea.
But the reality is otherwise, when the sun sets in one place, it is still rising on another place
Therefore, what is meant by the verse “he found the sun setting in a muddy water” means when someone looks at it, that is what he/she would think and see.
Perhaps, Dhul-Qarnain arrived to a place where a river in deluge meets with the sea. The water of the river may contain mud, and when the sun sets, it would appear to a person looking at it as if it sets in a muddy water.

How Quran Errors Are Explained Away - Dr. Zakir Naik Style

The quran’s errors include factual errors, moral errors and theological errors.

When taken up with moslems such as Zakir Naik a problem passage with one of these errors is usually approached by their coming with -
The “marvel” of “smart” interpretation

They say something like “Yes, you find that said there, BUT what it REALLY MEANT is bla, bla, bla, “

Why didn’t a book that is meant to be CLEAR plainly state what Allah meant?

Unfortunately, most of the time, for such “smart” interpreters their prophet Mohamed blocks their reinterpretation. When the hadith and muslim commentaries are consulted we see how Mohamed and his companions TOTALLY contradict such reinterpretation.

A case in point – the sunset example:
Sura 18:83-86 claims the sun sets in a spring or pool of muddy water. In his attempt to ‘explain’ this problem passage that says the sun (which is 1.3 million times bigger than the earth) sets in a pool of water, Zakir Naik comes up with his “ingenious” reinterpretation to “clarify” what Allah REALLY means. He says what the passage really says is that Alexander the Great – Dhul Qarnayn in the quran passage – reached an unspecified place ‘at the time of sunset’. Not that it was the sun that set in a place – the pool. It was ‘at the time of sunset the quran wanted to tell us.
Now, that would appear to be more logical, wouldn’t it?
Looks brilliant?
Problem solved?
Not quite!

What we see is that in order to explain the ”SUN GOING INTO THE SPRING OF WATER” brilliant Dr. Naik comes up with this his “smart” interpretation (actually reinterpretation) which is that – “it means it appears to Alexander the Great……… So Allah was really saying what Alexander the Great thought he saw” and not making a claim about WHERE the sun sets.
Looks brilliant? Yes?
No! Because Mohamed blocks Dr. Naik’s reinterpretation.

Let’s see where and how:
By turning to hadith.
In Sunan Abu Dawud 3991 we find this:
Abu Dhar said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

We can immediately see then that there is absolutely no room for the kind of reinterpretation of what the quran said.
So the PERFECTLY CLEAR quran tells us that the sun sets in a pool of water.

It turns out then that Dr. Zakir Naik in a bid to defend his religion has ended up insulting his prophet and Allah because he claims to speak more clearly than his god and a better interpreter than his prophet

It is a CLEAR FACT that the sun does not set in a pool of water.
Can a book – the quran – which says this and by so doing clearly propagating error be trusted?
Those who join and follow Dr. Zakir Naik’s reinterpretation end up in blasphemy of their prophet and god. By so doing can they be assured of Paradise or end up in hell for blasphemy?

Way Out!
Follow the only unique and supernatural One – Jesus Christ who said:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn. 14:6).
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:3)
“He who believes in the Son (as Saviour) has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (Jn. 3:36).

PS:

For a book that is said to be CLEAR, when it takes a lot of rigmarole to arrive at the meaning of words, phases and sentences or even passages then it's either the book is not as clear as it says it is or set itself up to be interpreted incorrectly from the beginning.

What do you think?

Secondly, how come even though muslims would tell the world they believe the hadith, they have been unable to agree on which ones to collectively use and so make it easy for any muslim apologist to refuse to accept reference to any of them used?

When the quran is quoted muslim apologists run to the hadith. When the hadith is quoted they put up disclaimers. If this is not deception and confusion I wonder what it is.

Now again to the passage in question:
"he FOUND it setting in a miry spring, or spring of dark mud" cannot be interpreted other than that HE FOUND THE SUN SETTING IN A ...... It did not say "he SAW AN IMAGE of the sun. It says he FOUND THE SUN.

Look at the entire portion: "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people"

Moslem argument may have appeared to be believable except for the fact that they forget to add the concluding portion to their argument.
Note what the last portion says " ..........and he found near it a people" He found a people where?
Note that it started with: " Until, when he reached the setting of the sun......" He REACHED where?
Now, how do you reconcile this with the rest of your explanation?

You'll see then that your "explanations" do not hold water just as the pool of mukky water cannot in any wise be said to hold the sun or be the place where the sun sets.

ogatboy:
I have some question and I need clarifications.

1. .... ......

2. As it is acclaimed there is one Quran which has not changed since the time of Muhammed and it was written in Arabic. Well those that convert to Islam and are not speakers of Arabic, how do they know what they are thought is the right translation. The reason for this question is because when you point out something that doesn't look right in thé English Quran, they say thats not the real meaning in Arabic. How do you know the real meaning when its not your language and you were only thought recitations?

This is not to question the religion but to gain more knowledge

The quran was put together several years after Mohamed died.

Even as at then there were DIFFERENT VARIANTS of the quran.

In the Arabic there are over 26 different variants of the quran.

No honest Moslem can therefore claim that there is only one version or use the "its only understood in Arabic" argument to justify any thing.

ogatboy:
I have some question and I need clarifications.

1. In the Quran, Jesus (Issa) is à prophet and also the Messiah, how can it be explained. If he is the Messiah then he has something special that Muhammed does not have so why the emphasy on Muhammed who is dead and not the Messiah who is to come.


This is not to question the religion but to gain more knowledge

Quran Says Jesus is Superior to Mohamed

What MAJORITY of muslims say about Mohamed – e.g. “he is the best of mankind”, etc – are not TRULY what the quran or HISTORY say about him. They (muslims) have simply made up those positions about Mohamed.

Perhaps they want to have a hero and as a result they have created a larger-than-life image of Mohamed. But the quran says differently. The picture of Mohamed painted for us in the quran is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what muslims have been fed with and would have the rest of the world believe.

On the other hand Jesus Christ is IN REALITY shown in the quran to be superior to all mankind, including Mohamed.
It is a well-known fact that Jesus (and other Prophets) are individually mentioned more times in the quran than Mohamed. But more than that is the fact that the QUALITY of Jesus’ person and the works he did (and is still doing because the quran states that he is with God – not in a temporary place awaiting what his fate will be) far outstrips that of Mohamed.

Of note from the quran are the following:
1. Jesus was conceived by a chaste virgin – Q. 3:42
2. Jesus was pure in conception and birth – Q. 4:171
3. He had the Holy Spirit – Q. 2:253
4. He is declared to be sinless – Q. 19:19
5. Those who follow JESUS are to be made superior to others – Q. 3:55
6. He is right now with God – Q. 4:158
7. He is called CHRIST JESUS (Q. 3:45 & 4:157). “Christ” meaning one that is anointed or CHOSEN to be special in all respect; chosen to save others; chosen with a special God-given purpose. A man that stands above all other men, including all the other messengers of God. One who has a superior and more excellent position above all other men. According to the quran he is “distinguished in this world and the hereafter and among those brought near”.
None of ALL THESE applied to Mohamed.

What Are the Implications of All these?
If Jesus Christ is indeed all these then it means he is the TRUE LINK between man and God. It is just not enough to give him a PASSIVE acceptance as a person or as a ‘PROPHET’. He must be seen as one who is MORE THAN A PROPHET. If there is no name greater than his, then salvation AND ETERNITY WITH GOD can be found in none else apart from him.

“For God so loved and dearly priced the world, that He gave His uniquely born Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him (as Saviour) shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world but that the world might be saved through him.” Jn. 3:16-17

Abdulgaffar22 :
Why did Jesus have to say such a
statement if he was truly sent to the entire world

Abdulgaffar,
One grave error Moslems make when it comes to the Bible is to pick out single verses or even portions of a verse and then attempt to make it fit into their Islamic narrative without reference to the CONTEXT. Such approach does not make for an honest understanding of such passages.

I could start from the Old Testament to show you that God’s plan has always been universal. But lets me begin with the life of Jesus since your claim is that he was ONLY for the Jews.

1. When the child Jesus was presented for dedication at the temple, Simeon who performed the dedication said this through the Holy Spirit: “For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation TO THE GENTILES and for the glory to your people Israel” Luke 2:30-32. It is clear here that it is NOT ONLY Israel that he came for; isn’t it?

2. On one instance when John who baptized him saw Jesus coming toward him, he said: “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29. Can it be any clearer that Jesus’ ministry included the entire world and not just Israel?

3. In John 8:12 Jesus said: “I am the LIGHT OF THE WORLD. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life”.
4. Jesus himself said this: “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name TO ALL NATIONS, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:46-47.

5. When he gave instructions to the followers on their mission it still a UNIVERSAL AGENDA: “Go and make disciples of all nations ….” Matthew 28:19. “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to THE ENDS OF THE EARTH” Acts 1:8.

6. So, from his birth to his resurrection and ascension the mandate remained the same. Again, to what conclusion can we come? One simple one: Jesus came for and to ALL THE WORLD without exception.

Your quran made this statement: “… and (we wish) to appoint him (Jesus) as a sign unto men (mankind), and a mercy from us” Q. 19:21. If you refuse to accept the Bible portions I stated above, surely, you should accept this one from your quran. Shouldn’t you? This should clear all your doubts on the fact that Jesus came to provide SALVATION for all mankind irrespective of their geographical location or race.

"To ALL who receive him by believing in his name, he gives the right to become children of God" John 1:12

Abdulgaffar22 :
QUESTION ONE:
QUESTION TWO
QUESTION THREE :
QUESTION FOUR:
QUESTION FIVE :
QUESTION SIX:
QUESTION SEVEN:

Q1 – You end up quoting ONLY part of the verse. Why do you do this? That is being DISHONEST! Is that an Islamic thing? Peter clearly went on here to say that God has SHOWN him that he should no longer discriminate.You conveniently left this out!

Q2 – God decided that James should directly address the 12 tribes here. Others like Peter in his epistle addressed all those scattered across a wider geographical spread. So, what is your headache here?

Q3 – Because the other judging will be left to others to do.

Q4 – Because there is nothing wrong in division of labour.

Q5 – I have shown you that Peter’s epistles were not only for Jews. John also wrote and it was not only for the Jews. John’s book of REVELATION was not only for Jews.

Q6 – If Paul repeatedly spoke of his area of competitive advantage why is that a problem for you? Since, God assigned him primarily for the Gentiles there was nothing wrong in stating this; is there? But it was CLEAR from Jesus’ “terms of reference” for him that he was NOT RESTRICTED to ONLY Gentiles (Acts 26:17). As a result, you will find that his first port of call in his missionary journeys was always Jewish synagogues. You seem to have missed this in your “study” of Paul.

Q7 – I have shown you that Peter’s, John’s and even Jude’s epistles showed that they reached out to all others. In addition, there is historical evidence that they preached beyond the Jews.

CONCLUSION – Your claim that Jesus was ONLY for the Jews simply holds no water. The Apostles all knew that their mission went beyond the Jews. Peter’s first preaching on the day of Pentecost clearly showed this. The Galatians reference YOU mentioned showed Peter in a clearly Gentile land. The epistles ALL without exception show no restriction of the preaching of Jesus’ gospel to ONLY the Jews. Any claim to the contrary can only be a figment of your imagination or Islamic gymnastic to fit a clearly established position into an Islamic narrative cooked up hundreds of year after the FACTS.

Abdulgaffar22 :
There is no any verse in the Bible where God declare that " the entire Bible was inspired by Me".

then is it not a GREATER ACT OF INJUSTICE for God to condemn an innocent and righteous soul for the sins he did not commit ? Yes or No?

Do you know where you have gotten it wrong? ISLAM did not start with the arrival of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and Qur'an. The word Islam simply means "submission to the will and commandment of God" at any particular period of time. The people that submit to this will and commandment are called Muslims.This is the reason why it is convinient for us to say Abraham, Moses and the likes are Muslims.

Abdulgaffar,
1.If you do not believe that the Bible is inspired why quote from it to justify your arguments? After all, if it is corrupted then what makes you accept the portion you’re quoting as right or true?

2.God did not just pick any man on the road and decided to judge him for the sin of mankind. That is what would be UNJUST. But that is not what happened. Jesus Christ had the capacity to pay and voluntarily decided to pay for the sins of others. In other words, Jesus CHOSE to take the punishment for man’s sin. This is much like a man deciding to pay the fine imposed on another man because he has the capacity to do so. There can be said to be no injustice here; can there?

3.On the other hand, can a person today submit to the will and commandments of God ONLY without believing in Mohamed and still be a true Moslem?

tartar9

MT 11:21-24 Jesus curses [the inhabitants of:
three cities who were not sufficiently impressed
with his great

....his followers continued his work,making daddy proud murdering millions in his name throughout the course of

Really!

Is this the same man you Moslems claim is one your prophets that you are now denigrating ?

Show us where Jesus said: "Murder people in my name" or forever keep shut.

Abdulgaffar22:
All the Christian denominations including the Jehovah witnesses believe that Jesus suffer and died for our sins on the cross ( or on the stake).
It is either Jesus suffer and died on the cross so that we can have access to divine forgiveness for our sins- OR-Jesus suffer and died on the cross to remove our sinful nature so that we can have immunity against committing sins.
Bible also attests to this fact; "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us( 1John 1:7-9)
Therefore, the statement: "Jesus suffer and died for our sins" can only have a conceivable meaning if Jesus suffer and died on the cross so that we can have access to divine forgiveness for our sins.


Yes, one of the rational means which God has chosen to forgive our sins and earn our salvation is SINCERE REPENTANCE

there is no way for such benefits to be ACTUALIZED in the life of the Old Testament prophets (like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc) because they have lived and died before Jesus arrival talkless of his supposed crucifixion. Yet these people manage to earn their salvation and reconcilation back to God (because there is no any biblical verse that says these Old Testament Prophets were in a certain state of condemnation after their death until the time of Jesus crucifixion).

This is exactly in line with the prayer of Jesus to God in the garden of Gethsemane when he asked for this “cup of condemnation” to be taken away from him in THREE consecutive times as stated clearly in Matthew 26:36-44.

THE DISHONESTY OF ABDULGAFFAR22
Abdulgaffar, Let me state it again: You cannot claim, on the one hand, that the Bible is corrupted and then CHOOSE to use portions of the same allegedly corrupted Bible to justify your arguments. That would be outrightly dishonest.

You quoted a portion of Matthew 26:36-44 but you conveniently REFUSED to add that Jesus said also “…… Yet not as I will, but as you will”. This is a statement of ULTIMATE SUBMISSION to God the Father’s will. Christ understood that the JUSTICE of God needed to be satisfied for his mercy to be freely available to all mankind.

Again: You Moslems today believe a person must say the 'Shahada' to be moslem. Did any of these old patriarchs you claim are Moslems say it? Did they know Mohamed? How then was Islam actualized in their lives?

If you accept that they gained eternal life without Mohamed and the quran then it means Islam is not necessarily the route to gain life. If so, why are you hung up on it?

You should either accept and seek to understand what the Bible, in its entirety, says or stick to your quran.

Every man born into this world, including yourself, is born physically alive but SPIRITUALLY DEAD. Therefore, no amount of good works by the dead – yourself included – can be of any merit before a RIGHTEOUS and JUST God.

It has to take a person who is ALIVE to do anything for the dead and not the other way round. That is what Jesus Christ did on the cross.

He was not called the Messiah or Christ for nothing! He came to save mankind from their sin. Even your quran calls him these; doesn’t it? And you’ve never found out what his name and title means?

SINCERE REPENTANCE means understanding and accepting the fact that we cannot be good enough to attain God’s righteous requirements and therefore choosing (changing our minds) to go by his MERCY ALONE – the mercy demonstrated by the CROSS; ACCEPTING WHAT God has done through Jesus Christ rather than what we can DO to earn his merit.