₦airaland Forum

Emusan:
Abraham's male household outside his main son are already belong to Abraham before God's commandment came but God made it clear that the covenant of circumcision will continue in Abraham FLESH ONLY.

If circumcision is for everyone, God would've instructed Abraham to preach circumcision to everyone around him.

In fact, it's was even the circumcision covenant that distinguishes Abraham from everyone so that Abraham seed will be Holy among other nations.




The commandment came from God and Abraham followed it.

Why is it that only Abraham God instructed to do circumcision if it should have been for everyone?



Alright...

But you claimed you have right to do circumcision today because you're Abraham's descendant by FAITH

Yet you couldn't ask simple question, "if circumcision is for everybody neither Jews or Gentile, why must you belong to Abraham by FAITH before become part of the covenant?

Look at this your statement very well: "God's Covenant with Abraham was with him and his Descendants after him"

Now ask yourself, is everybody on earth an Abraham's descendants? No!

So for you to be part of that covenant, you need to belong to Abraham which you already acknowledged by claiming to be by FAITH.



Now let me ask you, why was God instructed Abraham to circumcise himself and his household?



The circumcision is ONLY for Abraham's descendants NOT FOR EVERYONE.



What Paul means in his statement is what you claimed (Abraham's descendant BY FAITH) yet fighting the blessed Apostle on top.

The Covenant between Abraham and God is that of you "Worship me Alone" That was the Covenant. You love me More than Anything and Everything. The Circumcision was only a Token of that and Abraham showed that Love More than Anything and everything by being ready to Sacrifice that thing he cherished Most: his only son at that Time.

And God instruction further was that as a Token of that Covenant, circumcise your Males. The day Abraham cut himself, he had only Ishmael but remember that he had Male servants and we are told that Genesis 17:23-27 KJV
[23] And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.
[24] And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
[25] And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
[26] In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son.
[27] And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

Here we read that All Male with Abraham were circumcised and I asked you, did Abraham over cooked this instruction and you failed to answer. So, According to you, Abraham got it wrong but Paul addressing the Galatians got it right and declare Circumcision null and void for Gentiles yet Gentiles convert thru history have been doing this. Interesting I must say.

Paul statement is wrong and negates what God ask Abraham to do and if Abraham erred, I am yet to see where it says so.

It is not only the Circumcision issue Paul used to gain converts, the issue of the Law too. He declared Gentiles free of the Law which according to him was a Curse the same Law Jesus said he came not to destroy.

So, as far as I am concerned the one you call Apostle Paul not only erred, he should be avoided as well.

Lukuluku69:
The Covenant between Abraham and God is that of you "Worship me Alone" That was the Covenant. You love me More than Anything and Everything. The Circumcision was only a Token of that and Abraham showed that Love More than Anything and everything by being ready to Sacrifice that thing he cherished Most: his only son at that Time.

And God instruction further was that as a Token of that Covenant, circumcise your Males. The day Abraham cut himself, he had only Ishmael but remember that he had Male servants and we are told that Genesis 17:23-27 KJV
[23] And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.
[24] And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
[25] And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
[26] In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son.
[27] And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

Here we read that All Male with Abraham were circumcised and I asked you, did Abraham over cooked this instruction and you failed to answer.

Let's get it straight, was circumcision belong to everybody?

So, According to you, Abraham got it wrong but Paul addressing the Galatians got it right and declare Circumcision null and void for Gentiles yet Gentiles convert thru history have been doing this. Interesting I must say.

Abraham didn't got it wrong He followed the instruction of God

While Paul addressing the Gentile who were never part of that covenant....

Paul statement is wrong and negates what God ask Abraham to do and if Abraham erred, I am yet to see where it says so.

God asked Abraham to circumcise ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD (people who are already belong to ABRAHAM either by birth or acquisition)

This is different from GENTILE the Galatians Paul was addressing were never belong to Abraham descendants.

Or are they?

It is not only the Circumcision issue Paul used to gain converts, the issue of the Law too. He declared Gentiles free of the Law which according to him was a Curse the same Law Jesus said he came not to destroy.

Let's talk about this first before moving to another.

So, as far as I am concerned the one you call Apostle Paul not only erred, he should be avoided as well.

Who are you to give such order simply because you hate him

If you avoid my questions again I won't reply you...

You're deliberately boycotting this:
A challenge for you...
Kindly show us where God later included you as a GENTILE in the covenant of circumcision of Abraham in the Quran.

Lukuluku69:
Please quote that portion of the Quran that says Paul is a MESSENGER and you will have a Convert in ME! Watch YouTube Video on what? When I have the hard solid Bible I can read from? That YouTube Video was it inspired by the Holy Spirit?
My training is for both the Physical and the Spiritual realm just so you know.
If Jesus fulfilled all what the Law requires, then be at peace with your Faith and stop putting up YouTube Video and talking about other people's Faith in order to find validation for what you consider right and proper.
I poke nose when you mentioned me otherwise, I am satisfied with my Islam.

Abdul Lukuluku, You are to follow the koran and your prophet; yes or no?

Can you show us where ONCE your koran or prophet said ANYTHING against Paul. Afterall you are to follow both the koran and your prophet, aren’t you?

Or are we to believe that you modern day abduls know more about Paul than Allah and Mohamed?

How come you Moslems today now claim that Paul corrupted Christianity and your prophet did not? Have you turned into new prophets who received fresh inspiration from Allah which his “last prophet” did not receive?

When your koran, your prophet, your sira and hadith say plainly that Paul is a messenger of the Messiah and you small fries now belittle him?

Go and check how your scholars – not modern-day RE-INTERPRETERS – explain Koran 36:14.
To help you: Ibn Kathir in the book of Bidayah and Hinaya page no. 529 volume 2 explains this.

When you know nothing about what even your books say and you now turn round to become ‘experts’ are you not behaving like donkeys? Slaves will always think and behave as slaves until they are rehabilitated.

sagenaija:
Abdul Lukuluku, You are to follow the koran and your prophet; yes or no?

Can you show us where ONCE your koran or prophet said ANYTHING against Paul. Afterall you are to follow both the koran and your prophet, aren’t you?

Or are we to believe that you modern day abduls know more about Paul than Allah and Mohamed?

How come you Moslems today now claim that Paul corrupted Christianity and your prophet did not? Have you turned into new prophets who received fresh inspiration from Allah which his “last prophet” did not receive?

When your koran, your prophet, your sira and hadith say plainly that Paul is a messenger of the Messiah and you small fries now belittle him?

Go and check how your scholars – not modern-day RE-INTERPRETERS – explain Koran 36:14.
To help you: Ibn Kathir in the book of Bidayah and Hinaya page no. 529 volume 2 explains this.

When you know nothing about what even your books say and you now turn round to become ‘experts’ are you not behaving like donkeys? Slaves will always think and behave as slaves until they are rehabilitated.

Please quote here for the benefit of those who don't have Ibn Kathir at home nor could they have access to same. Please post it here since you have it. Below is the Transaltion of Quran Chapter 36:13-18. Please show me where Paul was mentioned.


36:13) Recite to them, as a case in point, the story of the people of the town when the Messengers came to them

36:14) We sent to them two Messengers and they rejected both of them as liars. Then We strengthened them with a third (Messenger

15) They said: “We have been sent to you as Messengers.” The people of the town said: “You are only human beings like ourselves,and the Merciful Lord has revealed nothing.You are simply lying.”

(36:16) The Messengers said: “Our Lord knows that we have indeed been sent to you

(36:17) and our duty is no more than to clearly convey the Message.”

(36:18) The people of the town said: “We believe you are an evil omen for us. If you do not desist, we will stone you or you will receive a grievous chastisement from us.

There is no need to be abusive in your response. If you can't get your points across without expletives then something is wrong in your head. Of cos I am a slave. I did not create myself, neither do I follow my rules or Laws in my sojourn here on Earth. So I am a Slave to the one who creates me and whose Laws I follow

Emusan:
Let's get it straight, was circumcision belong to everybody?



Abraham didn't got it wrong He followed the instruction of God

While Paul addressing the Gentile who were never part of that covenant....



God asked Abraham to circumcise ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD (people who are already belong to ABRAHAM either by birth or acquisition)

This is different from GENTILE the Galatians Paul was addressing were never belong to Abraham descendants.

Or are they?



Let's talk about this first before moving to another.



Who are you to give such order simply because you hate him

If you avoid my questions again I won't reply you...

You're deliberately boycotting this:
A challenge for you...
Kindly show us where God later included you as a GENTILE in the covenant of circumcision of Abraham in the Quran.

If your Abraham didn't get it wrong buy cutting all Males in his household and your claim that Paul was right in saying Circumcision will not profit the Galatians and by extension the Gentile world, why then are you saying I am wrong if I say it is for everyone when I follow the examples of Abraham the main actor in this whole affair?

In the Quran, Abraham was described as "Hanif" meaning the one who is pure in Faith. That was why he was chosen. In the Quran, we are told that Abraham prayed for all his progeny and in the Prophetic Tradition, circumcision was a rite done by our Prophet, which by extension includes all Muslims who believe in the God that Inspired Abraham. So, I am part of that Household and their Rites, I do too.

I never boycott any of your question and if you think I do, not replying my mention is of no consequence.

Lukuluku69:
Please quote here for the benefit of those who don't have Ibn Kathir at home nor could they have access to same. Please post it here since you have it. Below is the Transaltion of Quran Chapter 36:13-18. Please show me where Paul was mentioned.


36:13) Recite to them, as a case in point, the story of the people of the town when the Messengers came to them

36:14) We sent to them two Messengers and they rejected both of them as liars. Then We strengthened them with a third (Messenger

15) They said: “We have been sent to you as Messengers.” The people of the town said: “You are only human beings like ourselves,and the Merciful Lord has revealed nothing.You are simply lying.”

(36:16) The Messengers said: “Our Lord knows that we have indeed been sent to you

(36:17) and our duty is no more than to clearly convey the Message.”

(36:18) The people of the town said: “We believe you are an evil omen for us. If you do not desist, we will stone you or you will receive a grievous chastisement from us.

There is no need to be abusive in your response. If you can't get your points across without expletives then something is wrong in your head. Of cos I am a slave. I did not create myself, neither do I follow my rules or Laws in my sojourn here on Earth. So I am a Slave to the one who creates me and whose Laws I follow)

Do not claim now to be holier than thou.
Who made the following statements:

Lukuluku69:
Acknowledges a self-confess Liar?

A man who lied with both sides of his mouth?

A Man that counts the Commandments of God for naught?

Wallahi, Christians says the Dumbest things ever!

and this:

Lukuluku69:
............
Here the Babbler saying another thing exactly.

.............

And you Sagenaija, check your 3rd Leg, dem cut the foreskin? If so, Christ shall profit you nothing ooo according to your brother the Babbler-In-Chief Apsotle Paul

and:

Lukuluku69:
In that heap of chaff, there is still a great deal of good grains to point you Deaf, Dumb and Blind folks to the Truth of Islam.

Now, get Thee behind me!

Need I continue?

Now, if you want to KNOW it is not us who should be giving you milk by stating everything down. Go to your scholars that we have pointed to and SEE what they wrote to explain your koran. Unless you want to now claim that you know better now in the 21st century than those your early scholars.

Here is another clip showing Moslem sources' interpretation of what the koran said about Jesus' Apostles including Paul.
Will you behave like someone who said "I know it's true, but I refuse to accept it"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDZrBVjGP5M

sagenaija:
Do not claim now to be holier than thou.
Who made the following statements:

and this:

and:

Need I continue?

Now, if you want to KNOW it is not us who should be giving you milk by stating everything down. Go to your scholars that we have pointed to and SEE what they wrote to explain your koran. Unless you want to now claim that you know better now in the 21st century than those your early scholars.

Here is another clip showing Moslem sources' interpretation of what the koran said about Jesus' Apostles including Paul.
Will you behave like someone who said "I know it's true, but I refuse to accept it"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDZrBVjGP5M

Paul himself confessed to his lies! Read Romans 3:7 KJV
[7] For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

And he was called a Babbler by and setter forth of strange gods:


Acts 17:18 KJV
[18] Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

The Quran you quoted 36:14, I am yet to see your response where it says it was Paul being referred to. So I am still waiting and it is one of those wild goose chase to further the glory of God?

Lukuluku69:
Paul himself confessed to his lies! Read Romans 3:7 KJV
[7] For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

And he was called a Babbler by and setter forth of strange gods:


Acts 17:18 KJV
[18] Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

The Quran you quoted 36:14, I am yet to see your response where it says it was Paul being referred to. So I am still waiting and it is one of those wild goose chase to further the glory of God?

1. Did Paul start that statement from that verse or is he going on a line of argument which needs to be understood?
I said it on another thread that lack of good foundational education has done us more harm than we think in this country.
Why not try looking at the explanation of that portion from Google?

2. So, that some people called Paul a babbler now automatically means he is one? Really?

3. I've given you two YouTube videos that show all the link to Paul in that koran verse. If you refuse to watch them or perhaps lack the capacity to understand them, what can I do?

sagenaija:
1. Did Paul start that statement from that verse or is he going on a line of argument which needs to be understood?
I said it on another thread that lack of good foundational education has done us more harm than we think in this country.
Why not try looking at the explanation of that portion from Google?

2. So, that some people called Paul a babbler now automatically means he is one? Really?

3. I've given you two YouTube videos that show all the link to Paul in that koran verse. If you refuse to watch them or perhaps lack the capacity to understand them, what can I do?

Go show your YouTube Videos to beginners. They are not for me. If I may ask, those Videos were they made by people in Ibn Kathir Time? Or by your Scholars in 2nd Centuries?

Sebi you have Ibn Kathir, paste what he says about Paul here for all to see nah. How hard is that for you? I don't need to watch any YouTube Video for I have the Quran I can read from not what one deluded soul packaged in a Video for erring souls to feed on.

Go back to what the Portion where is said he lied to abound the glory of God. Analyze it'll better still entreat the Holy Spirit to guide you with the interpretations.

That's all I can do to help. And if you will insist on your Video, don't bother with a reply, but if you can quote form the Ibn Kathir in your possession where he MENTIONED Paul or from the Quran that says Paul WAS A MESSENGER OF CHRIST, then you will have my attention again.

So, on this thread, it is bye from me.

Shaloam Alaikum

Lukuluku69:
Yeah you are right about the Slave part. I am a slave of Allah The Creator of the Heavens and Earth and all that is in between. Any other thing?

Now, get thee behind me

You are a slave to the Jews and Christians. You think by hating and killing us you'd get to take our place. sorry slave, doesn't work that way.

Shepherd00:
You are a slave to the Jews and Christians. You think by hating and killing us you'd get to take our place. sorry slave, doesn't work that way.

Dundee, Slave to the Jews and Christians? I know you guys say the dumbest things ever. I am proud slave of my Creator and you are walking brainless follower of the Jews. Anything they say, you swallow hook, line and sinker. I know they gave you salvation by Killing your Lord and Saviour. Without the Jews, you guys can't have Salvation that tells you who is slave of who.

And which place a Dundee like get?

Now, get thee behind me Dundee!

IBN KATHIR’S STATEMENT ON PAUL

Here are Ibn Kathir's (A well respected Islamic scholar) comments which were based on the opinions of the first Moslems on koran 36:14:

<so We reinforced them with a third> means, ‘We supported and strengthened them with a third Messenger.’ Ibn Jurayj narrated from Wahb bin Sulayman, from Shu’ayb Al-Jaba’i, "The names of the first two Messengers were Sham’un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch ...

<Verily, we have been sent to you as Messengers.>
meaning, ‘from your Lord Who created you and Who commands you to worship Him Alone with no partners or associates.’ This was the view of Abu Al-‘Aliyah. Qatadah bin Di‘amah claimed THAT THEY WERE MESSENGERS OF THE MESSIAH, peace be upon him, sent to the people of Antioch. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 8, Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 51 to the end of Surat Ad-Dukhan, abridged under a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; First Edition, September 2000], p. 179)

Sham’un refers to Simon Peter, Yuhanna to the apostle John, and Bulus is Arabic for Paul. This source not only affirms that Jesus' Apostles were messengers of God, but also lists Paul as one of the messengers of Christ that God had sent!
........


When 21st century Moslems now come against Paul they show themselves as people who either DO NOT KNOW their Islamic history or are unwilling to accept the truth they are confronted with. Some of them even DENY their Islamic sources just to hold on to their perceived position or 'win' an argument. Others 'run away' from being confronted with FACTS about their Islam because they are 'comfortable' with remaining where they 'feel good' about what they want to believe in - the truth is not issue for them, it is their 'feeling good' that matters to them.

Still on Moslems who attack The Apostle Paul & claim that Paul "corrupted" Christianity. Showing information about Paul in Islam!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsHdFphuLLc

Cc sagenaija

Hmmmm continue

the fact that Quran never the names and the hadith never mentioned of those men's names,why is it only ibn Kathir commentary u believe and not other commentary?


[b]Does Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir of the Quran say that this verse refers to Paul of Tarsus and thus Paul (Bulus) is one of the Messengers of God according to Islam.

No?
not ibn Kathir says it.

Let’s see whether Ibn Kathir makes such a claim.

Ibn Kathir writes:

“The names of the first two Messengers were Sham`un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch (Antakiyah).”

But the question is this Ibn Kathir’s view?

No. This saying is attributed to: Shu`ayb Al-Jaba’i

Ibn Kathir is quoting Shu`ayb Al-Jaba’i. Ibn Kathir has also quoted interpretations of different people as well. He says that according to Ibn Ishaq the names of these three are:

(i) Sadiq
(ii) Saduq
(iii) Shalum

Note: No Bulus (i.e. Paul) mentioned here.

Later on Ibn Kathir in his tafsir refutes this and says that according to the proceeding Quranic verses the people were destroyed. Historically there is no evidence that the city of Antioch faced such destruction and thus this cannot even be about the city of Antioch.

Analyzing Some Tafsirs

Now let’s check Qurtubi whom these missionaries have labeled to be “The Number 1 Muslim Imam”.

Qurtubi:

“Tabari mentions: Sadiq Saduq Shalum

Someone else: Shamoun Yuhanna

Al Naqash said: Saman and Yahya – Did not mention Sadiq and Saduq.

According to Qurtubi Jesus sent the first two as messengers to the king of Antioch. To him they said “We are disciples of Jesus”. The king jailed them and whipped them. This news reached Jesus and he sent a third messenger ‘Shamoun Al-Safa’.”

Note: Qurtubi does not mention any Paul (Bulus) either.

We will now check another tafsir

Tafsir Ibn Abbas:

(When We sent unto them twain) two apostles: Simon the Canaanite and Thomas, (and they denied them both, so We reinforced them with a third) We strengthened them with Simon Peter who confirmed the message conveyed by the other two apostles, (and they said; Lo! we have been sent unto you.

Note: No Paul mentioned over there either.

What we have done here is basically refuted the idea that the Tafsirs unanimously agree that one of the three people sent as messengers was Paul. There is a difference of opinion among the scholars of tafsir which is evidence that neither the Quran mentions the name of Paul as one of the messengers nor did Prophet Muhammad (saw) ever mention his name with regards to this verse.

Does The Verse Really Talk About Messengers (Rasul)?

Now we will go on to refute the idea that the verse is talking of a Rasul of Allah.

The Arabic text of the Quran clearly shows the word used for these three to be “mursaloon”. Mursaloon which is the plural of mursal means “sent one”. This word has been highlighted in the concerned verse above.

Rasul (pl. rusul) in Islam has a specific definition.

Generally the word means:ambassador, messenger, envoy, emissary, forerunner, apostle, and courier.

Mursal (pl. mursaloon) means: sent one

This word, in the Quran can or can not refer to a prophet of Allah. For example in the Quran we see the following verse:

وَإِنِّي مُرْسِلَةٌ إِلَيْهِم بِهَدِيَّةٍ فَنَاظِرَةٌ بِمَ يَرْجِعُ الْمُرْسَلُونَ

But indeed, I will send to them a gift and see with what [reply] the messengers will return. – [Quran 27:35]

The same word “mursaloon” has been used. So does this mean that the messengers that Bilqis sent were RUSUL?

Another verse of the Quran:

فَلَمَّا جَاء آلَ لُوطٍالْمُرْسَلُونَ
At length when the messengers arrived among the adherents of Lut – [Quran 15:61]

Again the same word “mursaloon” is used. Does this mean that the angels which came to Lut were RUSUL?

Of course the answer to both the questions is “No”. None of them was a rasul but they were only ‘sent ones’. This word “mursaloon” simply means a messenger and not necessarily RasulAllah





The Last Blow

It has clearly been refuted that according to the Quran or the Tafsir Paul was a Rasul of Allah (swt). For the final blow to the deception which the Christian missionaries try to create let us take a look at a hadith of Prophet Muhammad (saw).

There is a clear hadith from the mouth of Prophet Muhammad (saw):

Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Apostle saying, “I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus).” – [Sahih Bukhari Vol.4, Book 55, #651] This hadith has also been recorded in Sahih Muslim and Abu Dawud.

Conclusion

The whole idea of Paul being a rasul of God has been defeated in this article.

1) The verse 36:14 does not talk about a rasul (messenger)but only about mursaloon(sent ones)

2) Whether the verse in question refers to Paul or not is a matter of interpretation and clearly there are many scholars who don’t even mention Paul’s name in their tafsir of this verse.

3) Ibn Kathir himself refutes the claim of the city being Antioch.

4) According to Sahih Hadith it is clear that between Jesus (as) and Prophet Muhammad (saw) there has been no prophet and hence Paul could have never been a prophet.

5) Even if, for argument’s sake, we would say that according to Ibn Kathir Paul is a Rasul of God, no tafsir can supercede the authentic hadith. This would be Ibn Kathir’s interpretation and Ibn Kathir was a man and not a rasul of God hence his word can never be taken over the word of the Prophet Muhammad (saw)



The pathetic is that Jesus used to mention his 12 displines and Paul is never in no way among the mentioned.

[quote author=compton11 post=100451517][/quote]If you claim that the Koran never named the names THEN you have no reason to make a statement which the Koran never made.

If the Koran never said that Paul "corrupted" Christianity then Moslems have no right to make such claims. You cannot eat your cake and have it. It's either you stick to your Koran's position of silence on the matter or you open up yourselves for queries.

The name of Paul is contained in a book of Islam. You have not denied that. What you have instead done is to claim that ONLY what the Koran clearly states or is attributed to Mohamed will be accepted by you. I HOPE YOU USE THE SAME YARDSTICK FOR EVERY OTHER ISSUE YOU FACE IN ISLAM. A case in point is your daily prayers - do you find the number of times you are to pray in the Koran directly?

When you people have to deny your books just to 'win' a point in a debate, doesn't that show that you lack standards? When it will serve your purpose you can bring up the tafsir but when it will not you run to the Hadiths and the Koran. And when the Hadiths will not support your position you will claim that Koran is the ONLY authority you will rely on. Is your religion then not built on shifting sand? You move where it's convenient. And that makes sense to you?

Even if we agree with you that ibn Kathir referenced someone else, the real question is DID HE SAY THAT THE PERSON WAS WRONG IN WHAT HE SAID? The answer to that question is NO! If he didn't accept the view he would not have stated it.

If Islam presents CONFLICTING positions on issues that should be a source of concern to you guys. But because it helps you to shift grounds you enjoy it.

If there is "difference of opinion among the scholars of tafsir" like you stated, does that not again buttress our point about the INCONSISTENCIES IN ISLAM? Why the varying positions? Why no UNIFIED positions?

You went at length to try to differentiate between 'messenger' or 'sent one'. What you FORGOT is that we started from the Koran. The tafsir explains the Koran. If the Koran says "we sent" who is the 'we' who 'sent'? Is the 'sent' not a messenger of the 'we'? In other words, if Allah said "we sent" so and so then so and so are MESSENGERS of Allah. You either conveniently forgot that or deliberately ignored it. So what the tafsir does thereafter is to explain Allah's position in the Koran. You should be consistent in your line of argument. But I know that all most of what to do is to 'win' a debate. In the process you end up tying up yourselves in knots.

If the Koran says Allah SENT messengers and the Hadith says no messenger was sent between Jesus and Mohamed which would you accept - using your own line of reasoning here?

You never take time to see how your arguement lines up before you shout 'I refuted him!' As if merely stating issues or quoting portions from here and there amounts to refutation.

Is there ONCE Mohamed said anything against Paul?
This is what this thread is about.
If Mohamed, who is supposed to be the example to be followed, NEVER ONCE attacked Paul then Moslems should STOP attacking Paul.

.

sagenaija:
If you claim that the Koran never named the names THEN you have no reason to make a statement which the Koran never made.

If the Koran never said that Paul "corrupted" Christianity then Moslems have no right to make such claims. You cannot eat your cake and have it. It's either you stick to your Koran's position of silence on the matter or you open up yourselves for queries.

The name of Paul is contained in a book of Islam. You have not denied that. What you have instead done is to claim that ONLY what the Koran clearly states or is attributed to Mohamed will be accepted by you. I HOPE YOU USE THE SAME YARDSTICK FOR EVERY OTHER ISSUE YOU FACE IN ISLAM. A case in point is your daily prayers - do you find the number of times you are to pray in the Koran directly?

When you people have to deny your books just to 'win' a point in a debate, doesn't that show that you lack standards? When it will serve your purpose you can bring up the tafsir but when it will not you run to the Hadiths and the Koran. And when the Hadiths will not support your position you will claim that Koran is the ONLY authority you will rely on. Is your religion then not built on shifting sand? You move where it's convenient. And that makes sense to you?

Even if we agree with you that ibn Kathir referenced someone else, the real question is DID HE SAY THAT THE PERSON WAS WRONG IN WHAT HE SAID? The answer to that question is NO! If he didn't accept the view he would not have stated it.

If Islam presents CONFLICTING positions on issues that should be a source of concern to you guys. But because it helps you to shift grounds you enjoy it.

If there is "difference of opinion among the scholars of tafsir" like you stated, does that not again buttress our point about the INCONSISTENCIES IN ISLAM? Why the varying positions? Why no UNIFIED positions?

You went at length to try to differentiate between 'messenger' or 'sent one'. What you FORGOT is that we started from the Koran. The tafsir explains the Koran. If the Koran says "we sent" who is the 'we' who 'sent'? Is the 'sent' not a messenger of the 'we'? In other words, if Allah said "we sent" so and so then so and so are MESSENGERS of Allah. You either conveniently forgot that or deliberately ignored it. So what the tafsir does thereafter is to explain Allah's position in the Koran. You should be consistent in your line of argument. But I know that all most of what to do is to 'win' a debate. In the process you end up tying up yourselves in knots.

If the Koran says Allah SENT messengers and the Hadith says no messenger was sent between Jesus and Mohamed which would you accept - using your own line of reasoning here?

You never take time to see how your arguement lines up before you shout 'I refuted him!' As if merely stating issues or quoting portions from here and there amounts to refutation.

Is there ONCE Mohamed said anything against Paul?
This is what this thread is about.
If Mohamed, who is supposed to be the example to be followed, NEVER ONCE attacked Paul then Moslems should STOP attacking Paul.

what a joke.



question.

is it Ibn Kathir that actually mentioned Paul as the third or not?




and another question u keep dodging



New International Version
Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty- two years
1 Samuel 13:1

In The same verse

King James Bible
Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel-1 Samuel 13:1


This version even omitted the age


JPS Tanakh 1917
Saul was --years old when he began to reign; and two years he reigned over Israel.


What happened there Mr man?

and where is original Bible?
. What you FORGOT is that we started from the Koran. The tafsir explains the Koran. If the Koran says sent